basic.syntax

NASA wants to cut travel time to Mars “in half†with new propulsion tech Ion thrusters, nuclear rockets, and other in-space propulsion tech being looked at.

Film and TV designs are focused on production costs first, dramatic visuals a close second, and explaining how it works, some time later.

My bad... very, very bad. I based that on a memory of a quote from one of the "prime continuity" designers, that I didn't have in front of me, I should have checked up on that old memory before posting. Which was itself based on one of the first released images, a low-angle shot. Rick Sternback took back his words, when reboot-redesigner Ryan Church explained the problem Sternbach thought he saw, was due to the viewing angle. Full story here. Note to self: don't write bad words about things when you don't know what you're talking about. I have now read a ton of articles to catch up on what I was missing. This site goes overboard, exhaustive detail: Star Trek Ship Design Guidelines New (2009) Enterprise Design criticism

The Star Trek "reboot" Enterprise design. I'm OK with the glass and chrome inside, but... they broke a long convention, by lowering the warp nacelles to the same level as the primary saucer, taking away their line of sight to space ahead, obscuring the "Bussard Collectors" magical ability to collect... energetic particles, or whatever it is they are supposed to be collecting. And yes, spindly pylons... they were visually beefed up, from the original series, to the movie versions.

Mission of Gravity is a classic in the field of hard SF. Hal Clement put a ton of thought into creating believable world, and alien creatures to inhabit that world. I have a sort of omnibus edition of that work, called "Heavy Planet" - which bundles a sequel story.

I like the slightly bent style of humor, and that trailer evokes their style, awesomely. Visual jokes in every frame. But, I never played Fallout 3. Something about its attitude of gratuitous violence put me off. I've played all kinds of shooters and done plenty of virtual violence, but the bar just keeps going up. I saw a behind the scenes Fallout 3 trailer, where the developers were showing off the nailgun. "Look - you can actually nail a guy's head to the wall!!" (implying "ain't that the greatest thing!") No thanks.

I agree that the word "cost estimate" is a problem in regards these massive programs. But the Shuttle (which wasn't cheap, as you say) did get close to a twice a month schedule, and it had a mission at the time - putting up the ISS. Launches were becoming routine enough, that they no longer led network news programs. Unfortunately, twice a month proved unrealistic... Challenger happened.I don't really know what to do with SLS, either. Robotic exploration is becoming so very good at traipsing across endless landscapes for months... years, at a time. NASA is well aware of the phrase "flags and footprints."

No, Max doesn't say that exactly. But when I take HarvesteR's statement from the original devnote into account, my conclusion is he designed the system with full control of separation options in mind. Then, they (probably a team decision) chose one separation method.

It was neither, they made a choice to release fairings, with this separation option. (I didn't have a problem with it. Also, Claw's quiet, unassuming "fix," bundled with a lot of other goodness, has been out for some time. Claw's version does not merge all horizontal panels into one vertical section, like this mod. So you can specify "2 or more" vertical sections, but each vertical section breaks apart along its horizontal panel lines.) **Squad has not announced what will be in the 1.0.3 patch. So, the fairing option you want may be in there, or, reserved for the Unity 5 major upgrade, v1.1. We just have to wait a couple weeks now to see what 1.0.3 brings. In the meantime, this and Claw's mods have made some folks happy.

I've got one asking for rescue out near the orbit of Eeloo. He's still waiting. I'm afraid to talk to him. Our last convo showed the beginnings of some irritation

This GC issue is much better for me in 1.0, I rarely notice it now. That means, I do notice it from time to time, but its rare. I'm running Stock + Claw's fixes, 25 flights, 30 debris. It made building craft in .90 a chore & I would usually restart KSP, to clear it out for a while.

While you can't strut FROM the fairing base, I have strutted TO the fairing base, and strut links seem to stick there. (Engine nozzles work the same way.)

You are stuck with engines inside a stock fairing being disabled, by design. Stock fairings don't make solid interstage fairings, because they don't make a top node. While you can't strut FROM the fairing base, I have strutted TO the fairing base, and strut links seem to stick there. (Engine nozzles work the same way.)

This article on Ars Technica, which is based on a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal, digs into recent studies attempting to discover evidence of the effects of gravity at the quantum physics scale.

I think collision geometry could use some adjusting, especially inside the 2.5m version. Objects placed too close to the inside side walls may interfere with the doors, at any time, doors open or closed. Top-down view showing areas to avoid. Normal view of same service bay.

Something must have been added or changed, that led to this problem.In typical run on my stock installation, task manager shows KSP using 2.2 - 2.5 GB. That doesn't leave much for a 'modern' OS to work with, when facing a 3GB hard limit. To have a chance at running smoothly, every non-essential process and service should be shut down. Go through task manager, the details tab, and note all the processes running under your user name. See what can be closed during your KSP time. Look through the list owned by SYSTEM for driver accessories, updaters, stuff that is only needed at specific times, and consider un-installing some of it.

I've tried to reproduce missing heat shield fairing problem, with simple scenario of mk1 command pod, 1.25m shield, TR-18A decoupler, and FL-T400 tank for those to sit on. Switched several times between launchpad and space center scene, then back to VAB and out to space center scene to reload original craft at Launchpad. No problems seen. I've not added any mod parts or textures to my KSP. WalkingShadow89 - are you running KSP on Mac OSX? I ask, because steve_v made a post elsewhere suggesting he runs KSP on OSX. If not OSX, I also wonder if it is a low memory situation, are "lots of mods" are being used?

While I feel for OSX users who still have problems, they did fix problems between .90 and 1.0, that I notice as a Windows user. The worst was a memory leak during scene changes. In .90 I could not go from the Launchpad back to the VAB to make a craft change... 20 times in a row, without a crash ending my game session.

The most important long-form info comes to the forums. But if you are prepared to wade through not-KSP personal postings, some tidbits may leak out through KSP producer Maxmaps twitter account, and Reddit.

Mu spoke with some excitement about performance gains expected with the rewrite of the UI; ditching 3 UI systems, in favor of the one Unity 5 provides. I would imagine (does not know for certain) each of the 3 UI systems would be running in their own thread, so removing threads that could be updating / refreshing UI elements on screen, ought to help in some small way. If the UI performance hit could be tested by simply turning the UI display off with F2, that could be a benchmark. (Again, I don't know for certain, UI threads could still be taking CPU cycles in the background.) Our expectations grow to absorb and crush any advancement. I'm not saying "don't try to make KSP perform better." Just pointing out that if tomorrow KSP allowed every craft that gives us problems today, to work flawlessly at 30FPS, we would start adding stuff; make a bigger space station or whatever, until we found the new limit

I wouldn't object to entirely new parts coming into the Stock experience, to provide some new tech, but I wouldn't spread current parts into more tech nodes. Just look at the reverse side of the equation, and try a global science nerf (new career game, advanced setup option.) Biomes aren't "paying off" as well for me, the MPL's are useful. I think the global science multiplier is what needs adjusting downward, not the MPL.

I agree collision geometry could use some adjusting, especially inside the 2.5m version. But I have no problem with the design and art style. They have a low-key look that says "stock part" to me. I don't have a problem with not being able to use them as bottom part on crafts, with x4 symmetry. But the idea of an alternate part with 4 smaller doors allowing stuff to be placed outside in x4 symmetry, does sound interesting. In the past week I spent some time fitting parts into a 2.5m service bay, going back and forth to the Launchpad, to test object positions, until the doors would open/close absolutely smoothly. Once I figured out how close to the edges I could get without a door problem, I had no more problem 1. If an object is attached to the side/outside, and it intrudes too much "inside" - it's considered stowed. 2. Objects mounted inside to the top or bottom, which extend too far outside the service bay's exterior and into other attached parts, may lead to problems. 3. Objects placed too close to the inside side walls may interfere with the doors, at any time, doors open or closed. Potentially leading to craft break-up, as noted in other threads and reports. Work-around: For best object placement results, draw a mental box, with each door hinge at its corner, and don't let objects go outside the lines. Example pix linked below; I don't have any problem with this layout. Top-down view showing areas to avoid. Normal view of same service bay.

If KSP gets to the point that they can afford ads on real rockets... (shudder)

SciMan, this is (one of) the main threads discussing Unity 5. You might find some tidbits in it. Although, you are probably ahead of it, if reading on Unity forums

I nerfed my game at the start, custom difficulty of 40% science returns. This makes MPL more useful and encourages distant exploration. This is the main thread discussing MPL.