Technical Ben

As an example, I just "landed" a cargo transport on Duna, minus half the cargo, as I obviously did not have the DV for a landing. I could have eyeballed it, but this way I know for certain I'm -10m/s as needed, even after heavy aero/litho and "the bottom of my tank, then those landing gear wheels I was going to use as fork lifts". Yeah, I reassembled the cargo in orbit to take the impact of a by-the-seat-of-my-pants attempt... it worked though! The Kerbals have 2 rovers now, though they will have to wait for v2 or v3 to get some living quarters... yes I though ahead on the resupply to give them 3x the needed supplies should it fail, but sent the kerbals first and cargo second. I'd have less chance to do that in totally stock games.

IRL we have figures. Even my car does (in the past I eyeballed it and never ran out (in KSP I've done the same in the past). I play to design, fly to confirm the design. I love making my own "missions", but without any actual data, it's just a flight sim and feels missing (though fuel read outs in stock are fine, they don't quite give the data needed for space flight ).

I could never do such a thing to the original trio... but "forgetting" about them on my Mun bases, or sending them to Jool... then missing and heading to Eelo, I may do that on occasion... I run under the "no Kerbal left behind" rule in sandbox and no "losses" if you get my drift. I might give career a go in 1.2. If I do I'm going to need like millions of data mods and lots of craft testing just to make sure there are no mission failures. I may role play too seriously. Though back in the day of alpha, I'd crash ships like there was no tomorrow.

Calculate the amount of gas you would need and the electric charge required. KSP interstellar has nuclear jets and some electric propulsion options. Often the generators and cooling systems for these are very large and make building such a SSTO entirely electric based hard (but doable in the mod IIRC).

Ouch. I was not looking for a message. If I go to a store, and get told a message, turning on the gadget/device usually either fives me a working or a failed result. I was hoping for a working system to be presented, in those first 5 or so slides... I saw a "message" too.

Not got time to go through that PDF... but it does come across as a presentation for a stapler/widget/album. As in, planning for something small scale. Do the details get better after the first 10 or so slides?

(I'll make this my last post because I don't want to go off topic ) Yes, in a way it is. The OP is a cool idea on making a similar universe to ours. I really find it interesting thinking about the limitations in creating universes. We aim for rules (as the OP does ), so by definition cannot be contradictory. Our universe is required to be logical. That is a limit applied to it. From there, we are limited in our first move. Other things are free. What can we do? That I know less about. Having a universe with less or more dimensions, now that would be fun. Or less or more gravity? (Though that would mess up stellar, and thus elemental production ) I found a cool Youtube channel that covers the Real Life universe and how to "make" it. :https://www.youtube.com/user/Artifexian/featured Hope those videos help NSEP!

Sounds interesting... so the wobble Kraken hit? Back in my attempt in KSP, I've decided to scavenge parts from the cargo lander (which could theoretically return same as the crew lander) for pre-fab accommodation. So while the crew lander would return after some time, a couple of cargo landers would drop part of their outer shell to use as buildings.

"Put the pump pressure up to 77? Ok then..." "Oh, did you check if that was a 11 or a 77 on the handwriting from the office, oh did you double check and have two people confirming?" "Nah, not enough time..." That's the kind thing a "change in business practice" would need.

Stencyl lets you do some things without programming. Not sure about making an entire Universe though. I do like the thought experiments involved though. Such as "Wire World" or "Game of life". http://pmav.eu/stuff/javascript-game-of-life-v3.1.1/

The answer is in the question. To create a Universe, you must first do what? As this universe already exists (or is shown to exist) before I existed, I did not create/make/invent it. However, if I am to consider making one for myself, I have but two limitations. One, is that I am involved, two is that I have a "first" action. So the question is, what is the first action one must take to make a universe.

I did it yesterday... and just boosted back through it. But as others have posted. As you are moving along the orbit while burning for the node/moon/planet, you run the risk of missing the target if your burn for too long. Using multiple short passes, or one short burn with a more powerful rocket will help. Experienced players may use low thrust/small engines and multiple burns. Most new players use large rockets and get it done in a few seconds. I still prefer doing that as I don't have to wait too long while playing. The example of this is Large Oil Tankers. It takes MILES to turn them around or to stop. The same for rockets. They look small, and "turn" fast. But actually moving your trajectory can take longer. Imagine Minmus as a little Tug Boat, and the rocket as an Oil Tanker... you just missed power slided the meetup.

Yeah. My RAM exploded (literally, I fixed that stick [literally], but the other one it took out in the process did not survive) and so I'm down to 4gb RAM and sticking to stock KSP until 1.2 rolls in and might try RSS and a few others once I get this PC up and running better. Would love a procedural parts and some of the SpaceX mods on a RSS play through. Though creative always catches my focus. But back on topic, it was as an exploration of the mission profile, pit falls, requirements and alternative options (such as cyclers, which I will check out). All of which are quicker (I guess?) in KSP scales. Things like "Do I scavenge the lander as a habitat, or launch it back and send separate habitats?" came from playing, even though it is just a game. So I'd wonder if Musk would dig out habitats, or if a "cheaper" lander is worth the resource savings on sending separate habitats? I'd assume inflatable habitats would always be cheaper.

Ok, I'll take that back then. I heard lots of "those going to Mars should be willing to die [for it/because it is risky]" and had not heard of any of the return missions from SpaceX (only from the NASA mission profiles). So thanks, if that is the case, my positivity towards the mission just peaked. I've managed to get a successful refuel and landing on Duna with a similar mission profile now. If I'd balanced the re-entry better I could have circularised and chosen a landing spot, but currently just aimed straight at it and landed. The key was being more aggressive with the first stage. Though they are doing the opposite for SpaceX IRL, it helps in KSP as no concurrent missions (but I managed the landing of stage 1 and caricaturisation of stage 2! :D). Docking the big heavy tanker is also a difficulty. But nothing that a few more veneers won't fix. So now I just need to keep refining the design and flight profile, and try for a quicker transfer if my planning/maths and fuel budget allow it. Oh, and if it's to return to Kerbin, I'll need to swap out the inflatable heatshield for a plain one... and take a very light entry angle.

I've had trouble getting enough fuel up attempting this in KSP (with the exception of using nuclear rockets, that need no refuelling). I'm not sure if I need to make my crew capsule smaller, of tanker larger (which would need a larger first stage to lift it)...

If I was a space company, with VASMIR (small scale for now), ion or other types of engines, I'd offer to "one up" Elon with a cycler. As in, he provides his current mission profile. Offer an extra ticket to people for the cycler. Perhaps with a re-usable Mars lander (Blue Origins style?) offer cargo and postage too! Want the new iPhone 9? Not getting it from Elon, so you'll need postage on that!

Bare in mind. Elon is not planning on sending anyone back. So a single shot lander for Mars only is the way they are going. The re-use lander would only work if done with a cycler system, giving a re-use lander for Mars only. We are not going to be returning that to earth.

Ah. Is that a newer behaviour of the engine? I remember back in the day controlling around 6 landers with MechJeb at one go (landing a lighting system for my base/lander in one go ). Working around a 300m limit would be rather difficult.

My SpaceX style Duna launcher turned out to have enough fuel to get there without a refuel tanker. I'll have to test if it has enough fuel to LAND though. Just got to get the first stage landing/boost back sorted though. It might need some more DV, or just a change to the flight path (though that will mean I will need a refuel on the second stage). Or scale it down to a 4x symmetry instead of 6x (should still be able to fit 100 Kerbals in it). (Edit) I scaled it down to 4x symmetry and landing stage one is great, stage 2 now needs a refuel, but should make it to Duna. I'll keep the above design for really large payloads (they can make Duna and land easy without refuelling). But will try landing the first stage with the Trajectory mod to see if it runs better than MechJeb. Will post Pics/Vids at some point.

"DLC" for this game really only comes in with "new gameplay" style updates. Such as "submarines" or "cars". The base game and physics could work great for lots of additional features. Things that need a little more devotion and time than a mod usually gets to become "stock". So for example inflatables/hot air balloons. Where most mods came and went, would need backing to keep updates in game. Sadly, business [money] speaks louder. We are more likely to get "Star Wars DLC" with a couple of skins and 2 parts (or 2 pre built craft styles, X-wing and Tie fighter).

I was of the opinion this was a "big dumb rocket", not that it would in it's self give the same payload, but that we could just scale it up/put bigger tanks in for SSTO. But as said, that was from a KSP perspective where cost is not an issue. (Or structural integrity, or logistics etc etc) I was negating the cost of the extra fuel needed (and wasted), but to some extent wondering if it was worth it to skip the construction cost of a second ship. I'm literally going to test the idea in KSP once I get the landings down to a T. Besides the biggest problem is the elephant in the room. How is that thing going to land millimetre perfect in that hole as it did in the video?

Ok, I agree it's rather big for docking. Re-entry is a big problem. Payload should be ok (it would be the tanker, it's taking up the fuel). But separating out the fuel for launch and fuel for transfer would be a serious problem. Where as the tanker would have separate tanks for this. Basically, these ideas work in KSP because the engineering is skipped (we can fuel flow around the "where do we put the fuel" problem) and I can power land through the re-entry and docking if needed.

Wait. I've just realised... I'm an idiot. And Elon Musk (and his staff) are (possibly) as well. From testing the launcher/refuel idea... could they not just use the booster minus payload (a fairing or something on top) AS the refuel tanker? I'll be able to try out the two ideas in KSP, but no idea on the practical RL costs and results. You would need some engines for thrust in a vacuum, possibly?

People on the ISS(replacement) Simulate their entire mission in their spare time. PS, people still play pong. They will still play KSP.

If you cannot explain something, you do not understand it yourself. The limit was not in the audiences ability to understand, it was in the teachers knowing what tools to use, or having full understanding themselves. As you say, a lot of this was entirely new to those being involved. I read that the Luna Lander legs were made too long, because they literally did not know how they would interact with the dust/rocks on the Moon and feared it may sink in. Ok, found the reference it was this: "The "one small step for man" wasn't actually that small. Armstrong set the ship down so gently that its shock absorbers didn't compress. He had to hop 3.5 feet from the Eagle's ladder to the surface." So turns out they did know, but the landing was too light (even though practically running on fumes from the tanks ). In other news, Scott Manley, KSP and others use pictures and video (practical demonstration), to teach anything to anyone in the audience. [edit] Thanks Derek, I did fact check myself, but too slowly!