GoSlash27

Augustus, I didn't like this movie because it was a sucky movie. I don't care about the "official canon". I don't care what they throw out or keep in so long as I enjoy watching what winds up on the screen. So while I won't be signing this petition, please let me know if somebody starts an "I want my money and 2 1/2 hours of my life back" petition. I'll sign that one. Best, -Slashy

They dropped the rocket 3 times in the process of unloading it from the launcher to take it to the shop. I don't know if this caused any further damage. Best, -Slashy

The entire Colors album by Beck. His albums are always either 100% hit or 100% miss for me. This one is 100% hit. Best, -Slashy

You mean "trash panda"?

Did they ever launch a D-21 from an SR-71? I was under the impression that they only ever tried that with the A-12 Oxcart (Subtly different from the SR-71). Lower altitude and range, lighter, shorter, single cockpit, higher dash speed, owned by the CIA instead of SAC... In addition to the danger of launching a drone from (whatever it was), I remember hearing that it was scrapped because it was entirely pointless. The idea of having the D-21 was that it could penetrate airspace that was impenetrable to the SR-71, but it turned out that there was nowhere on the planet that the SR-71 couldn't go with impunity. Best, -Slashy

wumpus, Granted, but the rocket shown in the OP isn't "as many stages as you want". It's a single stage SRB. Best, -Slashy

I would be shocked if *any* solid fuel rocket could make orbit in a single stage. You're talking like a 24:1 wet/ dry mass ratio; 96% of the total mass would need to be propellant. Best, -Slashy

Morgan927, I used to have the x-45 back in the day. The problem with it was it had potentiometers instead of Hall sensors. They'd pick up a lot of jitter as they aged, and you had to set the null windows really wide. They're all old now, so you probably won't find one in usable condition. Best, -Slashy

^ This pretty much sums it up for me. Overall good production value, but the storytelling was dismal. I'm not a stickler for "canon" and I don't demand that the "art" be placed ahead of profit. I don't mind if a franchise is pulled in a new direction... in fact, I kind of *enjoy* it when it angers the purists. But I do require that the end result be enjoyable, and this movie just failed to deliver that for me. It all just seemed very superficial and tedious. Not a movie I feel the need to see again. Best, -Slashy

Just so I'm clear on this... Rey is just a nobody from nowhere? If that's the case, why is she so force- sensitive and what's up with the memories of her being left on Yavin for safe keeping? And Luke literally force- projected himself to death??

When the weather is nice, I'm the world's nerdiest biker. I have an antique Vespa Sportique and a retro Royal Enfield Bullet. When the weather is not nice, I hibernate and avoid going outdoors except to take in a movie with my favorite human. Hibernation activity is pretty standard; KSP, watching documentaries/ Steeler games, reading, etc. Best, -Slashy

An example of "low thrust/ low drag" using Mk.3 parts: This design used only 4 engines, yet was able to get hypersonic in air breathing mode despite the fact that it weighed 125t at takeoff. Best, -Slashy

I've had the pleasure of spending time around the airshow performers, doing communications setup and maintenance. They're a very close- knit group and take care of each other, but they also know how to let go and move on when one of them dies. I guess they have to be that way, since it's such a high- risk undertaking and dwelling on it might undermine their confidence. Best, -Slashy

I don't think you need more than one 'chute. The atmosphere is extremely dense on Eve. Nevertheless, you might want to keep them. Parachutes are very draggy, even when stowed. This will help keep you oriented during entry. Plus, backups... Best, -Slashy

LordFerret, I'm a stickler for crew safety, so I always do unmanned shakedown flights when possible before clearing them for use. As for the second part, it depends on where the mission is going. I prefer to hyperedit and test for longer missions rather than waste months or years just to try questionable equipment to see if it works. Most times, such extensive testing is unnecessary since it's all just a math problem. But some places (like Eve) require iterative testing and redesign to get right. Best, -Slashy

If you use the right engine, pay close attention to drag, and fly the correct profile, you can attain hypersonic speeds with as little as .35 thrust-to-weight. You don't have to load it down with a bunch of engines, it just needs to be clean. *You have a lot of flexibility in wing loading, so don't be afraid to add wings. I like to use one set of shuttle wings for each pair of engines. *Keep the intakes to a minimum. One shock cone + a precooler is adequate to feed as many as 4 engines. *Build the plane as drag-free as possible. Smooth transitions, no open nodes, no drag- inducing junk on the surface. *Build some incidence in the wings so that the nose is pointed directly at the prograde around Mach 1- Mach 1.6. This will help you slip through the sound barrier with a minimum of parasitic drag. * When possible, build long instead of wide. The less frontal area, the better. Once you get past 360 m/sec, hang on to your hat. Thrust goes through the roof and drag falls away. Best, -Slashy

Geonovast, Not saying the entire program went off without a hitch. Apollo 1 pad fire being the most glaring and tragic example. Just saying the AM's engine worked every time. In fact, the (equally untested) descent module engine is what saved the crew of Apollo 13 by performing a job for which it was never intended. The success of the Apollo 13's use of the DM as a contingency allowed planners to stop using free return, which allowed more payload. Best, -Slashy

.

Corona, They made the system as brick- simple as possible and monitored everything they possibly could... but there were still possible failures that could've doomed them. Thankfully, that never happened and it all went off without a hitch. Best, -Slashy

While I do go to the Mun using a dedicated lander, I don't do it in a single launch. I launch a big tanker with multiple docking ports to serve as an orbital base. Then I launch the dedicated landers and dock them to it. Finally, I launch the manned "ferry" with extra fuel, monoprop, and astronaut. Astronaut arrives, EVAs to the lander, refuels it, and lands. Upon return, the astronaut EVAs back to the ferry, transfers the extra resources, and returns to Kerbin. My lander is a single stage and expends nothing but fuel, so can be reused indefinitely. So long as I keep bringing crew and supplies, I can use this setup to hit every Munar biome with a minimal waste of cash and equipment. My interplanetary missions are largely the same, except they use a mothership and a crew of 4 instead of a dumb tank. Best, -Slashy

geonovast, Sorry Perhaps you can track down a copy of the old 0.18.3 demo and transfer the file? I checked, and I no longer have it. Best, -Slashy

Genovast, Those were the legs in the trial version back then. I don't remember for sure, but I think it was a stripped- down version of 0.18 Best, -Slashy

I honestly don't remember my first rocket. It was too long ago and I am too senile. I do, however, remember the vehicles I designed in my first program. It was patterned largely after NASA's program. I did all the designs by hand, and all the calculations by slide rule. My initial one man lifter was dubbed "Moho Bluerock". I learned how to orbit, target a spot for reentry/landing, maneuver in orbit, EVA, and rendezvous. No docking available in the trial version back then. Once I had all those down, I moved on to the Mun with a much different approach, more akin to Russia's plan. I sent 2 rockets, one with the lander and one with an additional reentry pod. Upon returning from the Munar surface to orbit, the kerbal had to EVA to his return pod. What made that mission unique was that I had calculated that RCS quads would provide the most efficient design, as engine selection was very limited and the LV-909 was overkill. The design wound up being a 2 stage twisted candle with the landing legs on the lower stage. After that, I was hooked and bought the full version. Best, -Slashy

Corona, ^ Ascent module. Hyperedit allows you to place an object on Eve's surface. Pthigrivi, Don't feel ashamed. The difficulty of Eve demands that you either do that or launch the mission without testing. Best, -Slashy

Rocket, I think whoever wrote that was mistaken. They tested "Spider" ascent stage in LEO during Apollo 9, and proved that it met performance expectations. They knew that the AM engine was sufficiently powerful to lift off... assuming it actually fired. What I think was meant by "untested" was that the installed engine itself could not be test fired prior to launch from the lunar surface due to the fuel's highly- corrosive nature. This, coupled with the fact that the lunar launch was the only phase of the mission with no contingency, made it easily the most perilous moment of the mission. That engine had to fire and operate properly, or the crew would die on the surface. Corona, Ultimately, you're the only one who can decide what is "cheating" and what is not in your single player game. If you don't feel like you're cheating, then you're not cheating. Best, -Slashy