GoldForest

Hmmmm, you're right. You would need a super dense gas to keep the pressure on the hydrogen, on top of a tank that can withstand such forces. A tank that strong would have to be probably at least 1 foot of titanium reinforced with steel braces probably. Titanium is light, but it adds up. Sulfur Hexafluoride and Perfluorobutane are pretty heavy gases, but Idk how they reacts to hydrogen. That's another concern, a gas that's dense enough to keep pressure on Hydrogen, but safe enough that it won't react with it.

Or a multi-tank design. Possibly 3. One to hold the Metallic Hydrogen, one tank to drain the main tank and send it into a third tank, then the third tank sends the hydrogen directly into the combustion chamber, that way the main tank keeps its pressure. The second tank serves as a transfer node between first and third tank so the first one doesn't lose pressure.

Wait! What?! Where did this come from? I didn't hear anything about a dock!

I would like an landing rig out at sea for replicating those SpaceX missions where the booster doesn't have enough Dv to return to launch site.

Hmmm, me thinks you got that idea from another game

Compound engines just mean it uses two engines to power one system. An example would be the turbo-compound engine, which used a jet turbine and a piston engine. The exhaust from the piston engine would be sent into the the turbine and would spin it up, and the turbine would add more power. In the concept of rocket engines, I assume it uses one fuel and two engines with one nozzle or something to that effect. I'm guessing it's a metallic hydrogen engine that feeds excess hydrogen into a conventional hydrogen engine after the metallic hydrogen breaks down into liquid hydrogen or gaseous hydrogen.

True, but KSP 2 has little information right now so any info we can get is good.

Doubtful, as models change and so do attachment points, mass, fuel, etc. Too much to figure out to port a craft. It would be easier just to rebuild the craft.

Hmmm, invisible with almost no collision mesh part to move the COM?

The real MOOSE would have used the RCS jets for stability, IIRC. You could also get stability artificially if you move the COM off center of the part.

Reminds me of NASA's emergency deorbit heatshield. It was literally a heatshield with some RCS thrusters and a seat with a parachute. Once the shield was through most of the atmosphere, the astronaut would kick off and free fall until chute deployment height. https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/paraconemoosesaverairmat-escape-pods-from-orbit/

We found out two new names for a planet and its moon. Glumo - Ringed Gas Giant Merble - Glumo's ice moon Merble is confirmed to have an atmosphere, but we could all see that from the trailer. he says as he didn't notice it until today.... Merble also has its sea around it's equator, meaning that if life support is added, you'll most likely want to land near the equator for water purposes, or bring lots of drilling equipment. Glumo appears to be made out of a different gas than Jool as in the trailer Glumo looks a little blue with yellow mixed in, at least from my perspective. Now keep in mind we don't get a good shot of Glumo as we only see the dark side, and tons of things mess with color distortion in video. Compression ratio, lighting, etc. Glumo might be a gas dwarf, as Merble appears to be close to 1/8th...ish the size of Glumo. I think Merble's sea should ice up when behind Glumo and on the dark side of Merble (Depending on how fast or slow Merble spins). This would create challenges of making sure you have enough water to last until the sea melts and opens back up.

Few notes: The Ringed Gas Giant is called Glumo, and it's ice world moon is called Merble. Kerbals can change hair styles. Planets will be tilted and possibly have seasons (Note: I take this as more cosmetic, leaves/grass changing color based on the planet's tilt and position, not actual weather)

This forum will be expanded after a server update/upgrade. No, KSP 1 craft will NOT work with KSP 2.

2 hours? No thanks. I'd rather stick with me average 7 minutes to orbit.

They are building in KSP scale. So I'm afraid you won't get your realistic planet sizes, but hey, that's what mods are for. And they made the planets small to make it enjoyable. Do you really want to sit there and launch for 20 minutes just to reach orbit then spend days rendezvousing with your space station? We might get super-earths on the Kerbin scale though, so you might semi-get what you want.

Agreed.

"Fake trailers" and "Promised features" would be under lying, which doesn't hold any legal ramifications. Now, promising a brand new game from the ground up? They have to deliver it. If people find out that KSP 2 is just KSP 1 with a few touch ups, and doesn't have anything new, I'm pretty sure that is fraud and you can take them to court over it. Because they promised you a product, and delivered something else. And even if it's not fraud, they would be lying. Like @Kerbart and @Brikoleur and myself said, there's no point in them lying and the player base will make sure they see consequences are brought upon them. Bad reviews, which stirs people away, which means they lose money, is one major consequence that the player base can bestow. Take-two/private division knows this would be the outcome, and if there's one thing Take-Two wants, it's people's money. They're not going to sacrifice a chance to gain that money, so I'm confident that Star Theory isn't playing a lie or a fraud. Both would mean bad news.

Bold claims. Any evidence to back that up? Also, lying to the consumer is major. Star Theory would face harsh repercussions if this was the case. Also also, if they don't deliver the product they promised, pretty sure that's called fraud, and could land them in serious trouble. Both carry major ramifications: Lying - No one buys their product Fraud - They end up in court I doubt they want either of these.

There are asteroids floating around in space in KSP 1. We can use them for mining resources.

KSP 1 is going to continue to be developed.

I never heard a fix for it. I doubt a fix was ever considered since Ares got cancelled due to Ares I being to dangerous. A max Q abort would apparently not allow the crew capsule to escape debris from the exploding rocket. My problem with that is that they could easily solve that problem by adding a more powerful abort tower, or maybe put some push motors on to the bottom of Orion. But it is what it is. Another problem with the cancellation of Ares I and the Constellation project in general is the cancellation of the Saturn based hardware upgrades. It would have been nice to have the J-2X. F-1B HAD hope, but SLS project cancellations scratched that.

Well until Cobalt decides to grace us with RS-68s and J-2Xs, as well as STS parts, we won't be able to make a BDB official Jupiter III. It's funny. I always saw the Jupiter III as a Saturn V/STS hybrid. But there's a problem with the Jupiter III. The same problem why Ares V abandoned RS-68 engines for use. The engines produce too much heat to be that close to each other.

Direct Jupiter III, slightly modified. Looks good. And yes, it was a REAL proposal for a super heavy launch vehicle.