DerekL1963

If KSP, in any flavor, was a reasonably accurate simulation... That would be a reasonable question. KSP isn't a reasonably accurate simulator. It isn't even close. (And even if it was, the market for such things is pretty small.) As far as game value goes, as fidelity (and difficulty) increases the potential market decreases almost exponentially. Seriously, very few KSP players grasp just how simplified and paint-by-numbers KSP actually is.

You should link the new thread, that's kinda traditional in these matters.

Thank you for your years of outstanding service to the community! And thank you to kingofnowhere for taking the reins and ensuring this classic challenge continues!

Same reason they didn't care in the 70's, 80's, or 90's - people don't care about space. Has nothing to do with any other hand waving or smoke blowing BS. People don't care about space. Despite decades of mythmaking, they only barely cared in the 60's... and that was only about a Cold War d*ck measuring contest.

KSP aerodynamics are... different from the real world. And KSP spacecraft don't use dynamic lift to control their landing point the way Soyuz does. In fact, Soyuz ballistic landings (high G landings) are less accurate than lower G trajectories with dynamic lift.

The G levels experienced are a factor of trajectory more than anything else... That being said, over the decades Soyuz has been optimized to be a space station taxi, so I share your doubts.

I get that, but adding a mod in mid run strikes me as being contrary to the spirit of the challenge...

That would be Jacob's call, but I'd say it's modded as you're changing parts. If a lander has too much fuel, that sounds less like you need a mod and more like you need to redesign your lander.

You do have to be careful with that line of thought... In 1937, the Japanese had no idea that WWII wouldn't turn out the way they thought it would. Plus it runs counter to IJN doctrine of the era, which favored a small number of technologically and operationally superior units. (That the Yamato would turn out to be neither until she was refitted with Wave Motion technology was also unknown to them.) And that doctrine was in turn based on the reality that they well understood - they could not hope to compete with US in numbers or over the long run. They simply lacked the industrial capacity and easy access to the needed resources. As I said above, the Japanese (more the IJN than the IJA) certainly understood their position with relationship to the industrial capacity of the US. But rather than deterring them from war, it lead them into the clutches of that wily seductress, the short war fallacy. (The IJN were also inclined to that by their near religious devotion to Mahan's increasingly outmoded doctrines.)

You really do have to be careful comparing Allied apples to Japanese oranges. The U-boats had less effect on the Allied war effort than you might think because we built Liberty and Victory ships by the gross lot. On the other hand, the Japanese started the war with the merchant marine on the back foot - they didn't have enough but to barely supply their civilian needs, let alone the expanded needs of wartime industry. And they never managed to climb out of that hole. They simply couldn't (and didn't) build enough shipping to make up for their losses. Thus it's not clear that improved ASW doctrine would have helped much, because they couldn't mass produce the escorts needed to implement that doctrine. You also have to consider that the main strength of the Allied ASW effort wasn't just better doctrine or having sufficient capable escorts... It was hunter killer groups (built around the baby carriers the Japanese didn't have and couldn't build.) It was long range maritime patrol aircraft. And not just Coastal Command in the Bay of Biscay! (To which there couldn't be a Japanese equivalent, because the US sub bases weren't in range of any reasonable aircraft.) The Liberators out of Iceland had a huge effect - and they were essentially spares strategic bombers (which the Japanese didn't have). It was about Huff Duff (high frequency direction finding) which exploited Doenitz's requirement that U-boats frequently phone home (which US subs in the Pacific didn't do). And Ultra/Enigma. And littler things like radar (which the Japanese never quite managed to master and put into mass production), and Leigh Lights. Etc... etc... The Battle of the Atlantic turned out different from the Battle of the Pacific because the Allies put a great deal of effort into the Battle of the Atlantic which the Japanese didn't have to put into a mirror equivalent in the Pacific.

This is covered by Rule 9 : "You are allowed to optionally send up a craft to return them from LKO."

A much improved VAB/build system! Modestly excited about Multiplayer!

Speaking strictly for myself... Certain mods tilt the playing field and/or reduce or entirely eliminate the challenge... and the challenge is the point. To demonstrate a breadth and depth of knowledge and a certain level of skill. To make the challenge badge something a player has to work to earn. To make it a mark of achievement. And when I did it, I had a blast solving all the engineering and operational challenges. If that's not what you find fun, the challenge is not for you.

That assumes that things break, or that you've failed to design a ship that doesn't require reconfiguration (or requires more than docking and undocking), or that your mission requires ISRU. My Jool 5 run, linked in my sig, is in most ways trivial to run unmanned. (In some ways easier, because I could get rid of the weight of the kerbaled components.) There's nothing to break, nothing that requires reconfiguration, and it doesn't rely on ISRU. I'd have to add some Experiment Storage units, but off hand that would be the only change.

I would agree. If the fairing is merely protection during assembly & transfer, that's one thing. If it's a functional part of the system, that's another very different thing. That is, if you can fly the mission from LKO to LKO* whether or not the fairing is there it's cosmetic. If the fairing is required for any part part of the mission and would prevent mission success if absent, then it's functional and must be recovered to be considered reusable. "Imagination and pretending there is a cargo door" is, to me, contrary to the spirit of the challenge because that is in effect a mod that alters the physics of the game. * My definition of "re-useable" for spacecraft as opposed to boosters.

I would like to know what mods the hardware comes from... And a shot from the top so we can see all the modules!

On the sheet itself. You can't depend on people linking to the forums instead of to the sheet.

I've heard it said that the best SF is about people - the technology is just the background that enables the story which may or may not play a actual role in the story. Consider Clarke's Imperial Earth, cloning and the Asymptotic Drive power the story, but ultimately it's about neither.

Which could mean the setting is inconsistent (poor buying expensive stuff), or that your assumptions are wrong (what you're assuming to be expensive actually isn't). It's also worth considering that mass production changes everything. As does the size of the potential market - if there's a trillion dirt poor farmers (of whatever stripe) across the galaxy who want anti-gravity flivvers to get into town on Saturday nights, I suspect somebody is going to figure out how to fill that need. And that's disregarding the secondary market...

Ore is easy to come by. The equipment needed to mine and refine the ore, and process the resulting aluminum metal into a useful form... not so much. Which brings up the question, where do you get (and/or store) the power required to run this (decidedly non trivial) industrial infrastructure you need to bootstrap your power system? Why aren't you just skipping the middleman and using that power source to run your base in the first place?

Cats absolutely can be trained. Problem is, most people suck at training animals.

Does this obey the "All SAS Modes" option in the difficulty settings?

Be careful with Rigid Attachment - it turns your rockets into glass, rigid but unbendable without breaking. It can cause rockets to break that otherwise might not. IMHO: As far as autostruts go, usually Grandparent (preferred) or Root (for parts physically close to the root) are the best bets. Which part is the heaviest can and will change over the course of the flight (I.E. as fuel is consumed), and the struts will change when it does, that can lead to... unexpected results. Grandparent and Root only change when docking/undocking and the dynamic loads are generally very low during that process.

It's handy in the early game for establishing relay networks within Kerbin's SOI.

Four. HG-5, RA-2, RA-15, RA-100