Search the Community

Nice, I didn't see any other obvious install issues. I don't really know much about the B9 error, but your log is way cleaner. Hopefully someone else can help pin down the specific error. Personally, I'm side-eyeing IFS just because I hear so many people talk about incompatibilities with it, but I don't have an experience with it myself.

I've been working on a CubeSat for the past 2 years, mostly software and testing, and we uploaded the final code onto it yesterday, it is flying to Texas for integration in a few hours, and will be launching into space on Cygnus NG-21 probably sometime in August, and ejected from the International Space Station probably in Fall or early Winter. (picture was very zoomed out, that's why it is a bit fuzzy, I zoomed in) This is CySat-1, a mission to prove the viability of measuring Earth's soil moisture levels using a software defined radiometer (and also to prove that an undergraduate led satellite program at our university is viable). There's many subsytems involved: Endurosat OBC, tells everything else what to do Endurosat UHF antenna and transceiver, how we talk to the satellite, has the worst documentation of any of the modules and took us a long time to figure out how to use. CubeSpace ADCS, has magneto-torquers, star trackers, Earth sensors, a magnetometer, GPS, and a reaction wheel to figure out where the satellite is and point it in the right direction. Endurosat EPS, manages power collection, the batteries, and power distribution throughout the satellite A breakout board with numerous electronic components soldered onto it for toggling power and converting voltages PumpkinSpace solar panels, we bought them (really expensive) after failing to build our own Analog Devices AD9361-Z7035 FPGA/SDR/SOM/whatever you want to call it. Power hungry computer that is only on sometimes, and runs our scientific program using GNU Radio and Python on an Analog Devices Linux Distro Analog Devices ADRV1CRR-BOB Carrier Board, holds the other Analog Devices board and distributes power and data to and from it Mini-Circuits Low Noise Amplifiers and Bandpass Filters to amplify the signals from the radiometer antenna A custom antenna for the radiometer And on the ground: An Ubuntu desktop computer running a GNU Radio flowgraph to talk to the satellite A software defined radio and antenna (we will get a bigger antenna in the next few months, the one we have is temporary) A Windows laptop running a python program (the ground station front end/GUI) to communicate with the Linux server I have been a programmer for CySat-1 for the past four semesters, programming lead for the past three semesters, and the only programmer for the last semester. My job has been to get these 7 computers made by 4 different manufacturers running 3.5 different operating systems in 2 separate programming languages talking with each other seamlessly. For the most part, we have succeeded, and the satellite has worked during short term ground testing. Unfortunately, we ran out of time for long term testing due to an issue with charging the batteries. This project has been one relentless string of failures and setbacks and frustrations, so long I'll probably make a video essay about it at some point. It felt like bashing my head up against a wall repeatedly only to find another wall on the other side, over and over and over again. I'm not very optimistic about our chances for successfully completing the mission, we have at least one possibly unresolved critical bug with no leads (and no time to fix), and given that we were discovering bugs literally up to and including the very last day, there's probably more we don't know about. But I learned a lot, enough that success is one of the possible outcomes. While it is supposed to do a lot more than beeping, I will be happy if it beeps. I'll be even happier if it will beep on command. Anything after that is purely bonus in my mind, especially given that half of university CubeSats don't even get a beep back, so I'm told. I'm proud of how much we managed to overcome, and that this thing finally got shipped off after years of delays, the satellite having been originally conceived sometime between 2002 and 2017 depending on what you take as the start date. That picture is an expression of equal parts "We finally finished it!" "Oh boy, what if I forgot something? What if it fails because I forgot to change a line of code, and I won't know for another six months!" and "What now? This has been my big thing for 2 years, where do I go from here?" In a really roundabout way, KSP is one of the reasons I found myself on this project. Part of that was just because it awakened my love for space, but another part of it was that the organization that manages CySat has a bunch of other project teams, one of which was a KSP simpit. I was on that project for one semester because a friend told me about it. When the KSP simpit project shut down, that same friend invited me to join CySat. It has certainly been an adventure that took me far outside my comfort zone. When I started, I didn't know a lick of C, and barely knew two licks of Python. I came in wanting to do structures/CAD stuff, as I felt that would be what I would suck the least at. But through a quirk of fate, got put on programming instead, something I did not at all feel confident doing. After a lot of pain and a lot of learning , the inter-computer links fell one by one, and we got it to a point where everything (discounting the single use stuff we weren't able to test) works in short term ground testing. While obviously we would have preferred to do more extensive testing, at this point, for a variety of reasons, we've just got to send it. About eleven years and about two weeks ago, I launched my first Kerbal into the sky, and now, a spacecraft I worked on is getting launched for real. Hopefully, when it gets up there, it shows up as a probe and not as debris!

Which sounds nothing like what they did back to Star Theory. Remember, if it was that, we already know what it looks like. The fact they got offered re-hiring was communicated instantly, and so was that another studio was to continue the game's development. They also got a message warning of this with a lot of time, they were not gagged and were able to talk right then and there. It's a totally different news that we got now, they did not communicate anything similar. "We're firing people and closing projects." Read above. People really like to not look back it seems.

All good, it's your right. But... How long are you going to expect them to deign to explain something to you? A month? One year? a decade? a century? And if you expect someone to talk, it's because you don't understand the corporate fabric. Anyone who breaks the line is not going to be hired even in the competition. Marked for life.

i love this thread so much, it's a rare bastion of unfiltered love and compassion in an otherwise hostile subforum A huge thank you to Intercept Games and all its members. I hope you find work that's good for you, and, even though I bet you're not really allowed to talk about it, I hope whatever it is that happened isn't the downfall of the project you poured your hearts into. I appreciate you all!

I think my main concern that causes me to question definitions of harm is people being overbearing. I think people (above the age of consent/legality or whatever) should be allowed to make their own decisions, but given a good education of the pluses and minuses of the possible choices at hand. Unfortunately I feel people (at least my age, early 20s) don’t really get taught the skills necessary to properly weigh pros and cons and end up going more with their emotions. It’s hard to find the balance between a warning and an order. I am terribly sorry but I must now correct myself. I was using the wrong term. Some families in Nepal practice polyandry, not polygamy, although polygamy can be found in Nepal too, it is not what I studied about. The way it works is one wife usually marries an entire family’s brothers. The husbands are not drawn from different families. Tension is mainly around personal issues. It’s been several months since the anthropology class and I don’t seem to have taken notes on the subject, but I recall that having two males helps raise lots of farm hands and keep the population stable. I’ve found the TED Talk I watched during my studies. I don’t know if it’s okay to post it, so just Google “Are five husbands better than one TED Talk” and you can find it if you’re interested.

The situation could have been similar, though probably less hurtful on head count - that was while the game was in prealpha stages, so there was not much talk anyway, so nobody noticed anything out of normal schedule.

So, if you are all interested in a lot of the back end systems in KSP (scaled space vs local space, PQS, floating origin, floating velocity reference frame, quaternion3d and vector3d doubles,. etc...) I would like to point you to Harv and Mu's Unite talk that took place 10 years ago on Sep 20th of 2013. KSP 1 was not, easy. It took years. KSP 2, would have also taken years, and Juno New Origins has taken years, so has every other major space flight game with any level of simulation. Turns out that not on is "space hard" but making space... is also hard.

First post on here in a while. Wish it was under better circumstances. To be clear: as of the writing of this post, KSP 2 HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY CANCELLED. Mostly, this is a response to a phenomena I've noticed a lot on this forum: people making statements to the effect of "They promised us they would finish the game, isn't this some kind of breach (possibly even legal)?" Some people are talking about lawsuits, others about refunds. The fact is, early access games are always a risk, both for the publisher as well as the customer, even when they are being developed by a major studio. KSP 2 in particular, is a relatively niche-interest game whose development was seeminly laden with difficult technical problems and other REAL CODING CHALLENGES which have the tendency to make development slower and more expensive than other reliable, mass-market games. Take Two may well decide that KSP 2 will either be unprofitable, or that the money will be better spent somewhere else. They may be right. Unfortunately, there is no known way to design an economic system that both 1) causes companies to waste money on consumers like us and 2) leads to the development of MRI machines, sufficient food to feed the population, etc. A lot of the initial anger back when the game was released was in this context. The anger boiled down to two main points: The game was way less developed than it ought to have been based on previews and pre-development communications. This could have many causes, among them: There were more engineering challenges than expected, or they were more difficult than anticipated Development was being mismanaged There was dishonesty involved Development was restarted due to some unknown reason, possibly some combination of the other bullets All of which indicate that the game's development was significantly more risky (less guaranteed) than what one might otherwise assume, which was/is upsetting to many fans of the game. Especially in light of (1), the asking price of $50 was extremely steep. Not only was the game not worth $50 at that moment, but the development of the game was full of risks and red flags that reduced the likelyhood of successful development even further below that which one would expect from an early access game, which should reduce the price. Since the release, which many viewed as already involving several broken promises, more 'promises' or 'goals' have gone unfulfilled, such as: Frequent communication Updates "on the timescales of weeks, not months" "Major content updates coming within months of each other" And other such conditions which would alleviate risk and speak to a solid development environment. Take-Two's "cost reduction plan" is not a monumental, rare, or unpredictable occurence. It is exactly the sort of thing we should expect companies to do: look to reallocate funds away from things that either lose money or don't make enough money, and towards things that do. We should have had, and should continue to have, the expectation that KSP 2 will be subject to such pressures, AND THAT EXPECTATION SHOULD BE BAKED INTO THE PRICE OF THE GAME. It's no surprise, then, that many of the same people who were fine with the price of the game and many other perceived sleights feel like they are owed some sort of recourse if the game fails. You are not owed anything- your "recourse" was had a year ago when you purchased the game for less than it would eventually cost if it made it to release- you got a bargain, which doubled as your consolation were the game to fail. If you are unsatisfied with your recourse, then perhaps we are in agreement that the game should have been, for instance, $30. All this being said, I hope for the sake of the community, the devs, who I do believe worked hard to make this game succeed and care about the game, and the broader world which stands to benefit from the existence of games like KSP 2, that the worst has not come to pass, and that the game will continue to be developed, and one day release successfully. I mainly wrote this post because it concerns what I believe to be a common flaw in the way people think/talk about "cOrPoRaTiOnS" which irritates me greatly, and I'm not a perfect person.

I am not sure about that. The game still has so many bugs that it is pretty much unplayable. At least for me. There was a lot of talk about how "Science" was a good update. I tried it and after all the bugs I stopped playing again. It did improve the game. But the game was still bad. I know others have a different oppionions. But for me the game in the current state is still not playable and the Science update did not fix any of the main issues I did have with it.

Nate just released a upcoming update on Steam on 04/25: Hello! It’s been a while! I know that many of you have been wondering about the status of KSP2, so I thought I’d give you an update on how things are going. We have an incremental update on the way! The v0.2.2.0 update will address a number of common user experience issues, some of which have been causing frustration for quite a while. In many cases, a thing that was reported as a single bug (Delta-V calculations being incorrect, or trajectory lines being broken) were actually half a dozen or more closely related bugs. We identified a series of issues that we believed were negatively impacting moment-to-moment gameplay and the first-time user experience, and we dug deep into those bug clusters to make meaningful improvements. Some of those issues include: Parachutes don’t deploy reliably (doubly true when fairings are in the mix) Fairings don’t protect their contents from heating Trajectory lines in the map view sometimes disappear (often related to erroneous designation of craft as “landed” when in flight) Landed vehicles fall through terrain during time warp Maneuver nodes refuse to allow the player to plan beyond the calculated Delta-V allowance, which in many cases is an incorrect value We’ve submitted changes to address a number of these issues – in the case of the last one, we’ll just be letting you plan beyond your current dV allowance while we continue to improve our Delta-V accuracy over the longer term (there’s a very challenging set of problems to solve in the pursuit of accurate Delta-V projections for every possible vehicle that a player can make, so this is something we’ll likely be refining for quite a while). For this update, we’ve also prioritized a new kind of issue: in some cases, the first-time user experience is undermined by a failure of the UI to clearly communicate how to progress between phases of gameplay – put simply, we sometimes put new players in a position where they don’t know what they’re supposed to do next. We’ve received a huge quantity of very helpful user feedback in this area since the For Science! Update. For example, since most of us are seasoned KSP veterans, it never occurred to us that we hadn’t fully communicated that “revert to VAB” is a very different thing from “return to VAB.” We received a rash of bug reports from people who were confused about having lost progress after completing their missions and reverting to VAB. Yikes! Similarly, the lack of a clear call to action when a vehicle can be recovered frequently left new players staring at a landed vehicle and not knowing there were more steps to follow. We’ve made some UI changes to address issues like this, and we think the flow has improved as a result. Another usability issue that even catches me out on occasion -- trying to do illegal actions (for example, parachute deployment) while in time warp states other than 1x. In fact, we believe quite a few bug reports we’ve gotten about actions being broken have actually been the result of people attempting to do things under time warp that weren’t allowed. This is an area of ongoing work for us – not only do we need to do a better job of communicating to the player when they’re warping, but we also need to make clear what actions are and are not allowed under both physics and on-rails time warp. We’ve made some small UI changes to increase the player’s awareness of their time warp state, and we’re looking forward to seeing if those changes feel good to you. I know we talk a lot about the value of Early Access, but this is a great example of how your reporting helps us target our efforts. We still haven’t nailed down the exact date for this update, but we’ll notify you here once we’re on final approach. Most of our team continues to be pointed squarely at the Colonies update. We’re making a lot of progress this month on colony founding, the colony assembly experience, and colony gameplay mechanics. There are lots of interesting problems to solve here – some are super obvious (colony parts exist at a wide range of scales, and the Base Assembly Editor – the colony version of a VAB - needs to feel equally good when you’re connecting a small truss or a giant hab module). Other issues – for example, how vehicles interact with colonies on both the systems and physics levels – come with a lot of edge cases that need to be satisfied. We remain very excited about the ways colony gameplay will move KSP2 into completely new territory, and we’re definitely eager to see what our legendarily creative players do with these new systems. In parallel with our colony work, we’re continuing to find significant opportunities to improve performance and stability. We just made a change to PQS decals that got us huge memory usage improvements – mostly VRAM (this one is still being tested, so it won’t go into the v0.2.2.0 update – but I was just so excited about the improvement that I had to share): And of course, while all this work is going on, Ghassen Lahmar (aka Blackrack) continues to make big strides with clouds. Here’s a peek at some of the improvements he’s working on today (yep, that’s multiple layers)! And because the VFX team can’t ever stop making things better, they’ve begun an overhaul of exhaust plumes to bring them more in line with reality (which thankfully is also quite beautiful): Thanks as always for sticking with us as we work through each challenge – we couldn’t be more grateful to have your support as we move toward the Colonies era!

True. But it doesn't hurt to talk hypothetically and brainstorm solutions. Fact is we know the studio is shut down. We know a number of KSP2 devs have been laid off. And we haven't ruled out that it might be ALL of them. We don't know if the roadmap is on the table. And if it's not I think a class action lawsuit is something worth discussing if for any other reason than to help strengthen consumer protection. It's rare that a AAA company cancels a game in EA. And if you believe it's wrong for a company to essentially break its word just because a few lines on a corporate website says that's ok then we need to fight that policy in court. If the game is cancelled or the roadmap is no longer on the table, we shouldn't waste this opportunity to strengthen consumer protections.

You must have missed the part where I literally said: I'm not trying to be difficult, but you seem to not read all of what I post. I was pretty clear that I'm not a lawyer, that I didn't talk to one, and that whoever takes this up needs to. Please make sure you read what I write instead of making assumptions to drum up drama.

After doing some research this morning, a class action lawsuit against Take Two is viable. While both the EULA and the Terms of Service both indicate that you must use a mediator or 3rd party arbitrator to sort out differences before going to court, there is legal precedence in multiple states that allow for this clause in the Terms to be thrown out, with action moving through the legal system without mediation. The big issue here becomes what state to file a lawsuit in. You have 3 choices: The state the company is headquartered in (New York); The state the game was developed in (Washington); The state you purchased and play the game in (for me, Nevada, as an example) Because we are talking about a potential class-action lawsuit here, the state in which an individual purchased and/or plays the game is nearly irrelevant. And considering that a lot of gaming (in a general sense) happens over the internet, no one state where a person plays a game has jurisdiction. So that option is out. Filing in the state the game was developed is a viable option, provided you can prove that the majority of the work was done in that state. Again, the internet and remote work - especially during and because of the COVID-19 pandemic - make this difficult to ascertain without getting cooperation from the company/developer you want to sue. So this option is probably not the best one. This leaves filing in the state that the parent company is headquartered in. This is the best option for class-action lawsuits as you are trying to gather as many people as possible together who have a common interest and/or complaint about the product they received. New York General Business Law section 350 allows for the protection of consumers against false, misleading, or misrepresentative advertising in products that are sold to the general public. While it doesn't specifically call out digital media, it is considered to be included in this section. Furthermore, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 901-909 deal with class-action lawsuits, providing the framework for how and when consumers can get together and file a class-action. I would like to point out that all of my research stems from a host of Google searches, as well as getting clarification on things from ChatGPT. Yes, I talked to the bot this morning because that is the easiest way to get definitions and information these days. How accurate that is remains to be seen, so take everything I stated above with several grains of salt. But if you really want to go this route - and I'm going to be frank and say that I doubt this would lead to anything substantial in the long run - what I've stated above is probably the best information you'll get from a non-lawyer. So talk to a legal professional before going anywhere else on this.

At this point, not surprised, just disappointed. I knew this was a mess on launch but I gave them my $50 anyway because I wanted to support it. But clearly someone high up said to shove this out to early access way too early and unstable and feature incomplete to inject cash into someone's pocket. It should have been at least as feature complete as KSP1 before launch, if not have 1 of the new flagship features or 2, like multiplayer or colonies, or physicalized asteroid belts, you know, the trailer bait. I hope the project lives on in some productive fashion, either in another studio or made open source. From the offset though for my part the problem seemed to be Unity and how it was implemented. KSP2 never made significant stability changes to how KSP1 worked, large craft would still bring supercomputers to a crawl etc. and it didn't help that the game implementation was, hey, stack 30 of this same part together and let it all wobble every tick. There didn't seem to be much tricks used under the hood to make the game stable, because it can't decide if it's a space crash simulator or a space program game. So lo and behold, let's calculate all these trusses every tick, let's not lightweight these parts/payloads hidden behind a faring at launch, and watch framerate go poo and watch things spontaneously wiggle themselves into a billion pieces, let's make it practically impossible to maintain fixed orbits for all your relay sats because of floating point error, etc. - those kinda issues bug me more than a lack of multiplayer and colonies, the base game should be running and operating a lot smoother, and a lot more like a refined game that knows what it wants to be. Extremely Weird. It leaves the community to run wild with our thoughts and no direction, and the silence is deafening. If there was short term hopefulness for the direction of the game you'd anticipate an official word from someone at the studio other than the boilerplate 'talk when we can lol' that we have. It leads to deductive inferences, like either nobody at the studio can talk competently about the future of the project, or because they are part of the layoff, they don't want to, like the community manager appears to have effectively said 'no, I'm not polishing this turd for the higher ups anymore, I'm mentally checked out, have to figure out how I'm going to eat this July.' And that would be completely understandable, despite frustrating as a supporter? backer? gamer? customer? victim? mark? In this debacle. And the corpo statement just reads as 'no no no this wasn't a rugpull, please don't delist our game and issue millions of dollars of refunds, new infrastructure update in 2 weeks! Make Kerbal Great Again!' For all we know it boils down to putting the game in maintenance mode and keeping it propped up like Bernie from Weekend at Bernies.

I like history and how humans tend to repeat the same mistakes and not notice when things start to look bad. I could give other examples, such as the scam that ended up blowing up and leaving millions without homes or jobs in 2008, but it is more convincing to talk about WWII, from which money is still made. Captain America and Wonder Woman are my certificate.

They're the kind of people we've always looked for, the kind who drop money and don't talk or question.

Like the majority of the community, I am sickened by what is happening. I feel like we got bamboozled, even worse now than when TT put the game on sale 3 months after selling it at a premium price. I was pretty vocal then that it smelled fishy, and that it reeked of greed that the company would sell it at $50 to those of us who wanted it right away, but then decreased the price as a "sale" to get more buyers. It sounded like they were fishing for more revenue to justify keeping the lights on, and some of us were pretty loud about that. Couple that with the complete lack of communication we had to go through. EA, at its core, is supposed to be a way for developers and consumers to interact while a product is being developed, right? They push out an incomplete game, we buy it, we give feedback, they communicate that they've received feedback and are implementing x fixes, we get the updates, we give more feedback, they talk to us, round and round we go. Right? Not here. Not with KSP2. We begged for the company to talk to us. Tell it to us straight; we aren't going to be upset if you have to delay or come back and say that things aren't going the way you wanted them to. Just talk to us. That's all we asked. And they refused. They got our money and then left us in silence. Sure, we got a dev blog about this lighting issue, or eclipses. We had, at one point, the KERB to tell us what they were working on...but then they took issues off that list before stopping it altogether. All told, we were taken for a ride. And we paid for that privilege. The company said "Hey, we've got this thing that isn't done yet, but give us cash and we'll call it EA and you'll eventually be rewarded". And like horses to water, we lined up and shelled out our hard-earned money. Which they took, and then gave very little - if anything - in return. We paid for the right to be ignored and shut out of development news. We paid to have the community fractured, friends yelling at each other, and the company laughing at us the whole way. We paid to go through this. This exercise is exactly why I didn't get into EA releases with other games that are in my library. I only 1 time before entered EA or a beta-playing phase of a game before, and that was for Harebrained Schemes' Shadowrun. Which went off without a hitch, by the way. But even with that good experience, I had read too many times where things just fell apart and didn't work. Heck, I was close to going in on Cyberpunk, and I'm glad I didn't. But KSP? I couldn't resist. My better senses were telling me to wait, but my heart over-rode them. And Take Two broke it. All told, and to finally respond to what you wrote (I took long enough to get there, didn't I?), I doubt anyone gets a refund. Doesn't matter if you went Epic or Steam, the refund "rules" are pretty clear: less than 2 hours played, less than 2 weeks after purchase. And TT will hide behind that as a way to make sure they don't have to fork the cash back over to Steam or Epic. It would be a nice gesture if they did...but it won't happen. That money is already pocketed and spent (so to speak). So what can we do? Nothing. Not a damned thing. Sure, we can post and protest. Sign one of the petitions going around right now. Take up coding and try to create your own game if you must (even I downloaded the Unreal Engine last night and am going to give it a whirl). But nothing we do is going to amount to anything. We aren't going to change their minds, we aren't going to get our money back, we aren't going to be able to save the franchise or the studio or the employees who are out of jobs. Nothing we do in the end will matter. Where does that leave us? Hopefully being cool to one another. Perhaps talking about KSP1. Maybe finding other games to enjoy. But KSP2? Gone before your time, and we barely knew ye.

hey don't talk about him in the past, he'll still be a great modder and the guy that made KSP2's atmospherics look amazing in like a month.

Scott Manley was steering away from KSP yes but I do feel if the game was good or got good he would’ve made some videos because 1. It’s still fun 2. It would’ve made money. 3. He likes teaching space and it would’ve helped with that. I’m sure he would’ve done new tutorials, probably one career play through, and the occasional video demonstrating something he’d like to talk about in real space. Having got none of those, I think his views are clear. ShadowZone may have presented a very optimistic possibility, but he made a clear line between the facts and the theories, and presented multiple possibilities. I really do think he made a good video on the situation.

Who’s angry? I’m not. did I label you for having an opinion other than my own? You did that with me but I’m not bothered. i am however bothered when you don’t like your medicine. anyway so this doesn’t get me banned maybe we call It a day and agree to disagree or whatever is appropriate around here to end a heated talk.

thank you all. I think I finaly understand it.. to a user level. Its funny how KSP has been a better math teacher than my math teacher. I always just assumed I was dumb when it comes to math. But when people take the time to sit down and answer my questions. I get along in the end x) This quote reminds me of when my father talk about how he prefere win95 xl to the new one - he says it makes some errors that 95 xl didnt.. I always just shrug - I dont ever think I asked xl to do anything advanced enough to figure out x) But man.. people bantering about calculators is why I love this forum.

They deleted the post where I gave my opinion on where the development was going and suspended me for a week with a warning not to talk about it anymore. Now I don't care, this is dead, and the people who moderated already have their checks and are emptying the desks.

-=R&D_UPDATE=- CommNet - Satelites and the Molniya Orbit I figured a good way to continue with this blog - would be to alternate between a R&D post and a Mission Execution Post. Where all the theorycrafting on "how to solve the challenge", will be poured into a post first, and then I follow that up with a Mission Execution Post. I have a feeling that a lot of good discussion can come from making a theory and testing if it worked... at least it will give people a chance to say how wrong I am in my calculations and theories - and stop me before I do something really silly Or better yet.. give people something amusing to read. Any way - Without further ado - here is next challenges Before we talk about the 2nd challenge I am going to ignore it for a little while, and focus on the 3rd challenge first = 3 CommNet Satelites in Orbit around Duna - To me that screams for a Molniya or Tundra orbit. - Something I've been wanting to try out for a while now. If you dont know what a Molniya or Tundra orbit is - See spoiler section bellow: There are 2 reasons why I am thinking about a Molniya Orbit: A Geostationary orbit will not have Line of Sight to the poles of the planet - and It would make sense for future settlements to be near the poles were there is water ice. So a Tundra and Molniya orbit is necessary for such an settlement to be able to communicate with KSC. (Roleplaying) Since the orbit is highly elliptical, it will be more likely that none of the satelites are hidden behind Duna - which should be able to have reliable coms with KSC with fewer satelites and that there are no signal loss to KSC. (except when Kerbol is in the way) Now how do I propose to make a Molniya constellation around Duna you ask? My plan is this: Get 3 long range satelites to Duna and space them 120­° from each other around the planet, 0° inclination. Get them to burn to a 60° inclination to Duna while maintaining ~120° separation. (hopefully the burn will be quick.) Have them raise their Apoapsis to 6700km. (half a sidereal day - see vehicle design section to see how the AP is calculated) Now to complete this task - the Molniya satelites needs a carrier with an antenna strong enough to get signal from Kerbin. If you guessed that this will be the satelite from challenge 2 you are correct. My crazy idea is to make a Satelite Carrier - deploy it to Duna and put it in an orbit where I can space out the 3 Molniya Satelites in a 100km orbit - Then perform the 3 steps to deploy them at their correct molniya orbit (Pe: 100km Ap: 6700km) . After this the satelite carrier will deploy the 6 small cube satelites evenly on the 100km orbit - which will provide signal around the equator. Once that is done - we will see how much Δv it has left on the Satelite Carrier and find a good plan for that. If this sounds like it's going to be difficult... I agree... This will be a test of my patience and precision. Resonant Orbit Planning: Now I thought I would have to sit and actually use my brain to calculate the correct orbit periods etc for launching the satelites to get their space even across the orbit - however I was gifted this great tool that does it for you. Use this to plan the spacing of satelites. When I plot in 6 satelites orbiting at 100km I get these ranges: The smart thing about planning around 6 satelites LOS is that it resonates with the 3 Molniya satelites - which will be deployed on every second orbit instead of every orbit. If you - the reader - sees that I have made some terrible error.. please enlighten me Now the parameters of the mission has been planned. Now it is all about designing the vehicles. <<<<<<<<<<Designing the Vehicles>>>>>>>>>> The CommNet Satelites: Left: Cube Satelite - Right: Molniya Satelite. Molniya Satelite: 1064 Δv Cube Satelite: unknown (25kg of Monopropellant and 2 RCS thrusters. - more than enough Δv) Now for the communication satelites the Molniya Satelites are the ones that will be most demanding. They will have to burn from a 0° inclination to a 60° inclination - then raise its apoapsis to match ½ a sidereal day... Now.. How to calculate this number was lost on me. Even though I could find the equation online multiple places I could not get google to calculate it propper. So I asked for help on the forum, and help was received. Thanks to @K^2 and others for helping me wrap my head around this. To aid others (and myself in the future) I have decided to save the process here: How to find the AP: To find the AP for your desired Molniya Orbit you need to first find the Semi major axis of your orbital period - you do that with this equation: If you punch that into google so it looks like this: You should get this number: 3,719.831km - which is the Semi Major Axis for a ½ a Duna Sidereal Rotation Period. Now this number is the distance between Apoapsis and Periapsis - you may think "but that is an oddly big number" - at least that is what I was thinking. But that was because I "forgot" that there is a planet in between, and that the distance we are shown is taken from the "sea level" of the planet/body. We there for have to subtract the planets diameter. (or radius*2) Now - I have decided that I want a PE of 100km above Dunas Surface - So to find the AP you have to use this formula: This should give you a distance of 6,699.662km - which I have rounded up to 6700 km - With 1064 Δv I hope we have enough Δv to finish both maneuvers. (it seems like it should be enough?) This formula is "plug and play" so to speech - you can go to the wiki and lift the numbers, pick your PE and find the AP for any body you want. If you want to know more read here: The Cube Satelite: If we look at the Resonant Orbit Calculator numbers: See spoiler section bellow: we can see it only requires 40.4 Δv to lower the AP to 100km - I therefore decided that it would be more cost effective to just give the small satelite 25kg of monopropellant and 2x RCS thrusters to decrease the AP. This makes the satelite much lighter than if it had actual engines - and I can carry much less fuel - thus making the satelites much lighter. The Satelite Carrier: Satelite Carrier with 6 cube satelites and 3 molniya satelites. Carrier: 2091Δv The carrier will have 2091 Δv which should be ample since it's going to be launched from LKO: 80km and the Δv map shows it only requires 1690 - 1700 to transit to Duna Low Orbit. See spoiler section below for reference: Now - one does not need to look at this monstrosity of a satelite twice to see it wont fit in the small cargo bay for the SDG... So My "promise" to make everything fit within the small cargo bay only lasted until the next challenge... *Teehee*because - of course this was the only excuse I had for a glider re-redesign - It wouldn't be me without it. The SDGv2: Left: SDGv2 - Right - SDGv1. When I first flew the SDG on Challenge 1 - there were 1 obvious thing that struck me. It does not need the docking array. The vehicle is not meant to dock with K.G.01, like the Multi Fuel Gliders are. So I can do away with that and get more cargo space already - without changing the center of mass and drag a lot.. - how ever.. the satelite is still too long... But I figured I could add a bit of Tube in the end where the vertical stabilizers are and sort of have the satelite twist itself out of the glider... That being said.. I can easily see things go "wrong" though here... namely: A theoretical comparison of me getting the satelite out of the cargo bay. Nothing has ever gone wrong from banging sensitive electronics out of the box... *cough cough* - Luckily Kerbal tech is sturdy tech... Here are the two cargo spaces clearly visible - The SDGv1 still loaded with the probe that was send for the Duna Fly By of Challenge 1. and here a side by side comparison. Luckily the weight savings of ditching the docking port means that even though the Satelite Carrier is pretty heavy at 8.06t - double the payload of its cusin, the Multi Fuel Glider - it only increases weight by 2.22t. Something I am confident that the 1st stage will not have any issues getting into orbit. Weight distribution across platforms: Multi Fuel Glider:.............................................................25.34t SDGv1:................................................................................22.28t SDGv2:................................................................................27.56t <<<<<<<<<<CONCLUSION>>>>>>>>>> The plan has been made, Math has been calculated and vehicles designed accordingly. Stay tuned in to see if the plan survives first contact with reality. See you in the next one.

Well, its worth a shot at least, with the most recent news I have been thinking of actual realistic ways microtransactions could be implemented without directly harming the game with some suggested prices to go along with it.. Also aswell even if they say "no microtransactions" it seems that they need if it if there is rumors that the game is going to be cut, or we will lose developers... As of right now we don't know the situation for ksp 2 and the team.. "unethical" or not if stuff is "cheap" some people will find a use of some things useful while others don't if there was a unethical way to monetize it instead of just being free QOL the game might be better for income.. (problem is t2 launched the game in EA when it was a YEAR away from being anything useful, pretty much destroying the reputation of the game).. Custom Kerbal Creator / Custom Director Kerbal - 5-10$ USD This is a highly requested feature for ksp 2, being able to create customer kerbals, i think if the feature was free it would allow a certain amount of cosmetics but the paid would allow all cosmetics in ksp 2. Custom Director Kerbal, could be a pfp a kerbal that is "the director (which is you btw)" that would be able to interact more "kerbal friendly" compared to just the characters talking to the "screen", this could also be used as PfP for saves or in multiplayer settings you could use your custom director to be the pfp instead of either a custom photo or your steam pfp. This could be a little high, but i think the amount of work that is required to get it running and then making sure it works on multiplayer/ (if) there is more cosmetics it would allow "People to create kerbals of there own imagine" Custom Flag Implementation - 3-5$ USD Quite a few people request this to be a main in-game FEATURE, there is a mod that does this however the mod misbehaves a lot and does the stock flag instead of the custom one, They can be extremely high detailed flags I think they could make it a microtransaction that is cheap enough that almost anyone could buy it but it would not affect the users if they didn't have it, A Few CC's and a lot users could want such a thing in game. I think this shouldn't controlled in the sense of company censoring what photos are and are not allowed. In multiplayer it should be the owner of the server or local server that should be able to "remove" the offending flags and have an outright option to ban users from uploading and using Custom Flags.. Users can have as many as they want and can be limited on multiplayer if the owner so chooses. This will also include adding "parts" to add large flags that wrap around crafts in many sizes, or just straight huge flags that could be lit up by lights, and stock ksp 2 flags can use this for free. Hex Color Editor - 3-5$ USD Cheap easy mod that adds Hex color fine control to the game (Unethical) in my mind and should be free, however using Spicats Suggestion if all UI updates was approved i don't see why this couldn't be a paid feature its cheap at relative cost and would make users VERY happy, while also not breaking the bank, Supporter Pack #1 - 15-25$ USD This would include a "Music Bouns" of 1 additional song for each situation, planet, and ambient noise, The music is one of the key notes that i have found and have seen many others saying its "very good" for the game. This would include a "Banner Around PfP" or Color Change or A Speical Title.. saying that you purchased the supporter pack.. Would include a special flag(s). Be able to put custom crafts in the menu screen(s) We do not know if multiplayer would even have pfp or titles however, i think it would be a cool thing to add. yes this is pretty much try convince to keep intercept games with ALL of there developers with a job, is absolutely silly to think that we will sit down with people getting fired, and only getting corporate talk. These could be microtransactions that keep small amount of income coming to the game to show people might be interested besides the absolute devestion of trust when the game got forced to be released. (perhaps don't launch a game a year to early and then try to can the developers when we are getting remotely close to an actual game cause of your mistakes cause you are down a few million dollars..)