Hcube

Oh please don't start with those BS arguments. I totally disagree with you : do you also think India should not have flown a mission to Mars ? A few millions for a communication satellite are an investment. Communication is an essential factor in a developing country. Meanwhile, this few millions could have fed not even one million homeless guys for a single day... not much of a long term investment. So do we know why exactly the third stage exploded ?

New question : When a rocket crashes and the payload is destroyed, is the customer get refunds for his satellite ? or does he have to deal with it ? I guess that it very much depends on the contract, but how does it go in general ?

Not sure about his exact sources, but i like to browse "spaceflight now" it's a good website. From his sources, Arianespace looks like the safest choice, by far ! The Ariane series is awesome (you may guess my nationality from my enthusiam ) I feel sorry for the Russian space program though. Everything is going wrong for them these days... (Also feel bad for Mexico, who just lost is comms satellite !)

I know your feeling, but yet i don't think that any feature should be removed from a game because obsolete PCs cannot handle it. Mine is faaar frome awesome, but i still don't want the fairings to change that way. (they suck enough already)

i dont get it. What's your issue exactly ? Rockets flipping out ? Try adding fins and reducing gimbal range.. I have many things to say about 1.x, but really this isnt much of an issue for me

Oh i have the Steam install, maybe they didn't add the new tutorials. By the way (and that may be related), the Steam version has not upgraded the Demo. Downloading the demo from steam will get you the old one (there is the old KSC ! )

OP : Yeah i think i posted a post about the new tutorials a while ago. I might be wrong, but it looks to me that all those tutorials are the old ones, and they don't look revamped at all... oxidizer that you cant use, unmanoeuverable ships, RCS that you can't use, overheating nukes, broken fuel lines that force you to transfer fuel from the main tank to 4 smaller ones every 30 seconds, pointless probe cores... And what about the interplanetary travel tutorial ? Can't find it ! Has this disappeared along with the deltaV reader and the other stuff ? I love 1.0 but i really think that the tutorials were oversighted ( wich is weird since developpers were mentioning them regularly in the tuesday devnotes not long before 1.0 release)

Weirdly contredicts your pseudo <off-topic> (are you french ? your username suggests that) </off-topic>

So at launch the helium is cold and as the fuel/oxidizer deplete it is heated up to expand and maintain a constant pressure in the stage during launch (and in this case, re-entry and landing) ? If so, what is the mass percentage of the helium that has to be stored in the rocket ? Why helium anyway ? Does it have convenient density/temperature/pressure characteristics ?

I'm fine and have no problem with everything that was listed above but ONE thing. Not being able to create a node on the trajectory while in orbit around the Sun, or at the borders of any SOI. ^This is gamebreaking. It's the main thing that ruins the interplanetary aspect of the game for me. How are we expected to do course corrections ? It's not a bug like mapview not showing you a few icons, its brutally affecting the gameplay. This bug has been in the game forever, and made his way through 1.0 ! All the other bugged stuff in 1.0 *cough fairings *cough heatshields* cough*part occlusion* doesn't really matter next to that node bug...

Kurtjmac got me into KSP ! That's also how i dicovered his channel. I guess Youtube randomly proposed me a video, and the thumbnail looked appealing... Kurtjmac's KSP series is the best ! better than any other IMO... I think that his series brought a lot of people into KSP... It's very long, and ranges from very early alpha to .25-.90... many people watched this series too, an his channel regroups many games. Hell, he even has an easter egg in the actual game menu !

Random question : I heard that the Falcon 9's tanks/structure are so lightweight, thin, and fragile that the rocket cannot stand on the pad by itself (it would collapse) without the umbilical tower unless the tanks are pressurized enough to keep them firm and steady. Is that true ? Where can i find a source ? If so, How does the rocket hold itself together midflight, when the tanks are mostly empty, and thus mostly non-pressurized ? Thanks !

might be a "weirdness" due to referentials points of view... In the kerbocentric referential frame it might look like this, but it should be an ellipse in the munocentric referential frame... Try double-clicking the Mun to change point of view and see what the actual orbit looks like! (backspace to reset focus) I bet on a highly eccentrical munar orbit

Oh well that might be it : I couldn't stand watching past half the video My bad </off-topic>

Err... did he ? I don't think so, unless crashing random tanks into the launchpad repetitively is "managing okay" Pewdiepie sucked in his ksp video

He's probably talking about the delta-V and TWR info (and much more) that MechJeb offers EDIT : Started reading the review... Urgh... someone didnt't get it. Unless this is a (weird) joke, the irony is strong on this one. The one reviewer of KSP gets sun-earth rotation wrong. (he probably was distracted, but even then..) Not yet, actually ><

(Psssst : it IS a hotfix) But yeah, 100% agreed. I was showing ksp to a friend earlier today, he was playing and he opened the chutes at 600m/s ; At first he didnt even understand what was going on, until he read the "chute was ripped off" message, and at this point, no player will feel panic, stress, and the need to save the kerbals in another way ! When you read the message and the chute just disappears, you are simply disappointed and revert... It could definitely use a burning/ripping effect, some camera shake and a IVA warning (like light turning red inside the capsule, emergency mode or so)

yeah, and even tho i haven't looked up the stats about it, i also "feel" like the Poodle got buffed (indirectly maybe) ! i think its lighter and has a fairly ok TWR... I like to use it on my small-medium 2.5m ships

^ pretty much this. Are you going to Minmus (and yes by the way its called MINMUS NOT MINIMUS god damnit) or to Jool ? Cause that's a pretty big friggin rocket ! Remove the materials bays, either use a probe or another pod since you want to get bill back too, and make more stuff radial. This is very spaghetti, it will never get to orbit. Try something like 2pods/lander (909 and a 360 LF tank will do)/transfer stage (a 180tank+720tank and a T45 are fine) and then get a first and second stage to get this whole stuff into orbit. Dont be afraid to make stuff radial, moar boosters, tons of fins, and engine clusters with modular girders, as well as a s**tload of space tape

Yeah i noticed that too while reading through the pages, and at first i thought it was a repost ! very funny. (and still Hg is not the best element )

Also, the Netherlands might be at a too high latitude for the Gemini orbits to pass over it...

English is not my mother language, but is it also not "negotiation" , but rather "negociation" ?

are you sure that you need to bring back his ship ?

Use fins at the bottom of your rocket and everything will be fine. Make sure the center of drag (just eyeball it) is behind the center of mass.

Manned mission in 4 years ? errr... no. They haven't sent any astronaut in space yet, they don't have any heavy-lifting rocket, they don't have a lot of money, they don't have the dragon V2 up and working yet... The NASA did it in a full decade, Boosted by the pressure due to the cold war, with experience thanks to mercury/gemini missions, with billions and billions of dollars, and the biggest rocket ever built. Now SpaceX is very far from this. I could totally see a SpaceX unmanned mission landing on the Moon in 4 years though.