Superfluous J

I probably just missed the edit.

The level 3 runway should just be the runway graphic on the ground, stretched all the way from the grasslands to the sea.

The in-game tutorials aren't so bad, give them a shot. Also you can't beat learning by doing. Start a new "Science" save and play around with the limited parts you have, unlocking more as you do science experiments. If you like watching others play (I do) then any YouTube video produced after 1.0 dropped should be "good enough" to show you the physics but not a lot of the UI and part changes. Most people get caught up on the physics though - at least at first. And always, always, always come on here and ask for help with any specific issues you may be having. We love helping others enjoy the game. Oh, and welcome! I just gave you your first rep point.

Can we use Mun or Minmus for gravity assists? Can we leave Kerbin's SOI?

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the real reason the runway isn't any longer than it is. Kerbin is small enough that the runway we have is large enough to show the curvature of the planet. That's why planes roll forward on deployment: the runway there is actually sloped downhill. Any larger and it'll just be worse.

First we need to know the actual problem you're having, with specifics. Is the problem that you can't get 3400m/s with a decent launch TWR under the tank? Or is the problem that you don't know anything that I just said?

If the people who wrote it can't get it stable in 1.9 you probably can't either. "now what" is you wait for them to release something, or stay on 1.8.1

To be fair if I was in charge of a bunch of 4 year olds and one of them jumped in a puddle I'd probably punish them too. Or I'd soon have a bunch of dirty, wet 4 year olds on my hands.

I feel strongly (read: hope a lot) that they've known this for a while internally but were not allowed to say anything before Take Two's earnings statement, which was also announced today. If this is true, there is no (financial) reason to keep quiet now and they may have more frequent updates in the near future.

Make sure your next two wishes are good ones.

This makes me happy and I hope it means you're all not only taking the time to make the best game you can, but also not working crazy overtime and instead having real, actual lives as well.

This is why SpaceDock exists.

Assuming that cartoon came out in the last 30 years or so, that's not where the phrase came from. I remember saying it in the 80s.

Senior year history. I don't remember anything I was supposed to learn from that class. All I remember is this monotone droning that I drew comic books to for an hour a day.

Nope I like needing to get science, I just don't like right clicking little doodads and running experiments, and then getting a Kerbal out and wandering around the ship right clicking again to gather the experiments. This is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Right-Click-Things Program.

Easy fix: KSPIE could denerf the lab and add biomes.

I don't like doing the ones already in the game (hence ForScience being one of the few mods I will simply not play the game without) so I rarely add any mod that adds science to the game. Also, there's so much science to be gotten, adding more seems like I may as well just start in Sandbox mode considering the entire tree will be unlocked before Jeb sneezes. Rather than *more* experiments, I'd be all for a mod that *changes* experiments, or swaps new experiments for the ones already in the game. Some Examples: Thermometers do not return any data if they are within X meters of a non-strucutral part. Gravioli Detectors require 2 on the vessel, Y meters apart. Seismometer works like the Breaking Ground deployable seismometer: Only when something crashes into the world you're landed on. X and Y are to be determined when someone makes this mod

First to answer your title: No it's not I assume you have far more science and rep than you do Funds. In that case, you should upgrade the admin building to level 2 and take the two strategies that convert rep and science to funds, at 40-49% each. Don't go to 50 or over because there used to be - and I think still is though I'm not 100% sure - that there was a bug and they were acting twice, so 50% became 100% and if you went over 50% There's a weird bug (or misfeature at best) that one of those two strategies becomes disabled if you enable the other one. I never remember which is the "bad" one so I suggest you make a quicksave, try to enable both of them, and if enabling the first greys out the second one, restore from your quicksave and enable them in the other order. This will give you a LOT more funds at the expense of Rep (which is basically useless and far better spent getting something else) and Science (which you likely have enough of, and will still continue to get enough of even with this strategy).

I can't bother sitting through a burn more than 10 minutes long, even with time warp (which for the big ships still isn't really an option). My longest burn - at least the longest I've memory and record of - was my Pol All-In-One that I flew over 6 years ago. KSP back then didn't have all the bells and whistles it has today so the maneuver node told me the burn would be 5 minutes but it actually ended up at about 15. And I had to restore from a quicksave and do it twice. No thanks. I'll just pack an extra engine and some more fuel if you don't mind.

Many of these mods I do NOT find essential while others that I do were not included. Some I would really NOT like to be included in the game. Still others we can't even say would be a useful addition because we don't know how gameplay will work in KSP2. Will we even be right-clicking thermometers at random places to gather points? And will those points unlock parts? We don't know. I won't go one-by-one because that will make this post super negative

April 14, 2043. "No, see, software versions don't work like that. KSP2 is its own thing and KSP1's next version will be 1.100"

From the same non-forum thread.

$0.99 DLC

I thought for sure they actually already said that if you were on the wrong end (but not even actually in the plume) of those engines you'd be dead. I have a distinct memory of them talking about that scene in the trailer where 2 EVA'd Kerbals were watching that engine warm up, and the developer nodded at a question and said "Yeah they'd be dead for sure" or something like that. But anyway I'd be surprised if it was more than "Within X distance and not behind a shield = dead."