Tyko

wow! that's a crazy amount. A typical re-entry from Mun / Minmus usually uses less than 100. Was your re-entry really shallow? Craft seem to get a lot hotter as they plow through the upper atmosphere. I've found that setting my PE around 30Km gets the ship into the middle layers more quickly and reduces heat.

You're probably way ahead of me...but...It would be really cool if "anomalies" were things like - a unique mountain peak, or a geologically interesting canyon, or an ancient river delta, or a mysterious deep cavern entrance - rather than a monolith Those great graphical planet profiles in the Wiki have an "exit" button, so look like part of an interface. Does this interface exist in-game? if so, where is it?

Aesthetics are in the eye of the creator...your idea of pleasing may be very different from others'. The Apollo LEM is a great example...even its mother wouldn't call it "cute", but I find it pleasing because it's so perfectly suited for it's purpose. The cool thing about KSP is that (mostly) ships obey real physics laws, so it can be really fun to optimize your craft for the environment - vehicles operating in the atmosphere shouldn't have a lot of random bits sticking out - for example. As a note about clipping - even if you visually clip a part into another part, the game determines aerodynamics based on where the part was attached, not on where you offset it. For example - if you attach a bunch of monoprop tanks to the outside of your ship, but then visually offset them deeper into the ship, the game still treats them as if they're attached to the outside for drag purposes. If you really want to move things out of the airstream you have to use cargo bays and fairings

That's just awesome! How'd you get that monstrosity off Kerbin?

I just went for coffee and considered this further... The big benefit of CLLS is how simple it is. Adding any additional resource requirements jeopardizes that benefit. For the sake of simplicity, I'd prefer that recyclers only consume EC. I'm kind of thinking there should be three options: Carry more LS - For shorter trips use Recyclers to reduce LS consumption by consuming EC relatively light, relatively low EC requirements - balance them so that they become a better bargain than carrying LS for trips longer than 30-60 days For moderate length trips to long trips. Likely used in conjunction with Generators for really long trips use Generators to produce additional LS. Heavy with higher EC requirements - balance them so they become a better bargain than Recyclers for trips longer than 6 months For long trips

LOL...Ore as Activated Charcoal...huh? that's an interesting approach. I think the biggest issue is that this would only benefit ground bases - otherwise you have ships carrying ore around to act as catalzyer which doesn't make any sense from a mass efficiency standpoint. if you want Ore to be part of the cycle, then I think it would be better to identify the component in Ore that's necessary for LS and then allow that to be refined from Ore or carried in it's refined state in tanks on the ships

Ouch sorry...I have a strict rule (that I mostly stick to) once a station is in position. I turn off any engines. I also turn off the engines of any ships that are docking with it. Once they on final approach and only using RCS I turn the engines off. This has helped to avoid accidental accelerations.

Nice! I've often debated with myself on the value of capping off the top of my capsules with an aerodynamic nosecone. Do you notice a difference or is it because it looks cleaner...(It DOES look better)

glad to help...the TWP Mod is pretty straightforward. That's what I use instead of the web app. you pick your planet of origin and you're destination planet. It recommends the most efficient upcoming transfer window. Happy flying

according to Roverdude's Wiki Kerbals consume 1.8 units of Supplies / Hour = 10.8 units per day / Kerbal. I'd recommend using Transfer Window Planner to plan your interplanetary trips. It will tell you precisely how many days a given trip will take...multiply that by number of Kerbals X 10.8 and you should get a good target for your Supplies needs. Also you can look at the Community Delta-V Map, which includes estimated travel times to each of the stock planets. I'd recommend the first approach though because it's going to be a lot more accurate. One more thing read up on recyclers in USI-LS because they can cut your Supplies consumption by more than 50%.

but...umm...KSP is a game about building and launching rockets using current or near-future technologies and (mostly) obeying the laws of physics as we understand them today. The game you're proposing with hyperwarp drives isn't KSP. You've proposed ignoring the physics model and ignoring most of the components the game comes with. Which components of KSP do you actually want to keep?

Just to recap...(because apparently you don't like to read points before arguing against them) here are the two pieces of info I pulled from his book: On Delta-V, you can aerobrake on Mars, not on the Moon, so the Delta-V costs of send stuff to the surface are actually pretty similar. according the DV chart below. It costs ~13.1 DV to Mars with Aerobraking versus ~15.7 DV to Moon surface. On habitability, radiation is more of an issue for both humans and crops because the unfiltered solar radiation on the moon isn't good for crops. Also, harder to find water and many other necessary resources for survival meaning a lot more has to be carted in from Earth. You'll note, that neither of those say anything about trans-shipping materials from Mars/Moon to anywhere...so what exactly are you saying he's wrong about?

I was thinking last night about this convo while I was playing. I noted all the times I time warped - I probably time warped a dozen times an hour often-times only for 15 minutes or maybe a few hours. There were a few time warps of a couple of days. If i was in an MP game in which all players had to agree on time warps, most of those small time warps probably wouldn't have happened and I would have spent many hours of my valuable game time reading a book or going for a quick walk while I waited an hour for my ship to reach it's next maneuver node. Anyone who's an advocate of MP cooperative time warps should really spend a couple of days playing the game without ever using time warp except for major events because in a coop environment only major events would work, otherwise there'd be a overwhelming demand for mini-warps.

@Poodmund & @Galileo...you two are seriously costing me money...I broke down and bought a new graphics card today just so I could fully experience all your work. I think a GTX 980 Ti should cut it, so bring on your sandstorms, your moon dust and your clouds!!

you lost me at "I haven't read it but he's wrong" ... that's an awesome basis for your argument.

Yes, it's possible. Yes it's hard. You may want to read up on the GPP forum page. Some people have done it already and there's been a number of discussions about it in the past 2 weeks.

This game's first lunar crewed mission to Iota in GPP. Went Apollo-style with the command capsule flipping around to grab the lander and then planning lunar rendezvous. There's enough fuel for at least 2 landings.

It's cool, but too bright for my taste...feel like text would get hard to read against some of those backgrounds. That said, it's really cool and I'm sure someone will like it Nice work

good points, but I don't think a 1.5TWR is the problem. That's my default take off TWR. If I ever have probs staying on prograde it's usually aerodynamics related. Totally agree on second point of keeping to prograde through lower atmosphere. The other thing to check is that your Center of Mass isn't off. (By the way...watching your YouTube vids and they're really well done...congrats )

Please share your skybox awesomeness!!!

The problem with beam riding is slowing back down at your destination. Unless you've already gotten there another way to install a beam to decelerate...

most work just fine. The only one I've had some problams with is the FLAT - which seems to have problems with the docking ports

It's a cool idea, but why not just play one of the many games out there that currently ignore physics? You can play Elite: Dangerous, no man's sky, EVE...this list goes on and on. KSP is one of the few that actually does (mostly) follow it.

Good point...just because they are immune to hab effects, does the mean the timer doesn't work? I'll have to try it tonight.

Another interesting take is presented in Dan Simmons' "Endymion". No real spoilers here, but out of respect for those that hate them, I'll hide my comment below.