GoSlash27

Okay... somewhat bad analogy, but it should help get the point across. The formula for kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2. That is, it is proportional to the mass of an object and the square of it's velocity. Furthermore, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you fire a bullet from a rifle, the recoil into your shoulder is exactly the same kinetic energy as is stored in the moving bullet, yet the bullet is much more damaging to the target than the rifle is to you. Higher energy density. HtHs, -Slashy

Broadcast distances and light brightness are both functions of power, while the damage from x-rays and gamma rays is a function of energy density. These are 2 different things. For broadcast distances and light brightness, the power at the receiver is determined by transmitted power, antenna efficiency (at both ends), attenuation of the medium, and distance. For damage from x- rays and gamma rays, the damage is ionization at the molecular level due to high energy density of the wave. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy density. Best, -Slashy

The energy contained within an EM wave is proportional to it's frequency, but energy isn't the same thing as power, which is what you're talking about. Best, -Slashy

^ This is the short version

YVW. That comes back to the drag disparity issue I mentioned. At speeds below terminal, the wings generate more drag than the parasitic drag of the parts and all is normal, but at super-terminal speeds (is that a word??) the situation is reversed and the aircraft becomes highly unstable. That's why it's important to not have a vertical offset between CoL and CoM; it would much rather fly backwards in that regime and the vertical offset generates a torque moment that aggravates it. Best, -Slashy

LordFerret, 1) No, There are no "auto-coordinating" features to KSP unless somebody's made a mod. 2) Yes, the game does model the effects of dihedral. It also (somewhat) models the effect of wing height, sweep, wing loading and washout. But the results are highly unstable in certain flight regimes because the wings generate drag differently than the parasitic drag of the parts they are lifting. 3) The word I'd use to describe it would be "abysmal". KSP's physics engine wasn't designed to handle realistic aerodynamics and it shows. But you *can* make planes that fly pretty decently despite that. For best results, build the aircraft minus the wings to be balanced on the fuel tanks so your CoG doesn't move as the tanks drain. Use dihedral to create positive roll stability. Use empennage radius and wing sweep to create positive yaw stability. Do not attempt to use vertical CoL displacement for positive pitch stability, as that will create pitch excursions depending on airspeed. Instead, CoL should be level with CoG and a little behind to make it nose heavy. This will help with stall recovery. Best, -Slashy

I was thinking the same thing; There is no point on the Mun where Kerbin would show that far off it's axis. The Mun's orbit has zero inclination and it's radius is only half a degree of angle from Kerbin's surface, so the equator cannot show any more than .5* inclination from anywhere on the Mun. Best, -Slashy

Grazi! I'd say he died doing what he loved, but throughout the entire run he looked like he'd rather be anywhere else. He will be missed... -Slashy

A permit... for helium?? I'm slow to pick up on when people are messin' with me. Please tell me there isn't a place where you need a helium permit!

FWIW, this is also my best bet for an economic impetus for humans working and living in space. But in the meantime there's nothing you can mine from an asteroid that isn't available cheaper on Earth. Not disputing any of this, but that's not a "change". These folks should do a brisk business if it works out, but there's not much that I see changing as a result. The market shares change, the usual customers save some money on their satellite launches, but that's about it. Best, -Slashy

Posting this for additional inspiration. Best, -Slashy

I wouldn't know which one is Callisto just by looking at them, but you can see Jupiter and several Jovian moons with just a decent pair of binoculars. Shouldn't be a difficult job even with a really crappy telescope. Best, -Slashy

I don't think very much changes. Even if it delivers the payload/ cost they're hoping for (which never happens in practice) it's still way out of the price range to make space economically viable. If you're going to send a person up there it's a year's salary. That's just to LEO. Unless you're a government space agency, you've got to justify the cost of such an expenditure. What's up there that's worth that kind of money? Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing... but space isn't going to boom until they find something up there that's worth the trip. JMO, -Slashy

Pretty much everybody these days is using P(Y) prime factoring encryption. Enigma really isn't all that difficult to break with modern computer technology. Best, -Slashy

I don't see the big deal either. All of my similar scrawlings and engineering notes are in a spiral bound notebook beside my joystick. Best, -Slashy

Fengist, I also submitted a record run in "unrealistic super stock" class. Is it acceptable, or do I need to resubmit it? Best, -Slashy

I don't have any mods on my installation. But having said that... propellers aren't rockets or jets *hint*

Thanks! I've been spending too much time playing with ion gliders these past few weeks, so I've picked up way more experience with them than any sane man would want. Freakin ions... :/ Best, -Slashy

Unrealistic Super Stock 564 M/sec. R.I.P. Froming Kerbin! WTFO.craft

Stock go- kart class. 85 M/sec http://wikisend.com/download/161164/IONthePrize.craft

Thanks! (ugly thing!!) If I replace the quad adapter with cubic struts, the price falls to $5,052 and it still works the same way. I'm not gonna bother resubmitting for such a small savings, tho'. Callas was lucky to survive the first trip. Best, -Slashy

I made an SSTO for $4,400 ($5,788 including fuel & oxidizer). Not the cheapest, but certainly the ugliest!! deathtrap1.craft

^ Also accomplished using jet engines and control surfaces as wings.

IRT to the OP, I don't think an Eve SSTO can be proven conclusively impossible mathematically. Not because it's possible, mind you, but because the math doesn't work in a way that allows proof. You're never going to get to LEO using an ion glider (without infiniglide), but the closest thing to "proof" is in the outcome. Efficiency in ion gliders is all about the ratios. A certain number of engines per wing and a certain number of tanks per engine. If you keep the ratios the same and double everything, you don't get any gain beyond diminishing the effect of the payload. And more importantly, approaching the ideal ratio of parts only creates a small improvement in performance. It's never going to get to Eve orbit no matter what you do. I doubt it will ever make Kerbin orbit, and I'm the closest to that achievement as of this writing. So long-short, brute force rocket is mathematically impossible. Ion glider without infiniglide isn't mathematically impossible, but you're never gonna see it happen. Ion glider using infiniglide is virtually certain. Best, -Slashy

Diminishing returns are setting in... 34,450M @ 1,454.7 M/sec Living Dead Cat Mk.1