Jovus

I would really, really like it if there were some kind of mid-late tier antenna upgrade that allowed you to ignore this, to simulate the real advancements in antenna tech we have (on paper) now. Or at least if this only covers the front 270 degrees of the craft, so I can set up a sat network to avoid this on bodies where it really matters to me. (Even if neither of these is included, it's still an awesome feature.)

@NathanKell I can't like a post twice.

@The Rocketeer I'm really tempted to reply with a Pulp Fiction reference, but it wouldn't be appropriate for the forum. (In a good way.)

Are we talking about paper rockets, rockets for a 'real' launch company, or rockets for your backyard? It makes a difference. For example, if we're talking about you personally funding a rocket to go to LEO, cost scales are...quite different. (Also, good luck.)

In real life it definitely depends on the shape of the craft and the placement of the antennae; for example, the Shuttle ceased experiencing comms blackout during reentry after the deployment of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System because the sat was able to contact it from behind based on the Shuttle's shape leaving a hole in the envelope. However, for the game, I'd probably just assume the envelope covers the entire craft. It's part of managing expectations; while it may not be the most realistic, it's easy to communicate to the player and for the player and game to agree on the effect. Or, split the difference: assume the bow shock covers the front 270 degrees of the spacecraft, and if a sat's in the right position, communication can still happen. (Where 'front' is defined by the velocity vector, not spacecraft orientation.) Eyeballing it, I'd go with the former, based on gut feeling, this thread on the Orbiter forums, and the formula roughly half-way down this (rather simplistic) web-page. If it gets to be actually important, I can trawl through scientific journals to see if I can find an answer, but it's not my specialty. Or we could just assume Kerbals have figured out the trick to communicating through the bow shock. (Or, my favorite option, make that a late-tier upgrade.)

I see, I misread. Then my vote's for 'no'.

I'm a little confused why Hubble repair is being thrown around as a case where it would be economical to keep a crew on orbit. Regarding replacement vs. repair, for Hubble, NASA found it economical to devote an astronaut with multiple PhDs to being Hubble's operational and quality assurance expert full-time for ten years (maybe longer; it's been a while since I talked with him). They also found it economical to send this man up to fix the telescope when it had problems, instead of keeping him on-station. (Now that I've put it like that, it highlights another part of why ground instead of orbit: you can't keep people in orbit forever. They need crew rotations, and overlapping expertise. This means more launches and more training than if you just dedicate one guy to it on the ground and send him up if there's a problem.)

Thanks. That's what I thought might be the case, but there was hope to the contrary. I suppose my RSS install will, per usual, be my serious install, and the base will have MKS/NFT for screwing around with.

How well does RO support the Near Future Technologies pack? I've heard conflicting things, all old, but I'd be interested in including NFT in my next run if it's compatible.

Oops, so it is. This is why I usually leave these kinds of threads to the professionals.

Disappointing. Still, better a scrub than an explosion. (Even if the explosion is prettier.)

Well, yeah. I wouldn't be posting for the actual launch only 11 minutes in advance; I'd figure I was too late. But yes, well taken about the phrasing.

Very surprised someone else hasn't beaten me to it. Launch begins in 11 minutes: http://www.ulalaunch.com/webcast.aspx UPDATE: Sept. 16, 2016, 5 p.m. PDT – The launch of a United Launch Alliance Atlas V carrying the WorldView-4 satellite is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 18 to allow the team additional time to evaluate the cause of the ground leak anomaly experienced during propellant tanking. The launch window opens at 11:30 a.m. PDT.

@Starwaster My understanding of the entomology of the phrase goes through here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oebalus_pugnax That's a joke, not a mistake

Indeed. There are a few ways this might not be a problem, though: The ingredients are inert until combined Atmospheric transmission isn't a vector The thing came from space in the first place In the second case, you still get the problem of your MacGuffin surviving the crash and being introduced to the local environment for X minutes/hours until the cleanup crew can contain it - if they even can.

@linuxgurugamer You should check out the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program and why it was cancelled. Long story short, for large, complex, vital-to-function satellites it's still cheaper to send up an engineer or a spare satellite if there are problems than to keep an engineer on orbit just in case.

A couple potential reasons that fall roughly into the realm of 'economic', though with some overlap elsewhere. We've already mentioned tourism, which is the most plausible to date. Another use: Aldrin cyclers. These aren't strictly stations per se, but they're permanent space-borne installations. Of course, this requires some method of matching velocities which we couldn't just use to plot an intercept, so it sounds like we're in Space Elevator territory here...but there might be a more plausible interface that I'm just not thinking of at the moment. Or maybe this allows us to front-load food/water/space/comfort and only send up tiny rockets to intercept, because they don't have to be man-rated all the way to Mars. More serious suggestion: quarantine. Some disease/device/phenomenon needs study, but it's just too dangerous to study it anywhere on Earth, despite strict quarantine procedures, because the potential downside of a quarantine break is too high. You locate the lab on a space station, and if a containment breach happens the whatever-it-is has to both survive re-entry and have the delta-V to pull it off.

Fair enough, I suppose. That extra work seems a little silly to me, but if that's where your fun is, then go after it.

There's Heat Pumps, by @Starwaster, which has been doing this for a while now. Be aware that it doesn't work if you warp above 100x with the vessel in focus. (Sadly this is a bit of a deal-breaker for me, but if he ever figures out how to remove that limitation, I'll be on this mod faster than stink on rice.)

I'm sure such a mod could be made. If you're using Kerbal Construction Time, what exactly is the benefit you're getting from not recovering the engine, having it in your part inventory, and then re-using it in building another rocket? Depending on your settings it costs some, but that seems right to me: re-usable stages do require some refurbishment.

@Speadge Thanks for the source. I appreciate it. I wasn't calling you out, just looking for where you heard it so I didn't have to keep tearing my hair out trying to remember. (Thanks to whatever moderator cut out my one-liner asking for source. Unless you didn't, and I just didn't actually submit that comment. It's been a long night.)

@Alshain After a cursory search, all I could find was a bunch of (non-staff) people saying "Congratulations on using the latest Unity," and you asking this same question in a previous Dev Note thread. Which is to say no good evidence either way as to whether KSP 1.2 is on Unity 5.3 or 5.4. It's OK. We'll wait together. Maybe if we put some RAM sticks under our pillows and we're good little boys (and girls?) the KSP fairies will answer our question*. *This was intended as humour, not a jab at the devs or anyone else.

I thought I remembered a throwaway line about updating to 5.4 a few DevNotes back. Which is to say that I, too, am interested in the answer to this question.

That might be the same color as far as color-specified-by-devs is concerned, but rendered to look different in the final analysis due to underlying differences in the methods used. Of course, it might not. Possibly someone just changed it because he likes this way more.

I don't know if this is the reason, but there were some video setups in Linux where the current highlighting either wouldn't work at all or would do some truly strange things. My guess (and it is just that) is that the new method is intended to work better cross-platform, and they went with that color and intensity either because whoever was responsible for the switch liked it better, or because that's about as close as they could easily get to the old appearance.