Kerbart

Totally different case: T2 reissues old games but has them refreshed and upgraded T2 totally botches this release Modders roll out their own upgrade basically saying "DoN't BuY tHaT CrAp RelEaSe GeT OuRs InStEaD." While all of the modders points might be true — It's not inconceivable the newly released game is riddled with bugs, and that the modders did reverse the source code without reusing IP — it's also clear that this undercuts T2 sales. Not just "even if all of the above is true" but especially if the above is true. A lawsuit might be bad publicity, allowing people to pick the free mod over the (probably indeed horrible) commercial release will certainly kill it. From a business point of view that makes the lawsuit pretty much a no-brainer. And yes, had they released a quality product that wouldn't have happened. Now consider mods for KSP2: Enhance the game without costing T2 extra developers Mods require a working copy of KSP2, enhancing sales There's a proven track record that popular mods provide a breeding ground for ideas that can be turned into DLC, generating more sales Whenever I see the word "suits" or "bean counters" it means that, nearly without exception, there is an expectation that the only reason these people go to work is to find ways to torpedo the product. Meetings are about "how can we do the most damage to our sales." Based on the "predictions" I see time and time again on this forum, we can expect that KSP will have "Wing Commander physics" so it can be "dumbed down for the masses," every launch will cost $0.25 in micropayments and they game will be so full of DRM that it hardly runs. And yet... I don't get the impression that's the case with KSP2. The project managers seem to be passionate about the software, and the way they speak about implementation details suggests that it's more than just faking it. They also made clear that mods are a part of the game. And given that mods were instrumental in the evolution of KSP1, leading to its commercial success (selling for many years), why wouldn't it. So, unless KSP2 sucks monumentally, and someone reverse engineers the source code, and releases a mod for KSP1 that turns it into KSP2, I don't expect T2 to launch lawsuits against modders.

No points for having a saboteur on board and spacing him?

As long as they don't list a post for "refund processing senior team leader" I'm fine.

I'm guessing, but... up to about 100 square feet?

The ability to add struts alone is worth it. No more wobbly docked additions!

Just a pony?

Quantum target. It's when you're pointed towards the target and the anti-target at the same time. Killing the nyan-cat will disolve the quantum state.

There's a reason you got the correct answer within an hour

That’s a tough one. HL has a phenomenal story that needs a sequel. Portal 2 is a finished story that needs some convoluted “we need to go back” story to be even remotely believable. But then, P3 would actually get made while HL3 has a curse and will never be published. Having something is better than nothing. Rationally I’d go with Portal but my heart says Half Life.

Surely congress would put an end to such waste of money if it’s pointless. Right? Right? [sound of crickets]

The speed at which SpaceX develops things is incredible. Bezos is right with wanting to get in now. A year from now SpaceX is probably already landing on the moon. ULA has a "proven track record" argument to justify higher costs. BO has pretty much nothing. If you can't compete on price, or merit, go to court!

And an EVA while in orbit of the sun. The flags will “only” get you to 23/4 stars.

But fusion as a viable energy source is only 20 years away!! (of course it's always 20 years away, including 20 years from now...)

But that seems to be the problem with large nuclear powerplants. The question then becomes: how do we take management, out of the equation all together? I'm hopeful about small thorium/salt reactors that can run autonomously and be buried underground without any need for intervention; the less can go wrong. The after-effects of those disasters are short-lived and impact a relative small area. The fallout from Chernobyl (see what I did there?) lasted over 20 years for farmers in Norway and Scotland with hundreds of thousands of sheep producing unusable milk and meat. In addition, if a chemical plant blows up, 90% of the damage is visible. Nuclear contamination is invisible and in the aftermath locals have to rely on government reports how safe things are; the same government that told them in the first place that everything was perfectly safe and nothing, absolutely nothing could happen. From a rational point of view it's hard to argue with nuclear energy but it's such an amazing PR disaster that makes it an incredible hard sell.

But that argument works both ways. Yes, apparently it is possible to build and operate safe reactors, even in disaster-prone areas. But if they manage to get it wrong in a process-obsessed country like Japan, what are the chances that despite the best intentions, we do end up with unsafe plants? "While the nuclear industry is safe and clean, as a whole the possibility of a disaster with large area ramifications is a near-certainty" I'm not against nuclear power but it continues to amaze me that, as an industry, the total lack of understanding that saying "it's impossible for things to happen" when every decade or so something happens is not going to win the trust of the public. Too many engineers in charge is my guess.

For one thing existing designs seem to be struggling with the extremer weather that comes with the changing climate, so those designs probably need to be upgraded as well. Seems like there's no silver bullet. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-the-leading-cause-of-nuclear-power-outages/

That usually comes up as an argument. “CO2 levels have been that high in the past, so why worry” because it took millions of years to go down because it resulted in a climate that was seriously unpleasant

Probably. I wonder how many of these power rigs there are. And how many servers google, microsoft and amazon employ that blow these limits completely out of the water, but those will not be regulated.

The 3.4 mm is what Dutch research institutes are quoting as on the high end and around 2 mm/yr on the low end. The latter part is more important because it's an indication that it's not just the lunar cycle - there would be years where the sea levels would drop, after all. Funnily enough they do mention 16 year cycles without making the connection to the moon (at least not in the reports I read). Also, there's not a hidden (fill in preferred conspiracy group) agenda controlling them; for the Dutch government it's "merely" input on their projections on where there sea defenses need to be 100 years from now, as it's something they need to start planning for now. Of course they'll be using worst case scenarios and if "planning for the worst 100 years from now" sounds utterly bizarre then you probably live in a country that considers local damages north of $100 billion once every 50 years due to hurricanes acceptable, but not everyone adheres to that kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish kind of approach.

I'd like to see a final 1.12 compile, @artwhaley

Well since you guys have been mentioning me a couple of times now, here I am: the user who is clueless about game development in general, or the inner workings of game development. I still don't understand the benefits of 240 FPS when my monitor has a 30Hz refresh rate,that's how much of a noob I am when it comes to this. But: If I'm going to put down serious money for KSP2, I expect the graphics t o be spectacular. That's pretty much the point, innit? Better written software will surely offset some of the penalty of more detailed graphics, but I doubt it will compensate everything. So, I'm counting on needing a new PC. But I doubtthat, just like KSP 1, it's going to require an $800 graphics card. Remember, we KSP players don't want the devs to know what kind of hardware we're running the game on. The price we pay for that? They'll have to make assumptions on what the average machine is/can handle. That's our choice, not theirs. Subsequently, we'll find out how it performs when it comes out. Until then I'm not going to fret over it.

I apologize for choosing the wrong words. What my intention was, is measuring the rolling friction. From there, as said, it's a matter of math to figure out the rest. Probably something along the lines of friction × distance = energy required, and then some voodoo math with burn time, thrust and an extra factor for air resistance. Again, nothing too hard to figure out.

Has it been mentioned what an exceptional bad idea this is? You can use one of those pocket pull spring scales to have someone drag you along at a constant speed to see what kind of force is needed to propel you forwards. The rest is then just math that, as a KSP player, you should have no issues with.

Attach to the center of the booster, not the top or bottom. Then use the move tool to position it correctly.

Career mode adds challenges to the game. If those challenges are unwanted and/or not needed, then there's sandbox mode. To make career mode even more challenging, multiple constraints are offered. It's not just gathering research, it's gathering research while managing a budget. A single currency would take that challenge away. Now you can go full out maximizing revenue, without worrying about science. Or the other way around. If anything, I'd like to see more interaction between them. Reputation influencing hiring costs, for instance. different types of research points required for different parts of the tech tree (materials, construction, performance, and so on)