Kerbart

Your inclination is wrong.

I doubt it will happen. But let's entertain the thought. What would be the angle? Same game, just a money grab Same game, but Better™ Same game, but a sequel Different game I think we can dismiss option 1 (that'd be stupid), and option 3 (as a sandbox game there's no real story for starters, so how could there be a sequel) That leaves you with option 4, which for this discussion is out of scope (a true management game, without the actual flying, perhaps? Or with some flying to determine costs and effectiveness of a rocket?). And then there's option 2, which seems to be the subject of this thread. Just to be clear, this is just one of the options Squad would have for a KSP 2 title) Starting with a clean slate, and “knowing what we know now” (but Squad/Felipe didn't when starting out) you could do a few things different: Use a different engine. Unity seems to have its issues. When you know/assume you're going to sell hundreds of thousands of copies there are other opions that probably are better Rethink and revamp career mode. Career mode now is basically something that grew out of something that grew out of something, and is a Frankenmonster that neither satisfies or delivers. Many of us (including me) do play career but that doesn't mean we think it's great; it's just that we prefer it over unrestricted sandboxing (which is also fine, let me be clear on that). But I'm pretty sure the group of players that says “no, don't touch it, career is perfect as it is” is negligible small compared to the total number of KSP players. Drop the “information is for dummies LOLZ” attitude and provide ample readouts, KER style. Many think that people stop playing KSP because they're frustrated (and a lack of good information is part of that), not because it's "too numerical" Multiplayer. I'm not a big fan, but many are. KSP2 should have multiplayer built-in from the start As to exactly how, I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

DV calculations are based on propellant, for most rocket engines that's LF+Oxidizer (the exceptions in stock being the nuke engine and the rapier in atmo mode... and the solid fuel rockets of course)

It's a horrible cookie-cutter chain jewelry store. Their advertising slogan is that the girlfriends of the just-engaged woman yell that. You can probably find it on youtube Not sure if "missing" is the right word there though. "Luckily avoided" perhaps

NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling. His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!! ...sorry, couldn't resist

With the current numbers in play you'd need nearly 1030 kg of C14 material for the equavalent energy production of the Pu238 battery. Even without the need for any hardware you'd still be at a disadvantage. One can argue that given the half life of C14. Even if you claim that you'd need only half the amount of material because C14 doesn't decay as "rapidly" as Pu238 (90 years), therefore you need less material to have enough energy production 50 years from now, you'd still end up with 500 kg. Don't get me wrong, it's exciting new technology, but it rather seems to be something that will have its own niche, rather than replacing something that exists. It will surely be exciting to see NASA launch spacecraft with a battery that will last for thousands of years, it will certainly be a big impulse to deep space exploration.

Aaah, well, that's where practice makes perfect. I tend to keep the target marker halfway between the center of the navball and the retrograde velocity marker as you're bringing back your horizontal velocity to zero (so the marker and the velocity vector are in the center of the navball) For horizonal distance you can use the equation d = ½×a×t² which of course solves for t = √2×d/a, multiply t with your horizontal velocity and you'll know the horizontal distance (throw in Pythagoras and your altitude and you know at what total distance you have to burn). Of course your deceleration will slightly increase as you burn off fuel, but it's still good enough for practical purposes (and you'll have a buffer for overshooting) If you're using another craft as a target and you practice this a lot, it will pay off to pay attention to where you land. I've borked a landing or two by landing right on top of the target (not thinking that I would I wasn't paying attention). So that answers the "how accurate" question I guess.

Aren't those shown as targets on the navball? Now you have something to aim for!

Good for pacemakers, I assume. The applications in spaceflight, at least for now, seem less rosy. According to the article, a "C14" fueled "battery" can produce about 15J/day per gram of active material. In comparison, a Plutonium RTG can, according to a NASA webpage, produce about 110W for 4.8 kg of plutonium. 110W equals 9.5MJ (110×24×60×60), and divided by 4,800 grams of material still leaves us with 1,980 J/day per gram, giving it a rather large advantage for the mass required. Of course, this is technology just in its infancy, so hopefully the output can increase. After all, the material is much easier to handle, not associated with nuclear weapons and will have less of a stigma when loaded onto a rocket than plutonium.

I'm glad to see that the "Magic Box" is living up to its expectations!

If we weren't we wouldn't be commenting, now would we? Well played, sir! Well played!

Ironically the issue is not grammar, but semantics.

You might want to check your sarcasm-o-meter. It might need calibration...

Yeah but which version? Squad released so many betas to ensure that 1.0 was free of bugs, had properly balanced aero and was well worthy of the 1.0 title, after all.

I'm glad you enjoy it, and I look forward to see it included in your mission report!

Because reasons.

Probably even more! However, I wanted something that would keep my rover "boxed" until the landing. Once it's safe and the dust has settled, then my little rover comes out. I fully agree, if you're looking for efficiency, this is not it. But I was looking to satisfy my gameplay/roleplay needs, and a "naked minimal delivery" does not fullfil that; my contraption does. Craft file shared. Just some run-off the mill Jumbo tank with a Skipper attached (I'm one of those weird people who like the Skipper, it's not as thirsty as the Mainsail). A bit rich on the DV, but I'll leave white-knuckle-razor-thin-margin missions to the 'ung ones. Too much excitement for me! Not at all. I put the link up in the top post!

Skycranes are reliable vehicles to put a rover or vehicle on the surface. Obviously, I try to avoid them. Making a contraption like this one never worked satisfactory in the past, but I guess wheels have changed in such a way that now... it works! Not a McGuffin What's in the box?! What's in the box?! Prepare for landing The Box on the way to the surface Safely Landed Those tiny landing legs are good enough to absorb the landing shock Surprise! The front pops off, and out comes the rover! It's alive! Now I have a reliable way to get my rovers safely anywhere, protected from harsh outer space on the way there. The Craft File! There were a couple of requests for the craft file (linky), so enjoy! (all stock parts). Notes: The rover is attached with a coupler to the lander. The "hatch" is attached to the docking port at the front of the lander (use "control from here" for easy steering). Land with gear down to prevent unscheduled rapid disassembly, and then retract gear to bring the bottom to the surface. Stage to pop the hatch and to release the rover, and happy exploring! It shouldn't be too hard to attach small science gear, just be aware that you don't want to drop below the bottom at the rear or you'll get stuck getting out. There's no science gear on my version, as it's intended to scout out a good site for a base (flat, and all), although on econd thought I should have added a thermometer (for those occasional science data from the mun missions). and I added a thermometer for those pesky science data from the mun missions. I've tried this approach in previous versions but either the rover wouldn't release or get launched into orbit when detaching, whatever changes Squad made to the wheels (and we know there were many) resulted in it working now. I might try bigger ones too!

Doh. Ctrl+Z. Is it really that hard? It's ironic that this is a forum dedicated to a space flight simulator. You'd expect people here to realize that things are not always as simple as they seem (one does not get to space by simply flying 100km straight up, after all). And in fairness, most of them do. But some still think that, hey, it's just as undeleting some text in word or excel. Before criticizing Squad on this, ask yourself a few questions: If Squad did this on purpose, why? Do you know what actually happened? Do you have actual experience in a scenario exactly like this? I think it's safe to assume a few things here: No, Squad did not do this on purpose. No, Squad has nothing to gain by prolonging the problem or "not caring about it" Yes, Squad is incompetent. In the sense of "nobody knows the inner workings of the database that feeds the forum that is offered as a service to the customers of the game they're selling". Because why would they? They're hired to write software about space flight, create artwork for it, write marketing material for it. No one knows the inner working of the forum software here? Why would they? Are you incompentent because you don't hire a live-in mechanic in your house, in case your car breaks down? So know a bunch 0f people has to dive in, dissect a database they have never seen before, figure out what happened, and try to fix it without making it worse (that last detail puts this a few notches above "troubleshooting a botched excel formula"). So, fixing it will take time. Because it's a complex issue to fix and because it outside the scope of what anyone at Squad is hired for.

The bottom part is extremely heat resistant but if you're building a shuttle around it than that's the part that does not get exposed to heat. The sidewalls of the cone might indeed not be that heat resistant, to "promote" re-entry blunt-end first.

With 100% accuracy I can predict that it will disappoint in some ways, and surprise us in others. There will likely be outrage that channel X is not supported in the Early Release program, and a mod author or two will quit over the constant "when will your mod be ready for 1.3 (not meant to rush you, just asking)" harassment. Also: CKAN drama. Experience has taught me that vendor-created hype ("We can't tell you what it is but we're so excited about it!") pretty much fails to deliver without exception. So don't expect too much from the "super-secret" development. It's probably a new font or logo or something like that.

There, I fixed it for you! (On a Windows computer: Hold down Alt, type 0153 on your numeric keypad and release Alt. I don't know how it works on the Mac but I'm sure it's extremely easy and intuitive, as anything on the Mac is).

Realism is a funny thing. It's hard enough to get it right in contemporary or historical movies (say, "Die Hard" or "Braveheart") let alone in space. As long as "it's the future" is not used as a magic wand to do anything it doesn't bother me that much. I'd rather see a good story with decent plots than something that doesn't thrill but is 100% accurate. So perhaps hair doesn't float in microgravity environments as it's supposed to. Does that somehow affect the story? I'm glad it doesn't for me. The world is a lot less entertaining if every movie or tv show has to be 100% accurate.

Airplane parts. Every version that is hyped always ends up with just more airplane parts

Good luck driving around in your 3d printed car, beautifully polished on the outside. Where it matters most, because that's what we can see, after all!