Meecrob

Sorry, I made that up, it wasn't an official quote from SpaceX or NASA. I don't want to spread misinformation. Though, from what I gleaned and what posters above have said, it seems that this was the purpose of this test.

Interesting that this test was done with simulated "rocket-tearing-itself-apart vibrations." I'm hoping its a flutter issue, that would be a relatively simple problem to solve.

It is a splendid idea. Problem is it was an at the moment work in progress and kinda crap to be honest. You had sandbags bigger than Kerbals. It was probably too early to release, but us rabid fans demanded so much, they posted something that wasn't ready.

I think what needs to also be brought up is the general atmosphere surrounding KSP development at the time. Modders were being relied on heavily for new features...Fine Print (contracts) and Porkjet's MK II spaceplane parts jump to mind. It seemed that Squad was coasting to KSP V.1 release on fumes and many heated arguments were had on this board. Then they dropped the tier 0 art and it seemed confirmation that Squad was just phoning it in. The debate about whether the barn is a good idea or concept or whatever cannot be had without the context of development at the time.

Exactly YNM...I'm hoping for a mod SSTO anvil now.

Yes, but that is because they are following a maintenance schedule. Think of it like your car. You don't inspect the intricacies of your transmission every oil change, but you do know that after X amount of usage it will need to be overhauled or replaced. I think you are referring to D checks on aircraft and that is when a lot of items are required to undergo overhaul/ replacement at once. Its a known entity though. It does not cost more or become more difficult to maintain older aircraft. The parts still cost the same and they are just as easy to replace or overhaul (unless the parts are not in production anymore - SpaceX produces its parts or controls its supply chain, so this is not an issue). The difference is most airliners predict a service life for their planes and run them down with no intent of performing the next maintenance check (to put it simply). When someone else buys it for cheap, then it will be more expensive to refurbish than a newer one, but they make up for that in the low aquisition cost. It does not cost more to put X part on an old aircraft than a new one. Space X will be looking at their landed stage to determine when they figure it is most economically efficient to scrap the used stage vs refurbishing it.

I have to make a slight adjustment to what you said here. I know what you mean, but the difference I am going to say is applicable to the thread. They do not treat old airframes differently, they look at each individual frame and assess the maintenance required. In theory and practice, an old airframe has had the proper maintenance performed on it and thus does not require extra care. Wear and tear has literally been removed and replaced. There are aircraft 5 years old and 25 years old going through C checks. The crew does not go "oh crap, this is an old plane! We're in for overtime!" With properly scheduled maintenance, a 25 year old plane is the same as a 5 year old plane. As to SpaceX, their job now is to determine what the "properly scheduled maintenance" is. In a sense age does not matter. Specific parts may need replacement, but that is all part of the maintenance plan. The only time age matters is when the OEM stops producing those parts and an engineer is required to certify the aging parts, or a suitable replacement for flight. It is a measure of whether it is cost-wise to do so. SpaceX is going to have their hands full with developing a maintenance schedule and i wish them all the best!

Along the same lines - what stops one side, or both, from attacking the oppositions powerplants to make it so they cannot participate in the virtual war? Someone is going to say uninterruptable power supplies, but c'mon, I don't see the next generation of military technology be battery farms in nuclear hardened bunkers. Real physical war and destruction is something you can't ignore, whereas losing by a few points in virtual war is untangible to the average person. "We pushed the enemy back 15 virtual kilometers today" is quite frankly not going to cut it. Sounds like a LAN party. Maybe we can get some cosplayers in BDU's to boost public awareness and morale.

But you just proved them right; nobody complains about things that work. 100% true.

I hope someone can confirm or deny, but my understanding is that KSP parts have a visual and a physical side to them. For instance, an engine will produce x amount of thrust in y direction, independent of if I flip the visual model 180* so it appears to be firing in reverse. Or if I could change the visual model to an anvil or something else comical. My interpretation is that the Rapier's 4 Exhaust nozzles are visual only and behave the same as any engine with one exhaust nozzle as far as the physics of the exhaust plume go.

I think that no matter what, the consignee is going to be asking where his "scrap aluminum" 777 flaperon is. Its a part that is too valuable to disappear like that. I don't know for sure, but I bet it was insured too. There are less than 2000 of these in existence.

You have to take into consideration that both Boeing and HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited - the subcontractor) would have definitely known if they lost a flaperon during shipping and would probably tell the investigators "by the way, we lost this exact part a while back." Also keep in mind there are only 1728 B777 orders with only 1165 delivered. This is, ergo, an extremely rare piece of engineering to just "turn up" somewhere unannounced.

Wait so the engine detaches from the mothership, docks with the ballistic capsule, then boosts it back to the mothership (sans engine) then performs two docking maneuvers (capsule and engine)...I don't think they have even started on docking ports complicated enough for instant engine attachments.

Actually, he is proposing the mothership stop on a dime with an error margin of only a few inches, then accelerate to orbital velocity again.

I get the same issue sometimes. To solve it, I exit to the space centre, then go to the tracking station and resume my flight. Annoying, but it seems to restore the ability to set maneuver nodes.

Quick answer - someone will surely expand on this. To lower dV for plane changes, align your AP with either descending or ascending node, increase your AP to something huge to lower orbital velocity, then make the plane change. Edit to add: This is the easy way, not the proper or realistic way.

This game is a simulation...people will debate the accuracy of it, but it is a simulator, not an arcade game. You are asking for things that are impossible. Of course ion engines will not get you to orbit. If you have such a problem with this fact, edit your files. Make the ion engine create enough thrust for your mission. It is a simple .txt file. Back it up and edit it to make the game work for you.

This is priceless. Obvious troll and the forums are still being polite and trying to help this guy out, rather than telling him where to shove it. Best forums out there and way to fail, K3RBAL KOL4!

Basically, the scenario is you stick a basic helicoptor main rotor-ish paper cut out into it. You let it drop and observe the difference in velocity compared to an apple without a paper rotor blade attachment. Now they want you to look at your data and figure out how the paper rotor works. Specifically how do the sizes of the paper rotors affect descent rate and overall lift-to-drag ratio. I hope someone who has taken a physics course in the last decade can correct any errors.

A by-product is that Eisenhower could say "Soviets did it first!" with regards to satellite overflights of sovereign nations. At the time he was pushing for an "Open Skies" agreement, but the Soviets would not sign iirc.

Perhaps its sort of a prototype space-AWACS? As in an added layer of surveillance on top of what is current? If it could maneuver enough to launch multiple satellites that cross a target at pre-determined times I could totally see why the Airforce would be interested.

Q: How do you figure out if there are any pilots in the room? A: Wait for them to tell you. -Signed- A pilot who just played into his own joke. It's ok, I'm also an A&P so technically I'm exempt.

Crap, I can't even claim to be ninja'd! Oh well, in before page 732. Anyone have that .gif of the stick plane attempting this and crashing on the conveyor belt with the caption: "This Thread"?

Are we seriously doing this? I'll just add this to the mix then

Haha, now I know to say I am being sarcastic. PS the hilariousness would be worth it in itself. 100k subs on youtube for sure. ...Ok maybe 1k subs.