swjr-swis

I don't remember any such question in that survey. At least, not about KSP2; that question just said 'Kerbal Space Program'. So, hopeless optimist that I am, that is exactly how I answered it. The only questions specifically about KSP 2 are whether you plan to buy it when released, and what would make you more likely to buy it.

Well, that's partly why I said 'setting aside the perhaps bigger issues'. The focus of his question was elsewhere. I may not always play it safe in KSP, but I still try to ensure Kerbals leave with reasonable means to either survive or return already included in the package I send up. And this is a game, with green pixel creatures for which 'death' just means a short moment of inexistence until their next respawn. Not sure I would consider fusion to be the make or break issue though. We haven't needed it for anything else yet. Ok thank you, I missed that part.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you disagree with their idea of a returning vehicle, and posit that the material and machinery of the vehicle itself should be used in one-way traffic only, effectively making most of itself part of the payload they move to Mars. Presumably, as a solution for the -at least initial- lack of locally sourced high-grade parts/materials. I can see how this would offer more bang for the buck of a single flight, especially for the first flights. And it's not like the pioneers expect to head back home anytime soon after first landfall. Would this lower the longer-term cost of the whole endeavour though, during the timespan between first landfall and a self-sustaining colony that can build its own vehicles? If the spaceships cannot be reused in that time? How many one-way ships will be sent on a one-way trip? Is there any way to quantify, back of a napkin style, whether the local assimilation of a one-way vehicle clearly offers more value/costs less than delivering a bit less total payload, but continuing to reuse the same, largely already paid-for vehicles?

Ok, so getting back to the actual topic of this thread (Elon's request for help/ideas in a tweet to KSP): I interpret this as inviting feedback on SpaceX's plans/roadmap, with a specific focus on the achievement of actual colonization of Mars. It looks to me as a genuine request too - it's not worded like a typical KSP game challenge. Input from the KSP community, and by extension from all that have their interest in space enterprise sparked or renewed by KSP, is apparently welcome. The question I think he's asking, somewhat rephrased for clarity: in what way are we -SpaceX specifically or humanity in general- most likely to succeed in setting up sustainable residence on Mars? Currently the main focus seems to be on 'cost per ton to the surface of' - in this case Mars. So. Setting aside for a moment the perhaps much bigger issues involving the creation of a self-sustaining ecosystem on an as-of-yet lifeless planet (not much of a backup if all we do is land a few craft and people and build a station/colony that cannot survive independently from Earth): Do we -the extended KSP community at large- have any helpful ideas or suggestions on how to optimize 'cost per ton to the surface of'? Maybe even something that SpaceX or the other players aren't yet even doing or trying yet? There's been tons of challenges over the years in this forum and in other parts of the community, focused specifically on launch/lift efficiency. Lots of different approaches, some very hands-on, some very down-to-the-math, others very experimental. Is any of that useful to the real life equivalent?

A few things: To use as flaps - place them near the CoM/CoL to add lift and lower stall speed, which can help with both taking off and landing a (space)plane. To use as spoilers/airbrakes - in high deployment angles, and especially when used in opposing-deployment pairs, they can help to slow a (space)plane down in the air and on the runway. To change the natural pitch attitude - this can help maintaining a nose-up attitude when re-entering a spaceplane, or inversely, force a shallower climb rate during the ascent/speed-run. EDIT: To use elevons as variable-angle-of-incidence wings - sacrificing some lift efficiency compared to fixed wing parts to let us adapt/optimize AoI in flight (PAW slider!). To induce spin - when done on radially-mirrored fins/elevons, it can be used to start and/or maintain a stabilizing spin on a rocket. To control jet thrust without suffering from slow spool-up/down - place them near the jet exhaust so they obstruct it when deployed, and you have a handy near-immediate on/off switch to thrust. As actuators - they can push things! Use your imagination as to what that can do for your craft. Al the above, at the touch of a configurable action key, and sometimes, combined too.

With mixed feelings, considering 1.12.x is the last major update we're going to get, I still have to say 1.3.1. It's the best performing version, and I can keep it running throughout an entire day (or night, most often) of continuous editing, testing, and reverting, without problems. Not a single update after that will run for longer than an hour or two of that before performance severely degrades, graphics start glitching, screen freezes, or the whole thing outright crashes to desktop. Yes, a lot of QoL has been added since then. And it'll be grand to finally have a 'stable' (as in no longer changing) version that the community can try to fix up as best as possible, allowing mods to stabilize too. I just had the -admittedly very thin by now- hope that the final official update would be a serious effort at polishing and finishing the pile of half-implemented or less-than-optimally-working things still left in the game. I really, really wanted 1.3.1 to get a proper successor. My motto for the past few years has been 'Maybe the next version.' Time for it to become 'Bring on the UKLEP (Unofficial KSP Last Edition Patch)'. Maybe then I can finally retire 1.3.1.

Unfortunately I couldn't solve the hatch obstruction for this particular variant. I honestly can't riddle KSP's obstruction code in this instance. I really like how it flies though. Fun little plane.

Would be helpful to post an actual link: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1410525535147601924

In basic principle I agree with you - yes, it would be even better if it was able to show those numbers in some meaningful way that would be helpful for a potential downloader to use in their particular context. It is however not a trivial bit of calculation to code, not by a long shot, not even if we could reach a clear consensus of The One Context Above All Other Contexts to choose for the one set of numbers to show (you've already encountered this issue yourself, having to switch the in-game readout between settings, to get the more relevant numbers depending on what you want to know at the time). Keep also in mind it's a volunteer-run site paid for by its owner and a few fan contributions, which can only fund so much hosting capacity. Current processing loads are already straining its capacity at times. So all things considered and within the hosting limitations available, KerbalX gives priority to easy uploading and lots of freedom on how you wish to present your craft, powerful searching on an extensive list of fixed attributes of craft, and easy downloading so it can be quickly tested in your own game. "Let the sharing site do what it does best, and the game what it does best."

There are two main things to look for: Delta-V for how far you can hope to reach: the more you can change your velocity, the bigger the differences in start/end trajectory. TWR for how much payload you can hope to lift/move: the more TWR of the unloaded craft, the more extra mass you can add. KerbalX.com doesn't list dV/TWR because it only shows what is directly readable from the craft file - dV and TWR are not saved as numbers in the craft file. The potential dV and TWR have to be calculated from the sum of the craft's fuel, mass, and the attributes of the different (sets of) engines in different stages, while adjusting for atmospheric pressure and gravity. So it is left up to the uploader to provide that information on the craft page if they so wish, in whatever form they feel is appropriate.

You may have misunderstood a few of the listed requirements, making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself. The mentioned RL planes being mentioned 'for inspiration' is not meant to restrict to that particular visual appearance, just as examples. And autostruts are not considered cheating in challenges unless explicitly mentioned so (and I can't remember seeing a challenge that did). I was curious about the limited speed of your plane for something powered by a twin Wheesley and looking very low-drag, so I braved loading up KSP on my currently pitiful non-play machine to try it out. There was a bit of obvious tweaking that could be done (adding some AoI on the wings for one), but basically what holds back your plane is the hinges: just the two hinges by themselves account for more than half of the total drag in flight, and it's enough to permanently lock it in subsonic state despite the available thrust. So, I can't help the raw performance or the closely connected range of the plane much, but I did get the wings to be a lot more sturdy and reliable, and without the need for struts (auto or otherwise). Other than some normal bending at high G turns, it never once had any kind of breakage, even after pulling up to 15G turns and pull ups after dives. The craft file, if you want to try it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tozmmhpqscwio1m/SA - Naval Transport v4.craft?dl=0 It's yours to use as you see fit.

Dem's fightin' words... Strange people. How do you manage to play a game for even 5 mins without starting to talk aloud to nobody in particular?

Any of the dV recommendations you see (like the various dV maps) are always listed as vacuum dV. Mind what @Snark said though: you will want to check the sea level numbers too, to check if the TWR of the first stage is enough to lift off the surface.

Never. Years ago now, I've had my 5yr old niece on my lap gleefully watching me build and test-fly Kerbal contraptions, adding odd bits and ends to my rocket, because clearly they needed to be there. And helping hit the spacebar at all the right wrong interesting moments. With apparently completely hilarious results, to her. I made her and her slightly older brother a Steam account a while ago, and added a small collection of games to it. KSP is among them. Never too early to start playing KSP.

The horse, expire it did. Beating it more, we shall not.

"Oh you're in luck today! You get one of the special seats, with built-in seat-warmers!"

A few small tweaks to your craft, and an ascent profile much like @Streetwind suggests, can get you back to a 80km orbit with a good bit of margin to play with. I did have to strip the non-stock parts to be able to load your craft and test/tweak it. But I think you'll find there's enough margin to re-add them and still get to orbit (and back) easily. Tweaked craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qo793yjv7bvf5oj/_Scanner 02 minmus.craft?dl=0

Personally, I'm hoping nothing about the base game or its modding systems go out of their way to facilitate any of this. I'd be very content to never see any kind of weapon/battling systems in KSP2, ever. Someone is going to add it by way of mods, that's practically inevitable. But maybe if it's at least not facilitated, it'll remain a very niche thing, and those urges will mostly be taken to other games. There's enough games out there catering to that sort of thing. It's not like we need much effort or imagination to cause destruction in outer space anyway. Throw a bucket of bolts out the airlock at the right moment, even from halfway around the planet - 10000x more effective than any overpriced high-tech missile or lazor you can ever imagine.

Canadarm2 ouchie... https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/iss/news.asp#20210528 "Lucky strike: Canadarm2 stays the course after an orbital debris hit"

Error confirmed. While it's being looked at, you can download the latest github release directly from here: https://github.com/Sujimichi/CraftManager/releases/tag/1.2.0 You will also need to download and install KXAPI: https://github.com/Sujimichi/KXAPI/releases/tag/1.2.0

You, and me, and everyone...

And in the early morning when there's no games going on, the arena floor parts and they launch a Mun rocket from the subterranean silo. No? Just me?

Not to be equally pedantic but: it actually didn't. (hint: what airs in *your* country may not be so for others.)

Ahh ok. A character from an post-edited extended universe to an existing franchise that I could only ever know if I subscribed to and paid for a service created for the specific purpose of gating access to that content. Ok, got it. [minirant] Disney has decided to gather all their toys and take them home with them. Not sure what they expected to happen. Granted, they were nice toys for as long as it lasted, but I am quite happy in the sandbox I was already playing in, and have enough other toys to play with. I'm not going anywhere. Buh bye! [/minirant]