Vonar

Yes, if you haven't quicksaved when your station is in orbit over laythe and the old quick save file happens to be a older copy then your laythe station then your station will no longer exist.

Made some progress on my duna ambitions. There's a Kethane satellite in orbit, and a lander that is designed to return the Kerbals from the surface of Duna en route all ready. I don't have a Kethane rig set up that will work on Duna yet but a Duna or Ike refiner is in the planning stages. I've just finished work on the Duna Crew departure vehicle, this is a reusable vehicle that can carry a transfer vehicle and a crew of 8 kerbals to Duna and back. The Orion spacecraft will ferry crew to the DCDV, the crew will live on the DCDV during the transfer, and then once in a Low Duna Orbit the Orion spacecraft will ferry crew to the Duna Lander. Next project will be the Duna Lander which will deposit a crew of 4 on the Duna Surface, and I need to develop something that will serve as a long term habitation outpost. DCDV assembled, just waiting for a Orion loaded with crew Automated Orion docking at KSS.

Only 8 more? I did this with 10 or less launches. Also my Duna Crew departure vehicle is ready to go. Just needs a crew

I would like to see a longer runway, perhaps you would be able to purchase length upgrades at a later point in the game with the "longest" runway being available in sandbox? At least a second launch pad would also be a useful feature if we are embracing multiplayer, a second pad would be useful as well as a landing pad target for reusable rockets.

Jeb looking at the remains of his now shattered starfighter and wondering how he will get back to Kerban

That's fine, we take body bagged Kerbals as well.

Me having fun in a save file, deliberately attempting to create a kessler syndrome.

My computer is from 2010-2011, I play on a Intel I5-2500 cpu that clocks at 3.3 ghz, and I have 24 gb worth of ram of which 16 is use able because I have the 32 bit version of windows 7. At the end of the day it probably cost me around $800-$1000 to set up and I skimped on a lot of stuff that I either used second hand or bought and installed as a later upgrade when it became obvious that I needed it. In all honesty though a 2.5 ghz intel core, with 6 gb worth of ram is probably a minimum specification for a game like KSP. Especially with multiplayer coming as a core feature as you know there will be trolls out there who will deliberately attempt to flood local space with garbage and create a 1,000 plus part kessler syndrome in a attempt to destroy your wonderful space station creation that took you 8 to 10 hours of game play to build.

I don't think terrain destruction really adds that much to the game as it currently stands. It might be a useful late game polishing feature if the developers include satellite impactors as well as earthquake sensors as a method of gathering science, and have a chance for micrometeorites to damage stations and ships in orbit but as it currently stands since there's next to no information on if the developers are planning on including either feature I half to agree with cpast and sumghai that terrain destruction has no place in a game that you spend 90% of the time in space.

Because she was a medical ship most of the portholes were open which basically defeated the whole watertight compartments concept and there's convincing evidence supporting the theory that some of her watertight doors buckled near where the torpedo???/mine???? exploded. And she's looking amazing. What's her parts count at currently?

There's also the question of ram. KSP is currently limited to about 3.5-4 gb worth of ram with the 32 mb unity engine. If the developers start importing large numbers of mods to the core game the games ram usage will go through the roof, and too much content will prove detrimental towards future updates as the developers will half to wrestle with keeping the game under the 3.5-4 gb ram limit. Even with optimizing the code in mods and further game code optimization to reduce ram use there's still going to be a lot of excess ram wasted going towards features that really are optional to the core game.

I'm intending to utalise SLS hardware and Constellation plans to explore and colonize Duna in a similar method to this Constellation program. I need to redesign my Orion spacecraft to be able to support a crew of 6 as atm it can only support a max of 5. Some more testing of the Orion Block II spacecraft, including a high apoapsis test flight, I skipped the boilerplate testing, launch abort control testing, and unmanned docking at the Kerban Space Station.

A example of a stock Ares I that I have built that can loft a 5-man Orion type spacecraft into a 100 km by 100 km Low Kerban Orbit. The Orion itself has limited orbital capabilities, like the real spacecraft it is mostly dependent upon other hardware to get it beyond LKO and to other more exciting destinations.

This is a prototype roll on roll off cargo lander designed to safely deliver multiple payloads to wherever they are needed in the Kerbal system. Extensive hardware testing of the propulsive landing systems was conducted at the KSC, and a validation mission is currently en route to the Mun in order to demonstrate that all systems are operating as anticipated.

You know when a fair percentage of Europe, and a fair percentage of the Pacific Ocean are irradiated from just two nuclear accidents it is kind of easy to understand why people are fearful of nuclear power. Unfortunately nuclear power, wind, and solar are all insufficient for a truly green planet. Fusion power is the way forward and nothing not even the vaunted Tesla S series of vehicles has come even remotely close to equaling the power that you can find in a barrel of Oil.

Tbh this discussion is way too premature. We aren't even at the 0.25 milestone yet, which seems to indicate that there is still a long ways to go before we get to 1.0 and to possible future expansion packs. However if Squad is going to continue along the partnership they have built with NASA I could see a second NASA oriented expansion pack that would include Ares I and V, Saturn V, Apollo, units from the cancelled Constellation program, Space Station Freedom, and ISS modules, ectra. Such a package could also add legacy space hardware like a working Space Shuttle. A second expansion could focus on providing stock parts for Soviet, Russian, and Chinese spacecraft.

Skyrim even though the world is larger I found to be much easier then Oblivion.

Doesn't sound like a problem to me, you forgot to quick save..

I would rather see a space agency produce meaningful results instead of accomplishing next to nothing of note outside the realm of Low Earth Orbit for 60 to 70 years which is what would happen if we had to rebuild NASA from the ground up as your proposing. With that being said NASA is a national program. NASA is structured in such a way as to provide a net benefit to the majority of the nation, not a single state and as I have previously pointed out using facts to back up my arguments it does that quite admirably. NASA also is prohibited from or at least partly restricted from turning a profit from any of its research materials. It is not a private sector company, it does not half to answer to shareholders. Based on your previous statements you also seem to want a centralized space agency with production and research activities focused on Florida and yet want NASA to be more like a major corporation, well I hate to break it to you but that's a pretty big contradiction as most big corporations that are comparable in size to NASA or larger have embraced globalization and rely on a global supply chain for their products. These supply chains are much longer then NASA's which for the most part is centered on the United States with some elements being contracted out to the European Union.

Red Alert 2 / Yuri's Revenge KSP Star Wars Rebellion Unreal Tournament Railroad Tycoon 3 A close 5'th includes the Jedi Knight series (Dark Forces 2, and Outcast) as well as Xwing vs Tifghter and Xwing Alliance.

Yeah, I would rather have KSP with touchscreen support long before a mobile version. Plus there's all ready a android space game that's based off of KSP. Look up Simple Rockets if you want something similar to KSP to play on your phone / tablet.

Bacon.........

Quicksave is a blessing and a curse at the same time. I've had stations randomly implode in agonizing slow motion for reasons still unknown, reload from the last quicksave, and find out that they are no longer 100% complete because the last quick save was from before the time that it was completed.

Very nice, can't wait until she fly's.

Derp... Highly doubtful. You might be able to get a 2%-5% increase in efficiency at best by centralizing NASA's production lines in a single state at the expense of spending tens of billions to build new facilities, a lot of jobs, and loosing a fair bit of political support from Congress. Boeing has nearly finished building a new factory for the 787 in South Carolina which was expected to cost the company $1 Billion, and the company got a incentives package from the state worth more then $900 million. Thus to move a portion of its production line from the west coast the tax payers paid the company $900 million, and the company invested a billion dollars so $1.9 Billion dollars all together for a new relatively small production facility. Building a new factory instead of retooling the current Michoud Assembly Facility which isn't actually that far from Florida for producing the SLS and Orion in Florida would be a similar expensive endeavour which would end up costing taxpayers several billion dollars. I don't know about you but I would rather not half to spend the billions of dollars of our money building new facilities, and instead repurpose existing ones that meet the requirements, and have money left over to actually build rockets and do actual science. But you seem to want to take the unnecessary cost of building entirely new facilities and set back the program by 5-6 years while we are waiting for the new buildings that do basically the exact same thing as the old ones to grow up out of the ground. Of course to certain people the first option which is actually the affordable conservative path forward that makes the most out of existing hardware is "wasteful, and incurs "unnecessary fat." There are some who for whatever reason want to use new, more expensive hardware with longer development periods, and for whatever reason they also want a centralized production system in one state which is basically the opposite of the model that every single major company that they believe NASA should emulate does when producing pretty much everything.