Temstar

They took away lock suspension AGAIN? Man maybe Squad just hate bases.

I think it's because the aliens have a crap load of "small" digit ships that Michael had to fight through. With Casaba howitzers you need to have one nuke per target, and you can't reuse the drive system's nuke. Michael's bomb launcher use gamma ray lasers pumped by the bombs that propel the ship, each of those bomb and release many many laser modules so you can engage many more targets at once. Aside from the orion drive they didn't forget regular nukes either. All that 16" naval gun and the little 5" gun equipped gunships fire tactical nuke shells.

The other alternative people have imagined is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Egg Life on the surface of the neutron star itself, based around the strong force instead of electromagnetic force like us.

The links still work, you just have to add the mediafire part yourself.

PAMs main advantage is that being a solid rocket it's quite reliable as there are very few moving parts, and being just a can o boom it's safe to carry in a shuttle cargo bay. If the shuttle have to do an abort you just open the cargo bay door, shove the PAM and its payload out, close the door and do whatever abort action you have to do. If instead you are carrying a liquid fuel upper stage like a Centaur you will need specialized equipment to first dump the fuel and oxidizer overboard before you can jettison the stage. Being solid fuel PAMs have lousy Isp just like their bigger SRB cousins. Also since the requirement is for them to be simple they don't have a gimballed nozzle, so payload + PAM have to be spin stabilized. The advantage of PAM doesn't apply to KSP so there's little reason to use them over liquid upper stages, besides RP of course.

No need to be that complicated, the landers can be launched from Earth and placed in position in orbit around the destination worlds before hand. Sending the lander unmanned before hand allows you to use all sorts of slowpoke propulsion methods like solar-ion when you don't have to worry about astronaut radiation exposure as you crawl your way through space.

Without waste product as input you won't be able to run the reverse reaction. Generally a manned long duration spacecraft (like ISS) will already have electrolysis equipment onboard so they can run it as long as the plumbing is in place. They generally won't though because water is already pretty useful for a manned spacecraft. There are proper regenerative fuel cells that can run the reaction in either directions equally efficiently but it's not very common yet.

One of the thing that bothers me a bit about the current in game fuel cells is the fact that they consume LFO and spit out Ec, and the LFO is just gone. In real life fuel cells mass is not lost, the fuel cell will produce some kind of waste product. If it was running on LH2 and LOX the waste product would be water which is actually very useful. I propose we make some small changes to the game to reflect this - make fuel cells generate a new resource - fuel cell waste product that's equal in weight to the LFO consumed. Assuming you have the correct waste product tank on board, the fuel cell waste product is then stored in the tank. If you don't have a waste product tank or if your tanks are full then the waste is simply lost as it is now. Then, the two fuel cells will have a toggle to turn on and off regenerative cycle. If regenerative cycle is active, the fuel cell is turned on and the craft have an excess of electrical power than the fuel cell will start to consume Ec and waste product to produce LFO, essentially running the normal fuel cell reaction in reverse. The reverse reaction will of course be much less efficient, perhaps needing 300% of the power to covert a set amount of waste product back to LFO compared to the amount of power you get running the reaction in the normal direction. This then essentially allows you to use LFO and Waste Product tanks to form an enormous low efficiency battery perfect for power hungry applications like ISRU or Rover or ion propulsion through the night.

First, turn on Cap Lock, this turns on precision control so you can use RCS more accurately, it also gives RCS thrusters thrust compensation depending on their distance from CoM, if you have more than one set of RCS that should eliminate unwanted rotation while translating. Then, don't worry so much about getting a 0.0km close encounter. You just have to get within oh say 5km and that's good enough. Minmus orbital velocity is so low that once you get close you can just cancel out your relative velocity to target and then point and shoot straight at it without worrying about orbital mechanics.

In my head canon all the crazy driving are done by one guy called Jenkins. Besides radical driving, his other hobby is moonshine making. He recently built his own canning machine for his hooch, the output are tall skinny cans like energy drink cans and he has the outside of the cans printed so that they resemble tiny versions of the orange fuel can. Where normal drink labels would be he has them replaced with humorous versions related to rocketry and space. So instead of "375mL" his can says "Propellant Mass Fraction 94%", instead of "80-proof" his can says "9-11 LF/H2O ratio". Understandably his buddies refer to his moonshine as "LFO", and fortunately for everyone he's smart enough to keep the two hobbies separate.

I know KSP like to joke about "parts found lying by the side of the road", but here really is a rocket built out of such parts.

As others have said, water doesn't expand so there's no need for the diverging part of the nozzle. But some sort of nozzle is useful! If you look at the video @magnemoe linked where they used det cord to blow wide open the bottom of their water rocket the rocket kind of just release its entire load of water in a puff and doesn't travel very far. If you instead look up videos of water rockets made from soft drink bottles you can see they get much more delta-V out of their propellent because the mouth of the bottle forms a nozzle that increase the Isp. In fact, because soft drink bottles have that handy thread on it's mouth you can create a range of nozzle attachments that screws onto the end and further constrict the water flow to further increase the Isp by trading away thrust. In a two stage rocket, I imagine the first stage will no nozzle attachment for high thrust low Isp, then your upper stage would have a constricted nozzle for high Isp low thrust.

I'm not a fan of arbitrary rules in challenges either (eg: land on the Mun and return, no Mun orbit rendezvous!) but in K-Prize's case I can see why the rule is in place. Tailsitter SSTOs are completely different animal. They generally climb to orbit using normal gravity turn trajectory, relying almost entirely on their engine power. This is as opposed to orthodox airbreathing spaceplane SSTOs that fly depressed trajectory using lifting surfaces. As a rule, SSTOs are most useful (read: cheapest cost per ton to orbit) when they take off with as low of a TWR as possible, as evidenced by the leader board from the payload fraction challenge. So from a practical perspective HTHL spaceplace SSTO is where its at and Tailsitter SSTO is a compromised solution that's trying to have it both ways. HTHL spaceplane SSTO is harder to make, so it's no surprise that K-Prize focuses on this. Now the challenge could waste a lot of energy as I did above trying to explain the differences, but people's eyes will glaze over reading it so it's easier to just say "HTHL only". But then again, K-Prize maintains a separate "gatecrasher" scoreboard for entries that complete the challenge by bending the rules like VTVL SSTOs. In some ways getting on the gatecrasher list is more fun because @boolybooly adds you entry with a witty comment about how your entry subverted the rules.

I don't think it will be a big issue. Long duration flights need spin generated gravity anyway to keep the crew healthy so they can just do the business like nature intended, no need to resort to frozen fertilized eggs (unless it's for genetic diversity issues) or iron womb. The problem is: you can select the first generation to all have "the right stuff" and be capable astronauts, but how do you ensure subsequent generations will be up to the job of crewing a generation ship? What if they want to turn the ship around?

It's not true, what if you change SoI and get a gravitational slingshot?

Here's one fairly common source of energy: 16g CO2 cartridges, generally used by bike riders as an emergency source of air to pump up their tyres without carrying a pump. By my calculation a 16g cartridge which is a little bit bigger than an AA battery can release 7L of CO2 at standard pressure and temperature, and it can do this nearly instantaneously. You can buy them easily from bike shops. And of course good old dry ice. Mix it in a bottle half filled with water and wait. The water will quickly warm up the dry ice so it becomes CO2 gas and build up the pressure. When the bottle finally lets go all that CO2 under huge pressure will fire the water out at pretty impressive velocities.

I personally would be more likely to attempt a challenge if its goals were aligned with practical aspects of career. Eg: cheap and chearful rocket, payload fraction, K prize. Participation leads to growth in my skill as a player.

That's only one agency though. You may also get some of that LEO-GEO market since they also have incentive to use smaller rockets. Plus any other national agency that you might be able to reel in. Plus cheaper prices for missions should also increase demand somewhat, depend on price elasticity of demand. It's not rock solid business case, but with some harder numbers after more accounting there may be enough of a case here to interest billionaires ala Planetary Resources. Also, there's no need to committe many billions from the word go to start depot construction. A phased approach would allow risk reduction as well as build NASA's confidence in your business. You could for example start with a small demo mission with a one shot refuel mission launching Earth processed LH2 and LOX, thus proving fuel transfer ahead of zero boil off storage or propellent production.

Because the game has to constantly detect if your ship has entered the atmosphere and drop you out of warp if it has. The higher your warp rate the less reliable that detection becomes. And extremely high warp you could warp straight through not only the atmosphere but the whole solid planet before the game could realise "oh snap, he just did a Han Solo".

I still think propellent depot has an excellent commercial case. Yes, having a cheap source of fuel in orbit does not in itself provide a reason to go to space, but why does it need to? The SLS costs $35 billion to develop and $500 million a pop to launch, assuming NASA hit the forecast budgetary numbers which seems rather doubtful. NASA is supposed to launch a SLS every year. That is money on the table that could be in your pocket if you could provide LOX and LH2 on tap in LEO. Yes this would require technologies like zero g fluid transfer, zero boil off hydrogen storage and in orbit electrolysis of water if your feedstock is water, but propellant depot technology is currently under intense R&D effort and there's no reason to believe that these engineering issues wouldn't be resolved in the future. So, assuming the technology exist to store and transfer LOX, LH2 and H2O in orbit and cracking H2O into LOX and LH2 is possible in space. That means you then have the business case to setup a private propellant depot in orbit to get that NASA money. Once your Orbital Gas n Go is opened you could easily sell oh say, LOX and LH2 at $4000 per kg, just below the price per kg of Falcon 9. The cost for SLS to lift LOX and LH2 to orbit would be many orders of magnitude higher than your price since it has to be a man-rated rocket. As a result NASA would be pressured to use smaller rockets (say something like a Delta-IV of some sort) to put their government manned payload into orbit with an empty upper stage, dock with your depot and buy your fuel, else they will be accused of wasting tax payer money on unnecessarily large rockets. So that means you're going to make a lot of money, as long as you can refill your depot with water cheaper than $4000 per kg. But that's not your problem, you just put up ads saying "Pure Water wanted at Orbital Gas n Go, $2000 per kg" and let the other companies work that out. Maybe they would build extremely cheap but not so reliable rockets to lift water from Earth (if 20% of the rocket blows up, who cares? It's just water), or maybe they will deploy ISRU operators at Lunar poles or NEO to drill for water ice. Whatever the solution is you don't care, you only pay them once they have delivered the water. In fact you could probably charge higher than $4000 per kg or whatever the price is for the lowest cost rocket at that time. After all a NASA government payload might need a lot of fuel and the cheapest rocket on the market might need many trips to fill it up. But government payloads generally don't want to wait around as they have people on board and they don't want to miss transfer windows just because one of the cheap rockets failed to make orbit. So you stand to make that extra money by being the middle man and smooth out the Supply vs Demand. The thing is, NASA doesn't actually need to be forced into this by economic pressure - they have stated very publicly that's the future they hope for. They've come up out and said they want to be customers for propellent depots, not operators. Lastly, there are laws in place to prevent NASA from working with say, the Chinese Space Agency. But they aren't no such law preventing Gas n Go from servicing both. You also get all the small fries from private companies now looking to put medium sized payload up for the cheap using refuel - say, Planetary Resource ISRU robot ship headed to NEO for that sweet sweet $2000 per kg ice - economic bootstrapping in action!

Yeah tracking station, make recovery team as the benefit for upgrading to tier 2 and make patch conics, closest encounter and node creation available straight away from tier 1.

I had an idea recently about these "other side of the world" type recovery. Why not give the player the capability to deploy a recovery team anywhere on the planet? So from the tracking station you can position your recovery team, takes 24 hours to deploy or undeploy. Once they are in position they will show up as either an aircraft carrier if positioned over water or a landing pad similar to the one SpaceX recently used if position on land. You land your craft on the pad or carrier and you get 100% recovery, if you land close to it you get a high % recovery just like as if it was another KSC. This makes one of the most common scenario for recovery - down range - viable. You no longer have to fly the first stage or the carrier aircraft all the way back to KSC for recovery.

Nah it's not mine, it's just a illustration of what I would make. People get really into water rockets, it's quite possible to do things like cutting open the top and bottom of a bottle so that it's a cylinder, and then stitch multiple together to create a taller tank just as we do in KSP. It's even possible to set up both parallel and serial staging to create a multi-stage water rocket.

I have at home: bike tire pump CO2 cylinders, as I have a sodastream machine lots of soft drink bottles, including those particularly strong sodatream bottles that can easily handle 100+ psi pneumatic parts like push to fit fittings, pneumatic hose, three way valve, ball valve, one way valve etc endless tap water a lot of tools, like the ever useful hand hold rotary tools (knock off Dremel) You can see where I'm going with this:

One of the big reason why the hab is at the front is that generally, the rear of the ship will contain A BAD THING, namely a shadow shielded nuclear reactor either for power generation or NTR. Since shadow shield is really heavy the engineers will want to design it as thin as possible and rely on both the rest of the structure of the ship as well as distance to protect the crew from radiation. Hence for their own good the crew needs to stay as far away from the business end of the ship as possible.