Dispatcher

An acronym: Sentient Astral Reconnaissance Aerodyne?

Build your own: http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/

I'll wade in. While we have the right to be critical of belief systems (be they regarding the origin of the cosmos, a planet or life [sometimes religion would fall into this category, but probably includes others such as what follow]), or political or social or economic, I think its wise to avoid criticizing or persecuting a person for holding their views (at least if they have not harmed you). Someone will always disagree with you. That does not make your views less valid or your detractors' views more valid. Its just a fact of life. Let's assume that all religion is "man made". As such it would contain varying degrees of compatibility with other systems of belief or behavior (social systems, etc.). It would then follow that some religion might encourage systems which have a positive affect on the world, while others would be detrimental. Let's take it further. Let's suppose that there really is a being or race of beings which humans would consider to be "divine". If that race or being communicated its agenda to humanity (or at least some humans; a "revealed" religion), then assuming that such a being or race was benign, such a belief system should have a positive impact on humanity. I think it is foolish to claim that we humans, with limited senses, intellect, life span and experience; can claim that there are no such beings. In my opinion (and that is what everyone here has and is expressing; an opinion), the truly honest person (at least one who does not hold religious views) must be an Agnostic (as opposed to an Atheist, who is certain that there is no "deity"), because such an honest person realizes that he or she does not have all the facts and probably does not have the mental faculties to evaluate them all (at least as a race we may not yet have attained such useful abilities). I voted that the greatest problem humanity faces, out of the selection, to be obtaining clean, sustainable energy. If we possess enough of that, we may solve the other categories of distress or threat.

Yes, the ideas I have read essentially posit that Sol has tended to spend most of its time within galactic arms, rather than between them, however it still crosses those voids. I still think the galactic hab zone is a valid idea. Solstation is a good site for that kind of info. As for metallicity, tau Ceti is relatively metal poor, but there are strong indications that it has planets (and the PHL at Arecibo accepts the data as true), and tC 4 is considered to be a super terran. Back on topic, yes siree, Earth and humanity are facing problems.

Hawaii. Well, that's in the solar system.

I'd bet that defining the differences between the two would be difficult. Thus you support the idea that humanity, though part of the "problem", is also part of the solution. Very good. I haven't. I knew it was a generalization, but I'm sure there are valid examples. I just got through reading an article about mass extinction and how some of that may relate to Sol's orbit around the galaxy (and thus through the galactic arms). In the past it was thought the sun was more exposed to supernovae between the arms, but this article puts forth the case that being in an arm increases the likelihood of comets tumbling out of the Oort cloud at us. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/02/3857090.htm

Cool. Welcome!

If you look at things from the perspective of geologic time scales, all conditions facing the Earth are cyclical. Climate, temperature and perhaps even (nonhuman) population vs. resource pressures have existed before in Earth's past. Global warming is nothing new (even though humans currently contribute the most to the current trend). As for populations, problems commonly associated with over population may be best attributed to failures in the production and distribution (and treatment) of water and food, as well as the provision of education. Environmental impacts would be reduced if demand were met with solar, geothermal, tidal and yes, the elusive fusion power. As I indicated, everything is cyclical, and this includes extinction events. So if you are concerned about either over population or the threat of extinction events, all the more reason to establish a human presence on the moon, Mars or anywhere else we may obtain a foothold in space. Note: its interesting that the cultures which have had the most negative impact on the environment (from a fossil fuel perspective) are the same which have the greatest degree of education and access to science. In contrast, various primitive tribes with their primitive cultures seem to be the most aware of their stewardship of their environments.

It would be interesting to invert a clear rocket with a bottle of a carbonated cola beverage or vinegar, and a bottle or box of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) inside. Releasing the contents into a reaction chamber/ nozzle might give the rocket some thrust. The devil is in the details.

All good advice above. I've done lots of planes and some rockets, but only recently decided to start moving out away from Kerbin. Its a challenge to do things, sure, but once you accomplish a task, its easier to keep on going to the next one. Here is one of my birds in orbit. For some it would be easy; for me it was a challenge. Just keep at it.

Oops. I have a habit of building all my craft with RGU's, even if they have cockpits.

For me its the simple things: Forgetting to check the staging icons after making changes to engines and tanks. Parachutes? We don' need no stinkin' parachutes! To fix a bad design, just use MORE struts on that same bad design.

I've spent most of my time with "planes" instead of "rockets" in KSP. The above is generally good advice. I've not used mods (other than my own parts) yet simply because I like to see how things work in the game as it is. There are two views on planes (which can be aircraft and/or spacecraft; typically made in the SPH and launched on the runway or from orbit). I've seen some posts by knowledgeable forum members actually recommending that the CoL be slightly ahead of the CoM. However, most posters and tutorials suggest that the CoM be slightly ahead of the CoL. In either case, they should be ahead of the CoT. I have actually done both with the CoM/ CoL arrangement. It all depends on your objectives. For general use, CoM ahead seems best. For some lower throttled planes which glide after running out of fuel, I've had success with the other arrangement. I've also had success with angled landing gear under the rear of the fuselage, for lower throttled planes. Full throttled or more powerful planes seem to do better with perpendicular gear at the rear. Some people prefer the rear gear as close to the CoM as possible; others like that gear closer to the rear so that its harder to knock the engine off during take off. Experimentation usually yields something in between for me. So try to have fun as you try things out. You never know when you'll find yourself with an exceptional plane. :-)

I've generated both .mbm and .tga texture files (not at the same time) when generating the .mu file in Unity, so its not been a problem for me. Did you inspect your textures (select the texture in Unity and look at the Inspector frame)? Maybe a change needs to be applied (which in a sense "imports" it). Have you tried .mbm in lieu of a .tga export? I know that .tga files tend to be smaller, but as a fall back, maybe .mbm will work. Hopefully one of those ideas will help.

In map view you can click on the object and select it for switching.

Cool. And you can edit your thread starter to indicate that your question has been answered. :-)

Actually, a fueled nose cone would be practical, especially one with reduced drag. Hmmm. See my sig lines below.

Of course, some might assume that its easier to be among the majority: zombies! But this is just live-human-centric thinking. Stubbs would disagree: http://www.aspyr.com/games/stubbs-the-zombie (Wideload Games was founded by Alexander Seropian, co-founder of Bungie. "Stubbs" uses the Halo engine.) So if I'm overwhelmed by the zombie hordes, I'll be coming after you next!

Thank goodness we are discussing the speed of light, as opposed to the speed of the expansion of space. :-) As for Entanglement, what a web we weave.

Mercury, because silver tooth fillings wouldn't be the same without it.

I'm well aware of these programs. In my opinion, we (the world) would have an extended human presence (you may call it "conquest" [hmmm, The Conquest of Space, good movie]) if you like. It is also my opinion that we (humanity) would have an even more extensive set of probe missions. Some of our current and ongoing probe missions would, in my opinion, have already been completed and followed up on.

It just depends on your needs and circumstances (and budget). Each engine has its own pros and cons. Very few would be considered "all in (w)one-ders", if any. But that's the fun of KSP, selecting the right tools for the right job or mission.

Ceasing references to space suits as "fluid containment systems" when Kerbalnauts can hear. Chasing spouses out of the spacecraft hatch prior to launch. Catching kerbils in the ventilation system & returning them to their cages.

Welcome Sundancer. Have fun here!

Its cool to see how everyone posting in this thread does their naming. Over the long haul, I tend to use a variety of names for ships and other vehicles (outside of KSP). Right now in KSP, I've tended to just name planes with whatever word comes to mind first. As for parts, yes I even name parts. My mod parts (so far fueled adapters) have names associated with another gaming company's products. I won't spoil it for those who might have the parts, but in general they deal with other games.