Kerbart

Not really. You could keep Kerbin and Duna constant (and their moons). That'll cover orbit, travel to Mun/Minmus and interplanetary travel to Duna. I'm not sure what more tutorials (in regards to astronavigation) one would need after that.

I think he means on the back haul.

KSP not only teaches Obrital Mechanics, but Contract Law as well.

I've seen people (*cough* NASA *cough*) who take about five years to get where you got in two weeks. Well done!

Do not get your undies in a bunch when people stop reading after the second line in all-caps. Can we get a tldr; in lower case, preferred?

Of course there are inaccuracies with screen measurements, but based on these 2000x2000km orbits I'd say Kerbin has a diameter of 1200km (I leave it to the student to figure out that 17.3×71 is indeed close to 1200)

I don't think claiming, and I quote, smoke and mirrors type behavior is an observation. If so, show some evidence of that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, claiming that Kerbin is a different size than listed and that smoke and mirrors are used to cover that up... It passes the smell test for me regarding a "C" theory.

Instead og getting the tin foil hats on, I think it is simply meant as the distance beyond which objects are not rendered, for performance reasons.

Looking forward to that one colonist who will bring some weapons and have everybody else "volunteer" to feed him. I'm not sure if the plan “and everybody has to figure out for themselves how they are going to provide air, water and food for themselves” is the ticket for success for a thriving Mars colony. Maybe it is. But I wouldn't bet on it.

“They?” Who are they? No Man’s Sky fanboys? Angry flat-earthers? The Armenian mob? we don't know if anybody took it down. Maybe it's just a server crash.

I think it's reasonable to add a hatch... and 250kg of mass at that point, to reflect the extra hardware that is needed. But that's a small price well worth paying.

Search for DMAgic's EVA Struts.

You're right! That addresses all my concerns! It's totally feasible. Totally!!

I'm sure the numbers add up. Elon wouldn't be that bold, to present something on a congress about astronautics that can be dispelled by one dude in the audience with a basic knowledge of orbital mechanics and a HP 15C at hand. There are a few things that raise my eyebrows though: Economic feasibility is based on reuse of the same booster, tanker and transfer vessel. If I understood the presentation correctly, they're building three ships; the tanker (maybe two, to speed up the process?), the SSTO (kinda) booster and the mars vessel. With at least two fuel launches per mars trip that's three SSTO launches, giving us 30-50 SSTO launches and landings over the lifetime of the project. Not a single one of those landings (not to mention launches) can go wrong and we've seen the track record of the Falcon 9 so far, and they won't have the luxury of a dozen test launches (with the occasional vehicle loss) to test things out. 30 times landing something the size of a Saturn V, with a 100% success ratio. Not 95% success, not 99% success. 100% success. I love Elon and Space X and their bold approach to things, but with this... good luck! Bill Nye points this out time and time again (and he's the first to point out the value of feet-on-the-ground expeditions): set up a self-sustaining colony on Antarctica. If you can do that you're 3/4 on the way to building a Mars colony. And with self-sustaining he means "not dependent on air-dropped supplies." If that sounds hard, keep in mind that the Arctic environment does a pretty good job of mimicking Mars (except for a high-pressure, oxygen rich atmosphere). The whole "and this is how we think a Mars colony will look like" is missing and that's a bit suspicious. 100 people per trip, $200,000 ticket per passenger. Let's be bold and assume 50 trips in total. That's 5,000 passengers. Total ticket revenue: one billion dollars. Now, there are days I don't carry that in my wallet, but that seems awfully low to bankroll the entire project. Is there additional revenue? Are passengers who want to return to earth extorted and expected to pay $1,000,000 for a return ticket? Is there some sugar daddy who bankrolls the rest? I'm pulling numbers here out of where the sun don't shine but I'd think that it would cost at least 20 billion to pull something like this off. The insurance cost alone... And the project has to factor in the loss of at least one launcher (while landing, destroying the launch pad, causing delays, etc) I'd say. Financially it doesn't add up.

It's good to hear from Salvager. ZooNamed, what a cool avatar! I love it. Anyway, you were wrong about the next one But perhaps @legoclone09 can pick up the baton?

There's probably a waiver people need to sign. There's also a slight possibility that there is some redundancy in case one of the engines fails (as long as it doesn't set of a violent chain reaction of explosions).

As @DrLicor points out, if you set up your network perfectly, there won't be any gaps. Now, I for one can't do that, so I compensate by spacing my satellites denser than required. Consider a higher orbit—at only 1000km ASL you need just four satellites to easily generate 100% coverage (at least in RT you do).

You don't need safechute in 1.2 Personally I'd say keep KER and KAC and toss the rest. Playing just stock is a fun challenge. But you might perceive that as too radical.

The video is, from 1:42 to 2:45, exceptionally riveting! All aside, impressive work!! I wouldn't mind if the video would be showing various parts of the inner workings of this clock though. Even in realtime/slow motion!

It's a bit more complex than that. In most of those areas the potential for food growth is there, but that potential is used for tobacco, coffee, cotton, cacao and other non-food crops (cacao is edible. It's not a food). It's more an unwillingless to let go of profits, than simply not paying for transportation. But in the end, yes, the amount of food available globally is not the reason there's hunger in this world.

It's busy at work, so this will have to do.

Looks great! How does one assemble them?

I'm sure that is meant in a less entitled way than it came out...

"Supports controllers" != seamless, right-out-of-the-box working. Depending on the controller you have, KSP may or may not work with it, and it may or may not take a significant amount of work to get them to work. I'm not saying that it would be a reason to buy Console, but neither did the OP ask for that: And yes, controllers really work well on the console versions, in a seamless way; that is something the console version definitely does better.

With a skipper those Sol orbit stations are very doable. You rarely need to spend more than 200k on launching one, and the contract usually yields north of 500k. That's 300k in easy money. Use the Mun for a slingshot out of the Kerbal system.