Stargate525

Assuming you've got a single intersection with the desired orbit, you can correct the orbit entirely with one burn at that point. It's more fiddly, but it can be done.

All I want is a box that will mimic gravity and atmosphere of the different planets. My most rage-inducing moment was landing on Laythe and discovering I was JUST shy of proper TwR.

not producing, BREATHING. What possible chemical process could a carbon-based lifeform undergo using nitrogen that even resembles breathing?!

Presuming you have the technology to make this sort of thing remotely feasible, you could mine the atmosphere of its CO2, compress it into asteroids of dry ice, and send them to Mars, which would need the extra greenhouse gasses. Water's no problem, as it's one of the most abundant elements in the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt. your biggest worry, I imagine, wouldn't be the atmosphere; it would be the fact that the geological activity on the surface makes it look like Mordor.

Am I the only one finding it funny in a slightly perturbing way that they tout out multiplayer as this big thing they were planning all along, then don't actually put it in the 1.0 release? That is now the same, in essence, as talking about DLC when you're still half a year out from release.

FAR Procedural Fairings USI Colonization (albeit greatly simplified) KAS

No it's not. Subassemblies have no problem having probe cores or command pods.

I've had it happen once, after three years. The battery had to be replaced, but soon after the motherboard went too. I'd be more likely to blame the motherboard than the battery. And considering that the CMOS battery isn't drawn from whenever the computer is on...

Uh, no. Parallel triples the amount of drag you get; three towers instead of one. You can get away with that with enough power. going from 2 symmetry to 4 symmetry does not give you a doubling of dV, but it does double the drag.

A little off-topic, but that's what Cancer is; a failed 'imma gona kill myself now' button.

Except in that analogy, we don't know what's flipping it, if it's being flipped, how many sides the coin has, and have only directly observed the last two outcomes. We have reports and estimations on what the previous ten thousand flips were, and you're prepared to bet the world economy that the next flip is going to be tails because we think we've weighted the coin.

That's a stupid argument, as no one is arguing that grid; we're arguing the contents of those boxes. I have yet to see any evidence that a net warming in the planet will bring doom and destruction. Warmer means wetter, wetter means more fertile, and I find it interesting that this is the first time in our history that a climate getting warmer is seen as a bad thing. As for money... The IPCC has an annual budget of seven million, and is meddling in the economies of every member nation in the world. EVERYTHING is about money and power, and climate change is a great way for people to accumulate both.

Surely one of the big benefits of a submarine is the stealth factor. I can't really imagine the military application of a submarine, no matter how fast, that leaves a giant trail of frothing water after it.

they don't, however, reappear.

That moment when you decouple your lander from your satellite assembly, only to realize there's no probe body on the lander...

Boy, that sounds almost like what a real agency might have to deal with... It gives you an incentive to build actual rugged landers, that could deal with some smaller ground scatter. The real Apollo 11 spent almost all of their spare descent fuel budget on trying to find a smooth landing site. As for planes... Well, you're complaining that what is essentially an emergency landing might be difficult... Can't say I sympathize with your viewpoint. I agree with the OP. Having such large objects being incorporeal simply smacks of an incomplete, amateur game.

[citation needed]

Sure we can. We just haven't had a pressing need to.

You can't get an orbit parallel to the equator. An orbit has to cross the equator. You can incline it, eccentricize it, but it will always cut across the orbiting body's center of mass. You could do it in theory, but you would have to be constantly burning to keep your orbit up there.

No, no they haven't. Howso? I can't see how worrying about slow radiation death of your kerbals encourages 'fun,' especially when there's nothing in the game to prevent or mitigate it. You realize that 'avoiding' a solar flare (I assume that's what you mean, as avoiding a supernova is akin to standing on an erupting volcano and dodging the lava) is next to impossible, right? These things are thousands of miles wide, and travel incredibly fast. By the time you see it, unless you've got several thousand km/s of dV lying around coupled with a strong engine, you aren't able to dodge it. Lose communication temporarily? Why is that even a problem? We currently have antennae that can transmit THROUGH THE SUN. A bit of radiation shouldn't harm them. As for weakening infrastructure... unrealistic, and ships are wobbly enough as it is. A separate suggestion, really, but one I'd actually be in favor of; swapping a suit out for one that's better at space EVAs, but the kerbal can't walk in it. Or a planetary explorer one with no rcs, but lets them walk faster.

You can't compare minecraft to this game. MC has an active, massive video community, and is in constant development. It doesn't sound like that's the model KSP is going with. So once they hit 1.0, development on the main title stops. Very few games are actually immortal, and almost all of the ones that come close are franchises backed by major developers. Let's dump the rose-tinted goggles here; unless Squad gets major popularity and a decent game track record, the best this game will have is a cult following.

Nope. It doesn't have the art style, or the mass appeal, to be anything more than a temporarily fun, niche game. Once development stops, I'm betting the shelf life of the game in popularity will be about five years.

'Satellite' implies that the vessel isn't going anywhere, whereas a 'probe' is probably traveling somewhere. I'd love to be able to clear out my orbital networks from the viewer when shipping off my Duna lander assembly, but can't at present, because they're both 'probes.' Heck, keep the current categories as-is, but let us color code them. Same symbol, but tinted blue for, say, vessels that you aren't planning on moving, or green for ones you need to pay attention to. Then let us hide and show those categories just like we can symbols.

Agreed. So much agreed. I'd also love to have a distinction for manned versus unmanned stuff. For instance, the lander symbol looks like a manned one, and the rover symbol looks unmanned.

Actually, I think that the .625 range would be a great place to introduce an electric propeller engine. Would let you build tiny probe fliers for places like Eve and Duna.