Search the Community

NMS even 6 months after launch was less talk and more updates, including content updates. Not only that but I'll eat my hat and socks if we will ever see an honest apology along with a real explanation of this launch, let alone an expansion to KSP2 released for free for the poor souls who bought the game expecting we will actually progress through the roadmap at a very decent pace (their statements, not mine). In the meantime NMS did so with several feature packed expansions across several years, who were released for free, and they still do it today, many years since launch. Sure, NMS launched bad too, everyone screws up, but what separates boys from men is how you handle it afterwards and if you own up or finger point or just pretend it didn't happen. Which is why I bought NMS on every platform I own to support that kind of attitude and respect towards players. IMHO KSP2 is already too late to be a story similar to NMS, but time will tell.

When we talk about nuclear weapons, you hear 4 countries that show up on that list.. Namely America, Russia, China and India. Well, now we have a new Space Race between America, (Both NASA and Space X), China, Russia and now we can throw India into that same list of  lunar Landings.. This proves one thing in spaceflight.. Even up and coming Countries do have the right to land on the moon. Not just an exclusive few... It sort of reminds me of that old Comedy film called The Mouse on the moon. Where a small country like the Duchy of New Fenwick get to the moon first.. But as was pointed out in the movie , it's not who gets to the moon first, but rather the first to get home.. To get the Prestige. But at least now we know one thing.. We now are starting to get a community started on the moon. I'll be only a matter of time when we have actual bases up there.. Who knows? We might just see it happen.

If people cannot expect an early access product to be enjoyable, it follows that potential buyers should buy the product to support its development into its promised state. Otherwise, why is the product even in early access? But when we talk about consumer expectations of early access, we must also consider the expectations set by publishers and distribution platforms of potential buyers, as exemplified by the warning you get on Steam for any early access product: In essence it tells potential buyers: "Buy only if you would be happy with what you got with no further changes." And indeed, arguments to that effect have been made on these forums many a time in discussions about the state of the game and early access. From this, it follows that potential buyers should wait until such time as the product is enjoyable and not to expect it will be developed any further. So... Are we buying early access games for what they are supposed to become, or what they are right now with a potential bonus in further development? Certainly, the latter is the safer guideline for a potential buyer. But if everyone strictly followed it, there would have been a lot fewer sales at launch.

Heh. When I ask a university student "how's school going?" it is more than just small talk. I am an academic advisor, and I really do care what a student's response is. The last thing I want to see happen is a student drop out. If done right, small talk is a great diagnostic tool into mental health. Working at both a two year community college and teaching graduate courses at a local university, I'm on both institutions mental first aid teams. No, I'm not a mental health professional, but I do have the training to help stabilize a mental health crisis until the professionals can get there. And sadly, I'm having to use that training more and more. Yes, small talk can be annoying. But sometimes, small talk does serve a purpose.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. After the unfixable Kraken attack that kept exploding the station, I've just lost all motivation to do the station. But that really isn't BDB related, so if you want to talk about it anymore, please message me on the Dreaming Big thread, thanks. (Context: Dreaming Big is a mission report series by me where I make super large space stations.)

I agree, they talk too much! They should simply shut down all communications and focus on making the game, dropping patches and updates when they’re ready. The only communication they need are release notes. Later on if they want to solicit actionable feedback on game balance or mechanics that they can’t get via telemetry then maybe ask about that. But all these announcements, AMAs, dev blogs, bug status updates etc are doing more harm than good. They only add fuel to the fire!

I feel like at this point in my life I have a basic understanding of how corporate culture works and can read between the lines. Obviously anyone working for a company isn't going to bad mouth their product, or their management, or their peers. It seems kind of weird to me that anyone would expect them to. Within those constraints there's so much people can say. I work for a 6-person firm and those rules are true for us too. Everyone came into the KSP2 EA with expectations about that would look like and it's pretty clear the product in that moment way underperformed. All you have to do is look at the Steam rating to see that. I'm honestly surprised it's as high as it is. And to me thats the entire problem: the game is much buggier than an EA release should be. No amount of corporate happy talk or axe-grinding public flagellation will change the fundamental fact of the matter, so I find all the backseat complaining about Intercept's PR misplaced, pointless, and tedious. When we see Nate or Chris or Dakota or anyone from the actual dev team chiming in they're being good soldiers, trying to maintain a hopeful, positive attitude for the game and Im sure to a certain degree for themselves. Obviously they know what the reality is and that folks aren't happy so I see no utility in rubbing it in. But yeah, you're gonna have to take everything you read with a grain of salt, understand statements in the spirit they're meant, and not let yourself confuse subjective interpretations and unfulfilled expectations with malintent. The actual headline, main assertions--no microtransactions, none of the roadmap content on the way to 1.0 will cost extra, etc. are all pretty firm commitments and aren't just subjective interpretations about what "soon" means. I have no reason to believe they'd go back on actual promises. The actual people making this game are trying as hard as they can to push this game uphill so that it can be something really great. I feel like its okay to see them as people and let them do their jobs.

This is very much how I feel (except I don't play ksp1 anymore). Game sucks, so be it. Don't really care anymore. When it's good enough to play (in my opinion, dont really care about version numbers or ea) I'll probably play it. For now, very much looking forward to cities skylines 2 (talk about a different path to release)

If they can achieve this I think they’ll change the sentiment not only on Reddit but also solidly get steam reviews back to mostly positive. And we’ll have tons to talk about on the forums. Yes this is how I would prefer as well. I thought they were solidly on this strategy after tweeting out the apology and timeline… and then they missed the one date they gave. Community trust is low, the reviews are more negative these days there’s no reason to give dates you can’t make 100%. Whatever happened in the past is the past, and I was ready to move on to their new developments but then those new developments were more “promise things” and then not deliver those things on time. Combined with communicating the delay on Twitter, and the update on the new “date” on the discord. So, from my perspective, they tried to start a clean slate with an apology (which I bought in on) and then proceeded to follow the SOP that got us into this mess. All that said, from the poll on Reddit it seems most responding to the poll (skewed by sample selection bias I’m sure) don’t expect science within 6 months. So, the good thing about low expectations from the community is that surpassing expectations is a sure fire way to regain good will (see no man’s sky.) Right now we’re all just guessing, but I hope it plays out the way you think it will. I just, 6 months ago, even with the buggy launch, was having fun (assuming the bugs to be short lived) and definitely thought we’d be in a better position by now.

its just disturbing how little i know about cars. you think learning to drive would be a right of passage. but how the hell can i be 42 and have the possibility of vehicle ownership turn into an existential crisis. im gonna have to talk to my shrink about that.

////////////////////MISSION UPDATE\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ - Finishing K.G.02 - Last Instillation of Methalox - Heavy Tug Drone leaving K.G.01 enroute to the Mun with 32t of Methalox. Foreword: The mission can finally continue as planned. This is the first chapter in the end of this mission. After fixing K.G.01, burning it into a 0° inclination and refueling it. I have finally gotten to the point were I could make a mission to refuel the heavy tug drone that didn't quite make it back to K.G.01, after its first mission to K.G.02. I can now finally fly it back to install the missing fuel tanks. All that is left is to instal the Methalox tanks, Burning K.G.02 into a 0° inclination, and dock escape vehicles and crew to the station. Once these small steps has been complete. The Kerbin - Mun fuel station mission will finally be over. Without further ado - let's get the last methalox load enroute to the Mun. Mission Tasks: A. Launch Methalox glider to K.G.01 and return 1st stage to KSC - Success B. Refuel glider at K.G.01 and rendezvous heavy tug drone - refuel and land at KSC. Success C. Rendezvous Heavy Tug drone with K.G.01 and load cargo - launch mission towards the mun - Success Lessons Learned; Lessons Identified: A. Glider right before stage separation and the return of Stage 1. I have been rather successful in founding a good formula for launching my methalox glider into space, without the rocket flipping and or expending to much fuel getting up into the mesosphere for the first stage to make it back to the ground again. Refueling K.G.01 - which took 3 missions - I tried to find a easy way to land the rocket in the vicinity of KSC. So far my approach is to burn back towards KSC - without getting a AP above 70km (as it can take quite a while to be able to maneuver again once you leave the exosphere). Once the rocket is enroute back towards KSC I keep it horizontal facing prograde. I will periodically burn, while in the thermosphere (~30km to 70km) gauging the rotation of Kerbin. I have found that aiming roughly here yields good results: As soon as the rocket hits the Mesospheres I follow the prograde down, and land sufficiently within KSC - I am calling it a success as long as i am landing on the flat terrain within the mountain range surrounding KSC. Now I had a bit of trouble finding out were on the map the landing pads actually are.. and so far the only fix I could think of was placing a tiny rover on one of the landing pads - I picked the middle one in the hopes that in the future, if i cant land on the middle one, maybe i can land on either ones that are adjacent to it. Speaking of rovers - can we have a talk about how janky rovers feel? My wheel base is pretty wide.. and even though it was I was still struggling keeping the vehicle on 4 wheels... and when it was time to stop at the landing pad.. the result was as follows: I thought it was kind of funny that the rover crashed into a tree, even if they are not collidable. Any way it works, Now I know were on the peninsula the landing pad actually is, which has made it a lot easier to "line" up KSC. Some times the pixelated icons dont help the game - I know it's the style they are going for.. but I think it hurts the UI more than it benefits it. Any way - the mission to K.G.01 was successful and the landing of the first stage - very succesful. See a detailed walkthrough in the spoiler section bellow: B. M.F.R.G. docked at K.G.01 and being topped op to bring as much fuel to the Heavy Tug Drone, as well as making sure it can make the journey there and back again. The journey to the heavy tug drone and back to KSC was pretty straight forward. For some reason the Δv bug - where it shows 0Δv when its a fuel line connecting the fuel to the engine plate - wasn't there after the undock from K.G.01. It meant that I could actually do maneuver nodes which immensely helped the rendezvous. The correction burn of almost 7° inclination was a bit tough for the terrier to perform - I would drift away from the intersection point before the inclination had been corrected, but the rest of the tour went easy enough. The drone was successfully refueled and the glider made it back to KSC - I even had to do a night landing. It's interesting when you only have the map, your speed and your distance to the ground to go from. I learned though that the glider can maintain speed at ÷10° - which means you can extend the glide a lot. For detailed walkthrough see spoiler section: C. Heavy Tug Drone - rendezvous with K.G.01 and being refueled before being loaded with cargo. Bugs, bugs and bugs: This part of the mission went relatively smooth too - I Identified further issues with the inline/shielded parts. Apparently they work fine as long as you don't load or quickload while docked to them. I had loaded half the methalox tanks to the heavy tug drone when i went to sleep, and the day after I found that all my saves were a Clamp-O-Tron was connected to a Clamp-O-Tron shielded they would be registered as docked, but not acting like they were docked, moving independently of each other. How ever I found a fix! The shielded/inline parts will not show the option to undock - the normal clamp-o-tron will. However I have experienced inline/shielded parts stop working if you undock with the functioning clamp-o-tron. This time I tried to make a costume undock action for the shielded port and it worked. I even tried to do the same with the clamp-o-tron shielded on top the Cockatoo on the K.G.01 habitation module, where i made an action group that forced it to undock, even if nothing was docked to it, and afterwards I was able to dock my probe to it. It made me happy to know that K.G.01 is not broken anymore! (relevant bug report has been updated) Synergy Issues: I found out that the station has another synergy issue. While the Heavy Tug Drone grew in size to be able to go to the Mun and back again, the fuel tanks did not. Right now K.G.01 has 64t methalox - How ever the heavy tug drone has 33t fuel in it. Right now K.G.01 Hydrogen capacity is 80t distributed in 4 tanks. It will take the Heavy Tug Drone 4 tours to move the 80t fuel to K.G.02 (which is half the K.G.02 capacity of 160t fuel) - and right now K.G.01 only has methalox for 2 tours. before needing to be refueled - 16 M.F.G.V launches. A part of me wants K.G.01 to have enough fuel to perform all 4 Hydrogen Launches without having to refuel - which means I have to double the Methalox capacity of K.G.01 - there are two solutions to this: Image of double docking port - and extended methalox tank. Solution A: Make double docking port adaptor for K.G.01 - This will double the fuel capacity without changing the fuel tank design. It will probably also look dope AF. But! Every adaptor is 10 parts - and every extra fuel tank is 7 parts. Which means I would be adding. 96 parts to K.G.01 - and it already has a pretty poor performance. Solution B: I make a new fuel tank with 16t instead of 8t - It will mean that K.G.01 and K.G.02 will not have the same tanks. - This could be resolved over time though. What do you guys think? Go crazy and hope for performance improvements - or be sensible and put on less parts/bigger tanks? Any way - detailed walkthrough of the mission in spoiler section bellow: Moving Forward: Now I will return to K.G.02 for the first time in a while. I hope my experience navigating the buggy waters of KSP2 will spare K.G.02 for any breaking. I will at least do my best for it not to happen. Next up will be the instillation of what ever solution I find to K.G.01 - as well as escape vehicles for K.G.02, a correction of inclination on K.G.02 and last but not least, crew. Stay tuned for more.

Secrets, Strategic Defense, and Shuttles As 1983 begins, let us take stock, and understand where we are. This year is set to be an important one, primarily for the development of future systems as they get closer to their debut. But also for existing systems, the Space Shuttle, Iapyx as it nears Saturn, and practically the whole Soviet space program making a push towards new launch systems. For the Space Shuttle, it will be another 7 flight manifest for the year. What was originally a 8 flight manifest was cut down to 7 after Apollo 29 and 30 were cancelled, as STS-61H was intended to be a mission at the end of the year for Apollo 29 support. The Shuttle also has 2 classified missions on the manifest this year. A tug of war continues between NASA and the DoD over flight scheduling for these classified missions. For all the support they put behind the Shuttle, they've become an afterthought on the schedule. This has made the DoD rather upset, and has led them to begin the Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle program. CELV, as it is called, will provide the DoD with new launch vehicles to replace its aging systems. This unfortunately includes the incredible Hercules rocket, but it won't be replaced until these new vehicles are fully up and running, which is slated for 1987. Martin Marietta is currently leading the way with proposals of an upgraded Titan III rocket. With Lockheed Convair and Douglas being interested but not submitting proposals as of the start of the year. The development of CELV could be considered a major blow to the Shuttle program, with the DoD clearly fed up with playing second fiddle to NASA's interest. Even though the Shuttle will fly increasingly more classified missions over the next few years, on top of starting flights out of Vandenberg next year. But it's also to support some big plans coming in the future, in which using the Shuttle alone would not suffice. In terms of lunar exploration, NASA has entered yet another "Moon Gap" as they prepare for AFOP to start in 1985. Development of ACOV, SDLS, and the LTV Mk2 are now full steam ahead to meet the deadline. With ACOV dependent on successful demonstration of Shuttle-Centaur in a few months for it's own test flights expected to start in the spring of next year. For ACOV itself, the main development difficulties are focused on the capsule itself, which is practically being turned into a Shuttleified version of the Apollo command module. With thermal blankets on the exterior, redesigned systems, a widened docking tunnel to support APAS-75, and the intention to reuse the capsules brings a lot of modifications to the table. But NASA is nevertheless confident that they can meet the current schedule, especially with support from the President and Congress. Speaking of the President, NASA Administrator John Young pays a visit to the White House on January 3rd, to talk about NASA's plans for the future and what they need from the President to put these into motion. The two talk alongside Reagan's Congressional advisors for a few hours, until the conversation shifts a bit. Young brings up Mars, and how JPL and Goddard are implementing a series of 4 spacecraft to pave the way for more intensive Martian exploration. Reagan asks about the agency's aspirations for manned exploration of Mars, to which Young responds very clearly that it is a top priority for the future. Over the next hour, a program is born. A silent agreement was formed between NASA, the President, and Congress that afternoon. Young left the White House with enthusiasm, but nothing was concrete yet, so it had to remain under wraps. For the Soviets, they are now fully focused on the development of the Three Focuses (as they are internally called) after their plans for going to the Moon with NASA fell through. Energia continues development, while Mir has now been worked through its soft redesign. Studies are being done by several design bureaus now on robotic missions for the end of the decade. However with the transfer of power following Brezhnev's death to Yuri Andropov, there is unease within those very design bureaus, and the wider space program. They will need support from the government to see these ideas realized. Andropov is mostly content to leave the space program alone, which isn't good but it isn't bad either. Effectively the Soviet space program's situation for the past decade. The first Shuttle of the year rolls out a bit early. Atlantis is scheduled to fly STS-61A in late January with TDRS-C, but because the Rolling Beam Umbilical System (RBUS) for Shuttle-Centaur is finally complete, there are some tests that take place on January 8th. The Centaur Integrated Support Structure (CISS) is loaded into the payload bay, and the RBUS umbilical arm is moved into position. A series of retraction tests are then performed to make sure the arm functions properly. With these tests completed, the CISS is removed from the payload bay, and TDRS-C loaded in for the beautiful late afternoon launch on January 22nd, 1983. "0 and LIFTOFF of the Space Shuttle Atlantis carrying the third TDRS satellite to orbit!" TDRS-C is deployed shortly after launch. The crew spend the next few days on some research and experiments brought up on the Shuttle, with a landing at Edwards to conclude the mission on Flight Day 4. A successful mission to kick off the year, followed immediately by the cancellation of another mission. STS-61B was supposed to be the next mission up, manifested for Discovery carrying the GOES-F satellite. However, just 2 days after the launch of Atlantis, there are some... issues that pop up while Discovery is in the OPF. During some power up tests, it is noted that many systems do not in fact power up. Troubleshooting doesn't seem to find a solution, so they begin to dig into the problem. Several panels in the cockpit are removed to find bad wiring connections, and even just some shorted out wires for essential systems. This is the tip of the iceberg for a... small wiring problem on Discovery. There had been hints of this on previous missions, when the HUD would shutoff and come back on, a screen would cutoff and come back on, and maybe a few system glitches here and there. These issues aren't completely unheard of, but everything needing replacement will take at least a month to be isolated and fixed, which means 61B is cancelled. GOES-F is expected to launch on a Delta 3000 later in the year. NOAA (the operators of GOES) aren't exactly thrilled, but they are promised future Shuttle flights so they are mostly handled. Because the processing flow never stops, the already completed 61B launch stack is given to 61C, which is a DoD mission to be flown by Columbia. This is a very important mission for the DoD, and they have fought tooth and nail to get it scheduled and flown. But why? Well this mission has some background. The KH-9 satellite, it doesn't officially exist as far as the public is concerned but it does, physically, exist. These satellites are on their way out, to be replaced by new optical imaging satellites instead of their film-based system. However, the DoD wants to squeeze as much service time out of these satellites as possible. So, the DoD approached NASA with the idea of the Shuttle maintaining, retrieving film from, and even upgrading KH-9 satellites on orbit. 61C's test subject will be a testbed KH-9 that failed to fully deploy and become operational when launched a few years prior. Nicknamed Oddball due to this, it will be captured by the Shuttle, and worked on during several spacewalks. 61C is also going to deploy 2 military communications satellites, but the KH-9 servicing thing is the main focus. Columbia launches on February 16th, 1983. "BOOSTER IGNITION AND LIFTOFF of Space Shuttle Columbia on a mission in cooperation with the Department of Defense!" There has started to be some visible wear on the exterior of Columbia, being the most flown Shuttle this is the most of any Orbiter. It is imperative for NASA to study how the Shuttles wear over time as it sheds light on the stresses of each orbital flight. The first objective of the mission is deploying the MOOCS military communications satellites. They are deployed on Flight Days 2 and 3. On Flight Day 4, Columbia performs rendezvous with the KH-9 to be serviced, and begins a great dance in orbit to capture the spysat. Utilizing a new RCS pack, the astronauts perform an EVA to prepare the KH-9 for capture, this includes the removal of a few things that would block the capture, including folding in the solar array as much as possible. After this, the Shuttle captures the satellite, and the work truly begins. The KH-9 was captured on a new piece of equipment called the Shuttle Active Capture-Servicing Platform (SAC-SP) which, being a new system, didn't perform a perfectly aligned capture. Thus, the Astronauts perform a "Spacewalk 0" to add locking struts to fully secure the satellite to the platform. Once this is completed, the crew return to the Shuttle and are given some time to rest. Returning from the rest period, the crew prepare for Spacewalk 1. This spacewalk will install a new flight computer that will override the KH-9's aging avionics. Some of the most meticulous and difficult on-orbit work is done during this EVA, and many tools had to be built specifically for this spacewalk to assist the astronauts. Nevertheless after 5 hours, the computer is installed. Spacewalk 2 refueled the KH-9's RCS thrusters, while Spacewalk 3 installed a new star tracker and an optical pathfinder camera to better select targets for observation. Spacewalk 5 and 6 were the final planned spacewalks, and would've attempted to install new solar arrays. However, on Flight Day 7, one of Columbia's inertial measurement units begins acting up, and while attempting to troubleshoot the issue, it fails entirely. NASA has to inform the DoD that the Shuttle has to land at the next opportunity, and the mission cannot continue. The DoD is, for lack of a better word upset, but there is nothing that can be done, the Shuttle must return. They must watch as Spacewalk 5 is repurposed to disconnect the locking struts, and preparing for the release of a non-functional KH-9. 3 hours later, the KH-9 is released from the Shuttle, completely inoperable. Columbia then de-orbits on Flight Day 8. The DoD is not happy about how the mission ended, but nevertheless 61C has paved the way for future on orbit servicing missions. They'll take whatever positives they can get from the mission, despite the early conclusion. To end February, a test is conducted of the modified Lunar Module Descent Engine to be used on the ACOV service module. It will undergo a rigorous testing campaign through ground and vacuum chamber firings throughout the year. To kick off March, NASA representatives meet with executives from Japan's NASDA space agency in Tokyo. They are hoping to discuss options for joint Shuttle and Skylab missions. Japan has already licensed Delta rockets and currently utilize a version they have dubbed the "N-II" succeeding their previous "N-I" rocket, not to be confused with the Soviet N-1. NASDA is a hopeful agency with ambitious goals, so working with NASA and ESA could provide them with better opportunities in the future. The meetings are a massive success, and lay the foundation of positive relations in the future. NASDA is hopeful to get a Japanese astronaut on a 1985 Shuttle flight, which NASA is open to. But as new partnerships are formed, and old rocket is poised for its final flight. Grumman's Valkyrie rocket stands at LC-20 for it's final launch. The venerable light-lifter has been a workhorse for small DoD and NASA payloads since the mid-70s, with 36 previous flights, to be capped off by this final 37th. Things are changing, the Air Force would rather use its surplus of Titan missiles than continue this rocket, and Grumman doesn't want to step on it's own toes by entering Valkyrie into the commercial market, directly competing with SSV. Thus today is the final flight, carrying a Retriever-Swarm of small reconnaissance satellites for the Air Force. The launch is successful, sending out the GAC Valkyrie on a great flight. The payloads were part of a ramping up of classified missions that has been occurring lately. But why? Well, back on March 23rd, President Reagan made a speech from the Oval Office to the nation. "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." President Reagan announces the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI. This new program is intended to develop advanced defense systems to counter ballistic missiles and other threats by building space-based defense weaponry. The defensive part is crucial, as any "offensive weapons" in space are banned by the Outer Space Treaty, of which the US is a signatory alongside most of the world. Defensive weapons are a loophole, however, and the President hopes this will dissolve the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, which he describes as a "suicide pact" by its idea of both parties of an all-out nuclear war being destroyed. This idea has hung over the heads of the nuclear superpowers since the Soviets first attained nuclear weaponry, but Reagan seeks to abolish it. Many are hopeful SDI will unintentionally lead to further budget increases of NASA, and the DoD has its eyes on the Space Shuttle and the upcoming SDLS rockets for usage with SDI payloads. Whatever the case, SDI has created a tense atmosphere on the world stage, and has most certainly scared the Soviets. With that out of the way, Discovery's wiring has finally be fixed, so the second youngest Shuttle launches on April 18th for mission 61D, carrying a new crew of Skylab and a whole load of cargo. Discovery successfully rotates the Skylab crew, and delivers cargo. Landing occurs at Edwards Air Force Base on April 28th, 1983. With the spring Skylab rotation complete, NASA now moves towards a very important mission... The first flight of Shuttle-Centaur. STS-61E, flown by Challenger, will use Centaur G to deploy the Lunar Cartographer spacecraft. This is the second mission from the Earth-Moon System Project program, and will provide the highest resolution radar maps of the lunar surface ever. This mission is crucial to ACOV, and future deep space payloads. MISSION OVERVIEW: STS-61E | Commander | Karol Bobko Pilot | Guy Gardner Mission Specialist 1| David Hilmers Mission Specialist 2 | Robert Springer Payload Specialist 1 | Byron Lichtenberg OV-099 "Challenger" Objectives: Deploy Lunar Cartographer with Centaur G stage. This is the first Shuttle mission with a payload specialist, a new role where people not specifically astronauts will be trained to fly on Shuttle missions. A new era of Shuttle missions begins as Challenger lifts off into the morning skies on May 10th, 1983. "AND LIFTOFF OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER THE FIRST FLIGHT OF SHUTTLE-CENTAUR TAKES TO THE SKIES!" Now in orbit, the Shuttle crew can breathe a sigh of relied. Shuttle-Centaur missions, while providing great capabilities, are the most dangerous the Shuttle can do. RTLS aborts (already near impossible) would require venting of Centaur's fuel in order to properly land, and the mass of the stage and payload pushes the Shuttle to its performance limit. This has earned these missions the nickname "Death Star" missions. Nevertheless, Centaur is deployed as soon as possible, and about 2 hours later performs TLI to boost Lunar Cartographer to the Moon. TLI is successful, and Lunar Cartographer is separated from Centaur G, deploying its radar dish and solar arrays. Centaur G will be flung into a heliocentric orbit, while Lunar Cartographer will insert into an elliptical polar mapping orbit in a week to begin its mission. With the shiny explosive out of the payload bay, the next few days are spent on experiments and Earth photography, Challenger de-orbits on Flight Day 4 for a landing at Edwards. A massive step towards future missions has been made with the completion of 61E. President Reagan is at Edwards with First Lady Nancy Reagan, and they speak with the crew of the Shuttle following the landing, and the President makes a speech in front of the landed Shuttle Challenger. In this speech, he announces his government's plans to cooperate further with NASA, and mentions their upcoming suite of robotic missions to Mars. The Shuttle has become an American icon, now a focus of the Reagan administration for PR purposes. Whether being simply a PR tool for the President is ideal, it's certainly getting the budget raised every year, so NASA has no complaints on that front. Doubling up on Centaur missions, Atlantis is launched on STS-61F to wrap up the first half of the year for the Shuttle. This is a classified mission, so coverage is limited, but Centaur being on the mission can't be hidden due to the RBUS being obviously extended and connected. Nevertheless the mission is successful, and Shuttle-Centaur has been successfully demonstrated. With 2 successful Centaur missions demonstrated, the path is clear for ACOV demonstration flights next year. The Shuttle has gone through most of its flight schedule in the first half of the year, with another flight in July and another in the autumn. This has been an unusual schedule, but 5 flights in 6 months is a positive trend in the Shuttle's flight cadence. The Shuttle's turnaround time is the main thing keeping it from flying even more consistently, which has been a point of focus from several Rockwell and NASA studies about future upgrades. Including one presented this month in the Space Shuttle Technical Report from Dryden and Ames. These reports have for a long time been advocating for Shuttle upgrades, and they're starting to gain traction. Meanwhile across the pond, the UKSA has been gaining political relevance, as their Comet B rocket will be providing many new jobs across the UK. NASA has also gotten interested in the project, and has begun discussing possible joint projects with the UKSA. For the Soviets, they are still grinding away at Energia development, with test articles and engine development coming along as of the summer. VKK is also beginning construction for its first flights in a few years. But as late June rolls around, there's one thing on the minds of everybody in the world of spaceflight. Iapyx is about to enter orbit of Saturn. I'd like to thank everyone who has helped this page reach 8,000 views! Thank you for all the continued support and viewership, it means a lot to me as I continue writing!

Look - PC players cover a wide gamut from *really informed geeks who know what is going on beneath the hardware and system requirements to *I'm playing on a repurposed work laptop from last year to *My mom bought me this from Best Buy for Christmas! It's been this way since Dell was new. (Prior to Dell, you kinda had to build your own). We all had huge CRTs on the desk and boring boxes with no lcds and you could listen to your computer connect to the internet. Way, way back then the geeks talked quite a bit about screen resolution. The transition from CRT to LCD screens started in the very late 90s and only became predominant in 2007. But once 1080p (HD) became common and cheap... It became the standard. So much so that no one ever talked about screen resolution when talking about game or hardware performance. Up to the last year and a half or so, all of the reviews, all of the price /performance metrics and talk about what makes a machine mid range or high end comes from this time - when 1080p was presumed. These conventions still bias the language today. 1440p started popping up in the middle teens - Esp when 27 inch screens became available - and they were niche for a very long time. 4k was available on 27 inch screens and 4k OLED TVs but did not really make sense until 32 inch screens became available last year. And so for the first time in decades the old conventions MEAN NOTHING! If you advertise or talk about a mid-range product or machine, that conversation is meaningful only if you specify what resolution you expect to play the game at.

News of Deep-R has left my SPH design team quite crestfallen, I have to say. I have never seen so many of my engineers quite so distressingly crestfallen. Very, very crestfallen. As Chief of Engineering & Design, I had to give them a pep talk. Here's how it went.

This is a thread where we discuss and talk about... you guessed it-Easter Eggs! First and Foremost, the Orange Circle on Bop. I have not gone there myself, but I've seen pics of it. What do you think? My guess is that the corpse of the Elder Kraken is interfering with Bop, due to being buried in the rock of Bop.

i too was thinking about getting wheels. neighbors 2 doors down are moving and want to sell their minivan for five presidents, and i have the funds. its stirred up kind of an existential crisis. i can get it, but i dont really know if im up for this kind of big change. id talk to my shrink about it but the car might be sold before then.

Its also important to note that around a month and a half ago a community member was fired from the team, while the planned slowdown in comms for summer started before this, this definitely played a role in the recent reduction of large scale communications. Anyways to actually talk about the tweet, a bit ago we got confirmation that the purple heating isnt necessarily what eve will look like. IMO the most interesting thing about these pictures is how it ties into something Nate said a while ago. I dont feel like digging up the quote but a while back nate said something along the lines of (iirc, actual wording was probably very different but this is just to get across the vibe of the comment) "Different atmospheric compositions make different heating visuals. While this isnt something we plan on implementing for version 1 of heating, its something that we want to do in future development". The fact that they're showing off multiple colors implies that they may be planning to release the different atmospheric reentry effects first go, which is neat. Its scope creep but in a way I dont really mind, its not like reentry vfx is top of peoples ksp2s wishlists right now and it seems nice from a development perspective to have stuff just be mostly done and you dont need to poke and prod at it much anymore.

In a sense, it's a continuation of my "landing legs settings" question. There are many "tall-and-lanky using landing legs" landers, such as this guy (not mine). However, they are able to land easily (I think) without the bouncing and falling over syndrome during my test. So why are they able to do it, while my attempt failed until I gone with this?

This AMA was extensive, in depth, but still weak, as that depth is on what I gauge are the wrong places: personal stuff, personal wants, personal dreams. Also for the next time, I'll make sure to submit my questions to Kavaeric or Spicat. There's the loaded question about the heat system, which is a simplification of the one we had yet it still comes loaded as "complex". From the thread on the heat system it became clear to me everyone is ready to answer to praise, but nobody was ready to answer genuine questions or respond to possible criticisms or player concerns. In the science question pitting KSP1 against KSP2, that the only answer is approachability... yeah, not happy with that answer. Whilst the answer on the modding questions were good, there's 0 compromise in them, which is a common theme by now, y'all talk about what you want, and not about what will be. Orbital construction: seems pretty basic, he does mention "hundred meter long ships"... is that in a couple giant parts or many normal parts? Colonies: "We are designing...". Bad. I prefer to think it's just a missed form of speech than really starting to design colonies now. Interstellar: Good, a second confirmation that FTL is not in the game. Heat on cold colonies: yet another missed opportunity for colonies to be anything more than set and forget.

No, you got impatient and posted early. I just made sure the pic you wanted to post was on the right number. It was done for you, so no talk of stolen please. TUBM is calm.

Agreed. But a binary fill (of the capped storage unit, possibly coming with an equivalent reduction in the amount of the resource at the mine, still thinking about my thoughts on depleteing material sources) means both play styles get equivalent access to resources. The player who wants to plan his missions based on what the next available transfer window is isn’t hampered in resources compared to the one who is ok warping through it all. Yup. The ideas are fun to talk about in the abstract, but the specifics of balancing it all will be quite tough. I was never one who wanted very complex life support in the game, but in late career saves I always felt guilty warping a great length of time and leaving several kerbals in tiny tin cans in orbits or on planetary surfaces. I would rather there be some incentive to not do that, but recognize I may be in the minority on it. A “this command pod is good for 6 years, then will be inoperable due to Kerbal death/hibernation” would imo lead to more intentional and planed gameplay decisions. I still don’t think that needs to be in the base game. However, for those who like to keep those considerations in mind binary fills would allow that style (even if just player limited) to not be hindered while, from my perspective, not taking anything away from the other side. They can still time warp as much as they want, there’s just no need for the more timeline methodical style to do so. Make the limiting factors the other ones here discussed, and I can approach advancing those limiting factors with a goal of minimizing Kerbal time in tin cans while others can disregard that.

I agree storage/colony VAB limitations (coupled with ways to expand those limits as you progress through the game) are the key to making the core gameplay loop fun and engaging. I guess whether or not the tanks are binary or gradual isn’t a huge issue, as I’m sure there will be mods to let you do whichever method the devs don’t chose. Balancing all of this is going to be one heck of a challenge tho with the many different ways people play KSP1. Hopefully they pull back the curtain on these systems soon, they’ll be more to talk about with a general idea of how this system will work.

Not sure where you were getting that idea from my posts. The launch cost for a basic rocket should be the same amount of funds, metals (or whatever material) and fuel regardless of where you launch it from. In the early game, metals and fuels would be unlimited, but funds would be tight. So you need all three for consistency but only funds matter. Mid-game, you're maybe launching from Duna. The funds cost of the rocket is now trivial because you have lots of funds, not because the cost changed. The metals and fuel costs now matter a lot, because you need to somehow get them on Duna, not because the amounts changed. I hope that's clear. So the focus of gameplay naturally changes from "I need cheap launches from KSP" to "I need ISRU". And later still you need lots of metal and fuel, so the gameplay evolves to "I need a colony that makes these resources at a scale where I no longer care about them." In the late game, none of the resources for basic rockets are scarce at all, you've finished that part of the game. Now it's all about whatever resource powers near-future tech, with exploration to find it and perhaps unique challenges in extracting it. And for the end game you need that, not just as simple ISRU, but as an automation/colony challenge to make vast amounts of it for the interstellar ship. OK, I'm utterly baffled by where the "grinding" comment came from. I assume you've ever played Factorio or some game in the genre it created, so you know it not about grinding. You simply can't progress the game that way, you have to embrace the new mechanics. And as you do the resource you worry about shifts over time. Yes, I totally a agree that "X or Y" can be more fun than "X or 10X", but that's much more dev work. Forgive me if I suggest that's not a useful direction, all things considered. (As a point of reference "451 games" (a kind of immersive sim) are all about "X or Y" to pass every challenge, and while I find them immensely fun they're so expensive to develop that only a few have ever been made.) That being said, Factorio is a whole lot of fun and it barely has any "X or Y" elements at all (coal liquefaction, and belts-or-bots are the only ones that comes to mind, and the game was a success before those). There's an amazing amount of player agency and choices to make in how you solve the problem, rather than which problem do you solve. You also talk about player choices that skip some steps, and while that can be fun for expert play, a lot of that doesn't have to be designed in. Expert players will find all sorts of skips you never designed in. But I don't think you should make content that, on a first playthrough, many players will skip (other than easter-egg type stuff), because again that's an expensive approach. Limited dev resources are usually better spent making content that all players will see. Of course, KSP does have replay value, so it wouldn't be a waste, but to me any sort of (designed-in) "alternate path" stuff should be added after the game is finished. It makes good DLC/expansion content, after all. But there is some "X or Y" in this approach and even a bit of "skip" choices, in that at each transition point between "how do I produce enough Resource A" and "how do I produce enough Resource B", there are interesting choices to make. E.g., as you start making a colony on Minmus, do you try to bootstrap that with lots of launched from Kerbin, or lean into colony ISRU and have it mostly build itself, or as an expert player decide "you know, I bet a colony on Gilly is a better long-term bet, and almost as easy" and skip Minmus altogether, There's no real problem with rocket parts and fuel being unlimited on Kerbin, any more than inexhaustible ore patches are necessarily a problem with automation games. You don't need to limit them on Kerbin, you just need something that makes launching resources from Kerbin at scale impractical. For the mid-game, when you're e.g. trying to build a colony on Duna, I would go with simply he funds cost. Lets assume you need really substantial amounts of metals (or whatever the construction resource is) to build and expand the colony. While the funds cost launching individual rockets might be a non-issue at this point in the game, the cost to launch 1000 is a different matter (or as Pthigrivi suggests, time could be the bottleneck.) As soon as you add automation to a game, the challenge becomes about scale, because the gameplay is about producing unlimited resources. Just because you have some unlimited source on Kerbin doesn't trivialize the game, but is rather the start of the chain. For building on Duna, you could try to launch everything from Kerbin, but as long as that doesn't scale well that's fine. As long as launching from e.g. a Minmus colony is a much easier approach, it's fine. Assuming here that a Minums colony would become much more efficient toolchain for launches to Duna than KSC launches, which wouldn't be very hard to design in.

The purpose of the paper is to assess Exxon's modeling with newer data. (This particular chart is from 1982). It shows strong correlation, which corroborates the validity of the modeling. The delta-temperature is zero-based. There's no benefit to charting the CO2 PPM to zero, because that's not a condition that's existed, and it would be discontinuous anyway, as soon as CO2 concentration ceased being the primary controlling variable in the physical system. The usual datum is 1850 for industrialization, and hundreds if not thousands of temperature stations existed worldwide by 1900. I've actually visited a science station that was built in 1897 and had a LONG conversation with the docent. They did some hardcore observations there. 1 deg C in that amount of time, over the entire Earth is a MASSIVE amount of energy--It's relevant. Particularly since we know that the ocean induces a LOT of thermal lag. So, a 1 deg change represents much more energy storage than a 1 deg surface temp change indicates. Independent models being corroborated. Possibly from the same or similar sources, so I'll give you that one. Originally published internally at Exxon for making business decisions about the effects of drilling a new field. Only obtained by the public in 2015. They weren't trying to impress anyone, and the conclusions drawn were contrary to the business interests. A manipulative chart would have wanted to downplay the effects. Extractive industries have higher profit margins, and it was already their expertise. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal were already in use, but that required investment, and the risk of moving outside of their existing expertise. Short-term profits and risk aversion prevented them from moving sooner. Today, oil company investment in green R&D is about 1% of their budget. (i.e. meaningless). The source for that is a recent TED talk by Al Gore, which you may not respect as a source, but I'm comfortable with him getting basic company-provided numbers correct. See the above. My unsupported conspiracy theory involves oil as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire Renewables are much easier to decentralize and don't provide the same opportunities for control. This is fair and possible, but not necessarily true. The argument is, "Can you get data that's more precise than the precision of the instruments, and is it fair to report it as such?" The answer is definitely yes. Many depleted traces, cross-correlated with each other. This is much more difficult to do, but we proved plate tectonics in a very similar way. Lots of geological and paleomagnetic observations, and I'm sure many of them were contradictory and confounding. And yet somehow we're not arguing about the validity of this: Long-term and short-term data. Those damn geologists and their AGENDA! They were all paid off by Big Dinosaur! It's a Silurian plot! Ours match pretty well now, and I live in a very weird area with crazy geography and lots of microclimates. That said, "Climate is not weather" We're looking at the global average over a long period of time, not the daily bumps and jumps that are highly influenced by local variations in terrain and vegetation.