RealKerbal3x

O boi, I can't wait!

DLC = downloadable content. They're paid addon packs made by the developers. They're sort of like mods but they're officially supported and you have to pay for them. I don't think it's fair to compare BDB and MH. They both have recreations of historical spacecraft, but they go about it in different ways. I already said something to this effect in the 1.10 ESA update thread, so I'll repost it here. IMO, comparing MH and BDB is like comparing a box of assorted LEGOs and a detailed model kit. They're very different.

You can try searching for craft on KerbalX. Just type in 'duna' or something similar in the search bar and there should be a lot of craft to choose from. https://kerbalx.com/

Seems like we got successful Starlink deploy. No video though.

Fantastic view of the landing!

Is it just me or are those canards a different shape to the ones that were on Mk1? Probably just the angle.

Great to know that the development is still continuing despite the current shenanigans. I'm still very excited for the game and I can't wait to see what specific solution they have for multiplayer

While we're waiting for the next launch attempt, I would highly recommend watching this:

We're seeing a lot of 304L sections now! I'm such a nerd. I'm getting excited about seeing tubes made out of a slightly different type of steel

@aspacecephalopod Great chapter Regarding the bug with the props, maybe try to reproduce it in a pure stock game, and if you can, post it to the bug tracker. I've never encountered a bug like that with Breaking Ground, but then again, I haven't made many prop planes

At timestamp 4:44 in the video above there's a pretty clear view of the piledriver they've installed near the launch pad. I guess they plan to build a more permanent launch pad structure in the future and need to drive piles to support it in the sandy, marshy terrain at the site.

Pumping propellant around during EDL is going to require some pretty hefty pumps, and I doubt they'd fail any less easily than the flaperon actuators. If it's completely passively stable that might work, but no matter whether EDL control is active or passive, a successful landing still depends on at least two out of three engines lighting for a propulsive landing. SpaceX is serious about landing Starship on Mars, and ultimately there's not many ways you can land a big spacecraft on Mars that aren't terrifying-looking (unless you want giant wings or an enormous parachute). Emergencies during launch could be fixed with some sort of LES but there's no such escape system for landing. They just have to make it reliable by flying it, a lot.

... Kerbal

The sequel - Ack To The Future: Ack travels into the future to avoid the Empire.

Interesting, the legs are being redesigned again. I still think they should be more like Falcon 9 legs - those wouldn't be too hard to integrate into the engine skirt. Or perhaps, similarly, something like what the Hercules lander was meant to have: Also, more progress in Boca Chica:

It could also be a really deep hole...

Exactly. And unlike the Shuttle, it's not flying from the outset with crew on board. So they can afford to work out the bugs with a few failures without killing crews unnecessarily.

Falcon 9 has no backups or redundancies for its landing legs, grid fins or other systems because the first stage landing isn't mission-critical. With Starship, landing the ship is necessary for a successful mission (and perhaps human lives) so they'll have backups upon backups to avoid a failure at all costs. When SpaceX first rolled out a rocket with landing legs, people said landing a rocket was impossible. Now they do it with increasing regularity. I have no doubt that they can do the same with Starship, given time.

On some YouTube video I saw about Starship, someone in the comments mentioned how scary its landing maneuver looks, and someone else responded with an interesting analogy - if you showed someone from the early 20th century a video of a 747 landing, they would probably think it looked terrifying. But nowadays, an aircraft like that landing is regarded as completely normal and safe. It'll be the same for Starship - we find its landing scary, but a Martian colonist in 2040 will consider it trivial. Besides, unlike an aircraft, SpaceX can fly Starships completely uncrewed until they get the landing down - I reckon crew won't fly on them until the late 2020s. Once it's landed successfully hundreds of times, it'll become routine. And unlike Falcon 9, which doesn't have crew onboard (at least not during the first stage landing) Starship will need to be super safe, so it'll have a lot of redundancies and backups built in.

I think Take 2 chose a different company to make KSP 2 so that SQUAD could continue to develop the original game.

I know, but they plan to fly crew to Mars in 2024 as well. That's what I'm skeptical about - Starship Super Heavy being certified for launching crew by 2024.

I'm still sceptical that SpaceX can get a cargo Starship to Mars by 2022, but we'll have to see. I think crew may be the limiting factor - it may take several more years for the crew variant to become reliable enough for it to be certified for crew. Without an abort system, it needs to be approaching airliner-like reliability. And I'm not sure they can do that in four years.

I've probably played for 5 hours in one sitting several times. It's the only game I have that can really hold my attention that well.

Forgot to post this earlier. A new nosecone has appeared, and it also seems like they're building a very large crane at the launch site.