Tex_NL

You've got a great point there. Pretty much everything about submarine battles would apply to an orbital battle. Radar/laser (sonar) pings to locate and target enemies. Going to 'silent running' to limit emissions in order to avoid detection. Mines (depth charges) to flush out a hiding ship. Slow cumbersome ships trying to outmanoeuvre fast running torpedo's. Combine all that with the claustrophobia of too many men packed together in too small a space in a very hostile environment. The 'poor and downtrodden' didn't have access to that tech. Agent Kruger was working for and supplied by Delacourt. (He shoots the missiles at the very end of the clip.) But you're right about the small missile. No missile that small, launched from the surface, should be able to reach a target that far out in space.

Io might have a 1.7 day period, @Kuansenhama's moon will not. He clearly stated he wants it to be the outermost moon. A high orbit will mean a long orbital period but that also reduces the chances of a tidal lock. If it would be locked the day/night cycle would be very long. If not the cycle can be pretty much whatever you like. One way to limit the temperature differences between night and day would be to place the parent gas giant beyond, or on the far edge of the parent stars habitable zone therefore limiting the amount of light the moon receives. With less light difference between day and night the temperature differences will also be smaller. And a dense atmosphere would generate a greenhouse effect retaining a significant amount of heat. The lack of solar energy can be compensated by geothermal energy (induced by tidal forces) heating the surface both day and night reducing the difference even more. Any indigenous life could, for example be chemosynthetic instead of photosynthetic. Geothermal tidal forces could also explain why the moon still has a molten metal core. With a molten metal core it could have its own magnetic field. Together with a thick heavy atmosphere it could shield the surface from the worst of the gas giants radiation. As an added bonus it could also induce some incredibly spectacular auroras. '60-90 percent radius, but be roughly as massive', '2-5 atm at sea level', ' a lower abundance of water, possibly only enough to allow for a few small seas on the surface '. To me this says gravity not too far below 1G. 0.7-0.8 perhaps. 2-5 atm is dense but definitely something the human body can handle given enough time to adjust. 'A few small seas' would mean the water would be liquid, between 0 and 100° C. Especially the lower end is 'survivable'. To recap: gravitational forces, atmospheric pressure and temperature all within reasonable comfort levels.

And @tetryds just answered that question. A small word of advice: If you expect ANYBODY to give you even the slightest amount of help you might want to moderate your temper. Cursing and swearing won't do you any good. Instead people will tell you to shove your mod 'where the sun won't shine' and move on to more interesting idea's.

This would indeed be correct. When hitting a stationary car the 'load' will be more or less equally distributed between the two.

WRONG! A classic and very common mistake but that doesn't change the simple fact that it is WRONG! Both cars will experience an impact equivalent of hitting a stationary wall at 50mph! You're forgetting the total amount of energy is divided between the two cars. But why not let Adam and Jamie explain. The full experiment (including the full scale crashes) can be found here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n9j62

You might be able to safe some weight by only staging the empty tanks and keeping the engines. The saved weight can then be used to carry extra fuel. But you are right. Unless @Mlg Dank Meme lord posts a serious attempt (it doesn't even have to be successful) I would not bother either.

Exactly. And if you do it in a separate sandbox game it won't affect your career game. And if that's too difficult for you just save your game before you attempt a landing. When you cock-up, and you most likely will, simply load your save and try again.

Yes. But if you had read the OP and had looked at the images you would have known he does not use the ascent guidance. Instead he uses the SURF option in Smart A.S.S.

You're confusing him. Yes, an inclination of 85° is often more useful than 90. But to get to a 85° inclination you have to launch at a 5° heading.

If you're talking about the yellow handle in the clamp-o-tron, It has always been there (since 0.18). Any flashing green lights must come from a mod. Oh, and have you actually TRIED docking at an angle? Stock you can still dock at ANY angle. If you can not, that too must be mod related.

Just TRY what I suggested. You could also look at the launchpad/runway coordinates and make an educated guess. The best way of learning is through experience, not by people spoon-feeding you the answer. If you cock-up just revert and try again.

Check your heading. Your HDG is set to 90. 90 degrees is east. Check your rol. It is set to 90 so it will stay on its side. Change both HDG and ROL to 0 and you'll be flying true north.

Try to 'load' some of the preset coordinates. There are a few that point towards the water.

One thing that DOES seem to be perpetual is threads like this. They get started, they die and a year later they suddenly start again. I almost fell for the necro bait. But not this time.

Why do you guys even bother? There are only 5 files available. The latest of those 5 is well over a year old so it's pretty safe to say all 5 are outdated. And last but not least: NMM doesn't even support KSP! If you REALLY must use a mod manager there is always CKAN. But you do not need it. Manually installing mods could hardly be simpler.

$1.99, on a platform it was not released for (iOS), making claims that we all know are NOT in the game. Nobody on the forum will fall for that scam. I don't think the link will do much harm. But I am not a mod/dev, they might see it differently.

Old news.

You mean something more like this?

There's another one that will never cease to annoy me. Many movies depict scenes on the moon. And of course a lot will place the scene at one of the Apollo landing sites. Flag, rover, equipment, lander. It's all there. The problem is the lander. The COMPLETE lander. The only part that's still on the moon is the lower half with the descent engine and the legs. The top half with the capsule carried the astronauts back to lunar orbit. It most likely crashes some time later but in no case would it be left at the landing site.

You could try one of those: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=23

When trying to board a full cabin it should open the crew transfer menu allowing you to choose where to send the Kerbal. For those looking for a top hatch on the Mk1 cabin:

Correct. This camera switching ONLY happens when the camera mode is set to Auto. When you select a mode manually (cycle through the mode with [V]) the camera will stay the same until you cycle the camera back to Auto.

That part is true for as far as I know. Or at least they got close to Mach 1. But those were indeed extreme situations. The Mach 0.86 was for the Me-163. Mach 0.57 was for the P-51.

Almost? Since when is 0.57 almost 1?