Terwin

So tell me, how does combustion chamber geometry affect the thrust, durability, maximum compression ratio, usable ignition sources, and fuel flow? How much regenerative cooling do you need to have for a given engine bell material and and how does this change when you have super-chilled fuel? How does the rocket nozzle shape and length affect isp for different combustion pressures? How does blow-back from landing and take-off on unimproved surfaces affect the functioning of your engine? What if you make the bell thicker or thinner? How much ablator do you need for an ablativley cooled nozzle? How does that affect engine pressure, isp, and fuel flow over time? How fuel or oxygen rich does your mix need to be for a given combustion chamber material to not melt? How does the choice of oxidizer or fuel rich affect isp and thrust? What is the combustion chamber pressure for a given rate of fuel flow, and will that cause it to explode? What percentage of your fuel should be burned by the turbo-pump and how does that affect the reliability of your engine? What materials can you use in your turbo-pump for a given fuel mixture, and how does that change if you scale the pump up or down? How much can you throttle a given turbopump before it stalls? How much can you throttle a given combustion chamber before it goes out? starts burning fuel in the pipes? explodes? If you add realistic rocket engine design to a game, then that aspect will pretty much consume the rest of the game, as even the complexity of a KSP grand-tour pales in comparison. If you want a rocket-engine-design game, that's fine, but I would rather not pay ten times as much and get a game that needs twenty times as much processing power for that one functionality. (ksp can only be as simple as it is because we do not have realistic engines. We have practically indestructible things that can support an entire rocket on a single vacuum-optimized nozzle with infinite restart and throttling, and it will not tear your ship apart if you have an over-expanded nozzle, use it as a heat-shield or try to take off after landing in a rock-strewn field which should have riddled your entire vessel with bullet-like ricocheted debris. None of that stuff could be ignored if you were designing the engines however, so all of it would need to be in the game as well)

Don't forget that the Aztecs were stone age and an Aztec 'sword' was basically like a cricket-bat with pieces of sharp flint along the edge. Every successful parry with a steel sword would shatter those sharpened rocks along a chunk of the edge, making that section basically club-like. Even the Trojans had bronze. Also, armor made from feathers or quilted cotton did not hold up terribly well against steel weapons or cannons.

1) which mods do you have installed(might be a conflicting mod such as Kerbalism) 2) have you marked 1.6 as a compatible version?(ckan entry may not have been updated to reflect compatibility with the newest version)

From what I have seen thus far, my impression is that craft may not have life support themselves, but for a colony to grow, it will need sufficient life support capability to support the larger colony size. That way 'life support' acts primarily as a cap on colony growth, but does not interfere with the rocket-building part of the game and cannot have bad/unwanted effects from excessive time-warp. Presumably station life-support will be much heavier/more expensive to reflect the lack of raw materials coming in to replace losses. (I expect we will still need mods for on-craft LS) Anything more than that will mean that KPS2 cannot be played like KSP1 without some sort of switch to turn off LS(and the need for any related logistics).

If I remember correctly, all of the failed starlink sats failed before moving up to the shared orbital altitude, so even if 15% fail, almost all of those should have the same failure mode as the failures we have already seen(failing before they move to their designated orbits), which means they are already below all functional satellites and will quickly de-orbit due to the low altitude. (It is almost like SpaceX is expecting some of them to fail and is taking measures to make sure those failures don't cause any problems) To be danger to anything in orbit, they will need to fail after they climb to their desired orbit, and we have not yet seen any failures that late.

If you are only talking about dead starlink sats, then you have a much smaller number than 12,000. When launched, they start an an altitude well below the constellation where non-functional satellites will quickly de-orbit. When running low on fuel or otherwise having a problem, they are de-orbited, and thus below the plane of the constellation and of no danger. Even if there is a failure that kills the engines after it gets to the correct position(a much less likely event), the defunct satellite will still eventually de-orbit on it's own, so the time during which it could cause a problem is seriously limited. (I am not sure if it will take weeks or months before it slows enough to fall out of position, but I strongly suspect that any period of risk will be less than a year long, and by the time it has slowed down enough to get close to a neighbor, it will have slowed enough to lower it's orbit. Even then, the occurrence will be rare enough that they can track dead starlinks individually while waiting for them to de-orbit)

You are assuming that the starlink sat thrusts in a random direction and keeps traveling in that direction. That would mess up the constellation, it is far more likely that an avoidance maneuver will first involve moving out of the way, the moving back into position. This process (combined with normal station-keeping) keeps the constellation in place the way it was designed, as well as ensuring that no 2 starlink satellites are ever close enough to endanger each other(except between launch and arrival at a designated position within the constellation, but that can be planned out in advance to be safe). With hundreds of KM between any 2 starlink satellites, moving at most 10km(safe passing distance as indicated earlier in the thread) to the side before moving back into position, does not get the maneuver satellite any where near it's closest neighbor.

That is sort of like saying that walking in a park has he same odds of being hit by a vehicle as walking across an interstate. In this scenario SpaceX has 60 satellites 'driving' down each of ~200 well-known roads with a well known spacing, so that anyone who wants to cross those roads can plan months in advance and know exactly when it will be clear. Or they can use the pedestrian bridges(aka different orbital altitude) and never even touch the roads in question. I believe the process is, that whoever launches first has the right of way, and as anyone who launches later knows exactly where your satellite will be, so they are responsible for avoiding it(which is why SpaceX was supposed to avoid the ESA satellite and not the other way around). Unless you are experimenting with aerobraking(like SpaceX is with those 3 starlinks), you should be able to calculate any potential collisions days in advance, and easily avoid it with just a couple m/s at the right time.

There is no reason the size 0 planet at the barycenter would need to have a mass above zero, and then you just have 2 moons on the same orbit opposite each other, with (almost?) touching SOIs. Why have the barycenter with a mass over zero? Or perhaps they added a 'minimum effective distance' for gravitational effects from bodies, so that the barycenter only has an effective mass if you are outside the orbit of the moons? This gives you 2.5 SOI: 1 for each 'moon', 1 for outside the moons orbits, and a mass-less half-SOI for inside the moon orbits(but not somewhere you can hang out without being thrown around by the moons as they rapidly circle each other). (there might even be a 'reverse' soi inside the orbits that actively pushes you out, but that would mean SOI with more than one possible parent/exit SOI)

~ minute 30-34 "Single player KSP2 is confirmed to be DRM free" no online connection required ('multi-player may involve some sort of lobby') KSC has 4 launch pads that can be used at the same time in multiplayer other tidbits: 'Cesium doped metallic hydrogen engine' is apparently an 'advanced' metallic hydrogen engine that can use a magnetic nozzle Clouds and weather systems: Game is in development, ask again later VAB is 'twice the size' and prettier, you can assemble multiple distinct components at the same time(like assembling stage 1 and stage 2 then connecting them) 'There will be more reasons to run science' KSP2 has been in development for more than a year as one developer mentioned being 'new' as they had 'only been there for a year' 'Using the latest version of Unity' 'you can collide with ground scatter' 'some classical parts and some new parts' 'All the same engines are still there' (re-imported and higher res) 'They don't want it to be sim-city in space' the game is about flying rockets

What stock part are you thinking of where you cannot adjust the fuel? When performing test contracts I will regularly dump the fuel from solid boosters for example, and fuel tanks can also have contents adjusted. 1) it has been said it is a rewrite from scratch. 2) nothing has been said in this as far as I am aware. Looking forward to giving KSP2 a spin! I hope they have looked at RoverDude's MKS mod suite when considering life support and colonization, as he has some good stuff in there that gives a challenge without needing so much micromanagement.(and has lots of options so you can customize your challenge to suit your preferred play approach)

I have not had any problems playing with both. Everything MKS seems to show up in the right places in CTT

Seeing as how the Texas department of public safety(DPS) is responsible both for monitoring the handling of hazardous materials, and is responsible for things like road closures, I think we can rest assured that they know when SpaceX is going to be handling a lot of methane(like a launch or engine test), and can easily monitor their activities in that regard, since they are already on-site to close the roads. Thus far your argument seems to be 'SpaceX venting huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere is a bad thing!' Can you offer any evidence that SpaceX is actually venting any methane? How about more methane than when I light my stove at home(it can take a few seconds for the spark thing to light the gas stove)? It *looks* like yesterday's 'oops' vented a fair amount for a second or two, but other than that, I am not aware of any evidence that SpaceX has ever vented unburned methane. Before you argue that they need to 'do more' could you at least provide some evidence that they are not already doing everything you could ask for?

SpaceX is not releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere on purpose, and they have that flarestack burning just in case some methane leak starts getting the local concentrations up high enough to be dangerous. Lots of methane in the air when they have large tanks of volatile materials on-hand(like LOX and methane tanks) would be just asking for the entire facility to go up in flames, so they seem to be pretty careful to avoid that. Yesterday's failed engine start is probably a majority of the methane released into the atmosphere from that facility, counting all leaks, intentional releases, and 'bits in the pipe when disconnecting' since they first started building starhopper. Clearly this was not planned, and they shut it off in what 0.8 seconds? What additional steps would you like them to take to avoid methane release, and how sure are you that those steps are not already being taken?

I often use the engines from Near Future Technologies:

I do not see any reason why they would not allow hiring as many kerbals from Kerbin as you can afford, so even if you wiped out half of a colony, you could just send replacements from Kerbin.

The big money maker for Starlink is not something 5G could possibly compete with. Starlink will make huge amounts of money by providing a faster data connection between financial markets. A whole new undersea cable was laid to gain less than a 10% reduction in latency between New York and London markets, and Starlink can cut latency to less than half that of an undersea cable because of how much slower light moves through glass than through a vacuum. You think financial institutions who are paying 7 or 8 figures to put their computers half a block closer to wall-street computers would not offer Starlink huge sums for halving the latency of their updates for over-seas market conditions? Using the excess bandwith to provide low-cost internet for everyone else is just an after-thought that happens to make for good PR.

W.O.L.F. is a resource management approach that limits the amount of processing power needed to handle lots of large bases. Basically you have bases that you create/deliver components for that just get added in, and increases production, and because you can't remove anything(other than resources), it no longer needs to be simulated after it is added to the base, allowing for much larger operations than the current resource system. NDAs are generally required for things like having a job, or working with clients, or just bout anything 'knowledge worker' related. (Usually you sign a minor one before having an interview, and a big one as part of accepting a job offer)

I thought they generally did not wash the boosters (aka 'sooty') and just cleaned 'pin stripes' for checking seams. I could not say how much work was done with engines and internals, but the external shells of the reused F9 boosters seem to have minimal handling after landing(or else more of the soot would be rubbed/washed off).

I find that on a sufficiently level surface(minmus flats) you can have a long colony where you just add things on the end, but most other places, you want to have 2-4 main lines off your center point, usually with additional branches coming off of those main lines to keep things reasonably close together. ( I will often put the big spinning habitats on towers, some times several in a row, with hitchhikers for spacing) In space the big thing you want for it to 'look' like a space colony would be a number of the large, inflatable, spinning habitats

Just think of it as a failed aerobreaking ... performed by a planetary body (or a Wackjob landing, as this is huge objects in the distant past)

If I remember correctly, when kerbals are on kerbin or in a hab that provides 50+ years of hab-time for the current crew, they will not grow home-sick.

2 big sources of lag are part count and exposed docking ports. While each ship can have it's physics processed on a separate thread, docking them will put all the parts from the combined ship onto one thread. This may be the source of the lag when docking. Also, if I remember correctly, each exposed docking port checks it's distance from each other exposed docking port in the 2 km 'active simulation' area(to see if they are trying to dock)), so having a lot of exposed docking ports can have a disproportionate impact on performance. The maximum number of parts on a vessel before the lag becomes bothersome is highly dependent on the performance of your processor(and your tolerance for lag).

From link: Summary: daily 6-10 hour no-fly zones from the 16th to the 19th (2pm-midnight on fri/sat, 6pm-midnight on Sun)

Every time a photon hits one of the mirrors inside your bucket there is a reaction, it just gets cancelled out by the other reflections on the other mirrors(unless you open a hole, then there will be some uncanceled reactions when the light escapes instead of bouncing off the mirror where there is now a hole).