HenryBlatbugIII

Which version of windows are you on? In Windows 10 settings/accessibility/keyboard there's a checkbox to turn of the "Shift five times" shortcut. On Windows 7 or 8 you might have to click on the "set up sticky keys" link in order to turn off the "shift five times" shortcut. (I have no experience with Windows 11.)

My point is that we have just as much evidence for that conversion factor as we do for the factor of 1U=150 kJ. You need to compare this calculation to other measurements (maybe the energy storage per volume in a battery, or the output of a solar panel, or the power requirements of an ion engine or even a lamp) before you can claim there's any kind of physics or chemistry mistake. (But you're right that you didn't make the kW=kJ mistake. I misread your first sentence as "electric charge unit" since "electric power unit" isn't displayed anywhere in-game.)

Isn't your entire argument here based on your assumption that "I think [1 unit of EC] is approx. 1 kW kJ"? Leaving aside the fact that a kW is a unit of energy per second and not a unit of total stored energy (I think you meant kJ?), you haven't presented any evidence for that conversion rate. You could estimate the conversion rate of EC to Joules by looking at the ion engines (or the solar panels, but I think that requires more assumptions). (Of course, you might still find that all the numbers are tuned for gameplay purposes rather than for physical realism.)

Yeah, it looks like that's what's intended, but from looking at the image in the OP, it's clearly wrong. 2A and 2B (Dres' position at closest approaches) are shown just behind Dres' current position, but with the orbits shown on the screen they should be near 1A and 1B. It looks to me like the points of closest approach are being calculated on a different orbit than we expect. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that 2A and 2B are pretty close to where Dres will be when the ship is at 1A and 1B on its second orbit.

Here's a recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Oc0y60B1g The life support question is at 46:48, and the answer really is "We made a determination that, at least in the short term, the addition of life support won't enhance gameplay all that much for most players. Obviously a lot of people have a lot of fun with life support mods in KSP1, once again we're hoping that once moddability is easier, that segment of the player base can be served in that way.". Edit: There's also a transcript here, but many of the answers in the transcript are summarized rather than verbatim.

I haven't bought it yet, and I don't plan to until it looks like a game I'd want to play. I'm keeping up with the news to see when the game reaches that point, and I'm hopeful that it will happen after the Science, Colonies, or Resources updates.

It's not a cheat, it's a Space Elevator! (Assuming you can set it to a keostationary orbit height of 2.8 Mm.)

KSP 2.0: Clear and understandable, exactly two versions. KSP2 1.0: The clear winner, since twenty-one versions is over ten times as good as the other one. (My day job is programming a simulation using GEANT4 10.7)

Yeah, life support will definitely be modded in at some point. However, I'm definitely disappointed that they aren't going to be including it in the base game, especially after it was explicitly mentioned in the Early Access release announcement (~10:45 in this video). I'd prefer a well-integrated and balanced system rather than sorting through dozens of mods looking for one with good quality and the "right" complexity level. Just a Snacks resource would be enough for stock, letting people mod in air, radiation, sanity, etc. if they want them. I only want a reason (other than roleplaying) to bring more than a 1-seat pod on a long mission.

1. "Bulky" only matters if you're in an atmosphere. If you're launching from Kerbin maybe a nuclear engine is a bad idea, but in a vacuum you only need to care about the mass rather than the volume. 2. The nuclear engine has a higher mass but also a higher Isp. Therefore, the nuclear rocket will be heavier if you're building for a small amount of dV but lighter if you're building for a large amount of dV. (I don't have the stats in front of me right now to calculate the changeover point.) 3. This is speculation, but once resource harvesting is added I wouldn't be surprised if Hydrogen is easier to harvest than Methalox. It's definitely not a strict upgrade from the Terrier, but it does have its uses.

Simple: Their spacesuit helmets aren't made of metal and hard plastic; they're more balloon-like. The small hatch proves that this is canon and no one can convince me otherwise. Do you have "maximum debris count" set to zero? Kerbals count as debris in this build. (See bug report below.)

Unfortunately, that won't work. The entire point of patched conics is that, as long as you're only affected by one body at a time, the orbits are conic sections. Therefore, they're easily calculable (by both the simulation and the players) and long-term stable. As soon as you add another gravitational body, you've given up both of those benefits (and gained others, like the Lagrange points you mentioned). In terms of computational load and ease of gameplay, that three-body approach is much closer to a full n-body approach than to the patched conics system. Edit: oops, ninja'd

What makes you so confident that the isotopic ratio on Kerbin is the same as the ratio on Earth, despite the fact that it's different by up to a factor of 100 between Earth and Luna?

I'm looking forward to playing with the colonies, specifically building rockets off-world. If I can launch from a planet without an atmosphere (or construct ships in orbit) I can make creatively (read: stupidly)-shaped rockets without worrying about aerodynamics.

I have no interest in a sandbox mode with missing features, so definitely not day 1. On the other hand, I also have no interest in multiplayer, so I'll probably get it after the important features are finished but before 1.0. I just hope I can keep up with reviews and feedback while avoiding spoilers for things I'd rather discover for myself.