JadeOfMaar

Yes >:3 That's the idea.

The 2.5m greenhouse is equal in performance to the Kerbalism one. (I didn't account for differences in size/volume of the parts.) After that the throughputs are scaled by the value of the refPower key that you'll find in the part configs. The 3.75m greenhouse has 2.25x values. That key exists because 2 more parts and their different sizes will come.

Ah. Well that's a bit of a stretch, but the more you know... Still, you'll be satisfied with what's in the spoiler.

Release 1.2 Added USI life support. Added Kerbalism support. Hey @HebaruSan! Support for Snacks, USI LS and Kerbalism need to be added to the netkan. The zip for this now also contains GameData/MoldaviteMachinesKerbalism/ which requires Moldavite Machines & Kerbalism and needs its own netkan. Thanks very much.

Actually I believe this color is used by the stock resource scanner planetary overlay. Note that the Ore config has color = 1,0,1 which is purple, which is the color of the Ore overlay.

@tilliepops Habitability can be quite subjective. How generous you can rate a planet depends on how you approach it and with what mods (what tech level your in-game agency is at) and how sensitive you are to the lore of a planet (when its description says it's full of poisonous or explosive gas, or it's a lava world etc). Habitability is far more than just "Can I take helmets off and use the stock jets here?" (This is basically how it goes @linuxgurugamer so you know.) It also consists of: Atmosphere pressure; Atmosphere toxicity; Surface gravity; Ambient temperature. Your tech level affects your tolerance for these. Since you're willing to use mods to make planets habitable I'd like to presume you can be convinced to use nuclear jet engines if you like planes, and the superior cryogenic or atomic rockets for rocketry on the whole. You'll far more easily find good mods for these than a mod for modifying planets.

If Starship is built such that you can do that, go ahead. But afaik, Starship is not built like that. Also, Mars colonization plans usually go: Send your habitation first; Have drones set it up; Have it produce fuel while you wait for the next Mars-bound transfer window; Send your crewed ship when that window comes; Land the ship by the base; Withdraw from the fuel cache immediately.

It's pretty straightforward. You're going to send some kind of habitation to Duna first, and send your Starship to land beside it, right? Use a bioreactor from this mod in your habitation design.

The best mod is mine. Try it out.

Actual angry flare stars? That would be legit. On the subject of cosmic radiation based dangers, that would potentially make whole regions of star systems possibly unplayable... but you could look at it from the angle of how you could (try to) engineer around it, survive or make a noble sacrifice, get special science and even bragging rights. KSP1 sorely lacks in celestial hazard dynamics. I hope KSP2 doesn't.

What I believe @Master39 means is that these suggestions have far greater impact on gameplay than the suggester thinks. They don't see beyond the first point that gets them interested. Random solar flares bricking your ship goes under Part Failure. What more does a proper Part Failure gameplay dynamic consist of? At least these: Planning your launches further ahead and budgeting time to testing and improving reliability. A progression dynamic concerning said integration. Launching the same craft several times and expecting them to fail. Designing your craft with redundant parts to resist being crippled or bricked when a failure event happens. Packing a repair resource or replacement parts and minding their taxation of your dV. The risk of losing kerbals on the affected ship due to systems failure (in BARIS, you can have engines randomly explode or the throttle jams. Your kerbals could get stranded or uncontrollably flown into the ground or the Kuiper Belt). Finally, there has to be some kind of clear reward to work your way up to after all of the previous points, and it probably shouldn't be perfect/infinite.

If it was once, it always will be. There would never be a valid case to drop compatibility with a tech tree.

Release 1.1 Added Snacks support. Made Ore the default resource input; Made CO2 and Water input into optional patch or default when TAC LS is installed. Reduced part masses. They were excessive. Yes.

@theJesuit Part mass fix is in. They're now 2.15 tons and 7.2 tons. I've also made sure that input resources default to Ore (to help folks to do Math for their LS which runs on Ore anyway, or just not be forced by using CO2 and H2O in such cases as: USI LS and your Simplex mods have no business with these). CO2 and H2O will still kick in when TAC is installed or someone installs the Extras/ config for it.

@theJesuit Actually how I envision the IVA is that you're basically encircled by racks of platters of the growing machines and the planets in there, and there's really only room in the center for 1 kerbal, a ladder or stairwell, and for the kerbal to put down their basket of tools or fresh picks. We can also possibly say there are robotic arms in the ceiling that can pick from any hard to reach places. (So maybe these should unlock later or cost more to unlock/launch than they already do). I chose the cupola IVA at random. I wanted to use the black void IVA but couldn't be bothered to dig through my Github for parts that use it (so I spell/remember its name value correctly). The inline hatches do work. You can leave and board through them (if left exposed) but I don't like the idea of side hatches. The airlock internal space would take a good chunk out of usable volume. I know they should be lighter but I erroneously thought it would weigh a lot more because of the machinery inside (and I forgot the Mk2 crew cabin, which I often use for scale, weighs only 2 tons, not 4). I'll fix that. I'm not bothering to check vs SSPXr parts anytime soon. But I will when I get around to the next two parts.

Please see the two posts immediately above yours.

No. I haven't written the configs.

@Domonian Understood. I totally get that. About material selection, that is sometimes a thing I do with B9 Part Switch configs. Upgrade-able resource converters and upgrade-able heat tolerance. The easiest scenario to think up is choosing between default part mass and heat tolerance; something cheap, fragile and less dense (good for cryofuel, anti-boiloff and better lift-to-weight but melts easily); something more dense and expensive (good for reentry heat and crash tolerance); this + some added layer of heat protection like ablator or magnetic shielding against the charged particles of reentry plasma. @Bej Kerman Gotcha........ For real, though, orbital speeds on DLC robotic props alone. That's a cardinal sin!

Forget being possible. I don't think there's a point to adding it. I have yet to see someone who asked for this describe how it's actually useful (rewarding or challenging), especially in a game like KSP.

RAPIER is fine as-is. That's how theSkylon's SABRE engine is. It's a "turborocket" -- a jet that supplements its air intake with LOX so it can perform at even higher altitudes. It's a ramjet -- the ring of nozzles are where excess air from the intake is combusted for upper supersonic performance. It's a proper rocket -- this is what provides powered flight from Mach 5 up to orbit. The hybrid engine you're describing is nearly a "Turbine Based Combined Cycle" -- turbojet, ramjet and scramjet in one. But I notice you didn't clearly suggest ramjet, only the other two. I described earlier in this thread 3 mods that exist and provide for this intention (DRE, AJE, KSPI-E), and what I believe is a decent application (to the stock game) of heat as a limiting factor to how far and how long you can push a jet engine.

Three other things: Everything is wrong with the idea of Sun-diving and trying to protect yourself and collect particles. As others have suggested: the particles would be so incredibly hot, you run into the problem of either metaphorically charging, buck naked, through garden sprays of boiling water ( You will get blazed. It will sting very very badly. Even the slightest amount) or your physical shield would knock the particles out of the way of your scoop, like an open umbrella, making it pointless to try to scoop. (The shield will melt too unless it can be magnetically shielded.) The other day I watched a video by Anton Petrov that suggested that the ISM is much less dense than we imagined, making the Bussard ramjet near or totally impossible to use. If you're going to collect ambient Regolith, consider investing in asteroid processing tech. I'm not feeling the idea of flying a orbital speed over what is likely a Moon-sized or dwarf planet and trying to yoink dirt that way. You're much better off being able to drift alongside and claw a rock that's big enough but not massive enough that you're obviously "orbiting" it.

Incorrect. If a planet's atmosphere was full of a fuel and a capable oxidizer, they would have mostly reacted already, without igniting. If it does combust then either something broke physics and kept these gases from igniting under the literally infernal conditions of the planet's protoplanetary phases, or the second gas somehow appeared in bulk after and then never before, but at some point after, lightning finally decided to happen-- the lightning would be quite a spark plug. If Earth was able to hold onto a lot of Hydrogen, its atmosphere would have a lot more than 1%? water vapor right now. Jupiter has plenty Hydrogen, and trace Water, Methane and Ammonia, but no traces of the other elements that form the hydro-compounds (per the Wikipedia page). Nuclear propulsion (classically: Nuclear thermal) can actually run well on any non-reactive fluid, as long as it's sufficiently thermally conductive (unlike Hydrogen) and you can pump enough of it through the engine's chamber to produce enough mass flow, therefore, thrust, to overcome drag. Users of KSPI-E have the daily routine of feeding seemingly useless ambient gases like Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide into their Tory-II atomic ramjet or Z-Pinch aerospike. The big deal is how able your gas-diving ship is to save more of its scooped material than it burns while maintaining flight or returning to orbit. If you're flying through an atmo that isn't fusion fuel (such as with a shuttle for crew or payload, visiting Eve's surface) then you only care about having enough fusion fuel to SSTO a few times, and you're infinitely fueled while in the air thanks to the heat source that is your reactor, and the high molar mass of N2 or CO2. You might be under-informed as well. Fusing pure Hydrogen (also called Proton-Proton or "p-p") is exceptionally difficult. You want the relatively very easy and very safe combination of Deuterium (heavy H2) and Helium-3. Both of these are super rare but always present in stars and gas planets, and they don't casually react like the components of Methane, Ammonia and strong acids like the Sulfides and Chlorides. A proper gas-diving vessel would use this fusion mix ( D + 3He ) for main power and propulsion, and will likely afterburn with Hydrogen or Water when it needs to trust in thrust. "Bussard Collector" or "Magnetic scoop" would have done very nicely then. Any magnetic particle scoop is functionally the same kind as the scoop from the Bussard ramjet, but saying "ramjet" unavoidably infers the use of the engine too, and the engine makes no sense in any case other than getting between the stars as fast as possible.

Nah. This is one of those things you "think" you want but would get annoyed if it was actually there. If you think about it for a bit, all you get is "The Sun randomly kills all your ships. Any ship that is protected just has this tihng on it that you only use once and it just drains your battery most of the time." Same thing as n-body and wind on Kerbin. You think you want this but then when every planet tries to deorbit your station and it needs to basically have infinite RCS fuel on it to last the length of your playthrough, or 4 out of 5 days you have to scrub your Space-X-alike launch (and you miss in-game opportunities or kerbals die) you'll change your mind very quickly. Kerbalism does it right as there's more to dealing with space weather than just random flares and slapping something onto your ship that perfectly protects against that.

About that. I'm making greenhouse parts now and I've been pondering (this "might" warrant its own thread): What if there were at least 2 different qualities of snacks? The defining characteristic that's added to them is that each type of Snack has a different duration time when consumed. You can go longer without eating after eating a high quality snack, however you're (usually) able to carry less of a higher quality snack. It would also allow different types of greenhouses to actually make sense. It wouldn't be all grass or abstract. You could have reason for cattle farms and fish farms and even possibly sell to ghost/handwaved agency for profit. Example table: Having more than 2 qualities is overkill but the extras could always be modded in if you don't really care as much about conqering planets as you do about basically playing The Sims in KSP.

It's likely actually possible for the Whiplash to operate at up to Mach 5 like in-game. The SR-71 never went that far because it would melt if it tried. In KSP2, who's to say we can't legit have the material science necessary to build a plane to survive Mach 5? (The same material science that allows any MetallicHydrogen engine to not melt itself!) So I don't believe in nerfing the Whiplash........Or at the very least, not that far. I'd take down to Mach 4.5 if I really had to and still have the ramjet reach Mach 6 as you actually need to reach roughly Mach 7.5 to be orbital speed. That last stretch (Mach 6+) still leaves a solid opening for an LFO engine. The Whiplash would be redundant and pointless next to the Panther if you nerfed it that far, and the Panther isn't a ramjet. This. Absolutely this. Build an SSTO spaceplane while playing 2.5x scale, and involve the scramjet from Mk2 Expansion and you'll feel right at home. I went into detail on this earlier. Intakes have "mach curves" that control how well they work at a given speed, but there are still some obvious faults like how you can use the stock shock cone alone, at zero velocity and can still feed a RAPIER or two. There's no "shock" at the hovering speeds of a VTOL plane but many of us use this exploit. The air-breathing engines have the ability to change their Isp as the vessel's velocity changes. I've tuned a few engines to be like this and it's pretty nice to look at in the engine's PAW. I'm against making intakes noticeably draggy just for "balance" sake. This defeats the basic necessity of any frontal aerodynamic component and it encourages the plane to be draggy towards the front and flip over at high AoA.