Kerbart

That doesn't make it legal. You can find a lot on Google and not all you find is legal. Here's an article about a hotel that, after the licensing terms expired, basically thought “stuff it” and continued to use images, that were replicated by the thousands through Google. The damages per photo aren't that much, but boy do you get a lot of infractions that way. I think they're on the hook for something like two million Euro. Obviously it is doubtful that Squad would ever take that route (especially since the images aren't delivered as licensed products), but the argument "I can find them online" is a particular weak one. Nothing would stop you from creating similar looking original content though!

You should repeat that in front of a bunch of professional photographers and see how they react on “they’re just images.” You’d go bankrupt feeding the people that make a living around the litigation of copyright infringement on images.

Well technically dogs were space-faring before us... I can just see how the conversation between Ground Control and Max Woofs, first smart Labrador in space: “Max? Max, do you read?” “OMG! OMG! I'm so happy to hear about you! I missed you! You should be here! It's wonderful! I love it! LOVE IT! Are you coming over? Are you? When are you coming? WHEN?! WHEN?!” (Flight controller mumbles “not this again” and downs a shot from a half-empty bottle of undisclosed “medicine water” before continuing) “Ok Max, we went over the EVA yesterday and we want you to start at step one of the check li...” “OMG! OMG! EVA! I love it! LOVE IT! Do you want to do EVA with me? Please? Do you? EVA! My favorite! Love it! LOVE IT! Are you...” “The LIST, Max...” “OMG! OMG! The list! I love the list! Love it! LOVE IT! Do you want to read the list with me? Please? Do you? The list! THE LIST! ...” etc, etc... it is rumored that the Canine unit goes through three flight controllers per week... Of course, it's not really that much better with cats... “Mr. Bugles, do you read? Mr. Bugles, do you read” “YES I heard you the first time, hooman. For crying out loud, I only slept 16 hours today. Be a bit understanding will you?” “Yes, Mr. Bugles, of course Mr. Bugles” “Now, can you open the air lock door for me, if you want me to EVA? Yes?” *door opens* “Mr Bugles, are you outside?” “Hmmm not yet... I don't know... perhaps I'm going to stay inside today... maybe...” “Mr Bugles, if you're not going we will close the door” “NO NO NO! Don't close the door! I want to go outside!” “OK... You're outside now?” “Not yet... just looking... please hold the door for now, will you?” While the Feline unit only hires cat lovers, each and every flight controller seems to resent cats after only two weeks...

The numbers I purely mentioned as a fictional calculation example? Those numbers?

Dreaming is nice. If I had to put my money on it, I'd say that we'll be getting more plane parts though. Because basically, any new parts we get these days seem to be plane parts.

That's because the S-N design is based on Nasa's design of the NERVA. It's not that it hasn't been given any serious thought; plenty of thought went into it. It's that the public opinion of how terrific of an idea it was to launch a full blown nuclear reactor into orbit didn't really encourage taxpayer-sponsored funding of such a project.

The fact alone that gigantors were used on a small spacecraft It's all carefully orchestrated to prevent the userbase from feeling inferior to the devs!

First of all, spreadsheets (most notoriously Excel, but to the best of my knowledge introduced by Lotus 123) use this system already where time is expressed as a fraction of a day. It surely is a pleasure to calculate with, so you're onto something. However, you're kinda torpedoing your case by referring to another arbitrary measurement system, that of angles. Ninety degrees? Surely thou art jesting, mylord? If we're sticking to rational units here, that would then be ¼τ radians (or ½π radians for those who have not seen the light yet).

The way you write it suggests he built a rocket and put it into orbit. Obviously these were imposters and not real Squad devs. If we've learned anything from past Squad casts we know that Squaddies can't put anything into orbit!

Because these decisions are made by boring middle-aged balding men with glasses, aka "accountants" (although the rest of the world calls them "bean counters") who will trust the output of their HP-10C's by a couple of magnitudes over their "gut feelings." If the odds are good, you will roll the dice on a chance of failure. This is why SpaceX exists in the first place. ULA has the 100% success rate and the accompanying price tag. Now, if you're launching that once-in-a-lifetime science mission where you cannot afford to miss it, it's worth paying 10× what SpaceX charges. But if you're launching 4 comsats per year at $200M each then I'd rather pay $50 for a launch with 90% success than $500 for a launch with 100% success. Seriously, all that SpaceX needs to do is to establish a succesrate that is "good enough" for the price they charge. With the above numbers, admittedly pulled out of where the sun don't shine: 4 launches @ $700M each = 2800; 6 launches @ $250M each = 1500 (assuming 2 extra launches due to failures) Insurance cost isn't always a consideration, simply because not insuring is also an option which, if the premium gets high enough, is very attractive (the example above assumes no insurance premium).

I have the same issue from time to time. Turning on clipping in the Alt+F12 menu works for me (strangely). I think that the crew spaces are only there when the various units are inflated, so that's probably why you don't see them.

Less bugs, more features! Is that a “general enough” direction?

Ironically, while building a rocket for a grand tour might have become easier over the years, what you describe above has become more of a challenge; not everything “in the olden days” was harder. I remember that you could basically set up a return intercept with Kerbin at 5000 m/s and an entry-angle of 60°. Usually you'd slow down to a leisurely 200 m/s by the time you reached the surface, but if not, who cares? Open the chutes at 200m, watch them unfurl in 1/10' and a blistering 35g or more before landing neatly at 5m/s. Don't get me wrong; I like it better the way it is now (although the heat resistance of Lander Cans has to go waaay down).

Don't tell him that. It's more fun to see him complain in the next update how it "broke his save" because his exploitive ships now all of a sudden cannot survive re-entry and they're all stuck in orbit.

Hahaha, don't we all. Well, not all, obviously, but most of us, I'm sure.

I have no exact insights, but I do know this: The new Unity engine involves changes to animations Continuous animations in 1.0 (and before) were problematic (one of the reasons you couldn't stop the centrifuge once you got it started) The centrifuge is the only part that contains continuous animation It really looks like we'll have to wait this one out (one of the reasons I'm very selective with part mods; there's always the risk they break your save)

In addition, a pilot's license is a wonderful thing to take away if somebody behaves irresponsible, and it cuts through a lot of "I didn't realize that wasn't allowed" BS as well (not that it's ever a solid defense but all things help). As Slashy says, there's always the few “nothing says that I cannot do this” idiots who have to wreck it for the 95% who do use common sense.

Apparently nothing has changed over the years... I always found MJ docking troublesome. Here's a few hints though: Right-click on the docking port on your ship you want to use to dock with and select "control from here" Make sure your RCS ports are aligned with the COM of the ship (either right on top of it, or spaced symetrically around it) Use the Navyfish Docking Port Alignment Indicator and dock manually. DPAI makes manual docking a trivial exercise that costs hardly any monoprop and usually takes me less than a minute.

Maybe he's not planning a one-way mission. I'd add another 10k for the return leg.

The sub discussion was about hatches in heat shields. I still fail to see what the Columbia accident had to do with that.

So it's safe, because there were never any issues with it?

As somebody for who CGA was an amazing upgrade in graphic capabilities, I beg to differ. 2K is really not that bad.

Less bugs than in 1.1.2 At least that's what's expected.

I think I like the previous release better. I wonder why... I'm fairly structured with my scientific readings so I won't get a lot of mileage out of this, but it looks like a fun extension of functionality. What was it like to debug, by the way?

Congrats! Easy does it! Airplanes require a light touch, unlike the fairly brusk handling that KSP requires. Tip: learn the keystrokes for trimming the elevators as quickly as possible. Once you've trimmed your airplane for horizontal flight you can concentrate on trivial things like navigation. Tip 2: at least for single prop airplanes, throttle controls your rate of ascent/descent, attitude controls your speed. Of course not directly, but if you're flying straight and level and you want to climb, it's throttle that needs to be increased, and then adjust your attitude to climb at the desired speed. Reverse for changing velocity while maintaining altitude.