Meecrob

Redundant.

Chances are the closure was specificated on the basis of static fire as opposed to flight. Different clearances are required.

He's gonna have to pick one though... NASA was "supportive" of commercial crew after all and we all saw how on-time that was due to funding.

Queen of the Nürburgring, Sabine Schmitz.

Methamphetamine has also been exceedingly popular over the last ten years. Doesn't mean you should try it. KSP is a game that is popular precisely because it did not just blatantly rip off what is popular. I would, however, pay good money to see the Devs make a rick roll video of Kerbals punching trees and rocks just to see the reaction.

THIS!!! These cosmonaut conspiracies reek of "ok, the Soviets got to space first, but they screwed up, so we're even"

"Who's ready for two fully stacked boosters?!" SLS sure isn't Seriously though, at least there is some quantifiable progress.

I'm thinking along the lines of combining all those things actually are two parts, not zero parts. A hydraulic actuator with shock absorbing capability is inherently heavier and not as optimal. My thought is make shock absorbers just do shock absorption, and have a mechanical gear extend mechanism, simply because weight is clearly an objective and we have been doing this for like 100 years. There is a reason planes do not have triple hydraulic actuators as opposed to two fixed posts and one hydraulic actuator. I hate to relate it to planes though. I know its a different regime, but I feel that weight is the exact reason the gear sucks so much on starship right now. Actually I think I just outed myself there, I think the gear sucks! haha. With reference to my idea of ratcheting, what say you of that...the logic would be basically weight dependant and "amount of legs touched down" dependant. Set up a sawtooth array of metal and have an electromagnet be the interference to stop travel. The actual gear though....I spent my brainpower thinking of this part...just like likes on this forum, I spread myself too thin haha

I hate to be a downer, but that looks absolutely massive! I suspect the final design will be much closer to aircraft landing gear with minimal actuators (amount in total, as well as size of) and a lot more straight pieces of metal with control horns on them. I also suspect the auto-levelling feature will involve a ratcheting design as opposed to active hydraulic control. Edited to add: No, I do sound like a downer...seriously man, I love that you toss your ideas out there!

I think they are suggesting that they "allowed" the situation to develop to detonation, rather than use a termination system that is designed to be used at altitude. In other words, this situation is not what FTS is designed for, so its entirely logical that it wasn't used.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think that achievements for things that are literally required to progress in the game are kinda patronizing. I think they should be reserved for unique ways of accomplishing tasks like how it was when they were first introduced to games. For example: an achievement for a Mun fly-by is really really lame, but an achievement for a fly-by of Mun from a gravity-assist of Minmus, or fly-by of Mun without orbiting Kerbin first give you a reward for trying something a bit more complex and not the "correct" way.

I'm not sure of your exact scenario, but there are ways you can prevent this from happening. For example when I go somewhere new, I usually bring a lander and two relay satellites. I plot the intercept as normal, but at 1/4 distance to intercept, I decouple one relay sat and do a course correction burn. At the halfway point I decouple the second sat and burn, and at 3/4 I do the burn for the lander. Even if the burns are small, the large distance travelled at different speeds will spread out the arrival times.

The only point is to appease people who want to play it NOW!!! And anyone who has ever experienced something great knows that you should probably just wait for it to ripen. You can't force it.

I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. I can see what you are getting at, but your solution kinda removes the fun for some players. To be honest, it moves the game closer to "arcade" playstyle. I want to tell the game what I want to do, not ask the game to let me do something.

Wow, this is eye-opening. I honestly did not consider this. I wonder if game publishers do? It seems to me an easy way to cut down on piracy by adjusting the price to local economics. Edited to add: I feel like a jerk now because I said in a different thread that I would (not seriously) pay $1000 dollars for KSP2 assuming it was at least as good as KSP1 based on my dollar to hours of enjoyment ratio. I had no idea people literally had to spend that much just to try it out!

Personally, this reply is the most encouraging tidbit yet about KSP2. I cringe reading all the posts asking for a(n admittedly cool) feature that will only be noticed (let alone used) by a tiny fraction of the player base. I've been rooting for a sort of parallel to MSFS with regards to a solid base provided by you for us players to build upon, and this is very promising. [Quote: @MechBFP] The main issue I have with RCS thrusters is that since they cause thrust, and not just rotation (in practice since placing absolutely perfect RCS thrusters on a craft is not easy), they always mess up your maneuver nodes to interplanetary destinations if you use them to rotate to the maneuver marker. So then you have to plan another node closer to the target to correct for that error to get the encounter gain, and if you use RCS again, then it introduces more error that you have to correct for AGAIN even closer to the target. [/Quote] (I know the tags don't work, shut up) Wait, but isn't that how it works in real life? Ask anyone who plays a string instrument and this exact phenomenon is daily life of tuning the instrument. You know your second move will throw your first one out of whack, so you overcompensate on the first one so the second one brings it back to what you desire.

So the forum was timing out for me a while ago...did it crash from all the DM's you just got asking to piggyback?

This sounds an awful lot like an external system like GPS so maybe only available after you place a certain amount of satellites with the correct antennae around the target body?

I'm not sure that they need to lower the payload/increase header tank size, etc. because this is a test program. There is a goal that they are working towards, and they aren't going to sacrifice performance as a first option. There is no time limit like there was with Apollo, but even so, when Saturn V had issues with F-1, they didn't say "ok, lets only take 2 to the Moon", they fixed the issues with the engines. Unless they hit a brick wall with regards to fuel system development, why would they give up so early?

Why are you putting all your stuff in rocket exhaust?

But 118+ years ago (because clearly we knew how to fly in 1921), we could look up and see birds flying around, so we knew it was a matter of research and development of observable phenomena. We do not observe matter moving superluminally. You are, in essence, trying to get us to prove a negative.

You might be missing the point of why most people play KSP.

Also the engines don't like fluctuating/different pressures on the windward side vs leeward side. Even if they didn't mind, the data gained will not necessarily be applicable since you wouldn't be launching in those conditions anyways.

Given how advanced the Raptor is, I would call [nonsense] if they didn't have any issues during development. It also seems the issues cropping up have not led to any major re-designs, which is very promising.

Careful, you are comparing an A320 to an A321. You can tell by the cargo door position and over wing exit. The 321 is the only one of the family to have double slotted flaps whether CEO or NEO and has to do with it using 320 wings on a plane that is much heavier than a 320.