Sanguine

A question that generally bugs me during long burns is what would happen if KSP continually developed to 2.0? Would this justify the creation of an entirely new KSP from the ground up, in some sort of fantastical superengine, or would the original KSP simply continue to get upgraded? Both routes pose pros and cons. On the one hand, creating an entirely new game means that Squad can erase any ancient mistakes that were in the old game - the first release of KSP 2.0 could in fact be less buggy and more stable than KSP 1.0 because of experience. Also, with an entirely new game, comes more streamlined coding and probably a far better engine, which would allow whackjobian creations to be built while not completely destroying your computer - and whackjob could create even larger designs. The base game itself would also benefit greatly, with new approaches to rocket design - imagine having everything be procedural, where engines could be tweaked for different fuels, bell shapes, designs and structural strength. On the other hand, any development on the original KSP would stop, and the creation of an entirely new game would take an insanely long time. What are your thoughts should KSP ever advance that fart?

An interesting question for me. Most of what I have read about space warfare originates from the Halo books, and they do a fair job of realistically portraying what it would be like. The human ships, at least - they're fairly scientifically possible. Structural strength and compartmentalisation seem to be the key to being strong, while kinetic projectiles and nukes seem to be the best armament, with their own strengths and weaknesses of course. Would this be an accurate representation, or would maneuverable ships who can dodge anything be more feasible? Basically, I guess what I'm asking is what would be the best design for a ship given what we know about science today.

Recently in my Maths class, it came up that there was not much of a practical application regarding the 3rd and 4th derivatives. After some discussion, we discovered that there was in fact a practical application, the 'Jerk' and 'Jounce' of a Distance/Time graph. In KSP terms, this can relate to a rocket - the 1st is Velocity, 2nd is Acceleration, 3rd is change of acceleration due to consumption of fuel, and the 4th is the change of acceleration due to ISP. At least, that makes sense. However, with the 5th and 6th derivatives, it is harder to picture. The only thing I can think of is perhaps air resistance, but after MaxQ this isn't much of an issue anyway. So, I guess the question is, are there any practical applications for the 5th and 6th derivatives regarding physics?

This question has been bugging me for some time. On helicopters such as the night stalker, AH-66 Comanche, and the stealth MH-60 used on the bin laden raid, they utilize five rotor blades, as opposed to four. This apparently creates non-directional sound, but how? Also, what is the maximum practical amount of rotors on a helicopter? Some have six blades, but what is the limit?

As many of you would be aware, the Falcon 9 Heavy in development by SpaceX has the potential for fuel-crossfeed capability - essentially filling the centre tank from the outside tanks. Of course, they are behind in the times, as the KSP community has already had this fantastic technology for years. But in any case, would it be possible to do rudimentary asparagus staging - and if so, would it be better than simply having onion staging? Take for example, a hypothetic Falcon 10, with one central booster and four outside boosters, and it does a simple asparagus stage, where 2 boosters fall off after having exhausted their fuel supply, leaving the 2 boosters on the side feeding into the central tank. Would this be practical, or am I just crazy?

Any plans for a dedicated materials bay, or pure liquid fuel tanks? Or even new electricity generation parts, like huge solar panels, or upscaled RTGs... Also just launched an epic large scale mission to Duna with the Taurus space craft, and I must say, it works splendidly.

Absolutely beautiful mod, mate. Have you considered adding a large monopropellant tank, nuclear reactor, or battery?

Good job, quite an attractive plane. Have you considered attaching more control surfaces?

I'm interested in seeing what the community wants parts-wise. Considering KSP has broken into full release, it could really go anywhere from here. Would you be interested in seeing station parts? Or more capsules? Perhaps 5 metre rockets for those crazy buggers who want to do single launches. Personally, I would like larger and more diverse capsules, specifically a 3.75m Command Service Module and associated parts such as crew container, science lab, monoprop tank, reaction wheel, yada yada. Also, monopropellant based orbiter engines with associated tanks would be pretty cool.

Hi, I don't think anyone has actually mentioned this as an issue yet, however, when I was comparing the Mk2 to Mk3 spaceplane parts in the hangar, I noticed that the Mk2 spaceplane parts actually have a lift rating. While most of them are quite small mostly in the 0.2 range, this still greatly benefits their lift, and thus makes Mk2 planes require less wing area. The Mk-3 parts however, do not have this feature. This is actually quite important, as A) With the new aerodynamics model, we will not be able to wing spam, and thus Mk3 planes will require grossly huge wing areas, and The Real life shuttle actually was designed so that the entire body acted as a lifting surface, not just the wings. I'm sure this is quite an important issue, as it allows for us budding shuttle builders to actually use these parts to their greatest effect.

Tidal heating, boxman. Tidal Heating.

Good job on resurrecting the 100 Megaton Tsar Bomb Whackjob. The Soviets were pussies.

It has been noted before that life could possibly survive in Laythe's oceans, due to the radiation shielding. I imagine there's a very real possibility that life could survive in Laythe's oceans. It's certainly possible, and would be extremely interesting for possible 'biological' science in the future.

Integration of KW-Rocketry, KSP-Interstellar, Deadly Re-entry, KAS, B9 Aerospace (the spaceplane parts) and... Oh yeah. Treat a craft as a single-body physics wise if practical. I am sick of my vessels wobbling and oscilatting, simply because I can only dock. So with the use of KAS, I should be able to permanently weld/attach to parts together, which treats them as a single part. This would help with many things - such as actually building a fairly decently sized vessel.

Laythe would be the most sensitive place to colonise. I don't remember what the name of the thread was, however, it simply had a massive debate over whether Laythe was suitable for life. At the end, it was concluded that Laythe had the possibility of an Ozone layer, which meant that the radiation emitted by Jool would be reduced somewhat, and that life could survive. Even if there was no ozone layer, life could survive deep in the oceans, and this could eventually lead to there being an ozone layer, and so on. So, if I were serious, I would colonise Laythe. If I want to have fun though, find a massive F class asteroid and colonise it.