Codraroll
-
Posts
951 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Codraroll
-
-
3 hours ago, magnemoe said:
No idea but the viking had apples even found as grave goods.
Imagine this worked out might be that the attitude an location was not good for apples, pretty close to the tree limit so they only knew them from trade.
Then you had the priests advocating for potatoes to farmers and they might become know as apples locally.,Apples were definitely a thing in Scandinavia even back then. Might have been a bit more exotic and fancy than today, but unheard of.
But potatoes were indeed "marketed" to farmers as "Earth apples" back when they were introduced.
-
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:
You even don't know, how funny sounds Svenja in Russian.
There are definitely a lot of names out there that sound innocuous in their native language, but turn out to be a nasty word or even a slur in foreign languages. After all, a rule of thumb of emytology is that the shortest words in a language have been around for a long time, there are very many languages, and there are only so many sounds to combine short words from, so by necessity, some of the words that describe names in one language describe ... other things in other languages.
Examples of common Norwegian names that sound bad in English include:
- Bård (pronounced like "bored")
- Simen (pronounced like "semen")
- Odd (and due to the quirks of language, it is fully possible to be named Odd Person)
- Line (not a nasty word, but foreigners will pronounce it like in English, which is nowhere close to the Norwegian pronounciation)
- Asmund (names that begin with the prefix "ass-" tend not to work well overseas)
Additionally, due to wildly differing dialects in Norway, there are names that used to work well in one part of the country but turned out rather ... unlucky in others. The name "Bergsvend", which literally translates to "mining apprentice", was common around the Røros area, but less common nowadays as it is pronounced exactly like "Poop friend" in the Oslo dialect. Likewise, the name "Analius" (I really wonder if that will make it through the forum censorship) dropped drastically in usage once people began to realise what those first four letters mean.
I also knew a girl of Vietnamese descent who had her last name changed from "Do" to "Då" (same pronounciation), because "Do" means "toilet" in Norwegian.
-
So Svetlana is the 1920's Russia version of Daenerys?
That name has always sunded a bit funny in Norwegian, because "Svett" means "Sweaty", so anybody introducing themselves as "Svetlana" would immediately bring to mind a perspirating woman named Lana.
-
7 hours ago, tater said:
That's a little on the nose, isn't it?
-
23 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:
5% is in regards to all T2 employees, not just PD staff. However, I still find his statements puzzling- how can a studio not be shuttered, if its offices are closed, and 70 people were fired, when there were only 70 people working in it?
Technically he hasn't said anything wrong, since they are going to "support" KSP 2. But all this needs to be true is one more update coming out.
My guess is that Private Division still holds the rights to the KSP franchise, and it is through them that KSP sales money makes its way to the T2 coffers.
Continuing to "support" the game might just mean that they retain the brand rights under Private Division, and use the set-up already established by them to sell the game through Steam. That T2 lets Private Division exist as a "shell company" whose only purpose is the logistical aspects of owning and selling the Kerbal Space Program games. That they keep the same name and logo on the legal documents so they don't have to change anything in that respect. And likewise, suing in the name of Private Division if somebody tries to create and market a "Kerbal Spice Program".
That way, the studio isn't technically closed, it just continues to exist purely for managing the intellectual property.
-
16 hours ago, DDE said:
Yes. Plesetsk. Rideshare. And that was under Shoigu. Imagine how things may run now that an auditor is in charge...
Judging by the expression on his face, he's not thinking family-friendly words as he reads that document. That's the look of a man who knows he's about to become really unpopular with the people upstairs, or downstairs, or possibly both. The word "downsizing" probably figures a lot in his mental notes at that moment.
-
3 hours ago, cocoscacao said:
That whole thing was a short, fun read. I wonder what low/no G sports can be invented.
I don't think you'd necessarily have to invent new ones, because existing ones could be fun too. Imagine handball in low G, for instance. On the Moon, the Magnus effect is almost as influential to the trajectory of the ball as gravity, so giant leaps with crazy curveballs would be possible. It'd have to require a huge stadium, though, but it should be doable compared to baseball or golf.
-
-
15 hours ago, herbal space program said:
After saying that, he remarked that if he were them, one thing he would definitely never have done is to start by trying to create a feature-complete upgrade of the original game, because that is a very high bar to reach without actually creating any kind of really new content that would represent a novel sort of hook.
I maintain my position that this was one of the largest failures of KSP2: it had very little new stuff that would give players a reason to buy it.
Sure, there were other issues under the hood as well. Oh so many issues. But it's generally not a concern to players what goes on under the hood - at least when they are considering whether to buy the game. Above the hood, what was offered was "KSP1, but neater graphics - which means you need a beefier computer for it." The hook was missing.
Heck, I still wonder why they chose to feature the same exact solar system as the first game, even when they were going for a feature copy. Fans have already seen Minmus, Eve, Duna, and the rest of the planetary bodies. There would at least have been a hook in a new suite of planets, even if they didn't function any differently than the planets in the first game. From a development perspective, it makes no difference whether the gas giant is green and called Jool, or light-grey and called Sarnus, but it really helps marketing to have that difference to intrigue new players. Heck, ask any content creator whether they'd have preferred to make a video about "Let's see what Jool looks like in KSP2" or "Let's explore a new planet in KSP2". That difference is what makes people interested in the sequel.
Granted, I don't think this would have been a simple fix and instant recipe for success. The game had enough other issues that caused development to progress like a toad in syrup. "Development hell" would still have been a thing. But maybe they'd have earned enough money to push onward a little further before giving up. And at least we'd be left with a noticeably different game experience at the end of it. As it currently stands, I have no intention of buying KSP2, because I haven't seen anything to convince me that I couldn't get the same experience, running much more smoothly, in KSP1.
-
7 hours ago, Carraux said:
I think this was sarcasm
My guess is that it was an AI spambot. Knowing the type, they will make a few posts until they are allowed to post links, then add in a sentence along the lines of "By the way, I used this tool to make money on crypto" somewhere in the massive nobody-reads-all-that block of quoted text, intended only for the "eyes" of search engines. The idea is to trick the search engine into thinking "oh, somebody linked to this scummy crypto tool from a well-renowned forum, I guess the scummy crypto tool deserves to appear higher in the search rankings, then!"
-
1 hour ago, darthgently said:
Imagine the primetime news coverage angle had this been a certain other prominent company
Now you've got me imagining the news coverage angles if a spacecraft had been built by a multiple of other prominent companies ... that have nothing to do with spaceflight.
"To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Walmart's spacecraft failed to make a flight today. The responsible engineers were reportedly fired on the spot, and replacements hired among passers-by on the street outside the launch complex ..."
"We're not entirely sure why Starbucks tried to build a spacecraft, but apparently a stuck valve presented problems. A spokesperson for the company says 'we're not used to working with cold liquids', and denies concerns that the fuel tanks were mostly filled with foam ..."
"McDonald's's attempt to go to space today failed. Company engineers fear a revision of the spacecraft design would be necessary, as this would impact more than 65,000 spacecraft building facilities all over the world ..."
"There are unconfirmed and conflicting reports that Facebook's spacecraft did not launch today. On the social media platforms, millions of accounts shared and upvoted AI-generated footage of the launch, and congratulated each other with a job well done. The footage does not remotely agree on the design of the spacecraft, however, nor the location of its launch complex."
"General Motors' new rocket reportedly drove over five engineers and a school bus as it was transported to the launch stand today, where it expended enough fuel to fill a swimming pool without even turning the engines on. The 700-by-700-by-700 foot rocket, weighing several million tons, is expected to be able to launch nearly thirty pounds of groceries to space. They would have to be softly wrapped, however, so as not to scratch the finish on the Indestructium (R) trailer bed."
-
25 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:
This can’t be correct for a minimal lander to and from low lunar orbit since we know Apollo LEM was able to do it at ca. 15 tons gross mass.
You're using the wrong value of "it" in this sentence. The Apollo lander only managed the equivalent of pitching a tent on the Moon's surface. Artemis asks for much more capability [Snip]
-
"Still working" might very well just mean "We'll make sure that the Steam page remains up, that there is an account to receive any future income from sales, and that somebody is around to sue in case a competitor tries to market a Kerbal Weight Loss Program after we are gone."
-
4 hours ago, Exoscientist said:
I agree with you contracting Boeing or Lockheed to do it they would figure out a way to charge NASA a billion+ dollars for it. (See my sig file.) But I think Masten was thinking of using the stage and modifying it by his company to do it, at the millions of dollars range instead of billions of dollars range.
It is oh-so-easy to stand with a PowerPoint presentation and promise a million-dollar range instead of a billion-dollar range. But once integration begins, those order-of-magnitude savings have a nasty tendency to evaporate into *less than nothing*.
-
2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:
Hopefully not too exciting given how Boeing's been lately.
Given how Boeing's been lately, "Starliner worked more-or-less as it was supposed to!" would be an exciting surprise too.
-
10:34 PM ET? Bah, that's half past four in the morning here. Guess I'll wake up to exciting headlines tomorrow.
-
On 5/4/2024 at 4:15 PM, Max Que said:
Far too much of that development time and effort was spent on creative design features at the expense of core stability.
But paradoxically, too few of those creative design features ever manifested in the game, which ended up playing like a prettier-looking, but bug-riddled feature copy of KSP1. That probably didn't help it attract customers.
I can only vouch for my personal experience, but I decided to wait to buy the game until it offered something that KSP1 didn't. After all, KSP2 came with a steep price tag and stability issues, but also the exact same planets and gameplay as KSP1. It was a setting I already had explored. It truly felt like I wouldn't miss out on anything by not buying KSP2 just yet.
The decision to try to get a stable version of KSP1 to run in the engine first was probably sensible from a development point of view, but it also meant the sequel had nothing new to offer returning fans. KSP1 offered the exact same gameplay with fewer bugs and more mods available, for a lower price, able to run on older computers.
It baffles me that they didn't try to implement something to give KSP2 a unique draw. Giving Kerbin a third moon, or changing some of the planets in the solar system, or adding more planets, something like that. Sure, it would probably have added yet more to development time, but it would also have made the sequel stand out a bit more, and possibly attracted enough buyers to make continued development worthwhile. It's hard to make sales without selling points.
-
36 minutes ago, Skorj said:
The logical first step for KSP2 development was to re-write the core of KSP1, replacing the fundamental design mistakes in the physics engine with something that would be robust and scale to large craft. Nate even said they had done that as the starting point, back in 2019 or so. Once that is solid you start adding new content. It's clear now they didn't even finish the first step.
My personal theory is that Nate was telling the truth at the time: ST built a solid foundation for KSP2, that IP was lost with the shuffle to IG, and the talent was no longer there to re-create it. But maybe that's overly optimistic of me and they simply never finished the first small project in 7 years of work.
It's the logical approach in terms of workflow, yes, but I think the lack of anything "new" really hampered the sales potential of KSP2. It made players feel they wouldn't miss out on anything by waiting until the sequel got better, since the first game had the same setting and gameplay. So a lot of potential buyers just sat this one out, hampering the revenue flow and limiting their ability to fund the development. I think they would have benefited a lot by making relatively superficial changes, like changing some of the planets in the Kerbin system, to give people a reason to buy the game.
But I guess they realized that too late, and had committed themselves to building the foundation first, before spending any dev time on new features. Then that process hit one major snag after another, and they were left with a game that was not quite KSP1 that they couldn't add anything to, and a severely demotivated fan base.
I'm beginning to suspect that they had painted themselves too far into a corner to be able to save the game in any case. That something had to be re-done again on a fundamental level to permit the inclusion of other solar systems, or multiplayer, or colonies. Essentially, that no amount of polishing the current product would allow them to realize the visions of the announcement trailer. Because I certainly am not getting the vibe that they were anywhere close to figuring out the technical details of implementing those features.
-
17 minutes ago, Elthy said:
I wonder if we will see testing in a vacuum chamber, im curious how flexible it is under pressure.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just pump 2 atmospheres of pressure into the suit and test it in a regular chamber?
-
After a couple of days of pondering the bad news, one thing keeps really bugging me.
Why did KSP2 end up like a graphically souped-up version of KSP1?
I mean, the main reason why anybody would buy a sequel to a game they already own, is because the sequel features exciting new content, or at least does something better or at least different. A new world to explore, new fun mechanics, new gameplay elements ... something must be new for players to invest more of their money on a product similar to the one they already own. Even if it is something as marginal as whatever EA does to their licensed football games every year. Novelty is the key to engagement.
But as far as I can tell, as a reluctant consumer who decided to wait and see with KSP2, the game has ended up as a better-looking, but ultimately inferior copy of the first game. It features the same planets, the same gameplay loop, the same mechanics ... except for being a buggy and unstable mess. It has better visuals that require a beefier computer to run, but lacks a draw compared to its predecessor. As a consumer, I look at what's offered and ask myself "why should I want to buy this?" It appears to offer nothing more than I could already do with KSP1, except bugs and performance issues. It appears to feature the same world, explored in the same way. I was waiting for some novelty to hook me and drag me in, but it just never happened.
Funny thing is, the people who marketed the game seem to have understood this. Look at the initial announcement trailer. It features new technologies. Never-before-seen ship parts. Orbital construction yards above the clouds of Juno. New planets. Colonies. Multiplayer.The people who made that trailer understood that they needed to show off things KSP1 couldn't do.
But all those years later, precisely none of it came to fruition. The developers never got further than trying to make a KSP1 copy work. None of the features we were waiting for were implemented. Or for that matter, featured in the development updates. The whole fan base sat waiting for news on the new star systems, new mechanics, new stuff, and what they showed was "here's the daily life of the community manager" and "look, we made exhaust plumes nicer!" Sure, there were interesting visualizations of how features like drag or heat build-up worked, but I doubt anybody held out their purchase waiting for a more detailed heat management system.
Sure, those new features were always on the roadmap. The concepts were frequently discussed on the "some day, in the finished game" level. But we never saw any sign of their implementation (which, in hindsight, invites a few "interesting" conclusions ...). For whatever reason, they never got as far as letting us play with any new toys in this game. What was actually in the game strikes me as less than what was in KSP1. If that sentiment is common, it's no wonder nobody bought it.
Even putting a new planet in the Kerbol system would have been a decent first taste of that sequel feeling. Just swap out Juno and its moons for Sarnus, or something like that. Mechanically, it wouldn't be anything different than the planets that were already there, but it would add some much-needed novelty to justify buying a sequel. But they never got around to that. It seems like the development priority was all about creating a stable copy of KSP1 in the KSP2 engine first, then expanding later. Perhaps that's the "correct" and tidy way of doing something like this, but a KSP1 copy isn't going to draw any customers who are interested in more than KSP1. Even something as nice as volumetric clouds is ultimately just garnish on the same, boring dish. I really can't understand how they chose to disregard the important concept of novelty for so long. Sure, adding new planets or features wouldn't do anything to get the game finished faster, but it would potentially have drawn more customers to keep the game funded during development.
-
4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
FWIW - Cities 2 is in the same state.
Nah, Cities 2 is currently playable without gameplay-destroying bugs, it actually has most of the features it was advertised with (although a few of them are poorly implemented) and its much-delayed mod support is at least partially up and running. The Traffic Manager mod was released to the public yesterday. It appears able to crawl, slowly but steadily, out of its early-access heck.
KSP2, after more than a year of development, has still only managed feature parity with KSP1, but is troubled by certain bugs its predecessor solved years ago, and the advertised sequel features are absolutely nowhere to be seen. Judging by the type of content they chose to feature in the developer diaries, there was essentially zero progress on adding more star systems, multiplayer, or extraplanetary colonies (except orbital structures, where it appears they have had a 3D model, at least). I'm starting to suspect that Take-Two pulled the plug because the game wasn't anywhere close to what its marketing had promised, and wouldn't be there even with multiple more years of development.
-
Heh, here's a purely-for-fun speculation on KSP2's past. As in, at some point at the end of April, the present year.
"Mister developer," the auditor from Take-Two's head office asks once the KSP development team has settled in the big meeting room. "It has been a while since your last update. The head honchos want to know how the development of Kerbal Space Program 2 is going."
"Oh, it's going, uh, great!" says the lead developer. "We're working on a way to make coast lines look a lot better! See here!" He nervously puts some comparison pictures on the big monitor at the end of the table. "And we think we're closer to finding out how to implement thermal loads, and we've made rocket exhaust look prettier, and there's clouds ..."
"Clouds?" asks the auditor, raising an eyebrow.
"It's kind of a big deal to the fans. And we've got somebody really talented working on-"
"Will prettier clouds sell more copies of the game?"
"Uh, it's nice to have, at least. Oh, and we're tracking down that dastardly bug that makes landed craft fall through the terrain ..." the developer visibly shudders from the stare the auditor gives him.
"How about the features that the consumers are actually waiting for?"
"Uh, you mean the decaying orbits problem? We-"
"I mean the new planets. New star systems. Interstellar travel. Colonies, mister developer. Are you making the kind of features that would make this game a worthwhile purchase?"
"We have some new 3D models of orbital colony modules."
"Do they work?"
"They don't explode 35 seconds after being placed anymore. We spent four months figuring out what-"
"Are they usable in game? Can you demonstrate to me how this colony would work for the player?"
"Ah, we have a flowchart here. See, the players input would be-"
"I mean, not the concept. The implementation. Open the debug menu and place a colony in-game. Show me what a player can do with it."
"Uh, it's just a 3D model for now. We haven't started on the implementation itself yet."
"And why is that, mister developer?"
"Uh ... well, you see, we kind of worked off the code base on KSP1, where colonies weren't implemented, and when we got the same code running in KSP2, and colonies didn't work there either, and after that, we sort of changed focus to work on engine exhausts instead."
The meeting room is silent for 36 seconds, until the colony 3D model placed in the game explodes violently and the game crashes to desktop.
"So you haven't even started yet, is that what you're saying?"
"We have some new concept art of a fusion rocket ..." the developer nervously opens Blender, but gives up when the auditor glares at him again.
"How about the new star systems?"
"Ah, I can tell you a bit about those. See, Kerbal Space Program was coded to have the Sun at the origin of its coordinate system. Everything in-game happens in relation to the Sun. Everything orbits the Sun. Every planet needs the Sun as a central body. So if you want more star systems, you have to make a new coordinate system."
"How is progress on that front?"
"Uh, to start with, we copied over the code from Kerbal Space Program 1, and made that work okay-ish except for a few bugs, and now we realized we would have to start anew if we want more solar systems, because we're under the exact same limitations as the previous game. So we went to work on clouds instead."
"So you're saying that, essentially, you have spent five years trying to make an inferior copy of Kerbal Space Program 1, with prettier graphics, without getting even a little closer to making it possible to add the features that were the whole reason why players wanted a sequel in the first place?"
"Uhh ... we have some nice concept art too! We have many ideas!"
"How close are you to bringing those ideas to reality?"
"If you give us, say, five more years, and a hundred million dol-"
The auditor gets up and leaves. Ten minutes later, the building's power goes out.
-
10 hours ago, Westinghouse said:
I'm also curious to know how they planned Rask and Ruas to work.
Other things I'd like to know:
How would collisions work with planetary rings of Glumo and the other planets with rings showcased?
What was the list of resources they planned to introduce and their corresponding rocket fuel types?
Would colony buildings be rigid bodies that could collapse like seen in the trailer?
What was the planned narrative? What was the story behind all those monuments?
One thing I'm very curious to know is: is there any indication they had made any meaningful progress on the implementation of the promised features that were not in KSP1?
I mean, KSP2 was sold to us with a trailer showing a bunch of features that would be impossible to have in KSP1: Multiple star systems, interstellar craft, colonies ... those are all features that KSP1's code base simply doesn't support. Those were the big selling points.
And then you look at the developer diaries. Not one of them discusses these new features. They are all about re-creating or polishing features that were in KSP1, or conceptual approaches to game development, community management, making new assets, and so on. Those are great and important things to consider when making a functional game, sure, but they are not the key features of the KSP sequel.
A large portion of the fan base spent this whole pre-release period sitting on the fence, waiting for KSP2 to become something closer to what was announced in the trailer. The developers must have known the importance of delivering these features. But not only did those features never materialize, they weren't even talked about all that much. Sure, there were concepts floated about, but concepts are cheap and easy. How was the implementation going? Was it going, like, at all? Did they really have a solution pinned down for Rask and Rusk, or were they still on the spitballing-ideas stage? Had they coded something that resembled the colonies in the trailer, or were they just modelling assets without any means of making them work?
I'm half suspecting that the developers spent all this time trying to feature-copy KSP1, picking the lowest fruit as it were, but having no idea how to realize their visions. They had a more capable engine and prettier graphics, but were stuck trying to make it work like the previous game, possibly stumbling right into the same code structure limitations that made those features impossible in KSP1.
In short, I'm wondering whether KSP2, as first announced, ever existed at all. That all they had, and all they could ever make, was a prettier feature copy of KSP1, riddled with bugs they couldn't fix either. If that was the case, I'm not entirely surprised that Take-Two pulled the plug.
-
9 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:
The bizarre thing is, whilst option #2 comes with funding the studio, the game was generally in a bit of an upward trajectory since December. They funded it for an entire calendar year, let development reach a point where the game was there or there about for ramping up features and then what, cancel it? You've gotta see that as the most sensible option at this point. I find it hard to believe they would have funded it at all if the expected revenue was so low.
Okay, wild speculation time:
I must admit I haven't followed development that closely, but some whispers and snippets (probably not the best news sources, but what have you) makes me suspect they had run into some major difficulties.
KSP2, it appears, if I've understood it correctly, has essentially been developed to the point of feature parity with KSP1, plus prettier graphics, plus a whole lot of bugs.
The additional features people expected from the sequel - and indeed, its trailer - still seem to be missing entirely. Colonies? Work in progress at best, with scant news about how they plan for them to work. Other star systems? Nope. Game mechanics that would allow you to travel to other star systems? Nope again. Multiplayer? They don't even appear to have fleshed out how it could work on a conceptual level. Like, how would time warp work?
In my moment of darkly despairing speculation, I'm starting to wonder whether they've had any clue at all how to deliver on the promised features. With access to the KSP1 code, they managed to make KSP2 work sort-of-like KSP1, except a few aspects of the "work" part. But rewriting the code and readying it for the new features seems to have been hopelessly far beyond their means.
Instead, they've spent the time picking low-hanging fruit. Making exhaust plumes look prettier, adding new rocket parts, re-doing ground textures, researching the theoretical ISP of metallic Hydrogen engines, squashing a few bugs, prettifying the graphics ... but not making any serious progress on the serious features. They kept polishing the features that were in KSP1, but those features that were supposed to be the whole point of the sequel have been remarkably absent from any dev updates. Instead of confronting the difficult challenges, development seems to have been churning around the comparatively easy ones.
In this gloomy and befuddled state of nearly unfounded speculation, I can almost understand Take-two. Might there have been internal audits before? Did some company accountant ask them when the promised new features could be expected, possibly multiple times, and always get the answer "maybe in a year from now"? Did the internal presentations always show "Look how pretty these new coastlines are" or "we figured out how to transfer thermal loads between parts", and ignore the questions about "Yes, very nice, but how about travelling to new planetary systems, which is what the fence-sitting fans have been waiting on for the past four years?" Or did they not ignore, but mumblingly admit that getting anywhere close to those features would require a re-write of the game's code or even doing stuff the game engine doesn't support? If so, I can understand that the higher-ups shut off the money faucet.
It might be that I didn't pay enough attention to development, but to me it seems like they've spent all their energy/time/money trying to make KSP2 work like KSP1 did, or improve on features KSP1 had, but without any progress whatsoever on the features that would give KSP2 a unique selling point beyond "KSP1, but with prettier graphics that you need a better PC to enjoy." It suggests that the dev team have been enthusiastic about new ideas for features, but lacked the means to actually implement them.
Because those features - as seen in the trailer, Jeb speeding a rover off a ramp and wrecking a colony base on a moon orbiting a ringed planet in a system orbiting a star light-years away from Kerbin - those features would have driven sales. It's what half of us were waiting for. Something that isn't possible in KSP1, that you'd have to buy the sequel to experience. Heck, even KSP2-exclusive planets in the Kerbol system would have been a unique selling point. But those rock-solid reasons to buy the sequel never manifested.
And I don't think the developers were unaware of their potential impact on sales. So that leaves me asking: why? How come there was no progress on the promised features after so many years in development? Granted, I know it's important to get the basics finished before adding more features to an already bug-troubled game, but this focus on re-creating a working copy of KSP1 first before getting to KSP2, while a large portion of the fan base hold back their purchase until they see something worthy of a sequel, strikes me as odd. Implementation troubles seems to be a depressingly likely explanation.
Deep Space Network should be in deep space!
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
My understanding is that the Deep Space Network services Deep Space (in the "anything beyond the Earth and the Moon" definition of the term), but in itself it's located conveniently close. Similar to how the Foreign Secretary isn't a foreign national.