LordOfTheOrbits

This challenge really isn't hard: you just need to build a craft capable of reaching the mun, burn for a trajectory in which the mun gives you a gravity assist that puts you on an interplanetary trajectory, wait for your next encounter with kerbin an then finetune the encounter to give you a gravity assist that puts you on an interstellar trajectory. I will try doing it with only tech stage one though just to see if I'm capable of doing that.

They would have a small propulsion system that would be decoupled together with the guidance system before reentering the atmosphere. They would also want to fire downwards because it is faster and also does more damage due to the higher speeds.

Obviously it has a small black hole inside it and uses graphene in its inner layers so it doesn't get destroyed.

This is definitely one of the best threads I've ever seen on these forums. I hope that you get back to working on this soon. Also will you only do rockets until 1970 or also do some of the most famous rockets after that, for example Delta-IV, Pegasus and Space shuttle? Because I would really like to see how well you could do them.

Generally there is never an issue with making your own stuff as long as you don't sell it, even if it's copyrighted(I'm not a lawyer and this may depend on your country, so I might be wrong).

I use FAR and I only include reaction wheels in planes that go to space, but even then I disable them until I reach about 30,000m both for realism and because planes like to get out of control with FAR when you use control wheels(unless you add lots of them).

Actually 32 bit applications can run with 4gb ram, so if you currently have 2gb ram it's worth upgrading. Also ksp takes a lot of CPU power for bigger ships, so you probably want to get a better CPU as well.

Generally any mods work on any system, I haven't seen any exception yet. I would recommend FASA, KW rocketry and ferram aerospace reasearch.

Like already mentioned, using a missile against debris would only create even more debris and therefore not be of any use. I don't think that a function like this should be implemented because I think that players have to deal with their debris themselves.

There has to be an edge when the game can't save your position anymore due to the limited amount of bits. I'm not sure in which units the position of you gets measured while in interstellar space, but the edge would be 4294967295 of that unit away from kerbol.

MarvinKitFox seems to have calculated that you have about 450 m/s of delta-v left. Assuming that you don't have any lateral speed, you would need to use 1110m/s of delta-v to raise your periapsis to 35km. But kerbin is rotating at 174m/s, so assuming that you only burned straight upwards you only need 936m/s. So after you have burned the 450m/s you have still left 486 m/s to go. You have unlimited dV by simply going out and pushing(don't forget to go back into the capsule to refill), so there should be no problem with that. It will still take some time and you will need to refuel multiple times, but it's definitely possible.

Definition of a good landing: a landing you can walk away from. Definition of a great landing: a landing with your lander still in one piece. Don't worry if it tipped over, you made a great landing!

Wrong. The kinetic energy of an object is speed times mass. Air resistance only cancels out the same amount of kinetic energy from both cannon balls and because the iron ball has a larger mass and therefore more kinetic energy, it will lose the same amount of energy, but less speed.

Actually a long lasting life support system wouldn't be that hard to make, as you could grow a forest and even carry animals that provide food and oxygen and you have always enough people to maintenance everything. One of the bigger challenges would be turning that monstrosity, especially at the launch. I think that you would need rockets bigger than anything used for propulsion today just to turn that thing.

Assuming that we don't care about political or financial issues, I think it would be possible. The largest spacecraft design analyzed in Project Orion was 8,000,000 tons heavy and 400m wide and would be able to host a city with more than 100,000 people living in it. If we either made an even bigger version of it or launched three of them into space, we certainly could take 250,000 people to another solar system. Assuming we include political and financial concerns, it's probably impossible because this would take thousands of billions to build and other countries (and the people who live near the launch site) may not like it when you build a spacecraft that uses 3,000 ton nuclear bombs for propulsion. Assuming that earth would somehow get destroyed in ~100 years we might be able to build it if all states worked together and there would be lots of workers willing to work on this even though they will stay on earth and die.

Every time someone talks about cryogenics I must think of this: https://xkcd.com/989/

Sure, but rotation without physics may be abused as a way of turning huge ships faster than they actually can.

I think this SSTO will still be stable after the payload is deployed in orbit.

I actually think we could do this if we just split it into two parts: 1. Take the input atoms one by one and use nuclear fusion/fission to transform it into the desired atom. 2. Use existing atom level construction to build the desired thing. The only problem is that it would take several months or years to even build a tiny steak, so when your steak is ready, it's already rotten.

Obviously a nuclear pulse rocket. High thrust, high specific impulse and badass.

711: The Eva jet pack should have enough thrust to land and get back into orbit on Jool and all of its moons without refueling into a ship.

706: I want to be able to build my own planets using a totally-not-unrealistic replicator that can make matter out of electric charge.

I don't think they should set dates, because when they are ready earlier, the community has to wait unnecessarily long and if they aren't ready on time, everyone is frustrated.

I think Scott manley once landed on the moon and went back using only SRBs.

A couple of reasons why this isn't going to happen: 1. If they fail, they could easily make your whole car explode in a crash 2. They would cause pretty high gee-forces which would often do the same or more damage to the driver than the actual crash 3. They would only work the way it was intended at a certain speed, for example if you would use the amount of solid fuel required to kill 200km/h at 100km/h you would go 100km/h backwards after firing them, which would almost certainly be much worse than the crash 4. When they fire they can easily set the car in front of you on fire