Euracil

I do agree that the Earth is not ideally habitable, mostly because our star is too big and the planet too small (also, bigger planet = more sheer land and resources); however, it is good enough for life and, furthermore, intelligent life, so we must commend it for that. I have always thought that switching Mars and Venus would have been really great for the habitability of both worlds. I always find it disappointing that they didn't. I mean, wouldn't it be so cool if there actually were Martians and we didn't have to go light years to find more life? Mars proves a really good point. In kindergarten, they say "Venus is too hot, Mars is too cold, but Earth is juuust right." As with anything in kinder, it's not the whole story. MARS IS IN THE HABITABLE ZONE. It just had a number of other factors going against it, mainly size, that made Mars so inhospitable. I think that the Earth has the perfect amount of water, not necessarily for life to evolve, but more so for the development of civilization. Civilization underwater would be impossible because it would not have agriculture, and tiny islands would be too mountainous for agriculture. However, not enough water would lead to, like you said, massive deserts. Here on earth we have enough land to form massive continents with flat lands good for agriculture and still enough water in oceans to maintain a healthy hydrologic cycle and to keep worldwide climates relatively mild through heat exchange. Also, simple geography substantially aided human development. The Mediterranean Sea was a massive boost to worldwide trade in early history. The continents (Americas, Australia, Afro-Eurasia) are also just barely so connected that the ecosystem of one would not totally collapse due to the introduction of completely unrelated species and also separated enough so that biodiversity would give us more variety in resources (Corn vs. Rice). Even Antarctica plays a huge role in shaping oceanic currents. I actually think that intelligent life around a Yellow Dwarf is, in most cases, impossible. Life wouldn't have enough time. I think that Earth lucked out and had a huge moon that created tide pools that accelerated early evolution. If the moon was too large, Earth would be tidally locked to it and tides would be static. Taking that into account, humans might just be one of the first intelligent species to appear in the universe. Life might take tens of billions of years to reach this point for all we know. But simply thinking about the fact that habitable stars may exist for trillions of years and we just happen to appear withing the first few billion years that habitable stars could exist is pretty mindblowing.

That's not really what I'm asking. I'm not saying we're going there, I'm just proposing something to think about potential habitability of planets, not the question of how we'd go there.

What circumstances would a planet have to be in to be the most habitable possible? Earth is a good place to start, but just saying "Earth" and being done with it is no fun, is it? I was thinking that perhaps there would be a binary red dwarf system with the 2 stars orbiting very close to each other and the planet in question would be orbiting around both in the habitable zone of the 2 stars combined, in which this habitable zone would be larger and farther away from the barycenter than a singular red dwarf. Hopefully this would distance the planet and make it not receive as much of the amount of unpleasant radiation as it would in a singular red dwarf system. The planet would not be tidally locked, and the red dwarfs would stay alive for a substantially longer period of time than other types of stars. What do you think?

A little something that might help when we start looking at atmospheres of exoplanets. I'm no scientist but this might be helpful if it (somehow) gets known... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zhw9LYrmfBPCdRuaxF_nL9LK7XoA13sMpOiAo2BPw5A/edit?usp=sharing Feel free to suggest changes!

I guess a writer, yes.

Nope, no experience with anything. I just have a lot of ideas and no means of expressing them, that's why I'm asking for assistance.

I was thinking more of 2d animation, but maybe 3d would work, what do other people think?

I'm not really committed yet, and was just wondering if people would be willing to help. I would want some writers, animators, and voice actors, to help. I asked the SCP:CB forums, but didn't get much of a response (yet), so I'm asking the KSP forums. I do have this guy friended on steam, though we're not really "friends" at all, and he doesn't have the style I'm looking for. Also, if you can think of the title for the channel, I'll give you a cookie (not really though, I have no cookies ).

I was thinking for the skybox, instead of just a regular "band" for a galaxy, why not have the skybox show an epic galaxy collision, or at least a ring galaxy?

I have an idea. If photons are 0% mass and 100% energy, what if dark matter was 100% mass and 0 % other energy. Maybe? Yes? No?

I'd like to see cameras. (I know there are mods but that doesn't mean you can't make it stock) Also, perhaps a general "chemical analysis" instrument for rocks and liquid. It may need someone to make up fictitious elements (like kethane) though.

I was thinking: all "day to day" movement we think of is just movement relative to the Earth, as if the Earth was stationary as we move on it. If we saw a line "trail" drawn from where we've physically truly been, we see a line shoot up into the sky or into the ground, because of the movement of the Earth, Sun, and Galaxy. But what would that "true" movement be relative to? And light--it's top, unchangeable speed--what is that relative to?

I never saw these pictures before. My jaw dropped to the floor.

Well... umm... erm... Hold on while I grab my pitchfork.

Apollo hoax, Niburu, Paul is dead, etc. Scientific proof says they're wrong, so why do they hopelessly believe in these things. It makes me give up hope for humanity, until I see something by Carl Sagan.

When you're dealing with black magic, this is what happens.

Top Kerbonautics "experts" are clueless as to what causes the extreme densities of objects in the Kerbol system, and why other star systems are unaffected. Hypotheses conflict. Some suggest the presence of some unknown element or elements. Others point towards an excess of dark matter in the system. Some do not explain anything at all, calling for unnecessary missions that would only work as billion-dollar fireworks. What do you suggest?

Totally spontaneous question. If we had magical O2 pumps or something, flooded titan with oxygen, which has lakes of liquid methane (yes it's that cold), and then lit a match, how much O2 would it take to create the biggest explosion possible and how big would it be?

I was thinking about a sci-fi setting in a binary planet system. Both planets have independent and intelligent life that want to come together to build a space station in between the two worlds. Then it hit me. (Ouch! Not literally!) What if they put the space station right at the barycenter. Both planets would pull on it equally and the station would be "suspended" by gravity. Is this at all remotely possible, cause if it is, then that'd be something fun to do in KSP should they ever add anything binary.