Louella

? Do people complain that various bits and bobs don't have things like aerodynamic drag forces directly applied to them ? That seems a bit much. Especially when much of it can be viewed as somewhat of an abstraction. Take for example, the scientific instruments, like the thermometer, which iirc, is a physicsless part. Having an aeroplane with a thermometer on it, depending on where it is placed, then given its shape, there could be strong aerodynamic forces on it, which would either cause heating and thus inaccurate results, or possibly detach the thermometer from the aircraft. That's if you take the designs of those instruments literally. If instead, you view them as an abstraction, then, attaching the thermometer part, means that the aircraft has an appropriately mounted thermometer, probably in a fairing to reduce the forces acting on it, that would give an accurate reading. Another example, would be the basic solar panel, which again is, iirc, physicsless. In the real world, with an aeroplane, a solar panel can be built flush with the surface of the aircraft. It can even be part of the wing, as seen in some solar powered research aircraft. In KSP, those solar panels are mounted protruding from the surface. If they were subjected to aerodynamic drag, they'd possibly break or detach. But they're physicsless, so don't. If it is argued that they should have physics applied, then, since you cannot build panels flush with the surface of the aircraft with the existing part, then you either need new parts, or to just not build aircraft with solar panels on them. What would such limitations actually achieve in gameplay terms ?

I tried looking for other pictures of the Altair lander, the airlock bit seems to be hidden in that picture, seems to be a cylinder almost the same size as the ascent stage bit. Didn't find many useful pictures of the Altair lander, not from NASA or other technical sources anyway. Found lots of Kerbal Altair lander pictures though, lol. Maybe that's a way to measure the success of KSP. By measuring the % of pictures on google image search for space-related topics that turn out to be KSP ones. lol

Why is there the gold insulation on the lander legs/feet ? what is it protecting ?

concept for the Lunar Escape Device.

i apologise for being harsh earlier.

even with the lander legs flush against the stack, a fairing would be as wide as the biggest single rocket stage, those black/white ones that are bigger than the rockomax orange ones. and with legs wide enough that a moderate skilled player could land the thing, a fairing is wider than the biggest rocket with rockomax sized boosters strapped to it. Game tells you to deploy huge landers, having significant penalties for doing that is a bit :|

Yes, girls play KSP. yes, i'm one of them. No, a shared interest in KSP is not really enough to base a close friendship or other personal relationship on.

it might be possible for individuals to live on some other planets, but that's not the same as having a civilisation live on those planets. I remember reading a thing, that said that when colonists from Europe, went to the high countries in South America, the women could not carry a pregnancy to term, because of the effect of altitude, to which the native peoples had adapted long ago. which is a thing that is needed to have a civilisation - astronauts and planetary explorers can survive on a planet, but if you cant carry a pregnancy to term, and children can't develop properly, then that planet is uninhabitable.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/ ?

space tourism was mentioned in the recent squadcast for stuff that should be coming in the next version, according to this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108305-Squadcast-Summary-%2824-01-2015%29-The-Valentina-Edition

as regards the size of landers. the lander I posted before, with the wide landing legs on girders. Yes, I know it is a big lander, because it was to rescue a lot of Kerbals from the Mun. Because their lander fell over. Their lander, was for a base contract. To land a laboratory + cupola + some science things on the Mun. Cupola + laboratory + science things + descent engine + fuel tank = a very heavy, very tall lander, that requires flat ground. even a 5 degree slope was too much, when putting the landing legs attached to the sides. If that's considered an overly large lander that players are being unrealistic in expecting should go into space easily, then maybe the game shouldn't give contracts that require such things as landers, yes ?

Scientist collected rocks should be multiplied by their scientist skill level. An exogeologist would be able to spot interesting rocks, whereas a pilot would not necessarily be able to. Difference between getting 5 moon rocks that show that the moon is made of rock, and getting 5 moon rocks that show evidence of 5 different geological processes occurring.

I took a look at the asteroid redirection part 2 mission recently. The spacecraft, has a large fuel tank, and four smaller fuel tanks, attached to the four engines that it has. The four smaller tanks, although they have fuel lines running to the big tank, don't automatically refill for some reason. That should probably be looked at, because it doesn't tell you about being able to pump fuel between tanks.

KSP and Mount and Blade, are the only two games that I've bought, that were still in development at the point at which I bought them, that have turned out to be worth a lot more than I paid for them. I've bought some other things on early access that have turned out to be a bit meh, when they were finally released.

This is the bottom part of the lander I mentioned earlier. as you can see, the legs are on girder segments that stick out quite a bit. A fairing to cover that would be quite wide. But if they had hinges, they could have been folded up against the sides of the upper part of the spacecraft. This isn't quite the same lander, but it's developed from it. as you can see, the lander legs stick out pretty wide, but there's space available for them to have been folded up against the upper part of the spacecraft. So, if aerodynamics changes means fairings are important (drag and/or heat), then, we really need to be able to fold up payload bits.

In my opinion, for stock, there is only a need for there to be 2 systems. 1, for being a surface refinery, to be landed on Minmus, it produces liquid fuel and oxidiser, from whatever kind of ice it is that Minmus is made of. Electricity + ice > Hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen. 2, a system, much slower than the Minmus surface refinery, that can be used after the spacecraft clamps onto a comet, which also produces liquid fuel and oxidiser. Same principle. Electricity + ice > Hydrogen and oxygen. No means of recharging monopropellants or xenon engines, which limits the duration of missions that use these fuels, which adds to the challenge of mission design.

a lander for a Mun mission I did, had landing legs that stuck out from the main body, on the ends of XL girder segments. If payload fairings are going to be required, then we need to be able to fold the payload into a smaller package.

I played 12 hours of Kerbal space program today, and all I accomplished was redirecting a couple of satellites. One had a gravioli detector, and was put into orbit of Minmus for a contract. I have moved it into a polar low orbit, in order to use its grav detector to fulfil some contract parameters for measuring the gravity of Minmus. I deorbited another satellite to crash into the Mun, as it only had a thermometer on it, and without parachutes, I wouldn't be able to return it to Kerbin anyway. In a stroke of luck, when it hit the Mun surface, the probe core survived, and after rolling end over end for a few kilometers, it came to rest on what seems to be a patch of level ground. Well, that's one way to find a landing site for future missions I need to send some more satellites to the Mun and Minmus for contracts, have to work out the most economical way to do this. Might be able to do 2 Mun contracts with one satellite, and then I can drop it into a low polar orbit, to do more Mun surveys. Also need to send a couple rovers to the Mun and Minmus, for some ground survey contracts. And another crewed mission to the Mun. I've got all the tech unlocked, and nothing has been launched beyond Minmus. vOv

electric propeller engines would be useful for such things as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Pathfinder And for making an atmospheric flying rover, to take along on missions to planets/moons with atmospheres, so your Kerbals can have more options to explore. a solar powered microlight, that sort of thing. - - - Updated - - - also, for atmospheric exploration of other planets, why not a monopropellant engine powering a tip-jet rotor ?

should be able to photograph the Mun, or other bodies, and look for flat areas that you can land on.

They're making space tourists for new tourism contracts. So they'd be working on adding variety to the character models. And when they're doing that, then it is the logical point at which to introduce female kerbalnauts.

If they're adding tourists, then it would be the logical point to add female kerbalnauts, as the artists would be working on character models for the tourists as well. So I don't believe female kerbalnauts would have held up anything else that the artists could have been working on.

witchcraft !

I've seen a similar argument in a different space-themed game. Players getting all shouty because of updated models for the ingame ships, saying things like "Why aren't they fixing the game?"and other players that say that "artists aren't coders", and the argument goes round and round and round, because people are so stubborn.

Do artists do that work ? Or code specialists ?