Jon144

I have been around since .18-.20 Things since then that are more recent than even older versions, are totally different than the way things are now. Sometimes I play using an old KSP backup I still have on my computer. The first thing I notice is not being able to choose your astronauts, the second is the dreaded old end flight UI where you could accidentally terminate flight instead of reverting. Then you notice how lower-res and less detailed Kerbin and the Mun is. All in all, I am happy where KSP has gone and how it's SRBs have became taller.

I have landed on almost every planet, Duna, Dres, Eve, moons, etc... But... My favorite place to land has always been actually the Roof of the VAB.

I Play it because it is the best game ever made. Need a better reason?

I Might have made a giant slingshot out of decouplers and a rocket.... and possible fling some poor kermans into the air... Better than landing them from an orbital fall by having them land on their heads. I love doing that. I know they deserve more respect than I give them.

Well, Parts were smaller... Everything was lower res... Explosions were bigger, less planets.... It really sucked compared to how things are now. But that never impacts the nostalgia

Hey Guys, I have been watching this thread for quite a while and I am very impressed with your work and how you were able to cope with so many high-part count warships. I thought you guys might like to see what I came up with when I decided kerbin needed some defending. I based it off of the Daedalus from Stargate. It is a monstrosity of over 600 parts and 200 tons. It utilizes basic SRB missiles and has double and tripple layerd armor in some areas. It also has limited amenities for very small fighters in it's two hangar bays. It may look cool but I don't really think it would have much combat effectiveness.

I Have been seeing a lot of hatred for the shuttle program shifting over to doubts about the SLS. The shuttle itself, besides being fairly limited in operation was not inherently bad or dangerous. What ended up killing the 2 crews were simple lapses of judgement at NASA that carried over to make disastrous consequences. For instance, Challenger disintegrated due to weather constraints, it was too cold and brittle that day to be launching on contained explosions. Icicles could be seen on the spacecraft beforehand and many people expressed concerns but nobody listened. Every reliable prop-driven plane just cannot operate well under weather constraints for example, and the same principle carries over to rockets. As for Columbia's reentry failure the loss of heat-shielding had been documented in many other cases back to the start of the program but the administration did little to address it, not to mention that in each case the spacecraft returned in one piece, that would have lead NASA to believe that it was not too great of a concern. If you want to hear a great tragedy then we should talk about Apollo I, 3 of the greatest Americans lost their lives because some engineers failed to remember about what can happen in a 100% Oxygen environment from their intro to chemistry class. If you in all simplicity fill a capsule with Oxidizer the end result should have been expected to be the same as if you put in through a rocket engine. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/smilies/k_undecided.gif The success or failure of the SLS and Orion in my opinion are all determined by the current leadership at NASA. Hopefully the administration has learned from their mistakes.