Sky_walker

Nav lights Size 3 equivalent of poddle engines (something short to fit nicely into the upper stage) Size 2 Solid Rocket Boosters (preferably gimballed, and: yes, there are gimballed SRBs, eg. on Ariane 5) Fairings that split in two if they'd add science parts - add some experiments that are large and heavy enough to require at least Size 2 rocket, preferably even Size 3. Also deployable experiments would be good, perhaps an experiments that require sampling over larger area to get results (it'd give a reason for rovers to exist)

Still much smaller than comet 67/P...

Absolute, most important part of all: An option to check delta-v and thrust to weight ratio for each stage (on hovering the stage in VAB or something similar - for how it'd work in terms of numbers - look how it's done in Kerbal Engineer Redux) no idea how you could make a long list like that and still miss it. I mean seriously: It helps more than anything else in learning how to design rockets.

Would be good if heat management would be... you know... a thing. So you would need to have thermal radiators or your bigger space stations, ships, etc. NASA on ISS radiators

So... are there any plans to make them really beneficial like they should be?

That's really a bad sign. It should be obvious without looking into documentation / change log. I don't know, perhaps they should make it look like a thermometer (and make it vertical) instead of making it horizontal bar that by default appears green? I fully understand your confusion. The fact that a first time you see it is pretty much always an ascend phase of the flight doesn't really help.

I would really like to to be a setting... or at least - remember what I set it on during the last flight. Me either, but I didn't build anything with hundreds of parts after v.1.0... and I have a lot of memory, so even if there is a leak - it'd take a while to manifest for me.

Would be nice to get it back, but it also would be nice to get it in an improved form, with some new features. Eg. make it heat the approaching ships? Or kill kerbals with radiation? Or have random bursts of dust pushing away anything on it's path? And put it on some interesting, challenging orbit (eg. Molniya orbit in retrograde?) Something to make it an actual interesting object to visit.

Biased poll is biased. Of course pre-1.0 wasn't the best (no reentry heat and totally faulty aerodynamics being two biggest flaws) but 1.0+ versions were definitely rushed and are nowhere near of what they should be to deserve being called "1.0.something".

@1 - not really, without n-body physics you can't really get it to it's full extend @2 - yea... doesn't count either. FAR was probably the closest one to making it sensible. @3 - Well, it is there, but doesn't really do much... not to mention that many parts of it don't make much sense (eg. for a good while you can keep your landing gear in a hot plasma without any harm or damage o_O) @4 - Parts are the worst part. There's just so many components that have a totally unrealistic representation that I don't even know what to say. Even NERVA engine you mentioned is screwed, not as badly as pre-1.0, but it still doesn't have almost any flaws it has in real life.

I don't know if it should be "a bit", considering that a spacecraft I build specifically to be destroyed upon reentry refused to do that Right now reentry heat is so meaningless that even if I want stuff to be destroyed - I can't make it happen.

Wow... I thought I'll never see that moment.

What? No. I definietly would hate that. Because game is suppose to have educational value - it should be kept realistic. And while you might argue about intercepting rogue planets, etc. these are so extreme cases that shouldn't even be taken into account.

Very nice And I see you used Gilly as a comet? Hehehe, I did the same with my iteration.

+1. No idea why they rushed it so much. The very first day I heard about the release schedule I knew it cannot end well... and as pretty much everyone predicted: it didn't. Not to mention even the most fundamental matters - if it should be released at all considering how many things we don't have that were planned (eg. finishing the IVAs or adding some variety to the planets, like geysers, cryovolcanos, proper ice caps that aren't just a different texture, radiation belts, volcanic activity, etc.).

So, the most important part (as it's the only one in bold) is making Kerbal Construction Time stock? Call me sceptical, but I can think of few dozens of things that would make career progression much better than KCT does. Just think of time in KSP as an abstract value and suddenly most of the issues go away.

It's been a while, but finally I got around updating my Ariane 5. So here it is: Updated all files to game version 1.0.2 Added new in-game fairings: Modified several portions of the design to make use of a new parts, including asymmetrical nose cones. Numerous tweaks to make rocket work nicely with new stats for used components Swapped upper stage engine to Skipper and made use of new fairings to enclose it nicely: Removed dead links, updated descriptions, added new images in an initial post. Hope you'll enjoy it.

Nice find DSKY, thanks for sharing!

Because there is no industry in space to make use of these materials. Creating it would be prohibitively expensive for little to no gain in current economy. What will happen after a century is a wild guess with no relevance to anything we might care about now. Equally well in a century human kind might struggle to live at all due to some crazy nuclear war. I'm quite sure you were not

No, they are not. Satellites and spacecrafts are expensive because satellites / spacecrafts are expensive. Launch itself can be less than 1/3 of initial cost (again: very much depends on a payload, in case of scientific satellites it can easily go below 10%). They are put in place for a good reason. See point above - loosing a rocket is non-issue, loosing payload is a tragedy. We'll see what's going to be the reality of largest payloads FH is going to carry. SpaceX got a long history of being too optimistic about their estimations.

There was a hangout of Matt with Tim Peake https://plus.google.com/events/c653ar3q479sloh89hrphe6hdo0 Important info - Matt confirmed what was discussed earlier on - they will propose for Rosetta to actually land on a comet at the end of it's mission, first slowly spiraling towards the nucleus and than making a touchdown. It's not official yet, but that's the proposal. It'll allow them to obtain numerous very unique data and again: do something noone ever done before. It reflects only 2% of light, it's darker than coal, not just a black t-shirt .

It's also a treasure trove for layouts made in '90s. "That's, kids, how the internet looked like when you had your first diapers".

Agreed. BTW: Funny how UK was quite a large an important player back in a day, but now it's just... Italian space exploration is more exciting and important than what UKSA does. Yes, it does. Especially considering rather underwhelming rewards (unless you flood them with pounds - all you're going to get are different newsletters, perhaps also some space on a magical CD that might or might not be placed in a hole - how much? Noone knows). Campaign authors say that timing it right after Philae is a pure coincidence. Do I believe them? Nope.

In a real emergency you'd use Soyuz, period.

I'm pretty sure noone was thinking about station armored enough to live through 50 MJ hit as if nothing would happen. There's absolutely no point in destroying it. It actually would be stupidly dangerous thing to do (space debris) Just doing enough damage for the carrier owner to take months if not years to repair.