Sandworm

I agree. If the tier-1 stuff can be purchased so easily, then it isn't anything more than eyecandy for lets plays. If I were king of KSP it would be impossible to get to orbit with tier-1 material, mostly because I'd eliminate tank stacking and incease Kerbin's size. That would make the early models something more then eyecandy.

Part count limits seem an arbitrary, too easily implemented, constraint. I chalk it up, yet again, to Squad emphasizing cartoon image over simulation. Need to take that extra science experiment? Just ditch that fairing cove (5+ parts using KW). Rocket wobbles? Instead of four fins to stabilize, just add a super duper magic SAS unit. It will also encourage mod authors to create multi-use parts. A decoupler and parachute is interesting. A command pod with integrated chutes, retro rockets, heat shield, docking port and RCS thrusts all to save on the part count is boring. Would part limits be a careful way of increasing KSP's performance numbers? Forcing new players to adhere to small, simple, craft will certainly increase their FPS.

It isn't. To collect hydrogen from the sun you have to fly through that hydrogen, slowing you down. The amount of fuel necessary to accelerate the craft, and the harvested hydrogen, to compensate for this drag would be more than the mass of the hydrogen collected. So it's almost certainly easier to just launch it from earth. Not to mention the fact that getting close enough to the sun to find say 1000kg of hydrogen on a single orbit would melt most metals.

Cooool. I'll start on some contracts for thr 6.4-sized kerbin asap.

Watch the media team. They get early access at least 48+ hours prior to release, in order that they can make their vids and get them through youtube's content ID checks before being made public. If they all stop doing KSP vids for more than a day... be suspicious.

Unless these gravitrons aren't pushing, but are pulling you. Then the blueshift might actually increase your thrust as you run into more and more of them. That is how conventional gravity works. The faster you move towards a body, the greater the rate of increase in acceleration.

If I remember correctly, the fuel cells were tied into the life support. The astronauts drank the water from the fuel cells. It may also have been used for cooling. So the weight math is a little more complicated. I also remember reading somewhere the size of the solar panels needed would have created serious drag, dramatically shortening Shuttle's on-orbit capabilities and creating instabilities while trying to perform task such as docking or launching satellites. Come to think of it, large solar panels would also have been an issue for the RCS thrusters. They would have ripped them to shreds.

You do realize that by suddenly paying more attention to the forums, by taking control of threads discussing release dates, you are repeating old patterns, which encourages further speculation? I'm truly bored with the prediction game. Anyone here for more than a couple updates can tell within a day or two when the next will be released. Squad is as predictable as the tides.

I don't think that's in the cards. Squad has had several opportunities to have parts change as the tech tree progresses (ie not adding monopropellant until you can use it) but has stuck with static part definitions. The only reason for this that I can think of is to keep designs performing identically in both sandbox and career mode. But that logic breaks down now that Squad has shown a willingness for RPG elements affect rocket performance.

There are drones that can go to space and fly back to land at a runway. The first was called Buran, but it flew only once to space. The only space drone flying today is the X-37B.

After thinking about it (just went to gym) I don't see any reason why it cannot work. Matter can be converted into energy (see nuclear fission) and can go the other way (cannot think of example but matter did come from somewhere). So you push against a mass of matter, turn it into massless energy, pull it back, then convert the energy back into matter. I just think the amount of energy required would be so much that it isn't worth the effort.

Because the contract reward algorithm is nonsensical. The multipliers for different locations do not correspond logically to the increased equipment need. So you either have way way too much money, to the point that it is meaningless, or are stuck doing repetitive contracts just to bank enough to complete an under-rewarded contract to a fun destination. Balance is impossible as both situations will be experienced eventually no matter where you put the slider. Because the rewards system is locked to individual missions. In every other "tycoon" game I've played there was a means of establishing a steady flow of income, of building a business that you didn't need to micromanage. Even playing minecraft, definitely not a tycoon game, there is a point at which early-game annoyances go away. You starve the first couple days but eventually you get a farm going and move on. Not in KSP. There is no progression from small to big picture management. Because contrary to Squad's assertions, I can find so way to convert the various currencies. One can alter the ratios of how they are dolled out, but if you are 0.5 science short of getting the part you need I can see no way to throw money at the problem. There is also no "loan" scheme, a cornerstone of any real tycoon game. And there is no means of inventing an income from anything other than completing contracts. There is no room for economic creativity. Such abilities would certainly soften the rough edges of career mode.

If you put them all into the same orbit, all in one ring, then you could put up several billion. As they aren't moving much relative to each other Kessler wont happen. That's basically what the geostationary orbit looks like. The problem is when they are in different orbits that cross paths. That's where collisions happen. Two giant sats inclined at 180* to each other, crashing at 2x orbital velocity, might trigger Kessler with only two objects. So I'd say you cannot come up with a number without first defining what types of orbits you are most interested in protecting.

As I understand it, he is using an increase in energy to alter the mass of an object. This change in mass is the force/acceleration potential. I'm not sure which math to use, this is really out-there physics to me, but ... E=MC^2 or M=E/C^2 So the potential force available is the amount of energy OVER the speed of light ... squared. If my math is correct, this is going to be an astronomically small number. Think of all the energy in a nuclear bomb. That would give you an instantaneous push of a few pounds. To maintain a few pounds of thrust you would have to continuously apply the energy of a continuously exploding bomb. If an ion drive is the force similar to the weight of a nickle, a refrigerator-sized nuclear reactor might produce a Woodward effect similar to the weight of a largish bacteria. Given the amount of energy available from various sources (solar panels do have an end-of-life) I'm not sure that this effect would be any better than xenon. Even beamed-up power could probably be used better directly (lasers pushing things) than via a woodward drive.

I'm still wondering how this intercept thing would work. You launch from the surface or mars and accelerate up to match the speed of the Cycler as it whips by. But that means you are on an escape trajectory without the ability to turn around ... in a ship not capable of making the journey. If you miss the rendezvous, you are dead. You might be able to wait a few days/weeks until both craft are in deep space with lower relative velocities, but having a craft ready for that contingency sort of defeats the point. *I just did some reading on Aldrin's book Encounter With Tiber (1996) which discusses cyclers and found this in a review: "The book contributes one of the most embarrassing factual errors in science fiction: 4097 (17 × 241) is not a prime number. " http://sites.inka.de/mips/reviews/EncounterWithTiber.html

I assume that plants have a greater radiation tolerance than large animals like us. Trees don't get skin cancer after decades, centuries, in the sun. Also, a seed vault in the protected area could mitigate against the risk of total loss. But I also assume that any radiation, ionizing radiation, sufficient to kill off plants in a greenhouse may also render that greenhouse so contaminated that people might not be able to return to it for a while.

Changed, tweaked, but not removed. Infinite and overpowered SAS is one of Squad's many patches to cover up other issues. The SAS we have is not a simulation of any realworld system. It's outright magic. It is needed to cover up other the lack of stable aerodynamics or on-rails rotation, and to add a degree of fun to spaceflight. I'm not saying it's the first thing I would remove, but infinite rotational authority via SAS is one of those cartoon features that Squad simply will not revisit. (Uncontrollable spin is what defines the end of life for most spacecraft. When you don't have any fuel left to de-spin the reaction control wheels its game over. That's part of why so many deepspace probes now "hibernate" for extended periods, allowing themselves to spin uncontrolled until needed.) The editor needs revisiting because it is the first thing people see when playing the game. Nearly all let's plays start with the editor. It's where reviewers get their first impressions. Mistakes made there make for not-fun play at launch. It needs to be seamless. Thats probably why they are removing parts clipping, to remove the randomness and unpredictability that sometime happens when trying to place parts.

This line from the wikipedia entry kills it for me "Taxi and cargo vehicles would attach to the cycler at one planet and detach upon reaching the other." That suggests that the cargo pods will have to accelerate up to match that if the Cycler ship. If they are already up to that speed, why bother attaching? If they are already on the same trajectory, they can make the journey on their own. Maybe the cycler could be a living space, a hotel, but you would sill need to accelerate all the consumables.

Yes. They listen now, before the feature is released to the public. But once it is they do not revisit. So now is the time to speak most loudly. The problem is that Squad's other trait, a lack of clarity regarding new features, means we must speak most loudly about things we cannot fully understand. I too find myself very negative about Squad and KSP. I joined during the good old days when KSP was talked about as an engineering simulation. People spoke of how it was rekindling an interest in science and technology. I fear those days are gone, that the science and physics features have topped out. Aerodynamics will never be fixed. Life support will never be implemented. Even the ridiculously easy to fix issues (ie ISP affecting fuel flow rather than thrust) seem locked in stone. KSP once targeted those of us who got up early to watch shuttle launches and dreamed of attending space camp. Now Squad seems to be targeting those who get up early to watch the Jetsons and dream of riding space mountain. The move to beta with .90, to feature-completeness, may just be that final nail.

No. Later is not the time. Squad is in a lockdown mindset, unwilling to backtrack on released features. Once a feature is done it is done. They might do some tweaking hear and there for balance, but they will not remove anything post-public release. Other than the old parts and KSC, which were just models, have they ever admitted a mistake and removed a feature? This is a common issue with startups. Any removal seems like a backstep, rather than a correction. So now is the one and only time for us non-beta testers to have any input.

Spacecraft, not rockets. On assent the one flight control they might have hands on is the abort lever, and even that can be triggered by any number of automatic systems. For KSP to make a rocket with a kerbal more stable or otherwise easier to control is a deliberate step away from simulation. The one "rocket" that I know of that was flown by hand was an experimental V1. But today we would call the V1 a cruise missile or drone, rather than a rocket.

Challenger's problem wasn't bad sealing. It was that they were doing sealing in the first place. They wanted to spread Shuttle's manufacturing budget to other states. (Insert rant about congressional budget politics.) They needed the boosters in segments so they could be manufactured in and shipped by rail from Utah. The better and safer design would have been to build them in one piece close to the launch site. SRB design was also influenced by the idea that Shuttle would launch military/polar flights from Vandenberg and so would need delivery of parts to multiple locations. http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general/ethics/boosters.html

I think you are out of luck on this. Squad has forgone many opportunities to have parts change according to tech level. Just look at the command pods that have monopropellant long before any way to burn it. I doubt any parts will change in their abilities as the tech tree advances. my 2c on .90: Squad is yet again moving towards cartoon and away from simulator. They are emphasizing pilots being in control even though that has no basis in reality. Pilots do not fly rockets by hand and never have. Imho this push is part of squad backing away from the serious shortcomings of KSP as a simulation (ie no life support or proper aerodynamics). They now view KSP as a wacky funtime space farce where graphics and explosions are more important than physics. Stock KSP isn't Goat Simulator, but it certainly moving further and further away from being Flight Simulator. I continue to place my hopes with the mod community. That's where the real gameplay improvements come from these days.

Solid rockets are more storable, ie they don't contain chemicals that eat through metal rocket bodies. This means they can it "fueled" indefinitely and launch on short notice. That makes them better for weapons. Shuttle use of SRBs was mostly a political decision. It supported the solid fuel industry which would otherwise have languished, harming the readiness of the ICBM/SLBM fleet. Solid fuel also has a higher energy density. There is talk of how this improved low-atmosphere performance, but the it is far more important for weapons. Some treaties limited the size of ICBM launch silos. Solid fuel means you can stick a more powerful missile into a smaller silo, particularly important for SLBMs. Also good if you want don't want to bother building new silos to fit bigger/better missiles. Thirdly, solid fuels are more easily ignited at 0g where liquid fuels would be sloshing around. Again, for weapons. SLBMs do not ignite inside the sub. They are pushed upwards using steam and ignite only once above the surface. Specifically, they ignite as soon as the missile starts to fall back towards the sub, at 0g. See this vid: The launch is at 1:00. Watch the missile stop in mid air before ignition. Note there isn't any flame as it breaches the surface. That's all steam. Oh, and solid fuels work better on spin-stabilized rockets where liquid fuels might stick to the sides of the tank. This harmed a recent SpaceX experiment when they lost fuel flow prematurely because the rocket was spinning to quickly.

Too bad the Orion is meant to be reusable. The museums can can have them in 30+ years after dozens of flights, like shuttle. Or, perhaps, maybe, they will drop this reusability farce and just admit these are single use vehicles.