Kerbart

Large buildings can have shafts with no doors for the first, say, 10 floors. I'm conjecturing of course, but if the elevator was left halfway such a section it would explain why the service crew did not visually check the elevator (which they should have done by bringing it to their floor, horrible neglect!), why nobody heard the woman call for help and possibly why nobody smelled anything (environmental issues too, maybe the building smelled bad by itself). It also prevented the woman from getting out— if she pried the doors open she'd be facing a wall (which you can break through if it's sheetrock, but you'd have to know that. And if it's solid concrete you can't)

The screenshot shows a Comms DTS-M1 Also, @laviosa: get in the habit of checking your craft at the launch pad to see if it meets the hardware requirements; it'll save you some agony in the future

Given that mass will always be at a premium, a better solution is likely to split the hab in two halves and have them on either end. No need for a counter weight. Of course, the counter weight could also be useful payload. Batteries, a power generator, life support, etc.

I don't think so. There's a closed loop of the frame absorbing friction losses, introducing torque, which is neutralized by the torque generated by the rotor, which on the other side of the spindle would result in the centrifuge spinning faster if it weren't for equal but opposite torque coming from the friction losses. Draw a harpoon diagram and it's easy to see. The whole system can be constructed in such a way that all the torque losses are maintained inside it. I'm sure, with some effort, that it can be constructed in such a way that you "leak" momentum to the outside (introducing air through tangential channels instead of axial) so that you need a reaction wheel on the outside. But why would you? On a side note: this is how it's done on the Discovery in 2001: A space odyssey. The downside is that these centrifuges need to spin quite fast at small diameters, and at large diameters they require a lot of material. A larger centrifuge, as shown in The Martian doesn't even have to be a ring, just two (or four) elements counter-balancing each other, and with less constraints on the diameter it can rotate a lot slower (making entry and exiting a lot easier)

True, but that would be offset by the torque that is generated to counter the aerodynamic losses. You can consider the centrifuge chamber a closed system where—aside from the initial torque to get it spinning—no torque is “exchanged” with the outside world.

If it's put in a retrograde orbit on a collision course with a space station, it'll be quite dangerous! Yet somehow I envision you mean another kind of danger. A sinister kind of danger. Could it be. No. Wait. Aaaargh! Stop! Stoooooooo... [Transmission abruptly ends]

I want to hear Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries during re-entry!

Welcome to the game! I'm going to assume you're very new to KSP and haven't played it a lot. Give it a try, it's really worth it! For all intents and purposes, KSP is mainly a sandbox game in which you play around, try and invent new things, and set yourself goals and see if you can make them. There's a reason it's compared a lot to Minecraft (although that's a completely different game) as it shares the "there is no goal" mindset. However, if you leave your satellites after fulfulling a contract, you will usually see them return in contracts. I've reused a Minmus lander like 4 or 5 times (the request for "more data" regarding anomalous temperaturs kept coming in) and most "put a satellite into orbit" contracts are followed up by another contract or two. Note that real life is not that much different. We send New Horizons to Pluto. It took ten years to get there. It took pictures, did readings... and now it's done, basically. Planets tend to be lifeless balls of rock. There's not a lot that can be done about that. But are you sure you're done exploring? Did you visit the arches on Mun? The Neil Armstrong memorial? The flying saucer? Did you find the Face on Duna? The remains of the Curiosity rover? The Stonehenge formation on Vall? The Kraken on Bop? The Mohole? All the monoliths that are scattered around the system? I think it's safe to say that there is a lot more to discover in the Kerbal system than in the Solar system (well with exception of Europa of course). Have you set up colonies on other planets? Mining bases? Wait... Until you start mining for resources, that is. Which is an incredibly effective way of getting rid of those ridiculously expensive refueling runs. The mining drills run much, much more effective when an engineer is present. Which may not be a big deal early on but once you have advanced probe cores that can do all the flying for you, and once the entire tech tree is unlocked, engineers are really the only crew type that you have specific needs for...

You are always on some orbit in KSP. To translate orbit and distance into velocity, usually the Vis Viva equation is used ( v2 = GM[2/r - 1/a] and you can see how, if the velocity is a given, this formula rewrites itself with velocity as a denominator and you get a division by zero as a result. At least, that'll be my theory.

I see... sweet! Would it be an idea to make Kerbol the root of the tree? Currently the map tells me that in order to go from the surface of Moho to the surface of Duna (as if anybody ever would...) you have to go through a Kerbin orbit...

How do you control what's pinned? I tried double-clicking and dragging, and clicking the "pinned" button but none of those work. It looks really cool but it begs to be extremely interactive (I can see dragging the Duna node to Jool to see how much flying to Jool from Duna would cost me...)

What's realism for one is adding mind numbing repetition (think station-keeping with n-body physics) for another and making it so hard it's not fun anymore for yet another. KSP has evolved from building and launching rockets to something completely different. Launching rockets. Putting them into orbit. Flying to other moons. Flying to other planets. A good part of the user base has evolved with it, but let's not forget that the money that enables continuous development comes from new players and Squad has to think about those as well. Dialing realism to "11" and making the game so hard that getting off the launch pad alone is an accomplishment is great for the old-timers, but it will stop new players right in their tracks. I wouldn't mind if the game came with difficulty settings. Not the current how hard will a mistake be punished settings, but real difficulty settings. The user can set an overall level (everything either easy or advanced or hard for instance) or go with a custom level and pick and choose among the following: Fuel: unlimited/existing setup/differentiate between RP-1 and LH Life support: unlimited/snacks/food, O2, heat RCS/Control: auto balanced/existing setup/torque wheels underpowered Engines: existing setup/min throttle 10%/limited gimballing I'm sure it's easy to come up with an additional 4 or 6 categories (heat, power generation, etc) that could make the game fun for everyone to enjoy at their own level and in the way they like it while those that cannot be bothered with setting individual settings simply pick "easy" or "hard" or "normal" It worked for MS Flight Simulator. It could be set up in such a way that my 6yr old son enjoyed flying a biplane, but equally you could go all the way or pick something in between (don't like turbulence or wind shear? Turn it off. But do keep the clouds though...). I can't imagine it wouldn't work for KSP.

I think you need to explain what your idea of DRM is, because it's likely not what most people consider DRM. I can play my Steam copy anywhere. Without Steam even being installed on the computer that I play KSP on. So again... what is the DRM part?

Pray tell how distribution through Steam equals to an effective DRM scheme.

Those are the best!

Well, given the disastrous themes in the Emiko Saga, we could also go for the Godzilla character!

Actually, I did some research. Mainly because the name "Emiko" peaked my interest as it was the name of an active member on a graphic design forum I frequently visit. Figuring it wouldn't be that Emiko I googled it, but I didn't get any further than a Japanese singer. You claimed it was named after your grandmother though, if I'm not mistaken...

And here's what your support options are $1,000 will get you the Bronze package; you can watch the launch from our private webcast. [AVAILABLE] $10,000 will get you the Copper package; you are invited to watch the launch live from Mogadishu Spaceport! [SOLD OUT] $50,000 will get you the Silver package; you can view the launch straight from the launch tower. HOT! [AVAILABLE] $100,000 will get you the Gold package; a seat on one of the first five rockets. GET UP WHILE YOU CAN!! YEEHAA! [AVAILABLE] $250,000 will get you the Platinum package; a seat in one of the first five rockets. MARS HERE I COME!! [SOLD OUT] $500,000 will get you the Diamond package; a guaranteed seat in the return vessel* [SOLD OUT] * Additional fees may apply and will not be announced later than 5 minutes before launch of the Mars Return Vessel

In seawater or freshwater? Summer or winter? Tropics or arctic! Be more specific man!

I say, why stop there? If you're going to pull numbers out of where-the-sun-don't-shine, why not claim saving as $500 billion a year. Or One Billion Billion? The program will pay for itself!

Yeah, but only at night, to prevent overheating.

Yes, waiting is the best. In fact, waiting will give us the answer IF there will be a version 1.1. Because we can't be sure of that either until it is actually published, no? In that respect your question, that assumes there will be a version 1.1 is very optimistic and you are setting yourself up for disappointment... Best to just wait and not ask unrealistic (assuming the publication of 1.1) questions in the first place! On a less drolling note; the Unity 5 client exists. It is not something that we need to depend on Squad to develop. The Unity 5 client has a stable 64 bit version. Again, it doesn't require Squad to develop this. All that is required for a stable 64 bit windows version (well, as "stable" as the 32 bit windows version is...), is for Squad to develop a KSP version that uses the Unity 5 client. And that is exactly what Squad is doing, and what Squad is telling us every week. So what exactly is so uncertain about 1.1 being 64 bit? That Squad secretly has continued to work on the Unity 4 client, while telling us that they are working on the Unity 5 client? Why believe anything Squad says in that case? A weekly claim that they are still working on the 64 bit version would be just as empty.

Welcome to the game, @Route_Mun! Screenshots first, as they are most helpful in these cases. In the folder where your KSP game is installed (this might or might not be "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Kerbal Space Program" you will find a folder named screenshots, and every time you press F1 KSP will place a screenshot in there. Press F2 to hide/unhide additional screen "fluff" like the Kerbal headshots, navball, etc. You can then surf to imgur.com and upload your image there (no account required) and paste it in here. Second, nuclear engines do require propellant, and liquid fuel is used for that. Based on your description it seems like you have no liquid fuel with you, or it's all used up. Or you have it on your ship but there's something between the liquid fuel tanks and the engines that doesn't transfer fuel through. That can be bypassed with a fuel hose but that really doesn't help you when you're in Eve orbit...

Nor does questioning if “64 bit” is still under development. The 1.1. upgrade is all about Unity 5. This is mentioned in about every Devnote. Unity 5 supports 64 bits. It's not rocket science. And if it were... Well, we are where we are, right?

They also didn't mention that the game is still about rockets, but that doesn't mean you should assume it's a farm simulator now.