King Arthur

If the latter ever happens, I'll see you over by the hacker/pirate network. I hear the rum they have is fantastic.

As long as this is optional and there's a way to reasonably fix/replace the degradation of stuff already in-orbit without tearing the damn thing apart, as has been already pointed out and suggested, I wouldn't mind seeing some form of degradation.

This. There has been a real world case of rockets carrying advertisements (I think it was a Soyuz rocket emblazoned with a Pizza Hut logo?) so I wouldn't mind seeing something like "Rockomax Conglomerate", "Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts", "Kerlington Model Rockets", or maybe even something like "Pizza Kut" wanting to ask me in-game if I'd be willing to let them advertise on my rocket in exchange for "donations to my space program". Also, the rest of you that are going INSTA-NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE at the mere sighting of the word "advertisement" need to take a step back and actually read what is being proposed.

Save file editting is another option as well.

404 3-man Ship Not Found.

The (A)SAS modules, reaction wheels, and in-line battery packs are all notoriously delicate and simply cannot take any physical stress whatsoever. For launching, the easiest way to address this is to strut the part to whatever's above and below using two sets of 4-symmetry struts.

Look for Subassembly Manager.

With current life support technologies, having space stations won't mean an asteroid won't make us extinct because, you know, no Earth == no resupplying == stations starve to death.

^ Right click the category icon in the tracking station or map view.

My view on manned space exploration is thus: As it stands today, manned space exploration is highly impractical due to excessive costs in lifting payloads into space, producing and maintaining life support systems, inability to produce/keep/maintain food and supplies for long periods in space, inadequate technology against dangers in space like radiation and space debris, inadequate propulsion technology making manned missions anywhere past LEO unreasonably long, and the current lack of any justification whatsoever to merit human presence in space thereof. Ultimately though, I for one believe that human presence in space will be an inevitable neccessity. When we get past the stage that is "space exploration" and finally move on to "space exploitation", there will come a time when human presence is absolutely required for the finer tasks and duties that robots alone just cannot adequately perform. What does this mean? Personally, I believe this means that we need to move forward in manned space exploration in a way that is economically and financially reasonable and sustainable. This does mean of course that programs like the ISS and SLS are a huge waste of money (Going to Mars? An asteroid? Jeez, we haven't even managed to economically and reasonably maintain human presence in LEO yet!) and should be cancelled/terminated, but I am all for moving forward in projects such as next-generation propulsion technologies, next-generation life support systems, new forms of agriculture that is possible and sustainable in space, creation of new materials/techniques that can better shield against radiation and debris damage, biomedical advances to better maintain human health in space, and so forth.

Just yesterday actually, I flew a full mission from Kerbin to my Mun space station (resupplying mission) equipped with a 4K battery pack. I completely forgot to open my solar panels (YEEEEEEEAAAH!) until I had inserted myself into a stable Mun orbit and despite using LV-909s (which don't produce electricity) and performing the amount of turns via reaction wheels that would constitute an average trans-Mun flight, I was still there with adequate power. So yeah, nerf those batteries!

Except future missions and research may require some or all of the advanced hardware that is being sold off, and which will cost magnitudes more than the money gained from selling them to reacquire or reproduce. Besides the fact that the money gained from the sales will be pitiful compared to what the hardware is capable of and what it cost to get that hardware in the first place. You realize that even the Ares I prototype, from the now-cancelled Constellation program, used the MLP and LC-39B (right next and almost identical to LC-39A that is being sold) to conduct its test flight? "Future missions and research" like that simply won't be possible if NASA keeps on selling its assets like this (which actually makes me wonder if SLS is a serious project, not that I ever had faith in it).

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/launch-pads-runways-facilities-nasas-grand-shuttle-sell-off-continues/ NASA is allegedly selling off its Mobile Launch Platforms (used to carry the Saturn V, and later on the Space Shuttle from the VAB to the launch pad) and Launch Complex Pad 39A, both symbolic landmarks of NASA's manned space program and which were deeply involved in both the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs. They are also selling off the Shuttle Landing Facility and runway at KSC. As someone who still cares about how relevant NASA (and the USA) is/will be to space exploration in the world, this piece of news only strengthens to me the impression that the US manned space program is in fact dead for good (if it wasn't dead already). Needless to say, I am extremely saddened.

Honestly, I find the 4K batteries completely OP since I can never find a use for so much electricity. The batteries need a nerf or electricity costs need to go up substantially if anything.

You've essentially hit the nail in the head, sadly. One of Constellation/SLS's primary purposes is to keep some STS-related jobs and contracts open following the termination of STS (this is one reason why Constellation/SLS reuses so much stuff from STS). If we were even half-serious about SLS we would have a clear destination in mind and a clear plan on how to do it by now instead of randomly changing objectives so damned much.

You can have this show up via a custom window.

My suggestions would be: * The Voyager probes (they're the iconic satelites!) * Hayabusa * Kaguya/SELENE * New Horizons

1. Go to launchpad, ship on launch clamps. 2. Stage for launch. 3. Realize throttle wasn't pushed up/MJ wasn't activated. 4. ??? 5. KABOOMFACEPALM.jpg

I noticed two minor visual bugs, would be great to see them fixed. The reduced oscillations and force roll are awesome, thanks!

Hey Mr Shifty, You mentioned earlier in one of your mission updates that you couldn't find a Z1 truss part and had to improvise with panels and struts. Would the "K1" truss located at (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24826) be a suitable Z1 truss part? I haven't used this mod so I don't actually know if it's adequate, but seeing as it's called "K1" it might be something similar to what you need.

I've used the Ant engine to propel some station modules like the Salyuts, Mir, and Zvezda, they were surprisingly effective! As such, combined with their superb performance powering small satelites, I think the Ant engine fills a niche that no other engine can really fill.

Jeb does indeed have a "badass" flag which makes him grin in almost any situation, the only time he gets worried is if something explodes catastrophically nearby. Some other kerbals also happen to be flagged as "badass" sometimes as well, my Space Station Archangel is currently crewed by at least 10 or so badasses including Jeb (who is commander!).

I apologize for being blunt, but I cannot fathom the sheer level of ignorance and disrespect in this post. NASA has most definitely not given up on space exploration. Yes, NASA's manned space program is facing hard times, but its unmanned space program is flourishing like never before with missions like the Great Observatories (Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra Space Telescopes), New Horizons, Cassini-Huygens (together with ESA), Spirit/Opportunity, Curiosity, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the Voyagers, the Pioneers, Kepler Space Telescope, and soon hopefully the James Webb Space Telescope, as well as a lot more missions to be launched in the future. Roscosmos, even with its funding ills, has continued to prevail as one of the most enduring space agencies around. In fact, Roscosmos is currently the only provider of manned space travel, and this will likely continue to be true for the forseeable future. They also have the financial and infrastructural capabilities to support a counterpart to the US GPS, the GLONASS. The ESA is by all rights a proper space agency representing Europe. They are the backbone behind the Ariane launchers and are one of the "big two" in commercial payload launch providers together with the ULA (United Launch Alliance) today, and are also closely connected with NASA, JAXA, and Roscosmos in space exploration, often collaborating on many fields and missions together; the ESA are also involved with the ISS through the Columbus laboratory module and service missions through the ATVs. JAXA (Japan) and India are most definitely not "startups", and as a Japanese-American I am downright offended you would say this. JAXA has launched Hayabusa, a successful sample return mission from an asteroid that involved state-of-the-art technologies; they launched Kaguya (aka SELENE) which shot and sent back the first HD videos of an "Earth rise" from lunar orbit and contributed to mapping the lunar surface in unprecedented detail together with the NASA LRO; they boast the HTV (which sports autonomous piloting that matches or even surpasses the Russian Progress!) and the H-2B launch vehicle which currently service the ISS, with the HTV having the potential to be turned into a manned spacecraft thanks to having a fully pressurized compartment currently used for cargo; they are involved with the ISS through the Kibou ("Hope") laboratory module; they also launched a small satelite network that augments the US GPS constellation over the areas of Japan, Korea, South East Asia, and Australia for better reception and telemetric accuracy; they also maintain a plethora of lesser-known Earth research and monitoring satelites much like how other space agencies like NASA and ESA do. Last but not least, JAXA works together deeply with NASA and ESA on a wide range of fields and missions. I personally view NASA, JAXA, ESA, and Roscosmos as the "Big 4" of the space agencies around the world because of their size and the influence they have on space exploration at large. India for its part launched the Chandrayaan-1 lunar satelite which has worked together with NASA's LRO throughout their missions, and they also routinely launch satelites into orbit. I am sadly not familiar with India's space program, but I know enough to know they are far more than a "startup". Even China, despite being blatantly obvious that their space program is completely for political gains rather than science or for the public good, is being almost absurdly optimistic about its mission objectives with their manned spaceflights and currently planned space station. It should also be mentioned that China launched a lunar satelite during the same period when NASA launched the LRO and JAXA their Kaguya to the Moon, which also took part along with its NASA, JAXA, and Indian counterparts in mapping the lunar surface. In closing, I might be a "Negative Nancy" that's playing the role of Devil's Advocate somewhat in this discussion, but even I do not hold a view of the world as cynical and ignorant as you described. A lot of time, effort, hard work, and in many cases blood and tears, are spent to move forward in exploring space and advancing technologies in literally almost every field of science. All of the people involved, the astronauts, the engineers, the scientists, the doctors, the professors, the mechanics, everyone involved and/or was involved in space exploration deserves every last bit of gratitude and respect that we can give them for what they are doing and have done; to give anything less is tantamount to insult in my humble opinion.

I think it's a little of both.

Unfortunately, the LEO that ISS is in slowly decays due to (very) faint atmosphere still present. The ISS needs to be boosted every-so-often by a Progress, ATV, or a Space Shuttle back when it was still flying, so that it won't re-enter the Earth's atmosphere proper and becoming a hurtling fireball like Skylab. Hubble is also on a decaying LEO for the same reason, and is why STS-125 left a small docking adapter on HST to be used by a future mission to de-orbit or push HST out to a higher non-decaying orbit. As for why not leave it up there? Money. It costs money to haul the propellant and engine(s) needed to manuever the ISS (or the HST for that matter) to a higher non-decaying orbit, and it costs even more money for the launch vehicle to loft all of that propellant to orbit. Leaving the ISS/HST on a non-decaying orbit also contributes to worsening the situation of orbital debris that we have. Consequently the best course of action usually is to de-orbit rather than push it out to HEO or leaving it on a decaying LEO. China's space station is the one and only space station that I expect to have a chance at being realized, but I cannot come to accept that China's space station would actually be worth anything in a scientific or socially constructive sense since it's blatantly obvious that China is trying to "one up" the NASA/JAXA/ESA/Roscosmos party, rather than having the advancement of humanity as their core goal. China's space station is completely for political purposes rather than science. Of course, it could be said that political gain is one effective way to kickstart space exploration, the Space/Moon race is one such example. I think it's a sign that NASA needs to learn to have quicker turn around times for getting projects off the ground (not neccesarily scientific return, mind you). Take the James Webb Space Telescope, the presumed semi-successor to the Hubble Space Telescope: Nobody needs to tell me for me to realize that the scientific finds of JWST will be spectacular just like Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra (The Great Observatories) have been, but it's also completely inexcusable how inefficiently and wastefully the project has progressed over the years marred by delays, cost-overruns, and crappy management; when Congress (as useless as they are) says they want to kill JWST, I can sadly see why. P.S. The PR regarding Commander Hadfield has come off to me, personally, as PR regarding Commander Hadfield himself rather than the ISS at large (you could probably ask someone who Hadfield is and get a proper answer, but that same person might not know a thing/care about the ISS). Note that I do in fact respect everyone involved with the ISS, I may not neccesarily hold a positive opinion of the ISS but I still try to understand the kind of work that needs to happen for the ISS to fly and I respect each and every person involved (or was involved) with the project regardless of my opinion of the station itself.