SpaceSphere

It was absolutely stunning!!! Of course, there were a few things that weren't quite right. <HIGHLIGHT TO REVEAL SPOILERS> The way the astronauts were joking around and improvising while fixing Hubble was unrealistic; in reality any such spacewalk would be scripted down to the second months in advance. And the orbital position of Hubble, the ISS, and Tiangong was obviously wrong. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a little license with the details as long as it is necessary to support the story (which it was and did perfectly). This movie is already set in an impossible world where the Shuttle is still in service but the Chinese Tiangong station is completely assembled, so why not move them into the same orbit while you're at it? There were also things that were more subtly wrong, which no one seems to be pointing out, like the fact that touching the solar panels on the ISS would likely lead to dangerous electrical shock due to the static charge that tends to accumulate on them (this has been a concern for some real spacewalks). The speed at which Kessler syndrome took hold was also faster than seemed reasonable, and again, it would be impossible to take out so many classes of satellites (communication, GPS, etc.) which in reality are in very different orbits, but once again it served the story so I didn't mind it. </SPOILERS> None of this detracted from the movie at all, it still worked as a pulse-pounding survival thriller and a moving metaphorical examination of the human experience. So if you haven't watched 'Gravity' I highly recommend you do, and make up your own mind about it. I mean, come on, we're KSP players, we're like half the target audience for this film!

I'm a huge fan of the maneuver node system, it makes orbital rendezvous and interplanetary transfers that would otherwise be prohibitively difficult a piece of cake! However, it is only available after you've launched, meaning you have to design and launch your rocket before you can use it to figure out the optimal flightpath. I propose adding a special 'astrodynamics' facility to the space center, which gives you access to the solar system map (similar to the tracking station), but where you would be able to add a special "launch node" by clicking on a space center icon or specifying coordinates on any planet. The launch node would allow you to specify the orbit a hypothetical spacecraft would initially launch into, and would estimate the required delta-v (and thrust/weight ratio, etc.). It would then be possible to add maneuver nodes to this starting orbit and plan a whole mission. Time warp should be available, but since this is a 'simulation' it won't effect the 'real' universe time, and it will be possible to scrub both forward and backward, allowing players to identify launch windows and useful planetary alignments ahead of time. In addition to enabling the planning of more complex missions that require precisely timed launches to take advantage of planetary alignments, it will allow players to know the delta-v requirements of these complex flights up front, before they've designed their spacecraft. Beyond just helping advanced players efficiently execute more complicated missions, this will greatly aid beginners, who don't already know the approximate delta-v need to reach the Mün, or when the launch windows between Kerbin and Duna are, and it builds on already established systems, so I think it would be a very logical addition to KSP.

I'm surprised at the number of negative comments regarding the new Star Trek franchise*, many of which follow the same predictable formula: Too many explosions and lens flares, Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have liked it, J.J. Abrams is a blundering monster who strangles puppies for fun, etc. I could refute these point by point (as others have done), but that would be a massive waste of time. Instead, I will simply say this: I've been a life-long trek fan, and it is clear to me, as it must be to any reasonable observer, that the J.J. Abrams reboot has been the best thing to happen to Star Trek in nearly 20 years. Remember that back in 2005, when Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled, it wasn't just that particular show that was ending; the entire franchise had just about run out of steam. So many spin-offs had been made already, there didn't seem to be any way to move forward and preserve the essence of what Star Trek was while attracting enough viewership to make the whole thing worthwhile. Star Trek was dead. Then in 2009 the reboot came out and suddenly Star Trek was back, and it was good, and popular, and most importantly it had an exciting future ahead of it again. And it really was Star Trek, from the first moments of the film, I remember feeling like I was back in a very familiar place, even though there were strange new aliens and gratuitous lens flares and spaceships with almost TARDIS-like mismatches of interior space vs. exterior extent. I disagree with some commenters in that I really feel that this new Star Trek has heart, it really is about likable characters and human stories, and it preserves the optimism of the original show. Of course I'm not saying there aren't flaws, there are. From wonky sets (it doesn't matter how hard you try J.J, a brewery is still a brewery!), to wonky science (how the hell does a black hole absorb all the radiation released by a supernova that has already happened?), to the fact that every planet is somehow just a few minutes of warp flight away, there are certainly issues that should be pointed out and things that could have been done better. But I hope anyone who decides to tear apart these new films will take the same critical view of the older films and series, because the honest truth is they had faults too, some of which were quite serious. I mean, why do we need a Lt. Barclay appearance in Star Trek: First Contact, can't that guy just go away, like forever? And in the original show the Enterprise encounters another god-like alien entity every week, which is implausible, and the first episode of The Next Generation, "Encounter at Farpoint", is weird, and in Generations the whole Nexus-caused time-loop thing doesn't make sense, and Kirk just gets killed by a collapsing bridge after a total of maybe 30 minutes on screen. Not to mention Star Trek The Motion Picture and Star Trek: Insurrection are boring. Don't get me wrong, they're interesting, but you have to admit, you really don't want to watch those if you're sleepy. And what's this silly rule about not showing the ships upside down? I'm very glad J.J. Abrams broke that one in the first film. I very much liked 2009's Star Trek, and I just saw Star Trek Into Darkness today and thought it was a terrific Trek film, well worth the 4 year wait. But if you didn't like them please remember that the rest of the franchise is still there, and thanks to these new movies a lot more people will be watching it again. *I've heard many people call it "nuTrek", is that the popularly accepted term? It's got a nice ring to it.

The real question is, why do the spinning artificial gravity modules have windows on what would be the floor? ...Modern architecture...

Just a heads up, that should be "Star Trek (2009)" and it should come after Star Trek: Enterprise (a series I liked a lot by the way )

Um, don't we already use ion drives all the time? If you mean something like VASMIR, I think that's more useful for interplanetary missions than interstellar ones, to get to this planet within our lifetimes I would think we would need some kind of antimatter-nuclear engine. Unless you're talking about a different kind of ion drive than those I'm familiar with.

Haha, for a second there I thought you meant 'thirty point zero-zero-zero' km/s, and then I remembered that the meanings of "." and "," in numbers are sometimes switched around (this almost lead to a disaster once when I misread the output current of a power brick ). Anyway I'm super excited about this discovery as well, it made me completely forget about the presidential debate! It would be awesome to have a probe visit that system, my money is on antimatter engines fueled by antimatter harvested from the Earth's Van-Allen belts (making antimatter in particle accelerators is to slow and expensive). Perhaps the speed of the craft could be augmented by attaching a solar sail and sending it on a sun-dive to provide an extra kick to start its voyage, and we could build a big station in space or on the moon that could focus a powerful laser beam on the sail to accelerate it further. In that case maybe most of the antimatter could be used to decelerate on approach to Alpha Centauri B. Also, although it will be tremendously expensive, we should probably send several, just incase one bumps into a grain of dust while traveling at relativistic speeds or something.

I agree, Mars One is nuts

Hmm, I think I agree with the idea that humans will have visited several asteroids and established some sort of Moon base. I'm 50/50 on whether we'll have visited Mars in person yet, but we'll definitely have many more cool robotic probes whizzing around the solar system visiting planets and moons and even returning samples from them to Earth. Hopefully Planetary Resources and other companies with similar goals will have begun mining NEO's! There will be several large permanently manned space stations (operated by different governments and private companies) orbiting Earth at different altitudes and the cost of visiting one for several months as a tourist will, at most, equal the cost of a suborbital Virgin Galactic ticket today (~1/100th of what it currently costs to visit the ISS as a tourist). There may be at least one large space based solar power station collecting huge amounts of solar energy and beaming it to a receiver on the ground, powering an entire city, 24 hours a day, all year round. There will be remote controlled robotic satellites that can repair and move other satellites in orbit, greatly reducing the need to build and launch replacement satellites. There will probably be small cheap craft whose job it is to de-orbit hazardous space junk (sorry, no need for anime characters to do it ). I hope that there will be some sort of orbital cable system implemented at this point, perhaps a lunar space elevator or spinning rotavator cables in Earth orbit. I don't think we'll have a full scale terrestrial space elevator yet, but it could be in the early stages of construction. I don't think there will ever be space fountains or launch loops, they're too crazy . There could also be exciting scientific stuff going on in space, such as the harvesting of antimatter captured by the Earth's magnetic field for research, or to fuel the antimatter rockets of interplanetary craft! The superpowers that exist at that time (China and the US are probably a safe bet, but perhaps some other country will become powerful by then as well) will likely be jostling for control of geosynchronous orbit, and other useful orbits, wanting to place their satellites in the best spots to bounce signals around the globe and monitor their enemies. They may have unmanned spacecraft covertly shooting down each others satellites from time to time. With the space based solar power plants of major cities in range of the same weapons built to shoot down spy satellites, there is the frightening possibility of a full on space war, one which would have dire consequences for us on Earth, but hopefully that won't happen. All in all I think it will be pretty cool, hopefully I haven't over-estimated what we're capable of achieving in a little over half a century

Cool, I guess I've been working so hard on interplanetary missions lately that I forgot what Moon landings were like

I remember being frustrated building ships at first, except, this was way back in v.10 and I was just trying to get to orbit (it was a lot harder before we had the map view ). I found that the most helpful thing for me to do before designing was to look at screenshots other players had posted of their rockets that had made it to orbit or the Mun or wherever. This, at the very least, gave me a sense of the scale of the rocket that would be required, it's often easy to underestimate how many stages and fuel tanks you are going to need. Also, if my design just wasn't working and I didn't know why, I could just make it more and more similar to the other rocket until it worked, discovering what I was doing wrong in the process. Secondly, I highly recommend using the small 1 Kerbal pod for your first trip, and only switching to the 3-kerbal pod with the size 2 parts afterwards (the 1 Kerbal pod of the current version is approximately the same size and weight as the command pod from the demo). Thirdly, try to make sure that each stage is smaller and lighter than the one below it. This is because, due to the oberth effect, the efficiency of the upper stages is much higher than those below them, and also the lower stages have to carry much more weight than those above them. <----------------------------------------------------The basic formula I follow for designing a moon rocket is this--------------------------------------------------------------> First build the lander, it needs only a tank or two of fuel, and, of course, at least one small landing engine, to get to the surface of the Mun and back the Kerbin (if flown right). Attach a decoupler to the bottom of the lander, and make the second stage by stacking up 3 or 4 liquid fuel tanks and putting a gimbaling liquid engine on the bottom, then, alt click the top tank (this will make a copy) and leave the copy floating near the rocket. Use the symmetry tool to attach several radial decouplers (2? 3? 4? 6? It's your choice!) to the side of the stack of tanks in stage two, then grab the copied stack you made earlier and attach it to the decouplers. Route fuel lines from the outer tanks to the inner tank. When the stage is activated, all the engines should fire, but the outer tanks will drain first and be jettisoned, leaving the center one completely full to continue the climb to orbit. For the third stage, attach more stacks of fuel tanks beneath decouplers attached to the base of each engine in the second stage. You can either have the outer tanks on the bottom stage feed fuel to the center one and drop away first (better for efficiency), or keep all the stacks separate and have them burn out and fall away at the same time (better for stability). This stage should get you most of the way through the lower (light blue) layer of the atmosphere. Finally place a bunch of solid rocket boosters on radial decouplers around the outside of the third stage and wire them to fire along with the liquid thrusters at launch. For heavy rockets, this is usually the only way to get them off the pad (without wasting a bunch of fuel). Apply struts liberally throughout. <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> It might take a little tweaking, but some variant of the above design should get you to the Mun. DISCLAIMER: I have been building almost exclusively with size 2 tanks for the last few weeks, so, while the general structure of the above rocket should work, the actual number of fuel tanks in each stage may need to be a bit higher if you use small tanks. Once again, look at screenshots of what other people have done. Hope that helps, good luck!