The Yellow Dart

I like the idea of career progression unlocking a new sets of rocket skins, and it fits with the aesthetic of the space center upgrades that currently exist, where you start with a concrete slab with scorch marks and a bumpy dirt runway. Start off with clunky looking cobbled together part skins, then once you upgrade the VAB it can unlock a set of Space Race era skins (Apollo & Soviet) and parts default to that from then on, then the third upgrade gives you a futuristic looking set. Same for the SPH and plane parts.

I am tired of always having the same 4 kerbals in the early game, you have a nice kerbal name generator but it doesn't even matter until you actually have need of more than 4 kerbals. When a player starts a new game of any type, bring up a Kerbal Selection Screen, with the big four always available at the top of the list, and, say, 10 to 20 random kerbals, or possibly 5 random kerbals of each class. Allow the player to pick 3 to start with. You can always keep any of the main 4 kerbals that don't get selected at the top of the list in the Astronaut Complex, if the player wants to get them later, but it just doesn't make sense to always have those 4 kerbals every single game.

Here is my poorly made response to this poorly worded poll:

The safety issues aren't really any different than those of passenger planes, which this will more directly compete with given it will likely have long distance routes and high speed. Leak problems can be solved by emergency systems that will allow pressure back into the tunnels, or sections of tunnel, when a loss of cabin pressure is detected. Fire will be dealt with however planes do it, no reason to reinvent the wheel. I agree about breakdowns and pod retrieval being a problem. Assuming we are dealing with tracks that go hundreds of miles between stops, a pod breaking down halfway is a problem. You can build multiple service stations between stops (expensive), or add a slower backup means of propulsion (heavy/bulky) to get it to the next station without outside help, but there aren't any clear solutions. Emergency stops could actually be the same as the emergency pressure loss system. Once you let air into the tube, the car essentially becomes a hydraulic piston, so you just have to control how fast you let it push the air back out to control deceleration.

Wow that was like a magic trick! POOF! Here's a rocket. Ta da!

www.spaceflightnow.com

Space Shuttle tank ET94 entered the atlantic side of the Panama Canal yesterday and is now passing through the first of the Pacific-side locks, the Pedro Miguel Locks. The following webcam is at the next set of locks, the Miraflores Locks, facing towards Pedro Miguel: http://www.pancanal.com/eng/photo/camera-java.html?cam=Miraflores There is a bit of a rain storm right now but as soon as it passes, you will be able to see the Pedro Miguel locks in the distance. You can track the tanks progress here, it is being towed by the Shannon Dann: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:400748/zoom:10 It just entered the first set of locks about 15 minutes ago.

As to the Merlin 1D success rate, wasn't there a Merlin failure on one of the first CRS flights? It caused the secondary payload to not reach orbit and burn up. Was that not a 1D? If that is the case, they should track all varieties because it seems misleading to put 100% up there.

I don't understand how a nano-satellite is supposed to beam data to earth from +4ly away. It takes a decent sized antenna/transmitter to go from Earth to Mars, and the whole probe was only supposed to be like the size of a quarter, right? I didn't watch the talk, did they talk about that at all?

I think it looks weird, at least to me, because they didn't seem to use the same materials for the exterior as the shuttle, which is what our eyes are used to. The shuttle had a matte look due to being coated in fabric and ceramics, whereas this looks shiny like painted metal. Plus the exterior tank is painted as well, but the shuttle was orange foam, except for the first few flights. Probably just your brain playing tricks on your eye...or your eyes play tricks on your brain, or something like that.

Since BO is working on bigger rockets right now, maybe he is holding out for a cheaper ride from his own company. Wouldn't surprise me.

But if you look at the left frame of that video above, you can see plumes shooting to the side, but no plumes shooting straight up. So the plumes on the right that look like they are shooting up must be pointed above the camera but perpendicular to falcon. edit: not that this is of any value or importance... I don't really know why I'm arguing about this

It isn't shooting straight up, look at the left side of the video at the same time you see them. No plumes going straight up, they are just pointed towards the deck cam.

On CRS-6, those are the thrusters. you can see that they are above the grid fins, and are multi directional, where as in the CRS-8 image above they are below the grid fins, so that is just venting.

It is metal, because the shoes that is placed over the legs are "welded down". You can't weld without metal, and you could definitely solve the space issue, that would just be an engineering problem. It wouldn't be too difficult, have the magnet mounted so that it pushes back when contact is made, and lets the actual leg hold the weight of the rocket. But friday's landing was in high winds and fairly high waves and it succeeded and made it back to port, so I don't think it is even necessary.

While I don't think it will be necessary in most cases, one of the magnets in the video below placed in the foot of every landing leg I think could would add several hundred pounds of downforce on the rocket, and being at the tips of the legs would give it leverage over tipping that would multiply that downforce, should a wave or high wind try to topple it. The deck is steel, but I would worry more about how to lift the rocket off the barge without damaging the legs still attached to the deck. And we haven't seen any trouble yet with tipping due to wave. All the tipping so far has been due to damage/malfunctions. So I don't think it would be necessary. Thanks! Working to fix some errors on it right now.

Thanks, well actually after making it, I found another compilation that was made the same day (the date says 1 day before but I published mine just after midnight) as mine that had the same idea but was much shorter and to the point and had music, and is just all around better (I don't know anything about video editing), though it cut out most of the test flights, so probably share that one if you want people you know to actually watch it. And if you didn't catch the SpaceX Imgur post I posted earlier, it made to the front page last night! It is at 62,000 views and 3,800 points! http://imgur.com/gallery/m9CYe Here is the other vid:

I know, while I was writing it, I kept checking the dates to make sure, because it seemed like it was longer ago. I would write "Such n such blah blah 2015" --wait. That can't be right. Oh yup, 2015! Weird!

Just made a post on Imgur, similar to the video I posted earlier, but with gifs and more descriptions. It is probably a bit too pro-SpaceX for a lot of people here, but I mainly made it for people who don't know much about the subject. Anyways, you can check it out here if you are interested (and feel free to upvote) and absolutely correct me on any errors you find too: http://imgur.com/gallery/m9CYe

Yeah, Instagram is a jerk.

I made a compilation of every SpaceX rocket landing and landing attempt that was recorded on video, from Grasshopper to last Friday. It ended up being kinda long but oh well. Maybe I'll make another one with just Falcon 9 landings.

Thought you guys might enjoy my entry to the PsBattle reddit thingy. (couldn't get the album thing to work) http://imgur.com/gallery/6PKBkj4

So you are saying that inspecting the tankage, test firing, and cleaning off the rocket add up to close to the same amount of labor as manufacturing all of the in-house-made parts and assembling the whole rocket, engine and all? Besides, they do inspections and test firings for for every new rocket already, so if this is the case (according to you), the only additional cost would be for cleaning the outside. All other costs are essentially the same as a normal launch minus the cost of the entire first stage.