Superfluous J

In a pinch, you MAY have been able to raise your landing gear. ...and hope your engines didn't break

[rover, upside down] [decoupler] [anything, with chutes on it] [fairing, covering the above] [decoupler] [your rocket]

Oh so that's why they're useless. It's not the fault of the fairings, but the aerodynamics.

I have a similar rule with a corollary: If you come across something 50%+ off that you've never heard of but looks interesting, check it out and see if you want to buy it. I personally have my eye on Massive Chalice, Darkest Dungeon, and Infinifactory. I may buy Massive Chalice tomorrow. I was recommending Cities: Skylines when it wasn't on sale. So I of course will recommend it now that it's 25% off. That said, it will likely (though not guaranteed) be 50% off at some point before the end of this sale.

I actually just ran 3 tests of my "OTTO" ship (Orange Tank To Orbit, using a simple SLS single stage launch system) I made 3 ships, OTTO-1 had no fairing. OTTO-2 had a fairing shaped like a cylinder, just wrapping around the orange tank. OTTO-3 had a nice pretty pointy fairing that was larger and therefore heavier. OTTO-1 (no fairing) did the best. OTTO-3 did the worst but was MUCH easier to fly. OTTO-1 (no fairing) 3653dV in VAB, 318dV left in 80x80 orbit. OTTO-2 (cylinder fairing) 3518dV in VAB, 225dV left in 80x80 orbit. OTTO-3 (conical fairing) 3485dV in VAB, 217 dV left in 80x80 orbit ...and this was with my modified fairing bases that are lighter than stock... :/ EDIT: Here are the 3 ships so you can build them yourself to play around: (Note: My fairings don't have the stock texture. I took the interior texture from Procedural Fairings)

I made a ModuleManager config to cut the masses of the bases down to the same mass as their respective decopulers (In all cases they're much heavier). I left the fairings themselves alone, though could be convinced to cut their masses as well. With just that simple change, it's almost always obvious from a dV perspective to use fairings now, and correctly used fairings also help punch through that scary Mach-1 region. I have yet to test poorly-made (spherical, or cylinder shaped instead of conical on top) fairings compared to well-made fairings. I'd be curious how much that hurts.

I am aware that the event horizon is not a physical object. I am also aware that orbits are not physical objects, yet I (and everybody on this board) have no problems talking about them in the same way I'm talking about the event horizon of a black hole. I'm leaning toward agreeing with reservations, as I'll admit the whole role of observation and light travel time in any discussion of relativity and time dilation makes makes my brain hurt. I still think that if you can punch a (plot) hole through the universe and get out of a black hole once you've fallen in, an amount of time less than infinity will have passed on the outside. And when you get back out, you could sit in orbit of that black hole for Eternity, watching yourself fall in.

It makes perfect sense now, as it did when I made my last post. Your star is shrinking. Based on its mass, we can calculate what its Schwarzchild radius will be. How in a non-infinitely-old universe does that star get from (Schwarzchild radius) + 1 millimeter in diameter, down to (Schwarzchild radius) in diameter? When you need to go 99.9999999 percent of the speed of light to escape, time will be slowed down so much that the star will never actually collapse. And as it gets closer, time dilation is worse. NOTE: I'm not arguing that this is happening. I'm arguing that it's NOT happening, therefore there's something wrong with your premises or conclusions.

I don't math so well these days, but if time dilation goes infinite at the radius of a black hole, then there should be no black holes as none of them could collapse down to that radius. Also, every non-equation-only (i.e., that I can actually take in without spending hours) description I've ever seen counters your equation-only description.

Crossing the event horizon of a black hole does not make your time dilation infinite. It just makes it impossible to go back out. Unless 5th dimensional future humans save you.

What angle do you need? The angle between the ground at the point, and the line to the hip? The angle at the center of the planet between the point and the ship? You want to be Googling for Spherical Coordinates. It's heady enough stuff that I don't want to figure it out, but with a bit of perseverance there's nothing that should stop you.

Let it! Let's look at everything that was guessed so far, broken into 2 categories: USI Kolonization Systems - Bigger than Asteroid mining. Also, this doesn't sound like a parts-only pack. Karbonite - Bigger than Asteroid mining. A superset of it Karbonite Plus - Bigger than Asteroid mining. Freight Transport Technologies - I have no knowledge of this. Asteroid Recycling Technologies - Bigger than Asteroid mining. Well, the same size at least USI Exploration Pack - I don't know this either. USI Survivability Pack - Again don't know it. Alcubierre Warp Drive - Never going to happen in stock. I suppose it fits the rest of the criteria though. Sounding Rockets - Not sure what coding hooks would be needed for these (which is why I don't think it'll be a parts-only pack) proper navigation lights - I don't know what this is so can't judge on it. clouds Keep dreaming. magic boulder light grid I like this idea but ... I don't know. I just don't think so dV See "clouds" radar altimeter outside cockpit Would be nice, but doesn't fit the modder coding hooks line. survivability (of heat) to the aero parts I will admit I don't know what this is exactly. Do you mean making the parts more survivable, or the heat? In any case I can't see this being it, as that would be part of the whole rebalance that is going to make 1.0.3 take so long. I doubt they're hire out for that. changing the re-entry sound effect Not a coder's job. pipes for transferring resources between crafts and bases - This seems to fit the criteria. landing site approximation a la trajectories - This could fit the criteria, though what coding hooks would modders need for it? radiators or some other kind of active heat management This technically fits, but isn't all the code for this already in the game? All that's missing is the parts, and I already ruled out parts only packs. new rover wheels / Folding/Retractable rover wheels This sounds pretty good and fits the criteria, but is there anything particularly new here? We have things that fold out, and we have wheels. Marrying the two is new but would it require code that would need hooks for modders? KSC is now highlighted from space Cool, and I suppose possible. Maybe something a bit more general like the Waypoints Plus mod? Out of the 5 MAYBEs above, I am leaning toward the first in my list. And not only because its the one I want the most AAAAAND I've been ninja'd by a like minded poster

I meant where the EVA/IVA buttons are, though I honestly forgot the existed There's probably no more room up there, just below the buttons than there is at the bottom, just above the name. I rescind my idea as a bad one And I love the outlines. A++ would install again.

I don't care so much about the differences or similarities to an actual launch that killed humans. This would be bad taste even if Challenger never happened. This isn't the first "Ha ha they died" that's ever been in a KSP video, though it's probably the worst. My big problem was how they all died in terror, right before the fun happy music started.

Because they did it during the Apollo mission, and if you can't recreate that mission to every single exact bit of minutiae then KSP has failed as a product.

Easy is good, and IMO a seed is critical in this sort of thing. "OMG check out 1153392. It's got a sweet XXXXX and YYYYY orbiting a ZZZZZZ."

While pipes would be wonderful (It's one of the most missed things for me on my current game where I have eschewed KAS for no reason other than I want to) I don't think that's a small enough thing. I think they're a pretty big thing actually. Though radiators and (VAB-placeable) heat pipes/pumps sounds like just the thing.

I'm kinda drooling a little, I'll admit. IIRC Accrete works with seeds so in theory you could set up a whole Mulky Wuy Galaxy, each system explorable. You could even shoehorn Kerbin into each system by taking out the planets around it, or making it a moon of a gas giant that happens to be in the right place. We may be getting outside of the original thrust of this thread though. By my count we're actually twice removed from it

+1 to the outline idea. Also, any thoughts on moving the new stuff (or better the name) to the top of the portrait? Feels like the bottom is crowded and encroaching on the face, while the top has a lot of room for stuff.

Too Trek, Too Furious. Vin Diesel as Harry Mudd. You know you want it, nerds. --Simon Pegg

ACCRETE is awesome. Back in another life I created a science fiction universe for a series of books (2 of which became podcast episodes), and used ACCRETE to make the star systems. I even had a little email conversation with the writer, though I cannot now remember what feature I wanted. I think it was something simple like solid planet circles instead of just outlines. IIRC I ended up post processing the svg files.

Then instead of a single gas giant you should be championing randomized system generation. As should I. That would be a great addition for the "Okay I'm totally done with the base game and have no other use for it" phase that - let's face it - we're both in.

I LOVE (the concept of, I've not tried it yet) portrait stats. I can't wait to see it in-game.

I think the big problem is that while more planets won't fix (just offset) the problem, "more things to do" is likely impossible without a major rewrite of the game. Here's a few of my ideas. All would be difficult to impossible to implement which is why I never actually suggest them. Colonies. You find a spot on Mun, based on the colonists' requirements. It needs ground water and a view of Kerbin. It can't be more than 2 degree slope, or has to be higher than 75% of the ground within 2km of it. You build a seed base for them, carry it all up there, and get it all set. Then you bring X colonists to live on that base. Then, it becomes a separate entity in the game that slowly grows. Perhaps it asks you to bring up new modules. Perhaps it builds its own procedurally. Eventually, it starts producing ore. Or water. Or some other resource, and offers it for sale. Then they ask you to build them a space station, and now for a bit more money you can buy stuff from that instead. All the while, the base (that you can't otherwise interact with) grows. Kerbaforming After doing multiple readings on Duna, in and around the poles and the canyon, the scientists figure out a plan for Kerbaforming it. It will take centuries, but eventually we can live there. You perform several deliveries of whatever machines to the places and they start their work. 100 years later you can live in the bottom of the canyon, with only respirators. 100 years later, you can walk around. 1000 years after you start, Duna is "Kerbin 2." Offworld bases Like your "Move KSC around" mod. The aibility to set up full-service bases on other worlds. Possibly in tandem with the above 2 things. In all these, you won't just take stuff to Duna and be done, or take stuff to Minmus and be done. The requirements will be environmental and vague enough to require hunting. And once you set up the things, they become easter-egg style structures but with a landing pad for your deliveries. Or orbital stations on rails but with a docking port that doesn't function like a docking port in the game, but makes you be "landed" at the station. I would also like life support in the game that utilizes this kind of stuff. Grow crops on Duna a la "The Martian." But guess what? The canyon isn't very good for that. Find a nice flat midlands area and maybe we're talking. But like I said, these are all useless to suggest or even think about. The game as-is won't support them. But it will support Yellow Jool and its 4 moons that look just like the other moons in the game, so I suppose that's a thing too.

That's like asking "What's a good apartment cost in Chicago?" There are about 1000 different answers and they all depend on your needs and limits. I can land on Mun for 15k. I can land on Mun for 1.5 million. It all depends on what I'm doing when I get there (or on the way).