tseitsei89

The drill issue is already reported and a temporary fix can be found here:

Reposting since the question remains unanswered. @RoverDude could you share the mechanics of this new cool feature with us??

Where can I find functions for how much transfer credits are used? I mean that I would like to be able to calculate beforehand how many credits do I need to transfer X tons or X units of resources to a given location? Edit: also I havent had a chance to test yet but can I also transfer enriched uranium this way?

Meh so many expendable launches. Boooooo... Landing is the coolest part

It doesn't say anything about recovery in the spaceX streams timeline

Okay then. Let me correct myself: SpaceX has already shown that they are WAY superior at engineering rockets compared to NASA (and really currently, compared to anyone else). Just see SLS vs Falcon And speaking of landing rockets. Currently that is exactly what you say it isn't. It is unique. Literally no one else does that. That is THE DEFINITION of unique... No you can't. Because earth is round. You do not have to misundetstand/ be a smartass deliberately.

These kind of posts make me even more happy when Mr. Musk lands BFS on Mars during 2030's "It can't be done" -attitude is the main reason people can't do cool stuff. Besides comparing spaceX to NASA is kind of stupid since they have already demonstrated that they are MUCH better at building rockets than NASA... But yeah you are technically correct. It propably won't happen in 5 years but it mos certainly will happen in the next 10-20 years

Hmm... Falcon Heavy was originally scheduled to first fly in 2013 IIRC. So it was ~4-5 years late. So even if BFR is new FH it will be ready before 2030 anyway

Will there be a booster recovery on saturdays launch? Is the drone ship damaged from FH landing attempt or can the booster return to launch site?

I dont know if I will either but lets see how far I get. I also plan to write some kOS scripts to help automate some of the process so I only fly the interesting parts myself

I'm currently doing something similar but in actual career mode. My actual end goal is quite similar tough: setting up self sufficient bases on as many celestial bodies as possible. And also "almost" self sufficient orbital bases here and there where I only would haul colony supplies and fertilizer from the self sufficient base on the surface every now and then. I'm still in the process of gathering science to unlock all parts needed to actually build good bases but that shouldnt take long now that I have my first interplanetary mothership with enough living space and life support for duna and eve system trips at least

What I would like to see is a clear comparison between different versions of atlas, delta iv, F9 and FH. How much they cost (recoverable and expendaple in falcon cases) and how much payload they can deliver to LEO and GTO. Googling this gave me a whole bunch of widely varying results, especially for the cost part...

I would say using a booster significantly more than 2 times (like 5+ times) will be a great accomplishment and a big step in reducing costs of hauling stuff in to space Edit: Also what is important is to streamline the process of getting a landed booster back to launch shape as quickly, cheaply and reliably as possible

FH doesnt really have much to do with putting people to mars as you said. BFR will be much more useful for that. But the point is that Musk/SpaceX have once again proved that if they say they will do something, they will get it done. Maybe not in the original schedule but they will do it eventually...

The boosters ignited 3 engines during the landing. They used so called 1-3-1 landing. What that means is that: First only the center engine ignites Then 2 more engines ignite for higher thrust more dv efficient slowdown Then at the end those 2 engines shut down to give better control for the final landing You can briefly see it in the video below. @1:27 first engine ignites, @1:29 2 more engines ignite for added thrust (and camera has trouble following), @1:34 when camera gets back you can see the 2 engines just being shut down. So if they did try the same 1-3-1 landing with core stage, the center engine alone wouldn't have enough time to slow it down to landing if those 2 engines didn't ignite

Late yes. BUT it was still achieved. Like all other spacex milestones. We probablt wont be going to Mars in 2024 launch window but spacex will be going there later

Yeah that we can discuss about. My origonal response was meant for the guy who insisted that Musk only cares about profit and people will never land on Mars

My arguments have already been stated repeadetly by other people. 1. Going to Mars is a lifelong dream gor Musk so obviously he is trying to get there. 2. The reason FH won't be rated for crew transport is that BFR will be better for manned Mars missions anyway and it is already planned to launch people to Mars with it. Hmm... who should I believe Elon Musk and SpaceX or some random guy on an internet forum??

Just pls stick pls....

This so much. Falcon heavy is awesome and I'm really hyped about this launch BUT BFR will open a whole new age of spaceflight if they can make it work

Okay now I have more time so I'll try to write a proper explenation. The hardest part is first so feel free to skip over it if you don't understand it. Buoyancy is actually caused by the pressure difference on the top and bottom part of the object. And there is a pressure difference since the equation for calculating the hydrostatic pressure caused by a fluid is p(fluid) = roo(fluid)*g*z, where roo(fluid) is the density of the fluid, g is the local g and z is the height of the fluid on top of the point where we want to calculate the pressure for. So the z will be different for the top and bottom parts of the object. Now, to get the actual force caused by this pressure difference we need to calculate how quickly the pressure is changing in different points. And we can do this by simply taking a gradient of the pressure. So grad(p) = roo(fluid)*g*grad(z) = roo(fluid)*g. And now finally we have to integrate this pressure gradient over the whole volume of the object: integral[ grad(p)*dV] = integral[roo(fluid)*g*dV] = roo(fluid)*g*integral[dV] = roo(fluid)*g*V. HARDER PART ENDS HERE. The rest should be quite simple. As we calculated above the upwards force caused by buoyancy in Newtons is F(up) = m(atm)*g = roo(atm)*g*V where g is the local g. The object is floating when upwards force equals downwards force (aka gravity) so F(up) = F(down) --> roo(atm)*g*V = m(object)*g --> roo(atm)*V = m(object). Now we also know that m(object) = roo(object)*V, therefore roo(atm)*V = roo(object)*V ---> roo(atm) = roo(object). And this obviously means that the object will float stationary if its density is equal to the density of the atmospheres density. The magnitude of gravity nor the shape or volume of the object do not play any role in this.

Depends on the volume of the said object

1. Test what is the velocity of the cubic struts when fired from your cannon 2. Make a node that hits your target celestial body AND has the amount of dV you got from the first test(s) 3. fire at that node and you should be really close...

Yeah this is just a NO for me... Having to boost my comsats every once in a while would soon get quite annoying. It wouldnt really add any challenge to the game but instead it would add a whole lot of irritating "routines" that I just have to do at times...

This so much! You learn a lot and you get to design exactly the autopilot you want/can design currently...