Kerbart

You know, back in the day, when I was a kid, the only engine we had for maneuvering was the mainsail! And docking ports were so tight that you needed a retrograde orbit to dock successfully. AND WE LIKED IT!!

As long as you have a calculator that can do (any) logarithms. Converting between bases is trivial and I doubt I've ever seen a calculator that does base-10 only.

There, I fixed it.

But of course, to the asteroids if necessary! Haven't you seen the documentary Armageddon? On a more serious note, it would make more sense to have specialized vehicles for each task (earth surface -- orbit, earth orbit -- moon orbit, moon surface -- orbit) as different design elements are needed for each phase. The earth shuttle can use an atmospheric landing, but those wings are just dead weight for a moon landing (and transfer), where the landing thrusters for the moon vehicle would be a liability during earth reentry, etc. In fact, as a veteran KSP player you have learned that it works much better to have specialized craft than a one-size-fits-all approach. One of the more interesting concepts in real life is a Mars-Earth shuttle (needing heavy shielding from radiation for the trip) which would be sped up once, would have a highly elliptical orbit around the sun so it would pass close by earth and mars on a regular basis. It would only have to be accelerated to it's orbit once, and from there shuttle craft would speed up to pick up and drop off the payload (passengers, goods) without having to speed up and slow down all the heavy shielding. I'm not sure if an approach like that would be efficient in KSP.

Given the massive amount of science that can be earned on Mün and Minmus, any tech that gets you there the sooner the better. What tech that is depends on how you construct your rockets. If you're Scott Manley, "Start" seems to be the only node needed to unlock the entire tree under five missions.

Add these two lines to the config file of the specific Engineer part you want to use (under "Editor Parameters"): TechRequired = start entryCost = 0 You'll have to go to the tech tree, click on "start" and activate the part but that's about it. I'm considering to do the same with mechjeb. I don't see adding mods like those as "overriding" the tech tree, they are just tools that remove boring, repetitive tasks out of the game for me.

Very carefully And keep chipping away. Can you get into orbit with, say, 3 FLT-800's? Why not exchange one of them for an FLT-400 and see if that works? Asparagus with 3 boosters instead of four, etc. We tend to slap on things but it's amazing how large the weight penalty is, and that also works in reverse. In sandbox mode I got an ion-engine probe to Duna (or any planet, really) launched on a single FLT-200 tank and a Mk1 Jet fuselage (and engines of course). Once you start cutting weight you'll be amazed on how much you can cut out and still get into orbit.

1. There's an add-in for that; search the forum 2. Probably. It would be pretty daft if you cannot unlock the next tier, you have to start somewhere. Consider it "testing your science equipment" 3. From a game play perspective the point of returning your experiment is to, well, return your experiment (back to Kerbin). I would be even more convenient if you could transmit without losses, or do experiments without the need to have a science bay. Or just start with the entire tree unlocked (hint: sandbox mode). There are certain (fairly arbritrary) choices that the devs made to make the game more challenging. This is one of them. Yes, it's inconvenient. I'd almost say, that's the point.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Dammit Jim! I'm a scientist, not a carpenter!

There have actually been quite a few threads from people who seemed very upset that the tech tree did not exactly fit their expectations (not hard enough, not aligned with what is perceived as reality, etc) and apparently "broke" the game. Which seems silly since sandbox mode is still available.

Put two capsules nose-to-nose together. Or use a tricoupler upside down and you can combine three capsules. Done that, it works! Requires a bit of trickery when landing but that's part of the fun.

https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node12.html

I think some people are mistaking "Squad" for "Electronic Arts." The developer team is small, and yet manages to release updates at a blistering pace, for free. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the new features in .20 and .21 (large docking ports, hard to reach planets) were more appealing to the "hardcore player" (who are apparently the only ones who deserve to play the game) than to the casual player. KSP development can only continue as long as new copies are being sold So at one point, Squad will have to add features that make the game challenging and fun for new players. If the game is not attractive to new players, sales will flatten and development will stop. In fact, I hope that .23 will be bug fixes (performance) and a new free demo version because the free .18 version is starting to look pretty outdated. The newly implemented tech tree provides a perfect vehicle for that of course (you can only unlock, say, the first three levels or something along those lines). As for a "tutorial mode" instead of the tech tree. Yes, that would be wonderful. But we'd have the same whining on how development is not focused on "hardcore players," and the new feature is completely not interesting for veteran players, unlike the tech tree where many are taking the challenge to see how quickly they can unlock it, or simply enjoy playing in that environment and having "learn playing KSP all over again, which is so much fun." Then of course there's the possibility that career mode is going to be a lot more than just the tech tree. And that squad had the option of brooding over a new version for over a year, or release career mode in bits and pieces as they are doing right now. In any scenario I fail to see how the alternatives would be better.

They do meet, obviously, but not necessarily. Theoretically there could be two temperature scales with different slopes that have an intersection at, say, -200K. In that case scale "A" and scale "B" do not meet somewhere as that temperature doesn't exist.

Are you able to determine *what* is in the picture? If so: * a picture proving that Kerbin is round * * picture of the hidden side of Mün and Minmus * * any of the planets, withing a certain distance, and from their surface * * pictures of artifacts (that will be a whole lot harder, I assume)

Last time I checked the tech tree was 100% in line with the history of Kerbin. Please show me where it deviates from Kerbin history (links to Kerbin history books required)

You know what, you're absolutely right. The first 400 science points you shouldn't have access to anything. You should just spend hours and hours solving linear equations, learning to solve angular mathematics through complex numbers, demonstrate the ability to calculate hohmann transfers using nothing else but the standard calculator included on an iPhone. Then and only then, gosh darnit,, should you have the right to release friggin' Jebediah Kerman just by himself to start gathering science points. He'll have to friggin' walk to the ocean, highlands and tundra to collect soil samples and walk back. Only around 1000 points (remember you'll have to unlock "iron smelting", "bessemer procedé", "advanced mettalurgics" and "mechanical engineering" first) you should have the ability to lay the foundations of the launch platform and only somewhere around 30,000 points (about two years of rw gameplay) you can hope to build your first rocket. That would be far more realistic. On the off chance that it would shy away new players, but who cares?

How much do the new parts cost?

Having launched a duna probe on a single Mk1 Jet fuel fuselage and one FL-T200 tank (to get into orbit; from there it was ion engine all the way) I have to say that I saw an awful lot of orange tanks

Well you can still "do" science with the science components. They just don't produce science points which have no use in sandbox mode anyway.

Preventing veering off is easy: use symmetry mode. Reaching orbit isn't really that hard without those handy tools: either calculate by hand (using your trusty HP calculator with RPN) or just by trial and error. It takes less than a handful of fuel tanks and boasters to get into orbit so you'll get there pretty quickly. Just don't try to prettify things with escape towers, etc. That doesn't fit in the experimental spirit of Kerbal Science anyway.

It forces you to explore more; I never realize how beautiful rendered Kerbin was! Now I'm epploring the highlands and tundras. In the name of science!

That's haggling over semantics. The OP should indeed have said "unlimited" instead of "infinite" but the point is that instead of returning a sample the same amount of science can be gathered by repeatedly sending over data of the same experiment. The amount of data transmitted diminishes every time, but by repeating the transmissions enough times the difference with returning the sample approaches zero (and due to rounding becomes zero). NOTE: keep in mind that the game is always under development. This is why the rapid development cycle Squad has elected works so much better than waiting three years to release version 1.0 to the public: because it exposes flaws the developers never thought of.

Not that I think the creature is alien, but I don't think they're sending it into space. It looks more like it (inadvertent) became a stowaway.