Racescort666

It is significantly more complicated in the real world than KSP presents but KSP hides the majority of the difficult math behind a fairly simply UI. There are complex topics with complicated mathematics that can be explained intuitively with a few assumptions made:

It’s crazy to think that Buzz Aldrin’s doctorate thesis was on orbital rendezvous and that early in the Gemini program, the astronauts struggled to rendezvous with the target vehicles. Now, we have a game that can teach it to you to the point where it’s intuitive. Welcome aboard!

Also worth noting, they are not included in dV calculations so with the maneuver node tool refusing to show “unachievable orbits”, using them to augment your SRB powered space craft was quite the challenge. https://imgur.com/gallery/rw3Mvfq

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the "KSP doesn't need multiplayer" camp but Elite Dangerous is one of those games where you can play single player, other players doing their thing affect the gameplay, and you wanting to do your own thing has basically zero impact on other players. At the thread at large: I think the thing that is a bit of a struggle for both sides is that there isn't a clear vision for what multiplayer looks like in KSP. If it's "regular KSP but now there are 2+ players doing exactly the same things as solo players," that sounds like it will suck. Frankly, there are a laundry list of reasons why this is a terrible idea, for me it's performance, and that's how I would expect people to grief in that scenario. On the other hand, if it's more like automated save file sharing, i.e. "use this refueling base I set up but you don't actually have to interact with me" or "Mission Challenge: launch this thing" or "Recover this thing" or "resupply this base with X resource/kerbals." That makes more sense to me at least. An arena that's used for mods like BD Armory would make sense to a limited extent but Children of a Dead Earth style space combat still requires TimeWarpTM and I think anything that would be impractical unless it was arena style that moved into something turn based. Again, this would be very tedious to play.

I remember people asking for the option to change PID values in my KSP1 days, did a mod for that ever come up? I think part of the problem is still wobbly rockets. This caused all kinds of problems for me until I just strutted the bajeezus out of everything. Part count gets big fast but at least things are rigid. Something else to note, fine control (default bound to Caps Lock) does not balance RCS. This was one of the first things I tested in KSP2 and I exhaustively tested it in KSP1 (at least as far as whatever version I left off at, 1.2 or 3 maybe)

I think there's a problem with aerodynamic occlusion still. I guess you could call this a bug but for the time being, it is a manageable problem even if it doesn't represent reality the way we'd like. Also, Eve return is an impressive feat. Well done.

The game is an excellent educational tool and the maneuver planning tool is an important part of that. I agree that new players will figure it out and I also feel that the maneuver planner not showing orbits that are unachievable is a step backward in teaching people orbital mechanics. It's also worth noting that there are currently a ton of problems with the dV calculations so you could be locked out of the maneuver tool even if you actually have the dV required.

I haven't read everything yet but I've gotta chime in for this: why are maneuver plans constrained by available fuel? Is it because the new maneuver system accounts for thrust over time? I get that the new system is different than the old system which just assumed an instant injection of dV, this is a spectacular change, but the tool should still show projections even if they aren't achievable. The warning is fine but playing with the maneuver tool to find a workable orbit is a core piece of KSP, even if it is to find out that the orbit you want is unachievable and you need to try again. Personal peeve here: the dV system doesn't account for Sepatrons (only their mass) so if you're adding Sepatrons to a kick stage (like New Horizons) their dV will not be added. It was still fun landing on Eve this way so hooray for that.

Ah, asymmetric aircraft, here's a good one: I'm interested to see what people might come up with for this.

I like the KSP1 color changes to the different conics. That was fairly easy to understand. Maybe having a moving pip or something along the orbit line to show direction of travel.

I humbly submit my mission for stretch goal with my own made up tier: Steely Eyed Missile Man, aka, SRB only mission to Eve. The full album can be found here: https://imgur.com/gallery/rw3Mvfq Some highlights After a few shakedown flights I flew an almost perfect gravity turn. Very proud of how that turned out. Also near perfect amount of DV for an Eve intercept. Have I mentioned how amazing KSP2 looks? This will probably survive after thermal is added so I feel like I'm definitely on stretch tier however, precision is... challenging with only SRBs.

Excellent tip. My save files made it up to 4.9 GB O_o with this bug.

This is happening to me too. *angryface*

Can confirm, I had the same issue but unfortunately my "No CommNet" vessel was in Duna orbit. Cycling the deployable antenna would restore communication but as soon as I undocked the fixed antenna vessel, no comms.

I've been working on the Duna Challenge for this week and I've been trying to do it in somewhat dramatic style like I did the Jool-5 years ago. Anyway, today my save files got suddenly huge and it was taking 10+ minutes to autosave or quicksave. Stuff was flying well individually (aside the wobbly rocket problem) and I hadn't launched anything new today (March 30th) the quicksave from yesterday (March 29th) was from getting my last module into orbit. Over the last 2 days, I had been doing a lot of "Revert to VAB" to work out my wobbly rockets, maybe this has something to do with it? I had quicksaved when I finally got my Duna Ascent Vehicle into orbit and went to clean up some of the debris that was floating around when I accidentally deleted the Duna Ascent Vehicle, oops. I went to bed last night and resumed playing today by just loading the quicksave and the game started running really slow on saves. Edit: I reloaded a previous save to see if I could salvage any of my mission. Most of the stuff was in orbit at qs5 so I was able to make due with what was there and now the save files are back to normal. I have no idea what's going on here. Also, 666th post! Version Info: 0.1.1.0.21572 OS: Windows 10 (10.0.19044) 64bit CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10870H CPU @ 2.20GHz (16) RAM: 32530 GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU (16191MB) Description: suddenly my save files got huge. How to replicate: not sure, I haven't wanted to loose my progress on my Duna mission but it might be lost now Steps to replicate: I guess I'll try flying some huge ships in the future Fixes/Workarounds: I loaded a previous save and now the file size is back to normal Mods: None Screen shot of save file folder Duna Transfer Vehicle with the DAV attached. I haven't checked how many parts but the DAV was 238 parts with the booster so the whole assembly below is probably around 300 parts.

@Draradech @Bej Kerman @JoeSchmuckatelliIt is also worth noting that there is a bug where the burn timer is reset when switching between map and vessel views. I've been experiencing this as well. Also, I would like to throw my hat in the ring as one of those people who likes to execute burns with scalpel precision but I don't think KSP2 is at a maturity level that can support that yet.

This was hands down one of the best articles I’ve read, thanks for sharing. Boeing is certainly not innocent in either of these matters but considering that the first level of management Boeing Defense, Space, and Security has in common with Boeing Commercial Airplanes is David Calhoun, the CEO, I think it’s unfair to wrap the 737MAX issues into the Starliner issues.

I thought this was a KSP joke so I laughed. Then I realized it probably wasn’t...

I know they describe asteroids as "rubble piles" but these high res pictures with OSIRIS-REx overlaid really puts it into perspective. It's literally a pile of rocks bound by gravity.

Not to worry, it’s got nothing on a Minotaur-C launch:

Following the lineage of Centaur/ACES, it looks like it falls on the Lockheed Martin side of ULA. I can’t really tell what’s new about ACES besides IVF and maybe better insulation? Maybe I imagined it but I was under the impression that they were going to flight test IVF on Centaur before ACES becomes operational. I just don’t see how ACES is a new stage rather than just a new evolution of a Centaur. Then again, I still think of Vulcan as Atlas 6 in much the same way.

Our typical knowledge says that the launch vehicle is the majority of the cost (although with the transparency we’ve seen lately that really isn’t the case) but seeing as how starliner and SN both launch on an Atlas V you would think that their costs would be less. Especially Sierra Nevada being a non-traditional and Boeing being traditional.

This ^ Government projects are NOTORIOUS for scope creep and going over budget. Changing the plan in the planning stage is fast, cheap, and relatively painless. Changing the plan just before delivery causes delays, budget overruns, and is generally just horrible. Scope creep is the bane of engineering.

Does the canadarm have a camera on it? ISS selfie-stick?