ZooNamedGames

Oh since the latter is what I’m after.

I hope that's the case that allowing for custom nozzle angling would be feasible in 1.8- but I'd accept alternatives if that's not feasible.

That would be interesting but hopefully we can move past the fixed motor era of SRBs. With KSP2 coming out, its clear KSP is meant for at least a modern era of rocketry. No reason for us to be stuck with 1960s era boosters- though perfectly acceptable for era career (would actually break the balance of the game). But I would really like A5 style SRBs that can gimbal. At least angle the nozzles or something. Its late in development for this latest update so I can only hope they see this and plug it in last second.

You sir do amazing work, but I like to play stock so I can share craft indiscriminately but full props for your work for this community.

I was admiring the new SRB parts Squad have released when I came to the realization that they could use free angleable nozzles so we can have our own AJ-60 rocket motors as we famously see with the Atlas V with their angled nozzles. Granted this late in development of the update I think it may be easier (and more realistic for development regardless of the update’s progress)- to just have the parts have high gimbal range so that players can have the gimbal at any degree without needing to prechoose which angle the player wants. Although I would probably make an “advanced” version of each engine (under the alternate appearance selection that applies to the mk2 lander can and its rover/lander variants). The normal version wouldn’t have the high gimbal, the “advanced” version would and would have the expected increase in cost.... if that’s doable using the alternate part appearance systems. Maybe cost change isn’t practical but I’m sure if Squad were to seriously invest time into this suggestion, they could find a way to make the “advanced” version more costly or at least warranting of either a whole new part of finding a way to make it work within all one part. Another one of my insane ideas though. Maybe I have a good idea or not. I don’t know, you let me know.

For me, it'd be the abandoning of general rocketry. I find that to be a massive part of modern rocketry and what should be the heart of the game. Though rewarding players with use of more advanced technology doesn't hurt either but when you've got a sandbox game- any combustion engine rocket is going to seem childish in comparison to a Orion drive or other near future technology. Instead locking them off by collecting key resources to make them and fuel them is a great alternative without breaking the balance of stock rocket components- but I also fear that they'll give us rocket parts and leave them as is- no expansion, no development.

Maybe a good idea for a mod. Though yes players could fly them in real life- those who live in cities or whatnot might not be able to here.

I can attest to this. If no one told me there was a hurricane, I would've thought we merely had a wet and windy day. No damage done.

I was sitting around thinking about how Squad could improve the career and in the process, I came up with two new DLC ideas (or future update focuses as well as the titles) for Squad to use. The DLC or future update ideas being called "Scientific Breakthrough" and "Contractual Obligations" (the later name is a bit weak admittedly). Focusing on improving the scientific tech tree and the career systems respectively. The first idea- Scientific Breakthough- would add actual research at the Research and Development Center- as well as offer improved stats to parts (the upgrade system can be lifted from my old Implementing Upgrades post). However research could be done, allowing players to see how their craft interact with the wind in various attitudes, the numbers behind those calculations (for those savvy enough to know what they mean, though tooltips could make it quite easy to understand). As well as simulated landscapes for rovers to experiment and rove around in. Outside of the RnD center- Kerbals could be more involved with the science collection process, with UIs popping up directing you to find specific surface samples or find a signal by pinging it's location and giving you a direction to head. Or pressing the A & D keys back and forth to set in a drill to get a subsurface sample. Science equipment being able to collect 'idle' science (we continue to collect science from Apollo hardware long after we left). I would also allow for an ingame tech tree creator. Though there are mods to create your own, they are locked to those who know how to use Notepad++. "But Zoo it's easy!" Yes but I struggle getting Excel to work, much less multiple lines of code and all that. Ingame would make it much easier, and offer many more options. My second idea was Contractual Obligations- again, the name is a bit weak so suggestions wouldn't hurt any- Since the tech tree would be improved with the prior idea- this idea would focus on improving the contract system and offer more ways to utilize KSP's engineering challenges. Firstly, contracts would be fleshed out- more purpose and long term goals. Progressive mission trees- go into orbit, now go into higher orbit, longer duration missions (while doing stuff like science at X time, etc) (mirroring early spaceflight with Mercury)- then in orbit operations (mirroring Gemini)- send 2 crew to orbit, etc etc. With the second part of this idea- being the craft component creation. Akin to real rocketry- ULA cannot design both the booster and the payload, and inversely the payload cannot build the rocket. So this suggestion would provide players a booster, or a fairing size and tell the player to make a payload or a booster with X,Y,Z specs. If designing a payload, then players can decide if they want to operate the vehicle once deployed or inversely players can decide if they want to launch the booster they've made. Akin to the existing contract system- if a player actually operates a sim, then they must meet parameters set by the contract to get the additional reward. Just a few ideas I had. Been sitting on this for a few weeks and just now had the time to post this.

And you too my fellow Floridian friend!

Predicted to become Cat 4 by landfall. Slated for arrival on Tuesday/Wednesday. Oh and photo is from GOES -East Full Color CONUS.

Up to 4 from what I’m hearing from local news sources (Floridian here). Damage wise to NASA- it ought to be pretty small. Most of the fixed equipment that will handle the forces of the storm are built to handle them. So they might lose a few placards or loose panels, but buy in large will be intact. More sensitive equipment will be stored- stuff like the SLS hardware will be stored in the VAB which has handled like 30... maybe 40 hurricanes just fine. Lost a few external wall panels in Katrina but came out just fine.

Well unlike most- I have a bunch of animals that I need to relocate into our house for safety. So it's more than just securing yard stuff sadly.

I was wondering what they were going to do with the SLS stuff.

Also I haven't a clue what the person did for half of the video. Pure magic. No idea how, or why. So furthering my point of why an ingame planet editor would be a lot better than opening up Google and having to copy paste a dozen of images to start.

This is not how I wanted to spend my first holiday off from school. Preparing for a hurricane. Just my luck.

Thank you for proving my point. I don't have Adobe Photoshop, and even if I did, I don't know how to use it.So I have to learn how to use it, and then continue to the troubleshooting I mentioned before to get it to work.

It's likely avionics and scientific equipment. Those parts are expensive. Yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars- each. With a dozen or more- that quickly adds up to over a million or 2 for the spacecraft's avionics and science equipment alone. And likely, each one of those are being removed to be kept in a precise environment to not trigger false positives or ruin the equipment's ability to function. Since for some that function based off of (for example) the overall ionic charge of the environment it's stored in. Of course I'm speaking in general- and not just for EC. So bear that in mind with my comment.

Well if there isn’t life then we waste nearly all of our supply on one moon instead of investigating other planets and moons like Europa. I personally don’t support putting all of our eggs into one basket.

1) You’d still need money for SHLVs so the money would still be spent and since SHLVs are extremely expensive the expanse is unavoidable. Though others may argue the level of expense I’m not focusing on that and I’ll let others are those points. 2) SLS is about manned exploration. We want to eventually leave earth so we’re developing bigger and more advanced vehicles to go further than ever before- and though the moon isn’t a new destination yet- it’s only fair to point out that we haven’t left LEO in over 50 years. Technology, manufacturing, procedures, hell basic methodology and ethics on the matter has changed (we now let more than just one race of one gender, to fly to the moon). So we aren’t ready for Mars if we can’t make it on the moon. Hence why it’s a pit stop for NASA rather than a final destination. Hell even Mars isn’t- NASA undoubtedly has plans for other planets- we already know of Venusian airships. 3) Titan is cool but not cool enough for 50 manned dragonflies- and we likely couldn’t run such a mission due to the difficulties of procuring and utilizing enough RTGs to fuel such a mission. Even if we could find enough- NASA would like to explore others places too. 4) SLS will the earliest available SHLV that NASA will actively use. Starship might be scheduling its first orbital flight (perpetually stuck in limbo as is SpaceX’s ways- did SpaceX ever unveil its “updated” design of Starship?). Vulcan will be flying and manrated but not certified for crewed flight- nor will New Glenn (is it even being manufactured yet?), meaning if we want to leave LEO as fast as possible- SLS is the fastest route and though some may mention other routes may be faster if we had taken them in 2000/2010/2015/etc- we can't change the past so the best way forward is to accept that SLS is the only vehicle actually built and ready to fly that’s a SHLV and acceptably certified for manned flight. Though I know people here will argue this.

Ones likely more of a shape test using whatever materials was in hardware stores- the other has likely accurate/correct mounting points manufacturing and materials. Just lacking flight hardware. Also depending on your source- that can be easier than it appears. Such as submarine yards, aircraft fuselage manufacturers, or as SpaceX proved, water tank manufacturers.

And can Vulcan match SLS? I’m not really factoring in NG since they haven’t even begun production (last I heard at least- I hope they’ve finally started). Even once both fly akin to Starliner, it’ll be a while, maybe a decade before they’re considered man rated by NASA- who will be the one operating these vehicles. A big issue with EOR missions is that is extends required life support- which for such a long duration mission like going to the moon is a huge hit to its ability. What even is D2’s LS limit? Star liner? Orion? It takes a day just to get to the ISS. Which requires an additional day just to reach the vehicle, and additional time for your approach, alignment and then final docking. Then then time spent station keeping and preparing for the burn you would’ve done more than a day prior- if you didn’t stick around in LEO. Also you claim SLS doesn’t have payloads in a later post but SLS has had payloads. Webb Telescope originally was a SLS payload. SLS also was going to launch an asteroid collection and return spacecraft to support the ARM program- but since NASA’s focused on SLS and Orion- they haven’t had much funds to spend on payloads. Besides- no LV means nothing that they can launch anyway. It’s easier to make a payload than a brand new SHLV. So once it’s flying, other payloads can (comparatively) be built quickly.

Don’t press your luck. I intentionally kept it short.

https://imgur.com/a/laM3O6r “The sky is empty!!” To OP’s credit- when there was a power outage in LA (or was it New York?)- residents phoned in to the police reporting a bright white blob in the night sky- that ‘blob’ in fact being the Milky Way. Something those residents had never had the chance to see before despite being fully grown adults. So some people’s misunderstanding of the nights sky is understandable.

Issue is SLS is man rated the moon. The only other comparable vehicle will (eventually) be SS/BFR and if it gets clustered with litigation, regulation and testing- it will leave SLS a long window before NASA will seriously consider it. Assuming SLS is a money gravy train- those backing the gravy train will be for delaying any competition that would ruin the gravy.