RealKerbal3x

It's sleeved in a steel ring.

I think it's just perspective.

Probably centre of mass. They also don't need as long of a LOX downcomer.

As far as I know that's the entire LOX section. And it's larger than a Starship tank section, on its own. Wow.

@nothanks There are probably thousands of mods that add various engines to the game. You'll have to get a bit more specific.

@Dr. Kerbal 3333m/s of dV is just about enough to get into LKO from Kerbin's surface with a standard ascent profile. From there, you won't have enough to even get a Mun encounter, which basically rules out any gravity assists to get further. It might be possible to fly a Kerbin ascent using a bit less dV, but I still doubt that what remains will be enough to get you anywhere. Of course, if you're already in orbit then 3333m/s is enough to at least get you an encounter with any planet.

Unlimited altitude TFRs have been posted for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. No idea if that means they've got approval to launch from the FAA yet.

@The Aziz Good idea to organise our knowledge of KSP 2 features. Maybe you should add something about the xenon factories mentioned in the Xenon and On post, perhaps under resource extraction?

In this case, MCF just referred to a loss of one leg of redundancy. It's quite misleading.

https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/projects/ksp. You have to make an account, go to 'issues', then click 'new issue' and it should be straightforward from there.

Are you sure you haven't just accidentally turned off markers for flags in the tracking station filter?

@Brikoleur I agree, the current set of cargo bays are quite limited. It would also be interesting to have some 5m cargo bays, perhaps a clamshell-opening one like the SpaceX Starship cargo bay.

I'm a comparative newbie (I only started playing in 1.3.1) but I do remember when the 2.5m tanks were literal oil drums. Man, the game looks so much better nowadays.

There's an exploit where heat shields can be used as extremely low-drag lifting surfaces. Stratzenblitz75 explains it in this video:

Starship prototypes do have a flight termination system, yes.

There probably won't be any static fires with both at the pad - hopefully SN9 will be flying next week. Besides, they're pretty vigilant with removing debris from the pad. As long as the martyte covering under the launch stand doesn't break (and they learned that lesson with SN8), the only thing that will get thrown up will be dust.

Yeah. I've seen tons of speculation everywhere. Some say that it was something about the flight profile, others think that SN8 used more propellant than was permitted to be loaded during ascent, and some people speculate that the crash landing somehow violated part of the license. I don't really know, but it's interesting how this stuff is suddenly coming to the forefront just as SpaceX prepares to launch their next prototype.

This is the part that confused me. SN8 had engine swaps and the FAA didn't start denying launch permissions. I wonder why they're raising a fuss about it now.

It seems like the FAA has released some official statements on this, but I'm not sure just how seriously to take these either.

Capsules are essentially light metal shells filled with air. The fact that they float on water is not at all unrealistic. Also, this isn't really the right thread for the topic.

More Kerbals will do that, but I can see how handling large groups of Kerbals on EVA at once could get annoying fast.