Wallygator

For a strange and somewhat embarrassing reason this part reminds me of a 1980s Madonna stage prop. still, I like it. But not because of the memories. Or maybe...

I used to have the same issues until I reconfigured Google to stop tracking me. On topic: I also watched the launch. Such a nice thing to see.

I get the exact same thing on a fresh OS X install. PITA.

The option missing I'd rather "better parts". Fixing or refining the parts already in game to be more real or having their capabilities adjusted. just a thought, not a requirement.

Yes. KER and a DV map ^^^ is really all you need to have a good time. Playing with maths is quite fulfilling, but not a requirement to enjoying KSP to its upmost.

This challenge is so confusing. Figuring it out should be the highest difficulty aspect. I will not attempt this. edit: coming back from mun, forgot chutes, hmmm.... Hey let's Land on Duna! Wot?

Sad thing really, that we don't see all that many all new new mission reports like this one. This is refreshing. Motivates me to get off my shiny metal backside and do something... I liked this report. Full stop.

Make the spool mechanic an element of the difficulty settings. Job done.

Having a hi ISP late game engine like a our little KSP nuke is not a game or balance breaking idea. It was a real-life space programme breaking idea due to bureaucracy and politics. Kerbal's do not yet have those two things. It should cost ALOT. It might even have to be a bit larger. I might even have a limited duty cycle. It might need to be later in the tech tree. But it should still represent achievable levels of performance with respect to the physics. Today, they are disposable debris at the end of a mission - maybe they should become retainable orbital assets cherished by a player one they achieve them in their career. Afterall KSP is billed as being driven by a sense of real physics (I will not entertain any discussions about the actual words on the website - you know what it says). What really grinds my metal backside is while the game engine is based on real physics, we have parts (the nuke engine for example) that are not so much.

Agree completely. The thermal issue is bogus and needs to be fixed pronto. The ISP was a design decision (I think) and should be reversed to provide a mode realistic value. And the fuel? Why not! So it's agree x 3. ;-) However, those shower thoughts... Need to fix that also!

Impressive! I've only been to Moho once back in .21 perhaps another visit in 1.1 well done!!

It seems we have found a player that is more painful to watch than max ever was. Thank for the recap! Always grateful to you.

May I please be four? I really like like the look of this. Amazing so far.

Interesting design - can you get the landing legs to be closer together Clearly, the future is elongated. So the past must be traveling near the speed of light...

Very very nice indeed. Your designs always cause me to take a second deeper look. Well Done!

Well done! Always great to see any any homage mission and how each player interprets it. I think your lander looks cool.

39 stranded Kerbs from .21 legacy. 250 setting for debris. It's a mess out there.

Would it be possible to cobble together a working facsimile using both stock bits and infernal robotics? I realise the square panels are a pain, but with some clipping... might have to try that.

Driving... Almost as mind numbing as time warping to eeloo. I give props to anyone giving it a go. Until the game is enhanced to support land traverse in a more reliable way, I will continue to look at efforts like yours in awe. Well done for the attempt!

Little tint pontoons. What's not to like about that? Oh, they need to be heat proof.

I understand. It simplifies the mechanic, and for many players would be acceptable. I personally would not like it - but that is my own issue.

Wasn't there a mod awhile ago with a parts bin for "rocket parts"? Or am I thinking of Dang it!

I would think that replacing a heat shield while IN SPACE would be an incredibly design intensive and operationally risky activity - not that it is impossible. If the OP is proposing a magic stick-on ablation rejuvenation compound - wow! Ummm... no not for me. I would rather designing a replaceable heatshield subassembly out stock parts - so I vote for the "incredibly design intensive and operationally risky" alternative. ;-) Just personal preference and not a critique of what others may find useful. EDIT: FYI I'm not talking about troweling goop into a gap or crack to fix a fissure AKA space shuttle. That's ok.

it should automatically lower to half mast when a Kerbal goes KIA. Raise up to full mast when a new Kerbal is recruited.

Experience should not be construed to be training. The current game mechanic fails on both elements because it combines them. Experience should drive rep ONLY - having more experienced kerbals (that survive!) makes for good press. Send them to all kinds of places and let the experience build up ! when they make it back to kerbin with their new experiences then rep will soar. Let then perish and their overall experience level should amplify rep loss. Spending funds to train your kerbals should grant them capabilities to perform mission tasks. And difficulty settings could be used to make the training investment have a half-life or to allow it to pertain ONLY to the mission in progress. Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves regarding KSP - someone didn't think it through properly.