Crush

How about adding landing bags as parts? I think that this would be a really kerbal way of landing. What are landing bags? Landing bags are huge airbags which are inflated before landing. When a craft deorbits, the bags cushion its impact. This is a much more efficient way to land than using retro-rockets, and it works on planets with little or no atmosphere. But that's crazy, in real spaceflight, nobody would... ... actually, there are quite a lot of missions which succesfully used landing bags. The Soviet Luna probes landed on Landing Bags, and the Pathfinder probes and MER rovers on Mars did too.

Get lost, noob! Just kidding

To be more specific: KSP only simulates the gravity of one celestial body at the time. So any physical effect which is caused by interactions between the gravity fields of more than one body (barycenters, lagrange points, horseshoe orbits, tides...) aren't modeled by KSP. Why? Because simulating multiple sources of gravity would make precalculation of the trajectories in real-time too complex to handle for an average computer.

What's wrong with Unity? The basic version is free unless you make more than $100.000. And even then it's $1.500 per developer. That's 1.5% of your revenue! Considering that it saves you between 50% and 90% of your work, that's a quite good deal. I haven't used Unity myself, but it has a reputation for being really friendly for beginners at game development.

Oh, you have no idea how much harder it is to create a 3d engine. Just go and read an OpenGL tutorial. As soon as you get to projection matrices you will be crying. And then you still have just scratched the surface.There is a reason why companies with million dollar budgets still license the unreal engine - paying 25% of your revenue to Epic Games is still cheaper than creating an own state-of-the-art 3d engine from scratch, even when you sell millions of copies worldwide. And Unity is free unless you make more than $100.000 a year or need the features of the pro version (you likely do not). And then it's only $1.500 which is a steal considering its feature set.

When it's a commercial project I would like to know how much you pay per hour before I offer my help. Unless you want to do something very uncommon, you should use an existing engine. That will save you years of development time (literally!). The Unreal engine is surprisingly affordable, even for independent developers, and it's the engine used by most AAA titles. But there is also Unity which is very popular with the indie developers due to its flexibility and portability, or open source engines like Ogre3d.

He might be referring to the pink floyd album.

Is your audience interested in video games? Is your audience interested in spaceflight?

A much more reliable and elegant way to get into a Jool orbit with an apoapsis on Tylo orbit is when you do a gravity-assist around Tylo.

When you have no idea, please don't do it. Don't create a youtube channel "just because", create one because you have something interesting to show or tell. Preferably something which isn't the same thousands of other people are doing.

A week ago I would have agreed with you, but the new SAS makes it much easier to control a plane where the center of lift isn't exactly on the center of mass.

Nope, I won't cheat. Only stock accomplishments are real accomplishments. It shouldn't be that bad with Aerospikes. And atmospheric drag depends on speed, so going slowly should me more efficient, and the only way to go slowly without losing too much delta-V to gravity is by having plenty of wings generating plenty of lift. At least that's my theory.

I would soon like to try the holy grail of Kerbal Space Program: A manned Eve return mission. Considering that Eve has such a thick atmosphere, I wondered if it would maybe be better to use it instead of fighting it and design my lander not as a rocket but rather as a spaceplane and have it land and start horizontal, aided by atmospheric lift. The plane will be detached from an interplanetary transfer stage and only used for getting from Eve orbit to Eve surface and back to Eve orbit. Building the lander single-stage is not a must-requirement. Do you think that this is a viable plan compared to a horizontal lander? Which and how many engines should I use (I know I can't use jet engines) and how much fuel would I need?

The Kerbal language (in trailers) is Spanish, played backwards and sped up.

Do you know what would be even more important? When they would add a board to this forum where you could suggest features. Wait... there is!

The vessel information in the tracking station or map view, however, reports a mass of 90kg:

Changing the aerodynamic model would be a huge update, not in content and development, but in playtesting. Currently all parts are balanced according to the old model. A new model of aerodynamics would require a complete rebalancing of engines and aerodynamic parts. You can also expect that most of your rockets will not work anymore after this change.

Both parts provide a torque of 20 and also otherwise appear to be functionally identical (at least according to the description). But while the ASAS is larger, it only weights 0.2 tons while the smaller reaction wheels weight 0.3. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

The only situation where I would consider landing on LV-N's would be when it would be an interplanetary mission and my lander were also my engine-section. It just doesn't make sense to have 1.75 additional tons of engine unless it also saves you at least 1.75 tons of fuel.

When you are building a lander, thrust-to-weight ratio is much more important than fuel-efficiency. A better TWR of your whole craft allows you to decelerate much more quickly, which makes landings much safer and easier. And the later you brake, the less fuel you need because you spend less time accelerated by the gravity of the planet. The same applies to the start: a high TWR means less loss of Delta-V due to gravity-drag. Besides that, due to it length, the LV-N is hard to integrate into most lander designs, while the compact LV-909 is practically made for being placed between landing legs. Keep in mind that while the LV-N has the best fuel-efficiency, it has by far the highest mass compared to its thrust. This doesn't matter much when you accelerate a mass of tens of tons during an interplanetary transfer, but when you have a small craft which weights just a few tons, it really starts to matter. Twice the fuel efficiency is pointless when it means more than twice the total mass. Also, every additional kg of payload means more power required for every single stage of your rocket.

No, the Luna probes weren't manned. But they did a lot of firsts which are often overlooked. The Americans might have been the first and only to actually walk on the moon in person, but the first object to reach the moon was Luna 2, the first pictures of the far side of the moon were taken by Luna 3 and the first soft landing on the moon was Luna 9. The Soviets also managed to do three sample-return missions from the moon (Luna 16, 20 and 24). Launching an unmanned spacecraft to another celestial body and returning with a soil sample is a feat not reproduced by anyone else to this day. These sample return missions were after Apollo 11, though, so the soil samples weren't that sensational.

Just like you do it on any other planet. Have a Kerbal leave the capsule on the launch pad, walk him off the green around the pad (so the flag isn't removed when you launch a new vehicle), right-click on the Kerbal and click "Plant Flag".

There are anthropologists who think that this did indeed happen. The Neanderthals developed tools, but then went extinct and other strains of primates took their place. It is of course debatable if you can call all the different flavors of cavemen different species, or just different races of the same species. The line is pretty blurry in this regard. Some anthropologists even go so far and claim that certain indigenous people, like the Aborigines or Inuit, are actually genetically so different from most other humans that they could be considered a different species. That would mean that this planet is actually shared by multiple intelligent species right now. Although this is a topic you should thread lightly on when discussing it, or you soon start to question if "human rights" actually apply to these people and you start justifying all kinds of atrocities which were committed and are still being committed against them. Anthropology is interesting.

When you already have an understanding of SQL and worked with MSSQL before, it should be possible to become proficient in these areas (just not necessarily what one would call an expert). When you have no knowledge of relational databases at all, you are screwed.