Comrade Jenkens

I agree with this post fully as I feel that the game is expanding in scope and leaving gaps behind them as they go. Things such as the two remaining IVA views and NERVAs only using liquid fuel. (this change only takes a minute or so I've done it myself) Major features such as aerodynamics, re-entry and fairings have been absent so long that I'm now wondering whether they are even planned anymore?

Wow you ppl use a lot of mods! mine are engineer, hyperedit, Kethane and KSPX.

Regex: Building a reusable vehicle in KSP is many times more expensive then making a cheap expendable rocket. What your suggesting would mean that it would be cheaper to just spam expendable vehicles as the 75% cost for refurbish would still be more expensive.

0.17 noob here So still quite recent relatively. Still before docking though which changed so much.

I put small cubic struts down the sides of the rocket and join them with struts. No matter how long the rocket it won't bend! As for funny fails I've had to chase a rover down the side of a crater on the Mun to get it back.

Kerbits... as I've said on several identical threads

I'd rather not imagine the hours spent on this game. Probably into triple digits though. May take a break though and come back in a years time to see what's changed. Stomping land should keep me busy for a while.

I'm obviously thinking of a similar but different parts upgrade system to Kegereneku. I was thinking of the parts allowing you to reach orbit at the start and then stay useful as the game progresses so you can use them for larger missions later on.

I'm not OCD but managing to dock and finding that the two halves of the station aren't quite aligned really gets me. Evidently the size of our motherships!

Yet the space launch system uses 4 SSMEs and throws them away every time. Moving them from the shuttle to the main fuel tank would save weight on the orbiter and improve its dV.

You do realise that the first stage of the SLS is simply a modified shuttle external tank? The whole thing is simply a rearranged shuttle.

The idea behind the shuttle was sound but too many things kept being added into the design until it was just inefficient and poor at everything. Also how did Buran stay balanced if its own engines weren't used for the accent?

Random though but I'm just wondering if the SLS could be modified to attach a shuttle onto the side? If the upper stages are removed it is essentially a shuttle tank and booster but with some engines on the underside which would work in a similar way to how Buran did. I know its not really practical though nor would it have any use.

Hopefully the EU is a player this time. Unlikely though. :/

Will there be any advantage to reusing rockets and spaceplanes. Building a rocket is more expensive but if we can save money by getting it back it could be worth it.

That's a pretty valid point. :/ Our space program is still launching bottle rockets.

Wait so you hate the government space program and you hate private space programs?

This is a real shame. Space agencies can achieve so much more when they pool their resources.

At no point did the OP suggest nerfing engines to the point where they are unusable. The idea of upgrading engines means that at the start of career mode an engine such as the LV-230 could have say 200kN of thrust and an ISP of 320. This would be well suited for attaining orbit still. By the end of the tree you could be using the same part still but for the type of missions you'd be more likely to be working on then such as Jool tours. By then the LV-T30 could have something like 250kN of thrust and an ISP of 380. This way the same parts could remain useful throughout the game without forcing the player to build in a certain way in order to progress.

I'm actually doing exactly the same and it works very well. Also reduces the thrust of the core stage to act more like the real SLS. Trouble is I'm have to clip 5 or 6 of the largest SRBs into each other to make them act like the SLS ones. :/ SRBs in KSP are somewhat an amusing joke atm.

Erm... Mainsail compared with LFB. LFB is more powerful, more efficient, lighter and on the same tech node. That's not balanced for career either.

I'm loving most of the ARM pack but a few things are bugging me: 1 - The OPness of all the new parts. It fine for them to have higher thrust as they're bigger but being more efficient and lighter just damages the balance. 2 - Some of the parts could have been split into several parts. The LFB KR-1x2 could be split into a tank, and adapter and an engine while the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster could also be split into an adapter and engine. That way they could be used for a greater variety of things. Overall however I've really enjoyed this update.

That still doesn't explain why they should be more efficient as well. By that logic Saturn V should be more efficient than something like Falcon 9 which definitely isn't the case. I've always used 1.25m rockets to put probes round the system.

I'm all for upgradable parts as the tech tree progresses. At the moment it seems that large parts are more efficient, more powerful and lighter than the smaller parts which is fine as they are at the end of the tech tree. However I don't want to feel forced into using them to there should be options to bring the small parts in line as the tree progresses. And I like the idea of a coloured marker or stripe on the parts to show how much they've been upgraded.

No. :/ It would bring the part count too high sadly. Also the rocket cannon thingy is much more powerful. It doesn't have the dV for that. To get a TWR ratio greater than 1 it needs to use the boost setting which lowers the dV too much to attain orbit. The nukes give it plenty of dV but a low TWR. It can land on Kerbin however as long as the ground is flat.