Dispatcher

Drats. I was going to recommend that he use a leaded glass shield and waldos.

A stock alternative is to assign all staging to action groups and remember not to use the space bar. But really now, I do what Kurld suggested.

Welcome, kunok!

I like the idea of a catamaran or hydrofoil. Keep it up. - - - Updated - - - Ouch. I've done Jool missions where I had forgotten to "pack" something. Word of advice: if you are falling asleep while playing the game, its time to stop and get some sleep.

Put something in about you're family tree.

Well, it wasn't today, but was a while back. What I didn't capture was a video showing the rocket wiggling around like a tentacle.

Endersmens, is this for a merit badge? Good luck either way!

Here is a recap:

A maxim of mine is: no matter who's at fault in an accident between a car, truck, or 18 wheeler ... and a bicycle or motorcycle; the cyclist will lose.

The first real game I remember playing? Hide and Seek! Oh, you mean video game. It was Pong. Relive the adventure:

That's very nice, Vanamonde. Thanks for sharing that; I'll probably show it to a few relatives and friends who have KSP but don't play much.

When I first started playing KSP, I preferred "fire in the hole" because it consolidated the staging icons used and also just plain looked cool. But over time I shifted to separate staging; primarily as a contingency and for greater control or options. Maybe the poll is akin to asking "6 of one or half a dozen of the other", but that's what I do now. If I ever do switch back, it'll be a mix of "fire in the hole" for launch stages and individually for all else.

If you want to add "weights" to craft, including rovers which do not use atmospheric parts, try using combinations of batteries, RTGs, solar cells, science parts, etc. That way instead of it being dead mass, it can serve another purpose as well as mass/ CoG adjustment. These images show how I went from accidental rolling to less rolling damage to intentional rolling, in my designs.

Underwater basketweaving? OK, OK, maybe your avatar name and icon are clues?

Made a piloted non-plane Laythe lander which can return to Kerbin. Oh yeah, a piloted rover remains behind. I would de-orbit, separate the two, take control of the rover so I could pop the chutes, take control of the lander and pop its chutes. I would avoid using the engines for landing, if possible. Oh, the rover is a boat as well. The image is during some Kerbin testing of the lander/ rover assembly. Not sure how well these would work with the new aerodynamics and physics tweaks.

I like to remain up to date with Unity. That said, my sig line has a link to a photo of some fuel tanks I had made quite some time ago (pre-Curse; they're not available anymore as I don't seem to have the time it takes to do things right in terms of updates and expansions). Good luck!

I consider the first 1000 hours in KSP as learning "rocket science and aerodynamics".

I see your point. There are actually several items mentioned in the thread that would be very hard to achieve with human or Kerbal technologies, and so I don't think Squad would pursue those (ring worlds, star gates, etc.) and they'd substantially change the game into something very different from what we know. As to what might be brought into the game, Squad has so far dealt with various near future technologies, such as asteroid redirection. As far as technologies are concerned, regex' mention of O'Neill (I hope I spelled that right) cylinders would be a reasonable, but challenging stretch. I think an intermediate achievement could be some kind of huge VAB in orbit around a resource moon or in a future asteroid belt where we could build interplanetary craft. Obviously that's wishful speculation on my part. It'll be interesting what new things Squad actually implements into KSP.

I didn't mention ring worlds; neither did the OP. I was referring to the first mention of hard "sci fi", not subsequent posts. Edit: oh, my choice of videos might be construed to reference a ring world. Actually the Halo ring is much smaller (10,000 Km in diameter in early pre halo chatter). My choice of video was in reference to my desire to have ambient life in the game.

I think he meant "hard science", since hard "sci fi" is almost as imaginary as hard "sci fantasy" or hard "fantasy". As an aside: I vote for ambient life on Kerbin, Duna, Eve and Laythe and in their oceans. Something like in this old Halo preview. The poster got the timeframe and platform wrong, as this was prior to Microsoft's purchase of Bungie, but if you jump to 3:45 in, you'll see the first group of animals in the preview. Minimal ambient life in KSP would make the planets seem more real and as a bonus, crashing debris might do the hapless critters in.

Nice job, Tp! It looks like you didn't even use strut connectors. By the way, with the new aerodynamics, nosecones might improve your flight performance, but hey, your design works!

Top down for me.

Montrose is the explosives expert:

I can just see an ambitious You Tuber start a new series where we write in and tell him/ her about the "event". He/ she then recreates the event and has the Kerbal review board meet to deal with the event. Oh, the drama.

I second many of the above, including . Then there is this; a more "rockety" rocket. You might be able to make the launch system as well! There is also the spaceship from "The Outer Limits"' "Architects of Fear": And who can forget "Planet of the Apes"' "Icarus"?