Whirligig Girl

Good things here. Interesting how you've changed the skin tone on some.

Why? Just remove the oxidizer. It's the same ratio. Jet fuel tanks have the same LF storage as rocket tanks if I'm not mistaken. - - - Updated - - - No, it is because it is a sort of sound-byte of information that would be too small for a forum post. Besides, it was posted on the forums very quickly. The forums are not "dead" to them at all.

I want this to be a thing at my school so much.

The LV-N is totally more realistic in its overheating, and even so in 1.0.1, they did make it less hot. Apply radiators liberally. Anyway, There's nothing about the 1.0 game that doesn't go by the nature of the game, at least not any more than 0.90. In fact, the added authenticity of the new atmosphere is greatly helpful to this description. They very deliberately were not designing the new atmosphere to be realistic, but just to be not truly awful. They just wanted it to work like an atmosphere ought to work. They wanted the authenticity.Also, fluids are fluids. Something that looks like an atmosphere should behave as one. The Kerbal Universe is, according to former dev NovaSilisko, mostly normal physics except with a higher constant of gravity.

But the game actually says who's who. Why would your headcanon go directly against that. Bill has always been the dumb engineer, and Bob the less dumb scientist. Even since kerbals were added.

I looked at Nova's +Rep-O-meter, and it says "NovaSilisko is the reason many space programs are successful. That got me thinking because I was in this thread. Does the MEA Technically count as a space program?

I'm assuming you mean 3D, non-voxel caves. Although that does bring up the question of whether PQS could be ditched at some point in the future (maybe 6 or 7 years down the line with a KSP reboot) in favor of voxel-based spherical 3D planets. Such a system would support more interesting mining mechanics, crater crashes, much more detailed terrain, and caves. I would assume that if they made another Kerbal Space Program, then they would decide to build it around a full scale 1:1 planetary system. If we start from there, the stock game can be better balanced around it than the current stock game can. Not to mention the leaps in technology that are no doubt coming in the next few years.

I'm sorry, but eh... you're talking of the wrong Kerbal. Bill's the dumb engineer. Bob's the scientist.

Indeed I must agree. Chemical rockets are able to act as interplanetary engines, both in real life, on paper, and in Kerbal Space Program. The first ever interplanetary transfer done in KSP (By NovaSilisko in a 0.15 test version built to test Eve) was done with LV-T30s.

Sometimes IRL you don't need to launch a satellite into a high orbit or a synchronous orbit or something, just into a zero-gee environment for a long period of time. How about some contracts just to lob something up into the space environment? I like the way Better Than Starting Manned does it, it gives you a "package" to launch into space, a mysterious box. That might be an interesting alternative to payload launch contracts.

The Liquid-Fuel-Only nature of it mimicks the fact that it would use Hydrogen only, a lower density than the kerosene the engines would otherwise seem to use. You'd thus need larger tanks anyway, so even though it looks like there's an empty space where the oxidizer is, it is really more like you have filled the entire thing with a lower-density fuel. We've been wanting Oxidizer-Less Nukes for a long time, and it's been planned since 0.19 from what I can tell. If you want a higher-efficiency nuclear-powered interplanetary engine that uses Oxidizer, check out the Atomic Age mod, which includes a LANTERN engine, a Lox Augmented Nuclear ThErmal Rocket eNgine. This is not just a "There's a Mod for that" statement. Indeed, the Atomic Age mod is so beautiful and useful, that I think it should be included in stock.

I'm getting a problem where Urlum's atmosphere instantly goes to full pressure as soon as it starts. I presume this problem would occur to Sarnus and Neidon. Only been to Urlum so far.

Once again your download link is nonfunctional. Also, I upvoted your greenlight.

The funny part is I knew exactly what was meant by Doot, doo-doo-doo-doot, doo-doo-doo-doot, doot!

*Ahem* 1/10 scale, not 1/6 scale.

And that unfortunate trailer (which was entertaining until I realized they were gonna die) doesn't help either. I'm rather apathetic towards the "Ready For 1.0" thing. Though I am starting to lean towards regretful. They could have done 0.95 or 0.99, then two weeks later they could release 1.0 with bugfixing and polish. But overall, it wasn't really a disaster. It just could have been better.

No. Still just "poppycock". http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasa-warp-drive-yeah-still-poppycock/

What's to stop from just having an arbitrary amount of Kerbals? Kerbals in command pods have no mass!

The biggest problem right now is that there doesn't seem to be any way to make a part go away. No delete button. I'm also having problems with placing parts, the sometimes require a lot of fiddling to work. No movement of already-placed parts later. This could definitely be fun soon!

I would imagine the poor Kerbologist was slapped on the face.

Your wish is Squad's command, about two years later. :hailtonyprobe: We need more emotes for the forum. Mostly this. Except, as a Kerbal, and the probe is a Tony Probe.

Yes, pretty much exactly that.

Computer Programming.

I think we should make the current RAPIER a 2.5m engine, with a 2.5m set of shock cone intakes, ram intakes, and circular intakes, Turbojets and Basic Jets; and make a new, one-nozzled RAPIER engine for 1.25m.

And I would also have the inline RCS fuel tank, and the 1.25m fairings. Maybe just a few more structural parts, like the cubic-octagonal, and DEFINITELY the tricoupler and bicoupler. Those are some of the best parts for a nee player! Tricouplers, and Bicouplers are the most fun way of making big rockets.