OtherDalfite

While it did crash, it was a controlled one. Landing is basically crashing in slow motion, so I don't see why we could land on one. The only hurdle I can imagine is if we landed on a hillside, and even then, I can see the situation being recoverable.

I can totally agree with this. In a game where you fly rockets, land them, and dock them all together, you rarely spend time just watching the Kerbals sit in their capsules, and you hardly see their faces when you go on EVA. Maybe girl kerbals can be added later, but right now, while KSP is in ALPHA of all things, it's ridiculous to demand something as silly and insignificant as female body types or facial structures.

This is kind of what I was trying to get across with my statement of simply adding more names, rather than a whole new model. Kerbals are not meant to represent male or female, but people for some reason have deducted they are male, even though we know nothing of their biology.

I think this would be a great alternative as well, then the devs wouldn't even have to work on implementing Kerbal female models, if they decide to do so.

These are absolutely perfect. I know the first is a Fan-Drawing, but what of the second? I really hope they come out to look like that.

Yeah, for some reason one side always seems to be offended by nothing. On the topic of Kerbal sexes, I am fine with having a male/female side, but for gods sakes don't go making them super kawaii supermodels with thighs that could crush a bus. Space suits aren't meant to be slimming, and sex flight isn't made to be sexy.

Actually it does simulate tidal forces, they are just very very weak. So weak in fact, that they can't be seen and are perturbed by floating point errors on your craft, causing it to spin in other random directions, thus cancelling out the force. There was an experiment done a long time ago (before the Mun, I believe) and it did prove to be true.

My first bet would be using nuclear blasts to either split the rock or to throw it off course. I've heard a theory (possibly fact) that if you pained the sun facing side white, it would push itself away, but I still think nuclear blasts are cheaper and more effective. It depends on how much risk the Earth is thrown into.

Nice job, but didn't Orion have a set of 4 small solar panels like KSP's 1x6's?

Well, we have the international space treaty, stating you can not own any celestial body. So that's a start, as well as nuclear weapons being illegal to fly into space.

Learn to fly stock. It's not hard.

The closest I've had debris come to my craft was about 5 km while getting into orbit from Kerbin. The chances of actual space junk hitting your crafts are slim at best. What you got was really rare.

There's actually already a discussion about this topic at this link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/37945-Can-reaction-wheel-kill-a-certain-angular-momentum-of-ship-without-working-forever Hope this answers your questions!

Now do it with Docking Port Jrs.

That's the games whack-a-kerbal debugging thing. It basically creates white nameless debris to fling at your spacecraft.

Why post your ships if he isn't taking requests? You're simply hogging up page space then. Take them to the spacecraft exchange if you feel the need to post them.

We are supposedly alpha testers, just a very toned down version. The best way to be one is in my opinion, try and break the game. Doing things that you wouldn't normally do (so long as you aren't messing with code or such, if you want to actually test, play stock only. If you want to play, do mods). Doing things out of the ordinary is probably the best way to bugtest or doing simple things through complication. Even if it seems weird to try and do that, remember that someone on Earth is trying something similar or will in the future.

Well, holding your breath will also lead to a side effect known as ruptured lungs and still dead!

If he is, he can use NovaSilisko's roche asteroid and KAS to fling it down to Kerbin.

That's a bit tough to do without plants . To quote the OP, rocket fuels are used because of their ability to expand rapidly when heated and to be very reactive. CO2 is a very stable gas and trying to use it as propulsion would probably net you as much dV as blowing the hatch in a pod. Very very small amounts. In KSP, that amount might seem enough to bring you home or some other thing, but in real life you need far more thrust to do anything big, like changing your orbit.

OP, were you aware that water is one of the best combatants for radiation shielding? The media went crazy over Fukushima and people gobbled it up like candy, further reinforcing fear of nuclear power. The amount of actual radiation released by Fukushima is minute compared to Chernobyl. Most, if not all the radioactive material in Fukushima was in a protective shielding to protect against things like this.

I really don't think that would be the right way to handle it to be honest. Surely they could allow you to scan, mine, and convert in one update. What they could do, is add more options/ways to gain or convert the resources into something better per update.

Yep, the developers confirmed resources some time ago (near 0.19 or 0.18). They gave us some screenshots of how stuff would look, but changed their plans to move onto career mode and RnD matters. I just hope when they do add resources, it's as cool and in depth as the flowchart described.

Here are some of my favorites. Can't post them all of course. These are REALLY high resolution, so I recommend opening them in a new window to get the most out of them. Hope you guys enjoy!

I think you may be trying to land too fast OP. Try going for a very very shallow stall until you are down to about 30 m/s but still in the air. If you find yourself unable to do that, continue with your fast landings, but equip a set of retrofire thrusters to slow yourself on the ground.