Meecrob

Yeah, think of it as a free engine-out test for when they start flying astronauts. Its also notable that SpaceX's recent failures all seem to be expanding the envelope of known "safe" landing conditions and energies.

Ok, let me start over because you guys keep bringing stuff into this that isn't supposed to be there. To start with, we got a trailer that said "Spring 2020." Then a few months later we got an earnings report that said "Fiscal Year 2021" (not spring 2020) Then we learned they fired their team, hired a new one and moved studios. Now we have PAX East and the date is still Fiscal Year 2021. Forget "Star Theory" forget what the trailer said, forget everything but the fact that they had the perfect opportunity to sneak a delay in and blame it on the administrative issues, but they did not.

My point is that they told us a date...then they fired their team, hired a new one and moved studios. The date is the same. If I wanted to minimize the impact of a delay, I would claim it was due to the team and studio change. They did not do that. I'm not talking about pre-alpha footage or "Spring 2020" from the trailer BEFORE they told us FY2021. Second point. We were literally discussing if KSP2 would be MMO or not. They answered. Obviously they aren't going to reply to us on here. No offense to anyone who posted these things, but a quick look shows we want Early Access, Free KSP2, submarine parts, FTL travel, etc. NONE of these things are even remotely helpful to comment on with regards to development when they are making a space game with near future technology and has a proper publisher and is definitely NOT early access. Give the devs a question that they can answer and maybe they would stop by once in a while. Like is it MMO? Answer: "no" Edited to add: We just had a thread on who would go to PAX and tell Nate to his face that metallic hydrogen isn't metastable. He gave his explanation as to why its in the game. Someone, somewhere is passing some info on to the devs.

There was lots of information, you just have to look for it. For instance, Nate confirmed release date is still FY2021. Yes, this was stated before, but they also set up a whole new studio for KSP 2, and the release date is unchanged. If I was going to delay a game, this would be the perfect opportunity. Another example would be what they said about multiplayer: Nate mentioned that they want to bring the co-op experience to KSP 2 and perhaps even be able to train a friend by flying with them giving pointers in a multiplayer game. We were just discussing on this board if multiplayer would be MMO style like Take 2's bread and butter games or mainly private-servers-with-friends style multiplayer. Its almost like they read these boards!

Cool, good to know. Not sure what you mean by the second sentence though?

Could these new thrusters be a hint that the last booster failed to stick its landing due to the droneship battling currents stronger than its current thrusters could handle? (Or did I miss the update on why that booster failed?)

I'm not sure what you are looking for if literally changing the game engine for a newer version isn't "under-the-hood". Maybe play v1.3.1 or 1.7.3?

1.8 was the version they upgraded to Unity 2019.2, I believe.

I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy idiot or anything, but if I had to store all those aircraft, I'd be leaving all that FOD in the tanks rather than paying employees to work on a plane that is not making money. Then I would make a maintenance card to rectify it later, and store the plane (which is a maintenance task unto itself). And keeping with this thought, if I had the FAA breathing down my neck, I'd like to have some things for them to find (such as FOD) that can be easily rectified, because lets be honest, the FAA is in as much hot water as Boeing and they need to look like they are coming down hard on Boeing with headlines like "FOD Found in Fuel Tanks." Now I know what I just said is probably ridiculous, but I suspect Boeing and the FAA are behind the scenes working together even though publicly they appear at odds, because the real issue here isn't the MAX itself, its the public's confidence that they can get on a plane that works, and if the plane doesn't work, the regulating body never lets you fly on it.

Dude, with the amount of time you've spent complaining about how a 9 year old game is getting a sequel, you could have gotten a job and earned the money to purchase KSP2. [~snip~]

Sounds like you need more lift (more wing area, or higher velocity with same wing area), or less drag (zoom climb to thinner air). Sorry, I'm not an SSTO guy, but I'm pretty sure in KSP, you want to ascend to 10,000-13,000-ish before accelerating past 250-300-ish m/s.

Didn't see this posted yet. They found another software bug on Starliner. https://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-calls-for-reviews-after-second-starliner-software-problem/

A thought just occurred to me - Could they use a set up like @sevenperforce stated above with the engines gimballing outwards, only instead of throttling the engines, they used the gimbals to achieve the same effect? What I mean is that the engines would be gimballed retrograde (or 180*) when at high altitude above the moon and slowly gimbal to 90* (sort of radial out from the lander's perspective) at touchdown. Of course the cosign losses would mean more fuel spent, but the exhaust plume would be near parallel to the surface when the lander is close enough to kick up regolith. I guess my question is what am I overlooking that kills this idea? Gimbals not reliable enough?

Why did you ask then?

I'm not sure calling a fusion reaction for purposes of electrical power generation a "nuclear blast" is accurate. While it is caused by nuclear forces, we are deliberately trying to not create the "blast" part. You're kinda insinuating our current technology in fusion is detonating nukes and scratching our heads. As a layperson, I can easily look at the sun and say that a fusion reaction can be contained with 93 million miles of vacuum, a magnetic field and some ozone. Now someone smarter than me will say "let's make the vacuum smaller and the magnetic field stronger to make it more practical" and we are getting to the ballpark of where we are. Which isn't detonating thermonuclear devices.