Champ

Was there any other lethal failure than appolo 1 (which was just a test flight, who would blame a failure on a test flight ?) ? Appolo 13 went bad, bud they all got back on (kerbin) earth

wouldnt it be easyer to let the Science lab/kethane refinery in 10km orbit, and have a lander/miner take science and kethane from minmus to this small base ? Or just the lab in orbit, and have a kethane mining and refining lander ?

That's exactly why i think it is a bad idea : Experimented players : they will never reach that condition => it is exactly like it does not exist => why do we need it ? what challenge does it bring ? Beginners : it will make the game even harder for them. And they are already playing a difficult game. It may just be discouraging.

Hello Here is my suggestion : make it possible to transmit AND take your experiments back to kerbin. The transmission would be an insurance to get a little something, even if the return to kerbin goes bad. Example : I take a few samples of the Mun's soil. I can transmit my team's observations on it, (or transmit the results of the science lab's analysis), that gives me a little science, but i can still get the samples back on kerbin for further study of it (and then, get the remaining science point). Why would my soil samples disappear when i transmit my in-space study of it ? I should always be able to take it back to kerbin to study it with better equipment.

I really think a lose condition is a bad idea. First, a game that is too hard is a bad game. KSP is already hard enough for beginners, they already have so much to learn. Imagine this : You are a beginner. You have, with much difficulty, progressed in the science tree and are ready to try to go to the mun (beginners won't think minmus is easyer : mun is near). You make a dozen of trys, each ends in a catastrophic failure (crash, team lost, bad reputation, no money)... And then after so many tries, you get to the lose condition : Game over. You must start from the begining, you lost all your hard-earned science and reputation... Too disappointing. You won't give it another try, you will claim the game is too hard, and miss a fantastic gaming experience. My second point is this : you want a lose condition for challenge ? Experimented players will never reach these conditions. They know how to fly a rocket, how to land, how to make a rescue mission, and very rarely fail. This will not had a challenge to them. It will only add difficulty for the beginners. And the game is already hard enough for beginners. Final point : You want a lose condition, when we have no win condition ? I read everywhere on this thread people saying "hey, every game has a lose condition !". But every game has a win condition too. KSP is different. We don't want a win condition because this would put an end to the game, why would we want a lose condition ?

I never leave a kerball behind, but i killed dozens of them. When i kill a kerbin, i usually give his name to a place by planting a flag (like "Pike Jebediah" on the top of the mountain near KSC). They deserve it and it helps the other kerbals to remember them. The odd thing is when they are revived by the game... The "Pike Jebediah" flag was planted by... Jebediah ! (let's pretend he is an homonym)

I think this option doesn't work, or is not activated by default. In 0.22 i had a rocket on which the payload was not strutted at all before I put the fairings. Launch was quite funny... The payload wobbled so much that it went through the fairings (no collision ??) and finally the rocket was destructed.

From wikipedia : first xenon ion engine in operation : Deep Space 1 in 1998...

This never happened to me. Like somebody else said, you may be landing with too much vertical velocity. YES, drag is really bad in KSP. Why don't you use FAR ? I think it is a good thing that the drag is like this for now. Yes, it is less realist, and yes, your rockets need more deltav to get to orbit. But your rockets are also easier to fly. It's a good thing you can learn how to fly with this bad drag model, and then, when you master it, you can install FAR to get a better drag model. Not sure it is as easy as you think. There WAS a good reason. Your design must be bad. I guess the problem is that when you burn a certain amount of fuel, your center of mass gets behind your center of lift. At least, that was the problem with my spinning planes. Well, not sure of it, i am clearly not good with planes (never landed a plane !). Are you serious ? use a more lightweight engine on your upper stage. As there is less weight, a less powerfull engine should be OK. The mainsail is just a piece of crap, except for massive first stages (where it is the only viable solution). It's only quality is it's high thrust, it does not have a good ISP. On a bi-coupler ? Yes, sure. Like the mainsail only makes sense when you want high thrust and don't care about ISP. Or the nuclear engine for the exact opposite. That's fine like it. Every engine has it's utility for different situations. Standard pieces, economy, realism. Same answer for custom-size fuel tanks. This would be really unrealistic and would really change the game in a cheaty way. Sometimes you fail to land because your rocket is too tall and you still have a little horizontal velocity... With your suggestion, this would not happen. Too easy !

nearly 6k science points, if i remember well. The Jool project was easy : 6 FL-T800 asparagus with nuclear engine, without engine on the radial tanks (expect LOOOONG burns) did it, with a non-optimal jool transfer (did it the old way : raised apoapsis to cross Jool's orbit, waited loooong time and then, when my ship and jool pass my apoapsis at nearly the same time, did a small burn to get an intercept). No need to be experimented to do that : i didn't know how to dock or how to use maneuver points. I had luck with easy intercepts within the jool system, though (got Tylo and Vall while trying to go to Laythe). Most complicated thing was to put that out of kerbin's SOI (as always ?). That was without any mods (don't know if i my ship would have done it with deadly reentry, for exemple) I hardly consider myself experimented : i learned how to dock only two weeks ago (it took me a whole sunday). But now that i know how to dock, the universe is mine : i can do anything i can imagine !

Hi all I have been reading the forum for months, and finally decided to register (found an unanswered post where i could help). I have been playing KSP since 0.21. I am not a very experimented rocketeer, but i already did some things I was proud of (first orbit, first munar landing, put probes on every planet/moon orbit and finally first docking) The most "impressive" (experimented players are allowed to laugh) thing i did was a probe that went to jool, collected science in high orbit and low orbit of every moon and finally crashed on jool to study it's atmosphere. Most pityfull : Never landed a plane. Even without FAR... My thanks go to Squad, the community (WE are awesome !), and the creators/maintainers of the mods i use (FAR, Deadly Reentry, TAC life support, procedural fairings, Kethane, SCANSat, Kerbal Engineer Redux, RealChute) and the mods i will use in the futur (can anyone recommend another mod ? Maybe you can guess what kind of mod i like from the one i use - mainly realism - I am also looking for a good mod for the creation of a planetary base, i found some but they where outdated). Oh, and sorry for my bad english, i am french (this nearly explains that).

1/ All they affect is their face expression (smily of terrified) 2/ I usually go for struts and fuel lines as soon as possible. Anything else is not needed to land on the mun, where i will have lots of science to unlock the rest. If i have unlocked struts and fuel lines and still have some science, i go for more science experiments. 3/ I know you can choose what is displayed on the map, in the upper end of the screen (you can choose to display debris, stations, bases, ships, probes, etc). Not sure, but i think you can switch the display of the flags here. If it's not here, then i think you cant. 4/ Can't tell you, i don't use rovers. 5/ Don't know of any. May be a good idea to make one.