Right

Good post. I don't see the "spirit of the challenge" defense as a get out of jail free card, but if you have to resort to it...your challenge is in danger of losing your serious competitors. Also, I don't feel mech jeb is 'powerful' in the same way impossible innovations. It makes the game easier in a less-time-consuming way, not in a TWR, dV, design possibilities way. Afterall, you mentioned yourself that the difficulty of a challenge should be rooted in design, not piloting skills. Not a big deal to me though, I know some people are very passionate about the mechjeb debate I might recommend simplicity in scoring criteria for people who don't want to spend hours developing a challenge. Keeping the way(s) one can score points to a minimum will reduce the probability of unintended complications. Good points in all Chen.

Bonus points for doing it in camera lock? EDIT: Actually since both craft are spinning, camera lock would probably make it easier and less nauseating.

Okay, thanks! So does their weight in the VAB/SPH mean anything pragmatically speaking?

So both MechJeb and Engineer Redux count the following as zero mass: RCS thruster blocks cubic struts octagonal struts small solar panels all ladders both lights the small gear bay two of the data transmitters I get the feeling I'm missing something. Do the stats of these items lie about their real mass?

One possibility is to have a radial drill of mass x, and then some other radially mounted utility (like a conversion processor) with mass x at the same center to perfectly offset the drill. Though you've probably already thought of this.

A video demoing some of this mods capability would be helpful for me

Being sympathetic to pragmatic insights, I think its a fine answer. The magic is irrelevant. Yes, but A.) most people are not of a philosophical mind set/background and B.) only among your most vulcan philosophers should diplomacy be cast aside. I don't mean to put you on the defensive at all, I just recommended it since someone was getting frustrated by the appearance of factual speech. For all we know, he may be right. Sound may be nothing beyond its reducible parts. Materialism is a common scientific assumption. To say that the experience of sound is irreducible violates the materialist assumption. This is the assumption the two of you appear to be dancing around. Its only a confusion if the mind-brain identity theory is wrong. And the jury is still out.

You're technically right, that the problem of being confused is not directly solved through pragmatism. But it does indirectly answer the question of why quantum stuff is so magical with a resounding "I don't give a damn, so long as I know what its doing." I believe a quality of a good philosopher is to be charitable. When I am in a disagreement, or misunderstanding arises, I always assume (at least outwardly) that the fault is my own. In addition, I have found that use of "I" based opinionated language makes much more fruitful discussions, and fewer bent egos. <- Example

lodestar, you clearly have a knack for subtle philosophical thinking, and for arguing. But if you want to discuss those sorts of topics with folks without frustrating them, you're probably best off taking up a pragmatist outlook. Post-modern theory, radical skepticism, representationalism, and pretty much all of epistemological concerns are just headaches waiting to happen. Besides, most scientists are pragmatists (even if they don't know how to articulate or reason though all the philosophical humdrum). In the end, I don't believe those sorts of fine grained insights are necessary to carry on in every day life or peoples' respective fields (Barring philosophy teachers).

Ockham's Razor is a good criticism of ID, but not a good reason to believe the universe came from nothing (ex nihilo).

You're welcome to decline that these assumptions are realistic. I've already pointed that out. But they are, never the less, assumptions. The point is to work through in a simplified context. Ceteris paribus - second paragraph.

I would (and many cosmologists) say that it is unintelligible, or impossible to properly conceive. Our best bet at understanding whats beyond (if there is anything) is through analogy. I like the analogy that Neil deGrasse Tyson offers because its easy to understand, but for that very reason most people have a tendency of oversimplifying the picture. Found it, here it is (explanation at 1:58):

Wow, definitely a rich mixture of answers. Thank you all for the enlightening arguments. Perhaps a better way of asking the question is this: 1. are you fighting less gravity by going up a hill faster? 2. If so, how fast is best? It may also be useful to think about it from the opposite direction: in order to capture as much gravity as possible from a hill would you want to move down it slowly, or quickly? The opposite should be true of the opposite answer. In reality, I suspect that most of you are right to say that there is a sweet spot, determined by many factors; road quality, car's age, engine/transmission efficiency, altitude, even wind velocity. That said, I just wanted to reiterate a couple (possibly unrealistic) assumptions for the purpose of isolating the concept we're talking about. 1. Linear ratio of fuel consumption to acceleration. (e.g. 50% acceleration costs 1x fuel & 100% acceleration costs 2x fuel) This means going half the speed takes less fuel, but it also means spending fuel for twice as long. In a simplified theorical picture, moving a car along a flat surface from A to B will cost the same amount of fuel moving at all speeds. (discounting aerodynamics) 2. Total friction is equal (e.g. Moving at 30mph you lose 30 units of energy to friction, moving at 60mph you lose 60 units of energy to friction. This means from A to B, the lose of energy to friction will be equal at all speeds) Gravity and aerodynamics are the two primary considerations. Gravity is a force over time, which means exposing yourself to it for as short a time as possible ensures you are encountering less of it. (This means going up a hill fast) Drag however should place an upper limit on the optimal speed. On the note of aerodynamics, I would like to argue what I feel is an important point. On flat ground, terminal velocity is 0 m/s. This is because while gravity is exerting a force on you, it is not literally accelerating you (I know I have to be careful with that word in this context). As an example, anyone who has flown jets or SSTOs in KSP with mechjeb might have noticed mechjeb only slows your vessel if your vertical velocity reaches terminal velocity. This also explains why rockets with lower T/W ratios start their gravity turns later, and vice versa. So...if you were moving up a 30° incline, the terminal velocity would be multiplied by sin(30°), or half of its normal value. Terminal velocity on earth of a car falling might be 90mph and thus its optimal speed on a 30° incline would be ~45mph. BUT, recall that this is 45mph of vertical velocity. At a 30° incline, one would have to travel 90mph to get that much vertical velocity. (Well that was a waste of time... Still useful demonstration) The curious revelation about this is that terminal velocity for a car at a 30° incline and terminal velocity for an ascending an aircraft (shaped like a car, weighing as much as a car, and with the same drag as a car) at a 30° incline are very different; double in fact. (Because half of the gravity the car is encountering is defeated by the ground.) It is notable the the more the incline increases, the more the terminal velocity will increase for a car. Critique away my logic!

Hmmm, makes sense! Thank you all.

The question is: What is the most economical way to take a craft into low orbit, from the surface, of a celestial body without an atmosphere (like the moon). I'm assuming its to thrust directly up until Apoapsis reaches desired altitude, and then circularize. (EDIT: Turns out this is backwards!)

Dear Rocket Scientists, This is a question for those of you who have a good understanding of the principle mechanics at work in rocket flight. The popular belief is that driving a car uphill slowly saves fuel (all other things being equal). However, based on the knowledge I use to play KSP, I believe its quite the reverse. As you probably know, getting from the launch pad to a low circular orbit is best done as fast as possible (assuming you're not moving faster than terminal velocity). Rockets with thrust:weight ratios of 1.1 at launch are wasting a lot of dV. If you translate this logic to a car, then moving uphill at terminal velocity would be the most economical, right? (Again, this is assuming all things being equal; car engine has the same efficiency at various speed, total friction is equal, etc.) Thanks!

Lol, this sounds like some gross food. But hey, they signed up for this. Suck it up kerbals!

Finally a challenge I'm good at, putting kerbals through life threatening maneuvers! Better use a drone... Stock craft, 23.3 Gees!

Great pluggin! If I may make a request, I used to use dynamic time warp for slowing down time, but I don't think it works for .23. If you could make that possible that would be rad.

Love this plugin. Look forward to seeing it updated for .23!

How do you check for this? I know my PC is running 13 copies of svchost.exe when I look in the processes tab.

Lag will not be on our side this mission

I ran this craft a couple of times and this was my best score: Screenie just over 5k since I was about to hit terrain After first bounce Stationary!

*whistle* That thing looks like a death trap! I would recommend you turn infinite fuel on and go test its descend and ascent on EVE before you commit to it. I don't believe it will survive the landing (maybe unless its perfectly flat) and I don't think it will be able to ascend without some control surfaces, though you might have enough torque. Also, remember to take into account that the 4 kerbals way .09 (90kg) each in the chairs. Changes your Delta-V by a surprising amount. How much does the whole thing weigh in at? I'm aiming for a more modest 1 kerbal escape. Thats probably all I can manage haha.

Okay, just to be brutally clear.. Launch the core station into LKO. Screenshot. Then launch whatever essential equipment needed to complete the "Exploring the Neighborhood" mission (satellites, rovers, landers, etc...) Screen shot of the mission critical points. Return core station to LKO, screen shot of tracking station? Thanks for the details.