CleverClothe

[Citation Needed] Most (90%+) of the jets I can think of have a 1:1 ratio in game terms. The rest are essentially 2 radials and 1 engine.

Clear intake abuse, but that only matters if you want it to matter.

Yes! I've been doing this with fairings, which as been less than ideal.

There is already a thread for this. Though it is bizarrely in The Science Labs forum. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/48428-Space-Computer-Brought-to-you-by-kOS-and-hopefully-many-nerds

Yep. Here is the most recent thread. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47912-A-real-SSTO?highlight=skylon

Space hamsters!

I wonder if there is a good way to represent that in a chart.

That won't work, he would just tip over when he accelerates.

Use surface mounting for your engines rather than an adapter.

There are some absurd examples on that page that really need to be removed (like "Artistic License - Nuclear Physics").

That isn't onion/asparagus staging, it is plain old serial staging. It isn't obvious just because stock is limited to 2.5m width stacks.

Lets add some context. Atlas A: 8 launches, 4 failures. 50% failure rate. Atlas B: 10 launches, 4 failures. 40% failure rate. Atlas C: 6 launches, 3 failures. 50% failure rate. Atlas D: 194 launches, 30 failures. 15% failure rate. Titan I: 68 launches, 13 failures. 19% failure rate. Titan II: 92 launches, 4 failures. 4% failure rate. Proton-K: 323 launches, 35 failures. 10.8% failure rate. R7 (non-Soyuz): 842 launches, 88 failures. 11% failure rate. Soyuz: 906 launches, 25 failures. 3% failure rate. Ariane 1: 11 launches, 2 failures. 18% failure rate. Ariane 2: 6 launches, 1 failure. 17% failure rate. Ariane 3: 11 launches, 1 failure. 9% failure rate. Ariane 4: 116 launches, 3 failures. 3% failure rate. Ariane 5: 69 launches, 4 failures. 6% failure rate. What does this all mean? Well, I think the only real comparisons to SpaceX that we can draw are that test vehicles often fail and the Falcon program is still young. But it is progressing at a more measured pace than earlier programs and its record so far is quite good.

At first I thought this was from Orbiter, then I realized it was Universe Replacer. Most impressive.

It has been brought up before. I think there was a community contest to suggest names, this is the one of the results. [Edit: Yup. http://pope.jeffsys.net/usemyname/ ]

Great idea. But I have to say that having the updates color coded makes it too busy. It is hard to understand the chain of events. I think it might be a good idea to change the diagram to a swimlane timeline. Where each lane going across is a category (you can include sub categories in different shades) and the horizontal axis is a timeline that is each update. You can even make the lanes diverge as new categories develop.

Yes, please! I've pieced together my own from stock and mod parts, but there are some things that are still very hard to do.

Why do people still complain about bugs that were fixed in 20.0? Click on your PE or AP! http://vd.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1ir9n2/waymod_to_show_apoapsisperiapsis_while_adding/

There already is. Though you have to go to your file system to get the backup.

Katamari KSP?

We are in agreement.

I hope you are doing this for science. P.S. You monster.

Burns will always* be more efficient in lower orbits and shorter in higher orbits. The question is, which do you want? *May not be accurate for all instances of always.

Same category, different names. Onion staging is a synonym. Though I have also seen onion in reference to serial staging that is laterally layed out.

The C-5 has a 1:1 ratio (one intake per engine). The posted craft has 120 intakes and what looks like 12 engines. Those craft are not equivalent. [Edit: But I can see how there are limitations in the current system where a 2:1 would imitate actual aircraft. Which is why I think 3:1 is the technical air-hogging line.]

I LOVED Titan. Now I have a very visceral image whenever someone mentions Tholins. So I will have to check out Voyage.