zarakon

Yeah, it would be nice if the Skipper had a better T/W ratio to compete with clusters. It does have the advantage of lower part count and simpler inter-stage design though. Trying to put an engine cluster in the middle of a vertical stack is a pain. It's a nice looking engine, and a convenient one, but not optimal if you're looking for efficiency.

Collision detection doesn't work properly between parts of a single craft. That's why when people use wheels to make stock rotors, the spinning part and the main craft have to be separated. As soon as you dock, the barge and your base module become one craft, so collision stops working. See if you can come up with some way to secure it to the barge that doesn't require docking. Maybe try to use lander legs as clamps

I hope they add http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/editor-extensions/ too

I don't think it should ever not look like that!

Most of the stock weapons that you could actually mount on something like a plane will look cool but not actually do any damage. They will also be very difficult to hit anything with, and won't have great range

you can, but it will change slightly as soon as you timewarp or even if you rotate your craft. Probably something to do with the center of mass not quite moving exactly right

either 0.8 or 0.9 no Mun, no struts, no fuel lines

Universe Sandbox is actually a pretty good example of why n-body simulation wouldn't work for KSP. Try building the KSP system in it. At slow speeds, everything is OK. Turn up the time warp a bit, and all the planets lose their moons. Turn it up a bit more and all the planets go flying. Time acceleration increases errors in simulations. That's why 4x physics warp in KSP makes everything start to behave all crazy-like. Patched conics works fine because your position in an orbit at any given time can be determined by a simple formula - no simulation is necessary. N-body calculations don't have simple formulas like that, everything has to be done as a time-stepped simulation. 100000x speed would almost immediately send all of your orbiting craft flying away due to inaccuracies in the huge time-steps. Even if it could be accurate at high time warp, it would still be problematic. Most of your orbits would be slightly unstable, especially if you tried to actually use Lagrange points. Real spacecraft need stationkeeping maneuvers to maintain their orbits. Switching to patched conics during time warp would defeat the whole point. Unless you plan on visiting Lagrange points or navigating the Jool system in real-time, and never warping while you have spacecraft there...

I have to say that seems like an unrealistically small budget to me. First of all, a legit copy of Windows 7 or 8 is $100 on its own. A new CPU will almost certainly require you to get a new motherboard to support it, and probably new RAM. Adding a discrete GPU card will mean you'd probably need to upgrade your power supply as well.

your seats look like they're facing sideways time to redo them all!

I've seen my share of disaster debris fields in the sky, but nothing quite like that!

Sure you can. You're just supposed to make sure it's possible, which this clearly is

Flying a plane around Laythe, with Jool in the sky. Doing suborbital hops where several of the moons line up in the background

It's based on the exploitation of a SPECIFIC bug

The rules say nothing about actually posting your own attempt. Just to not post impossible challenges

And also too unstable. Since you can't program automatic stationkeeping, you would lose a lot of orbiting craft any time you time-warped for a year to go to another planet

no, but it is underground now, so you'll probably only find it if you know the exact coordinates ahead of time

Look for the Editor Tools plugin. It lets you enable Vertical Snap in the VAB so all your parts can be at the same height, among other cool features actually here it is: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/38768-0-21-Editor-Extensions-v0-5-24-July-%28EdTools-Editor-Tools-replacement

But if you did use jets, your first stage simply wouldn't be 900 tons! Most of that 900 is your first-stage fuel, which you would need far less of if using jets

Cost is less of an issue for reusable craft. But since most rockets are considered expendable, it would be hugely wasteful to put jet engines on them. Another major factor is that jet engines in KSP are simply overpowered. Rocket engines in KSP have scaled-down thrust:weight ratios compared to real rockets (KSP range is generally between 10:1 and 25:1, real-life range is generally between 30:1 and 150:1) to make up for the smaller planet and lower orbital speeds. Jet engines in KSP though have higher thrust:weight ratios than real jet engines (KSP jets are about 10:1 and 12:1, while real engines are between 3:1 and 8:1). So in real life, jet engines have about 1/10th the thrust:weight ratio of rocket engines. In KSP they're about 1/2 instead. Total thrust on real jet engines is also just too low compared to rockets. You would need over 30 Concorde jet engines to match the thrust of the Falcon 9 first stage, or over 200 to match the thrust of the Saturn V first stage.

Pretty good video

It would be nice to be able to go directly from flight to the tracking station. Or even have the tracking station be an in-flight menu that can be used without necessarily even switching away from your flight

Dirty mod-using peasants Stock-only master race I use pretty much only stock parts, but I feel like I should try out some of the cool mods like kethane, KAS, etc. that add capabilities the stock parts just can't match. I agree with most of what Sean Mirrsen said, but also: - Using mods makes game updates more painful. I've played several games in the past like WoW where I made heavy use of mods, both community and my own, and it really sucks when I came to depend on them, only to have them all break horribly when a game patch came out. - There's just something satisfying about making creative use of stock parts to do something they weren't intended for, rather than just having a part designed specifically for that purpose. For example, improvised stock fairings, weaponry, or helicopter rotors instead of parts made specifically as fairings or missiles or rotors. Sure they're ugly, but you can be more proud of them. It's like how a life-size figure made out of Legos is so much cooler than one made in a plastic mold. - The parts lists are getting a bit full already. I don't really want a ton more parts in there

If it's going to be destroyed anyway, how is that any different from the old End Flight?

The north pole one is below the ground, at the center of the hole 57* 39' 37" N 9* 8' 34" E