Deathsoul097

Why can we not give Rep in the space lounge? This is so, SO rep worthy! EDIT: Duuuude, this is so freaking cool! It's epic, it looks really good, and hell, I reckon you could probably give KSP a run for it's money if you keep up with this. Everything looks awesome, and even though it is hard to control, you can actually set up orbits, to a point. Also, I had no idea you could actually break individual parts of the probe. The first thing I did was just crash outright. Then I managed to land, and hover over to a hopper cube, and while trying to experiment with what effects a rocket engine exhaust would have on it, it jumped and knocked off the engine! Just a couple of points: Major, major lag if you fall into the gas planet, and you can see a bit of glitchyness when you get closer to planets, as if the "render range" was moving to encompass the planet. That, and you might want to look into your gravity physics. I set up and orbit really low over the sun, which I dubbed Helios (Not at all a suggestion for a name... no... of course not... *shadily looks around*), but I kept on receiving a kick at PeriHe. I wasn't firing thrusters, and as far as I know the planets weren't in line with me, so I don't think N-body physics are coming into it at all. Also, you spawn upside down, at least compared to the overview mode. Also, I think a navball is needed. It would make things a thousand times easier, as it is so hard for me to get my bearings without it sometimes. Might just be me though. Overall, for a first pre-pre-alpha, this is brilliant, and a lot of fun.

Beautiful. Truly Beautiful. Will those fairings allow for a true Soyuz abort? (LAS pulls Fairings, OM and pod away, and the pod pops out the bottom and deploys it's chutes.) Because much Kudos to you if it does. And those solar panels, oh kod they are things of beauty. I will offer this suggestion though: Make your own LES tower/LAS. The stock one does not do your parts justice, and I think one more LES/LAS would be brilliant. Right now, we have stock LES, and an Aerojet Kerbodyne/Orion LES, so a Russian/Soyuz themed LES would be brilliant. It would make the perfect trio, and you would do brilliant job with it. Oh, and here's some rep, for good measure. #TotallyNotABribeOrAnything EDIT: Just looked through some previous pages, and that Pumpkin lander can is so kawaii!

Well, we are talking about a game where you build rockets. If you don't escalate quickly you're gonna have a bad time.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what is happening. Also, the panels are waterproof and have inbuilt heaters (Or were they lamps?) to melt snow.

Oh my kod... Constant, whiny, repeated, unwanted posts on people's threads. Jeez man, modders have lives you know, and they can't always work on things all of the time. Not only that, but bugging people over it won't get it done faster, in fact, it slows them down. They sit there, and they read posts from annoying users, and it demotivates them, it makes them feel bad about it, it makes them question why they want to spend their own free time working on something that goes to an ungrateful whiner. I'm expecting this post to get removed by the powers that be, but seriously, consider the things you are writing from another persons standpoint. OrionKermin. Good job, I like the new OM. A lot. Like, I will use it forever, a lot. GJ man, GJ.

Well, they are actually talking about that. Look at some of the more recent tech articles from I ******* Love Science, and the IFLS website, they talked about it. Considering that they think it could provide enough power to provide for the entire US, I think that it will pay for itself the minute it goes live.

That has to be my most favourite fail ever, of all time.

Why did my score almost half?

Oho! I get it now! Man, I haven't watched that in what, over 4 years? Damn. Stop making me feel old, I'm only 15. (Also, I wasn't saying it was accidental, I just thought you had forgotten about it.)

Blackheart, I found something in an older install. Something that looks very nice, and something I think you could do great things with. The Shenron. Is it still being worked on? It looks awesome, and fits some of my design ideas very nicely. (Though, I would bump up crew count to at least 5. There would be a lot of unused space in that pod as is, you could probably get away with up to seven.

Neil. DeGrasse. Tyson. 'Nuff said.

Massive anime fan here, and I have to say, Planetes is pretty good. That said, it never really captured me. I'd have to say my favourite anime is Code Geass, with a close second of Mirai Nikki or Shingeki No Kyogin. While they aren't so realistic, I find them a bit more immersive, more real to me, than planets was.

I personally don't like the idea of an IVA that will be almost identical in visibility and functionality to the stock MK1 pod. I think that even the M-1 would be a better send off project, simply for the fact that an engine or probe core adds more to the game than an IVA that will be pretty to look at but have no true functionality.

Bonuses: Thin Air: 1.5 Fly over 10,000m high Yeager Breaker: 1.5 Break the speed of sound (340m/s over land) Keepin' the Snacks In: 2 Don't do a flip Unmanned Advantage: 3 Fly over 2200m Bonuses come out to 8. Distance is 31,455. 4 wings were used. 8 * 1/4 * 31455 = 62,910. Not the most amazing score, but easy enough and fun to do. (EDIT: Don't mind the glitch displays, that's just VOID being buggy. It adds no parts and gives me no advantage in a challenge like this.)

Why not just copy the node structure over from one of the KW fairing bases instead of trying to do it manually? Work smart, not hard.

Something I've been wondering since the start, why are your rear gears so far forward? I can understand the placement if the craft was an SSTO, or meant to take off horizontally at all, but as it is, I would expect the gear to be much further rearward, and it would give a lot more clearance for flaring and landing. Loving the design though, BTW.

Just define a new SRB fuel that can flow, and eventually someone can make a plugin that makes it not able to be abused with fuel pumps.

LKO velocity is ~2.3Km/s LEO velocity is ~7.5Km/s Drag and Gravity losses on kerbin amount to about 2.2Km/s stock, and about 1.2Km/s with a more realistic drag model. (FAR) Drag and Gravity losses on earth, comes to ~1.9Km/s. So, it's between 3 and 5 times harder to get into earth orbit than KSP. Just to put this into perspective, you could use the real Saturn V in KSP to go to, land on and return to kerbin from Eeloo, with boatloads of fuel to spare. Whereas your standard Jool rocket in KSP could barely get you into LEO...

Jeez, talk about rude. PJ, good to see this released. Your epic work deserves more attention that it currently gets. Also, is the included Probe Core just a small MK2 segment?

'Twas no accident my friend, no, just the truth.

Looks cool, but why not make the SMA itself have a docking node? Then you wouldn't add on more parts by using the SR. ports, and it would look nicer, IMO.

Woo! Estimations and RSS, FTW! (I guess RSS is pretty accurate after all. Nice work, NK.)

Gravity is the real killer, and it eats most of your DV. As for drag, it's bad but not so bad as you would expect. Considering you need ~9 - 10 Km/s of DV to get to earth orbit, I would say that gravity losses and drag losses account for ~2-3Km/s of DV usage when getting to orbit. (It's been a long time since RSS) So really, yeah, getting to space is easy. Staying there, not so much. (Trust XKCD on this one, he worked at NASA and he plays KSP...)

Real engines have a LOT of thrust vectoring. (Though, the SSMEs had a lot, even for RL standards.) Something we are not so fortunate to have in-game. The engines on the Energia Core could gimbal about 8 degrees, IIRC, and being mounted inline with the rocket itself, it was not only more efficient, it had to gimbal less to keep stable, as more of the mass was inline with the engines. It also made the orbiter lighter when using it's OMS, which was also more inline with CoM, and thus more efficient and more easily manageable. While Buran in itself had a more than a handful flaws (Such as some Columbia-esque damage to the left wing on re-entry, which cause some warping) that needed to be worked out, it only flew one flight, so we cant really call it properly whether it was truly better or not. That said, I still think it was better and was, if not very close to, a space shuttle done right. I wholly disagree with your first point. Though a winged vehicle adds complexity, it also allows a very large range of possibilities, such as low G re-entry, which means that more fragile cargo and experiments can be transferred between on site in orbit and ground stations, and the ability to more easily control your point of return, in case anything goes wrong, to name two off of the top of my head. I find myself kind of agreeing with your second point though. Side mounted, while the most Badass and iconic things there is, is quite an inefficient way of doing things, never mind the complexity of implementing it, which as you said, creates a whole new line of failures that could occur. It does have some benefits (Such as the ability to abort reasonably safely, to an extent, but this is only really applicable for the Buran, as the Space Shuttle was completely screwed if anything went wrong, as it was carrying the engines.), though I don't think they outweigh the downfalls. TBH, I think the best way to do it would be closer to what SNC is doing with Dreamchaser, or how the USAF X-37B is deployed. (Stack launch, winged return, and in the case of the X-37B, AFAIK, hidden inside a fairing. (Not sure about SNC's Dreamchaser, I've got no real foreknowledge about it.))

Yeah, which is a problem that is solved by making the drone core part just a really short MK2 segment. PJ could literally just remap a MK2 fuselage model, and make it shorter, then re-export it and do the config. You wouldn't even need to do another texture, you would just have to reference it from another folder.