LordOfTheOrbits

What would be the benefit of using SLS for manned missions? Once SpaceX finishes the DragonRider crew capsule it will provide both cheaper and safer access to space for manned missions.

The last rule doesn't make any sense, because in reality you want reentry systems to be shaped as little aerodynamic as possible, so it slows down sufficiently. Also the "higher orbit gets more points" rule makes no sense because you actually need a lower amount of dV to deorbit it the higher you are.

I think everything just explodes 1 kilometer away from the sun, no matter which parts and/or cheats you use.

In my newer Gilly landers I use ion engines to thrust down. It's the only thing I actually use ion engines for.

Why are they building it at a so high orbit? It would be a lot cheaper to build a space station in LEO. The only reason that comes to my mind would be debris and orbital decay, but the ISS is dealing just fine with those.

New versions of PhysX support multi-threading, however an older version which doesn't support it yet is used in unity.

So why do so many people have a problem with something getting implemented that already exists as a mod? They also want to make the aerodynamics better in later updates and noone is saying that they are just copying FAR. There also has been suggestions to make maneuver nodes better so the idea isn't just from the mod. A little bit offtopic: is there any way of watching twitch not live on an iPad? I have the app, but it's only able to display streams which are currently live and not old ones. If I try it in the browser it just says that I need adobe flash, which is obviously impossible on an iPad.

The title sounds pretty arrogant to me and I'm sure you haven't looked at every other docking tutorial so there's no way you can know that this is actually the easiest. Also you do it pretty much in the most inefficient way there is and you are only explaining how to do a rendezvous and not how to dock, which are totally different things.

I have a feeling that it isn't getting updates anymore because it still has a "winter-is-coming-sale". Also read the disclaimer, it doesn't speed up Unity itself, and if I understand it correctly all it does is offer an API that let's developers use multiple cores for their own code. Also Unity is actually using PhysX contrary to what some people here think, but it uses an old version of PhysX which doesn't support GPU acceralation.

Yes, you can use Kepler's laws in ksp and I think ksp itself uses them to calculate orbits.

Actually fuel in ksp is about as efficient as in real life. The highest specific impulse ever archived using a chemical rocket was 542s, but it was a tripropellant rocket and there wasn't any tripropellant rocket used in real life yet. I think the highest specific impulse ever archived with a actually used rocket was 454s with the CE-7.5 used in the GSLV Mk-2 rocket. Also in ksp the universe is scaled down by a factor of ten, so it would be a lot easier to do interstellar travel in ksp than in real life.

Sorry, but there is no way of getting something like this to work. If you want to get any change in physical velocity, you must do so by using Newton's third law.

I once had a dream about ksp which slowly switched to tomb raider, but I don't really remember the way the transition went. A lot of my dreams somehow just switch to something completely unrelated.

You are taking way too much liquid fuel and way too less oxidizer with you. Try replacing most of the liquid fuel tanks with LFO tanks. I usually have 4 times as many LFO tanks as pure liquid fuel tanks in my SSTOs.

I think this is bad, not because they didn't fix this issue when they found out, but because they didn't say that there was this risk. It's one thing to send someone into space and tell him about any risks you know, but it's a totally different thing when you send someone into space and don't tell him a risk you know about.

The Alcubierre drive from the interstellar mod actually isn't OP at all, because when you get out of the warp, you have the same speed relative to the sun as before the warp so unless you calculate your warps perfectly, you often have to use more fuel for circularization than you would need if you would travel there using a non-warp rocket. It also uses really much energy which requires you to use some pretty heavy reactors. Also the interstellar mod adds a solar sail which is in my opinion are not OP because they only generate a realistic amount of acceleration but also work in time warp. And if there will ever be other solar systems, getting there without some kind of warp drive will take millennia.

Yeah the consoles are more focused on the GPU than on the CPU, but if another engine that supports GPU-acceralation for physics was used it could be done. The only problem would be that you would have to completely rewrite the whole game for another engine.

Unity also gets updates regularly and assuming it won't run out of money somehow it should still be up to date when 1.0 comes out.

This is possible and used in particle colliders to keep the particles inside the beamlines.

Hat = 3 letters. Ksp = 3 letters. Hats also starts with ha. Half life 3 and ksp hats in half life 3 confirmed!

I think these calculations tell how much change in velocity is produced and not the total velocity. I'm not sure if these calculations are correct, but you probably are assuming that all of the energy of the bomb is converted directly to velocity change in the asteroid, but you probably aren't calculating that some energy goes into other directions and a lot of the energy also gets converted into heat and light.

That was exactly my point, I was trying to say why it was impossible to get on board camera footage of the stage splashing down.

I never suggested that graphene was capable of stopping a black hole, the graphene would only be there to prevent structural failures of the shell. But it seems that is also not possible because shells apparently don't get any gravitational forces from their content, which I didn't know.

The graphene would only be useful prevent the shell from collapsing due to structural failure. Are you sure that the shells have no gravitational interaction with their content? If that's true my theory would be impossible. Otherwise the shell wouldn't get near the event horizon because every side of the shell would get the same force from the black hole and therefore it would always be balanced out.

I think that it was more of a problem about the reentry heatings that destroyed the camera than about the power. Also it would have to have a connection to mission control fast enough to livestream the camera footage and work at sea level while traveling with several hundred m/s through the air.