cicatrix

Can you post pics of your hopper? I think this might not have anything to do with MJ. This may happen if you have asymmetric thrust and your center of mass shifts when you burn up your fuel. The lighter your craft is the greater the effect. Up to the point when your reaction wheels or RCS cannot handle it. Perhaps the picture of your hopper may help to see what's wrong.

Jumping in. Been walking around that train since 1.0.

Reading about the space race I wonder why it was necessary to create super-rockets like Saturn V or N-1 at all? Of course there had to to be reasons but why the idea of using ordinary surface to LEO rockets and subsequent orbital assembly of the transfer vehicle and the lander never prevailed? In the long run it would have been cheaper compared to the development and making of those rocket-monsters.

Then you've picked the wrong one:

I think the problem was in the orientation of your control part (probe core). Did you detach anything from your lander? Was there a tug vehicle in orbit? Your control part (probe core) should be oriented 'upwards' (facing in the opposite direction of your thrust vector). If you have it upside down MJ would try to orient your PROBE CORE onto the 'correct' vector and if your engines happen to point in the wrong direction after this - well, that's just too bad.

From an engineering standpoint I suppose we could build one (but then there must be some materials with fantastic values of yield and ultimate strength). The bigger that thing - the bigger the load during maneuvers - the bulkier that thing needs be - the heavier and then again - tons of dead weight (dead = useless, pun intended). And the purposes is to carry relatively small fighters (and the crew of course). The crew needs radiation protection, oxygen, water, food, some free space and a TV screen, of course. Robots, from the other hand doesn't require all that. Carry a sea container of small disposable (kamikaze if necessary) drones with AI's and you get a fighting force relatively cheap and probably much more deadly. So, for the practical purposes - this thing has zero usefulness. If I had participated in space combat I could only dream of fighting against the enemy who builds such things. They're sooo expensive and so vulnerable that there would be a chance to bankrupt him sooner than I defeat him in battle.

The core problem is: Kerbin is too small! Too dense. Everything else is derived from this first statement - the size of Mun, Kerbin's orbit, the sizes and orbits of all other planets and finally - the size of Kerbol. Mun and Kerbol should look like the same size from the surface of Kerbin and that's why the size of Kerbol is as it is. I really don't know why Squad picked that size of Kerbin, but I have a suspicion that it is somehow related to spaceplanes and overall difficulty. They even rigged the IsP of the engines to make them less powerful than their Earth counterparts or otherwise reaching the orbit speed would be too easy. Also orbital speed is only 2,3 km/s and this making re-entry not as dangerous as it is in real life. As for the physics - Kerbol's size and density plays no part in forming the orbits of the planets as they move 'on rails' meaning no orbital physics is simulated here.

There were a total of 5 translations titled 'Hidden complexities of rockets' (parts 1 through 5). Here, even with links (There's a thread where the links to all 5 parts are listed - it's still here, but the links are obviously lead to nowhere).

Hello, this question could have already been answered, but this is kind of important to me so I dare to ask - Is there any way I could recover some of my blog posts on the old forum engine? I know they have been discarded during the upgrade but still there might have been some old backup left or something? Unfortunately I have discovered that I lost the original files of my translations of some articles that I posted as blog entries here and these posts were the only one left. I judged that according to the old Internet saying that 'once posted it's there forever' I can always use them if I need to, but this situation proves that every rule has an exception.

I must be growing old. Really, bbcode seems much easier and much more intuitive to me than all of the above. Anyway, thanks for the info.

How do I make the hyperlink behind a picture? In the old forums engine I could do: [url="www.someurl.com"][img]www.someimagehost.com/pic.jpg[/img][/url] With all that WYSIWYG form I can't figure out how to do that. The hyperlink button doesn't work on the selected pic. Is this even possible with the new forum engine?

Imagination is our window into the future. At NASA/JPL we strive to be bold in advancing the edge of possibility so that someday, with the help of new generations of innovators and explorers, these visions of the future can become a reality. As you look through these images of imaginative travel destinations, remember that you can be an architect of the future All images can be found here.

- deleted as irrelevant

The whole system is based on the fact that we have ten fingers. Celsius simply split the range from freezing temperature to boiling temperature into ten times ten degrees. So, I suppose, if aliens have four fingers their system would be either 4-based or 8-based. Still, the Babylonians used 60-based system as it was very convenient to divide by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30. So 60 = 5 * 12 = 5 * (3 * 4). We still use it with hours of day/night (2 * 12). And every hour being 60 minutes with each minute being 60 seconds.

You should also set MJ to Eve Atmo, not Eve Vacc

Ladders! They really should be more heat resistant as they tend to always protrude outside the heat shield.

Eve's atmosphere is thicker and higher. Usually I go straight up for 30k BEFORE starting the turn. And I do it very slowly - to complete it at around 60-70K. This probably costs me more fuel but it's actually simpler. Also check the TWR of every stage - even though they might have enough dV they don't produce enough thrust (especially in Eve's atmo). Check if you read your TWR correctly - not for Kerbin, but for Eve.

2 answers: yes and no No: No, because there is no such energy source that has required output. And none seems possible. Yes: If we suspend the realism and assume that we have an energy cell with that absurd power output - yes, flying with it will be possible. But then again - with the right amount of energy EVERYTHING is possible - stopping the starts in their orbits, undoing the big bang - that sort of stuff. So the good question is: is it at least theoretically possible to have the power source of this capacity and size?

Easy - if they're peaceful - we will eventually betray their trust and will surely try to get advantage over them. I would send them the Tax Code and all the lawyers I could get my hands upon.

A correct tool for everything:

Are there any palm trees on Laythe?

The spacetime is a poor term, perhaps, because it combines 'space' and 'time' - two different concepts in our understanding of things right from the earliest childhood. I wish Einstein had come up with a different term. It took me quite a lot of time to understand that it is a one thing, not two different things bound together with some weird theory. To illustrate - let's strip one dimention, as we always do, from 'space' and substitute time instead. We now have a 3d object (say, a loaf of bread) where one end is the Big Bang and another one - the heat death of the Universe (or whatever end-of-the-world is in store for us). If we cut it we'll get a single moment of 'time' somewhere in between. If I stick a toothpick inside it - it would represent my worldline within the spacetime - every single moment in my life is already there. The trajectory of each particle my body consists of has been 'fixed' at the moment of creation of our Universe. It's deterministic. At every single slice there will be only one copy of me. Normally. What I do now, what I will be doing in 10 minutes, 10 years from now - all of it is already there. The amount of matter and energy in each slice is constant. Imagine now I somehow manage to overcome the entropy of that system and bend the toothpick (my worldline) in such a way it will appear twice on some slices. If we take space and time separately then I just added energy to the space '10 minutes ago' by introducing my own self into it twice, but at the same time I subtracted energy from my former 'now' by removing myself from there. Only if we take the whole spacetime as a whole the laws of conservation can be preserved. This is the problem with time travel - I will need to reverse the entropy of the Universe. Will my toothpick (worldline) be bent to create a loop or will it break and create two separate worldines? Normally (without time mahchine) each particle has a worldline pointed in the direction the entropy increases so, if I re-arrange matter in the past, its particles will have no means to affect me also being in the past since without special means for time travel I will be the 'cause'. So I don't think that if we assume time travelling is possible my memory would be in any danger of changing. Even if I would really kill my granddad.

Depending of how old you are you might live (or 'exist' to be precise since the term 'live' is open to many interpretations) much longer than you expect. Of course it's offtopic here. - - - Updated - - - The latter disturbes me. My memory is 'stored' within organic matter (my brain). If I create a causality loop then somehow the state of my brain should be changed - which means the matter will be re-arranged somehow. This requires work (energy). Where does it come from? I think I'm on the verge of inventing a machine that creates energy out of nothing.

Yes, but I'm taking into account the 20 min delay, so.. we would see it appearing there only after had departed. Though, I'm wondering if it's possible to see the ship appearing somewhere BEFORE it had departed and then prevent the ship from flying off.

But wouldn't the ship be travelling back in time too? I think that we should see it appearing near Mars in less than 20 minutes.