Kerbart

Obviously a matter of definition I agree that the tourist landings can be an annoyance but those don't show up for a long time (at least not in my career, YMMV). Dealing with the different requests is mainly a matter of having a whole lot of contracts open. One contract is a royal pain to execute. Five contracts... “OK, we're doing a Mun/Minmus trip. Who's coming along, let's see, we have Dandruff here, not Suzuki (Minmus only), Mayhem, Mike, and then from this contract Barbara, Kerbart, and Snark. Excellent, full house. Let's go!” The stragglers that have specific wishes usually will hitch along on rescue and science missions. By the time they want to land on Duna the effort/yield ration starts to drop, but by then you're already swimming in funds and have all buildings upgraded (at least I do, YMMV of course) and other contracts start showing up, as the forementioned "Solar Station" contracts.

Surely you are jesting—or our definition of "mid-to-late career" differs. I can stuff 6 tourists and a pilot in a Mk III capsule + Hitchiker, and pocket at least 600,000 (80-140k per tourist) for a Mun/Minmus orbit/flyby contract. I have several lined up right and look forward to the millions I'll receive from it!

If only lifetime would be a limited, spoilable resource as well. 95 year old Jebediah has a hard time executing maneuvering nodes as he's forgotten them by the time you get there. 105 year old Bob ruins the experiment you're about to conduct with his shaking hands Repairing that rover wheel by grizzled grey bearded... who... he forgot his name... not a good idea... what am I doing here? Why? Is it dinner time yet? WHAT?! DINNER TIME! I have to pee now... I think... Or did I go ten minutes ago?

In most cultures the topology of the ring symbolizes infinity (as it has no beginning/end), thus symbolizing a long marriage (which is what most people wish for, at least at the time of the wedding). The use of wedding rings has been recorded by the Egyptians nearly 5000 years ago although initially it was not used in Christianity because of its "pagan origin" (the Romans did exchange rings though). While there are all kinds of explanations why rings usually get placed on the ring finger of the left hand, practical considerations are likely to be the true reason; the left hand is generally used less often than the right hand (making it less suspectable to snagging, and the results of losing a finger less problematic), and for the same reason the "third" finger is chosen as it is the least-used finger (but still allowing for a bigger, more impressive ring than on the pinky).

I get your argument and I agree to a certain point. But... mass is the deciding design factor in the game. Sending a replacement crew for a Duna orbital station hardly takes a bigger vessel than sending a crew for a Kerbin LKO station. If it were "just more mass" for every mission this would be an extremely valid point, but it does add an interesting dynamic to those 10yr grand tours compared to a quick flag planting on the mun. There's the argument of added mission complexity of course, making it less suitable for starting players, but just like Kerbnet it's something which impact can be configured through the game settings.

"The Sith lords have red light sabers because the don't have access to Kyber crystals" "Kylo Ren used a cracked kyber crystal which is why it's venting to the sides" and yet he still has a red light saber?

Well, technically, Battleships was based on a board game, not a computer game. Wahahahahaha.

Made in KSP or “just” based on the KSP characters and universe? The inside-KSP style movies suffer from the limitations the game offers to shoot cinematic footage. You can make up for that by using long sweeping scenes decorated with stylish music, but that will eventually wear out your public. On the other hand, creating the whole thing in Blender or Maya... a lot of work, and it will stand or fall with the quality of the script.

Titanium is popular because it is hypo allergenic. Gold being a noble metal should be as well, but something to consider—not all materials do well with your skin and some might irritate over time (which might or might not be symbolic for your significant other, so who knows, hahahaha). For any exotic "manly" materials it is perhaps a good idea to get a simple plain version to try it out and see how your finger reacts to it.

This is one of those things that can easily be tested yourself. Why not put the science in Rocket Science to work? Start with a simple test rocket. I added some extra mass to the top for additional stability (and a more realistic test scenario) like this: I just sent it straight up, not touching the controls (after setting SAS at launch). Keep in mind that this is pretty much the worst case scenario for proving aerodynamic advantages, as you gain altitude (thinner air, less resistance) more rapid than in a real time launch. At the same time, if differences show up in this scenario, they will definitely show up in a real-world launch. Then I played around with: No nose cone Aerodynamic nose cone (the round one) Advanced nose cone (the pointy one) I also played with the amount of fuel used, to show that higher speed (achieved with more fuel) means the better streamline offsets the higher weight: FL-T200 FL-T400 FL-T800 Finally, I launched each configuration 3× and averaged the maximum altitude reached. I'm sure the OP will consider 3× for each test insufficient to draw conclusions about standard deviation and if the results are statistically significantly different, but that's where he/she can repeat the experiment as many times as is required. I thought that spending half on hour on this was already fairly generous of me. Anyway, here are the results (altitude in meters, higher number indicates better performance): Configuration No nose cone Aerodynamic nose cone Advanced nose cone FL-T200 tank 4,152 4,359 4,344 FL-T400 tank 10,363 13,526 13,847 FL-T800 tank 28,838 47,066 47,858 It can be argued that the gains of the Advanced model are rather small, but they are definitely there, and without a doubt it has less drag than the "aerodynamic" cone.

Polishing afterwards does nullify it. What's the point of printing everything constructed together if you have to take it apart, polish it, and assemble it again? It's easier to print the parts separate, in that case. But than you cannot create "impossible" assemblies that 3D printing makes possible.

In theory you are right, but screws are about the worst example one can give. Aside from the fact that they're a generic fastening solution (and the whole point of 3D printing is that you have custom parts), strength with threaded fasteners is always an issue (hence 8.8 being the practical standard and not the much weaker 4.6 grade, and even 4.6 would be much, much stronger than anything 3D printed), and you can't really compensate by making them bigger (as this would blow up the size of your design). On the other hand, tools are a great example of something that can be 3D printed. Instead of taking an entire toolbox into orbit you only have to carry a box of granulate and print the tools on-demand (and maybe even recycle them after use). But that absolutely nullifies what the OP had in mind: “Can you use a 3D printer to print an assembly that has moving parts?” because now you're back to manufacturing individual parts (as they need to be polished and smoothed) with all limitations that come with it (including the agonizing sentence that every engineering student has to go through: that's really nice, but how are you going to put it together?). The real benefit would be the ability to fit a bearing somewhere on an axle while it's printed, so the axle can be bigger on both sides of the bearing. That will require extreme high resolution printing. Or perhaps some chemical polishing agent that gets printed in between the rotating parts, and that later gets flushed out and replaced by oil? Once that problem is solved 3D printing will really take off, as the weaker material can be offset by designs that are simply impossible today.

Surface finishing requirements will likely be an issue. For infrequently rotating parts with low loads (a lid on a box for instance) 3D printing will do just fine. An axle/bearing assembly for a combustion engine might be a different story. Jet engines using 3D printed parts sounds cool... but what parts? Moving parts? Fuel lines? Wire harnesses? Are they placed straight from the printer, or require post-print processing (surface finishing, hardening, etc)? 3D Printing offers opportunities in manufacturing that have never existed before, but as with every manufacturing method it will come with its own weaknesses that will counter the possibilities. The challenge in engineering will be to overcome those problems.

Let's get at least the terminology right! First, Isp is Specific Impulse and thus written as Isp (Impulse, specific), not as ISP. “It's only semantics.” Maybe, but the quickest way to foul up your calculations is by being sloppy. Second, given the “you forgot the oxidizer” and “units” comments, it’s propellant (“that what comes out of the exhaust”) and not “fuel.” This is why water bottle rockets work, despite the fact that they don't use any fuel at all (just water, but that's the propellant, not the fuel). Don't forget that the nuclear engine emits zero fuel (that's the nuclear core inside it, after all) and uses purely propellant (it doesn't get burnt, even though it's LF in the game, in absence of pure Hydrogen).

PS4 XBox Windows Mac Linux Out of those 5 platforms, only 2 (and a very small percentage of the users) have no access to mods. I don't regard the retail channel "a way to play KSP". And if I were, the non-mod "ways to play" would be severely outnumbered: PS4 Store XBox Store KSP Website Steam GOG Humble Bundle G2Play Kinguin Etc

That's like saying there's a 50% chance of winning the lottery, because there's two options: you win, or you don't win. If 50% of the players had no access to mods it would be different, but for now that argument has no value. And it's 2 out of 5, not 2 out of 4.

There are several extenuating circumstances though that make it understandable that we are where we are: The existing forum software was a security liability and needed replacement. Last thing any software publisher wants is their forum getting hacked and now all their users have their email passwords exposed. Email passwords? Yes, most users will pick the same password for all their online services, be it their email or the forum of a game they play. The blame is of course with the user in that case but the headline “SQUAD WEBSITE HACKED: THOUSANDS OF USERS EMAIL EXPOSED” will still be there, unfair as it is. Migration from one forum to the other is a giant headache. A let’s throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks approach simply will not work. And who's to say that the next candidate is not exposing other liabilities? I'm not saying this software is perfect. I've had cases where I couldn't put text inside a quote block, or not outside a quote block. Splitting up a quote in multiple blocks to address several issues is dodgy at best. The lack of tag-coding (be it HTML or BB) is infuriating if you’re used to the accuracy it comes with, compared to the “let’s roll the dice on what you’re getting” approach of the WYSIWIG editor, but in most cases, it does work (kinda) I'm going to assume this forum is low-maintenance on Squad's side, as being a reason why they picked it. They're not charging for forum access. It delivers what they need, and it delivers what we need—in a kinda, sorta, most-of-the-timish way. What incentive is their for them to replace it with a new system that might (again) not deliver what it promises, taking away resources from actual KSP development? Yeah, it sucks, I particularly don’t like it either, but the expectation that it is going to change is overly optimistic. I wouldn’t compare it to buying a car. I’d compare it to buying No Man’s Sky. It shiny and pretty and slick when you start out with it. Two weeks in you discover that it’s not quite what was promised on the website, but sadly the judge will tell you that technically they delivered what they promised, you just interpreted their promises the wrong way (the basic standing in the UK at least). So what are you going to do at that point? The forum works, maybe not at a level we want it to work, but I think it’s unrealistic to think Squad is going to spend time and money on it at this point. Not for a service that’s offered for free.

Looking very nice! This is how I wish all modded parts would look like!

The in-game description clearly states without any provision for return and while that does not explicitly excludes launching, the how do we store 4 kerbals on orbit part suggests operation in a stable environment (orbit/surface) and not transport to/from. Of course it's fine to use it for that anyway, but from a role-playing perspective I wouldn't treat it as a launch/landing vehicle per sé (and neither does the interior). Of course, people were also screaming at 1.0 for making the Mk I lander can unfit for re-entry (when it clearly says it's not intended for that) which puts the whole value of the in-game descriptions into question, but that's for a different thread. I'm on board with giving it a porkjet-style overhaul. And either the handles become functional or they should be ditched, absolutely!

Careful here... what might make things less work for you could result in a lot more work for others. Installing mods is fairly easy, laborious at best. Proposing something that likely will involve plenty of work from mod developers to save you some time and effort will not go over will with those mod developers.

But think of the mass you're saving. You'd probably only need two of those stadium-sized engines running all the time, and use the power required for the third one to power the shields.

Why stop at G? Give us at least two more classes - an H class to fill every file on the chess board, and a "yo mama" class for mass extravaganza.

I assume this Kessler is not the syndrome one but I'd love to learn more about the name. Use a core of girders and radially attach the probes to those. Release is easy and doesn't require nerve-wrecking building acrobatics either.

How about Vader and his buds standing in the gaping open hole watching the corvette take off? Even if they can survive a vacuum in those suits wouldn't there be a lot of wind blowing out? Or do the shields seal off openings in the hulls automatically? Then why even bother with a hull?

Tell me you got her some awesome Christmas gifts. My wife would divorce me if I'd even think about buying a 43" screen solely for KSP, let alone think about how to mount it onto my homemade simulator!