Accelerando

Indeed. The main reason I mentioned electric propulsion and nuclear thermal is because they're relatively "simple" ways (at least, from our perspective) to cut down on propellant requirements, but chemical could perhaps be enough. And even lunar regolith could be used to build hybrid rockets, with aluminum and oxygen isolated from the dirt. --- Also, another consideration: If you don't have radio, bulk communications in space will take place via sealed envelope. This will probably just make up some of the boxes in a cargo hold in the early days, but if your space traffic gets sufficiently heavy, you might end up with dedicated mail courier-ships. An angry communique from Mars to Earth might begin something like this, transmitted via heliograph relays: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2f/19/b9/2f19b909b4cde7e52bdabbb82d306d74.jpgFollowed days or weeks after by the aforementioned strong letter, arriving in the cargo of an Earth-bound rocket. For deep-space heliograph communications, you'll require big mirrors and big scopes. Large relay stations may pop up in orbit, especially at advantageous spots such as the Lagrange points, to spot signals from spacecraft, and could have enormous mirrors to communicate long-range. Spacecraft may carry smaller mirrors, but I assume they will still need powerful telescopes in order to resolve different relay stations/messages from one another at extreme distance. (Though perhaps this would not be a concern? Since the message reaching the ship would depend on the orientation of mirrors, so one ship's message may not be visible to another.) Perhaps cycler stations could be incorporated into the concept, serving as heliograph relays as well as travelers' hostels.

That may be the case for small vessels, but larger vessels (warships, in particular) and deep space missions will likely want some sort of computer for various purposes. Specialized analog computers don't have to be huge like general-purpose digital ones, either. If you're going to be far away from Mission Control, you're probably going to want your own computer(s) - minutes to hours of lightspeed communications delay may simply not do, which would be further complicated if your setting uses heliographs instead of radio. And besides, this is a worldbuilding guide, so it's for everyone's steampunk-y settings, aye? As a worldbuilder, I tend to ignore Every Gram Counts to some extent because I think it's a bit overhyped (much like other aspects of Atomic Rockets' ultra-machismo rocketpunk worldbuilding). True, exploratory and military spacecraft are going to be optimized, although see above; but once you get past a certain point - I presume nuclear thermal spacecraft in my setting, for instance, and some sort of ion engine may perhaps be viable for late steampunk - the amount of stuff you can carry is limited more by how much your space travelers, or their backers, are willing to pay to increase your propellant stock and beef up your engine. If you plan to have significant deep-space traffic - and I think it's at least possible - then space travel is going to have to be at least on par with air travel for cost. Asteroid mining, if you can do it, would help greatly. Though admittedly, low cost spaceflight may be pushing the envelope toward dieselpunk and rocketpunk, but this could be an acceptable evolution for a society developing from late steampunk. Take, for instance, the Spacecoach concept, which is intended to provide a cheap reusable, lower-maintenance, more liveable vessel for exploring the Solar System. Although driven, again, by electric propulsion, one of the critical elements of it is that it uses water, or ice-derived materials, for propellant. Water is probably (relatively) cheap in space; if you can hitch onto a near-Earth comet or mine ice from asteroids, you may have it made. Spacecoaches are additionally designed to use the ship's consumable water as their propellant - why carry your heavy wastewater when you can hook your engine to your toilet - a feature that may admittedly be specific to its electric propulsion design, but is interesting nonetheless as it vastly cuts down on propellant requirements, with a 40 ton ship of 6 crew requiring 54 tons of consumables and yielding 18km/s delta-v. If your steampunky setting can figure out ion engines, it may be worth a look - and I'd reckon that, at a mass ratio of around 2:1, you could afford to carry some extra equipment like a sufficiently miniaturized computer. Again, a worldbuilding guide, though. And the timeline may be important - commercially viable DC and AC electrics and power distribution systems didn't really come to be a thing until the 1880s and 90s, whereas mechanical systems such as Babbage's engines were viable by the 1850s. Perhaps a small discrepancy, and mechanical tech for power applications may also have been relatively underdeveloped, but it's a path you could take since we're writing alternate history, or outright science fiction in my own case. My own extraterrestrial society did not pursue electricity far for a long time, for instance, because their sun is a red dwarf flare star. For aerodynamic control surfaces, if they aren't driven by electric motors powered by the APU/gas generator, pulleys and cables were used on large aircraft in WWII, so you might be able to have control surfaces situated away from the cockpit. Maybe, although wood might take some engineering. A big problem with organic materials is degradation upon exposure to space; wood contains a lot of trapped water and air, to my knowledge, which could be a problem. It also may not respond well to the extreme temperature gradients. FTL travel may be possible with some new physics, but as you say, pure-steampunk societies would have trouble working that out on their own without developing other breakthroughs that could make them more modernesque. To my knowledge, wormholes are the only viable form of FTL that allows travel to and from a destination without causality violations; drive-type technologies require causality violations due to the fact that you're making two "jumps" or trips instead of bridging a point in space and time, although any input on this, as always, would be muchly appreciated. The best information on the subject seems to come from Orion's Arm; searching Google for "orion's arm wormhole" is the best I've come up with thus far.

Lovely! I assume you'd have the astrogator calling out the distance to the ground to increasing precisions as the pilot kills velocity - a telescope or light pipe through the floor would be designated for the landing rangefinder. It is really neat how you can tell the distance to something by matching images... --- This is one reason why I personally tend toward low-gravity planets and moons as the settings for steam/diesel/non-electric rocketry. The BIS lunar lander would have relied heavily on extreme staging, jettisoning small pods of black powder while igniting the next groups, but I'm not sure how well this would work. Perhaps a really beefy black powder rocket could do the job, but if a powder rocket to Earth orbit is possible, I assume that it will need to be either a real titan, or will need orbital assembly to get significant payload beyond Earth. Speaking of orbital assembly, in my understanding it may be possible - although you'll most likely need crewed vehicles to do the actual assembly, unless you want to try radio teleoperation, for which you will need some way for a spacecraft's systems to actively track its own position, and thus a camera. Gemini 8's crew made the first successful dock with Agena with the help of the Gemini Guidance Computer for rendezvous; perhaps an analog computer like the Globus could be used for similar purposes. Launching to orbit and rendezvousing with a vehicle without electronic computer guidance does seem to have been considered at least somewhat feasible by designers of the Lunar Escape Systems, which would have included an "escape chair" aboard the LEM for astronauts to return to and dock with the CSM in case of a failure in the LEM; they would have relied entirely on manual piloting. --- UPDATE --- Additionally, on the subject of Computers If your steampunk rocketeers are going to have general-purpose computers of any sort, then they may also want to incorporate some sort of user-friendly interface, if sufficiently powerful. Early implementations may incorporate a Teletype-style user interface, with a ream of paper serving as the "screen" upon which output is printed; pack lots of rolls! However, it may also be possible to have a refreshable display, perhaps using CRTs (especially if you're willing to stretch 1800s technology a bit) which according to Wikipedia were first used to display images in 1907; but if you want to stick to mechanical technology, there are several options at your disposal. The rollsign may be reliable option. Commonly used in our world to display destination names on bus and train routes, the rollsign uses a flexible roll of material, pre-printed with characters and/or strings, that is turned by a motor to change the current displayed character/string. Although it may be slow to update compared to electronic displays, the rollsign may be advantageous over the other mechanical display options due to its low complexity, requiring only a single roll of material and turning mechanism per "pixel" (letter). Along with your writing system's characters, one could even perhaps print colored squares onto the rollsign, so as to serve purely as graphical elements. Perhaps your steampunk computer nerds could play roguelikes? On that note: I assume that mechanical pixels will probably be large, as each unit of a mechanical display will need its own separately controlled motor or drive system; they may also be particularly power-hungry, especially if you don't have electrical tech. I'm not sure how small a purely mechanical motor/engine can be made; if anyone can help, please do. From what I'm seeing on Google, it does seem to be possible to make very small (centimeters-scale) purely mechanical/Stirling engines, and perhaps purely mechanical servo/stepper motors? I'm not sure what kind of production technology it'd take to make these small motors, but I know there are model kits with extremely small gears and other machinery, so perhaps... At any rate, it may save your display designers a lot of headache to cut down on the number of pixels they need to build. The split-flap display is another possibility. It's relatively compact, and can display many characters like the rollsign, but its clacky flap-display elements may perhaps get snagged, stuck, or loosened. Similar to the rollsign, it flips through a series of different pre-printed characters/strings to show the one(s) you want. The flip-disc display is the lowest density option of the mechanical display technologies. A disc is colored black on one side, white/green on the other (or any other color combination) and the disc is flipped to show an "on/off" pixel. I assume this would be less favorable for purely mechanical setups, but electromechanical displays might use something of this nature. --- On a side note, programmable computers with accessible user interfaces might be a boon to musicians even in the steampunk era, although I assume some decades would need to pass before the concept would become practical. Automatic instruments go back a long way - and programmable automatic instruments, "player pianos" and barrel pianos, had been in development and use throughout the 19th century. If connected to a computer, player pianos could serve synthesizer/sound module roles for prospective musicians.

A gun-style launch might work, although you would need some way to severely dampen the acceleration. Chemical-based gun propulsion is limited in projectile velocity by the speed of sound in its propellants, so one of the only ways to achieve orbital velocities without railgun technology is by using a pure molecular hydrogen-based light-gas gun, which has been proposed for the Quicklauncher concept. To my knowledge, firing the gun would produce accelerations of hundreds of gees on the projectile. --- Another issue I've realized is that if your setting doesn't have radio, you also won't have radar altimeters, in which case you won't have a precise altimeter for landing on airless bodies. This may call for an increased fuel budget on vacuum landers, and/or restrict spaceflight more to extremely low-gravity bodies such as asteroids, and to bodies with atmosphere. However, for extrasolar settings, this may not be as much of an issue - at least one study indicates that extrasolar gas giants in the liquid water zone may harbor multiple waterlogged super-Mars sized moons.

I've been thinking about this for a while, as I'm currently building a world wherein rocketry and interplanetary/translunar space settlement was achieved without electricity. Critically, I think, the setting I chose is an extraterrestrial society on a super-Mars sized exomoon, so (I assume) this greatly eases the issues of engineering a viable rocket using non-electrical technology, because for the characteristics I chose, achieving low orbit with any given mass of payload should only require about 1/4 the propellant that it would take to lift the same payload from Earth (which also eases delta-V saving acceleration requirements, and thus the forces the rocket has to be built to withstand). However, a caveat for kerolox bipropellant engines: they may be restricted to relatively low power, if you want to go full 1800s tech. TWR > 1 engines for large liquid-fueled spacecraft and the turbopumps that make them possible did not start appearing until the mid-20th century, to my knowledge. In general, depending on how far back you want to go, or especially if you want to (like me) remove electrical technology from your setting, you'll have to consider changes across the board in spacecraft design. In general, anything using electricity is likely going to need to be designed pretty differently from modern spacecraft, at least masswise - photovoltaics will be replaced by solar boilers, of course, and there's more. Before I start, I'd like to reiterate Gregox's request for input, and further ask anyone with technical knowledge in any of these sectors to please contribute - steam/diesel/non-electric space tech is an interesting concept, but concrete information on the matter is understandably scarce. Communications As Scotius mentioned, your spacecraft may need to use heliographs, or some bright light source, to communicate with each other and with Ground Control. Electric lightbulbs could be used on the nightside; an alternative, if you want to shy from electricity (like me) may be to use some sort of bioluminescent flora in a transparent container, with a door to flash the light "on" and "off". Given that amateur telescopes seem to be able to resolve meter-scale details on the ISS, I assume that you may not need very powerful telescopes to keep track of communications, either, as long as you have sufficiently large mirrors. Foil aluminum may be a viable material for lightweight, foldable mirrors; or perhaps your society has developed something like Mylar. However, if you are willing to incorporate turn-of-the-century technology, radio communications was a thing by the mid-to-late 1890s - Maxwell had predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves from the 1860s-1870s, and the first proven intentional transmission of radio waves occurred in the late 1880s, so you can probably fudge radio into a steampunk setting. Command and control Electrical control may be another issue, although likely solvable. Tesla developed the first teleoperated, radio-controlled "robot" in 1898, and according to Wikipedia DC electric motors began appearing in commercial service on electric trams in the early 1880s, while commercially viable AC motors were developed in the late 1880s by Galileo Ferraris and Tesla, and were implemented in a mining operation in 1891. Electric power distribution systems were also developed and deployed by the 1880s, so a system to control motors aboard a rocket for various purposes including RCS systems seems to have been viable. If you want to use as little electricity as possible, hydraulics, pneumatics, and cables/pulleys stand out to me as the most readily viable control systems. However, these are going to be heavy. I'm not sure what exactly a non-electric spacecraft control system would look like, in terms of mass and overall layout, and it's something I've been wondering for a while, so again, if anyone could help that would be lovely! As is noted on Atomic Rockets, computer systems will be heavy. Vacuum tubes were known by the late 1800s, coming into their own more after the turn of the century. Mechanical computers are possible - the Babbage engines spring to mind, which would have been programmed with punched cards (wooden, although perhaps paper could have been used as well, especially with electricity). These would have been enormous, of course, but would have been possible with early-to-mid 1800s technology, and may have been employed at ground control or aboard space stations, or particularly large vessels. Miniaturization and cutdowns on mass could perhaps be achieved using smaller parts, and/or plastic parts, which could be developed as machining techniques advanced. It is also possible to build a binary digital mechanical computer, as demonstrated both by modern hobbyists and by Konrad Zuse in the early 20th century with the Z-1. Both Babbage-computers and binary computers could store discrete quantities of data (iirc), making them useful for general-purpose computation, as it is easy to precisely store discrete quantities of data. Analog computers, in the vein of artillery firing solution computers, may be more common on spacecraft for astrogation and for other specialized purposes. The Soyuz has used an analog mechanical computer called Globus. Feeding astronomical data to the astrogation computer may have to be done manually, if your setting does not use much electrical tech, as I am only aware of photoelectric means to transmit optical/infrared/etc data to a computer. Perhaps it could be done by some chemical means, but I am not sure how. This page gives some history of photoelectrics; the photoelectric effect was known in the 1800s. If you plan to have steampunk space warships, this may significantly alter the mechanics of space battles, although I'm not sure if it would be ruled out altogether; the pace of space combat (time between maneuvers) seems overall fairly slow. The requirement for manual data input may complicate firing solutions. However, it may be possible to perform space combat by saturating a trajectory with lots of unguided projectiles, such as iron spheres. Such a technique is mentioned on Atomic Rockets' Space War pages. Power systems As you mentioned, all of these systems will likely use solar boiler power for the long term, using mercury, or perhaps water or ammonia-based liquid. For rechargeable long-term power storage, you may have several options: some sort of batteries, compressed gas tanks, springs, and flywheels come to mind. Compressed air could achieve specific energies/energy densities somewhat smaller than those of batteries (~100-400kJ/kg), with compressed air tanks ranging from steel to carbon composites able to store perhaps 40-100kJ/kg. However, developing an air motor to provide constant power from the changing pressure in a compressed gas cylinder may be a challenge. I haven't been able to find ready data on spring energy density, aside from carbon nanotube springs, which are probably not going to be available to steampunk societies; although this isn't to say spring power isn't possible (I recall reading about it before, and only briefly searched Google this time). Flywheels may be able to reach energy densities up to 400kJ/kg, although modern flywheels for energy storage mostly use magnetic bearings, which do not seem to have been employed much until well into the 20th century. Mechanical bearings could be used, but have the issue of rapidly losing energy due to friction and change of orientation, so these may not be very useful for power storage in a spacecraft, nor rotational correction. This page provides a table of some energy densities of specific storage media to compare against. I'm not sure what the figures would be for steampunk-era batteries, but it's probably safe to err on the side of low-density for any of the media I mentioned. For short-term power solutions, APUs powered by peroxide as you mention, or by hydrazine or some other hypergolic fuels may be used. If you're going with as little electric technology as possible, power transmission may also be an issue. Mechanical power, to my knowledge, will either have to be transmitted either by solid elements; via hydraulic/pneumatic systems; or by piping some hot fluid around the ship. This fluid will lose energy as it travels down the pipe, although I'm not sure how fast power would be lost. This is another area in which any help with numbers would be greatly appreciated. I do know that district heating systems have been employed since at least the late 1800s, particularly in New York. Whether these would have been viable for power transmission, I'm not sure. It's definitely worth looking into, since any sort of large vessel, space station, base, or habitat will require pretty long "power lines", and may complicate the coordination of RCS thruster firing. It's perhaps also possible, if your steampunk society were to for instance stumble upon the remains of a natural nuclear reactor, for them to work out how to build one themselves, which would in turn provide boiler power for the ship's systems, thus enabling your steampunk astronauts to venture far from the Sun. ---- There's a lot more to cover, which I may do later. Life support systems are of definite interest; especially filtration systems. The ISS uses a combination of various types of filter to make sure that the air up there doesn't stink, for instance.

Unless you're talking a hot Jupiter at thousands of degrees "surface" temperature I'd assume you would have liquid vapors of some chemical or other. While it's true that heavier chemicals may tend to sink toward the core, the Jovian's upper atmosphere isn't separated by a solid boundary from the internal layers; so I also assume it's at least possible that convection would be able to uplift heavy carbon chemicals from the deep interior. Perhaps something like hotspots occurs on Jupiter, where organic chemicals are introduced to the high atmosphere by "eruptions" of hot gas/vapor/dust/goop?

Threads like these always make me fart. Curses.

That, and it is also notorious for "I dislike using Twitter and would prefer not to have to have to use an entirely different website than the actual, official website for the actual game to get news about the actual game that the official website is made to announce things for." Also, Hookups Wallpaper. I will never forget.

Karbonite being essentially a variation of Kethane, and Resources being Karbonite stripped down to the bare minimum. This is exactly what I mean; this very model was present and popular two years ago. So it took two years to come to the conclusion that what the community wanted was stripped down Kethane, one way or another? I am somehow skeptical. As for Flying Tiger, I will once again question the "help"-fulness of a company that makes such gems as Hookups Wallpaper. (And yes, I will always harp on this. I will never not harp on this. For this is a Bad Thing.) I completely agree that it could have been released without the new spaceplane parts, but that's not what I mean. From my memory, it was SQUAD themselves who said that because of spaceplane parts that the aero overhaul was being held up, at least back when Chad was a part of the team. I'll have to dig that up, sorry. However, to address your other point: NEAR was launched nearly a year ago. Ferram has consistently shown that he is a capable coder who is well up to the task of making aerodynamics simulations for KSP. My point being that KSP could have had better aero two years ago - which would already have been months after the initial release of FAR. There's no need for "lines" between simulation and gameplay, but that's a whole other topic and I've said what I'll say with regards to that here. Good terms or otherwise, the point is that they left, and during their time the game didn't garner much benefit to its gameplay from most of them. (Which is not to say that they are not good modders, nor developers.) I appreciate that the work was done, and I applaud the modders who signed on to take their time, but when all's said and done the end result has mostly been fetch quests, which is really an extension of "make rocket go place, come back". That's not interesting to me and, judging from that thread about resources you linked, not to a lot of other players either. I have witnessed all of these things and I am left spectacularly underwhelmed, as you see me now.

The point of "talking about dollar amounts" is to raise the issue that, while people are quick to congratulate SQUAD for undertaking any move that might increase their profit channels in hopes that this will somehow lead to better game development, SQUAD is already sitting on fat stacks of money; yet the "more money, better development" logic seemingly has yet to pan out. It took over two years for SQUAD to implement a resource model that is basically a stripped-down Kethane in not as many words, when the old resources model was supposedly scrapped in part for being "grindy" like Kethane. Career Mode has languished for a year while waiting for, among other things perhaps, an aerodynamics overhaul, which in turn was waiting for new spaceplane parts. They could have had new spaceplane parts while they had B9 on the team, but he mysteriously disappeared from the roster with not a word (although I'm absolutely not implying that we should pressure B9 to spill the beans). It's been over two years since the first release of FAR. And multiple modded career balances have sprung up in the year that Career has been out. SQUAD has had the money, the resources, the time, and the people - both on their team and available, even bursting from the seams of the community with enthusiasm to develop for KSP. That they have not used their fairly staggering quantities of cash to hand over some of the so-terrible responsibilities of development to some of the lovely, proven skills among the mod crew, and have let go of most of the hires they have made without taking on much in the way of significant gameplay contribution, makes this whole business about contracting a port of KSP to an entirely new platform to a shady, unproven company seem very dubious to me at best. And, hey, what can I say. I'm still waiting for that space program tycoon game.

SQUAD is a company based in Mexico; many of its employees are Mexican, and the cost of living in Mexico is often significantly less (frequently up to 2x less, at least according to these figures). Plus, it's not as though they are necessarily paying everyone United States-level middle class nuclear family salaries, even with their significant earnings - most companies earn far more than enough to pay their employees more than they do. You say 6 million dollars, but if we go by the cheapest Steam prices of around 20$ as you say, as our "average", then 500,000 sales equates to $10,000,000 USD, which leaves four million dollars in surplus even if every employee were paid 100K yearly. The surplus goes up tremendously if the figure for sales increases. There is a thread which references a SteamSpy account of Steam ownership numbers (the data is now censored at the behest of SQUAD), and the amount corroborated there is in the range of 1 million sales, which likely doesn't include private profiles, and of course doesn't include the KSP store, so the number is probably even higher. And an interview with Calisker from last year gives a figure close to 3 million sales if you count their assertion that the forums represent 5% of the total playerbase, given our current 140-ish thousand strong member count. That's tens of millions of dollars. 50 million dollars would be enough to buy minor mansions for each permanent team member. It's fine if people make mints, but SQUAD is a company that existed before KSP began. Most of these people are likely being paid salaries of some sort, not just getting a certain cut of the profits. Most entry level software engineers make significantly less than 100K/year, and positions other than software engineer - 3D artists, sound designers, IT people, etc - can make significantly less. And it's not as though companies can't pay some people short, while the majority goes to a few.

Even if they had 30 people on the team for their entire four years of development, they've sold anywhere between 500,000 and 3 million copies - which translates to in the neighborhood of 10-ish million to 50-ish million dollars - which would allow them to feed their employees $50,000 USD/year salaries for four years and then have hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars to spare. Since their team roster has been more like 15 at any given time, they've undoubtedly been sitting on plenty of money. If they were going to spend it on better software, they've had loads of time to do it.

Just gonna leave this here, too. Not empty quoting, to elaborate a little for people who are more passing by, on the nature of Squad's chosen. Link to Flying Tiger's facebook here. Joy to the world. So, does anyone want to comment further on this decision, in light of the fact that the scad of "featured products" created by this shady, unknown studio that SQUAD claims to be partnering up with is made up entirely of software diamonds like these? Here is a lovely crop straight from their pages: Here, have a further look at a couple of screenshots of the gem Nova refers to straight from the mouth of the tiger itself: http://www.ftmobile.com/images/products/screens/Hookups-Wallpaper/Hookups-2.jpghttp://www.ftmobile.com/images/products/screens/Hookups-Wallpaper/Hookups-0.jpg This is almost beyond words.

The spot is their eye

Neat team guide. There's no requirement of force, they just have to be overlapping enough and it'll happen. If you team up with somebody in Free-For-All, it's useful to note that once you've divided about 4 times (into 16 cells), you can't be split by viruses anymore, and eating viruses basically gives you free mass at this point. If you're big enough that nobody else can eat you, you can more or less dominate the board in this way. If you have a teammate, you can also have them swallow your smaller split-cells in order to make yourself a less vulnerable single cell. Then they can re-feed you with W, and so on.

By the light of a booster Using the toilet

Engineer neck Mythbusters

ayy lammo WinkAllKerb

I played N64 and Gamecube/Melee Smash a lot. Samus & Fox all the way, of course.

Exactly. KSP is decent but it's not great. There's no point to doing anything after a while except as challenge for its own sake, which is not really interesting to me, nor a lot of people who would otherwise be interested in a space simulator. I like building for the sake of making things that do something; colonization and infrastructure development are the biggest things, but being able to divine actual "science" from the game in a way that doesn't require me to install a bunch of mods or open up Excel and start plugging numbers into spreadsheets would be nice, too, instead of the half-hearted system of gathering arbitrary "science points" to unlock new parts. If that's the way a game about exploring the vast, unknown solar system is going to work, you might as well just remove science points altogether since it's basically funds by another name - you even get both resources for the most part in almost the same way, by successfully completing space missions; the only difference being that you can gain science without having an active contract out. There also really ought to be options on the poll below the smattering of "It's really great, with only a few caveats at most!" The fact that there isn't is rather telling... I've sank many hours into KSP in the past, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great game, only an addicting one, and there's a big difference between the two.

Here's to those people who died and those people who lived on, too. You are lovely people. It's kind of grotesque to thank people for being killed or maimed in service of one horrible, uncaring system over another.

Good ol' forced screaming and "lol so random explosions and ...." coming from a pasty guy who makes sexual assault jokes on his videos; exactly the kind of advertising KSP doesn't need more of, old hat or not

http://yvettesbridalformal.p1r8.net/ I absolve myself of responsibility for your eyes

ayy lmao zekes

9/10 ayy lmao