GluttonyReaper

In terms of difficulty, there's always KIDS. If you haven't heard of it before, it allows you to scale ISP for all engines, which I've found is quite nice for making things like SSTOs a lot more difficult, and rockets in general a lot bigger.

Well, you can't have everything, I guess.

Wait ... are those ... Mk1 cockpits!?

I just tend to label them as debris, so they don't clutter up the map screen. Means it's easier for me to track how many active flights I actually have, rather than what the game counts as active flights.

Audio Muffler (also linked above) works as intended in 0.90 too, but has the disadvantage of muffling all the sounds, including any outputted by Chatterer, so yeah.

Depends what you mean by "wrong". I think it would be ... arrogant of us to assume what we have created something which is perfectly true in an absolute sense. What we could say is that it is consistent with itself logically - but even then, it's worth considering that this logic, as far as we can tell, only exists in our heads.

Well, they did release 0.23.5 on April 1st ... that was an interesting experience.

I don't... What?

I don't get it. What's a sarcasm?

I get that, but I've always viewed the orbital mechanics side of things as being more than enough to ensure you can't win ever time. I suppose I've never really viewed this game as a being anything about the history of spaceflight - rather, just a sandbox where I can fly around and explore without having to worry about all the painful constraints of reality.

My issue with this is that it's realism for the sake of realism, that doesn't really add a huge amount, mostly just frustration, to the point where it's craved little enough by the community that it could be considered outside the scope of the stock game, only to really be explored by mods. Most of the time, at least in my experience, is it's either small issues that are easily fixable - in which case, why have them at all? - or massive issues that totally destroy a mission - like a probe that's halfway to Eeloo having a leaking fuel tank, and therefore being unable to do a correction burn and missing the planet entirely - which is just frustrating, because regardless of any reliability system, at the end of the day it's up to chance whether that mission succeeds or not.

Well .. my hope is that this is all part of some kind of plan to offload all the LEO stuff to the private sector, so as to leave NASA funding more open to doing other stuff like ARM. But then NASA would be paying to use anything the private sector makes anyway, so I'm not fully sure it's even an advantage in terms of money.

This, very much so. It seems kinda pointless adding in new planets when the current ones we have aren't even of consistent quality yet (i.e. procedural craters are still limited to Mun only right now), and most missions literally involve landing, planting a flag, pressing a few buttons for science, then flying off back to Kerbin. It's the main reasons I enjoy SCANsat so much - it's fun to see your science give tangible, interesting results outside of just points and a bit of flavour text. If all the science in the game was that involved, it would add a bit more depth and interest to the missions. Combined with interesting terrain ... if every planet was as varied as Kerbin (or even the Mun) I thin it would definitely be much more rewarding to land on other planets and such, and only then would I feel adding more planets would be a worthwhile use of time.

Buzz Kerman is actually already in the game, he pops up from time to time. We used to have Neil too, but he was removed after the real Neil passed away, because it was considered bad taste to have a kerbal (that are often considered quite expendable by many people) to be named after him at that point.

Found the thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72784-Okay-Squad-Put-a-1-down-on-your-kill-sheet%21

Have you made sure you've actually dropped out of timewarp? A lot of the menus won't pop up if you're still timewarping, happened to me more times than I care to admit.

You should still be able to complete the contract - even if the engine doesn't actually produce any thrust without fuel tanks, as long as you stage it in the correct conditions, the game should still count it as being complete.

Don't forget those reaction wheels that never saturate.

Personally, I'd rather make the lowest warp altitude lower. This solves the problem of Gilly landings taking forever, but at the same time it'd mean you would still have to dip below a safe orbit to get low space science, which I quite enjoy.

I think would be nice to have a 1-kerbal capsule with an EVA hatch that isn't a lander can at some point, just so you're not forced to use 2-kerbal pods exclusively after a point.

Agreed, randomness is the best way to go. Most randomly generated names are fairly non-gender specific, anyway.

I can't remember where, but it was mentioned that this is apparently a bug to do with launch clamps. Launch clamps do produce electricity, which the game takes to mean you have electricity-producing parts, but obviously, it's kinda difficult to take them to orbit.

Tbh, I'd rather Squad works on making the current planets more interesting before adding more. Quality over quantity and all that.