tater

^^^ Nice post. People should note that no one's idea of what one would do in "Mission Control" is "accept contracts." Maybe it's a language problem? Seriously, Squad using "Mission Control" for what it is in game would be like calling the Launch Pad the "parking lot." Their choice of that label is bizarre.

Meteor showers occur when we pass through an area with more than the usual amount of debris in it. None the less, there are meteors pretty much constantly. We're well above town, and have fairly dark skies for being in Albuquerque, and we also have a hot tub we use a lot. I see a couple decent meteors pretty much every night, and I'm usually out there maybe 30 minutes. In fact, I usually play a game that I stay in there until I see a decent one (I don;t even keep track of the "slash" type, I'm only interested fairly bright ones. Long story, short, it can happen any time. I frequently daydream watching the sky that I see one growing, and not leaving a trail...

Use a close up: Quite filthy.

I wasn't addressing if KSP spacecraft should be shiny, I was merely pointing out that real spacecraft are shiny (sometimes even mirror-finished ). I agree completely that planetary surfaces are vastly more important, all need terrain detail of a small enough scale size that landing is non-trivial (as it should be). Then Squad did all the spaceplane stuff looking stunningly futuristic, as if it just came out of a clean room. It makes the rockets look awful by comparison. In addition, and as part of an answer to another post: You cannot really give many reasons for un-shiny rockets, they are pretty much all brand-new the only time they are ever used. They might not be mirror-finished like Apollo, but they are certainly clean, and shiny (matte would be more draggy). The spaceplane pictured above is exactly why the current difference between rocket and aircraft parts is perfectly backwards. Spaceplanes that get reused... get weathered. Rockets that don't get reused... don't weather at all, they are built in a clean room, launched once, and then exposed to the vacuum of space. The only dirty parts are the capsule after reentry (or the scorched bottom of a Falcon 9, which will certainly be cleaned before reuse).

If you read about anything science related written by a reporter, this is what you should expect.

Because unlike spaceplanes, rockets are supposed to look terrible? These are obviously faked, as real spacecraft are rusty. For reasons.

Can 3 abreast actually fit with their giant helmets?

Of course the building KSP calls "Mission Control" is not in fact mission control. The Tracking Station is really mission control. The MC building in KSP is some sort of contract office, it has nothing to do with controlling missions in flight (which is what mission control is.

Any of the science or funds limits (I've player on Hard before) are just grind mode, IMO. The tech tree paradigm is absurd, you don't do science to learn how to make rockets, to make rockets to do science, the entire career paradigm is bass ackwards.

That is not a lens flare, they're a diffraction spikes. That telescope has 4 posts holding up the secondary mirror. If it had 3, there would be 3 rays. The picture would be better without such artifacts. I'd turn it off in any game when I first loaded it up in settings without ever looking at it (as I would with lens flares). Yuck.

#5 I don't like, as the whole tech tree in RL fits inside a small number of years, and much is in fact concurrent. Rockets of many sizes, solar panels, RTGs, and even NTRs... all late 1950s, early 1960s tech.

This didn't really require any effort.

This was a few years ago, and I was so put off by it, I've avoided steam since. Maybe it's better now, but my first impression was terrible, and as they say, you only get one first impression. The next time I'd try steam would be if there was some game I desperately wanted that required it. When that happens I'll give it another chance, I suppose.

Fair enough. If it had only been on steam, I'd never have bought it at all, come to think of it. I had to get steam with E:TW or something, and made a point of never looking at it because I was annoyed at having to connect to steam for a game that was physically in my hands.

I almost never use steam (some games I bought disks of required it), and don't plan to. Why would you elect to use steam, when it is entirely unnecessary?

That was my thought as well, and why I bought from the store.

Time should matter, I like #3. Honestly, any time you leave the VAB it could warp to morning. Any time you launch from SPH, it warps a couple hours.

How "variant" could you, or would you be willing to, make certain pods? Right now it's just a matter of "saddlebag" tanks. A simple addition to that might be "storage" tanks/bins (KIS support). With enough volume, then you could pack small rover parts to assemble after landing... an SC-32 KIS container is 1000l. A box the same footprint as the ascent tanks would be at least that big, even on the LC2. There is not too much you can do as far as variants go for conical pods, other than changing the texture. What about the SC-C DM and OM? They seem to be just shy of 1.5m at the widest point. The DM is obviously limited to being a functional, 2-kerbal pod (though 2 kerbals with helmets might not fit in 1.5m). Perhaps there could be color variants (a more stock color as an option)? The OM might have a shape change, I suppose (as a variant), perhaps a 1.5m cylinder, maybe with a taper to the docking port on one side, and a taper to 1.25m on the other? This would provide a variant orbital module for "stock" looking craft. This fills a role similar to the Mk1 Crew Cabin, while looking properly spacecraft like, vs aircraft like (and it's a command pod). Another SC-C OM variant could remove the docking antennae, and instead have 2 extra docking ports on the side (you can see what this looks like by adding 2 symmetrically in the VAB), this would be the "Hub" OM variant.

The SC-A-CMX has the temp int/skin listed in the description as 3400/3400, vs 2400/2400 for the other SC pods. The stock mk1-2 lists 1400/2400. The LC pods are all 2400/2400, whereas the mk1 lander can is 1000/2000, and the mk2 lander can is 1200/2000. Presumably they'll get balanced with lower heat tolerance, all around. (1400/2400 for the reentry pods, and closer to 1200/200 for the LC pods, I suppose). EDIT: Yeah, this mod has become an instant favorite. I love the idea of variant pods. It's very, very cool. Well done.

12km/s sounds about right for a munar mission in a 6.4X rescale.

Makes complete sense, shadowmage, that's why I tried to present my suggestion within the very "adjustable" nature of the mod's parts (which is just stunningly awesome!), not that it generically change to ablator to 800 or something. The only downside to the adjustable nature of the mod is in fact the right-click menus. I wish there was a way around this, while still keeping the minimal part counts. I cannot get to the bottom of some command pod menus, they exceed the window size, lol. Partially the chute status adds more lines as well. The "jettison fairing" button doesn't seem to do anything (this covers the chutes, right?), at least in static and some right over the pad tests I have done. Also, there are 2 "control from here" buttons, which is presumably because it has a built-in probe core. The cabin and dock lights are also turned on via the light control by the GUI altimeter... (wondering if they could leave the right click menu, therefore). On the enable parachute staging, KSP is not super consistent in this regard. When you click the enable cabin lights button, the lights go on, then it switches to disable (as you would expect). What happens when you enable parachute staging? There is no feedback (I was sort of expecting a parachute icon to then appear in the staging list to the left). This mod is, well, pretty amazing, truly innovative.

The Space Race did take place in the 1900s. Just not the year 1900.

I was planning on running some tests (I'm also playing 365, my 5200 figure was because I had enough propellant in the tanks to brake some before entry (periapsis was set to around 20). Yeah, I'll make a patch for it, too, I guess. It'll give me a rationale in career for some "boilerplate" tests

The ablator on the 2.5m reentry pod is set to 450. The stock 2.5m pod's heatshield is rated at 800. 800 is overkill for stock, but on a larger kebin, 450 is not nearly enough for even a Mun direct reentry based on some testing I just did (entry at ~5200 m/s). It;s easy enough of me to change it, but the stock mk1-2 is just fine, even with a 3.2X kerbin and a 6.4x distance setting. Perhaps with rescales being a common thing, the ablator could default to 450, but you could add it up to 800 (with a mass penalty) in the VAB?

The integrated, collapsing stuff you have, like the gear and solar panels might be something to look at for rover use with an eye towards a carried rover that doesn't require some ridiculous sky crane. Imagine one of the smaller LC tanks, where the variant is no tanks, 4x retracted wheels, and a couple integrated command seats sort of where the tanks would be (the kerbal's head would still up, but the seat back would be flush for stacking). A tiny rover