Kerbart

Most of this is known, and sadly “it is what it is.” I do agree that the quoting is a total disaster if you want to do it the proper way—combining multiple post quotes in one reply, split out by one or more fragments per post—I’m now at the point where I’ve given up on typing certain replies because it’s simply impossible to write a neatly formatted reply without looking like a troglodyte (some posters here don't care… yes, I’m talking about you, *******!). And that is with a desktop browser, not from my tablet or phone. I cannot believe that it is a desired side effect of the current forum software for people to post less, yet here we are. From what I understand, plain-text tag style editing is not really possible with the current software, so we’re stuck with this.

Tell me what European country is totally cool with launching guided missiles from your backyard. I really like to know. Australia is mostly desert, so I'm sure it's totally fine to launch privately owned ICBM's without any paper work. But I think that 90% of the people here on the forum will run into issues with, if it's not ITAR, some very similarly restrictive legislation when it comes to launching anything that reaches an altitude of even 10km or more.

That's why you don't use a guidance system, but rather an "automated stabilizer" or you'll land rather quickly in unpleasant ITAR territory.

Except that in serial staging you can use high-efficiency engines that have an Isp that absolutely blows at ground level, where at ground level you might be willing to use low-performance engines with a very good thrust-to-weight ratio. If you're launching a small satellite, an FLT-400 with a LV-909 as the upper stage might be all you need to push the payload to 90x0km orbit (from where, no garbage left into orbit, the thruster on the payload circularizes). Sticking to LV-909's for my entire rocket is not a good idea as their sealevel performance blows. But sticking to LV-T45's for the entire rocket.. it weighs 3× that of the LV-909. Now I'm going to need a FLT-800 tank. Now I'm carrying 3× the mass to a high altitude. Knowing the rocket equation we know what that means. Most designs are likely to be a mix of serial/parralel. Using the same stage that got you off the pad to get out of the atmosphere is generally not efficient; you'll rarely see that approach in real life.

What I remember from watching a @DasValdez session (the one with the BEAM module) is that it's exactly this problem (docking ports connecting onto "themselves" so to speak) that results in the IR warning to not put docking ports on moving parts. I also remember (I'm not an IR player though) that he used "magnets" to bypass that problem. Magnets are like docking ports but they don't actually dock, and are intended for these kind of purposes. Don't flame me if I got it wrong, please. It's all from memory and I'm only trying to help

But since the games they belong to are “free to play” (and I would totally not be shocked if they turned out the be rather unenjoyable without DLC) the pay-for DLC shows up under "Free to Play," if I understand correctly?

My apologies. I updated my post to reflect this. I hope you didn't take this vile, uncalled for attack, not just on you, but on your personality, no, on the entire KSP community as something that I would be doing regularly. Will you forgive me? Please?

They're listed from $2.49 to $14.99 Either the games are free and the prices are wrong, or the games aren't free and shouldn't be listed as free to play. In either case, Steam screwed up badly.

One can argue that having a “fleet” (even if it is just one) of recovery vehicles available makes a splash-down so much more fun, and also gives you at target for the splashdown. A target to be more precise than “any place that is water,” to be precise. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE FOLLOWING PART DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ALSHAIN SAID. IT IS JUST AN ADDITION THAT REFLECTS MY OPINION. REPEAT: LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE FOLLOWING PART DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ALSHAIN SAID. IT IS JUST AN ADDITION THAT REFLECTS MY OPINION. KSP supports space flight, atmospheric flight, driving on the surface. Recently buoyancy was added. I think it only makes sense to support water based vehicles. “We never did that in the past” is the same attitude that would have kept us out of space in the first place and it only has opened a whole new world of modding, crazy stock contraptions and KSP innovation. Having a quay and a launching ramp would be awesome, I think.

Small, buried monoliths are impossible to find if you don't know what to look for. The one near the KSC serves a very clear purpose; it tells players “hey, look, this is a monolith.” Perhaps the there’s more of these hint isn’t that clear, but it’s better than nothing at all. And it gives the player a clue as to what to look for. Keeping the monolith gargantuan sized makes it possible to actually spot them. Easter eggs are fun. Easter eggs are even more fun if you can find them yourself, as opposed to "finding" them on a website or forum because they’re too hard to find any other way.

If you look for an easy way to get a fresh install (or a fresh "custom" install with some pre-installed basic mods) just consider creating a zip file with it. There's also an opportunity to write exciting scripts in the scripting language (bash, perl, lua, python, etc) of your choice.

You mean an 80/20 mix of Nitrogen, Oxygen and some trace elements?

Tell me more about this “Star Wars” movie that you speak of. Are you sure you don’t mean “Star Trek” or “Battlestar Galactica?” Those I’m familiar with.

You should see the fairy tales people believe when it comes to filling their tires with "pure nitrogen." Especially if the gas station offers a "custom mix with 20% revitalizing oxygen and trace elements for tire preservation"—at a premium, of course.

It's easy to lock it... But that would be unethical.

I once saw a YouTube be video showing something similar. In a football stadium (or maybe baseball) they showed how a "large" sized cup of beer (completely full) could be poured into a "small" sized cup without any spillage. I guess it makes sense if you have automatically timed beer pumps that dispense a fixed amount; now your staff doesn't lose time having to select "large" or "small." Large portions are a generally applied method in retail of making customers volunarily pay more for the same product. It doesn't cost starbucks anything extra to give you a large over a small. But they can charge more for it.

This. Google "tilt/shift lenses" (although the tilt part isn't "used" by KSP) there are real world lenses that produce the same results; they're just not common. Neither are rocket launches, by the way.

One can mince legal words but the fact is that in its current setup, CKAN is biting the hand that it feeds. It is generally unwise to let such a situation continue for too long. The modders can do without CKAN; CKAN cannot do without the modders. That presents an uneven balance, as the modders have the nuclear option and CKAN does not. Hence, it's up to CKAN to fix the problem, whether they like it or not.

Making mods is (with a few exceptions that are far and in between) a lot of work. CKAN makes using mods virtually no work. That's a setup that, in some ways, guarantees some polarity. The good thing of CKAN is that it allows people who have no clue (and ability/time) to figure out how to install mods manually to use mods. The bad thing is that, by hiding the mechanics of mod installation (which isn't exactly rocket science to begin with) it induces questions from its users that “pollute” a mod's release thread, taking up time and attention that the mod author(s) would rather spend on discussing actual bugs and issues. Posts along the lines of: Add to CKAN plz CKAN is not showing the update CKAN says it can't find the mod. Fix plz. (after the Kerbalstuff collapse) Can you upload to Spadedock so it can be added to CKAN? To me it seems that if there's a way to keep CKAN-installation issues out of the regular threads (a dedicated CKAN thread, and links inside CKAN pointing to that thread?) it would solve a lot of the issues. And modders can simply reply to any of these questions with "please post this in the CKAN thread" and be done with it.

Here's a source: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm It's listing (for 2014, most recent data listed), a total contribution of €11.3x109 out of a total EU budget income of €143.9x109 so that's about 7.9% Of course the impact on the budget will be larger than that, as the UK is bringing more money into the EU than it gets.

I think you're much better of to clamp a collar a little bit downstream to the wire and fasten that to the housing of your electronics. That will completely take the load off the soldier joint (which really should not be subject to any mechanical loading) The magic phrase to google for is "wire tension release."

Los Angeles, New Jersey? Or the other Los Angeles?

Wait... what?

It's like all those people that can't finish a marathon under three hours. Just run faster. It's not that hard. Geez.

In addition, IRL large airplanes can't land with a full load of fuel. So if you're taking off with a boatload of fuel for a quick test flight you're going to have to find a way to get rid of all that fuel before you land, lightening the load on the gear significantly.