J.Random

I would say: scratch this design altogether. If my math is correct, your last stage weighs some 30 tons, give or take, and 9 tons of this weight are engines.

I would probably sit tight and do nothing. Body of this size should have a mass of at least 1/10 of the Moon, so such an object (also, its collision with Earth) would screw up not only Earth, I think. If Jupiter won't save solar system, it's back to its chaotic childhood, with planets changing their orbits, colliding and being recreated from the scratch.

I'd say this luck goes hand-in-hand with engineering insanity.

Seriously? If I may quote you: So, "we need the infrastructure." Oh, wait, we already have it! Right? Now all we need is money - simple! Again, seriously? What kind of an argument is this? Can you prove that there is no such thing as a ghost? Please do. May I suggest that you start reading your own posts before hitting "Submit"?

(also, to this your post): You were speaking about "colonization". THIS is your idea of colonization? Spend gazillions of $$ to go to Mars once and get back? It's also funny how you try to incorporate two different (also, conflicting) approaches: (not exactly tested) VASIMR (do you know that guys who advertise this thing want to get to Mars in 3 months - meaning no free-return trajectory?) and the idea of one of its critics, "let's use old chemical rockets and spin hab and booster around their common CoM". I won't even comment on "using photon sails for heavy vehicles" BS.

What technology are you talking about? Is that the same technology which requires regular cargo launches to ISS? Do you understand that Mars is far away? Like, 6 to 9 months away? We don't have self-sustained environment on LEO. AFAIK, we don't even have it here, on Earth. What "colonization" are you even talking about? On this one (and only on this one) I have to disagree. Both US and Russia have conducted and, to my knowledge, are still conducting long-term isolation experiments. Unless you mean that being alone in deep space is somehow different from simply being alone in space.

^ this one.

I'm yet to see a single person who would've liked bibibifixes.

74.15. k/M/Gbits are usually specified in decimal, but when you're talking about transferred k/M/Gbytes per second, it's usually binary. Unless you're using stupid IEC definitions.

If there are lines with then it will be in tech tree. Partless mods work automagically (Chatterer). ModManager and, therefor, FAR should work too.

More? No. Faster? Yes - with additional EC cost, of course. And only if you try to simultaneously transmit multiple data samples.

Sarcasm? 10chars

Are you sure it works like that? From watching Kethane dev stream I recall that there is no real control over any "queue" - you just set up particle generation speed and randomize particle speed, initial movement vector, force and TTL. So every particle "dies" when it's supposed to.

If they just break off, you can retrieve them later from tracking station (and still get science for them). But often they get destroyed completely - that's where splashdown becomes a problem.

Because 5 Mits = 3x2Mit packets, 10 charge per packet = 30 charge.

More quick way to do this would be to timewarp at the launchpad instead of orbit.

What? Sandbox didn't go anywhere and the game is still highly moddable. Reentry heat, atmospheric conditions and better aerodynamics are in the list of planned features. Have I missed some announcement?

Could you please add parts for wingtips? Like, non-resizable (manually) slick light parts without lift capabilities, red/green/white textured, which would snap to the wing tip and resize automatically, like wing parts currently do? With Aviation lights support?

Actually, his craft needs (1) struts and/or (2) drogue parachutes. Adding normal parachutes will make the craft even more likely to be torn apart by gee-force at 500m.

Erm.. because in such situation parachute would deflate and become a twisted mess, I guess? I would remove the "landed" condition - to make parachutes usable as aircraft drogue chutes, but auto-cut at low net speed seems quite reasonable.

Just add something like into part.cfg. I didn't try that, but brief look at configs tells me it should work.

Hey, whoever calls it a fail is an idiot. Introduction of tech tree and biomes are two MAJOR improvements. Also, about tech tree being "historical": I've seen devs' comment that tech tree is mostly a history of KSP development, not US/Soviet/whichever space program.

I agree that in current condition it's quite... simplistic, but it provides ready-to-use framework to build upon it.

If you're able to get within 1km range, I don't understand the difficulties you're facing. At this distance you may just dump your relative velocity to 0 by pointing at relative retrograde and burning, then point at your target vessel and burn again (don't forget to a) set your target and switch your speed indicator to target mode if it didn't switch automatically), then brake while closing to it. For final approach and port alignment you may want to switch camera to Chase mode.

Bullsh*t. Forums were full of "WHEN U RELEASE?" threads since announcement of experimentals, with occasional speculation threads even before that. Lots of "Y I CAN NO UPDATE" threads after it went to youtubers and KSPTV. Today is the same as the last week, maybe two weeks.