Kerbart

The way you say it makes it sound like you play directly from your Steam folder. Stop that. Right. Now. Make a copy of KSP and put it somewhere else. That keeps your modded copy inoculated from Steam updates. After a steam update, make another copy and copy the mods one by one (or in groups) over to the fresh copy, so you know what breaks and what doesn't. It's not a big deal going from 1.3 to 1.3.1 (I assume) but when you're used to this practice you'll be grateful once 1.4 comes along.

The moment you institutionalize money flows, corruption will set in. Countries will vie for who gets to be the “wiki commishioner” with all the benefits that come with it. If there would be a global attempt to fund wikipedia in a institutionalized way it has to be by providing bandwidth and server space, to prevent it from being a a way to reward anyone “with friends”from becoming a well paid (but do-nothing)wiki official. But with server soace come restrictions... “we willnot allow hosting anything critical of x, or promoting y” In the end, the way it goes now mY not be perfect but seems the best way to preserve independence and freedom of content.

While Bill Nye the science guy makes you think "scientist" and he's a big advocate of Science, he has a degree in Aerospace Engineering, so making him and Engineer isn't that far off. As for Bob being "Bob the Builder" -- I doubt that. In the beginning, there were Jeb, Bob and Bill, without any roles assigned to them. That was a clear reference to the "Hillbilly" origins of the Kerbal Space Program. Then, many alterations later, came the specific roles the Kerbals could take. Jeb, with his Bad-S attitude, obviously became Pilot. Bill, I guess because of the Bill Nye (the engineer) reference, became Engineer. And that leaves Bob as the scientist. As simple as that. If you need some kind of historical reference for Bob, think of the founding father of American rocket science; Robert (Bob!) Goddard. Nobody ever called him Bob? Well, he wasn't bug-eyed green either...

The classic way is using a logarithmic table (which in itself where invented to turn the dreaded task of multiplication into addition)

I have little problems with visual overhauls, esepcially where visual overhauls are needed. The very limited budget (and technology) in the 1960s lead to Klingons and Romulans looking like humans, and the "new look" in TNG didn't bother me. We're now at a point where aliens can look even more alien. That bothers me slightly more, I don't remember anyone saying about the "TNG Cannon" Klingons that they still resembled humans too much. What does bother me, is that the Klingons always have been portrayed as a militaristic society, void of any "artwork" or decoration. Straight lined cramped, submarine like interiors, bare metal bunks, etc. And now we have gaudy uniforms, cathedral ceilings (and decoration) inside ships, highly ornamental Bat'leths, and discussions being won on arguments instead of man-to-man combat. If it was just the faces I could stomach it, but these are not the Klingons I know. I'd rather categorize them as Dingleberries. Throw in that NBC expected me to watch Oprah first for 30 minutes and I wouldn't call the decision to not spend money on whatever their streaming channel is "agonizing."

Meh. If CBS expects this to convince me to pay for their streaming service they will have to prepare for disappointment.

No bueno. Oprah instead. And CBS is expecting me to clear out my schedule for that?!

If you're trying to get back into the game I'd say run less mods. Just KER and maybe some visual stuff. That will just take a lot of variance and uncertainty out of the process.

That is, if you consider KSP and Astroneer "the same genre." Aside from having a common "space exploration" theme the games differ significantly. Astroneer is like Playmobil. The world you're in is made out of pre-made parts, all wonderfully detailed and functional (the functional part in Astroneer might be lacking, but that's because it's in pre-alpha). The attraction of the game is exploration, discovery, and world-building. KSP is like Lego. The world you live in is crude and detail depends on the parts you built, and what you built into them. The attraction of the game is building various crafts, and see how they live up to their intended task. Both are fine but offer a different experience, and which of the two experiences is better is mostly a matter of taste. I like Astroneer, it's fun and it looks pretty. But unless there is a radical amount of new game mechanics to be introduced I doubt it will ever log the amount of hours that KSP has for me. Would it be nice if there were Astroneer-like worlds in KSP? Absolutely. But essential? Far from it. I'd rather see the bugs fixed, and I'll welcome extensions like the one they're working on now. But I doubt the game will be relegated to obscurity by games that offer pretty landscapes but not the depth that KSP offers.

With the risk of sounding ignorant... would n-body physics still have maneuver nodes? The placement of those would be tricky, especially two or three orbits in the future. And what about SOI events, that are useful currently (in, say KAC), and wouldn’t exist in a world where there’s no SOI. And how would one plot an Eeloo intercept? Not a big deal in patched conics, but I can see how plotting locatings hundreds of days in the future (with sufficient accuracy) can be a problem, especially if you want to see the results now and not having to wait three or four seconds per update. Or is that all trivial with advanced calculus methods?

If it adds any value, it used to be very common four years ago, but nowadays it's not (at least not for me). But... The 2.5m ports were especially prone to have an inability to undock, to the point where I only use them for "construction" purposes (put together only, not for casual docking/undocking). So maybe it disappeared for me by adjusting the way I play the game. None of this addresses @Geschosskopf's problem but I don't want to be that "why didn't you tell us!" guy either, so I figure if you get some insights from it, great; if not, peace.

Attracting a customer who thinks that $1,000 is a reasonable price for a hammer rarely drives down cost, rather the opposite. Doing lots of military contracts didn't drive down launch cost at ULA; having an aggressive competitor did.

It's not even the "out of control" part that is the problem. Even if you'd have an autopilot (and that's a big if), the moment your aircraft is outside the "physics bubble" (and with your spacecraft reaching orbital velocity, that will happen) it will cease to exist as it's inside the atmosphere on a suborbital trajectory, and that's how the game deals with such objects on rails.

In addition, the side effects of n-body smulation would not be welcomed by most players. Stationkeeping will be a thing, and rapidly fast forwarding your Eeloo mission will be nearly impossible if you're maintaining a communications network. Yes, it will be more realistic, but the "tedium/grinding" kind of realism.

Congratulations on bringing this magnificent mod to adulthood!

Not entirely convinced. Kraken-like shaking is usually caused by an over abundance of massless parts, from what I understand. Like struts.

My program is in great shape! I'm hiring fresh capsule meat Kerbals all the time! One of these days we might even make it into orbit. In one part, that is. We assume plenty of what we launch makes it into space already. Where else did the parts we don't recover go to?

It's cute to see all these "near certainty" projections for the next 100,000 years. What's more relevant is the probability over the next 100 year. If we care about humanity maybe the next 500, but by then we probably have gotten ourselves already killed in other ways. I highly doubt it's even 5% for the next 500 years.

There's no reason for T2 to keep it quiet. But there's plenty of reason for Squad (more specifically: its owners) to do so. Living in Mexico City, for starters. And the fact that ownership is registered in corporate tax haven The Netherlands makes me think there's at least one particular government agency in Mexico that Squad rather keeps in the dark about the exact amount involved.

I'd like to see some hard data on that, please. "The majority" is a pretty big claim. What games exactly? How many? As a percentage of all games T2 published? Because many of them don't, actually. There are certain games where in-game purchasing makes sense, from a monetizing point of view. KSP is not one of those games. It's already been stated in the past that it's not T2's intention to change anything around the way KSP is being developed or marketed. Obviously you don't believe that. What is a renewal of that statement going to achieve? If you didn't trust them in the past, why trust them now? Fears that T2 is focused on "ruining" the game and driving away its community (where the money is) is irrational and doesn't make sense. You might think that Take Two has nothing to lose and everything to gain, experience has taught that no one gains anything by talking to irrational paranoids for whom reason does not exist. Consider this: Take Two has spent a significant amount of money to acquire KSP That money is seen as an investment, not as the entry fee to destroy a game KSP is a niche game, not a block buster like GTA. Niche games come with a specific audience; T2 will have to thread lightly to not lose that audience (and their investment) Given the open nature of the game, in-game micro payments are easy to bypass. Unless, of course, T2 is literally going to rewrite half the game. Consider the cost of that, and the revenue of the micro payments. Does it make sense? The way for T2 to make money is to make more exciting expansion packs like Making History (hopefully) will be. You might not agree with these point. In fact, you probably don't. That doesn't matter. What matters is this: if you agree with these points, there's no point for T2 to do an AMA. You already know their position. If you don't agree with these points, what's the purpose of an AMA when T2 is going to reiterate that? You're not going to believe them anyway. In either case. T2 will not have a good reason to do an AMA. Keep in mind that T2 has stated that development remains with Squad. So your "monumental interaction" with the KSP community is already there, as that is happening today as well.

It's cheating when you think it's cheating. It's not cheating if you don't think it's cheating. Personally I don't care if mr. Zealot McRightous in Ruleville, WI thinks I'm cheating or not. It doesn't affect me, and it's his problem, not mine. At best I'd be wondering why he'd care, or how he knows in the first place.

You may call it panic and overreacting, I call NASA's decision to prepare KSC for a passing storm sensible and prudent. But you're right; what do I know. I don't live there. I do know that our local office, occupied by people who live there, has been evacuated and that they've been pulling our multi-milion dollar assets out of the region. But I guess a "meh, I'm sure it's nothing" is also a sensible approach when facing possibe destruction worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But you're up that creek without a paddle if it doesn't do "what is likely." NASA wouldn't be NASA if they're not having contingency plans for "what if." "Well, we didn't think it would hit us so bad. And we could have prepared for it, but it's too late for that now." Not what you want to hear if it does hit the cape hard (scenario: it does turn a bit earlier and harder than expected, and now it makes landfall at the cape without being drained from its energy by moving over land from Miami onwards)

"Logistics and circumstances aside." It's hard to get not snarky here, because logistics and circumstances are the issue. Sure, if you line up thousands of planes and have them deliver a non-stop barrage of sonic booms I'm sure it'll work at one point. But if we're that far off into lala-land, why not just build a 5-mile high hurricane-resistant wall out in the ocean to stop it in its tracks? Or lay out a couple of thousand of miles of cooling pipes to cool the water to cut off the energy source of the storm. Surely there are a few practical problems with the latter solution, but "physics and reality aside?"

No. Hurricanes are really, really big, and really, really strong. Aside from the logistics of getting 500 supersonic aircraft lined up in front of the eye of the storm, as @Green Baron pointed out, we're talking about 1012 tons of water alone whose movement you're trying to alter. It's like an army of ants trying to slow a car down ("but what if it's a MILLION ants?").