Gargamel

I still say we need empirical evidence! (Ok yes, I've been Xkcd binging tonight).

I would really have to believe though, there is a non zero chance of secondary fission explosions. Very unlikely, for all the reasons mentioned, but also non zero for the other reasons mentioned. I really think we need empirical evidence for this. Lets get a bunch of nukes (we have extras laying around), put them in a pile, and set one off. See if more than one goes off. Run this test, say a few hundred times, and we'll have a good data set. Would be pretty useful if do ever design an Orion drive. I think excess neutrons would more of a concern in the vein of this discussion, rather than ionization. Close enough proximity might actually cook off another nuke.

Here, have a wrench. By your definition, a moon also orbits a start, while also orbiting a planet, therefore it is also a planet, since it also is spherical and non fusive (is that a word? It is now). I agree with the sentiment, just not the syntax.

8/10 Kinda fuzzy, and I hate gifs as they take forever to load on my connection. But +2 for semaphore..

Worst case scenario, you could add a rear facing pod from which your kerbals can transfer to and control the ship from there, giving your navball the correct orientation. You can then add a second set of landing gear, facing the other way so it rolls correctly when landing. But that's assuming you will be gliding into land, not under powered flight. You may have to use some of those nifty reverse thrust engines in that case.

But if you had bought the latest DLC with the chutes, you would have been fine! They frown on using mods at NASA, this isn't JAXA you know.

I'm confused as to your response here, could you please elaborate?

@DoctorDavinci's great analysis aside, how did the OP come up with this data? This implies he measured all the day lengths for a one year period, and then compared a planet with a 6 hour rotation to one with a 24 hour rotation, and then determined them to be the same. I'm confused as to their methodology here.

This. All the time.

No, cause they can easily counter argue that there have been a number of careers started by an interest in KSP. All those "I applied to college to get my Aerospace Engy degree cause of KSP" Threads. Unlike other time wasting games, KSP actually forces you to learn things. May not have a lot of practical applications in everyday life, but in 20 years I can see one of the first people on Mars saying they credit KSP for part of their inspiration.

They used to make billiard tables for use on cruse liners and rail cars. The whole table was gimballed to keep it level. So a gimballed swimming pool is do able, but not practical. Of course though, they do tend to use super high density metals (like depleted uranium in some cases, like the 747-100) as balance weights to get the CoM correct in some aircraft. If they remove those, planning to use a swimming pool as a balance... But of course, there's a reason air planes don't like their cargo sliding around, causing crashes and all. That must be the ugliest aircraft I've even seen. Including the ones I see here on the forums.

That's just what's his name from the New Horizon's project trying to get Pluto back on the 'map' again. If you include Pluto, you gotta include a 100 or so other bodies, including our moon. I think the current definition could use a little revision though. The clearing of the path is kinda dumb, as mentioned in (maybe this one ) an article I read on this, all planets have smaller bodies crossing their paths all the time. It should reflect the fact a planet has it's system's center of mass (barycenter) is within the central body. The Earth/moon system's barycenter is within the Earth. The Plutonian barycenter lies between Charon and Pluto. Bun that leaves open the very rare, if even possible, case of binary planets. What if two clearly planet sized planets were in orbit around each other with a barycenter outside both of them, which of them would be the planet?

Did nobody try google? There's a lot of companies that will do customized inflatable globes. But I'm guessing this would be under @SQUAD's purview, since they own the copyrights.

Just woke up and I spent a good 1o minutes trying to figure out how you would write an OpenScad file of a screen shot. I mean, I guess it's possible, but that's a lotta wonky math. Took me that long to see you were using that as an Idiom, not a nouns.

Somebody here a while ago had a C++ algorythm for this in their sig. Haven't seen it in a while though.

He may use that trajectory to get back to his front door.......

Too much math. Haven't deleted a version since .18, so I have all the downloaded rar's/zips for each, the expanded directory, all the downloaded rar/zips for the couple dozen mods for each version, their expanded versions in the directories, etc etc. Too much is the correct answer.

Even if they are pink, they aren't aliens, they're still kerbals. The great kraken created all kerbals equal. Hence why we have Valentina.

I think you need to define by "moving". As the orbital paths cross, they will move closer and farther apart. Even with Hyperedit, I find it difficult to perfectly place constellations like this so they have perfect station keeping. They tend to wander by a few meters, at least. Nothing that will affect the constellation in the foreseeable future, as they won't drift far enough in the time span of the game. Or you may have built the probe a little wonky, and induced a small kraken drive.

Correcting myself here: Per steamspy.com, KSP has sold over 1.7 million copies on steam alone. So yeah, easily over a million users.

I'd would lean towards there being over a million KSP players. Not everybody bought through Steam, it's quite likely there is a large number of un counted players. The DLC, as I read it, will not affect the game mechanics at all. It will add some features on the front end that allow for editing of nodes and scenarios, and it will add some parts, but a stock ship built with non DLC parts should work in both versions of the game. And your argument about fracturing the community is kind of weak. With so many mods available, and so many different ways to play this game, the community is already fractured, way more than this DLC will. We don't know any details yet, just some teasers, so complaining about integration issues before they even exist is moot.

No. SSTO stands for Single Stage to Orbit. Any type of staging is,unsurprisingly, a multiple stage vehicle. SSTO does not mean space plane. You can make a SSTO vertical launch rocket.

When I purchased the game, it was explicitly stated that we would not pay for for future content. I don't expect SQUAD to give me free stuff, I expect them to stand by their promise. It has nothing to do with the cost, or paying for extra content. @SQUAD has done wonders for us as users, and they deserve all the support they can get. But one of those wonderful things was promising early adopters free content. That was one of the selling points at that time. They cannot risk their reputation (EA anyone?) by going back on their word, If you buy a car, and part of that purchase agreement is free routine service for the life of the car, you expect the dealership to honor that. If they don't 3 things will happen. One, they lose a lot of customers who won't buy another car from them. Two, they lose all the referral and other new customers through the bad press. And Three, they will probably end up in court. Even in this case, all three are possible. Since they only have one product (that I know of), the risk of losing repeat business is not that great, but any future products they release will be met with skepticism. This would also definitely cloud future sales to new customers too, as they would hesitate to buy from a company known to screw over their customers. And while a lawsuit seems ridiculous, given the cost of the DLC, that's the very reason why someone would sue. The cost of defending all these suits on this topic would far outweigh any revenue they generate from the sales. And as soon as they settle one of them, they would have to settle them all. They know that and it's just easier and cheaper to stand by their promise. Practically every comment I seen asking about this topic fall into 2 categories. One, Those few early adopters asking if Squad would honor their promise. And Two, those complaining about us asking about the promise. Yes there were maybe a couple asking for financial reasons, but not the majority. There are so many companies out there that do nothing but screw over their customers, that it's very reasonable for this to be a concern. We bought this game early, knowing it was still a work in progress, and a lot of these early release games never make it to a full release. We knew that and yet we still supported Squad. Without our seed money, there may not have been a full version. So instead of complaining about us asking Squad to honor their promise, you should be thanking us for supporting Squad to help them create this wonderful game we all love.

3 I think. Boosters, main Engines, and then OMS. Argument could be made for 2. I knew pendant didn't seem right. Thanks.

Wouldn't that be how Iron man saved the heli-carrier? And on a side note.... these are not SSTOs any more, just regular spaceplanes. </pendant>