Kerbart

I think you're in a spectacular wrong place to claim that RP-1 is gasoline. It's kerosine (jet fuel). A bit heavier, less volatile and flammable than gasoline. Your car won't run very well on it (if it normally runs on regular gasoline that is)

It's not the invention itself, it's the application to spaceflight. Wheels that can survive weeks, even months or years of harsh exposure to outer space radiation and temperature fluctuations and function equally well (or bad) in low or high gravity, vacuum of high pressure atmosphere... Doesn't mean Kerbals didn't know about them before they come up with their first space rated wheels. If we look at where certain technology was introduced in Earth's space program we don't fare much better: First manned flight: 1961 First use of wheels: 1970 (Lunochod & moon rovers) First use of wings: 1982 Doesn't mean we weren't aware of wheels before 1970 or of wings before 1982 (one can argue over the dates but the point, I hope, is clear).

I’ve read the book many times, although a long time ago (before the year 2001 at least) but I don’t ever recall something about the notion that 1:4:9 is the best ratio for construction. Perhaps you misinterpreted a phrase?

Let's call it "a day!"

Thank you @hvacengi! That is amazingly helpful... I think. The little schematic on github makes it very easy to understand how the two PID controllers work, in two stages, so to say. *Checks watch* @djungelorm; since this was posted an hour ago I assume you've implemented it? Where's the update? More seriously, that will still be quite the effort to get it done. This kind of coding is way beyond my paygrade, but by all means let me know if and where I can help out (I do control the velocity of my kRPC launches with a self-made PID controller, for what it's worth).

Could be, but as of now, Monday 2/29 18:26 ESD, the SpaceX website says “1d 0h 8m 43s” until launch...

Foward thinking may be prevalent in operations, it's usually missing in procurement. They get judged by dollars saved, not income earned.

I'm going to be a bit cynical here. TLDR: no. For starters, 10 mg and half a centimeter long? With an average density for rocks of 2.65 g/cm3 that translates to 0.0038 cm3. Throw in a length of 0.5 cm and the average cross-section is going to be 0.0075 cm2. If this “rock” is 1mm wide it's going to be less than .1mm thick. That’s not a rock. That’s a splinter. Then, “authenticity certificate” always sound fishy to me. Does the certificate have a certificate? Certified by who? It’s easy to make a certificate. But unless it’s from NASA or maybe the US Geological Survey I doubt it means that much; and I doubt these bureaus are in the business of certifying moon meteorite splinters. If I'm paying it needs to be a real ROCK. Or at least a pebble.

I'm not so sure about that. I work in the transportation sector (albeit not spaceflight) and despite how much customers have their mouth full about “supply chain management” and “on time delivery,” they seem to be very eager to drop all that if it means shaving off $0.02 of transport cost per product for something that sells for $50 in a retail store (and no, this is not an exaggeration, sadly). In a business environment where “proven” bottom line savings are given much more significance than “vague” statements as long term viability or network impact (as much as you’d have highly accurate calculations of those) that price tag will remain a huge selling point.

Challenges can be fun and when implemented in such a way that you would only encounter them in advanced stages (beginners who struggle to land on Minmus will not be engaged in intercepting comets or asteroids) it wouldn't affect playability that much. The whole point of patched conics though is that it is deterministic and doesn't rely on iterative calculations. Wouldn't this interfere with that (the word “unstable” caught my attention)?

The way I read it was: in real life, patched conics are an approximation (of n-body physics which in itself are an approximation of Einsteinian space-time bambalooza) where patched conics in KSP are “reality” and not an approximation of the physics that are in place. Claw ninja'd me.

Try Simple Rockets. It's a dressed down version, inspired by KSP. The total lack of fine control made it nothing more than a novelty to me, but it's fun to play around with it.

If your point is to have a format that allows sorting, sticking to the "official" standard that requires no leading zeroes is going to miss the point completely. You might as well add "you don't have to put the items in this specific order, we don't care about sorting anyway. Put the date in any format you want as well"

...but pointless because it is using alphabetical ordering, not numerical. So I'd recommend using double digits with leading zeroes, just in case your (or Squad's) version numbering runs into the double digits: [1.0.05] Contract Configuratator [v1.09.06] [2016 02 17] Also dashes between the dates is fairly arbirtary, so I propose spaces instead. Aside from that your idea has merit.

Did you update your copy of CKAN? I would assume your CKAN software needs an update to "know" that it has to look at spacedock, instead of kerbalstuff mayitrestinpeace.

After a long long mission my lander finally arrived on Eeloo. Anxiously I select the Hitchiker and click "transfer crew" to decide who is the lucky Kerbal to go first to the airlock (I always use a Mk I lander can as airlock). Will it be Jeb or Val? Jeb or Val? Jeb or... Frotgard? Flembob? Snidgard? I don't remember putting those in my ship?!

Obviously you don't know my wife's cooking. I expect them to show up with a geiger counter any day now.

Well this is what the FAQ says about it: I bought the game on the KSP Store, but I want it on Steam. Will you give me a Steam Key? In general no. The option to transfer KSP Store licenses to Steam is only available for those who bought KSP before it originally came out on Steam, March 20th 2013. Note that if you do qualify for a transfer and choose to do it, the process is OPTIONAL and IRREVERSIBLE. If you transfer your purchase to Steam, you will no longer be able to download or update the game from the KSP Store. To move to Steam, log in to your KSP Store profile and you will find the button to start the process next to your download link. If you can’t see the button in your profile it means you purchased the game after it was on Steam and you are not eligible, no exceptions, please don’t insist.

Assuming the toroidial design is to create pseudo-gravity, shouldn't the crew cabin's on the "ring" be rotated 90°, so the floor is on the outside of the torus?

That shouldn't be too hard to code; most mods seem to have that option built-in anyway.

The BACC made sense when the Jumbo 64 was the largest tank, but now that we have bigger tanks it would definitely be fun to have 2.5m boosters. It would be essential that it has an axial attachment point at the exhaust—using a monster like that without the ability to blow things up in a spectacular fashion would only be half the fun.

Well, if the propellant used is what comes out of the toilets... that'd be be very fitting! “Captain! Sir! We seem to be making more progress than was estimated for today,sir!” “Ah, yes, ensign, keep in mind... we had chili for dinner yesterday!”

Technically, yes. But keep in mind that Newton's third law (the one that makes rocket engines work in the first place) still applies. So, if the waste you're railgunning out of your ship is 1% of the mass of your ship, you'll need 100× the exit velocity for the desired DV. You can see where this is going for a required DV of say, 50 m/s—and we all know how modest that is. Not to mention the extra mass required for a railgun that can accelerate trash up to 5000 m/s.

Kudos to @djungelorm and @artwhaley for all the hard work that's being done! Without you guys we'd be stuck with alternatives that don't use languages like Python or C#!

Could this be because it is an exact copy? The maker of KS handed over his code to the community who then set up SD.