Wahgineer

Taken from wikitionary: theory (sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]  [quotations ▼] (mathematics) A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs. [from 18th c.] A hypothesis or conjecture. While yes, I acknowledge that cakes cannot procreate, and yes, there is the whole natural selection thing cough* twisted view of adaptation cough*, evolution does state that something came from nothing. How? So yeah, you say some amoeba evolved into a fish, the fish into a salamander, the salamander into a lizard, the lizard into a rat-thing, the rat thing into a monkey, and the monkey into a human. That's all fine and dandy. So explain to me how the amoeba got here. Also, if evolution is the process of life evolving to be better, then why do monkey's still exist? A house doesn't pop up out of the ground, it's built. A house doesn't turn into a highrise, it stays as the house it was built as. Something as complex as a computer doesn't slip and slide out of primordial soup: it is built and manufactured and programmed by humans. To say a human can come from an amoeba that randomly came from a coalesced puddle of soup doesn't just sound ridiculous, it is ridiculous. As far as I can tell , evolution can't hold up to a logical analysis. Oh, and about natural selection? A house with no foundation can't stand (the foundation being evolution, the house being natural selection). And to stay on topic: if you eliminate the lie that is evolution, the chances of there being alien life dwindle to near zero. P.s.:ever notice how on dinosaur documentaries, they'll usually say designed and evolved in the same sentence, if not with in 2 to 3 sentences of each other? sounds rather contradictory to me.

Maybe the space planes we're using with the RAPIER are too small? Or maybe, since we lack the proper parts to make practical space planes (sorry, but a 1 man space plane isn't really practical), the situation that will allow the rapier to come into its own hasn't yet arisen?

I started in 0.18.4 (the unity update), and have been here ever since. I remember the old space center, the old ramp-less runway, the launch tower, the older kerbin (after 0.18 but before 0.21), the "light shining through the planet" bug, etc, etc. I think it's safe to say I'm an experienced ksp player (still trying to learn transfers, though).

My favorite Rocketdyne F-1: First flight: November 6, 1967 Max thrust: 6.77 Mn (6770 Kn) Isp: 263s TWR: 94:1 Propellants: LOX & RP-1 Used in the Saturn-V. It is being reviewed so that a modern version can be used for the heavy SLS variants. The Saturn V was and still is the biggest and strongest rocket ever built, and will remain so up until the SLS, its and the shuttles modern descendant, launches in 2017.

The thing that you seem to fail to realize is that the RAIPER reduces part count and weight overall. How? Since it doesn't need oxidizer for the first 10-25km (depends on the amount of intakes), you don't need as many rocket fuel tanks. Also, because it's a two in one engine, you have less of a risk spinning out, and don't need to add extra fuel tanks/fuselages to mount the jet engines. So while the Rapier may be heavy and some what inefficient, its unique abilities allows you to reduce the weight/part count over all, especially for the designs that use LVT-30/Turbojets set-up.

When one eliminates all of the impossibilities, then the only one remaining must be true. Evolution says that everything came around by a random chance. Than how is it that humans are such orderly, complex beings? While yes, the primordial sludge we supposedly came from may have the ingredients for life, that's all they are: ingredients. Just because you have all of the ingredients to make a cake doesn't mean that you have a cake. Someone needs to take those ingredients and mix them in the proper way and in the proper amounts to make a cake. And even after you bake the cake, that's all it is: a cake. It doesn't change from chocolate to vanilla, it doesn't increase in size, it doesn't change its glaze covering into frosting, it doesn't become a chocolate chip cookie. It stays the same.

Soon battery drain/max power draw won't be as much as a problem: a company just started making micro hydrogen fuel cells that fit in your pocket and plugs in to your phone. The fuel cell is capable of charging your phone/tablet four times per cartridge of H2. The company plans to make deals with mobile/laptop production companies to include the fuel cell as a built-in feature to charge your phone on the go.

I don't understand why everyone is saying religion would crumble. Most would, but not all. If our civilization and the Alien one shared ancient texts (once deciphered), and they were found to have striking similarities, it actually might reinforce religion. Also, who ever said that the THEORY of evolution was a fact? Even Darwin himself said it was just a theory. The Theory of evolution basically says that a pile of silicon will turn into an iPod over time. And before you go and say that it doesn't work because iPods are artificial, think again: the same theory says that simple, inanimate primordial sludge will eventually turn into an animate, intelligent, efficient, and highly complex human. That seems to defy the same logic that supposedly supports it.

My Asus Nexus 7 has plenty of memory and probably meets minimal requirements. With a little ingenuity, Ksp could have a touch screen interface, using specific buttons and having D-pads for flight control (Left D-pad=Roll, right=pitch/yaw). For tablets that have the ability to use keyboards, when a keyboard is plugged in it can override touch controls. Mouses are actually not needed in KSP.

Agreed. Ever since the space centers' facelift, the spaceplane parts have become the oldest original elements in the game. It is about time they got up to date.

From what I heard (Rowsdowser said somewhere else), the asteroid capture mission pack will be completely free for all current and future users.

The shuttle was designed to launch space tugs and assemble Solar Power Satellites and build space stations. The problem was was that none of those things ever materialized. The reason the shuttle seems over designed is because the projects it was designed to take part in never got pas the drawing board.

Look at some other launcher designs I have, and I see: winged spaceplanes, with black bellies, white backs, delta wings, side mounted on a stack, etc. The only thing that comes close to Soyuz is the Chinese rip off (they also plan on building their own rip off of the shuttle). Even though the shuttle no longer flies, it still has a long reaching influence.

Also, they should increase the durability and connection strength of the large asas. Since it is the perfect size to slap in the middle of a rocket, it shouldn't be so weak that when I open my chutes, the other half of my lander rips off.

Space Engineers is a good game if your looking for a game closer to ksp than starmade Planetary Annihilation looks like it will be good, considering their going to add galactic wars later on. Scrumbleship, though in early development has loads of promise, and looks like it will be the true combination of minecraft and Ksp.

I second Kredits No new pronunciation, already known as a form of currency/monetary management the world over, and not biased towards any country (like dollars, pesos, rubles, etc)

This is a cool idea, and I like the other suggestions, too. Besides planets, though, this could be applied to interstellar travel and research. How? Lets say in a far flung future iteration of KSP, you've just unlocked a warp drive to travel to other star systems. The ship is ready, the experiments are ready, and you are ready. Well, almost ready. Before you depart on the journey of the century, you have to know whether any of the nearby stars have planets or not. So, after launching a large telescope, you send it out past the orbit of GP3. After taking a short look around, you have 5 candidate systems with planets. You point your ship to the nearest one, select Maximum warp, and leave Kerbol orbit for the star known locally as 'Sol'. With a situation like that, who wouldn't want interstellar travel and, (in the case of the thread) more importantly, telescopes?

1. You do not have to follow the perfect ascent: turn at 10km and keep turning until at 70 km. Turning to 45 degrees at 10km and staying there until you're apoapsis is at 75km+ is fine. 2. Start burning 1:30s to 0:30s before apoapsis: you can get up to speed sooner and have more of a margin for error. 3. When designing a plane: as long as the lift marker (blue sphere) is in the center of the Com marker (yellow sphere), there is a 90% guarantee that the plane will fly stable. 4. When it comes to rovers: wide, low, and heavy is the way to go. At least make sure to follow the first two for places like Laythe, Tylo, Eve, etc. You only need to worry about the third thing for low gravity worlds. 5. Use the Maneuver nodes! They're there for a reason. 6. Despite what everyone says, you can learn form mechjeb ( how do you think I learned how do stuff in ksp?). Once you learn the stuff you need to know, replace mechjeb with Kerbal Engineer Redux. This will allow you to keep your skills fresh without sacrificing the building and info tools of mechjeb.

OrtwinS You're right. Sorry about the whole kill the kerm thing everyone. Now that I see it, OrtwinS explanation makes sense.

Remember to count the thumb.

The solar panel generating as much as it does makes some sense, even as far away as eeloo. Why? because in real life, Earth would orbit out much farther then eeloo. also, the rtgs are meant more for base power (providing a constant supply), while the solar panels help with peak loads (when demand is higher than supply for a short time).

Possibly the reason why the Soyuz is the under appreciated workhorse is because the shuttle stole the spotlight. Why? which looks better: a bunch of tubes, or a stinkin space plane? Which one is more cutting edge: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? Which one did more in orbit (on its own: Salyut doesn't count. Spacelab does because it was with the shuttle the entire time): a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? which one was/is run by the world super power: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? which one had more of an impact on future spacecraft and there style: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? which one became the the pop culture symbol of spaceflight: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? The answer to all of these questions is why the Soyuz is the under appreciated of the two work horses.

what if you had three separate probes that attached via winches? wouldn't they all be considered separate vessels?

I know and understand that, I'm just saying that it's pointless and rather stupid to say that the an 225 would be fine in ksp when most planes smaller than it can't take off with the current runway. Also, that is a good point: the an 225 could take off from the ksp runway if it had to deal with real aerodynamics, which ksp doesn't model.

Taking off is one thing, landing is another. If that is the case, then why do a lot of big planes in KSP ( much smaller than the Ann 225) have trouble taking off?