Kerbart

While that would solve all of the issues involving action & reaction it would also obliterate the whole point of launching this way (no need for reaction mass) in the first place.

What?! Are you saying parent-teacher meetings don't count?

I never go to the forums at school. Must be a thing for the weak-spirited.

Yes, thank you for the correction. I always read the "fiscal year 2023" as "early 2023" because if it were 2022 (calendar), why wouldn't they say so?

That's in line with what T2 said earlier on ("Fiscal 2022") and probably better for the wallet as micro chip shortages are supposed to be a thing of the past by then. No shocking surprises and a date that's a bit more solid than before. All around, good news!

After watching the video I would not automatically dismiss the hypothesis that they misspelled the name. And not because they try to avoid trademark issues.

That's pretty amazing. I get the impression that most bot-claim disputes are answered with a rubber-stamped "we reviewed your claim and deny it" (which suggests that in most cases, as they are blindingly obvious, they do not actually review disputes)

I don't know a lot about software development in general and PC games in particular, but I do know a lot about large corporations and especially marketing. And with that I don't mean the naive preconceptions of "the only reason the suits and beancounters got KSP is so that they can destroy it" or "marketing is silly idiots who don't know what they are talking about" but actual inner workings. So, press releases are never written by an intern and tweeted out on a Saturday night at a bar, except maybe at the occasional real estate company. Things are usually vetted five times over and going up and down the corporate ladder a few times, ensuring that: Only promises are made that, while maybe optimistic, have at least the potential of being fullfilled While some companies do prefer "under-promise and over-deliver," most are also under the gun by impatient shareholders so you don't want to be overly cautious or conservative with your estimates. Given that the most recent official word is “fiscal 2023” (April 2022—March 2023) and that this is not some careless or vague claim I think it's safe to say that: If a firm 2022 release date was planned, they would have said simply that. "Summer 2022" or maybe even just "2022" but they didn't If they're unsure about when the release in 2023 is, they would have said "2023" but they didn't In that sense, "Fiscal 2023" tells me that it's likely November 2022—January 2023 with like 6 weeks of slack built in, in case the project slips. I just don't see why else you'd word it like that, especially when other games in their press release had "firmer" descriptions.

There's a difference between "some land transport costs" and transporting 1000+ miles over the road. Especially with oversized/overweight cargo where you have limited options to go through tunnels, over bridges, under viaducts and dealing with sharp corners on mountain passes. It's not as dramatic as you'd think though. (Large) container ships are among the largest moving objects on the planet and what is a gigantic load for a plane (200 tons) is "just Tuesday" for a ship. Years ago a friend of mine sent me an infomercial about the Airbus A380, and my response was "that's cute, maximum take off weight is almost as much of that of a propeller axle." Physically large objects like wind turbine wings, or heavy objects like industrial boilers or transformers are routinely shipped on board of container ships, either on top of containers, directly loaded onto the hatches or even inside the holding bay (provided it fits in the 40' length). Cost might be a different factor though. Cost is usually calculated by the number of containers the cargo replaces and while rates have been at a record low for the past decade and a half they are very expensive right now, and loading/unloading the cargo is also not easy, and the operator of the ship will want to see a reimbursement for that too. Combined with the inland transport cost that will make these kind of transports by air relatively competitive and an attractive alternative. I agree that the logistics around using a plane are probably simpler but not that much simpler, and probably more expensive but not that much more expensive, making it an attractive option in the end.

You didn't see the announcement?

I'd say induced demand. The plane is there and available, so if you have a 150 ton generator or oversized objects like wind turbine blades you can ship them intercontinental without having to deal with hundreds of miles of special transport from a sea port to the origin and/or destination. So that opens up markets for buyers/sellers that otherwise wouldn't exist as they'd shop/sell "locally" to avoid those kind of logistical challenges. With the plane gone I doubt that market is going to be there, definitely not for the prices that were there in the past (based on a plane that effectively was already paid for), as a rebuilt specimen would be far more expensive. to build an assett like that and recover he cost of building you'd have to fly it as much as possible, and given that it was sitting in a hangar suggests that the market for that simply doesn't exist.

Does it come with blinking lights?

But that's worth it. Nothing ruins good drama like wooden facial expressions. Instead, we get life-like reactions on challenges by Mandaloriae, Tuskens, and Jawas. Top acting, well worth it!

It dioesn't take rocket science to see that the list is in chronological order, and it doesn't say Fall 2022. So that's going to be "winter 2022" at best but I wouldn't be shocked of March 31, 2023 either. I'm not sure if the fixed deadline is good news. Remember how KSP1 went from 0.23 to 0.9 to 1.0 in like 6 weeks followed by weeks and weeks of bug fix releases?

It's likely protomolecule.

Because the "ground crew" comes with an annual budget cost and that cost is lower for five years than for twenty. Of course that'd be stupid after sinking billions of dollars into launching the thing but I doubt anyone will dare to accuse congress of taking a long term view on things.

I'm pretty sure that was the plan all along. Any talk about "5 years operating" is mainly to get congress approve the budget.

Doh. Those parts they'll image at night, obviously. Looking at the picture @StrandedonEarthposted I'd be more worried about bird droppings on the mirror!

As a GTX-745 owner I luckily don't have to wonder about such things. As of advanced cards right now, only time will tell!

Well, I’m not saying you can’t build big rockets, and surely large payloads require large rockets. But… my recommendation, based on your disclosure that you just started the game some weeks ago, is don’t go there yet. Build up some experience in constructing rockets. Learn to build lean, and get skilled at putting things into orbit,maneuvering them, and landing them. As your DV requirements to safely land on Mun shrink, so do your launch requirements (not to speak of what you need to get into orbit in the first place) . My advice to focus on getting the smallest craft possible to the surface of Mun and back will allow you to fail fast (a 30-part rocket takes less time to build than a 300 part), and learn quickly. Many missions will teach how much DV you really need. Finally, that refinery doesn’t have to be2.5m parts for starters either. The smaller parts are not as efficient, but neither is what you’re launching right now. Build a lot. Learn a lot. You’ll end up with 1/2 (or less) of the rocket to put your refinery on the Mun.

I haven't had as much fun in ages reading this thread. When I checked the pictures my fist incline was are those side boosters using... Mammoths? Don't get me wrong, I'm not laughing at you. Creating monstrous rockets is part of the fun and, you, sir, do have a talent for that. However, a lot can be learned from a "smaller is better" approach, and I emphasized the "learn" word there because I don't mean it as "your aim should be to build tiny rockets" (dream big! build big!) but more that your KSP engineering skills will improve quicker when focusing on smaller rockets first. It's perfectly feasible to go Mun and Minmus using only 1.25m tanks and engines, and just by trying to cut down the weight and part count of a rocket (and launching it again and again and again) you'll develop a better feeling for what good TWR's are, what aerodynamically works and what doesn't, where to place struts, and so on. And once you've mastered that, gradually work your way up to landing bigger and bigger craft on the moon. And then post a picture of your successful mining/refining operation.

I think that's given for any long duration NASA mission and I suspect it has mainly to do with budgeting. “We can't approve running this mission for 10 years, but we can put 5 years in the budget." Once the mission is on the way: "Oh, look, we built our rover much better/didn't need as much fuel" and by magic the mission suddenly lasts 2×-3× as long (it would be stupid to abandon a successful mission because it runs longer than budgeted for, after all). I don't have hard proof but seeing the pattern over and over again makes me really wonder.

I'm not one to be overly optimistic when it comes to software release dates so when the initial date was pushed back to 2022 it didn't really shock me. I also think that the dev team is pretty open and transparent and would tell us about any delays pretty upfront; they haven't yet. But I also think that "2022" doesn't mean "January 1st" and that any release after January 1 means it's delayed.

Surely I hope it gets releases before December 25th. I agree that January 1st is a wee bit optimistic and more likely it will be released much later, but December 25th is taking the 2022 release to a very cynical level.