Skyrunner27

The fear is real if I remember back during the .19 release a big issue came to the community that put up a wall between us and the devs. (Cue flashback music) It was around the beginning of last year. Squad had been announcing the coming of the .19 update. If you followed the update information during the dev information they had announced three things to come in the update. They were rentry, rover wheels, and resources. In the final days before the release the devs announced that resources wouldn't make it. People not as informed kept on thinking resources were coming. On release many people were outraged at the lack of resource system hope remained high for the release of resources in the next update. The next update came and past people said the devs were driving the game into the ground. The anger in the community grew. Actually, I feel like I should mention that Squad did put out the disclaimer that anything could change. Anyway the issue blew up again shortly after the release of .21. Yes the community got very volatile because they changed their plans. The resource issue also happened to come around DLCgate which basically shut down all information given to the public. TL;DR: The issue has come up before. Edit: I typed this before you typed your second comment

I have barely touched the game since the beginning of the year. Mostly because I don't want to restart my career. So I am waiting till at-least probably .25 if Squad is going the same direction as the .22 and .23 update.

Your comment is not constructive therefore pointless. The coincidence burns with this one. Anyway if the option is already availible in the persistence why not make it user-friendly. Just because you will never the option doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in the game. Look at Minecraft it still has bugs though it has a hardcore mode. You take the risks if you choose the mode. OP is not looking for a opt-out but an opt-in game feature.

I find a FAR like atmosphere would make the game easier because instead of having to learn about asparagus staging new players can take notes from actual rockets. Anyway part of the comedic value at least imho is because of funny things in a somewhat realistic environment. In other words, realism adds to the comedy because it is harder to do.

I'm against having things like this as an option. We all learned how to deal with electricity and we can learn how to deal with life support. Same thing for Rentry heat. Sorry but these are real considerations just like fuel. I would understand a debug option but thats it. There is no reason a new player can't figure out life support. As a new player it wasn't too hard for me to figure out electricity. Sure there were failures but I learned how to adapt. KSP is a game about engineering within the limits and flying mission successfully. If we want to put more attention to the payload KSP needs more restraints when designing your vehicle.

You see they didn't have as powerful enough of engines to lift into orbit in one shot. Multiple stages were more important then than they are now. Infact both sides of the Iron Curtain could have launched a sattelite way before Sputnik, but they had their final stages disabled. Nations didn't care because they would have had to wait a long time before they could orbit if they cared.

Why does everyone forget about the CST-100 and Dreamchaser. They will probably operational around the same time. Also they won't count as military rockets so they can fly on Atlas V.

I am having the severest case of deja vu. I feel like we have this conversation every other month, and it always boils down to the point of Squad having a problem continuing the big stuff or whatever you want. Also I am partially on your side I do feel as if somethings have been neglected for a long time despite there being solutions that are tried and tested. Things that would do nothing but improve the experience of the game, but don't get angry because usually when they get to implementing something their solution is better then mods. Look at docking, rovers, eva, all had some sort of mod prior to development that had solutions that were rigged together using existing code. I mean we make our pleas to Suad and they listen to a certain extent. It is what caused the redo of science in .23. Remember ARM was .23.5 not .24 meaning it would have less development then a normal update. I will see if I can find the article but do to the search engine it is almost impossible. EDIT Found it. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/303-A-rant-about-development-asymptotes

Failure is Not an Option -Gene Kranz

Did you even watch the video I posted. It has debris coming a the capsule from all directions. Also remember that along with upward force there is side thrust pulling the capsule out of the debris cloud.

The Orion abort system will work similar to this. The flight you are actually watching had an unplanned abort even though it was a test for abort. The reason the shuttle had fatalities was that if the orbiter lost its wings it would not be able to land safety. Challenger had the crew cabin survive for most of the fall with several crew members being unconscious. Here you have parachutes. Remember it is not the fall that kills you it is the sudden stop at the end. - - - Updated - - -

this was a thing. I mean the ISS was still the first large scale use of parts from around the world being on the same spacecraft. The Shuttle-Mir being the testing grounds for this.

Is there any data relating to how big the flight manifest for Apollo looked prior to the first launch of Saturn-V. The Apollo 13 movie makes it sound as if they didn't know if Apollo 14 was going to happen. IIRC it was one of two heavy lift vehicles to actually be launched and the only one to be launched with a crew Energia being the other one. So if we look at the Saturn V development we can accurately judge the current development of the SLS. I do wish more payloads and mission plans were actually being developed but there is only so much money.

The question is if Rozer will still have enough life support to make it to the station. I don't know how life support works but I am doubtful of his survival. The last image showed him flying out into empty space.

That is just the way that non active crafts appear when on escape trajectory. While it is possible to capture an asteroid using reverse gravity assists. It is highly unlikely.

Did you kill out all lateral velocity with the vessel. I haven't actually used the claw on any vessel besides an asteroid but it appears to be more fickle than a docking port when it comes to making contact, but I noticed that killing out lateral velocity seems most important.

Scott's my second favorite, because he was more a victim of management. He was distracted by the science experiments he was forced to do and he couldn't control his altitude. He also made the RETRO officer angry with his line "I didn't know where I was and they didn't know either." Gene Kranz would latter use the RETRO's hatred of him to pull a prank by saying that the Retro commands were going to come from Sealab.

How did this go from talking about how Shepard's quote did little to actually change the space program to a argument about automation vs. Manual. Sure manual came in handy once in a while but it also caused problem in flight such as Scott Carpenters flight. Or the manual Progress crash. Also while on the subject of Gemini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gemini says that. "Blue Gemini should not be confused with the Gemini B spacecraft that was developed for MOL. Gemini B included a tunnel through its heat shield to enable the astronauts to reach the MOL spacecraft."

I am sorry but IIRC the flight would have just been tried again. Mercury-Redstone 3 was already scrubbed once and that didn't stop NASA. I think that they would have tried on another day. Now his work during Gemini was amazing, and he would be the first person to play golf on the moon.

Deke Slayton his work throughout the rest of NASA was remarkable. Most importantly he won the fight between Civilians and Astronauts working CAPCOM.

Failure is not an option by Gene Kranz, you get to read about MCC from Mercury-Redstone-1 to Apollo-17. Gene Kranz was a flight controller so if anything went wrong he would know about it.

Apoll0-1 (Fire on the pad) Apollo-7 (Went okay except for the mutiny) Apollo-8 (Again went okay) Apollo-9 (Okay) Apollo-10(Okay) Then everything changed Apollo-11 (1202 and 1201 errors would have led to an abort if mission control did not get that final practice in) Apollo-12 (Lightning strike brings it dangerously close to abort) Apollo-13 (Oxygen tank explodes full mission failure) Apollo-14 (Docking mechanism had to be rammed into and their was a problem with the abort detector leading to a near abort with meters left till reaching the ground) Apollo-15 (Redocking almost killed the crew due to depressurization this happened in the months after Soyuz-11, and the LM almost tipped over during landing) Apollo-16 (A TVC problem almost created another abort) Apollo-17 (Okay unless Gene Kranz was just being symbolic of the events and did not talk about it in his book) If we continue... Skylab-1 (Micrometeorite shield and a solar array torn off during launch) Skylab-2 (Okay except for the EVA's but you can't blame that) Skylab-3 (Almost abandoned for the theoretical Skylab Rescue) Skylab-4 (Okay) ATSP (Almost killed the crew prior to rentry when Monopropellent was vented into the capsule after undocking)

I should have selected the Mercury now that I look back. I selected the ATSP as a close second. The reason is it was the most successful with Gemini being close in rating. Most of the Apollo missions were near failure and I just can't accept a badly built spacecraft. If I had to rank the programs they would go something like this... 1. Mercury(First American excursions in space and most successful. Gave the MCC basic experience.) 2. ATSP (Changed the perception of space flight as single nations competing) 3. Gemini (Tested many of the techniques used in NASA today. MCC got its experience in crisis and accident detection) 4.Space Shuttle (Allowed for the construction of the ISS and valuable research in space habitation) 5.Skylab (Valuable research in human long duration space flights) 6.Apollo (Sure it went to another body but it was a near disaster on all but the last flight) 7. Orion (Can't judge so I put it here based on what it is currently doing) 8. Pre-NASA (Don't know enough to judge this period)

I second the prograde to retrograde idea.

1. Because it would be useless not to mention dangerous to bring the shuttle into lunar orbit. The wings of the shuttle would basically dead mass so it would be better to build a purpose built craft to reach the moon. Also, the shuttle wasn't designed to survive the extreme heat of rentry meaning it would break apart upon entering the atmosphere, but as you mentioned if we went up higher and took more passses we could decrease the heat, but this would take precious time away from the lunar excursion. The shuttle only flew for 17 days at most, and Apollo took plenty of time on the surface. The better thing to do here is to design another craft capable of going to the moon and then you have Orion/SLS. 2. No, the ISS was meant to test the human body it long periods of microgravity. It was also meant to be a test of international cooperation. You may be getting this confused with the US's ambitious plan of Space Station Freedom.