Shna_na

Any celestial body with an atmosphere would also suffer from erosion. That increases the list to Kerbin, Eve, Duna, Laythe. Also, a problem with the 'roof method' you mentioned. While they could create a separate model for the cave and put it into the world on the side of a mountain, the interior would be inaccessible. The original ground model will block off the entrance, leaving essentially an arch of rock embedded into the side of a mountain.

Not quite anything. The lack of parts specifically boat-related is extremely limiting from an aesthetics and functional point of view. While I see your point about space programs not making boats, I'd like to point out that you are soon to be proven wrong. NASA plan to send submarines to Europa, as well as using, in essence, floating rovers (not sure what body).

5/10 +2 With an opinion like that, you need some serious balls. +1 Short and simple. I like that. +1 Not cluttered or distracting. = I will not negate for my view on your opinion, that would be unfair. I think this is a fair rating from me, for once.

That can't have been intentional. Was it intentional? Please tell me this was intentional. Nice to know NASA can have a little fun alongside their science-ing

False. While I don't get involved, I think it's a good idea - it prevents things from becoming mundane. The user below me is apprehensive about using the ribbon generator.

This. All of this. Biomes for anomalies, science from anomalies, nice little informationy-thingies from anomalies, and little hints to them in contracts. I also think there should be some competition (tweakable for difficulty) such as another space association. This would give incentives and open up new things such as the whole idea of publicity and other rewarding things that make adventure more fun. In the Tracking Station, there could be an option to push a button to see what the other agency/agencies are doing but display them in a different colour (while KSP's is white, one could be green, another blue, etc.).

I would adore having the ability to leave trails. It would make activities all the more rewarding, in my opinion. It also opens up the potential for burn scars - charred land from previously landed rockets blaring their engines and scorching the ground beneath them. It would honestly double the enjoyment I'd get from visiting planets/moons, no word of a lie. It's the little things.

Shakespeare, I like it. All of these are valid points. So the game is called Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Boat Program. We get that. But exploration on liquid is as important as exploration over land. When resources are added, how will you mine what is underwater? The drills certainly won't be long enough. We need boat parts to be able to ferry a resource derrick out into the middle of Laythe's/Eve's/Kerbin's oceans and retrieve this <colour> gold. And rovers on water, as seen in the last quote, are used/planned in real life, as are submarines on other bodies. Boat parts would be great. Also, you could ship your spaceplane from the space centre out across the ocean and to another area before flying it. It's a moving runway, which means that there's more diversity, less need for great skills with building long-distance planes, etc. I don't use Spaceplanes because they're more of a faff and less efficient than rockets, as well as being impractical. I'd use boats though. God would I use boats. Inflatable bouncy floaty thingies would work great, too - Multi-use (buoyancy or litho-braking) parts are required (the RAPIER is a fine example).

Ah, I had an inkling that I may have misinterpreted the post. No matter, great to have you here. Mods are fun, right? I'd suggest definitely making a mod if you're considering it, even just a .craft file can get a few thousand downloads and that's pretty satisfying.

True: GLaDOS - Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System. The user below is yet to visit to the Jool system.

The way I read this is that you have been making your own mods for the game, am I correct to interpret it as this? If so, great to see a new modder on the block! If you make something, anything, please do share it on the SpacePort. I suggest starting a big project - play the game and try to find something big that's missing (colonisation, other solar systems, asteroids, etc.) and make it! Those kinds of things get popular really quick . Or a tool, tools are great too. Or a parts pack that's brimming with new stuff. Can't wait to see what you produce, welcome!

This post might help with notes for Delta V. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope so.

To achieve 80KM Orbit around Kerbin requires 4550m/s Delta V. If you create a lifter stage that has 4000m/s and an orbital stage with ~2000m/s you should be able to reach about half of the bodies in KSP. The best way to play is to just deal with the fact that you will​ be left with some orbital debris.

Landing is achieved when a craft is stationary on the surface of a body on solid ground. Splashed down is a craft that remains stationary on the surface of the planet while buoyantly floating atop a liquid.

6/10 +1 not cluttered, well organised +1 the text doesn't look bad +2 Nice screenshot +1 image with a link explaining what it is +1 I need to change my scoring system, it's far too harsh

I agree. I think it should be added in two ways: One as a decal with no mass, and another that has a mass but has some kind of extra interactivity that the decal doesn't have. The issue would be making the size tweakable, don't want them too small for larger command modules but don't want them too big for smaller command modules.

I know them feels, Jngodup - getting over denial is the first step to freedom! But who wants to get over a KSP addiction, right?

Great, thanks for the support Thanks! The voting is now neck-and-neck. Intense stuff going on with that poll

False, it's delicious. The user below me has achieved flight on an atmosphere-bearing planet other than Kerbin.

Moving swiftly onward, why do people want the Ion engine to be nerfed other than for realism? The reason I exclude that as a valid reason is because the game isn't realism-based as can be seen by planet sized and distances. I don't know much about engines, but something tells me that the parts in the game are also beefed more than real life to make the game more enjoyable for more casual appreciators of physics such as myself who like to learn through the game in a non-frustrating way.

False, I think it was kept hush-hush until first release. The user below me prefers Minmus to Mun.

I play the game because I adore physics and space. It's just such an amazing game, it's unbelievable. It's taught me so much, as well. Oh, and the community are just fantastic.

Damn, mis-clicked. I feel like an idiot now. Anyway, I joined in the good ol' days of 0.14.x (it was a while back but I think it was 0.14.2 if that was a thing. I definitely had it for 0.14.4., maybe even as far back as 0.12, I can't remeber at all ) It was approximately 3 months before Kurtjmac started making videos on it. Again, a while back so that might be inaccurate.

While it's irritating to have to wait for hours per burn, that's all part of the balance. If an engine as efficient as this had a somewhat high thrust it would be truly overpowered. It think it's in a good place as it is, it's not something you can abuse but it's not underpowered.

True. A Munar mining network (Kethane) bugged out and spontaneously imploded everywhere (that's the worst one I've had). The user below me has been playing since 0.14 or earlier.