Search the Community

Of course. If we only "overreacted" when a hungry lion is in the immediate vicinity, I don't think we would come a long way as a society. A car is just a car, after all. So is money. Music. Computers. Biology.. Whatever tickles you... But it tickles, and that's a good thing. I'm fully aware that I have a first world problem. But if there was no such thing at this point, that would mean that all of us here would be in a nuclear wasteland, fighting over remaining canned food. So I'm happy to battle over opinions @Dakota Maybe this exists, and has slipped my attention... Is there a chance to at least get an overview of how news/updates are done? If you have a feature X, when do you post it as a sneakpeek? How decisions are made to share it at all? What's allowed and not allowed to talk about? I'm having troubles to form a proper question here.

I mean really love this team and I think things are coming along nicely but I believe even they see it as getting on base after a tough at bat. Unfortunately we're living in a really toxic gaming culture and its got to be hard for passionate developers and designers to gauge real reactions and actionable feedback in a clear and honest way. The atmosphere from a vocal player standpoint is to take all of these things really personally, or pretend to take them really personally, and then engage in an over-the-top Kabuki dance of feigned rage demanding groveling supplication from the corporate entities they've been wronged by because they think thats the only way games improve. But it's kind of like Cable news outlets constantly running BREAKING NEWS banners. If you're always turning everything up to 11 then people who might listen might as well just tune you out. If players believe rage-bombing every title that doesn't meet their expectations is the only way to convince developers to improve their products then eventually developers are just going to take those flame-campaigns less seriously. I would guess they already are. They'll look to more balanced and genuinely informative heuristics to identify the worst problems and work their way up from there. As test case lets talk about Cyberpunk--widely dragged and laughed at when it first released and probably deservedly so. It probably should have incubated for a couple more years. And now all of the initial hard work of good writing and good VA and story can be capitalized on because they fixed most of the bugs and redesigned the core mechanics into something incredible. Which is great! I genuinely hope as colonies and interstellar and resources are phased in the folks at Intercept remain open to making big internal changes to game mechanics depending on how things play out. What matters in the end is how the 1.0 product actually plays. Is it fun? Is it deep? Are the actual mechanics well tuned? is QOL up to snuff? Thats what matters. In my experience most people in this world are doing their best to be good at what they do. They're already incentivized to do that. Heaping shame and vitriol on them usually makes things worse, not better. The changes Cyberpunk made weren't just because players dragged CDPR through the mud. In fact the more substantive changes outside of bug-fixes--police system, fixing drops and the tech tree, etc. only come from very specific and clear feedback on whats not working and then having the time and creative process to create new and better systems. I personally would argue if you as a gamer are dissatisfied you produce more specific and actionable feedback on whats wrong--and passionately so!--rather than focus on grievances.

SpaceX/Starship is the go-to option to talk about I think, but I don't think they'll make a proposal, at least on their own (though, that is probably what a lot of people thought before HLS, so what do I know). Relativity/Impulse have a Mars landing mission on the horizon, and could form the backbone to a project to pursue a return mission, as Tom Mueller is leading Impulse, and has a lot of experience with methalox (that he's applying to Helios), while also having looked into ISRU for Starship. They might even pull in SpaceX for this reason - giving them real data on making methalox on the Martain surface. Just based on having a slated Mars mission Blue Origin/RocketLab are another potential team, set to launch this summer (EscaPADE), but it's a pair of satellites, not a lander. So probably not. NASA needs a firmer deadline for sample return, NET 2040 is too far, and runs the risk of eventual cancellation. When NASA makes their selections, they need a closer date, preferably in the early/mid 2030s, about a decade from now.

RocketStar has made discussion on this forum a couple of times, but with some of their older projects. This one's spicier. I just randomly came across an article effectively repeating RocketStar's press release, and I kind of wanted to take this one apart a little bit. To get the tl;dr out of the way, the claim is that they are boosting their 1U pulsed plasma drive with fusion to give it an extra kick "for free". How much of a kick isn't really specified. There is no point of going over an article, so lets just go to the source with RocketStar's Press Release. Note that they are referencing real experiments that have confirmed the reaction and talk about the upcoming flights of their current FireStar drive, but don't say much about the fusion results beyond detection of gamma and alpha radiation. Which is cool in itself, but doesn't say much for the practical side of things. They do specifically clarify in the press release that the "fusion boosted" really means "fusion-triggered-fission-boosted," which is something that needs to be taken apart a bit. Specifically, the claim is that by introducing boron to the water, which is used as main propellant, they are getting boron-proton fusion, which results in an unstable state of carbon, which decays to alpha particles. The release does not specify the isotopes used, but boron does come in 10B and 11B, with the latter being more abundant and more interesting of the two. The process 11B + p -> 12C is of interest here. As we all, know, 12C is stable, however, there is a rather well known Hoyle State of carbon which isn't. The natural way in which Hoyle State comes up is when stars burn helium in their cores. The process involves two 4He nuclei coming together to form a highly unstable 8Be nucleus, which has just enough time to collide with a third 4He nucleus to form the Hoyle State of 12C. The latter is highly unstable, and is almost like the 3 alpha particles bouncing around in a common strong force potential than a real nucleus. Consequently, most of the time it decays back to three alpha particles, and the star has to try again. Occasionally, however, the 12C** state emits a gamma, decays to a lower energy 12C* state and finally to ground state 12C. The Hoyle State has 7.7MeV above carbon's ground state, which is a lot. The full proton-proton cycle is about 24MeV. So we're talking a good fraction of typical nuclear energies. On paper, this works. The total binding energy of 11B is 76.21MeV and ground state 12C is 92.15MeV. That gives 11B + p plenty of energy to form Hoyle State, so long as protons are hot enough to overcome the repulsion barrier. It is much lower for proton-proton or even D-T fusion, since 11B has the charge much more distributed through the larger nucleus, but I don't really have any numbers to attach to it at this time. I'll try to find either something from the cited SBIR experiments or other publications at a later point to try and get a back-of-the-envelope estimate for how much fusion/fission we are actually expecting in a chamber of a plasma drive. What we have that's probably pretty reliable are the specs of the current generation FireStar M 1.4, which does not involve any fusion/fission processes. Just a conventional pulsed plasma propulsion unit, utilizing water, ionizing arc, and an accelerator cavity. Since this is a commercial product, and validation experiments are apparently available under the NDA, I have no reason to suspect them from being far off. Cited directly from RocketStar's website. The ISP cited is consistent with the total impulse with 250g of propellant and implies mean exhaust velocity of about 71km/s. If the protons are accelerated by the field of the same strength, they can be potentially traveling about twice as fast, resulting in effective plasma temperatures of up to low mega-Kelvins on collisions. That feels like ballpark reasonable for what it'd take for 11B + p fusion to take place. But again, I don't have good estimates for that at this time. On the net, interesting. I want to see the numbers attached to the claimed efficiency boost. Also, the fact that they're calling it a fusion rocket when it's really more of a fission rocket feels a little scummy, but maybe they were trying to not scare people with neutron radiation associated with fission? This is, if real, an aneutronic process, so it would be reasonably safe for the applications for which this is meant. Either way, a real nuclear-boosted drive that's commercially available is really exciting, even if the performance benefits are going to be marginal. Finally, even the base model, without fusion/fission is a really nifty example of how far the commercial plasma propulsion has gone. A 1U propulsion unit that can provide a 3U sat with 4.6km/s of delta-V? Yeah, that's not bad. With the right planning, you can take your 3U from LEO all the way to Mars utilizing a boost from Luna. Neat.

I need to talk to the config's owner and ask for permission

This is the KSPI-E support thread where you can ask questions on KSP Interstellar Extended If you want to chat about KSP Interstellar you can do it at our new Guilded Server (old: KSP Interstellar Discord Server ) For talk about new development and features request you have to be in the KSPI-E Development thread For any release related news or issues, please discuss them at KSPIE Release thread KSP Interstellar Extended (KSPIE) is a plugin for Kerbal Space Program, designed to encourage bootstrapping toward ever more advanced levels of technology as well as utilizing In-Situ resources to expand the reach of Kerbal civilization. KSP Interstellar Extended aims to continue in Fractals original KSPI vision in providing a realistic road to the stars. Players will first gain access to contemporary technologies that have not been widely applied to real space programs such as nuclear reactors, electrical generators and thermal rockets. By continuing down the CTT tech tree and performing more research, these parts can be upgraded and later surpassed by novel new technologies such as fusion and even antimatter power. We attempt to portray both the tremendous power of these technologies as well as their drawbacks, including the tremendous difficulty of obtaining resources like antimatter and the difficulties associated with storing it safely. The goal being to reward players who develop advanced infrastructure on other planets with new, novel and powerful technologies capable of helping Kerbals explore planets in new and exciting ways. The principal goal of KSP Interstellar is to expand Kerbal Space Program with interesting technologies and to provide a logical and compelling technological progression beginning with technologies that could have been available in the 1970s/1980s, then technologies that could be available within the next few years, progressing to technologies that may not be available for many decades, all the way out to speculative technologies that are physically reasonably but may or may not ever be realizable in practice. KSPIE also introduces a modified version of the CTT (which is a hard depenancy) which add additional technodes and integrates them better with other tech nodes If you appreciate what I create, please consider donating me a beer you can donate me with PayPal or support me by Patreon Download & Installation Instructions step 1: remove any existing KSPI installation (GameData\WarpPlugin folder) step 2: download KSPI-E and extract/copy the GameData to your KSP Folder (allow overwrite) Recommended scale: KSPIE part are based on real world parts. For realistic balance, it is recommended to scale Kerbin to at least 2.5x or 3.2x size and if you want to get serious scale to 6.4x or 10x size. Scaling can be accomplished via Kopernicus, Sigma Dimensions, and scale preset configs are available through Rescale! Recommended Part Mods Supported Tech Trees Recommended Star System/ Galaxy mods: Recommended Tool mods: Suggested Challenges: Documentation & Tutorials KSPI is one of the most sophisticated mods for KSP. To help you get started, you can make use of the following resources: The most recent tutorial (RUS/ ENG) KSPIE reference spreadsheet by Friznit Beamed Power Sheet Sheet Beamed Power Calculator KSPI-E Guide by flyguybc KSPI-E for Dummies KSPI-E Guide by Nansuchao KSPI-E Technical Guide KSPI-E Wiki Mission/Vessel Examples Neren Solar Power Station flyguybc SSTO Interstellar Adventure Video: KSPI-E Youtube Videos: 9 part Russian Tutorial by @ThirdOfSeven 3 part EnglishTurorial by @Aaron Also: Pebblebed Thermal Turbojet SSTO Demo Warpdrive antigravity tutorial Support KSPI-E add support for the following mods

Hey! I’m Jon Cioletti, the Senior Technical Artist focused on lighting and VFX here at Intercept Games! In celebration of the upcoming total solar eclipse, today we are looking at some of the lighting tech around eclipses in KSP2 - but first we have to talk about eclipses in REAL life! To help with that, we reached out to one of our friends over at NASA: Senior Visualization Designer AJ Christensen. AJ works at NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS), where he develops visualization techniques and designs data-driven imagery for scientific analysis and public outreach. AJ was kind enough to take some time out of his busy day to answer a few questions to kick this Dev Diary off right: Can you very basically describe an eclipse and why it is a special event? There are a lot of objects in space that pass between the Earth and the Sun at various times. We usually call it a “transit” when something that appears much smaller than the disk of the Sun passes in front of it, like an asteroid, or the International Space Station, or Venus. Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky But through a crazy coincidence of physical size and distance from Earth, the apparent size of the disk of the Moon in the sky is almost exactly the same as the apparent size of the disk of the Sun in the sky, and so when the Moon transits in front of the Sun, we call it an eclipse because it blocks out a significant part of the Sun’s light. The Moon actually orbits around Earth approximately every 27 days, so you might think we would see an eclipse every 27 days, but because of the tilt of that orbit, the Moon is usually not lined up with the Earth and Sun. For this reason, a lot of orbits result in no eclipse, or only a partial eclipse. The total eclipse happening on April 8th is a rare event where the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun are all in a straight line, and the United States will be on the “day side” of the planet, meaning we get to experience the Sun being completely blocked out by the Moon for a few minutes in any given location along the path of totality. eclipseElements60fps_4-11-2023a_total_diagram.mp4 Credit: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio What should people expect to see when viewing the eclipse? Anyone within the contiguous United States will be able to see the eclipse in some way on April 8th. If you are outside the path of totality, you will have several hours to witness a partial eclipse in the middle of the day. This means that the Sun will have a bit of a crescent shape, but it will not completely block the Sun. This is a fun time to put on approved solar eclipse viewing protective glasses and look at the shape of the sun, and to make pinhole projectors out of colanders or crisscrossed fingers to see lots of little crescent shadows on the ground. If you are inside the path of totality, which is about 100 miles wide and travels from Texas to Maine, you will see that partial eclipse for several hours, but right in the middle will be 3-4 minutes of totality when the bright disk of the Sun called the “photosphere” is completely blocked. During totality, the temperature will drop, crickets may start chirping, and you will see sunset colors in the sky in 360-degrees all around you. totalGlow_4k_60fps_4-14-2023a_2160p60_2 (1).mp4 Credit: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio If you are able, it is definitely worth trying to get inside the path of totality. One place of many that you can find more information to plan a trip is this visualization my colleagues made: Credit: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio What happens to the Sun’s light during an eclipse? In the words of “Mr. Eclipse” Fred Espenak, a retired NASA astrophysicist, “there are no special eclipse rays.” The Sun continues to be what it always is – an extremely bright object in the sky that hurts to look at. This is why NASA insists that anyone viewing the eclipse should wear approved eclipse-viewing lenses, because even during a partial eclipse, you are still looking directly at the Sun. (Note, cameras can also be damaged if they look directly at the sun without a solar filter.) However, in the last seconds before totality, there are some dazzling effects we can see. The first to occur is called the “Diamond Ring Effect”. This is where some of the sun’s light wraps around the horizon of the moon like a ring, and a sliver of light still at the edge creates a huge amount of glare like a diamond. Credit: NASA/Carla Thomas The next effect we call “Baily’s Beads” which are visible for only a moment – these are a line of bright spots of light that poke through the valleys on the edge of the Moon. Credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani And finally, once the Sun is completely covered by the moon, we get to see magic of the Solar corona, long tendrils of illuminated plasma in the Sun’s atmosphere. The corona is always there in the sky, but it is usually completely covered up by glare from the disk of the Sun, which is about 1 million times brighter than the corona. For these 3 or 4 minutes of totality, we recommend taking off your eclipse glasses and soaking in the corona with your bare eyes. Credit: Miloslav Druckmüller, Peter Aniol, Shadia Habbal/NASA Goddard, Joy Ng Once totality ends, Baily’s Beads and the Diamond Ring will appear again and we recommend putting your eclipse glasses back on to enjoy the rest of the partial eclipse. How does that inform your work with the Visualizations team at NASA? My team is called the Scientific Visualization Studio, and we use both observed and computed data to make images and videos that explain science research. We have been working closely with scientists and communicators across NASA to create computer graphics imagery to help explain what the April 8th eclipse will look like on the Earth’s surface and in the sky, the surprising geometry of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, and more. We even recently published a game aimed toward younger audiences on NASA’s SpacePlace website called “Snap It!” that gets into what transits are and how eclipses are a special kind of transit. You can find it at this link: https://go.nasa.gov/SnapIt. And, of course, you can view thousands of visualizations about the eclipse and other science topics at our website: svs.gsfc.nasa.gov. ---- So now that we have a good idea of what happens during eclipses in real life, let's jump into the game! Directional Lighting To try and simulate the lighting we see in our solar system we use a variety of systems, but for the eclipse we’ll be focusing on our direct lighting solution with the star of the solar system: Kerbol. While a star technically emits light in all directions, in our game we only really need to care about the star’s light that reaches our player. To handle this, we use a Directional Light which, by definition, is located infinitely far away and emits in one direction only. This works great for lighting our worlds with an intense light from a single distant source like a star. This directional light is also responsible for the direction that all shadows are cast in game. To make this directional light behave more like an actual star, we attenuate its intensity based on distance and occlusion. Distance is the easier of the two. If the player flies their Kerbals way out towards Eeloo they’ll noticed their vessel gets much dimmer. Looking back at Kerbol they can see it shrinking in the skybox as well. To manage this, in the lighting code we attenuate the light’s intensity based on the Inverse Square Law which states that “the intensity of the radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance”. The formula looks a little something like this: 1 /x ² . Things like artist adjustable overrides and camera auto-exposure play into the lighting too, but in general throughout the solar system, the further you get from the star, the dimmer it gets. For smaller objects like terrain, buildings, and parts, we use shadows to show light being occluded. But for something as huge as a celestial body we track how much they block our Kerbals from the star itself to attenuate the light intensity appropriately. As an example, we’ll use a solar eclipse with Kerbol and the Mun. Simulated eclipse Intersection of Circles When you think about it in a flat 2D space, this is just two circles intersecting each other. If that’s the case then we can solve for the area of overlap to determine how occluded Kerbol is. The diagrams and formulas below show more of the math being done behind the scenes: Our lighting system holds a reference to the current SOI celestial body, that body’s star and any neighboring bodies. All of these bodies are projected into a normalized sphere around the player where the system checks if any bodies are going to intersect. We can quickly verify this by checking if the sum of the body’s radii are greater than or equal to the distance between them. Once we pass this check, the intersection code starts and we begin solving for the amount of overlap to determine the percentage a body is blocked. First step is to solve for the distance each circle is from the center of the intersection. To do this we use the equation of a circle and populate it with the values we know. C₁: x ² + y ² = r ₁² C₂: ( x - d )² + y ² = r ₂² Then, isolate y ² in each equation and combine both equations like so: y ²= r ₁² - d ₁² y ²= r ₂² - ( d₁ - d )² r ₁² - d ₁² = r ₂² - ( d ₁ - d )² Finally, we can solve for d ₁ and d ₂ : d ₁ = ( r ₁² - r ₂² + d ²) / 2d d ₂ = d - d ₁ After that we can begin solving for the angle of the sector formed when tracing the radii of our celestial body to the intersection points: With our new θ₁ and θ₂ in radians, we can solve for the area of each body’s overlapping segment A₁ and A₂. The following formula is derived by subtracting the area of the triangle from the area of the sector formed by this angle: Area of a triangle = ( 1 / 2 ) r² sin⁡θ Area of a sector = ( 1 / 2 ) r² θ Area of segment = ( ( 1 / 2 ) r² θ ) - ( ( 1 / 2 ) r² sin⁡θ ) = ( r² / 2 ) * ( θ - sin⁡θ ) A1 = ( ( r₁² ) / 2 ) * ( θ₁ - sin⁡θ₁ ) A2 = ( ( r₂² ) / 2 ) * ( θ₂ - sin⁡θ₂ ) Total Area = A1 + A2 And there you have it, the area of overlap for the celestial body. This can then be used to determine the percentage of visibility the further body has by subtracting the occluded area from the total projected circle area and with that number we can scale the intensity of the light emitted by that source body. In our case for the eclipse that will dim the Kerbol’s intensity as the Mun passes over EclipseAtKSC_Attenuation.mp4 Simulated eclipse over the KSC Lens Flare Occlusion The final piece of the puzzle here is the lens flare of the star changing to show that it has been occluded by the Mun. The same visible percentage value is passed through to the lens flare system where it attenuates the scale of the flare to match the reduction of directional lighting in the environment. Unfortunately, this doesn’t capture the details of a total solar eclipse though. EclipseAtKSC_LensFlareAndAttenuation.mp4 Simulated eclipse over the KSC from the ground We have plans to improve the look of eclipses and celestial body occlusion beyond attenuation and add more noticeable “flair” to a total eclipse like Kerbol’s corona peeking out from behind the Mun! We’ll be keeping a close eye on the next total solar eclipse as reference and inspiration! And, if you're nearby and able to, we hope that you join us on April 8th in safely viewing this awesome event right above our heads. Thanks to AJ and everyone over at NASA for contributing to this Dev Diary - and thanks to you for reading! Cioletti .ipsEmbeddedVideo { width: 700px; }

Oh heavens to Betsy, we forgot all about the thread where they joked about putting imperial units in KSP. Quick everyone, we must finish that riveting debate! Seriously though, the thread isn't derailed so much as the topic is now something YOU do not wan't to talk about. No, they are telling you that you think something is fixed because you have not seen the cracks yet. They have been very patient trying to explain it to people in this thread. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. Why do people think the burden of proof is on the poster who went and did reserach on the topic, and not the poster who reads the post and goes "I don't believe you. I haven't looked, but you sound wrong." What about imperial tons? Back to topic and all that. (I know it wasn't you who mentioned getting back to topic, I'm just making a bad joke)

Exactly... currently. When you set out to do something more bigger and ambitious, than KSP 1 in this context, you have to plan ahead. I won't pretend that I know anything about that physics engine. But, I do have a little knowledge about programming, and as stated above, I'm very much curious how they plan to execute many things. Rocket wobble is just one of them. Continuous long burns, heat transfer, battery draining, etc... computations on all vessels during time warp... those are the meat mechanics of the (new) game. Thus far, as @PDCWolf pointed out, there was a talk about a short term and long term solution for rocket wobble. They went with middle term solution, involving autostruts. Why? I'm not dissing devs. If you asked me how to implement these things efficiently, I'd say wait for home quantum computers. The point I'm trying to make is that, we haven't got any indication on how these crucial things will be resolved. After so many years of development apparently,(judging by autostruts, they don't have any indication either. If they do, I'd be very curious to read an update on that. I don't care if I don't get any new parts, or parachute bug resolved within the next few months. I care whether the team is capable of developing the core mechanics needed for this game. Falling back to autostruts doesn't inspire much confidence, and I pray to be proven, oh so very wrong.

Since it was clogging up the spacex discussion, you can talk about starlink here!

1st rule of ban club is you dont talk about ban club. 2nd rule of ban club is you dont talk about ban club. banned. 230703012024 new page!

That's a KAS problem, not Pathfinder. The following (old) post and the one after it talk about some work arounds for when this happens - to my knowledge no complete fix was ever made (at least there's nothing in the releases changelog that looks like it addresses this issue):

There was another Starship debate over on a Discord server today, as seems to happen every couple days like clockwork, and I came away from it with somewhat of a new perspective on the Starship program. Many of the criticisms of Starship ultimately come down to the idea that it is too ambitious, that SpaceX has bitten off more than they can chew here. Well, that and taking off the cuff remarks by Elon (for example 1m per flight, 1000 passengers in p2p) as gospel and using them to show why the program is obviously stupid and the whole thing is a scam. But the first one is more interesting and what I thought about a lot today. Ignore HLS for a second, I'll talk about that later. I think a lot of people would have liked to see SpaceX originally take (or pivot to) a more conservative approach to a next generation launch vehicle as a stepping stone to a fully and rapidly reusable launch vehicle rather than skipping straight to something with Starship levels of ambition. Like, for example, a fully reusable but not rapidly reusable vehicle, or a very large partially reusable vehicle. But why? The obvious answer is that it allows them to create something that blows Falcon out of the water for considerably less effort than Starship would take. ...But why? They have the market completely cornered. Nobody can compete with Falcon, even discounting Starlink. Everyone except possibly Blue Origin and Relativity is stuck trying to create a rocket marginally competitive with what Falcon 9 was a few years ago. Serious competition is at least 10 years away. SpaceX doesn't need to do a thing to completely dominate the space industry for the foreseeable future. They can sit on their hands, maybe make Falcon block 6 if Relativity is looking threatening enough in a few years time. Basically do what ULA did. What could they do with a Falconlike SHLV that they could not do with Falcon? Large stations if anyone was interested, maybe small scale medium-high cost Moon missions, being the de facto Artemis launch vehicle. But not much that is commercially viable. Not many people are going to pay 120 million for 100 tons to orbit. There would be a market, but as we are seeing with Falcon Heavy, not a huge market. SpaceX does not want to launch a handful people to the Moon for tens of billions of dollars. They don't want to sit on their hands and accumulate wealth. They do not want to keep making minor improvements to Falcon 9 forever. Whether or not you agree with this goal, SpaceX wants to create a self sustaining city on Mars, or at least, create some of the prerequisite technologies required for that to happen. It is not a financial goal. It is an emotional goal. SpaceX is fundamentally an emotionally motivated company, and while finances can't be ignored, they are a means to an end. If money was the primary goal, Elon would have created sensible businesses with the PayPal money. instead, SpaceX was created out of spite for the Russians and frustration with the state of the industry. Since then, they have plastered windows on things with no business having windows on them (Cargo Dragon, I4 dome, doubling down on Starship having a huge window), dragged the space industry, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, with many of the major advancements financed on their own dime, made Dragon 2, their spacesuits, the crew access arm, the launch tower, and much more look stylish and cool (depends on taste), arguably at the expense of a small amount of functionality, and strapped a meme payload to what was at the time the most capable operational rocket in the world. I rewatched the IAC 2016 talk today, and while almost all of the details have changed, the core architecture has remained the same. That talk laid it out clear, this core architecture was designed with Mars in mind. In order to create a self sustaining city on Mars under reasonable economic conditions, a rapidly and fully reusable vehicle must be mass produced, and it must use propellants practical to produce on Mars, and orbital refilling must be utilized. While an incremental approach to developing such a system does have some merits, if there is a proper time to dive in headfirst into the onslaught of engineering challenges associated with such a ridiculously lofty goal, it is while they are a decade ahead of everyone else. In order to succeed, everything known about rocket building needs to be challenged. Anything short of a high performance mass producible rapidly and fully reusable rocket is not an acceptable stopping point, and SpaceX has made that clear with how often they threw out things that weren't working. They tested every assumption about rocket development made to date, knowing full well most of them would be reinforced, but a few would give way to unexplored potential. They threw out carbon fiber after investing a ton of money into the hardware to produce 9 and 12 meter tanks. They threw out the Florida starship site (for now at least). They made a water tower fly, and then threw out the next six prototypes for not being good enough. They built or partially built 26 starships and 3 boosters before getting something that might get to orbit, each of which had major changes from the previous, and then threw B4/S20 out practically on the eve of flight. They tried a new launch pad, and when that didn't work, they threw it out and tried something else. They tried a new form of staging, and when that didn't work, they threw it out and tried hot staging. They tried hydrolox Raptor, and it didn't work, they threw it out. Large scale ITS Raptor, thrown out. Raptor 1, 1.5, etcetera, thrown out. Raptor 2, on its way out because Raptor 3. There's even been talk of a different engine altogether. They have produced hundreds of Raptors by now and they haven't even gotten to orbit, that's more than the total production of most other rocket engines. ITS re entry configuration, thrown out. Two strakes, thrown out. Tripod with two flaps and a rudder, thrown out. Body flaps, modified numerous times. Initial tiles, thrown out. Bare metal, thrown out. Transpiration cooling, thrown out. Back to tiles because that might actually be the best option, several iterations, throwing them out until they are good enough. Can't land on the launch mount? Can't crane a ship from a landing pad to the launch pad fast enough to colonize Mars? Throw it out, try landing directly in the crane. They are pushing the envelope in all directions trying to find anything that will get them closer to their goal and they can and will throw out any design, no matter how firmly entrenched, if it falls short of their goals. They have created the largest satellite constellation ever (okay, if you're gonna be that guy, project West Ford was indeed way bigger) just to finance the rate at which they throw stuff away. Even that satellite constellation is designed to be thrown away and replaced every five years. This whole time, also pioneering the early stages of mass production necessary to make the city on Mars a reality. But this city can't be built alone. A rocket such as what Starship aims to be is a prerequisite for a Mars colony, but not sufficient on its own. So every so often, SpaceX will put Starship out there to get people thinking about what such a revolutionary rocket could do in fields it isn't even optimized for. A Moon base, gigantic space stations, crewed missions to the moons of Jupiter, probes ejected from Earth at insane speeds with refueled expendable upper stages, and even point to point. Some of these are more realistic than others. If enough people start thinking about what this could do, some of them will start trying to make it a reality, and some of them might just end up producing Mars hardware in a few decades time. Then, SpaceX decided to go "Hey, NASA, Starship can also be used as a Moon lander!" And in a move that was unexpected to most external observers, and may have even been unexpected internally, NASA, strapped for cash and with the only other status quo choices being "expensive consortium led by a company with no orbital experience" and "oopsie daisy, negative mass moment", saw a chance for an incredibly radical future, and went "Okay. You have four years. Show us what you can do." Of course, this is where it all went a little sideways. You can fiddle around with your revolutionary side project all you want when your only limiting factor is how long it takes other space companies to catch up with you. There are no customers to complain when it takes twice as long as planned, or keeps blowing up over and over and over again. While HLS has been great for emphasizing Starship's legitimacy and getting even more people thinking about it, now SpaceX can't just keep throwing stuff out ad nauseum, it actually has to deliver results in a reasonable timeframe. Granted, some of this is the government's fault, selecting a lander in 2021 and expecting a landing in 2024 was never a realistic goal no matter who is doing the design. But now, a program with the single constraint of "Get lots of stuff to Mars, toss away everything that can't do that" has to be made to support the most important human spaceflight mission in decades in relatively short order. It must be safe and with a relatively frozen design, and the tankers must be produced and rapidly launched with not much more tweaking. I don't know yet whether the added cash and legitimacy is outbalanced by the conflicting requirements. These conflicting requirements seem to be where a lot of the conflict is coming from. Since HLS, Starship is both a vehicle that needs to be chaotic in the near term in order to be revolutionary in the long term, and stable in the near term in order to get us back to the Moon. I don't know if they will make it to Mars, much less build a city, but if anyone can do it in the next hundred years, it is probably going to be them, and they are not going to stop trying to reach that goal until they go bankrupt or the CEO dies and doesn't get replaced with a like minded person. That was a lot more than I intended to write. TLDR: SpaceX is emotionally/ideologically motivated. Their ultimate goal is to colonize Mars. If their goal is to make money and remain competitive, they already have that, no reason for something Starship level. Something in between Falcon and Starship also does not make sense if their goal is merely to remain competitive. Starship makes sense viewed through the Mars lens, its other applications are byproducts. I suspect long term an optimized Lunar architecture will look a lot different. SpaceX will not design themselves into something that cannot be evolved into a rocket capable of creating a city on Mars. This means a lot of throwing out stuff that doesn't work, pushing boundaries, and lots of failures. Starship won the HLS contract, which is not a contract you want to have rapid iteration, boundary pushing, and frequent failures on. The two conflicting aspirations for what Starship is supposed to be are causing some amount of conflict and debate. In the time it took me to write that, the news that the ship firing today was a single engine maneuvering burn test arrived. This is completely unrelated to the above wall of text, but given how small LEO maneuvers will be (I'd guess this is simulating a de-orbit burn), that static fire might have actually been full mission duration.

We need to have a talk. I understand the artistic choice of having the game world be realistically depicted while the UI is representative of Kerbal technology with ASCII art and pixelated graphics and icons. I like the idea. But some of the graphics are too pixelated. Just look at the icons in map view. It hurts the eyes.

I wanted to put this out into the community about the next major roadmap updates to see if anyone agrees. Obviously the team has a plan for what features should come when but they have also said they will be flexible based on what the community wants. Perhaps this can be a thread to show what the community wants first. I am extremely excited for the colonies update and can't wait to see KSP2 finally achieve features that will separate itself from it's predecessor. It is my understanding from interviews and KSP2 development posts that the colonies update really only brings building colonies into the game. The only real purpose they will bring to the game is looking cool and launching vessels from whatever planet/moon you want in the Kerbolar system. That is all fun and good, honestly I would probably have hours of fun with that anyways if development stays on track with the current roadmap; However, this would also mean that the colonies wouldn't get any "True" functionality until after the interstellar update. Once the colonies update comes we will likely see a large gap between that and the interstellar update sense there is such a large amount of new mechanics and development that will need to go into new solar systems and how to get there. There was a 10 month wait for the first big update of KSP2 "For Science!", I understand that was to fix a lot of bugs on launch so I don't expect Colonies to take as long but I wouldn't expect it in the next 3-4 months. If we estimated an average of 6 months between each update that would mean we could get colonies around June or July, then interstellar around December or January of 2025, and then go back to resource gathering by Jun or July of 2025. Having a whole year between being able to build colonies and being able to utilize colonies in the way that I believe the devs want them to be used seems out of place to me. While I and many others are extremely excited for interstellar, I think we would also appreciate the colonies and their functionality being completely fledged out before going into the next "BIG NEW THING" for KSP2. To me it does not make sense to add construction of colonies, have a gap and add interstellar, then go back and add functionality to colonies. Another point to make, sadly, is bug fixes. The colonies update will likely have some things to it that the community will have notes on what could be done better, of course these things can be addressed in smaller updates in between colonies and interstellar, but I think it would also be good to have the next big roadmap goal also be connected to colonies, making the focus of the development team "locked in" on getting these parts of the game perfect before moving on. If resource gathering is next on the list from colonies it would also allow them to add big "second thought"/"lesser priority" things to colonies seamlessly in addition to the exploration roadmap goal (similar to how For Science! added reentry heating). Lastly I would like to talk about integration of the resource gathering and transportation system from interplanetary to interstellar. Resource distribution on this large of a scale seems to me like a hard case to crack, I think there will be some errors in the first version that the becomes publicly available. I would personally rather have those struggles on interplanetary missions rather than interstellar ones in the first implementation of resource gathering. If we switched interstellar and exploration on the roadmap hopefully it would mean that the resource distribution systems can be perfected and easily ported to interstellar. I would rather have headache and be able to look at it as just a problem with the one feature of resource distribution rather than feel like its frustration with interstellar and resource distribution. Overall I love that the development team has been more open with communication and taking advice from their audience (Thank you for fixing wobbly rockets ). I do wonder what the rest of the community thinks about this, and if the developers would consider changing such a big decision. Anyways much love to the devs and the community, I'm sure that we will be happy with whatever way development goes but I think it is something to consider. P.S. this could also mean that you could push the second new star system addition to come in the multiplayer update which could be fun to have the first looks of new territory to be with friends. Just a thought!

Ah yes, love the hyperbole. Also, you can clearly check that I'm a man of my word: i said that if FS! failed to deliver, I'd no longer have any hope or playtime for this game, and that's exactly what happened. I booted FS! a couple times to see what it was about, the game is still bad, and broken, science is a bad streamlined copy of KSP1 and now I post here with weeks or months inbetween right as I said I would. That you still have to strawman my posts as some sort of angry, rabid hater wanting change is funny, specially when I didn't ask for anything to change since before For Science! because that update showed me this project is hopeless. They're clearly not obvious for the devs, given how many remain unaddressed (can't address anything if you don't communicate), that's exactly why the community feels unheard. Very little people posts here anymore thinking the devs are gonna read their feedback unless it's a bug. That's as evident as checking the suggestions subforum and seeing the only people suggesting stuff is new users. Expectations remain unaddressed and unmanaged past the roadmap and some handwavy answers at the AMAs and will remain so until the devs decide to man up and come out with serious talk about the final shape of KSP2, so the people wanting something different can move on if they haven't yet.

Calling 911 to talk to King Richard.

agreed, I would appreciate more activity on the forums. Even if it was just a simple post saying "heard" on a popular thread that day. I would even settle for a cold "this is /is not part of the current plan" to at least get an idea of where we are going I also wanted to come back to this point I made a little bit ago. I think the best example of this would be this video from the KSP YouTube channel. It's a quick 5 min video talking about reentry heating which a lot of the community had questions about, even just the quick look at it and talk from an actual person working on it was great to see at the time. This in my opinion is the perfect amount of communication and is exactly what the community needs. Maybe once a month on a feature or a bug that there has been a lot of questions about.

I originally posted the following in the April Fool's Day thread about converting to imperial units. However, to avoid turning that thread into another one like this, I'm moving the post here so, in the event people want to discuss it, they can do so in this thread, where it belongs. A lot has been made of the development teams (coders, artists, etc.) not having anything to do with communicating with the community, and I'll say up front that I agree with that statement. No, I do not want the developers to sit around and talk on the forums or Discord all day long; they have a game to write, for pete's sake. I'd rather they spend their time on the clock coding, or drawing, or whatever it is they need to do to get the game done. Go. Please. With that said, it is the job of the Community Managers to interact and engage with the community. As far as EA goes, it should be their job to engage with us and let us know exactly what is happening with the development of the game. Yes, this involves interviewing the developers, and compiling lists of bugs, and all the other stuff that goes along with that. But it is their literal job to interact with the community, and the issue here is that instead of the CM's doing this, they are worrying about things that the community quite frankly as a whole doesn't care about. This leads me to believe that one of the following 2 situations is true: The CM's are understaffed and overworked to the point where they simply cannot interact in meaningful ways. Dakota is on his own right now as Mike is off on paternity leave (and coming back this month, I think?), and the organization either hired but has not trained the new person they posted for months ago OR they simply decided not to do it. And this is on top of all of the vacation and time off that was taken over the holidays. If this is the case, if it is a situation where Dakota simply does not have the time to effectively do his job and interact with the community in thoughtful and meaningful ways, then I have to ask why he has the time to come up with weekly challenges and joke threads. I get that those things may be part of his job, but we have begged for more meaningful communication and have not gotten it. Does he not have time to ask the developers where they are at? Do the CM's not have the ability or authority to ask the artists what they have drawn up lately? Has Nate decided that he doesn't need to give interviews to the CM's or host AMA's any longer? And if this is all the case, why hasn't the company hired more CM's to help alleviate the strain on Dakota? It's either this, or... The developers honestly have nothing to show or discuss at this point. And if this is the case, there's a whole box of Lego's that need to be unpacked with this. Because, quite frankly, how can you be 6 years into development, and 1 year+ into early access, and have nothing to discuss? We have bugs that have been persistent since launch, promises made both before and during launch that haven't been met, and yet they have nothing to divulge? Bug reports that aren't discussed but end up in the archive with no explanation, and no talking about them? The company hired 2 of the best and brightest minds from the KSP1 mod community to help write this game, and you've got nothing to show at this point? For Science! dropped almost 4 months ago, and since then we've seen like 1 or 2 images of what might be in colonies, but you have no words to go with that? Where are we at on the road map as far as colonies goes? I know you can't give any dates, but are we even close? And those images of gigantic parts in space - are they going to be in the game, and if so, how do we get them up into space? Where are we at with all those bugs for months you just keep saying "Researching"? On those bugs you are looking for additional feedback on - what do you need from us to help you? What information are you looking for that we haven't already provided? And what do you say to those people - like myself - who have mid-range equipment and are supposed to see performance increases but aren't? (Side note - anything greater than 200 parts on my rig drops my FPS to 10. In orbit. 32 GB RAM, 2060 Super, Ryzen 9 3900 12 core. Tell me again how performance has gotten better.) It's no secret that I have been very vocal about where I think the game is at, and where it is headed. I've complained enough, so I'm trying not to do more of the same here (even though I'm sure this will all still be seen as complaining). But I want this game to succeed. I want this game to outplay, outperform, and outlast the original. I do not want to have to see the community come together and have the modders create KSP3. Nobody wants that. We shouldn't even have to float that idea, to be honest. But enough. Enough of the joke threads. Enough of the weekly challenges. Enough of the silence. We have held up our end of the bargain here in EA by not only shelling out the cost of the full release game, but we've been up front and honest with you about bugs, feedback, and telling you what it is we want. We are simply asking for the company to hold up their end. Too much damage has been done over this, but we are still willing to overlook that and give you back our trust if you would simply communicate with us and let us know where this whole thing stands. No corp-speak, no double meanings, no half-truths. Just be honest. We will understand. Heck, we've been understanding for the better part of a decade now; honesty will only help to repair the relationship.

A lot has been made of the development teams (coders, artists, etc.) not having anything to do with communicating with the community, and I'll say up front that I agree with that statement. No, I do not want the developers to sit around and talk on the forums or Discord all day long; they have a game to write, for pete's sake. I'd rather they spend their time on the clock coding, or drawing, or whatever it is they need to do to get the game done. Go. Please. With that said, it is the job of the Community Managers to interact and engage with the community. As far as EA goes, it should be their job to engage with us and let us know exactly what is happening with the development of the game. Yes, this involves interviewing the developers, and compiling lists of bugs, and all the other stuff that goes along with that. But it is their literal job to interact with the community, and the issue here is that instead of the CM's doing this, they are worrying about things that the community quite frankly as a whole doesn't care about. This leads me to believe that one of the following 2 situations is true: The CM's are understaffed and overworked to the point where they simply cannot interact in meaningful ways. Dakota is on his own right now as Mike is off on paternity leave (and coming back this month, I think?), and the organization either hired but has not trained the new person they posted for months ago OR they simply decided not to do it. And this is on top of all of the vacation and time off that was taken over the holidays. If this is the case, if it is a situation where Dakota simply does not have the time to effectively do his job and interact with the community in thoughtful and meaningful ways, then I have to ask why he has the time to come up with weekly challenges and joke threads. I get that those things may be part of his job, but we have begged for more meaningful communication and have not gotten it. Does he not have time to ask the developers where they are at? Do the CM's not have the ability or authority to ask the artists what they have drawn up lately? Has Nate decided that he doesn't need to give interviews to the CM's or host AMA's any longer? And if this is all the case, why hasn't the company hired more CM's to help alleviate the strain on Dakota? It's either this, or... The developers honestly have nothing to show or discuss at this point. And if this is the case, there's a whole box of Lego's that need to be unpacked with this. Because, quite frankly, how can you be 6 years into development, and 1 year+ into early access, and have nothing to discuss? We have bugs that have been persistent since launch, promises made both before and during launch that haven't been met, and yet they have nothing to divulge? Bug reports that aren't discussed but end up in the archive with no explanation, and no talking about them? The company hired 2 of the best and brightest minds from the KSP1 mod community to help write this game, and you've got nothing to show at this point? For Science! dropped almost 4 months ago, and since then we've seen like 1 or 2 images of what might be in colonies, but you have no words to go with that? Where are we at on the road map as far as colonies goes? I know you can't give any dates, but are we even close? And those images of gigantic parts in space - are they going to be in the game, and if so, how do we get them up into space? Where are we at with all those bugs for months you just keep saying "Researching"? On those bugs you are looking for additional feedback on - what do you need from us to help you? What information are you looking for that we haven't already provided? And what do you say to those people - like myself - who have mid-range equipment and are supposed to see performance increases but aren't? (Side note - anything greater than 200 parts on my rig drops my FPS to 10. In orbit. 32 GB RAM, 2060 Super, Ryzen 9 3900 12 core. Tell me again how performance has gotten better.) It's no secret that I have been very vocal about where I think the game is at, and where it is headed. I've complained enough, so I'm trying not to do more of the same here (even though I'm sure this will all still be seen as complaining). But I want this game to succeed. I want this game to outplay, outperform, and outlast the original. I do not want to have to see the community come together and have the modders create KSP3. Nobody wants that. We shouldn't even have to float that idea, to be honest. But enough. Enough of the joke threads. Enough of the weekly challenges. Enough of the silence. We have held up our end of the bargain here in EA by not only shelling out the cost of the full release game, but we've been up front and honest with you about bugs, feedback, and telling you what it is we want. We are simply asking for the company to hold up their end. Too much damage has been done over this, but we are still willing to overlook that and give you back our trust if you would simply communicate with us and let us know where this whole thing stands. No corp-speak, no double meanings, no half-truths. Just be honest. We will understand. Heck, we've been understanding for the better part of a decade now; honesty will only help to repair the relationship.

The discussion about these white fluffy mountains of the sky has been of particularly hot debate through many different topics in this forum lately so I figured why not make a topic about it so the other threads can stay on point and we can vehemently argue in one spot. I feel like the discussion really sparked when we saw this: Which can seem as a reasonable reaction when we were originally shown this: Which leads me to think they're sandbagging. I mean look at the big fluffy guy in the background... Gorgeous! All wispy and fluffy and contrasty with shadows, and just looking like... a cloud. And those altostratus clouds higher up... *chef's kiss* But, most recently we got shown this: And I think this picture encapsulates what is wrong with the "new" clouds, they don't resemble clouds... They resemble terrain. All edgy and low contrast and splotchy looking like it went through 2 layers of terrain generating noise... Also, all the clouds here (and in other recent pics) are wider at the bottom than they are at the top, which isn't impossible for clouds but implies the top of a cloud requires support, like the ground does. It simply defies physics. Like, just look at this guy top right of the plane! : What is that?! Objectively unnatural and subjectively off putting! That's what. Still though, I don't think the devs are blind, I think they know what they're doing here and we'll see what happens when the game come out... Now argue (or agree, you're choice, but nowhere as fun), about why clouds may have taken this turn recently, what you assume we may see at launch, or about something off topic which another new thread may be born from. That water be looking fiiiiiiinnnne

Just to be clear: I'm not defending anything. I'm stating facts. That those facts are contrary to what people want is not really my problem. To also be clear: Of course I want a perfect game delivered 12 months ago with no bugs and a $10 price tag. However I live in the real world and understand that in the vast majority of cases I will never ever get what I want. So, I determine if what is offered is worth what I'm willing to pay and if it is, great. If not, oh well maybe I'll leave a bad review and then I'll move on. Complaining about obvious things over and over is such a useless exercise it frustrates me that so many enjoy it. Talk about twisting your brain into a torus, that's the idea that after the first 300 times, the 301st complaint will make some sort of difference.

Talk about beating a dead horse - at this point y'all are knocking on a skeleton Last I checked, SpaceX was doing perfectly fine without needing to check arbitrary boxes set by not-SpaceX on SpaceX's own missions.

Scenario: We just developed immortality and can choose who gets it and who does not. Like all technology, no one holds a monopoly on developing it, and it is only a matter of time before the have-nots either purchase or develop it themselves. Nevermind the black market too. How it works: The first were designer babies that were biologically immortal. The male babies carry the immortality DNA, so they won't age past 40. They can pass on their immortality to their offspring, even if the woman mated with is not immortal. Female immortal babies cannot pass on the immortal trait to their offspring as adults unless the father is also immortal. Why I even started this thread: No healthy person wants to die, but I could not help but wonder about the alternative, and I considered perhaps it is for the best that we are not immortal. Since it is reasonable to conclude that both the best, the worst, and the pragmatic side of humanity would decide not only our fate, but the worlds'. And on a faster time scale. Think civilization evolution... on steroids. The most obvious problem is overpopulation. Child bearing age for women is ideal in the 20's, less so in the 30's, and definitely not at 40. Initially space colonization won't be available, so I suppose the humane way to prevent overpopulation would be to government regulate reproduction and only allow the act in goverment hotels after you have cleared all paperwork giving you the OK and what you need or won't. Birth control would be the rule and not the exception, and goverment hotel staff would make sure of this before any reproductive acts take place. Having a child illegally would be punishable by jail time and the baby would be taken from you to be a ward of the state. My conclusions: I don't like to admit it, but the death of humans seems to be part of a fine tuned system, which would quickly malfunction if every one of us became immortal. Some religions teach humanity will live forever on Earth, but barring anything beyond divine intervention, as long as we are running this planet, I am not sure giving us immortality is healthy in the long run. Why? Consider how capitalism works I dare say immortality and capitalism don't get along, since overpopulation creates scarcity of resources and the number of jobs to fill in any society is limited. Which at some point unless the majority were allowed to die like we already do, capitalism as we know it would break down. Entire economies would be forced to adjust for a population that is not going to pass away. What are your tboughts? Please try to not get the thread locked. Avoid politics and talk of.... eradication of undesirables Thank you.

i don't need to re-read what i saw happen, i was there when the "show went down" (insert circus music). just hearing suggestions and talk about it on discord is nothing really official on post on it.. Discord talk at the end of the day from even the gods of intercept games for ksp 2 is as much value as me saying I'm a developer due to giving feedback that "might help" due to playing like 1,000 hours. my input doesn't really matter its more so the entire community, I'm like a broken record with mods that i would like to see as vanilla but i can see why it isn't in base game, things like K2D2, Flightplan, Alarmclock, Trim Control, Kerbal Headlights.. l know that alarm clock has been screamed top of the lungs, and now its even a mod. The community shows what the game is missing, and it doesn't hurt to talk to modders and ask to put mods into base game.. like alarm clock. and kerbal headlights.. etc.