Shuttle

1.1 feature list, please.

I agree. You need to spend recources to upgrade a space center so if Tier 1 is removed balance in career mode will be ruined. Isn't 5° too much? It looks like it is possible to clip parts into the fuselage using new gizmo system? I still don't understand why you decided to implement destructible buildings. If I want to blow something up, I'll launch Battlefield, destructible buildings simply do not play major role in KSP. You said not all new Mk3 parts would be included in .90. Is there any chance we'll see all new Mk3 models in .90? I don't understand. If you care so much about community feedback, then why do you show your assets at the last moment? It would be more logical to show WIP content in order to gather feedback until it is too late and the only option you have is to start from the blank page.

You can use Windows Enterprise for 270 days, actually. All you need to do is to use slmgr -rearm command. Run command prompt as administrator, type slmgr -rearm, press Enter, reboot. Guide with pictures: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/extend-the-windows-7-trial-from-30-to-120-days/

I have a stupid question. As you can see, two vertical stabilizers are clipped into the fuselage. I guess that if I press and drag the green arrow, I will be able to move them up and down? In other words, it is possible in .90 to select a stabilizer, place it on the fuselage and then clip a stabilizer inside the fuselage using green gizmo?

Nostalgia? Nostalgia.

OK, I have a stupid question. As you can see, two vertical stabilizers are clipped into the fuselage. I guess that if I press and drag the green arrow, I will be able to lift them up? I am asking because all parts in current version of KSP are attached to the connection points or surfaces and you can't clip them into the fuselage.

If Kuznetov say their engines worked fine because they worked fine then that means they are pulling statements out of their ass. To say honestly, I don't understand why they might want to do that because the truth will get out anyway.

YES! I am so glad!! It must be Ukrainian fuel tank then, poor guys

I can't google this statement. Help needed

I made screenshots of this moment, watch them from top to bottom: http://i.imgur.com/dS6979Y.jpg http://i.imgur.com/2ga1NXM.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fKvO2zj.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XZWfhwh.jpg Looks like an explosive bolt (?). Also, as someone has already said, flame color changed a couple of seconds before the explosion: //top to bottom http://i.imgur.com/tPlyvtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/C94SJry.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ZNog7AB.jpg

I am not a rocket scientist but it looks like 100% engine failure to me. Reminded me of the second N1 launch: http://youtu.be/TqUG5NnHlCs?t=5m45s If the engine is indeed the reason of failure, I definitely would like to know if it is an engineering error or fundamental design flaw. Also, how did this engine pass all Aerojet QA?

I think it is an awesome idea! Two new contract types: Ignition test: ignite the engine in certain conditions Max burn time test: burn the engine for 50/110/150 seconds in certain conditions Hm, I've just had a thought: why not to add Max burn time parameter to all engines?

I didn't know about CVEL and Velcro, thank you. Does Velcro have the same physical model as in KSP where physics is calculated for every part of the rocket or it simply welds all parts together and calculates physics for the rocket as a whole? I hope my question is easy to understand, my English is pretty bad.

What?! KSP is still the only game that allows you to build the rocket yourself.

Sorry if repost https://twitter.com/Maxmaps/status/524974197551149056