Crush

The career mode needs proper introduction. When you know what to do, it is really easy to unlock the first tech tree nodes just with research around the KSC and the surrounding. Unfortunately, a newbie does not know that. There needs to be some guidance. Something that tells the user which are currently the low-hanging fruits and how to pick them.

Measuring software development progress in MB is like measuring aircraft building progress in weight. Too much stress and pressure is counter-productive when you have a creative job. One of these is done by a graphic artist, the other by a programmer. A crash is not because your system is too weak. It is usually because of a bug. Try to reproduce the bug and file a report.

And this is supposed to accomplish... what, exactly? Don't you think that after another 1000 years of technical research future generation won't have propulsion systems which allow to launch a probe at least twice as fast which will overtake the first one but with much more advanced instruments? Also, a "VERY small probe" would be useless. When this mission is supposed to have any scientific value for future generations it would have to send data back to earth. That means it needs an antenna with enough energy that the results can be distinguished from cosmic background radiation. And even then it is questionable if there will be someone there to listen. There is a lot that can happen in 2500 years. Nobody can say how our society will change over such a long timespan and if they will still remember that probe they sent back in the industrial age.

You mean the tax the government would pay to... itself?

This talk is a perfect example of how to generate energy for our benefit. Make a talk like that, attach a generator to the coffin of Albert Einstein, and utilize the energy generated by his rotation.

I wonder how some people can seriously consider "waiting" an enjoyable gameplay element. But your reasoning is still wrong, Buback. A science-per-time model is broken because time-warp is an integrap part of the game you can't just remove. When time-warp is free, and science-per-time is free, then science is free and you just made the whole science-system unnecessary. Find a fix for that, and you could maybe come up with a science-per-time system which adds gameplay value instead of removing it.

I think this is a bad idea influenced by the current tunnel-vision inflicted by currently seeing the tech tree as the one and only component of career mode. 1. It's implausible. Sure, publishing scientific findings could be monetized theoretically, but knowledge doesn't work like that. Knowledge can't be sold. When you write a book about your scientific findings and sell it, you don't forget what you learned. So "selling" scientific findings for cash doesn't make sense. 2. It is dangerous from the gameplay perspective, because it allows users to maneuver themself into a dead end. What happens when a user sells all their science points and hasn't got the technology to collect more science? (That dead-end problem plagues many ideas about money which were written here in the past) I am quite curious how the developers will answer the question what to do with the money values they attached to all parts. But tying it to the science system is not necessarily a good idea.

At room temperature, any alcali-metal (lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium) reacts violently with water. I don't know if they still do so at below 100 K, though. Edit: Cesium only reacts with ice at above 157 K, the others only at even higher temperatures. But it would be possible to pre-heat them before spilling them onto the ice. Someone with more than school-level chemistry knowledge might likely know a better compound, though. Drop a container with thermite, then ignite it with a laser.

Who is talking about a manned lander? We are talking about a robotic lander, maybe a rover. A manned Mars mission is already a stretch with current technology. A manned Europa mission is still pure science-fiction. An unmanned Europa lander, on the other hand, is realistic. We already had a robotic lander on Titan, after all (Huygens).

I wonder what came out of this. Any progress to show or did it die?

One long-proposed mission to Europa is an autonomous probe which drills through the ice crust into the hypothetical ocean below it. That would have a much higher success chance at the lower regions where the crust is likely less thick. You are thinking too complicated: Just drop a bomb! Either shatter or melt the spikes at the landing zone. Problem: Contamination of the landing zone with residues of the explosive.

In KSP, however, it's not a big issue. Space is so big and the average amount of debris so small that you rarely even spot a piece of debris by chance. We have no ablation cascades creating more junk either because collisions don't happen when you don't watch them.

Recent news says, that the surface of the Jupiter moon Europa might be covered in sharp ice spikes several meters in height. Do you think that this could cause a problem to future landing missions to Europa? If so, how should they deal with it? Source: http://news.discovery.com/space/is-europa-too-prickly-to-land-on-131028.htm (yes, it's pop-science so it might not be true after all, but it's cool enough to discuss it under a what-if premise)

What's your excuse for knowing about a mistake on the wiki and not correcting it?

The structural-tab is already quite full IMO. Maybe create a new "staging" tab for decouplers, separators and docking ports? There are enough of those by now to warrant an additional tab. That way the structural-tab would be reserved for all non-function parts. Three related itches: -Why are RCS thrusters in "Control" but their fuel in "Propulsion"? -Why are the ion thruster and its fuel in "Utility" and not in "Propulsion"? It's definitely an engine, both functionally and technically. -Why are air intakes in "Aerodynamics" but jet engines and jet fuel in "Propulsion"? Both tabs would work for either, but I would expect these parts in the same one.

Looking at the nearest-approach markers You are already pretty close to a Kerbin encounter. Set a maneuver node near your sun periapsis and experiment with pro/retrograde and radial acceleration to get the nearest-approach markers closer together until you have a Kerbin encounter. Then fine-tune them to get your Kerbin periapsis as low as possible.

At the current stage of the development I wouldn't consider it useful to add more planets/moons. When things like volcanism, weather or other environmental features would be added, or when the proceduaral surface generation (like currently used only on mun) would be developed further, more planets would make sense to show more variety in these regards. But in the meantime more planets wouldn't really add anything new. Just more of the same. Also keep in mind that currently Mun and Kerbin are the only celestial bodies which have biomes. Before the other planets and moons also get biomes, they should be considered unfinished. Before all current planets are finished, there shouldn't be new ones.

7/10 KSP players greatly overestimate the Oberth effect (of the other three, two haven't heard of it yet, one has actually understood it).

It became a habit for me to press F immediately after going onto EVA. Sometimes the Kerbal goes right back into the pod, but most of the time it prevents them from floating away. What you could do is build some kind of cage out of structural parts around the hatch. Unfortunately the most useful parts for this are quite late on the tech tree. Or place a Kerbal in an external seat during the whole mission. When in a seat, Kerbals can take EVA reports and even transmit them without having to leave it (and even surface samples while driving on a rover, by the way).

When the Stayputnik has no power, you can't control your probe. That means you can't do anything with it. You can't control the engines, you can't change the "disable crossfeed" setting of docking nodes, you can't even change the locked/unlocked settings of batteries or other power-storing parts to supply it with energy you still have on the probe. Sorry, but without solar panels or radioisotope generators, interplanetary probes are pretty much impossible. But when you need more science points: are you aware that the Mun has fourteen different biome zones, each one alone having about as much scientific value as a whole other planet/moon?

I also experimented with first-stage lifters using jet engines. The result was that it is a viable approach, but it uses much more parts than just using mainsails and X-32 fuel tanks. It wouldn't even be cheaper with the current part costs. One Turbojet Engine costs almost as much as a Mainsail, but has only one sixth of the thrust. Jet fuel is cheaper than rocket fuel, but you also need intakes, and these are also quite expensive. But when money is ever added, part prices will need a large rebalancing anyway.

I think Mating is looking at the cute Dilble with a passionate glance. I want a slash-fic and I want it now!

Did you check it out in 0.22 career mode? It's not a SAS module anymore. It's now a scientific experiment.

Maybe newborn kerbals are also tiny but then the males gain a lot in size while they grow up? Just like tadpoles which are also tiny compared to the adult animal.

Using the detachment manifold instead of the normal radial decouplers often fixed problems I had with boosters colliding with the main rocket after staging. The large radial engine is useful for landers because of its low mass and its placement which works good with most lander designs. I am not using any rocket nose caps anymore since I found out how the game calculates drag.