Darnok

Evolution... all we can do is to adapt, we should invest money into adaptation process not into "fighting against forces of nature". Some places will become less habitable for us, but other will get better. On some spots farming will be impossible, on other farms will produce more crops than they do today. It is natural process, environment is changing so every healthy organism should try to adapt, some people are not healthy or just stupid thinking that money can change natural process. Are we going back to dark ages when making sacrifice with animals would cure plague? Of course this change leads to problems on country level... since countries that currently have lots of habitable space and lots of farm-lands will try to avoid being dominated by other countries, that incoming change would help grow. About economy, if we put money on fighting against nature instead of developing new technologies, expanding and adaptation we are going to lose. We have limited amount of money and limited amount of time, so it is either fast progress and little more pollutions in short time OR slow progress, little pollutions over long time (with growing population this is not going to end well). We shouldn't limit developing countries, we should help them develop faster, even if it means more pollution over short time, because more highly developed countries means more competition in race for new technologies. And this will lead to faster progress in science and search for new energy sources. Of course this would lead to losing high position by developed countries, so they are trying to "sell agreements" for how fast you can develop and they are using "climate change tax" for that.

Tell Chinese and Arabs about this, they are "building" lots of islands that will be underwater when this ice melts

Nobody is going to star war against stronger opponent... unless he is totally stupid.

What kind of weapon you are talking about?

Right because you know how to build Dyson sphere... if civilization can build this sphere it is also able to destroy it in very efficient way.

You are ignoring fact that sphere has to be in balance for not being destroyed by forces... so all you need is to shake it a bit and sphere will shatter into pieces.

If someone wouldn't fear to attack civilization able to building sphere, I am sure he would have weapon capable to destroy it Other case they could attack while sphere was under construction.

What if those are debris from Dyson sphere? Short scenario... one civilization starting to build Dyson sphere, second civilization notices it and is starting war... first civilization loses war.

IMO in single run we shouldn't be able to unlock all nodes from both (or all) factions (except sandbox of course). It would make game more interesting.

Decreasing crash tolerance and adding lift of US-like (Green Kerbals) capsules should do the job for dangerous land landings, also yes they should float over water. While other nation Red Kerbals should have capsules that sink quite fast, but with high crash tolerance.

Maybe this will help http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

^ This +100 Nobody expects to have ideal replica of every part from every space program... but few parts that could represent each nation space program would be nice addition. Just like Gemini or Apollo capsules represent NASA, we could have design inspired from Soyuz/Shenzhou capsules, both look similar.

Today. Many years ago we burned amount of fossil fuels with same ratio... orders of magnitude less than we could make any impact on atmosphere and today some people are saying about climate change and same people are saying that taking energy from Earth's core won't have harmful impact on Earth... that is really interesting opinion. The problem is that when we notice what is our impact on core it might be too late.

You know about Earth's magnetic field? Do you really think that making this field weaker is good idea? As for bombs use one nuke in yellow stone park or tsunami bomb on pacific.

Cooling down core of only planet that is capable to sustain life in our solar system is stupid, no matter how many zeros you put there.

Ohh realy so small... like 0.39% of CO2... wait that is not even amount we create.

Right now it is US KerbalSpaceProgram... so stock parts from other nations would be fair addition. Current parts set suggests that only US space program was/is important enough to be inspiration for stock parts, that is unfair in relation to other nations.

It burns Palladium as fuel?

This is where free market and competition comes and make things better... but we don't have those just like you said price collusion is common practice between corporations starting from fixed oil prices to advanced technologies.

Democracy targets other systems just because they are not democratic... it enforces one way of thinking which is bad for progress. Monarchy target county when it is weak, no matter what regime there is, rulers wants glory, lands and gold. It is different more natural approach, monarchy is like predator that attacks weakest member of group, while democracy is like religious fanatic that attacks everything that doesn't have same beliefs system. Its funny how you skipped my questions from previous posts.

Dictatorship isn't monarchy. If aliens exist they have some regime system. Now we have lack of tolerance towards systems other than democracy, so our contact with aliens civilization could be difficult. We have kingdoms today, but problem is zero tolerance towards them, they are poor because democratic countries made economic sanctions... what in time causes social stress and leads to wars.

What makes you so sure that if last 200 years would be under monarchy technology would develop any slower? Can you provide any proof of that claim? I dare not speak for someone, I do not know what the monarch would have done today. I only imagine each monarch probably would have found such system he or she would think to be appropriate. I am sure that none of them would want to rule poor country, so if the system force in neighboring country would be better, they would have to change system or... the monarch in time. Good thing in monarchy was responsibility, people knew who is responsible for their happiness or misfortune. In democracy country may have debts, fall into chaos and nobody take responsibility for that. So this is not equality this is justice, but why you are using it under different name? Also you don't have justice today, some opinions and beliefs are banned or mocked and about other opinions you can't say bad word or you will be punished. You are allowed to have only one way of thinking the one that majority of mass media has.

But that kind of equality is called justice, so why use different word for that? He wasn't talking about justice. Don't play stupid, those statistics can be interpret in many ways. Regime had nothing to do with life expectancy, that is matter of medicine and technology. If in 1700s in Europe you would have democracy then life expectancy would be better? If today we would have monarchy in Europe life expectancy would go back to 35? As for wars it was sign that European countries were independent and they were trying to establish order, who was stronger and should rule in region. If you look funny at some clique boss child you won't be executed just beaten to death, so nothing has changed in that matter. There are still people that care more about their reputation than your life. So what is equality?

What is equality? We should go towards justice and freedom, because only then science and knowledge will have value. French revolution started to destroy monarchies and look where Europe is today... instead of having colonies we are colony with public debt and collapsing economy.

And rover cabin 1.25 and 1.875m please.