Gaarst

Then your friends are just rude. They'd be so even without smartphones: as for many things, the problem sits between the chair and screen. I view this as an individual problem, not societal.

More of an opinion than a fact. The damping on the feedback is worse than ever.

I agree with @5thHorseman here: who the hell cares ? If you feel there is a problem because other people check their phones, you're the one who should change something, not them.

Squad can't even properly program burn times. We'll end up with something a) terribly broken, or b) absorbing all your CPU whenever you have more than 2 ships flying. (Logical "or" here: both at the same time is possible)

We heard the same thing when 60fps was getting popular on PC and consoles were stuck to 30fps. Still wrong, and you can increase the number as much you want, it will remain wrong. Eyes don't work in fps. Seeing separate frames is a matter of how the image is shown and what the motion is. It will be easier to resolve frames from a fast-moving object. Oh, and motion blur comes messing everything up. You can see the difference between 15 and 30fps, between 30 and 60fps (going back to 30 feels so clunky after switching to 60), and probably between 60 and 144fps (haven't tried it myself but 144Hz monitors are a thing). The best fps is a matter of personal perception and depends on the game. I don't mind playing KSP at 15-20fps, but I want 60fps for any fast-paced shooter.

It's not that simple because on a typical 2 stage design, the first stage is big and the upper stage very small. I find that splitting dV evenly is not very efficient, so I typically use large first stages, with boosters to give it a kick if needed, with a small upper stage giving at most 3-4km/s dV depending on what's below, even less for 3 stages designs. In this case extending the upper stage isn't much of a problem anyway (and very easy with hydrolox). But I love designing rockets (more than I like flying them TBH). Sticking an upper stage on a LEO lifter is what I used to do, but I've started designing launchers specifically for GTO and I'm seeking the most efficient method.

LF/O can't melt steel beams !!!!1!!1!!! Awesome, also.

You're right, but TBH, I was mostly writing this to avoid it being moved to Add-on Discussions where it would have been forgotten. As for mass efficiency of staging it's mostly a matter of fuel, you're going to have a hard time pulling more than 5km/s out of an hypergolic stage while a hydrolox would reach that with one tank. For the squeezing part, it's kind of a non-issue. Having more than 5km/s of dV on your upper stage would mean that it needs to give most of the initial horizontal velocity (the hardest part of a launch in RSS since if you don't do it right, you'll end up reentring 3km/s slower than orbital velocity) so you'd either need a powerful engine to get that velocity fast enough, adding mass and decreasing efficiency; or you'd have terrible TWR at your upper stage ignition which means you'd have to take a steeper, less efficient trajectory. EIther case, your stage will be huge. For an ascent stage, you definitely want to add a stage after 5km/s of dV, it might be heavier but it will end up being more efficient. For an orbital stage adding tanks is better. You don't end up with more than 5km/s ascent stages (neither do real rockets which typically have small upper stages) anyway for LEO. As for GTO, that's the reason I've made this thread. I do all launches, LEO or GTO, with a single burn from the lifter. The handful m/s dV required for circularisation are done by the orbital stage or payload which anyway are designed to be ignited several times. Adding a third stage or not is not a matter of being able to restart or not, in my case.

I also have over 1GB of mods on my 1.1.3 game, my laptop handles it just fine. I define too many mods as the point when loading the game becomes longer than the average time between two crashes.

I mean more in terms of dV than trajectory. I don't literally stop at LEO and restart my engines there, I take a steeper trajectory and burn until I get an apo at 36000km. I just build my rockets with 9.3km/s for LEO and put whatever I need on top for GTO.

As it turns out we defined space when trying to answer your questions. The Kármán line (standing at about 100km) is usually quoted as the boundary between atmosphere and space, and is historically defined as the altitude at which you would need to go faster than orbital speed to generate enough lift to stay up. In other words, under 100km, you need wings, over 100km wings are useless since the centrifugal force is stronger than the lift they could generate. For your engine's power, you just need enough to be able to reach orbital speed, that is to overcome drag at all points in order to be able to accelerate. No need for TWR >1 (in fact most upper rocket stages have TWR below 1). Edit: ninja'd

Yeah, knowing them, chances are we'll end up with a mobile version before a dV readout.

You can make use of superconductors in your everyday life. I don't know if neutralising gravity in your living room would be very useful.

We are missing the "Not a good idea EVER" option. And please don't bother calling me an idiot. Even if mobile devices catch up with today's PCs (they will), playing KSP on 5 inch screens will literally cause headaches to everyone. Even with just a ship builder it would be a nightmare to place all these parts on such a small screen. Porting it to tablet would make more sense, but I still think it's a waste of time. Oh, and mods also.

This is so fake I can't even.

OK, let's make ion more realistic and have better fuel fractions on Xe tanks. Good luck with your months-long milliNewtons burns though.

Thanks for your answer! I'll play around with hydrolox, and see if I can get better efficiency.

(This is about RSS but the only thing that changes are dV requirements, not gameplay) So I design all my launchers for LEO (9.3km/s of dV) which means that most of them have rather large and powerful upper stages (compared to real rockets I mean, TWR is still usually below 1) since they are meant to finish the orbital burn (give most of the horizontal velocity to the rocket). For the sake of curiosity (and because I like building stuff more than launching it), I recently started to work on upper stages separately from the rest of the lifter. While so far i just took a small upper stage and stick it on top of the LEO lifter, I have started to integrate the dV needed for a GTO burn inside the launcher itself, to have rockets specifically designed for GTO. Said rockets usually have 3 smaller stages instead of the usual 2 large I use. But for some reason I realised that putting a lighter payload on a big lifter to achieve the 11.something km/s dV for GTO was more efficient than building the whole rocket for GTO. Similarly, I designed a rocket for GTO but it is actually worse at putting things in GTO than other launchers I have that were designed for LEO, and better at putting things in LEO. So clearly I'm doing something wrong. Is the best way to achieve high GTO efficiency to just put a small upper stage on a lifter (like Proton-M/Briz-M), put a lighter payload on a large lifter and launch it directly for GTO (Falcon 9) or to design the whole thing for GTO (Ariane 5) ? And is a large upper stage that finishes the orbital burn + the GTO insertion burn better than a smaller stage that is only lighted once in space?

Some info on Schiaparelli crash: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_makes_progress Basically the inertial guidance system went over its limits and caused the lander to think it was at a negative altitude.

The Poodle and Terrier make me sad each time I think about this.

When 10 people arrive in the middle of a conversation, it gets messy. Answering a post directed to you is just a matter of politeness, but if I click on a thread that has like 50 replies that are weeks old, I'm not going to bother quoting dozens just to get in the debate, I'll drop a few likes and go at the end of the thread. Or you can just agree with someone and have nothing to say, because what you think has already been said, because you don't want to say something stupid, or just because you can't be bothered jumping into a debate at that moment.

So that you can show to others that you are better than them. Go tell that to the folks down in the "Rep Grand Group" thread. What RIC said. Quicker to like a post than to write a reply saying "I agree with you, my good fellow" (and less spammy), also an excellent way to be passive-agressive when used the right (wrong?) way. Definitely part of your average social media stuff.

Kerbal Space Program. Hint is in the title. People (count me in) are going to riot if Squad focus 1.3 on underwater stuff while we're still missing a lot of things related to proper spaceflight (don't even get me started on planes).

The Wiki is not official and last time I checked the "planned features" (or whatever it's called) was long outdated. Don't use it a source of information on the game's development.