Sky_walker

I don't. You need to fly ships that rely on gimbals differently than these with RCS or reaction wheels, never the less - gimbals work just fine. Don't look at the game from purely subjective perspective. Especially when you try to talk about balance. Noone will balance the game especially for you It doesn't lay in line with other engines from it's group. And there's absolutely no reason to have such a high Isp for an engine that's basically made for probes / landers.

450? Wouldn't it make it one of the best engines in a game? It doesn't make any sense from a logical point of view. Poodle main advantage is in it's large gimbal range. If anything - I'd welcome slight increase in vacuum Isp for a decrease of atmospheric Isp, but nothing radical. IMHO a good way to balance it would be by giving a 10 degree gimbal range or something around that - it'd make Poodle an outstanding engine for landers. You could forget about SLS or RCS modules on these.

They'd probably have to make a one huge run through all of the parts to ensure that mass and density are a things that make some logical sense. I wouldn't get my hopes up when it comes to that. They can always blame it on a cartoon stylization and ignore it completely.

I left my on an orbit. Got a plan to build a space station there, eventually, but... it's just a sandbox mode, so I can't be bothered. I plan to capture one asteroid in 0.24 campaign run and then have a proper station build around it

1) Don't watch spoilers 2) Don't use mods with exception of these improving visuals 3) No Kerbanaut left behind.

I refuse to watch it. Don't want any spoilers... So... the release is tomorrow? Or a day after tomorrow? hehe

Let me quote NASA: (the Nation being USA) They have no interest in allowing random forum members of a random game a free launch of the satellite. And besides - what exactly this satellite is suppose to do besides showing off your epeen?

Yep. Good idea in deed. As for not being able to track the sun - I'm not a big fan of that - if anything: It should exist as a separate (cheaper and a bit lighter) item line.

This. (10 char)

Damage effects are not destruction effects. Also note that wiki doesn't have any quote to support that, so it might be just as well pure imagination (that it'll be implemented) from whoever wrote it.

We're launching rockets with nuclear engines, and you're worried about RTGs. lol

Good luck with that. I already see them willingly donating space and tonnage to some random forum members of a random game. lol

Define "reworked". But... probably yes. Though I think that what he wanted to point out is that there most likely won't be any new Mk parts. Just a changes and fixes to the existing parts.

Depends on an angle, but with a bit of luck: It'll only accelerate orbital decay. Collisions are nowhere near dangerous as using explosives (which can accelerate fragments to much higher orbits) from ASAT weapons as missile flies from the earth, so it hits the satellite bottom-rear (in relation to earth) creating potentially VERY dangerous cloud of derbies, some of which might be pushed to a very long term orbits. However this kind of collision from a space debris or another satellite / dumped module is extremely unlikely. You worry too much. Real life is not KSP.

Not "somewhat" - by far cheaper. AFAIK detailed split of ISS operation from any agency cost isn't available to public, but to give you rough idea: Out of US $100b contribution $50b went into space shuttle launches. This means that Space Shuttles alone account for 1/3 of ISS construction cost and they're very expensive by a standards of today ($18k/kg vs $10k/kg in Ariane V vs $4k/kg in Falcon) In FY2012 NASA budget for ISS was $2.7b, and NASA did not send ANY new modules to the ISS in that year (First US module was attached in 1998, so you might try to do some extremely rough estimations of how much did the ISS operation cost in 14 years without the expense on a new modules and launchers) Modules themselves.... good comparison for your commercial station would be ESA Columbus module - it's nearly fully autonomous and comes with heavy shielding due to it's position in ISS high debris risk zone - total cost for Columbus was $2b USD. BUT that includes all of the scientific equipment, external payload modules (including instruments mount on it), and all of the ground infrastructure necessary to support it. So as you see - the cost of space station alone, without doing any science on it, is relatively tiny. Bulk of operational expense goes to the launches - and that cost was significantly reduced in last few years thanks to the new launch systems - and a scientific research (cost of equipment, bringing it up to the station, bringing the results back down, some of it needs to be held in specific conditions cause otherwise it might break, so vibrations during launch of it need to be minimized, pressure needs to be controlled, etc. - all of it adds to the cost, and then there's a large cost associated with ground support for these experiments... again: NASA budget for 2012 should be a good indication).

They put it on a specially designed shake table. Here's more information about it.

Yea, I found auto-hide on my own Never the less: Dependencies are always a bad thing. I'm looking forward to 0.24 with build-in toolbar.

Yea, that's the one that has a huge tendency to randomly break. And besides: face it - cargo bays are not build of docking ports. What we could use in KSP is a proper cargo bay for a space shuttle designs. Ekhm... if you eject stuff with chutes - it'll disappear unless you have a focus switched to this part. And you won't get any resources out of it. I hope you know that... do you?

Play sandbox if you don't want contracts. Other than that: You should be able to migrate your save from career to sandbox just fine with some clever text editing.

Areodynamics (that also includes reentry heat caused by the atmosphere) Other than that? Fix the immortal kerbals. Entering the atmosphere exposed should kill them. Hitting the ground at 50m/s should kill them EVA fuel shouldn't be unlimited (by jumping in and out of pods) Using nuclear engines should be dangerous for Kerbals (even solely by a need of moving them away from it and it's nuclear fuel (which isn't implemented in the game right now) - perhaps add a very heavy "shield" part to protect Kerbals from radiation if someone wants to keep them close). Also using LV-N in KSC should punish player with loosing a large amount of reputation. Life support should have some limits (even if by default they'd be able to survive weeks in a standard pod, so player wouldn't be bothered by that mechanic as long as he sticks close to Kerbin) - additional benefit of that: manned missions will be slightly more difficult than unmanned and finally we'll have a reason to use automatic probes from a gameplay balance point of view. Stats should affect Kerbals in a sagnificant way, so that sending a very stupid kerbal on a mission would risk his death and possibly make him consume more life support resources. I want picking a crew to be a process, not just a tickbox that you click blindly. you get the picture

Poddle got 2.5 degree thrust vectoring. It's one of the highest values in a game. That's a reason why sometimes you might want to use it instead of T-30 which doesn't have ANY vectoring at all.

That's not a part of an animal. At least: not yet. But anyway - some of this stuff is used in cosmetics industry. Don't ask.

Sandbox mode is there to stay.

There's a mod for literally everything. Even one with already completed brainstorming. You see? There's no need to do anything any more.

Well, in real life it's usually: Crew transfer Sticking the flags in or waving them (Chinese version) Gathering surface samples, analyzing surface Deploying scientific equipment (eg. laser mirrors on a surface of the moon Retrieving data Repairs Construction works (Russians were first to do things like welding in space), attaching / detaching equipment Deploying scientific equipment that cannot be deployed automatically / installing cameras Testing equipment (eg. space suits, maneuvering units, etc.) Transferring cargo / equipment / tanks Various inspections Driving Playing golf Toying with fire