GoSlash27

The funky "brass in mainstream rock" period. What an awesome time for music! Even Sonny & Cher were rocking back then... *EDIT* And now that I've said it, it's stuck in my head But if you like that track from The Bravery, google the band and pick whatever random song pops up. They're all good. Best, -Slashy

Well, I don't know if either of these groups makes music that you'd like, but their albums are the same way for me; I end up liking the b- sides way more than the popular tracks. Some samples Again, the cool thing about these bands is you can listen to their entire album and enjoy them. Sorry for the wall of songs, -Slashy

Tokoshoran, It'd depend on what capabilities you currently have and how much of a hurry you're in. Mun flyby science (high and low) is easily achievable in early caveman using probes, as is Minmus surface science. And of course, you have Kerbin itself and low/ high space. The most powerful "caveman" rocket I've constructed so far uses a reliant and 4 twitches for vernier + additional thrust in the first stage (no fins), and a Terrier for the 2nd. This can place up to 3.8 tonnes in LKO, which can accomplish a lot. Perhaps that would be able to get your experiments up there? Best, -Slashy

Foo Fighters, Spoon, The Bravery... Most of my favorite songs on any given album never made the radio.

"Venice Queen" from the By the Way album, RHCP. Remember when we used to listen to entire albums and find gems like these? Best, -Slashy

Or even easier: Go to flight view, point , and step on the gas once you see the Mun rise above the horizon. Then go to map view and shut it off once your Ap reaches the Mun's orbit around Kerbin. This is the standard "caveman" way of doing it. *EDIT* @radonek beat me to it. I personally double the DV budget for landing. A lot of unforseen circumstances tend to crop up during landings... This means that while a manned landing and return is technically possible with starting facilities, it's not recommended due to lack of safety margin. If you engineer everything *just right*, you could just barely make it... But if you know enough to pull that off, you'd also know that you really shouldn't risk it. You should at least upgrade the pad before attempting a manned Mun landing. *EDIT* And besides... you can't properly "science" at that point anyway. Can't EVA, can't collect soil samples or the science from your experiments before reentry. Better to save the "one small step" for when most of the facility is level 2. Best, -Slashy

(Citation needed) Besides, it's a caricature of an argument that nobody else has actually made. Perhaps you should contact John FX and ask him to make you a mod to remove that stuff Best, -Slashy

COD, ^ What @sevenperforce said. If you provided your engine with 7,500 pounds of propellant, how long would it run? Best, -Slashy

As long as you're writing mods, they can make the DV and TWR displays optional. You can easily write a mod to default it on. Nice try -Slashy

Sure thing. Best, -Slashy

Same as with liquids. Note how much fuel you have at the beginning, then record how long it burns until it runs out of fuel. propellant mass (tonnes) divided by time (seconds)= fuel flow rate (tonnes per second). Best, -Slashy

Again, it doesn't matter if it's liquid propellants, solid propellants, or Totino's pizza rolls. Establish your thrust and then divide that by the rate at which you're feeding the beast (supplying propellant) and you will find your efficiency (specific impulse). Conversely, find the velocity at which you are expelling the propellant and divide that by g0 and you will also find your efficiency (specific impulse). A reaction engine is nothing more than a magic pipe from the mathematical point of view. You shove matter into it and it creates thrust. If it creates more thrust from the same matter, it's more efficient. If it creates the same thrust from less matter, it's more efficient. Looking at it the other way, it simply takes the matter and throws it away *really fast*. The faster it makes the exhaust move, the more efficient it is. Either way of looking at it yields the same measure of efficiency. Best, -Slashy

Perhaps you should go back to page 2; 2 full days before you showed up and "proposed" an idea that we were already on board with Best, -Slashy

JohnFX, There's nothing I can say in response to anything in your last post that wouldn't simply be a repeat of my earlier comments, just as there's nothing you have said in this post that isn't simply a repeat of your earlier comments. I'd just as soon not bicker back and forth with you over something that 1) we fundamentally agree on and 2) are both powerless to solve. You're going to have to just go ahead and be angry. Best, -Slashy

I did thrust (lbs) divided by the mass flow rate (pounds per second). That yields the specific impulse. I could've also done exhaust velocity (feet per second) divided by g0 (feet per second per second). That yields specific impulse too. Either approach is a valid measure of the efficiency of an engine, and both result in the same answer; specific impulse. *edit* @sevenperforce beat me to it

John FX, I didn't. I referred to the argument "there's more of us so we should get what we want" as tyranny by majority. I'm cool with the rest of it. If *you* go back and look at what *I* wrote, you'll see we're actually in agreement on how it should be handled; make it available but optional. Best, -Slashy

Question for any interested mod: I'm considering making a humorous tutorial on the math of reaction engines based on using wolverines and honey badgers as propellant and "ferocity" as the accelerant. Would this raise any objections or violate any terms of service? Should I wave off? Best, -Slashy

And again, it's immaterial anyway. Nobody knows what the "majority" is or what the "majority" wants, and nobody should care because that's not a valid basis for making a change. Best, -Slashy

JohnFX, That's a false choice. It's not about making the game suitable strictly for the majority *or* the minority, it's about making the game suitable for everyone. There are some very valid arguments for changing the stock game, but "this is how we want it and there are more of us" is not one of them. Best, -Slashy

Actually, you don't need a mod or even math to tell you that. You can twiddle the flight planner and get it to tell you when the next window is. Best, -Slashy

This is an excellent point. Console players need the option of displaying DV and TWR. This, OTOH, is *not* a good point. This is just an argument for tyranny by majority. We should always try to avoid that. Best, -Slashy

LordFerret, I dunno. It doesn't seem to recognize the simple <math></math> script, regardless of what's inside. Best, -Slashy

Okay. We've got all the time we need. Best, -Slashy

Is that a "good" facepalm (is it really that simple) or a "bad" facepalm (just shoot me now)? If it's a "bad" facepalm, we'll keep working at it. Best, -Slashy

Okay, we're dealing in pounds, but no matter. 1500 pounds of thrust is equivalent to 1500 pounds of fuel. But we only fed it 1200 pounds of fuel, so it would've burned 15/12 times longer if we had used 1500 pounds of fuel instead of 1200. That's 5/4 or 1.25 times more. We got 50 seconds of burn time out of 1200 pounds of fuel, so if we had used 1500 pounds of fuel it would've burned for 50 seconds x (1500 pounds/1200 pounds) = 62.5 seconds of specific impulse. Our propellant's mass flow rate is 1500 pounds/ 62.5 seconds = 24 pounds per second. Conveniently, 1200 pounds in 50 seconds is also 24 pounds per second. Because the mass flow rate doesn't change. Our exhaust velocity is 62.5 seconds x 32 ft/ sec2= 2,000 ft/ sec. Not a very efficient motor, even worse than a "Dawn" at sea level, but we have been able to derive all of it's characteristics by a simple test. See how it all ties together?