RockoDyne

I assume you aren't taking about exhaust gases because that is already present to some degree. Unless your idea of simulating gas is just making a tank pressure system (since all you need is volume/surface area and fluid pressure/temp), then it should be fine. Generally speaking though, fluid simulation is horribly expensive. We can almost do liquid okay, but even then, the best example for real time liquid simulation is dwarf fortress. There are very few examples of liquids that are actually modeling pressure reasonably, much less without being tech demos.

The problem is people don't think using Occam's razor. Instead, people make logical conclusions based around existing prejudices, I suppose this case being what defines organic chemistry. It might just be a cultural thing these days too. There seem to be people that are hoping to find a rock fall over on mars, just to say it was because an alien farted.

A task not for the faint of heart and mostly for people who either are too pigheaded to pick up a new language or those doing it for the ****s and giggles. Referencing unityengine is one thing, but you can actually get update functions to work without black magic?

Oh boy, where to start. Caveat #1. If you are not using C#, Boo, or unityscript (and compiling using unity/mono), you will have to use visual studio or whatever other compiler you use. As far as I am aware, cross compatibility can and probably will be an issue as most of those dlls won't be using the mono CLR. Caveat #2. Only scripts compiled by unity can be monobehaviors, so no attaching a script to a gameobject without it being either C#, Boo, or US (this may only be in editor, but I'm pretty sure it can't be done period).

That's always been the case. Most of the time if something doesn't have a solid amount, it's more about seasoning to taste than actually needing it. What bugs me more is using volume to measure dry ingredients (not powders but say a cup of chopped apples) when it really should be using weight. Back to the topic; if molecular gastronomy would make something that didn't have a freakish texture, I might be more into it. Although the fact that most of the time it's more like dessert nutrient paste doesn't help my opinion of it.

Just how many orders of magnitude too optimistic is he? A person who's cost estimate is missing at least five zeros at the end probably doesn't have a single clue how anything works, but for some reason idiots are giving idiot prime here actual money. It might have been something he meant in earnest, but the fact that people are taking this seriously and throwing money at him means that he's just a con artist.

It's a scam. Logistically, R&D costs would realistically stretch into BILLIONS and even then the likelihood that the partakers die of natural causes is essentially nil. They are probably closer to trying to film the next saw movie on mars. I'll reiterate though. It's a con job. Someone found a way to separate money from suckers and is laughing all the way to the bank. Just talking about the science in some way is giving a snake oil salesman credence. This isn't Paul Allen looking for investment partners, it's a nobody with a PR firm.

Unless you are already in orbit (ideally) and follow anything jettisoned on it's landing, you won't be doing anything other than dropping dead weight.

Are you planning an arrestor hook system with this? I could have swore I remember you talking about a take off system, but I don't remember anything about slowing down.

Because popular consensus is just as good as proof when the evidence they have is flaky. There is little, if any, evidence to say the pyramids where carved using chisels. There is no mountain of discarded chisels, no depiction of the godly skills the workers would have had to have, and few, if any, marks on the stones that could be attributed to a chisel or any other kind of machining for that matter. Personally, I subscribe to a theory that they used some kind of cement-esque material, which aside from the no mortar issue has a hell of a lot fewer engineering mysteries than carrying perfectly carved several hundred ton blocks up mountains (since people completely ignore the pyramids that where actually build on top of mountains). The only people who use aliens to explain anything are either idiot, cointelpro, or just making an ad hominem attack, while probably also being idiots who blindly accept status que beliefs.

It is a sad fact that you can't really tell if an area is hilly until you're on the highest LoD distance for mun. Best advice I can give is don't be too conservative on the lander's dV because you might just find that you really want to change your trajectory.

So basically you can't even create fuel because there isn't even a normal fuel tank in it's stack? If you want to kind of cheat, I think in the kethane plus packs that there is one that adds some fuel capacity to the converter itself (assuming you don't want to do the parts editing yourself).

I would define a station massive once you go from frames per second to seconds per frame. I don't make stations anymore though. The most I would need them for is an SSTO refueling depot which I never really got to the point of absolutely needing. I've gotten much more into interplanetary command ships though.

Well, if you have any amount of fuel and you can get or have an ascending or descending node on the orbit of kerbin (it's actually easier to do this if you aren't on its inclination plane), you can use that node as the place you will rendezvous. The idea is you get to that node on kerbin's orbit and burn either prograde or retrograde and move the closest approach on to that node (and depending on how close the node is, you can easily get an encounter). You can easily get away with 30 m/s total burns this way (do you have any monoprop?). You may have to go around on several orbits to get a decent closest approach (and one more after you burn on the node), so you trade off time for fuel conservation.

The main reason most people end up making a multi-launch craft is because it's too heavy to launch in one go. The actual stats of such a craft don't really change. Unless you are putting docking ports on when there originally weren't any, or adding more RCS tanks and thrusters (basically anything to change the weight), then it's the same craft, just put together differently.

Unless you have a well defined mission planned out, you'll probably be better off with nukes. I'm just thinking that if you wanted to conserve/refuel/make use of whatever fuel you had around, then nukes will be the thing that didn't waste anything, but that's just my preference these days. The only serious question in all this though is can you tolerate the burn time and if you can, then it doesn't really matter.

In theory you could, if your center of mass was stationary. Since it probably won't be though, figures would end up all over the place.