Meecrob

Ok, hold on. We are on the cusp of returning humans to the moon, and they are trying to show off their RGB settings? I'm officially old, I guess, if thats what gets the kids into rocketry these days.

Zach from CSI Starbase put out a good video on the detonation suppression system at Boca Chica, as well as a quick overview and contrast of it with the system being installed at the Cape.

Fracking is an endgame stopgap, not an unlimited new source...especially since we are...as the name suggests...hydraulically fracturing the Earth's crust. Honestly, who thought that was a good idea? Maybe if the US didn't screw up its real estate market in 2008, they wouldn't have had to deal with the oil price hike and thus come up with what is basically a cartoon supervillain's idea of oil extraction. "Lets break the planet to prove it to some Saudis!"

I get what you are saying. What I am saying is that Take Two is asking for ROI before making sure the product is good...evidenced by the launcher and no bugfixes other than tutorials. Tutorials are to onboard new players..who haven't encountered the bugs yet. It seems to me that if you force something, it does not come out the best. Edit: as I said before, it sounds like deadline pressure to me...and the deadline is up to take two...who just had a loss this quarter...

I finally agree with you! They didn't make the DLC's for fun...evidence is the bugs in them...sounds like deadline pressure to me. "Give us some ROI, or we will reduce budget." Signed, -totally not Take Two

It's no excuse...terms for KSP1 free DLC was paraphrased to "buy original KSP before this date and you get all DLC." OP clearly did NOT. As I said, go to a car dealership and ask them for a free new car because you bought one of theirs in the past...record the laughter as you exit the place so I can laugh too.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand, or if I'm just getting old...but why would anyone think that because they bought previous products from a company they are entitled to future versions of it. Go try that at a car dealership, or the grocery store or something. Pay money, play the game. You don't get free stuff because you bought stuff before. I don't understand where this idea comes from!

Wait...so we are more than 3 months out from an EA release and you want the devs to start work on FIVE spinoffs? Like do you want KSP2 to not come out at all?

I'm not sure you can "shut down" a single player game that uses local files. Like does Take Two bust into my house and format my hard drive?

I'm thinking they are going to keep the first release as close to KSP 1 as possible so that when we give feedback, they have a "control" to compare it to.

$50 USD? I get that Private Division is antsy for some ROI, but you guys might wanna really emphasize what is gonna be included, because on the surface, this looks like KSP1 v0.21. I mean you guys are promoting multiple launch pads so you can launch with your friends in multiplayer...but thats not being added til later...so why tell us? Focus on why KSP2 is worth $50 at its CURRENT state, please. Edit: Please don't tell me part of my $50 goes into being an unpaid EA user who gets to give feedback.

You are a little defensive and it appears you think I took offense to what you said? I'm not American. I'm just watching from the sidelines. You said in China there already is a nickname, I'm just making a joke based on the well known fact that China has a habit of stealing designs...so clearly China likes the fatties! Edit: CCP has a habit of stealing designs...please understand I am not making a joke about the citizens of China. Anyways I'd die a happy man if at least the USN named the F-35C the Hippo...since the Super Hornet is named the Rhino...to keep with the "non-svelte" theme.

So you are saying that the industrial espionage branch of the CCP is a chubby chaser?

You heard it here first, folks! {snip] All you aeronautical engineers bow down to some guy on the internet. Clearly spaceplanes are stupid, that's why the USSR made one too?

Precisely. The first humans were launched into space on missiles designed to bring nuclear armageddon. I'm simply trying to say that my armchair quarterback take on spaceplanes can turn out vastly different than the evidence we have today...just like how when someone was asked to design a missile to nuke Moscow, they didn't think it was gonna orbit John Glenn.

I know exactly what you are getting at, including why the space shuttle had wings the size it did, but to be totally fair, I don't think cross-range capability has ever been utilized. Although having said that, not a single ICBM has been launched in anger, and they are probably the biggest boon to peaceful spaceflight, As a thought excercise, I am deeply curious to what spaceflight would look like today had the space shuttle never been built. In any case, to keep it on topic, I'm hoping Dreamchaser is successful, if for no other reason than to show the general public that spaceflight can be "routine." SpaceX is doing this also, but your regular person isn't looking at a Falcon 9 first stage and thinking "wow, reusable, just like my car"

I wasn't even considering air-breating engines...thanks for bringing some legitimacy to what is basically a 13 year-olds fantasy!

Mathematically it is inefficient to drag a plane around with you into space but I have to admit, they are sooooo cool!

Well, to be fair, they don't "matter" on the way down either unless you give them angle of attack.

No, that's a great example of why you should turn of the LAS after an abort. It was programmed to fire automatically if it detects inertially a certain deflection from vertical an the earth rotated beyond that parameter. Clearly the Soviets knew the Earth rotates. That example sounds like bureaucracy...and we are led right back to NASA, so maybe I agree with you in a round about way?

This "creation" would still have to be like a dodecacopter to lift that much. I can't imagine the transmission system since in an engine out situation, all rotors are geared together so there is equal (but lesser) lift.

Ok, tractor beams are fine in sci-fi, but in real life are kinda stupid. They still have to impart the same delta v a burn would...why would you bring whatever fuels your tractor beam runs on instead of just bringing fuel? Also Newtons Laws being you'd suck yourself into your target and all that.

Ok, but someone is gonna have to pay for the release mechanism, all related hardware and associated R&D? Or you can send it on one that is already certified. Edit: I missed your solar panels bit...same deal though....who is paying for that? Like I know SpaceX wants to be a bus service as they have done to LEO, but right now, they can't exactly open a profitable line to Earth-Moon L2. Like its not some untapped market nobody can reach, its just not useful for lots of purposes.

In theory, yes, but you still have to certify a new type. Like they aren't sending something like the JWST on an untested, expendable variant "just cuz" the reusable one worked. But In hindsight, they are making the HLS...so maybe? I guess we need to see how big the new satellites are.

My point is that the fact of the matter is that if the US wants a solid propellant ICBM, they get it, regardless of what the civil space program is doing. If you haven't noticed, most civil rockets are adapted from military ones, not the other way around. Edit: just to stop the pedants...yes, recently this is shifting, but when they were developing the SRBs for the space shuttle, they had thousands of solid-fueled missiles pointed at what the US called enemies in the cold war. They were NOT waiting for the STS program to develop solid fuel missiles....same boosters as are on SLS, to keep it on topic.