theend3r

I'll tell you after B9 is updated and other mods introduce compatibility with the newest FAR. So in about a month I guess

I play career but I agree that it's not very interesting as of now. I could be improved by adding more easter eggs, caves or other unique locations and missions to go explore them. For example: "Build a manned outpost near the Vallhenge and take samples from its vicinity." which could then lead to a consecutive chain of missions.

Thorium, the great hope for future energy. Also [spoiler=]

I see your point but it depends on the circumstances. Some testing needs to be done to verify different setups. Or has it already been done? Edit: grammar

The beauty of asparagus is that as long as your TWR>1 it will always give you more power. Even if the new atmo made pancake designs climb at 1 m/s untill they shed all boosters the fact remains that you end up with a streamlined rocket like you would normally start with but instead of starting at the pad at 0 m/s you start above it at more than 0 m/s.

Since you are the god of aerodynamics I'll believe you. I'm going to try building an M class rocket with an integrated reverse nosecone and see how it flies. I'll share my results later On a more serious note your work is really amazing. After reading all the info on the new voxel method I'm just sitting here, astonished, with my mouth wide open.

I would start caring more about becoming a better man than leaving a legacy behind. I'm more or less aware how my abilities will deteriorate with age so I'm currently rushing things a bit. If I were immortal I wouldn't do that. Basically an optimalization of consumption, the longer you live the more you should invest in the beginning and postpone your consumption.

CoL indicator doesn't work yet and it basically can't as it's an oversimplified representation of the complex forces the new FAR is trying to simulate. Ferram said a few pages back that he's thinking about it. They are by no means realistic. FAR is more realistic.

Graphics are fine as they are (except the lack of clouds or even weather) and won't be getting better anytime soon, sounds could be a bit better but there are far more pressing issues. Afaik it's been three years since any new celestial bodies were added, then the already mentioned weather system and axial tilts. Those should be the main priorities now along with bug squashing, optimizing and balancing.

Why update it before the new FAR, which changes everything, comes out?

4/10 your taste could be far worse but it's like a FB status.

+ lim x->0 sin(x)/x = the number of candles in a box of Hanukkah candles

I apologize for being stupid but please bear with me. I don't want to add velocities from different frames, I simply want to change my own velocity. I know you are right and that there is a fallacy somewhere in my thinking but my question is where. Assume some reference frame. 1) I assumed that ship with x dv at rest at 0 m/s in such a reference frame, after expedning the fuel, has a velocity of x m/s. 2) Likewise ship at c - x dv, after expedning the fuel, has a velocity of c. Now this is obviously wrong but if 2) is wrong then 1) is wrong too (even though the effect is negligible). This means that there is no absoulte dv of a ship, correct? Thanks

Ok, I get that. But still, my understanding is that the amount of dv a ship has is a property of that ship and is not dependent on anything else. Let's assume that we are moving at c - 1000 m/s relative to Earth in a ship that has 1000 m/s dv or more. We turn on the engines, facing the direction of our speed vector. What happens from our perspective? After burning the fuel does our speed change by less than 1000 m/s? Of course this would take an infinite amount of time from an outsider's perspective but for us?

Granted, it was yesterday and you missed it. I wish for my fridge to be always full.

I've always wondered about this. Doesn't the energy of the fuel you carry with you increase proportionally as your velocity increases? I.e. you need an infinite amount of energy to reach c but you actually have an infinite amount of energy flying at c as your fuel has infinite mass? In other words the faster you move the more energy you need to accelerate but the more energy expending your fuel gives you offsetting the higher energy requirements.

I'm still on 0.90, waiting for new FAR and B9 at least.

You'd need a quantum computer for that.

Just like there are no straight lines in space, there are also no points in space(time).

No. In this case your position is near the bus and your speed it the speed of the ground below you. You need to specify both the location and the speed. Actually the location shouldn't matter, just the speed.

No, it's a bit more complicated. Time is equally slower on both ends (in both inertial frames), what makes the difference is acceleration which moves you frome one frame to the other one. Saying time is slower/faster for you because of your speed is is wrong. On the contrary, I've moved faster than 3c in KSP

Stationary to Earth? To Sun? To the average of vectors of all galaxies? To the Death Star? Stationary means it's relative velocity is 0 (there is no absolute velocity). http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88152/what-does-it-mean-to-be-stationary

So if I understand it right, if I pick an inertial frame of reference that is moving at 0.99 c relative to Earth then the average speed of all galaxies to my i.f.o.r. is 200 km/s? That is very unlikely.

There isn't any absolute coordinate system so that doesn't really make any sense.

How fast are they moving relative to what? Us?