KSK

Oh goodness yes. That shot where he just drops the bullets in and they flow like water. I have to admit that the trailer did exactly what it was meant to do - got me way more excited about the film! Having read up on this I gather that the plan is to go all 'cinematic universe' with a couple of films (no doubt more if they really take off) backed up by a TV series or too. Depends how the film pans out of course but you may well get that "true to the books" TV series after all! There'll be water if God wills it, I guess - and in the end, all things serve the Beam.

And digressing briefly back to the topic of feedback , I've added this small plea to the Fanworks Library thread. No idea how many folks will read it, let alone take heed but I figured it was worth a go.

Heya @DarkOwl57. I've only read the first couple of chapters but nice job! Was a little wary of the title since out-and-out war stories aren't really my thing - but your writing style is really improving! I'll be finishing this one for sure. Also, I just read your comment about having a headful of ideas for later chapters. There's no harm in writing chapters out of sequence - I do it quite often if I'm stuck on one part of my story and just want to push on through to the next really awesome bit (actual awesomeness may vary ). At the very least, scribble out a chapter summary so you have some notes to refer to later and free up some brain space in the process!

I would say start your Scrubs style series offline and if you find you're enjoying writing it, then share it on the forum. However, if you honestly feel that the story will break down without commentary then - and I don't wish to be callous - I would save yourself some time and not bother. At least not for now. As you've already noticed, this is not a forum that delivers much feedback. Even if you're in the happy position where folks are commenting on your work, those comments can cover a whole gamut of topics, ranging from off-topic debates on very small parts of the story (just ask @Kuzzter about recoil ), to two word requests for 'moar' to speculation on where the story is going next. Usually the comments are a lot of fun (speaking from fortunate personal experience) but they very rarely offer much detailed feedback. Of course, having that tangible proof that people are reading and enjoying your work can be feedback enough. Your own work is particularly challenging in that regard because its very different to most of the other stories on here and doesn't really touch on space travel much. I would personally regard that as a strength - I'm all for variety and for exploring what the kerbals get up to when they're not flying rockets - but this is the Kerbal Space Program forum, so any writing that's not about space is, I think, going to find it much harder to find a readership. Finally, a general comment on feedback and knowing which direction to improve and progress. Feedback is an invaluable tool for improvement but its an awful tool for showing you how to progress. At the end of the day, its your story and your vision for that story that counts. Ask a group of people where you should be going next and you'll likely get n different opinions, all of them different and most of them flatly contradictory. Which isn't much help at all. Or, put another way, stories are rarely written by committee. It's also very easy to over-use feedback and become paralysed by it. "Is this bit OK? How can I improve this bit? What about this next bit?" That sort of line by line, micro-feedback of a work in progress is really difficult to give because the person giving feedback has almost no context for offering useful opinions. They don't know how the story is meant to go, they don't know whether that character is written that way on purpose, they don't know whether that apparently dangling plot thread is going to go anywhere. It can also be very difficult to offer comments on how to improve a work as opposed to just making it different. I've faced that particular conundrum as the person giving and receiving feedback on writing. I've said it before on this thread but 'perfect is the enemy of good enough'. Get the words down as well as you can, accept that you're still in a learning phase (and likely will be for much of your writing career) and don't beat yourself up about it. It happens - it happens to everyone. If you asked any writer whether they were 100% happy with anything they'd written, I'm betting that almost none of them would be. There's always room for another edit. And the best part is, by getting those words down as best you can - you will improve. It takes work but you will find your own style and your own voice. And it will be a much more coherent, flowing and eloquent voice than it would by trying to please each and every one of your well-meaning critics along the way. OK, that went on waaay longer than I though. Hope some of it was useful but here endeth the essay.

Hey folks, Having just posted something similar on a different thread, I thought I'd use this thread as neutral ground to make a quick plea on behalf of the many authors - whether they be writers, modders or whatever - on this fine forum. The plea is quite simple: If you like a piece of work - let the author know. Don't feel you have to post three page essays of detailed analysis but a quick 'I liked this' post goes a long way. A quick 'I liked this because...' goes even further. If you've got criticism to offer (and constructive criticism is usually welcome), maybe consider taking that to private messages, unless the author is happy to deal with it on-thread. And whilst page views are cool and likes are nice - comments are golden! Peace. KSK.

Hey folks, Not to get too snarky (I hope!) but if you liked Skylon's work, posting a quick 'I like this' post after reading, would have been good, rather than waiting for the thread to be nearly closed down. Doesn't have to be an essay but a quick word or two of appreciation goes a long way! Constructive appreciation (I liked it because of this....) is even better.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the Dark Tower. The cast looks good and it's an adaptation (with King's blessing) rather than trying to recreate the books, which I think is a sensible way to tackle it. However, given that the books start off 'quirky' (but with a great hook at the end of The Gunslinger!) progress quickly to 'compelling but odd' and end up firmly in the realms of 'what the actual flarp', the film is going to need a really really solid script if it's going to work. As for Eddie and Detta - dunno if they turn up. From the trailers though, Roland is carrying the Horn of Eld, so the books probably aren't a great guide to a film set on another level of the Tower...

Don't pay the Ferryman. Don't even fix a price. Don"t pay the Ferryman. Until he gets you to the other side...

Done. Added to the Fiction shelf under the Works in Progress section.

It's a nice video but the this thread is not really the place for it I'm afraid. Quoting myself from a couple of posts ago: @HatBat runs this thread for cinematics which would probably be a better place for your work. Thanks, KSK.

Overall game concept - 10/10. Semi realistic space game with build your own spaceships and little green aliens to fly them. What's not to love. Sandbox - 7.5/10. Great freeform game based on the above concept - win! Could really use some new sand for the box, the graphics look rather dated and some of the game mechanics still have a distinctly placeholder feel to them. Structured gameplay. 4/10. Tries hard to be all things to all players and ends up being simplistic and bland. Only really saved by the excellent overall game concept.

Oh man, that one had a bit of everything. *happy smile*

I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. SpaceX are trying to make their assembly line less boutique to streamline production and (presumably) control costs. So they're going for two 1st stage rocket cores (standard F9 core plus F9H centre core) which they can use in various configurations, plus a common upper stage. Or at least they were according to this interview with Gwynne Shotwell. That was in 2015, so things may have changed since then but this snippet from the interview still makes interesting reading.

No - the first answer he got was 'it is not possible' and this is why. That allowed for further discussion of the facts, including correction of or elaboration of those facts as required. Vague assertions that 'we're only scratching the surface of quantum mechanics...' don't add anything much to the discussion. At least not without appealing to bucketloads of maths that very few people on this forum - myself included - are equipped to deal with. At which point, the discussion almost invariably descends to people flinging analogies at each other, none of which really work very well. Anyway - I'm not adding much to the original discussion either now, so I'll duck out. The first few posts gave OP some good answers anyway.

Because there's a slight chance of anything you care to imagine. For adequately small definitions of 'slight'. Going down that route tends to stifle any rational debate because whatever reasonable comments people put out are invariably met with yet another tiresome rendition of 'well it might be possible and we just don't know about it yet', aka 'science doesn't know everything therefore I choose to ignore anything I don't personally agree with.' As seen many, many times on this particular forum.

And going back to @Ten Key's point about disruption - they've proved that it's possible! You can put together a two stage to orbit rocket, reserve enough fuel in the first stage for a powered landing whilst keeping the overall mass fraction acceptable (if that's the correct terminology) and then successfully execute that landing. It's a lot easier to work on a problem if you know it's solvable before you start. I hope SpaceX go on to achieve even greater things but if they don't, they've still made a priceless contribution to spaceflight.

I guess the question is whether the refurbishment cost range that SpaceX have quoted ends up being consistent and how accurate their expectations are around the number of re-uses they can get out of each booster. It may well be that every booster they've recovered so far is showing a consistent level of wear and requires a correspondingly consistent amount of refurbishment. Or they may have cherry picked a not-too-badly-dented booster for their one refurbishment and re-flight. We simply don't know yet. Or if we do and somebody has a source - please share! With all that said, even assuming a fairly pessimistic scenario where each recovered booster is only fit for one additional flight, provided that the refurbishment costs are reasonably consistent, that's still a big step forward to my mind. It may not be gas-and-go spaceflight yet but it's still effectively 'buy one first stage booster, get a second for half price.' Which, naively, sounds to me like reuse is still worth it. The space cadet in me is naturally hoping for a rather more optimistic outcome.

The numbers look pretty good too: Whether you could get the same savings by building a slightly smaller disposable booster? My gut feeling is no, particularly with SpaceX's emphasis on commonality of components, but that's not backed up by any hard data.

Hi @heathestus. This thread was started a while back to answer that same question. Hope it provides a bit of inspiration!

You might need to dig out some spare engine bell parts but I bet you could build a decent F9 from the Saturn V set. A Falcon Heavy on the other hand....

Magic Carpet Ride by Steppenwolf. Thank you @CatastrophicFailure

It is a metre high. Also, the concept models had propellant tanks and other internal details. I'm hoping the high brick count means that that kind of stuff made it through to the production model.

If we're going to lose sleep over inaccurate science then we'd better stop playing stock KSP right now. I'm struggling to think of any aspect of real flight or spaceflight that it doesn't simplify, abstract away or grossly overpower for the sake of gameplay.

If your comsats are being affected by atmospheric drag they're too low. As in too low to be useful. Unless you're flying an Iridium constellation for roleplaying reasons, you're better off with a smaller cluster of sats in a high enough orbit that they've got line of sight on each other. Which should be plenty to keep them out of atmosphere.