Aethon

http://www.space.com/25916-european-spacecraft-plunge-venus-atmosphere.html http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express Gotta work more later!

I went with Tarsier tech. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81965-Space-telescopes-are-cool%21

Roger! Not sure what that means but know how to fix it. Thanks for the prompt answer. Rep given(like you need it ). Love you guys!

I'm such an idiot! New changes look great! Maneuver node ghosting is a godsend. Without it I always go the wrong way to the node. My problem is between the chair and the keyboard. I deleted my old navball folder, downloaded, extracted and copied the file EnhancedNavBall-master into my KSP game data file, but get no enhanced Navball. The last version worked no prob. What'm I doing wrong?

You can hit Tab to cycle through celestial bodies starting with the sun and moving outwards. This will focus the map view on your selected celestial and give a good view of what'll happen in the selected SOI. Backspace will return camera focus to your ship (make sure you're in map view- backspace is also the abort button!) I usually zoom close to my destination manually to check what direction I'm entering the SOI from and how far above or below the plane I am, and then tab to focus on my target to fine tune the maneuver.

Earthbound cargo could use regenerative braking to help power the elevator, taking advantage of the cargo's potential gravitational energy.

More from Dani Eder on this. Dated January 1997: For a structure that makes economic sense, you have to transport enough cargo to pay back your investment. For example, if you need to earn 10% return to pay off your construction loan, and you can lift one cargo an hour, you can make some estimates on the maximum mass of the structure. At 10% return, you have 10 years to earn back your cost. There are 87,660 hours in that time, so you can lift 87,660 cargoes. Assume that your structure cost $100/kg, and you also charge $100/kg to deliver cargoes. Then your structure may mass at most 87660 times the cargo weight. If we divide the structure into a tower and cable, each may mass 43,830 times the cargo. Taking the natural logarithm, we get a figure of 10.7 scale lengths for each. The Earth's gravity well is equivalent to 1 gee x 6375 km. This, given the 40% factor for compressive structures, means that 6375/1.4=10.7 scale lengths. Therefore the required scale length is 425 km. Existing carbon fiber has a theoretical scale length of 382 km. Allowing for a maximum of 60% of theoretical strength as allowable stress, 25% overhead structures, and the 4 out of 6 cable damage tolerant design, we get a useable scale length of 122 km. Therefore we need a factor of 3.5 increase over current materials (3.5 million psi vs 1 million psi). - Finally, a full space elevator is not required. You can build a structure in Earth orbit that is vertical, but shorter than GEO. The bottom end will move slower than orbital velocity, reaching zero velocity as the length gets to the full GEO size. Any reduction in the job a launch vehicle has to do is very useful, and a partial elevator can be built with today's materials. Dani Eder

An answer from Usenet : In article <DJLGxE.KA8@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> Dani Eder, >ederd@bcstec.ca.boeing.com writes: >>Now, how fast is your hoist? >continuous chain of elevator cars running up and down. You can also be >clever with the hoist design: I've seen suggestions for using linear >induction motors to move donut-shaped cars up along the cable... [edit- up cars run 'through' the down cars] >presuming you've got the power, you can go as fast as you like. Unfortunately, you cant neglect the power supply for the hoist (it still takes 31 MJ to raise a kg to GEO), and the power line running up the space elevator represents a parasitic mass. A better answer, which lowers the required material strength by 30%, >>is to build a tower up from the ground and have it meet a cable >>coming down from GEO.

A relevant point from Usenet : From: Hans Moravec <hpm@cmu.edu> Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,rec.arts.sf.science Subject: Re: The Problem with Space Elevators Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:47:43 -0500 Jason Goodman <goodmanj@ASmit.edu>: > Which brings up my other point. Having a cable much longer than > geosynch is *useful*. You can launch a spacecraft toward any > planet in the solar system by simply climbing up to the right > height, and letting go at the right moment. No rockets, no > fuel(*), just push the right button on the elevator. "Second > floor: Mars, the Asteroids.... Third floor: Jupiter, the Trojan > Colonies... Fourth Floor: Saturn..." >... > (*) It's not a free ride to the planets. The energy to accelerate > the spacecraft comes from slowing down the cable. You have to put > energy back into the cable somehow, and rockets mounted to the > cable might be the best way to do so. But they can be *good* > rockets... No rockets necessary. The cable "leans" a little from coriolis force as the spacecraft rides up it. The lean puts a torque on the earth through the anchor. Momentum and energy is transferred from the earth to the spacecraft through the sideways component of the leaning cable force vector acting on the upriding spacecraft. Some sway remains after launch, but there are damping effects, eg electromagnetic. If you feel guilty about stealing earth's rotational energy to launch you to Saturn, assuage your guilt by returning the same way. As you grapple your way down the cable to synchronous altitude against the centrifugal force, and then coast down with gravity below synchronous, the cable leans the other way and your energy and momentum are returned to mother earth.

I read every post in the thread thank you. Edit- Thread in the post ( "What are you doing in this wep of the noods- neck of the wape... What are you doing here?" ). Source : http://www.space.com/24905-moon-elevator-lunar-exploration-liftport.html More from Usenet : http://yarchive.net/space/exotic/tethers.html - - - Updated - - -

I read somewhere recently that a moon elevator is technologically feasible now ( I can source it if I hafta but donwanna ). For a super interesting discussion on this subject by some very smart people ( sorry no Henry Spencer ) see this old, ugly Usenet archive. http://yarchive.net/space/exotic/tower_launch.html

Welcome EGO. Looking at your post time, you must be an early riser! I somewhat resemble those remarks ( not so much church ). Check out the Science lab forum and drop some of your pearls of wisdom on us. There are a bunch of helpful, respectful people here, glad to answer any questions you may have.

Alternately, you can use RCS to push yourself normal or anti-normal and watch the readout on your KER. I try this if I'm more than 10 min away from a Mun A/D node.

NASA is searching for a suitable asteroid for the real life ARM, and has this to say about the latest candidate (2011MD) : Analysis of Spitzer’s infrared data show 2011 MD is roughly 20 feet (6 meters) in size and has a remarkably low density -- about the same as water, which supports the analysis of observations taken in 2011. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/june/nasa-announces-latest-progress-upcoming-milestones-in-hunt-for-asteroids/index.html#.U6OMq_ldUTphttp

I use primarily modular construction and usually have about four of these in orbit. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=262281838 After the 'payload' rendezvous with my system bus, I can fling smaller craft out, decouple my 'bus' and send it back for a Kerbin aerobrake. If I need shorter burn times, I'll use two system buses in the stack, one near the front, one near the back.

That's brilliant.. The copy at the teleport location is expendable. Rep points!

Wow. Took a rereadthrough but that is interesting. Whether you go pro-grade or retrograde Galactically speaking, the warp bubble would steal momentum from the solar systems' motion through the Milky way...?? Plus when the Drive comes on gravity will mostly be warped around the mass of the ship?? (Everything is a question.) Edit- Agreed Cmdr. Arn1e, This has been a fun one.

The space ship to nowhere! IMHO NASA needs to leave guys like Elon Musk and Richard Branson to build their rockets for them ( much cheaper than our gov'mint could ever do it ), and go back to doing what NASA does best. Cutting edge, outside the box, revolutionary tech, Jeb-like Exploration. Exploration is the engine that drives innovation. Innovation is the engine that drives economic growth. NASA has been there done that when it comes to building rockets, but can no longer compete with private industry. Besides, if you were an astronaut all strapped in the chair, waiting for someone to light the candle underneath you, do you want to look around and think to yourself....everything in this spacecraft was built by the lowest bidder? It'll fly even though it's crippling NASA. ( That and JWST )

http://www.space.com/26270-angry-birds-nasa-asteroid-game.html

What makes something alive? No scientist in the world can or will tell you. Here's a popular definition: Life must eat. Life must excrete (waste products). Life must reproduce. With this definition, a lit candle is alive. Life is so complex we can't reverse engineer even the simplest organism back to it's bio-genisis. Here's an article that thinks out side the box a bit about how life on earth began. "Did life on Earth begin with autocells?" http://www.space.com/23144-earth-life-autocells-gas-giants.html

Ahh. I've been reading that series for years and am at this moment savoring, slowly the last 200 pages. I almost read yer post and gave the end away. I wish I could read this thread but I'll probably try to stretch the book out for a month or so. I saw you wrote about Angela and I slammed on the breaks. I'm on page 678 but I've thought for a while that she's some sort of Deity. I'll book mark this thread and have something to say later. Edit- Does this thread contain spoilers?? I'd really like to play!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/ For a good discussion of some of this see. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82033-Alien-intelligence-and-civilizations

Sorry. Not clear. I mean the two days flight time to Minmus. Technically what I do is get some easy stuff near KSC. My standard sci pod has 4 goo and 4 sci jrs, as well as whatever other sci stuff is unlocked, so I only have to visit a biome once. I unlock enough tech to orbit (High/low Kerbin), then while 2 Mun and 2 Minmus (High/low Minmus/Mun) sciflybys and a Sun scipod are en route (Managed beautifully by KAC), I can visit all biomes on Kerbin, upgrade tech, and then ship a first Minmus landing. While this is en route, I can send a station to Mun ( with Sci lab ) and get all Mun equatorial biomes. By the time I get a station to Minmus, I only need a couple of flat landings to complete the tech tree. IRL though this probably took a month, what with living and all that.

Pretty much what I do. In my current 'unfortunate restart' save, I just completed the tech tree in time for the second Moho window. I think it's day 15 or 17 (earth days) yr. 1. This took quite some time in real life however, in the two days it takes to get to Minmus, I can do all the biomes on Kerbin. I hate time warping huge swaths of time away, so tried Kerbal Alarm Clock on this play through and it's a godsend. With it, I have a 'timekeeper' craft near the launchpad (KSS Scapegoat) which has all the planetary transfer windows as well as all asteroid SOI changes on its' head. KAC allows me to run, six or seven missions at a time. Still waiting for my 'High over the sun' sci probe to leave Kerbins' SOI.

I.. I, I just can't wrap my head around it. IMHO we'll never be able to see a naked singularity. Relativity forbids them to exist. Look, a black hole as described by relativity is a very simple object. If black holes have no hair, then all that can ever be said to describe one within relativity is it's mass, it's charge, and it's angular momentum (spin). If you could directly observe a point of infinite density, then Einstein is wrong in a big way and we need something beyond relativity, just as relativity went beyond Newton. IMHO, with frame dragging and time dilation, the universe isn't old enough for a black hole to have formed in it's lifetime. As a star collapses past the stability provided by the Pauli exclusion principle and towards a black hole, it's proper time seen from our perspective would slow effectively to a stop and no further evolution (towards blackholedom) could occur. What this means for warp drive, who knows. We might be bumping into some of the logical inconsistencies here which may make the warp drive impossible.