Rdivine

How about we use this opportunity to give credits to Dres? We can put the statue of HarvesteR at the top of a mountain overlooking the planet. #DresIsReal

Exactly, i agree with your point. Experimental parts should be part of the payload, not part of the rocket. It will only potentially fail if you use it(e.g. engines), not if you stow it in the payload bay. Additionally, i would suggest that contract missions that require testing of large parts(srbs,mainsails etc) in space/escape trajectory have their rewards increased, due to the increased difficulty in bringing them to space. Or, we could remove testing in space of large engines altogether and have contract missions that require dry-firing of engines (e.g. burning of > 30000 units of liquid fuel at launchpad, or launching the engine 1000m into the air and recovering it etc.).

Mods are not part of the stock game, the game that most new players play. Mods are simply community creations, and claiming that it isn't relevant because there are mods that do such a function is irrelevant. Yes, it is not essential in landings, flight, interplanetary trips etc. But, flexibility in design is also another consideration. Think about how many times your rocket did a backflip during accent, or your payloads landing upside down, just because there isn't enough drag, and there isn't enough space to stow a wing in the fairing. Grid fins make sense in providing a flight control surface that can be stowed and/or provide drag to a vessel to keep it in the correct orientation. Could you also explain why it should still be a mod even though it is useful? I would love to hear your reason. The decision to take the suggestion, or not, is up to SQUAD for what they think feels best for the game EDIT: A quick search with CKAN and curse.com showed that there are no v1.1 mods that provide grid fins. LazTek's SpaceX pack has them, but they are in 0.90. There are no mods that have this function right now.

This suggestion is mainly for career only. There are contracts that are currently in the game rewarding you with funds if you test a part at ___ alt and at ___ speed. However, we can accept that part contract, and be able to use that experimental part indefinitely until that contract expires (sort of a way to cheat). New suggestion: Make that experimental part have a chance to fail. Let's say 20%. When it fails during a mission, the contract will be considered as "complete". Then, when another contract regarding the same experimental part comes up again, the chance of it failing is lowered, let's say 15%. Additionally, when the chance of failure reaches below 5%, the player has an option to purchase the blueprints for that part using funds.

I feel like the universe is an art piece, that we should preserve it. We should spread across the universe, but colonizing planets and potentially destroying a dead rock in space may not be a great idea in my opinion.

Would it be responsible of us to spread life in the first place? If we spread life, they might start building colonies on other planets, mining and using resources, eventually depleting and destroying the planet if done inefficiently like what humans are doing now. In the wake of our footprints, thousands of planets and even more may be damaged, combined with conflicts and war and weapons, that number may be amplified. However, this scenario is purely fictional, and we cannot surely determine if there will be war if we become far more intelligent. Should we just stay on Earth and build spaceships with the sole purpose of exploring, not colonizing? Should we just live in our own spaceships and leave other planets' ecology and biology alone? Should we just not intervene and minimize our footprint? In my opinion i think yes, if we want to be responsible.

Life; a parasite in the universe, or nay? This video highlights the pathway humans may take if we ever decide to go to mars definitely. I highly recommend this documentary if you have time to watch "Here we are on earth, a world that's very sophisticated and developed and complete. Anything we do is just a subtraction, because we live in such a biologically rich planet. When we go to Mars, we have an opportunity that we don't have here on Earth. Here's a planet that has died. Here's a world that is not full of biology, where we can do something to help." -Chris McKay "Many people think that the universe has a big sign on it that says "Do not touch". I think that the universe has a big sign on it that says "Go fourth and spread life". When i look around the universe i think life is the most amazing thing we see." -Chris McKay Given the plans to go to mars put fourth by SpaceX, do you think we should really terraform Mars? Would that be destroying the natural habitat on Mars, or helping Mars? And asking the bigger question: Should we spread life in the universe? Additionally, many problems would arise if the human race actually spread life. If the race were to be divided into smaller fractions, would we have wars, conflicts, end up destroying each other? Would we infect already developing biology on other planets with our diseases and wipe out their life? Would some of us get to advanced and use other humans as slavery? Would it ultimately be good for us if we grew too big?

I like it. Maybe squad will implement it and we will never notice

Yes, you are one day late unfortunately because you are just reiterating my point. The red lines indicate the potential line of sight for the rocket as it comes back to land. It can't be the bermudas because the land mass is too little. Thaicom was headed towards an equatorial burn so it couldn't have headed south to the bahamas. The "land mass" in the video looked strangely familar as if it were due to the varying colors like you would find in mountain ranges. However, storm clouds could be a possibility, we may have to look into that. Or maybe perhaps spaceX launched retrograde by accident, hoping no one would notice

i don't think it was bermuda, it looks way too big to be a small island.

How long before the actual touchdown did spaceX shutdown 2 of it's 3 firing engines for landing? In the video, i saw only 1 engine being lit up.

First thing we do when we make contact? Order alien pizza.

I actually believe what he said. I mean, its impossible right? Why does the speed exceed 20000kmph when the rocket is on the ground!? Were the people missing the landing and forgot to press the "stop" button!? Also, the april 8th landing was OBVIOUSLY fake just because it was different from the CRS-6 landing attempt. They must have overlooked that trying to "land" it!! And was it even a landing? It looked way more realistic when the footage was reversed. It's clearly a launch. The smoke you see are just made of exploded apples and they are moving towards the rocket because they want to run away from the stupidity of mankind some people. Conclusion: Fake.

There's a company that's initiating a kickstarter campaign to start bladeless wind turbines. http://www.vortexbladeless.com/home.php https://www.technologyreview.com/s/537721/bladeless-wind-turbines-may-offer-more-form-than-function/ I've been trying to figure out how it works, and how the energy is harnessed. I'm using the concept of vorticity in my school project, so i need to figure out: 1. The shape of the structure 2. How vorticity induces oscillation 3. How the oscillating energy is harnessed. If you understand how it works, please help me by leaving a comment! And if all these starts out okay, it may be one of the coolest ways to harness wind energy.

The most awesome part about the landing was the landing commentator saying "Of course i still love you, we have a Falcon 9 on board.". Kinda puts the perspective that the rocket is chasing the ship, not the other way round.

I'm placing my car and my house on it. (I'm gonna be rich)

" Tobey said SpaceX was able to offer launch services as low as $60 million per flight, whereas the lowest ULA could offer was $125 million. However, he added, that did not include an $800 million "capability contract" that the military pays ULA annually to guarantee readiness and the ability to essentially launch on demand. If you factor in these funds, which SpaceX does not receive, the lowest cost launches that ULA can offer are about $200 million. "(1) So with the increased competition between companies trying to offer cheaper launches, especially that between spaceX and ULA, it is not surprising that ULA takes SpaceX as a serious threat that stands in the way of profit and growth. One thing i fear most is sabotage and murder deliberately made for their own personal gain. I'm sure ULA will gain more customers if one of SpaceX's rockets crashed near population, or exploded while carrying crew. Elon Musk previously faced such sabotage during the first few months of Tesla, where he hired a world renowned chief designer to design the roadster. A few weeks in, the designer was producing sub-par work that halted Tesla's growth, and Tesla filed a lawsuit after realizing that he was a designer from a rival company. How probable would such a similar situation be in the rocket industry? What if SpaceX's security slips, and lets one of the spies/ frauds in? What are the implications if such a thing actually happened?

I can honestly only say this about Kerbal Space Program. The way KSP is set up is such that most experienced players can choose their own style of play without it being too ridiculous. Given the aerodynamic models and costs, experienced players now must build streamlined crafts and limit their amount of rocket boosters at the side, rather than making things like "asparagus" or big bunch of rockets tied to each other. Granted, each and every player has their own unique style of playing, but the styles aren't too bad. Yes, there are merit to both playing styles ; big rockets and ion thrusters. Big rockets are for players who like impulsive things, who do not wish to calculate delta-v or whatever. But, ion thrusters aren't "not cool" just because they don't have fiery exhaust. Remember, this game is also teaching people about orbital mechanics at the same time, so calculating delta-v and maneuvers before launch isn't out of place. This is analogous to criticizing NASA for not putting SRBs on the Dawn spacecraft to make it look cooler just because they needed the large amount of delta-v. Keep note, your playing style isn't bad, but so isn't others. KSP is for everyone to enjoy regardless of how they play it, and remember that the old playing style hasn't disappeared, it's pretty much still around.

Whenever you put a ship on a runway, chances are that i'll start rolling forwards as if there's a phantom effect acting on it. The fact is, the runway is actually slightly curved downwards, so the vessel will roll forwards. This diagram shows why the vessel has a tendancy to move forwards. The runway (black) isn't curved to compensate for the curvature of Kerbin (green). Any vessel would experience a force slightly sideways relative to the surface of the runway ( red arrows ), because the runway is inclined to the true tangent of the surface at that point ( dotted red lines ). Making the runway slightly curved would go a long way to solving problems of vessel having trouble landing, vessel rolling forwards and crashing etc.

I've always been intrigued by how four-dimensional objects can cast 3D shadows, can rotate around planes, and move upon a mirror image of itself. Imagine a 2D world, completely flat, with people living on it ( flat as well ). The 2D world is bent into a 3-dimensional sphere, but the flat beings can't perceive it. They traverse the expanses and eventually come to the conclusion that their world is infinite. What if we are those beings? What if we are living in a 3D world, but bent into a 4D geometrical shape, just that we can't perceive it? Are we actually living in higher spatial dimensions? Can we visit the Fourth spatial dimension? Keep in mind that when i say "4D" or four dimensions, i actually mean 4-dimensional euclidean space (space with 4 axes instead of 3), not 3-dimensional space and 1 dimensional time. The implication is that our universe may actually be bent into a 4d shape through gravity, and we may perceive it as infinite, although it's not. Also, another implication is that we can actually (with enough power) warp spacetime into a 4d shape and cross from point A to point B instantly (similar to teleportation) and avoiding the distances that separate the two points.

I'd go to Earth, more specifically my bedroom. I don't like outdoors. But given the choice i would choose to go to the Sun to look for planets orbiting closer than Mercury, then come back to Earth as a hero and earn big bucks. What wonderful imagination i have.

Yes, but it there are too many factors involved in landing a rocket back down on Earth, so the only chance to gather good data is to use chances like this to *try* to land a first stage. Crashing a first stage on a drone ship can yield valuable data so that they can actually land a first stage on a similar trajectory on future missions. If they don't try, they will never know if it truly works, or not.

In all fairness, they did say that they expected the landing to fail.

Indeed. But another accident and spaceX would be screwed over.

The falcon heavy was promised to take flight in 2014, then pushed back to second quarter of 2015, and now 2016. I suspect they are struggling with the rocket launch schedule so i see no reason as to why they can meet all events as indicated in the timeline.