Tex_NL

Even an 'empty' (no science credit) report can still be analysed in a lab as long as that same report has not yet been analysed in the same location. You can not transmit science to a lab, you have to physically get it there. Either transfer the reports on EVA or dock to the lab and review the data where it is stored.

Expansions could be interesting. But only AFTER they have actually finished the darned game. 1.2 Is a solid step in the right direction but there is still a lot wrong or missing.

I am not at all surprised this was posted on Reddit and not here. I am even less surprised there has of yet been no official reply. It looks a lot like it is Squad policy to ignore the majority of the community and post news last where it matters most. I still believe in KSP but I lost my faith in Squad long ago. And things like this do not help.

For base building there can be only one: KPBS

You might want to read this one: It's exactly what you're suggesting and it's only 2 days old.

Dislikes invite dislikes (e.g. I dislike your posts just because two weeks ago you dislikes one of mine) a lot more than likes invite likes. You'll risk a negative spiral to which is no escape. I've seen it happen on other fora where some people were ousted and ended up with a huge negative rep. I hope never to see that happen here. I don't want a dislike button. But if we had, nothing personal, this would be where I'd probably use it.

No problem. If there is no other source online just completely disregard my reply. I was merely trying to give you another option. Unfortunately this option is not available. As others have said you will have to upload them somewhere. Once they're online it's simply a matter of posting the link. The forum should allow you to post multiple images in a single post. But if it doesn't, nothing is preventing you from posting multiple posts.

@DrunkenKerbalnaut Question: How did those images get on your phone? Did you draw them on your phone? Or photographed them? Or did you download them from another site? If you downloaded them somewhere don't bother uploading them to imgur or whatever filehost. Simply link the original source.

What @RCgothic is saying is correct. And pretty much what I tried to condense into two sentences. I appreciate all the rep/likes I received for my answer but I must admit I simply googled the answer. And you could have done the same. Google isn't scary, Google doesn't bite. Just literally type your question and click. LMGTFY (Let Me Google That For You) difference between centre of mass and centre of gravity: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=difference+between+centre+of+mass+and+centre+of+gravity

It has been broken for over 15 hours.

How is this different from MechJeb? Does it contain original code or is it just a blatant rip-off? It looks identical. Even the icons and side menu are 1 on 1 copies.

You are most likely struggling to find a difference between them because their basically is none. Centre of Mass is the average of location of mass within a body. Centre of Gravity is the same but multiplied by gravity. However if gravity is not constant over the entire body (e.g. body is extremely tall) CoM and CoG can differ.

Weather? Yes please. Random failures? NO! Bad idea! Predictable failures through things like heat (we already have heat), stress and age can be interesting. If random failures would be optional for hard mode I'd say go right ahead. But do not force it upon casual or new players. And when @ZooNamedGames suggested it he didn't know either. This gets suggested at least once or twice a year.

It will never cease to amaze me how people here on the KSP forum can make 2 dozen posts that basically repeat what was said in the first 2 posts.

Of course we CAN do it. If we wanted to we could even do it clean and environmentally friendly. But we won't because it is way too expensive. If you throw enough money, time and technology at it it CAN be done. Just don't expect to get any of your time and money back.

You can attach four parts to it. But you can not attach it to four parts. Sounds contradictory but it is the way it is. A parent part can have multiple children. A child part can not have multiple parents.

Has the markers on the INside of the circle. It is radial IN. Your craft will face INwards. Has the markers on the OUTside of the circle. It is radial OUT. Your craft will face OUTwards.

Use the money to advance your career and save the contract for later. Nobody says you have to do it NOW. A lot can happen in 1 or 2 years.

4k fuel isn't that much. And you don't actually have to have 11 Kerbals on board. You craft must be CAPABLE of carrying 11. 2 Hitch-hikers and a Mk1-2 pod is enough. (1 Hitch-hiker, 1 Lab, 1 Mk2 Lander can, 1 Mk1-2 pod would be more useful.)

You're correct. Interplanetary refuelling is generally not worth it. But if you had already accepted the contract it would not have been a complete waste. Any new craft that ticks all of the boxes would have qualified as a station. Even a large multipart mothership going for a Jool V mission. Contracts like these are a great way to fund your large interplanetary missions. With clever combining of contracts you can make a great profit.

Another image that has been suggested/asked to be added to the smilie list:

Have you tried to autostrut side boosters to the root part? Autostruts are incredibly strong. Only one of the LV-N's is actually connecting the top to the bottom. Despite the struts this is still a relative weak section.

Are you incapable of getting to orbit or are you not getting orbital missions? Because you do not need any missions to go orbital. Just go. Once you've done it you will get more orbital missions. If you simply fail to achieve orbit two things come to mind: you're doing something terribly wrong, your ascent is flawed somehow. (http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:_How_to_Get_into_Orbit) Or you're overcomplicating your design. In a very early career less is often more. Possibly both.

I told they would look better.

First draft for prograde: I like the thin outline round the horizontal and vertical bars. Round the circle it is a bit too thick. Second draft: Almost there, just needs a little bit more contrast on the central dot. Third version: On to the retrograde: Not bad for a first attempt. I think we're done here: