G'th

DLC is bad because its small digestible bits of the game that almost always should have (and probably was) been a part of the game in the first place, and not something downloaded separately. Expansions are better because they expand the content beyond the original scope, simultaneously adding a new section to the game while also enhancing the original parts of the game. DLC is pointless because of mods. Expansions would make mods better. DLC is also just a rip off for the players if it isn't free (and if it is free, then they should just be included with the game anyway. It isn't Squad's responsibility to add things they don't want to, even if they keep it optional) whereas expansions are (usually) well worth the money you would spend. DLC never has nor will have the range of features that mods can provide. DLC also has an end point. Eventually, Squad would stop developing DLC as they move on to their next project. Modding never stops until the game is completely dead. And regardless, even if certain mods were abandoned, eventually someone takes over them. Whether its by rebuilding it (or making something that serves the same purpose) or taking over the mod directly, mods never necessarily die.

No, DLC is bad. Now, an actual expansion, I could get behind.

^^ I would imagine he used some kind of skycrane method. Or Hyperedit, that also works. Now, as for your questions, I recommend going for a lot of smaller modules (keep it minimal. Habitation/Science modules and rovers should be your only part heavy (Or even large for that matter) components. Everything else can be done with minimal parts and size if you use KAS) and interconnect them with KAS. Maintain 2-3 rovers for Kerbals to get around in. Something fun you might want to try (once you have a paired orbital station. Is it possible to get into geosynchronous orbit with the Mun? If it is that'd be something to look into) is building a landing bay that a shuttle can land on. With KAS your kerbals can transfer and whatever else rather easily, while at the same time providing some non-automated tasks to use your base for, which make for nice screenies.

Funnily enough, when I started the game it occurred to me that just going straight up wouldn't work (mostly because living less than 5 minutes from Kennedy Space Center for 21 years tends to embed that bit of logic into you) so when my first couple of launches mostly focused on getting as high up as I could first, decoupling my first stage (again, proximity to KSC has taught me about rockets despite never having that much of an interest until after getting into KSP), and then going from there. It actually wasn't that bad of a strategy and I imagine if it weren't for the internet, I'm sure I would have eventually figured out the gravity turn on my own.

Been spending the greater part of the day designing my All Purpose Exploratory Vehicle. It doubles as both a remotely controlled and manned rover depending on need and has the room for any number of experiments, supplies, etc that conform to its height restriction (no taller than the docking port). I plan on using it as the basis for my Duna Mobile Exploratory Laboratory (It will be the first thing I've ever put on another planet) as well as a general work vehicle for my Mun colony. Test runs on Kerbin have proven very promising, as it can maintain its top speed (20m/s IIRC) and turn at those speeds without issue. Has issues with hilly areas (I have to keep it going slow or it will flip over), which I believe my now-installed fully installed RCS thrusters will help compensate for.

Couldn't you achieve basically the same thing (or perhaps drastically outperform it) by simply clustering the engines you'd have on the drop tanks onto the center tank? It'd save you a lot of potential headache when your reverse asparagus system decides to want to go out of control

I don't believe the ISS is designed for that. Now, if they really, really wanted to (or had to for whatever reason), then I'm sure they could do some kind of emergency reconstruction and then put it back together in lunar orbit. Either way though, moving the ISS into a different orbit (very much less an orbit around a different object) would require taking it apart. Either to be constructed into something that could actually deal with teh forces at hand, or to be delivered piece by piece to the Moon to be reconstructed there. The latter is the most realistic option.

Question is, is your "colony" an actual settlement, or just a pile of rovers and crew tanks?

What you should do is legitimately colonize the other planets. Don't just make simple bases. Make actual cities with infrastructure and all that jazz. Get Kerbal Attachment System and you can make roads with fuel lines. Land large habitats and other utilities and connect them via fuel roads. There's no limit to what you can do except your computer refusing to render the thing. But the fun is in seeing how far you can go Good example is the game Moon Tycoon. If you've ever played it (and if you can both find and get it to work, play it. Its one of the better Tycoon games out there, as its basically a less involved version of Sim City, but in space) then you'll see all kind of things you can build on a Moon that are all mostly possibly with the parts you can find in mods, especially when it comes to things like utilities (Get a life support mod and make huge resource plants. Great fields of solar arrays) and industry (Kethane and Interstellar), as well as simple habitats and what not. While you likely won't have all the glamorous super futuristic buildings of Moon Tycoon, you can still pull off the lower tech stuff. This is what I've been doing for my first AAR. Legitimately colonizing the Mun. While I don't want to show my screenies just yet, I've thus far been able to create a fairly large colony (25 kerbal capacity with the capability of 6 months life support without resupply. I'm maintaining a skeleton crew until I have my orbital refinery set up and work out a reusable transport system*) in one of the larger craters on the Equator. Its been fun and it keeps you focused. Unlike the rest of the game where you either need science and a limitation in parts or pure fascination (which can wear off if you play the game a lot) to keep you going, doing something like this gives you a solid goal and schedule to work with. * My idea is a four stop system between Munar surface, my orbital command station (which was constructed out of an old Kerbin space station that was moved to Munar orbit and retrofitted), my Kerbin gateway station (which I use as a pit stop for interplanetary flights) and then Kerbin's surface. I'd use a basic lander for Munar-Orbit transport, a shuttle for inter-station travel (larger payloads and pre-fabricated colony components would use their own transportation tailored to their requirements) and then a reusable (technically) drop pod system for returning to Kerbin's surface.

So lets say hypothetically, I have a command pod I want to land a specific point back on Kerbin. And I want to use a ~30km periapsis to produce a safe reentry. Now, the question is, at what point in my orbit do I lower my periapsis (Let's presume the orbit is more or less equatorial for simplicities sake) so that when I reenter the atmosphere I will land within a particular zone I designate beforehand? I would imagine the answer requires some math or something, but that is beyond my ability. My general "throwing things and seeing what sticks" method has thus far proven ineffective as I have been unable to pinpoint where to do my burn so that my eventual landing is where I want it. My first thought was to create a glider out of my command pod, but this did not prove wise. (though in the name of safety I of course still kept chutes so Jeb did not die in that experiment)

I seem to remember a certain Apollo mission that had just this problem. But yes, what you say is true. However, if you had to I'm sure you could jury rig something to get them working together. The real problem is whether you're doing it here on Earth or in an emergency situation on-board.

Why not Zoidberg?

I use them for hardcore type career saves. That way I can save my Kerbals as I put rockets together. After a while though, they do become pointless as you learn how to build a rocket that won't fall apart on the launch pad, very much less up in the air. Frankly I'm surprised there isn't a mod that introduces the possibility of random equipment failure. Granted, that kind of functionality might not even be present in the game code, but even so. It'd be a nice feature and it'd certainly make escape towers have a real point even after you have solid rocket designs going.

They should really re do it according to the actual experiments. The Goo and Materials experiments make sense when it comes to them losing science if you transmit the data, because the data isn't all there is to those experiments. But temperature or pressure readings? The only reason you should be losing science on those is because of signal degradation (which is silly for numerous reasons). Makes no sense that you'd learn more about temperature or pressure readings by looking at the actual equipment itself.

I believe you should be able to just plop a docking port right on top of the stayputnik. It'd work better if you have one of the flat probe cores though. Also, you don't need to have the Command Pod as the first part you place. You can select the docking port you want and start with that. The reason you can't move your Stayputnik other than where you put it is becuase thats the root part, ie the first part you selected. Start with your docking port and build down.

Give him the Spock treatment.

What on earth is the purpose of such a contraption?!?!

Bringing them back on the scale that Jurrassic Park displays would be dumb. However, bringing certain species back (with a limited and strictly controlled population) wouldn't be, because it would give us direct insight into how these animals behaved, with a degree of accuracy that we don't have just looking at fossils. Hell, just seeing what these creatures actually did look like would be invaluable. For instance, if a T-Rex did actually roar, what does it actually sound like? Its things like that that makes this idea worthwhile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA If you're not familiar with the history of nuclear testing, you will likely have to pick up your jaw at the sheer amount of nuclear tests done in 53 years time. Incidentally, my first post after finally registering. Hurray!