Search the Community

Trina Ray (lead scientist of Cassini's Titan flybys) gives a first hand talk about a few of the fantastic findings of the Cassini-Huygens mission. She talks a lot about how people reacted to the data as it unfurled and slowly pieced together some rather amazing big pictures. It's lovely, figured I'd share!

1. You’re already making up technology so why not make up whether something works or not? 2. The challenges would be that the technology you envision is fantastical and might not even be feasible. The time travel machine especially is just pure fantasy, even if forward time travel might be possible there is no small machine that could produce it. 3. To quote Ant-Man, “Don’t talk to your past self, don’t bet on sporting events.”

YEAR 3, DAY #̷̛̛̝̮͕̙͍͈͇͎̫̝̈́̆̍̅̂́͆̑̏̓̊́̉̊̾̾̂͌͘̚̕͜͠͠%̶̛̝̺̩̱͓͍͌̑͆́̽́̐̊͋̋̆̓̏̐̀̀́̈́͂̋͌͐̅̕͘@̷̢̧̤̯͍͉͚͖̱̟̣̩̝͓͕͓͖̹̤͚̠͕́͛̋̇́̀́̉́̽̿̽̉͐̑̎͗̍̈́̋̾͂̕͝͝ͅͅͅ#̵̡̺͂̃̔̈͝͝ - THE SECRET SPACE PROGRAM In the middle of the Desert, crews have been working tirelessly to make a spacecraft capable of lifting our crew up to the Mun. We need to see what's going on there. A mysterious bunch of lights has just been sitting still. The crew have been carefully selected (since they're our only crew). The goal of the mission is to plant a flag on the mysterious object, collect samples, and then bring them back to Kerbin. I will not talk for the rest of the mission, given the nature of what happened. I'll just use the verbal logs. CREW VERBAL LOG [REDACTED] KERMAN: [REDACTED], skies are empty. You are clear for liftoff. JOEMON KERMAN: Roger that. JOEMON KERMAN: Woah! Alright, mission control. Starting roll procedure. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Copy, roll program. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Alright [REDACTED], you're go for stage separation. ANFIELD KERMAN: Copy that, go for stage sep. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Alright, [REDACTED], you're in a stable parking orbit. In T- 20 minutes, you'll be go for TMI. TIM C. KERMAN: Copy that, [REDACTED]. Readying engine. JOEMON KERMAN: Alright, mission control, TMI burn successful. See you at the Mun [REDACTED] KERMAN: Copy that, [REDACTED]. See you at the Mun. *** [REDACTED] KERMAN: Good morning, [REDACTED]! How'd your trip go? JOEMON KERMAN: We are good. mission control. Waiting for the go for landing. ... [REDACTED] KERMAN: Your go, [REDACTED]. *** ANFIELD KERMAN: Alright, mission control. We are well on are way to intercept the object. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Copy. 9km altitude, in counting. TIM C. KERMAN: 45m from the surface. Continuing engine puffs... Contact! TIM C. KERMAN: I don't see anything, did we come here for nothing? JOEMON KERMAN: Look up, Tim. TIM C. KERMAN: Oh. I see it now! ANFIELD KERMAN: Okay, so are we not going to talk about WHAT THE HELL IT IS? [REDACTED] KERMAN: A- alright, [REDACTED]. You're g-go for EVA. ANFIELD KERMAN: Breakin' up a little there, mission control. TIM C. KERMAN: Alright, mission control. I'm on top of the structure... preparing the flag. TIM C. KERMAN: Alright, mission --ntrol. I'm ----bing ---- do--. [REDACTED] KERMAN: [REDACTED]? [REDACTED], we're losing contact. TRANSMISSION ENDED 1 minute later, [REDACTED] started transmitting to mission control again. Pictures from the lander show the crew are gone. Just entirely gone, with no trace. What happened? Many thoughts fly through mission control's heads. Everyone at once looks at each other, an realizes: this is no structure. What they're looking at is a full on portal. We need to dig deeper...

Scaling the wings is a first step towards doing it for other parts, so it's possible. We already have a capacity to use Space Shuttle/Rover parts in landers, jets, etc. We don't know what the colony parts are yet. It stands to reason it'd be a different mechanic to the VAB. There's been plenty of talk about an orbital VAB, but nothing about a colony designer, so it stands to reason the Colonies will be... less about creativity than spaceships. At least, unless we hear something big and new. Still, that doesn't include mods, or the creative use of panels/struts/beams. We've seen everything from the Batwing to a Christmas Tree. And when we get to the interstellar level, who knows what that'll scale up to?

I'm not sure if this already exists, but welp. Any interested parties can talk about SETI and alien life, etc. here. I tried running the Wow! signal (6EQUJ5) through a Caesar cipher decoder. Well, that was a waste of time. I just realized this. The string 6EQUJ5, commonly misinterpreted as a message encoded in the radio signal, represents in fact the signal's intensity variation over time, expressed in the particular measuring system adopted for the experiment. The signal itself appeared to be an unmodulated continuous wave, although any modulation with a period of less than 10 seconds or longer than 72 seconds would not have been detectable. Oof. I guess I'll keep klutzing with the Wow! signal.

you can recolour using part variants, there are a couple of posts on the forum on that talk about that. in the past you could assign a different texture in the model section, I've not been able to get that to work sinds 1.7 texture replacer might be able to do this for you I just edit the textures in place ..... dds2png (xnconvert) then photoshop and then back.

I'm somewhat in agreement here - The commitment not being met sucks. But I think its because they chose a really, really bad metric to try and report on. Very few games use their bug log as their major development communications for a reason. Most games do some regularly scheduled feature blog, or developer touchpoint or design talk. But Intercept is extremely reluctant to talk about that due to prior delivery promises slipping, and the longer they go without talking about them, the worse the potential response gets. After all, if they come talking now about the absolute barebone basic design principles of science, people will assume that they're only now just nailing them down. And god forbid if they're playtesting and find out something they designed isn't fun and needs rework (this is a common occurance) and the community gets it in their heads that they're incompetent at gameplay design. I've mentioned before how the relationship has gotten adversarial. Every communication is carefully crafted, curated, and reviewed because they're frankly afraid of making it worse by saying something wrong, and a lot of us are seeking blood in the water - we're mad, some of us probably excessively so, and we're looking for justifications for that anger. We're well past the point that we could get a post from a science guy talking about this cool part he's messing with, because next week it'll be scrapped cuz it wasn't fun to design missions around, and the community will riot. They chose bug fixes to report on because nobody can get mad at a bugfix, and then I'm guessing the delivery keeps slipping because they're holding out for every last possible little fix - it may be seen as preferable to delay an update so that the update has at least one changed status, over posting an update early that just shows nothing moving 'cross the board.

Annnnnd, less than 2 months after that, I decided against it. I talked it over with others to get their perspective, and decided to flip majors to engineering science last spring. Luckily, a handful of classes do overlap with engineering technology, like calculus and English 1. I also recently decided to transfer, and last month, I was accepted into a state school for Mechanical Engineering (Aerospace concentration). Right now, I'm in Calc 3, Physics 2, and a couple others at my community college, and it's going well so far. Other parts of my thoughts and plans haven't changed. I was still exposed to some interesting stuff in engineering technology, and I do plan to get a Master's (not necessarily the accelerated track, I'll have to talk it over with my advisor next month). I am wondering about opinions about taking extra courses not required for your undergraduate or graduate though. I went through the course catalog, and there are some electives that aren't a part of the normal curriculum, like mechanical vibrations, and combustion. I was also looking at a few classes in a non-degree program at a more expensive nearby college which offers aerospace courses my college doesn't offer like gas dynamics and orbital mechanics. Maybe I can go for a double major in Mechanical and Aerospace?

It's light, but it takes up a lot of space. You try docking Phoenix to a ship with a bunch of other vehicles. Same goes for the rovers. They are not incredibly huge, but they all have wheels stuck on long trusses for stability, and that take up lots of space. Basically, every vehicle I'm carrying around has a very large base for wheels, or large wings. Most are also long. And let's not even talk about Garibarge. Part 2: Launching Flying Christmas Tree 2 With all the landers in place, Flying Christmas Tree 2 may be the most majestic ship I ever launched. Or the most silly. Probably both. 2.1) Launching Flying Christmas Tree 2 with Tamarromobile 2.2) Launching Not Albatross 2.3 Launching Garibarge 2.4) Launching Phoenix 2.5) Launching Leaping Mantis, and refueling

[Reshare - Consolidating (my) Agencies of Kerbin and their Craft into One Place] Tier 0 (No Tech) Agency: United Rocket Director: Kuku Kerman Craft : KSP Builds - Kerbicus_S1 Kerbal News Right Then: Your Premier Source for Cosmic Chronicles! United Rocket boldly Launches their Newest design - Kerbicus S-1 Sub Orbital Jumper In a twist that's got Kerbin's space enthusiasts buzzing louder than a swarm of startled space bees, eccentric tech guru Kuku Kermin has launched United Rocket, a brand new venture poised to shake up the interstellar scene. And who's leading the charge? None other than ace pilot Kip Kerman, famed daredevil extraordinaire! and one time partner of Jebidiah Kerman himself! The launch of United Rocket comes hot on the heels of a manifesto Kuku wrote in college detailing dissatisfaction with the tactics of certain agencies leveraging "discounted" orbital packages to curry favor with green authority figures. Seizing an opportunity, Kuku Kermin rallied support from anonymous hedge funds and blasted off into the unknown by privately incorporating United Rocket. Rumours inside the agency talk of initial names trying to capture the imagination of Kerbins Everywhere. Space K was apparently tossed around before the board decided United would be a good word choice to foster the perception of global solidarity. But it's not just business maneuvering that's making headlines – it's the personal drama unfolding between Kip Kerman and his former partner Jebidiah. Following a three-year coma that saw him lose both Val and his stake in their business, Kip is back and ready to reclaim his place in the stars. Jeb, for his part, has been open to interviews, but a lack of available interpreters has left reporters scratching their helmets in confusion. Seen Here Maneuvering the craft through the clouds is famed daredevil United Rocket's game plan? To test their craft extensively before offering them for commercial use, all while allowing eager enthusiasts to own their very own United Rocket rocket. Their maiden vessel, the Kerbicus_S1 Sub Orbital Jumper, made its debut to a live broadcast, much to the delight of hopeful Kerbals everywhere. And despite the absence of a fireworks show, the vessel took off without a hitch, proving that even amateur rocket enthusiasts can soar through the clouds. However, reports suggest that Jeb is less than thrilled about the Kerbicus, especially since it's primarily constructed from parts he was forced to relinquish in a settlement agreement with Kip. Yet, Kip remains undeterred, boldly declaring, "The Kerbicus is so easy to fly I bet Jeb could manage!" as the spokesperson for United Rocket. There you have it, dear readers: the space race just got a whole lot spicier, with United Rocket firing up its engines and Kip Kerman at the helm. Buckle up and hold onto your helmets, because it looks like we're in for a wild ride through the cosmos! Stay tuned to Kerbal News Right Then for all the latest updates, gossip, and gravity-defying antics. Until next time, keep reaching for the stars and never forget to laugh along the way!

Well I didn't read the bug reports before playing this mission, so it was an obvious solution to me for a Jool-5 capable probe. Too bad this propulsion technology is not ready yet in this game. I've been reading the KERB updates, and they talk about acceleration under time warp bugs, but without specifically pointing the Dawn engine Thank you for the link. From my uninformed point of view, there seem to be multiple unrelated bugs affecting ion engines and time warp. I will read the full thread when I'll have the time, and maybe I'll share my save. It might help the devs and the QA dep.

Good afternoon, Kerbonauts. This past week has been a learning experience. My last post here received a lot of comments, many of which expressed doubt, frustration, and in some cases even anger about either the seeming lack of progress on KSP2 or the perception that I am concealing some dark reality about the state of the game. Our team has been reading your comments and asking one another if there’s some way we can do better. In the past, every item in these forum posts has had to cross a threshold of certainty - I don’t want to announce some new feature or target date, only to experience a trust-eroding failure to follow through. I feel this burden especially keenly because in the past I have personally announced dates that turned out to be incorrect. For that reason, I have avoided talking about features in progress, bugs under investigation, or internal delivery deadlines. With a game this complex, nothing is ever assured until it has been thoroughly tested by QA. When you combine this "stay quiet until you’re absolutely sure" ethos with a more dispersed update cadence, what you get is long periods of silence. Now, of course I haven’t gone literally silent. I still post here every week. Before each post goes out, I meet with the production and community teams to review the past week’s progress, and a great many exciting developments are discussed. They often take the form of "we’ve made great progress on x category of super annoying bug" or "this feature looks good but we haven’t had time to fully validate it yet." By my standard of "don’t talk about it until it’s truly done," neither of those scenarios yields anything that’s safe to post about. What is safe, then? Well, for the most part, content updates (new art, new parts, new graphics improvements) come along in nice, neat little parcels that are not only visually pleasing, but also unlikely to generate an unmet expectation. They’re fun and they’re safe, and artists are always creating new content. So you see lots of that. But the other thing you see lots of is some variation on "improved stability and performance." That’s my catch-all term for that very meaningful category of progress that, because of my reluctance to write bad checks, can’t yet be talked about in detail. When I hold back on such items, I comfort myself that the less I reveal now, the more surprising the patch notes will be when we finally release them. Still, I’m questioning my choice to withhold information about systems in progress. Yes, there’s always the chance that when we talk about a feature in development, that we’re also creating an expectation that the feature will be present in the next update. Similarly daunting is the possibility that we’ll announce that we’re working on something that the community perceives as "easy" (an especially common situation when we’re working on a feature that is already functional in the original KSP), and then take such a long time delivering that feature that people may decide we don’t know what we’re doing. In such cases, we then need to take the time to explain in technical detail why the implementation of such and such a feature is non-trivial in KSP2. Increased transparency carries costs, and those costs always have to be balanced against other feature-facing work we could be doing. So what I’m going to try to do right now is to extend some trust to you. I’m going to talk about a few things that are not yet complete so that you can at least see some of the ropes we’re hauling on every day - some of which may prove to be long. This list is not exhaustive (there are dozens of people working on dozens of items simultaneously, and there are some features that we really do want to be surprises), but it will hopefully give you some visibility into the breadth of issues we’re tackling. Please do not assume that if a bug didn’t get mentioned in this list that it is unknown to us or not being worked on — this is a top-ten list. Our bug prioritization is broadly guided by the following logic: Category A: any bug that causes loss of a vehicle in flight (physics issues, trajectory instability, decoupling instability, loss of camera focus, unexpected part breakage/RUD) Category B: any bug that affects the fidelity or continuity of a saved game (rigidbody degradation, save file inflation, loss of vehicle or Kerbal during instantiation or focus switching) Category C: any bug that negatively affects the expected performance of a vehicle (drag occlusion, staging issues, thrust asymmetry, joint wobbliness, landing leg bounciness) Category D: any VAB bug that prevents the player from creating the vehicle they want to make (symmetry bugs, fairing/wing editor bugs, strut instability, inconsistent root part behavior) While there are many bugs that live outside these four categories (and in some cases, such bugs end up getting sorted out during normal feature development), the four categories above are the biggest fun killers. Until a player can envision a vehicle, create it without being impeded by VAB issues, fly it with a reasonable expectation that physical forces will be consistently applied, and save their progress at any point without worrying about the fidelity of that save, the KSP2 experience will be compromised. Obviously, now that we are layering in progression mechanics (Science gathering and transmission, missions, and R&D tech tree) in preparation for downstream Roadmap updates, the importance of addressing these issues only increases. Therefore, here are a few of the biggest issues we’re wrangling with right now: Vehicles in stable coasting orbits sometimes experience orbit instability/decay - Status: possible fix in progress Trajectories change when vehicles cross SOI boundaries - Status: fix in progress (see below) Certain inline parts cause aerodynamic drag numbers to spike - Status: under investigation Returning to craft from VAB causes craft to go underground (possibly related to Kerbals and landed vehicles dropping through terrain while being approached) - Status: possible fix being tested Decoupling events result in various issues including loss of control, incorrect controllability of decoupled subassemblies, loss of camera focus, and other issues - Status: may have many causes, but some fixes in progress (see below) Save files get bigger over time (TravelLog experiencing "landed" status spam) - Status: fix being tested Opening part manager causes major frame lag - Status: experiments ongoing Major post-liftoff frame rate lag immediately above launchpad (associated with engine exhaust lighting) - Status: fix being tested Root parts placed below decouplers cause issues with stage separation - Status: under investigation Vehicle joints unusually wobbly, some part connections unusually weak - Status: under investigation We’re tracking down some strange vehicle behaviors associated with spurious autostrut errors. As we’ve discussed here before, some radially-attached parts are reinforced by additional invisible autostruts to improve their stability. It turns out that these autostruts don’t always break cleanly during decoupling events, and may be the cause of some of our more frustrating decoupling issues (including those where detached vehicle elements appear to still affect one another’s behavior). We’re still investigating this one, but we have high hopes that its correction will result in a reduction of mission-killing errors. Finally, we have zeroed in on the cause of some of the trajectory errors we’ve been seeing - especially the situation in which a trajectory changes spontaneously when crossing an SOI boundary. This one is deep in the code and its correction may end up fixing a few other downstream issues. This is a complicated problem, however, and we may not solve it in time for the June update. We should know more about this one soon. I’ve provided the list above as a stopgap. We have been discussing internally how best to improve bug status visibility so that you have a better idea of what we’re working on. We’re looking at a lot of options right now, and I’ll update you when we’ve settled on something. We recognize the need for this transparency and we’ll come to a solution soon. ANYWAY... we have some nice content news! Update v0.1.3.0 will be the first KSP2 update to contain not only bug fixes, but a few new parts. Right now, we can confirm the arrival of the following: A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E Clamp-O-Tron shielded docking port Clamp-O-Tron Inline Docking Port MK2 Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port Cornet Methalox Engine (new small extensible-nozzle orbital engine) Trumpet Methalox Engine (new medium extensible-nozzle orbital engine) Tuba Methalox Engine (new large extensible-nozzle orbital engine) S3-28800 Large Inline Methalox tank (longer version of large methalox tanks) Here’s some video of those new engines in action. The Tuba has individually-swiveling mini-nozzles that might be one of part designer Chris Adderley’s coolest ideas yet (final parts built by Pablo Ollervides, Jonathan Cooper, and Alexander Martin): new_engine_testing.mp4 We are still testing the new grid fins. Because these parts require some special part module support, engineering work is ongoing. Due to the complexity of this work, we don’t believe grid fins will make it into the v0.1.3.0 update. Last week’s challenge produced a few spiffy designs. Check out this rocket, with which user Well braved the Kraken and managed to deposit a lander at the bottom of the Mohole: Gotta respect the ingenuity of using antennae for landing legs: Thanks to those who participated! Next up, at the suggestion of @RyanHamer42 on Twitter, we’re building space stations! Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Primary goal: build a station by docking at least two Wayfarer habitat modules together in orbit above Kerbin Secondary goal: add a deployable solar panel truss and a fuel depot tank to your station Jeb-level goal: dock a transfer tug to your station and place the station in orbit above another planet Val-level goal: send a lander to your station that can be reused for down-and-up flights to the surface of the planet below Thanks for the suggestion, Ryan! Good luck, everyone!

Yeah, that is a fair take. I hate to indulge in the inevitable drama that results from this kind of ambiguous silly analogy, honestly, but regardless of what he meant, it still feels to me like that's what we're expected to do: Deal with what we have now, because sometime maybe eventually in the future things will be better. And I acknowledge the irony of saying this in the wake of a video where they specifically talk about short term solutions, but... I mean, why would we need to talk about short term solutions? I don't feel the damage they could cause would be outweighed by the sentiment of neglect that I feel has grown, at least in my own experience

Just my 5 cent, but showing that tool with a bit of explaining text and a few pictures would likely be much more informative than this talk was, which just repeated points that were made in the past. And it would be a more convincing demonstration that there is progress and not just talk - the issue with these talks is that people (rightfully or not, different discussion) feel that past communication hasn't bee reliable.

There was an issue with attaching exhaust prefabs in v1.6.10.0, which should be fixed in v1.6.10.1 (in case that was the problem), though it seems there's still some issues there that we're looking at. I'm not sure about the muzzle flash effects, but examining the KSP.log file would be the first step. BDA+ usually gives errors or warnings if there's something missing. I don't think that's possible, no. There was some talk at one point about making custom turrets, but I don't think it ever got beyond just talking about it due to how complicated it very quickly becomes trying to handle the weird designs people invariably make. Check the KSP.log file or in-game messages for errors or exceptions. Enabling "Debug Spawning" in BDA's debug settings will add more details to the log, which may help. If it's completely failing to spawn, then there's most likely an issue with the craft file (missing parts or the file is otherwise corrupted). I'm not sure what could cause a spawned craft to end up sticking into the ground, but likely the log would give some indication as to why.

why do you assume that's not what they're going to do? They've been investigating this for a while, so there's definitely a good chance that they've come up with some short and long term solutions that they want to address. Also, wobbliness is what's been the community's biggest issue so far, the fact that they're talking about it makes it communication. The community broadcasted it's concerns about this, and they heard it, and will address it. that's the 2-way you're talking about. or do you want them to hold your hand and bring you on the talk so you can express the same things everyone else has over and over again? let's see tomorrow after the talk if they've discussed possible solutions or not.

Communication is two-way. Sticking your fingers in your ears and announcing “a talk about wobbly rockets” (a talk, not a discussion, not addressing it, not discussing possible solutions — and they are masters in picking their words when it comes to this) without any regards for what has the most attention right now isn’t communicating. It’s broadcasting with a bull horn and showing no interest in what goes on in the community.

Oh gosh, don't get that train started. It's not as bad in Australia, but it's probably still possible Anyway, was listening to a Podcast where Adam Rozencwajc was the interviewee, and it cleared up this one problem that I didn't know how to solve for a long time. For those who don't know, Adam is part of a company called Goehring&Rozencwajc, which is an independent Natural Resources analysis company (I believe that is the role, at least). Recently, Adam went on a podcast with Peak Prosperity and talked about Oil. The key takeaway I took was how the IEA, either willingly or otherwise, has lied about their forecasts on Oil and Energy consumption. Their reasoning is as follows; - If technological advancements in the efficiency of energy use, then the overall usage of energy will decrease. However, this contradicts Jevon's paradox (According to Wikipedia, governments seem to have an implied history of ignoring this paradox), which is where resource use becomes more efficient, more is used, not less. Jevon's Paradox, then, is quite literally the EXACT opposite of what the IEA is saying. This answers my personal question of "Why does Peak Energy Demand just not make sense". After all, More people with more money = Buying more things, which requires energy. I don't know I'm so shocked, after all, governments and governmental agencies lie all the time. Maybe it has to do with the sheer and utter importance of energy in the modern economy. But I don't know. I'm repeating what was said elsewhere. I'm not qualified to talk about this.

there are a lot of choices in the tech tree the more you go, and it can be overwhelming. I wanted to see what you guys thought! Me personally, I go for either the cheapest, or I think ahead and go for the science.

This post is specifically about worse performance on background vessel compared to before 0.2. If you just want to talk (and report) about bad performance related to background vessel in general, there is already a report about it: This has (and will be) addressed by devs.

Heya everyone! Below is the transcript to the AMA we did with Chris Adderley on 8/17 live on KSPTV. You can find the VOD here. If you catch an error with the transcript, feel free to @ me in a response! Thanks everyone, Dakota --- Can you introduce yourself and your position in the studio and maybe talk a little bit about what you work on? (skyzip4k) Were you modding before KSP? What made you want to mod (games) and how did you know a game you wanted to mod? (James M.) What is one thing that was different from your expectations and your change from modder to developer? Are there things that we're challenging as a modder that now make more sense from your perspective as a developer? (moeggz) As a fan-favorite modder turned developer, what's one particularly memorable or satisfying moment you've experienced while working on KSP2 that you'd like to share? (Heretic391) Hey Chris, big fan of your mods in ksp1 and i honestly consider them essential. What have you learned from your days as a ksp 1 modder has helped you in your role in ksp2? (6ar6oyle) from being a mod developer to a dev on ksp2 what has been your favorite moment? (the_tunnel) What mistakes did you learn from making your mods in ksp1 that helped you on issues for ksp2? (Spicat) Which milestone update are you most excited to work on? (tycothepug) Is it fun working on KSP2 intercept games? (noobyeeter69) What’s your favorite mod of ksp2 so far? (Spicat) How closely does KSP2's team follow developments in the aerospace industry? Does it help you guys come up with ideas for parts or other features to add in KSP2? (novaraptortv) what is your favorite part that you can talk about that's been made? Also, what's your favorite type of cheese? (afterglow79, Discord) What are things that you can’t make too realistic for gameplay reasons? (Spicat) Is it true you derive sustenance and nutrients from reading white papers and looking at whitebox models? (Kavaeric) What is your favorite mod you made for KSP1? Bonus question: What is your favorite mod for KSP1 you didn’t make? (Tycothepug) What are your hopes for the future of KSP2? (Heretic391) What other games are you guys playing at the moment? (Burntout) What is the biggest challenge in creating a complex heat system like we will see in a future soon in KSP2? (_gonb_) What do you like about the new heat system? Also, blink 3 times quickly if you're being held against your will and forced to answer softball questions in a positive manner. (RocketmanKSP) In the first AMA, Nate mentioned different reentry colors, what will those looks like? (Spicat) With the heat limit of most parts reduced over KSP1, how do you plan to make KSP2 spaceplanes capable of surviving re-entry? Are conformal heatshields in the plans? (hakko__) What are the biggest differences you can highlight between Science in ksp1 and Science in ksp2? (Spicat) What would you say has taken the most time in the upcoming science update? (Tycothepug) was there a particularly difficult science instrument to design and implement? Why or why not? (no2tm) Will modding support come in small waves, like how heating will be expended with every milestone update, or will it be a (mostly) one time update? (Abelinoss) Will Kerbin recieve visual updates to its biomes to give it a more "alive" feeling? (M4D_Mat7) Are there plans for resources/guides to help modders mod within the planned game dynamics vs. “modders gonna mod” and mod without any clear direction/instructions from dev team on the best way to make stable coherent mods? (picospace) What are your favorite tips and tools for new modders? (Socraticat) If I wanted to get started with modding, what route would you suggest I go down? (James M.) Are there any features you modded into KSP 1 that you are bringing into KSP2? What is your favorite? (Pokaia) KSP is a very physics-intensive project. KSP is also a game that needs to be both performant AND fun to play. When these areas are in conflict, how do you decide where to draw the line? (funphaze) What is your favorite part in the game (If you have one)? (datau03) What's your favourite step of developing a new part? What's your least favourite step? (kavaeric) How has your work in [KSP1 modding] translated to the design strategy in KSP2? (Kavaeric) How do you determine how much detail and fidelity goes into a particular part? Rocket engines, in particular, are very complex things laden with tubes and other components. Where does the simplification start while remaining true to the aesthetic of a rocket engine? The same goes for fuel tanks, science parts, and the like. (no2tm) I'm sure the team reviewed and rejected a lot of theoretical engine design concepts over the lifespan of the project - My question is, what was the most absurd/fantastical one that the team reviewed and rejected? (Profugo Barbatus) how will orbital construction work with all the super big parts that cant fit in the VAB was the VAB kept on the smaller side to make this orbital construction feature more important (cooling.1200) How do you go about designing parts for theoretical technologies that have no real-world analogs to use for reference? (Seth) What process do you guys follow when designing, creating, and importing a part? What design guidlines do you follow? (isaquest) How do you decide how parts are made? For example, with the Mammoth II, how did you decide to make one colossal engine, rather than splitting it into four RS-25's? How did you come up with the plumbing? (failspace) How will the "rotational" artificial gravity ring part showcased in the teasers and trailers work? Will we have multiple iterations of varying sizes? (M4D_Mat7) What do you think is the most interesting part in terms of gameplay, so how, when and where to use it. (rick_huijgen) Will we see more than one engine per ‘engine class’ at some point? e.g. multiple Medium Methalox Sustainer engines, gridded and hall effect ion thrusters,… (The Space Peacock) Is there still the option to add the non-dynamic wings from KSP 1? (bygermanknight) what size scale can we expect for intersellar ship parts? (mgb125) How is the colonies stuff going, there's been some recent concern on whether launching rockets will be free in science. If so, will that be an issue for progression? (Pugnuts) In your previous role as a modder, you did modelling AND scripting, do you still do both of those at intercept? (clayel) Do you sometimes have to revise your ideas because of performance constraints? (piotr) What are you guys working on right now? what is the priority list? (Benozkey) For features that divide the community, we often hear the argument to "just make it an option". For you, when should a feature be an option and when this choice should be made by the devs? (Spicat) What have been the biggest or funniest challenges/bugs in the development of Science and Heating? (paradact) Will rover wheels be changed in the future to be better? How do you figure that out? (jaypegiscool) what will interstellar travel look like ? just a burn and a time-warp until destination or an animation (.lord_octave) Earlier on, I got the impression that there was going to be the potential for vessels/stations with truly massive part counts (far greater than KSP1, which would choke really hard on larger craft), but, as it stands right now, optimization is not at the point yet where you can go very far with part counts. Assuming I was not misunderstanding, is this still going to be a thing eventually, at least by 1.0? (GigFiz) Could we see the addition of a linear aerospike as a usable part for SSTOs? (NovaRaptorTV) will we ever be able to use any fuel type with nuclear engines, instead of just hydrogen? (Spicat) How will Metallic Hydrogen engines play into late game interplanetary travel (german4730) Are there plans to add light sail interstellar probes? (lunarmetis) Will there be inflatable modules in KSP2? (gordonlemons) Will there be more loading screens? (M4D_Mat7) Could we see space telescopes like Hubble and James Webb make their way to KSP2? Will they have the ability to be repaired on orbit and also collect science the player can use? (NovaRaptorTV) Are there more plans for environmental effects? Will there be Kerbal footprints/rover tire marks, etc? Will there be dust in the air on duna, etc (jaypegiscool) When colonies are implemented, will heat be required for habitation modules in colder environments? (Pleysu) Has any consideration been given to procedural fuel tanks? Alternatively, reducing the number of fuel tanks in the list and/or providing more variety in shape by implementing a part switcher? (regex) Considering that grid fins are confirmed for KSP2, could we also potentially see Telescoping Landing Legs(like on Falcon 9 and New Glenn(I believe)) in KSP2 as parts we can use for reusable boosters? (NovaRaptorTV) Are there any plans to implement parts that would enable underwater exploration, such as ballast tanks and pumps? Great work on the game so far btw! (DibzNr) If you were to add another class of spaceplane parts, what would they be based off of? I can see something like VentureStar or Star Raker, or a something more like a traditional airliner. (NovaRaptorTV) How do you pronounce “Nertea”? Ner-tea, ner-te-a, nert-e-a? (jimmymcgoochie) Does Nertea come iced, or is it only hot? (corelar) Any unanounced features/parts/systems that we have had no hints of, but are in the works? y/n (gallitagen) What's your favorite type of donut? (gordonlemons)

Maybe you're both not understanding - the problem is that it's forcing the new player out of the Kerbin system way too early. @pschlik explains the problem about five posts down in this thread. The rendezvous missions serve the purpose of training the new player to maneuver and operate in orbit. The 'save a kerbal stranded in Mun orbit' missions from the first game got tiresome after a while, but the first time doing them they were very fun and exciting. Teaching the player how to perform a rendezvous is explaining how an efficient Hohmann transfer orbit works, which is exactly what 'the correct angle' interplanetary transfer window talk is all about.

Good thing my complaints encompass a lot of statements and content posted for about 4 years and not this one time I was almost wrong. You're doing exactly what Razark is doing below here, which is ignoring the dates of the few ones I quoted: 2 out of 6 messages I found on this forum alone, are from before Dakota's clarification that it was gonna be just two hotfixes. People were expecting more than 2 hotfixes. In fact I'll gladly bet all in that most laymen back then expected this to mean the start of rapidly deployed hotfixes as a concurrent practice, and not just 2 "hot" fixes spaced almost a month from the update they were fixing. Dakota's clarification and not Nate's post is an example of how to properly communicate when looking to create and then manage expectations. I'm totally on board with that, though I'd prefer it if had been Nate's post without the need for clarifications. Asterisks like those have been a consistent theme sadly. This is you assuming their work pace and productivity. I'm sure if you told anyone outside this forum or the discord that they're almost crunching to produce the current volume of content, you'd be laughed out of the internet. Sadly, lack of communication is to blame again, as they really haven't shown any other bar of their productive capacity other than delaying a product 3 years and not being able to produce a roadmap feature for at least 7 months. The "5 years ago" thing is brought up constantly because people seem to forget when development started, constantly, or talk about credibility whilst gladly ignoring that. No, looking away from it will not make it go away. [snip] Maybe if people stopped constructing arguments from erroneous facts [snip] then people would stop bringing those things up. You talk as if deadlines and spec sheets are things of the devil. Which is funny considering we now have the design specs for heating thanks to Nertea, but Science being much closer allegedly hasn't been talked about past a part and a screenshot of what could easily be a KSP1 copypaste in KSP2's UI.