Ready To Launch: Kerbal Space Program 0.22 Is Out Today

How do we get back down?

I’ve seen plenty of movies and documentaries about humanity’s mad attempts to explore outerspace, but each one of those was a story of triumph, of humans overcoming ridiculous odds to achieve the impossible. When I play Kerbal Space Program, that’s not how things go. The indie game about building rockets out of blocks and executing your own space missions is about failure, exploding repeatedly on the launchpad in the face of ridiculous odds, and abandoning your Kerbals to a lifetime of drifting aimlessly around our solar system.

Today’s patch 0.22 is only going to make it harder, and there’s a new trailer below to mark the occasion.

As Craig explained last week, patch 0.22 is about taking steps towards turning the current galactic sandbox into a structure campaign. To that end, it adds a bunch of R&D tools, so you can perform science experiments with your Kerbals while in space, and then bring that data back to Kerbin to be used as a kind of currency for expanding your space program.

As the version number suggests, Kerbal Space Program is a long way from being finished, but it’s fantastic even now. Steam tells me I’ve put 22 hours into it, tinkering around with spaceship designs, and trying desperately to dock two ship parts together in mid-orbit. The trailer above – and the fanmade trailer below – sell the sense of majesty and beauty that the game wrings out of even low-poly spaceships. But also remember that it’s about explosions and this grinning face (drawn by this fine fellow).


  1. Vinraith says:

    Minecraft was a clever sandbox that had the potential to become a brilliant game as well, but never did. My policy with Kerbal has been to wait to see whether the same is ultimately true for it. I’m starting to seriously wonder whether the consequence of the Kickstarter age is going to be an endless parade of games with infinite potential that are never finished and consequently never live up to that potential…

    None of this is to speak ill of the current game, by the way, I’d just like to get a sense of what this is really going to be before I pay for it.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Minecraft is a great game; the problem is that it rather relies on you having a reason to play, and the same seems to be true here (although it sounds like they’re adding a campaign structure, which might change this). I’ve played a lot of Minecraft on our multiplayer survival server, but I can see how once you’ve built your first cobble fortress your interest might wane as you run out of projects you want to accomplish.

      • Sam says:

        I agree about the need for a reason to play with the sandbox. I think KSP is better suited to producing those reasons than vanilla Minecraft is.

        Minecraft’s self-made objectives tend to be “can I build a …?”, and the answer is almost always “yes, but it’ll take bloody ages.” There’s some more inventive things like redstone and piston driven machines that assembles stuff from lava and water, but on the whole things to do in Minecraft take time rather than practice.

        Kerbal has an advantage in having quite obvious things to use as self-made objectives, namely getting to the various planets and moons. What keeps it interesting for me at least is that achieving those goals isn’t about spending a long time carrying out a plan, but experimenting and coming up with the right design. Also important is that there’s enough variation in the rocket parts that your Mun lander is likely to look significantly different from someone else’s. Both will be functional but with different performance characteristics.

        There isn’t anything to do on whatever planet you’ve just flown to, but there isn’t much to do with the perfect recreation of Minas Tirith you built in Minecraft either. It’s about the journey and all that. If anything I’m concerned that the campaign mode will lessen the game as it could turn the focus away from cleverly designed rockets and towards grinding for upgrades. But I’ve played an embarrassing amount of the beta already, so really don’t mind if they mess it up now.

        • Panda Powered says:

          Also, Minecrafts progression is pretty much just a linear resource chain when you “game it” while KSP’s progression is skill-based (it will also be more resource based).
          I found it pretty much perfectly scaling from the start. From my first dozen of failed attempts to even get into orbit up to my first successful Mun landing. When I had finally got that right all the previous things had gotten super easy. Next step was Duna and that had the same trial-and-error until success and so on.

      • tehfish says:

        For minecraft, i’d really suggest trying out some of the modpacks around, my personal favourites being

        link to


        link to

        Adds so much extra content to the base game… Kept me amused for months so far.

        • 0positivo says:

          Feed The Beast has become basically a must for me. It just adds so MUCH value that I cannot even consider the idea of playing minecraft without it

    • Stuart Walton says:

      Minecraft and KSP both have super-active modding communities that alone should secure a purchase as a lot of those potentials will get realized and they will all be optional.

      Pre-0.22 KSP is very much a toy, but a very challenging and rewarding toy. Throw a few mods on and you keep on adding to those challenges and rewards. For the time I’ve spent on KSP, the actual monetary cost is a bargain.

      Get the demo and see if the sandbox mode grabs you.

      • Vinraith says:

        Minecraft’s mods have never made Minecraft into the survival game I wanted it to be (unless I’ve just missed the mod that does this, feel free to suggest!). I love modding and respect the hell out of modders, but I’m not going to rely on them to finish the game any more than I’ll trust the devs to do so. I’ve been burned far too many times on both counts.

        As to the demo, I’ve tried it. It’s a neat toy, but it doesn’t hold my interest. There would need to be an interesting structure to the whole thing to motivate play, and until there is it’s not in my best interest to invest.

        • aradanwen says:

          minecraft mod suggestion: better than wolves.

        • SirMonkeyWrench says:

          You’re going to need a wiki.

        • DeadlyAccurate says:

          Mo’Creatures with a modified Feed The Beast modpack (removing some of the redundant mods and some I consider too close to cheats).

        • V4V says:

, the original modpack. Technic Launcher has user made modpacks, which it downloads easily and automatically, and without the adfly bullcrap that sometimes has malware.

        • Answermancer says:

          No offense but this attitude kinda pisses me off, because it advocates changing games that are already awesome (to me) to cater to people like you, and devs tend to listen to it and devote their time and resources to it.

          I really like sandbox, objective-less “toy” games. I don’t need outside objectives, I like building random shit in Minecraft and never wanted any sort of overarching survival or story mode. But so many people talked about how it wasn’t gamey enough for them that they started adding all sorts of stuff like NPCs and other stuff that in my opinion was totally unnecessary instead of just adding more content for the people who already liked the game.

          Same thing with KSP. I love the toy aspect, I spent tens of hours just building random rockets and blowing them up before I every got to orbit or went to any planets because that was fun to me. Building whatever random thing I want and sending it on a mission is great fun to me, I don’t want a catered story mode, I don’t need a tech tree that limits what I can do or spending limits on parts that limit what I can build.

          To me, a current fan and customer, that shit is a waste of their dev time and efforts. It annoys me that they are catering to people who don’t like the game as it is now (because it’s not structured enough) while there are plenty of people like me who don’t care about or want any of that structure.

          Sorry if this comes off brusque, I’m not really trying to single you out it’s just a complaint I see a lot about sandbox-creative-game-toys which tend to be my favorite gaming experiences these days.

          • Vinraith says:

            That would be fair if sandbox games were all these were promised to be. The problem is, in both Minecraft and Kerbal’s case the features you’re railing against were promised in advance and copies were sold based on those promises. It’s not “people demanded this stuff be added to the finished game” it’s “people demanded devs deliver the game they said they were going to deliver.” Neither Minecraft nor Kerbal were intended to stay pure sandboxes, you just fell in love with an underdeveloped version of the game and don’t want it to be any more developed. In some sense, that’s at least as big a danger with this whole alpha funding thing as my issue, now that you mention it.

          • soldant says:

            Minecraft has a creative mode for all your building needs. The survival mode was supposed to be an actual survival mode, which it never properly achieved because people were worrying about their creations being destroyed. Any danger in Minecraft is neatly negated by building a 4 block high wall with a lip to stop spiders crawling over it, and placing torches everywhere. Minecraft’s survival mode wasn’t supposed to be about making massive castles or cities, it was supposed to be about actual survival and creative mode was for everything else.

            I can flip your argument around and complain that survival was neutered by the devs to cater for the creative builders like yourself… and it’d be just as valid because survival mode was supposed to be a valid game mode.

          • Mr.Snowy says:

            Personally I think that if a game is tweaked either by the devs or the community to make it more than it was previously, appealing to more players, then it is win all round. The game is written to make money after all – anything that increases this only gives the devs more scope to deliver further additions or make their next title even better.

            DayZ is probably the best example I can think of. I imagine that a lot of Arma3’s features were funded by the huge sales explosion that DayZ caused for the then-ageing Arma2.

    • IonTichy says:

      I don’t know, I paid 13€ for this game and it’s current state provided me a more than adequate amount of fun time. I too really hope that the devs keep their promises and keep working on it, as it surely needs a lot polish on the technical side. The main problemright now is a lack of multi-core support, which is a real problem for a game that tries to simulate physics…hence the performance problems a lot of people experience.
      Unfortunately this is to blame on the toolkit they are currently using, Unity.
      Which means, either Unity improves or the devs would have to port the entire thing to a code base that supports the missing features and that is not just a small version increment but an entire rewrite (still doable tho IMHO).

      So I personally expect a lot of content and gameplay improvements, but am really not sure how much more improvement there will be performance wise…

      • colw00t says:

        Unity is commonly blamed but not really at fault.
        Detailed, real-time physics is extraordinarily difficult to multithread because of the enormous amount of cross-talk necessary between calculations. You can parallelize different ships (and KSP does, when they’re both within the “detailed simulation” range) but each ship has a lot of “child” components interacting in complex ways and trying to multi-thread that would be a major task for any developer, let alone one as small as Squad. They’ve done some major optimization in the last few updates though, and progress is being made. KSP is a fantastic game as it is, but it is still 0.22, there are a lot of placeholder elements still in place.

        The common armchair software dev answer of “offload physics to the GPU” would actually make the situation worse because of the inherent latency issues.

      • Heavens says:

        As far as I recall the the Unity version which KSP gets made with uses an older PhysX version which just runs bad I guess.

        It’s an awesome game for people who like more or less realistic space sims and have the imagination to set their own goals in a game (aka sandbox).

        The career mode or rather science mode can be seen as a tutorial mode for those that are overwhelmed by the sheer number of parts or as a “hard” mode for veterans because the limitation of parts.

        I also like the fact that you either do some reading and/or math or just use brute force trial and error to achieve things. There are no limits to what you can do apart from part numbers on your ships, physics and the kraken.

        Modding community is also pretty decent with great mods like Kethane and of course the usual “cheat” mod that adds unbalanced parts.

        The community itself is really decent and helpful, don’t be afraid to ask even the most basic stuff in the forums, you’ll definetly get help.

    • LTK says:

      That’s not a problem of alpha funding, that’s a problem with the customer’s expectations. When playing any unfinished game, you’re inevitably going to form an expectation of what it should be like when it’s finished. But since it’s not your game to develop, the game that it eventually becomes is very unlikely to be the game you imagined it to be. Finished products generally don’t have that problem, because you basically know that the game you have is how the game will always be.

      Except when it comes to mods, then the same problem rears its head. I can spend weeks and weeks to mod Skyrim to be the game that I want it to be, but it’s unlikely that it’ll ever get there unless I start making mods myself.

      • Vinraith says:

        I don’t know about that. I tend to think that if a game is full price in alpha, then already getting 60% off Steam sales long before it’s even finished, there’s just not a lot of motivation for the devs to push it over the finish line. Why do that when you can make it “good enough” and move on to the next lucrative alpha project? Most people that bought it early on won’t even be playing it anymore by the time it’s “finished” anyway.

        Rewarding ideas and not execution has certain inevitable outcomes, none of them good. There really needs to be an initial outpouring of support to get a good idea off the ground, and then another outpouring of support when that idea actually comes to full fruition, but in our current bargain basement sale gaming industry there’s no way to do that.

        • LTK says:

          I can certainly see how getting a large portion of sales from your alpha would affect the urgency of the game’s final release, but in the end I don’t really see it having a negative impact. I’m sure that a fair number of games that did not go the alpha funding route could add more features, more mechanics, more levels, more characters and so on, and they probably won’t be worse for it. As a developer you just have to pick a point when to ship it. But when a game that is alpha-funded ends its development it may seem like it’s wasting its potential, even though it might not even have any less features had it been traditionally funded.

        • Fox89 says:

          Well, most developers – especially indie developers – care about making a great game. Sure, they’d all love to get rich and buy Aston Martins as well, but for the most part the reward for making money from a game before it’s completed is actually being able to keep working on it and finish it to the quality they would like. When you’re rushing to meet deadlines because your initial capital is running out, you don’t get that luxury.

        • P.Funk says:

          Why would they not want to finish it? If you get a good kickstarter, make some money, then you screw up the final product why would anybody buy your next one? Or fund a new one?

          If you consider a game company and a company’s first game one and the same then you’re basically anticipating them going for a cash grab before retiring. If you think they have a single bone of business sense in them maybe you ought to consider the fact that they’ll continue to work and support it to finish.

          Your speculations lack a decent focus other than ‘what if’. You purport Minecraft to never having been the survival game you wanted it to be, but thats not a statement that its incomplete, rather than its not the game you want it to be. Your what if about crowdfunded games ignores the fundamental desire of a small firm to gain customer loyalty and to continue producing new titles in the future.

          Your attitude strikes me as being from someone who isn’t easily satisfied and decries the unsatisfactory.

    • jonfitt says:

      I could not disagree with your Minecraft opinion any more than I do. Minecraft may not be the game you wanted it to be, but it is absolutely a brilliant game in the opinion of legions of kids who are still playing it however many years later. You may not realise if you don’t have friends who have middle school age children, but it is endemic. They play it on PC, and on Xbox, they mod it and they absorb every nuance. My personal interest has waned, but no game will stay fresh forever even with mods. But by no metric that’s any use is it not a brilliant game.

      Anyway your personal dislike of Minecraft aside, it has coloured your opinion of KSP and alpha funded games and that’s a reasonable.

      Forget potential. It is not a worth the paper it’s written on. If you want to play armchair games designer then you will inevitably end up disappointed. Potential is different to promises though, and I would weigh up the trustworthiness of the promiser, but if a trust worthy person makes a promise you think they can deliver then that might be worth following.

      KSP is absolutely brilliant right now ignoring all potential and any promises. As is, it’s a unique sandbox experience with nothing to match it in what it does. Could someone think of ideas in which they could and maybe should expand and improve on it? Yes, and I hope they do. But right now if they never added another thing it would be a game worth playing.

      • Answermancer says:

        I agree with you 100%.

        I hate this talk about “the potential” of KSP if it was a “full game” or whatever. It is a full game to me and tons of other people, it doesn’t need a campaign mode or more structure to be complete, it’s a perfectly good game right now.

        • colw00t says:

          Harvester has been pretty up front about the fact that the R&D system as it is currently envisioned is basically a tutorial system. It starts a new player out with a small number of parts and lets them gradually earn more by doing more complex tasks, so as to not overwhelm them with several hundred options as soon as they open the VAB.

          In 0.22, “career mode” turns back into the sandbox once you’ve done enough science.

    • Artificial says:

      Always found it weird how so many people felt that Minecraft needed some sort of purpose or direction. For me, what made it so great was that you just had a whole world to explore and sculpt in to what ever you wanted. All of the adventure and story stuff has absolutely 0 appeal to me.

      I think my view will be the same for KSP as well. Although a campaign might actually be nice, it’s already enough of a challenge building rockets with unlimited resources to get to various places, and either land or get into orbit.

      • P.Funk says:

        I think those people fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a sandbox. In 21st century gaming apparently even sandboxes need rails.

      • Vinraith says:

        Creative mode was for you, and that was finished. Survival mode was for me, and that never was. People behaving as though it’s unreasonable to expect devs to live up to their promises doesn’t provide much incentive for devs to live up to their promises.

  2. Gap Gen says:

    Please tell me someone’s remade Gravity in KSP.

    Also, that last shot in the second trailer. Amazing.

    • nitehawk says:

      Simple: Every goddamn time I play the game.

      Still love it though.

  3. Teovald says:

    Did the devs spend some time optimizing their game ?
    I tried it a couple of months ago and performances were just atrocious on a decent computer.

    • Chuckaluphagus says:

      That’s odd (unless we have very different ideas of what constitutes a decent computer). I run it primarily on a computer with a 4-core AMD Phenom II, 8 GB of memory and a Radeon 6850 — not weedy, but nothing special these days — and I’ve never had any problems, even with the graphic settings turned up at 2560×1440 resolution.

      I’ve also tried running it on a notebook with Intel HD 3000 graphics, and while it does run, that’s a lot more sluggish.

      • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

        Graphics settings don’t make too much difference, it’s not exactly like they’re cutting edge visuals, which may well fool some people as it looks so simple. The physics calculations it performs can bring decent-ish PCs crashing down pretty quickly though, especially if you’re building ships with tons of parts.

        I’m running on an i7-2600k @ 4.6GHz, an OC’d GTX 580 (forget what I’ve OC’d it to), and launching big ships can make the frame rate fairly pants. Not terrible, but certainly noticeably low. Trying to use Ctrl-Z in the VAB can sometimes take ages to do anything, starting the game, even from SSD, takes much, much longer than I’m used to these days, and switching to big ships is also pretty glacial. It can just feel very clunky. I’ve no doubt it will be better optimised down the road, and I certainly don’t find it offputting just now, but it’s nowhere near as slick as people are used to these days. Then again, it is only v 0.22. And already great fun.

      • Teovald says:

        A stronger config than that, which is why those performances were especially aggravating…
        So it is probably just that the MacOsX version of the game does not get enough love, I will try again on the same machine but on windows this time .. Thanks.

    • airmikee99 says:

      It’s still in Alpha, hasn’t even gotten to the Beta stage yet, and it’s a long way from release.

    • pacificator says:

      There were indeed a lot of problems when having a lot of bodies on a single ship. These have been sorted out in the latest releases.

      • Stuart Walton says:

        There’s also a welding mod (UbioZur Welding) which lets you convert a group of objects into a single object. This reduces the number of calculations the engine has to perform. The multiple objects’ properties are all recalculated into a single object. The numbers aren’t perfect though, connections are prone to break as the flexing provided by multiple joints usually helps dampen jerks and jolts. It also doesn’t work well with multiple docking ports (and possibly multiple engines or command modules).

        • Sam says:

          Neat, I hadn’t heard of that mod.
          There’s a special kind of sadness when assembling a huge space station and suddenly the frame rate plummets from all the physics calculations.

    • barcharcraz says:

      Yeah, I know what you mean, I run on an i7 920 with a NVidia graphics card and it gets a little slow sometimes. I suspect that once Unity gets updated to the latest version of Mono (so err never) it will be a little better. I bet unity is on a pretty old version of PhysX as well.

  4. GernauMorat says:

    God I love KSP. PC gaming at its finest, even in its unfinished state

  5. Farsearcher says:

    I remember when Kerbal Space program was a comedy space explosion simulator.

    Evidently things have changed.

    Watching those trailers now gave me goosebumps – though the excellent music helps.

  6. brianisbrilliant says:

    Damnit but where is this update? Don’t tease me with features I can’t touch!

    • Sam says:

      Got to say, I wish people would stop putting out “check out our thing!” press releases before the thing can actually be checked out. Is there really any harm in delaying the announcement until an hour or two after the patch is available? Might even cut down on the inevitable server overload.

      Even more so the “our demo is out next week!” press release. As business people would say, only give me actionable information.

      • brianisbrilliant says:

        Like when this same story was talked about september 10th-ish last month. i knew 0.22 was a thing i had read before.

    • oyog says:

      Gosh darn it, RPS! Don’t tell us something’s out when it’s not! That’s not cool at all!

      From the Kerbal forums:
      “Squad is proud to announce update 0.22 has entered the last phase of development; Experimentals! All features implemented into a solid build for our playtesters to go and find the smaller bugs our QA team may have missed.

      Keep an eye on our Twitter and Facebook accounts to learn more about 0.22’s now impending release (soon™).”

      • Premium User Badge

        phuzz says:

        It’s released on the 16th, on Mexico time, so quite possibly not for hours and hours yet.

        • oyog says:

          Who has that kind of time!? This is an outrage, I tells ya’! An outrage!

          • Premium User Badge

            phuzz says:

            It was annoying for me as last night was the last bit of gaming time I get for a while, but I suppose this’ll give them time to come out with 0.22.1 fixing any egregious bugs.

    • brianisbrilliant says:

      It’s live now through steam, for anyone that’s reading this after 2:34 pm (-6:00 GMT)

  7. skutbag says:

    First of all your “Using M83 is kind of cheating” best tag evaarrr

    Second, I’ve bought Minecraft and Prison Architect pre-alpha – actually not played them as much as I thought I would – but never felt ripped off by any stretch of the imagination. Yes you do have to adjust your expectations, and maybe as kickstarter-esque approaches continue to grow we do need to keep reminding people that. A small price to pay for games that are a million (space) miles away from the frankly overpriced if nice looking and easy to just get on with console gaming scene. Except now they all get updates and patches and broken crap just like PC games anyway!

    I considered having a go at Planetary annihilation in a similar way, but in this case reminded myself there’s still plenty of fun to be had with SupCom and the expansion – to scratch that particular itch. So in many cases I’m happy to wait and hear interesting tales from other people, in a similar way I’ve probably enjoyed Dwarf fortress an equal amount if not more this way than actually playing it myself.

    • Ernesto says:

      Yeah! That tag is great. And it’s true. Everything looks better when M83 is playing in the background :D

      • Splynter says:

        The song certainly makes the video that much more compelling. It’s funny, having never heard of the band before, my first thought on seeing the tag was “What, did they put a Messier object in the skybox or something”? Subsequent research revealed that the band itself was named after the spiral galaxy, which is a nice little connection given the game’s subject matter.

  8. jalf says:

    I’ve had a ton of fun with KSP already, and I’m keenly looking forward to more of a campaign, as opposed to just the sandbox.

    But I also wish they’d put some work into making the physics simulation more stable. There are too many weird artifacts where components get unstable for no particular reason, and especially where time acceleration dramatically changes the stability of your ship (which currently just means the game disallows time acceleration while thrusters are active — which sucks if you’re trying to get anywhere using the ion drive, for example).

    Or my personal not-actually-favorite: I got a craft into orbit to act as a refueling space station, managed to dock another ship with it, quit the game. And when I next resumed the game, the *first* thing I see is a string of explosions, and messages telling me that a bunch of components have been destroyed. Apparently, docked ships get *very* unstable when you quit the game. And I got to start over from scratch on my space station.

    Regardless, even in its pre-0.22 state, it has managed what Minecraft never did: offer a sandbox that actually captured my imagination and made me *want* to play around and do cool stuff.

    Minecraft was always “ok, I *could* build anything I wanted — but the only challenge is investing enough time. I know I’d be able to do it, but it wouldn’t *do* anything, and I wouldn’t see anything new of the game. So why bother?”

    With KSP, some actual skill and knowledge/awareness of game mechanics is required. There’s an actual challenge. Can I get a rocket into orbit? Can I get a spaceplane into orbit (heck ,can I get it to take off in one piece?) Can I get to the moon? To another planet? Can I land there? Can I land there and get back? Can I dock two ships in orbit? There’s a sense of challenge and accomplishment in pulling all of this off, which Minecraft never had, because fundamentally, composing 15,000 blocks into a big castle was no more difficult than composing 200 blocks into a small hut. It just took longer.

    Add to that the sense of exploration. I really did want to see what other planets *looked like*. When I managed to land on Minimus, the best part was just marvelling at how alien the place looked. (Although I’m hoping they’ll add still more variety to the different planets)

    • Sharlie Shaplin says:

      I love building and then testing spaceplanes. Not every design works, but it’s an awesome feeling when they do work.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      The physics simulation bugging out and destroying your hard work/lunacy is known as ‘waking the kraken’. Avoiding wobbly ships is about the only solid advice I can give you, oh, and F5 to quick save and hold F9 to load that save.

      And I have yet to build a spaceplane that actually made it to space and back, and until 0.22 actually gets released (it’s not on steam yet), there’s not much point in having something re-useable.

    • LionsPhil says:

      This is a great post on the distinction between the two.

      Also on how annoying physics simulations can be.

  9. arccos says:

    I love that video, but I get so sad every time I watch it that humanity has all but given up manned space exploration for now.

    All we have is the ISS, and even that wouldn’t be built if it was planned in today’s political climate.

    • morbiusnl says:

      this :(

    • airmikee99 says:

      Given up? Huh?

      China has started manned space flights.
      India, Russia, Japan, and the EU have all got plans for future missions into space with people, and to return to the moon.
      And the EU has plans to send people to Mars.
      There’s an organization that is taking applications for Mars colonists already.
      SpaceX has a reusable rocket called ‘Grasshopper’ that will severely reduce spacefaring costs.
      And if you can afford it ($20 million per ticket), you can book a trip into space through Space Adventures.

      Manned space missions haven’t been cast aside, the novelty has worn off so maybe you’re just not paying as much attention as you used to pay. :)

      • Somerled says:

        There’s been a few organizations taking applications for Mars colonists. Maybe they have more plans than just taking applications (plus a small fee). Maybe not.

    • drinniol says:

      Yeah, the USA may have given up with NASA for now but the rest of the world marches on (the I in ISS stands for International after all).

  10. gi_ty says:

    I have had a good amount of fun with this game. it certainly sparks the imagination. I do wish that they would make the route planning tools a little more user friendly though. As it is I think the learning curve is just barely to steep when you trying to get into orbits around distant bodies. I had quite a few satellites orbiting, but trying to land on Mun usually just left the hapless Jebadiah in a decaying Sun orbit or blasting out of the Solar System.

  11. D4NI3L_B says:

    That capsule is doomed. The parachute is a drogue chute.