GoSlash27

Broco, Not really. I solved it using Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation, which takes that into account. Best, -Slashy

The ballistic missile subs use pneumatic pressure to catapult their missiles out of the tubes, and I believe the MX missiles did the same. This was to keep the missile from damaging the "launchpad", though. If it takes 7 km/sec to get to orbit and you 2-stage it, then your first stage would need 3,500 m/sec DV. Assuming an Isp of 350s, that's a wet to dry ratio of 2.77:1. 63.9% of your first stage's mass is fuel. If you catapult the missile to save 50 m/sec DV and repeat, then 63.4% of your launch stage would be fuel. You might save 0.8% of the total mass of the launch vehicle; not really worth the effort. HTHs, -Slashy

Sorry, can you elaborate? What does your "graveyard spiral" look like? Is it like a flat spin, or attempting to fly backward, or just slowly rolling? Best, -Slashy

That's true. Doubly- so in KSP You have to ask yourself what you're working for and what you're conserving in the process. I mean... if you're concerned about such things to the point that you notice the price and weight difference, then odds are you are skilled enough that your KSP career isn't struggling for cash. So why go to the trouble? The only viable reason I can see is that you happen to enjoy the exercise for it's own sake. Which,... Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy it too. Best, -Slashy

Or put another way...

Or yet another view... Low mass and cost are the way I happen to design my craft, but there's another overriding factor beyond those: Sheer laziness. Often, I will select a design that's not the absolute cheapest or lightest option simply because it's easier. Spend a couple hundred more dollars per launch, but in return you get to waste your free time flying spaceships and fulfilling contracts instead of a design/ build/ fail/ tweak loop trying to make a cheaper and lighter (but more complicated and temperamental) design work. In the cases where a simple solution is available, I usually go with it and don't worry about the cost savings, since tourist and rescue contracts are so ridiculously profitable anyway. In that spirit, I use the Mk1-2 capsule when it presents itself as an option. Best, -Slashy

Clearly it's Operation Crossbow. The launch has been delayed due to some unforeseen circumstances involving popcorn. Best, -Slashy

'Nuff said -Slashy

I am not a well man -Slashy

I read that as "Frasier Crane" and was instantly hooked on the concept Get off mah lawn!, -Slashy

Too much drag in the nose, but it's probably still serviceable if you accelerate more slowly. 1)Try turning down the thrust on the SRBs so you leave the pad at 1.2G. Note the %throttle that achieves that. See if this is enough to tame it. If not... 2) Replace the SRBs in 2 pairs instead of one group of four. Readjust the thrust so the first pair of SRBs produce 25% more thrust, and the second pair 25% less. This will even out your acceleration through the boost phase so you're not pulling like 4g at burnout. HTHs, -Slashy

Perhaps *technically* habitable... but only in the same sense that a dumpster fire is "habitable". Sorry to be so dark, but nobody's going to sell their timeshare in Tahiti in order to move to the edge of a large proto- Earth tidally locked in close proximity to a red dwarf. I know I'm a fun-suck, -Slashy

The contract gave you "in solar orbit" but didn't give ephemeris data? No way I'm taking that gamble! Sorry, I know it's off- topic. -Slashy

I'm not an astrophysicist (nor do I play one on TV), but the u wouldn't change as the satellite draws mass from the parent. m1M2 would still remain constant, so Vorb would remain constant. The barycenter would just shift closer to the satellite. What would cause the satellite to slow would be drag. *Edit* scratch that. Mu would actually slowly increase to a maximum where m1=m2, then decrease again. /AlgebraFail Best, -Slashy

Today it was this: For some reason, these things just pipe themselves in from the aether

This, and I've seen other studies that say the average IQ in western countries is decreasing, and for the same reasons as in Idiocracy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html I'm not claiming that people are getting dumber, but I do disagree with the notion that they are smarter today than they were 200 years ago. Best, -Slashy

I woke up with this one stuck in my head. No idea why; I haven't heard it in months. Best, -Slashy

This place definitely won't get a positive Yelp review.

HebaruSan, Counterpoint: Today's college students can't spell without the aid of a spell- checker, can't perform simple math without a calculator, and display a dismal grasp of current events, history, and indeed can't even pass the naturalization exam for citizenship. Certainly from my personal experience, I can't point to a single thing to suggest that individual humans are gaining in intelligence. If anything, I watch "Idiocracy" and see it as prescient rather than farcical. Best, -Slashy

I strongly disagree with this. People today have access to much more advanced technology, but that doesn't make them more intelligent, especially at the individual level. -Charles Ball, An uneducated slave who served in the war of 1812 Compare and contrast that with the typical writings of today's "more intelligent" people. Every time I watch these old documentaries (whether from wars, or other events), I am always struck by the eloquence, wit, and awareness of even the least educated among them. How do today's average 'blogs compare to this? And then take a look at the incredible advances they were making in the fields of engineering and science, and how little they had to work with. John Harrison, a self- educated astronomer and clock- maker actually created a pendulum clock (a family of them, really) that was so precise that it rivals today's quartz watches and was totally impervious to movement, temperature, humidity... This was back in 1737, BTW, and a large part of the reason why the Royal Navy dominated the seas. 200 years ago, astonishing inventions were coming out every year. 1801- The discovery of ultraviolet radiation 1809- Electric light 1814- Steam locomotive and photography 1829- Typewriter 1830- Sewing machine 1835- Babbage Engine (the first digital calculator) And so on and so forth... No, I don't buy even for a second that people today are more intelligent than they were back then. Not by a long shot... Best, -Slashy

*edit* Revised for brevity and kindness... Try the Caveman challenge. If you learn how to operate that way, you will never accidentally over- engineer your rockets. Best, -Slashy

Or phrased another way... By my way of thinking, the event horizon shouldn't be where all light and particles are trapped hopelessly in orbit about the singularity, it should be where anything that enters can never leave. These are two entirely different concepts. HTHs, -Slashy

Right... But again, the definition of the Schwarzchild radius *is* Newtonian. What @magnemoe and I are saying is the same thing (as far as I comprehend it). The Schwarzchild radius is Newtonian, while the event horizon is relativistic. They should be 2 different radii, not one and the same... Best, -Slashy

Wumpus, I didn't realize that "ECO" was a standard term across the industry. Never heard it before outside my own organization until just now. Do you folks have "red marks" and "run +holds" as well? Best, -Slashy

Green Baron, By SoI, I mean "Sphere of Influence", and yeah, it is a bit of an oversimplification. What I mean is that a particle *should* be able to cross the threshold of the Schwarzchild radius and exit it again (down to a depth of half that), but it just won't be able to reach hyperbolic escape velocity afterwards. It will be doomed to be stuck inside the black hole's gravity well forever in a highly eccentric orbit. A periapsis of *half* the Schwarzchild radius should create an absolute event horizon, since nothing inside it can ever interact with the outside universe again. Orbital velocity is equal to or higher than c at that point, so all directions point in. From far away, the Schwarzchild radius would *appear* to be an event horizon since nothing that enters can be visible to you. Stuff goes in, but nothing comes out as far as you can tell. I would expect that the event horizon would appear to shrink and you would see more and more trapped particles and radiation as you get closer that wasn't previously visible. It's size would appear to be Rs at an infinite distance, but approach Rs/2 as you approach Rs/2 yourself. This is the way it would seem to be to me, but apparently it's not and I don't grasp why it isn't. Hope this explains my confusion, -Slashy