Kerbart

No worries. We've all been there! I've been yelling half the week at our data warehouse team that the screwed up my contract database dump. Only to find out that I'd been using an old file from my archive.

It's 1022, not 1022. That's where you're going wrong.

As a slightly unrelated tip you can write 10^15 as 1015 making everything a lot more readable. Use the tags [noparse] and [/noparse] to enclose what you want in superscript (the exponent, obviously). This will make it a lot easier to read what you're writing. Even better, use an online equation editor to get the bbCode embed code for a proper equation like this: (Without daring to suggest anything to Squad, it would be nice if the forum software had some kind of latex plugin to do that stuff directly. Given the audience and subject, it would make sense)

I didn't think of that. PCB's are going to be a problem because all the solder on it will melt right off. Would embedding the electronics in a block of resin with coolant-filled pipes running through it work? The coolant still needs to dump its heat, but it's an alternative to putting them inside a refrigerated cabinet (with all the pressure issues that come with it)

The bottom part maybe. The top is still above the atmosphere.

Despite this being the 21st century, the laws of physics have not changed. Materials start to melt and if not simply lose their strength at temperatures of 450°C (850°F). Which is inconvenient at a pressure we find here in oceans at around 1000m (3000' give or take) below sea level. Unless you opt for an "open" construction but then you have to deal with abrasive gasses (and keep in mind chemical processes, including corrosion, speed up with higher temperatures, and it's HOT). Unlike the moon and mars, lifetime of Venus surface probes is measured in hours, not months. You simply get much more research for the same money if you send your probes to somewhere else than Venus.

This is why engine efficiency is measure in ISP.

Very small point: the unit listed for entering dV is m/s² but should of course be m/s

None of Manley's tutorials uses mods, to my knowledge. His regular adventures do but if anything it's to make things harder, not easier. But the tutorials are always stock only.

One can equally argue that it's just as bad when people give the wrong answer if they cannot differentiate astrology from astronomy. Without seeing the actual survey questions it is hard to question this though; it is likely that the question does outline the difference between the two sciences. Surveys at that level are usually performed by professionals who know how to limit bias and confusion as much as possible in their questions.

Irony: news article does unscientific swaperoo to make for more spectacular headline. Here's from the actual REPORT: Now, I'm not saying that's a good result. Not at all. The "more than half" does not reflect all Americans, "just" the group of "young people." Which is still unacceptable. Commenting any more on that would quickly move this thread into forbidden territory and I have enough infractions on my name as it is, so I'll stay away from that.

Of course there's the list of things not to ask for, as well as "what's in development." But maybe it's an idea for Squad to issue a "Kerbal Space Program Charter" or mission statement that outlines what the goal/considerations are? It's not the same as a roadmap, but more high level, that states what the considerations are for development. Gameplay over realism, or realism over gameplay. Should the game come "batteries included" or does Squad aim to deliver "the bare minimum to complete the tech tree and fullfill all contracts without the use of any mods," etc. There's a lot of discussion on what is missing in KSP, in other words what it should contain. The question is always, "should, according to who?" A charter would answer that question. Part of the endless discussion that flare up from time to time can then be resolved quickly by pointing to the charter. That's not in line with the charter, so if it doesn't show up as a mod don't expect it to be part of the game. Or something along those lines.

Hello Rick, Welcome to KSP. As mentioned, any mods that come in the form of parts are risky. If a new release breaks a mod than the ships with the modded parts will be taken out of the game and that might be disappointing when they're close to finishing a long mission. There are a lot of mods that don't come in the form of parts and those are a lot safer; they'll simply stop working when they break and that's it. MJ is certainly a well supported mod that I wouldn't expect to break anytime some. Flight Engineer is another one, and I would highly recommend the Navyfish Docking Align mod as it will help you to make one of the hardest elements of the game -- docking -- a whole lot easier by feeding you the right information (you're still the one who has to do the docking though). Ion engines tend to be small and without a lot of power. They're great for lightweight interplanetary probes. Not sure how that jives with big rockets though.

There's a lot of discussion on what constitutes a "shuttle." Thanks to the Nasa program everyone seems to think it's a vehicle that has wings, but really, Jouni nailed it: any craft made to "shuttle" back an forth between orbit and surface, or between two celestial bodies, or satellites is technically speaking a shuttle. Especially since you don't really need wings in KSP to facilitate re-entry for large craft. Don't let that stop you from making one just for the challenge of it, of course!

Oh, easy. University Professor who wanted to make a point about students being less engaged and willing to come up for themselves than when he was a student. So he started teaching bad on purpose, to prove that nobody would complain about it. Only problem was that there was an immense line after every class, with students asking to please, please, please improve the way you're teaching because this is horrible, why don't you, etc, etc. As a good scientist the man simply decided to ignore the "data" that was not in line with his theory. Half a year later we found out why the teaching was so bad: in the university paper he was describing how "class after class, he was teaching worse and worse, and not a single complaint was to be heard." I learned a lot that semester. Just not about Discrete Mechanics.

The danger here is that you start deciding how others should play/enjoy the game. Why stop with MJ? Quicksave and Revert Flight allows you to be careless and "just do something" instead of thinking about what you're doing first. Let's make those not available until you've returned some Kerbals from Duna Docking with aligned RCS ports is way to easy to learn it. The COM indicator will only be available in the VAB after completing at least 10 dockings All those planets and moons are way too intimidating and even demotivating for new players. Only after a planting a flag on Mun, Minmus will be available. Flag planting on Minmus will unlock Duna, etc. Maneuver Nodes make it way to easy. Unlock them only after a succesful first orbit Yes, this is a ridiculous list. On purpose. But the real question is: where would you draw the line? Mind you, Mechjeb is a choice, you don't have to install it. I think that forcing players to play a sandbox game "the right way" is just plain silly. You mean the way it's working in career mode right now?

Oh yes, imagine the horror of making a million bucks a day like Blizzard did with warcraft That being said I doubt that a single MMO style server would be applealing to play on. A few thousand ships at the same time? Lag is going to be unbearable.

Did you check online? They can be had for just a few bucks. It's really not that hard to find them.

It's always dangerous to make assumptions on how others should play the game in order to enjoy it. They can also be turned off because despite trying hundreds of times they can't get something done. Seeing how MJ does things is a great way to learn some of the complexities, as others have mentioned.

Get NavyFish' docking alignment tool. It gives you all the information you need to make manual docking easy, fast and efficient. I don't regard it "cheating" (is there such a thing?)â€â€it doesn't do the work for you, it merely gives you a docking intstrument that should have been included with KSP in the first place.

You or Mechjeb? I nowaday put two Stratus-V tanks on my moon landers and don't even bother refilling them in between sorties as the whole docking sequence takes less than 5 units. Mechjeb, on the other hand, has routinely emptied an FL-R1 (the biggest RCS tank) on an "apollo style" craft (MK2, FL-R1, X200-16, Poodle) when trying to dockâ€â€and failing by running out of monopropâ€â€which is where I'm projecting the 2000 from. If you like living on the edge in KSP, relegating docking to MJ is surely a good way to go.

I have a station completely made from stock parts that spins like "crazy". Makes docking quite the challenge.

Then don't use it. Or use it to dock. It adds a whole new dimension to the game. "I only brought 2000 monoprop. Is it enough to dock?" Unlike manual docking where after a dozen sorties I unexpectedly ran out of monoprop only to discover that I complete forgot to add monoprop tanks to my lander in the first place (and was relying purely on what was in landercan)

Adam Osborne was a famous computer entrepeneur in the late 70s/early 80s. Making his fortune with selling software, he started selling the "Osborne 1," a CP/M (the predecessor of DOS) computer that was, at least for the time, truly portable. (Portable means you can easily transport it. It wasn't small. It was just not a mess with monitors, cables, powersupplies, etc, all was encased in a suitcase sized box that could be carried around easily). The Osborne laid out his "road map" for the Osborne 2 which was going to be even more awesome even though at that point it was still in development and pretty much vaporware. People who were planning on buying an Osborne I held off, as the II would be sooo much better. Cashflow dried up and his company went bust. This has been named "the Osborne Effect" and has been a warning towards developers (both hard and software) to be reluctant advertising new versions too much ahead of time. While the Osborne Effect is not in play with Squad -- KSP has already been paid for by existing customers and there's no penalty for buying early -- the lesson to learn is that revealing too much in advance can have negative side effects that are hard to predict. As far as "questionable design decisions" go -- Squad is very clear that they are developing a game, not a simulation. The reason the game attracted hard-core simmers at first is because you had to be, to get any enjoyment out of the game. With the mechanics of the game nearly fully developed, focus is now shifting to enhancing gameplay, especially for the more casual gamers. So it is fully understandable that development is now going towards career mode, contracts (providing goals, an alien concept for hardcore simmers), good in-game tutorials. All that makes perfect sense in the development of KSP The Game but it means that less (or no) resources are spent on KSP The Simulation. Is that a bad thing? Obviously it is, when you are looking for a realistic simulation (which the opening screen will tell you right of the bat KSP is not), but for development as a game it is natural. For me personally, atmospheric behavior (both at launch as well as re-entry, but I think re-entry heating is very closely related to good aerodynamic modeling) is the one part that needs improvement and that I expect improvement since it can only enhance gameplay (it adds an "it's not over till it's over" element to the game). What I see with most requests for "more realism" is a desire to make the game more "hardcore." N-body physics! Lagrange Points! Random Failures! Which will make the game a miserable experience for all but the most committed players. Running out of fuel in Duna, and quickly sending in a fuel tank while time accelerating because you don't want to wait half a year? LOLZ u didn't maintain ur orbit! Fuel arrives, mission has disappeared... That might be ok for some, 95% of the players will not be happy about that. In the end, Squad will make decisions that make the game appealing for the majority of the players. And with KSP getting more and more fame, that will be a focus on making the game easier and "fun," not harder and radical.

Public roadmap? Two words: Adam. Osborne.