GoSlash27

fredinno, These are all references to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "trilogy". Kind of a cult classic in nerd circles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy Best, -Slashy

fredinno, Try removing your peril- proof sunglasses

Apparently your reading comprehension skills are as weak as your sense of tact. I said I am through discussing this with you. What I am offended by is the incredibly poor taste you have shown by arguing your point in this thread. You may or may not have a valid case, but this is not the place or time for it.

It breaks down at the Earth orbiting the sun. Beyond that, the solar system is traveling around the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, but it's not "orbiting", at least not due to gravity. Everything in the galaxy revolves about the center at the same angular rate, like a phonograph record (or a CD for you young'uns), They think this is due to the halo of dark matter that surrounds our galaxy. The galaxy doesn't seem to be orbiting anything at all as far as they can tell. Best, -Slashy

It is, but that's not the charge. The charge is that this group of engineers "stood by silently", and they clearly did not. There's a whole pile of memos of them yelling about this for *years* with nobody listening. Best, -Slashy

There are countless citations of these gentlemen doing precisely what you claim they never did from page 124 through 149 of the Rogers Commission report dating all the way back to '79. Management ignored and overrode them, just as they did on the morning of the launch. I'm all done discussing this with you. I frankly find your argument offensive; doubly so in this thread. But anyone else who's interested in learning what went down... I encourage them to start here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8535.0;attach=25186

This is a highly inflammatory accusation, given the title of the thread. It troubled me enough to review the Challenger Report, and I was unable to find anything to substantiate this claim. In fact, everything points to them raising red flags all over NASA and Thiokol about the SRB field joints from the moment they joined the program. Do you have anything to back this up? Thanks, -Slashy

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/470870426/challenger-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies Bob Ebeling was a personal hero of mine; A man who saw a potentially fatal flaw and did everything in his power to try to avert disaster. He gave up everything in his attempt to bring safety and transparency to NASA, and was guilt ridden for the rest of his days. Not because he didn't give his all, but because he didn't succeed. I have always tried to follow his example in my career in the aerospace industry. -Slashy

*Starts, looks around groggily* Actually, I think you've got it covered. Best, -Slashy

"I've found the opposite to be true. I can get stuff accomplished with a whole lot less in KSP than it would take IRL. You've just got to engineer for efficiency. An ascent stage that's bigger than it needs to be requires a descent stage that's *much* bigger than it needs to be. Add them together and that's a gargantuan injection stage that requires a behemoth to get it in orbit. If you design for efficiency (like they do IRL) everything becomes much more manageable." -Me, May 2014 Still as true as ever! Best, -Slashy

GeneralVeers, I'm far from an expert in these matters, but everything I've seen on the subject agrees with this. The island of stability is a projection of the behavior of large atoms based on what we currently know, and it has proven accurate so far. Best, -Slashy

I'm sure most of us have by now, but thanks for posting it. It's beautiful footage! Best, -Slashy PS for anyone who hasn't already seen this, be sure to watch it full screen!

Emphasis on "stable". Who knows how many elements could temporarily exist before they're ripped apart from their own internal forces? But stable elements is a different question. If we assume that the physical constants are uniform throughout the universe (and our observations tend to support this notion), then there simply aren't any more. A nucleus can only get so massive before it spontaneously breaks down into lighter elements. Best, -Slashy

Small organizations are more agile and efficient than large bureaucracies. We see the same effect over here where the private startups are outperforming NASA. Plus there's the political bloat that comes with congressional funding. "This much content must come from congressional district A" and so forth. And finally... it's very difficult to spin up large programs when the funding isn't guaranteed to see it through. Not trying to get all political, just stating the facts. Best, -Slashy

Europa. If there's one place in the solar system that's liable to have life, that's it. Best, -Slashy

^This. Without the threat of the dreaded "commies" or "capitalists" (take your pick) getting there first, there would've been no political will to achieve such a fundamentally expensive and dangerous goal. The moon was never about exploration or advancing science, it was about fear. AFA what would've happened if Kennedy and Kruschev had teamed up (and I don't see why they ever would), Funding would've been slashed on both sides and both figures would've been under tremendous political pressure within for having attempted to collaborate with the enemy. NASA would've died with Kennedy. Best, -Slashy

My guess: We are already familiar with every stable element in the universe. There simply aren't any more. This is assuming that the physical constants are uniform everywhere. Best, -Slashy

Notwal, If you land with parachutes, whatever takes the brunt of the impact with the surface is destroyed. If it lands in salt water, the corrosion will render it unusable. The idea of retroburning and landing on gear is that you can refurbish and reuse everything. Best, -Slashy

FWIW, I do all my orbital assembly stock. The 2 most important things are the large docking ports and RCS tugs. The RCS tugs have a standard docking port on one end and a large docking port on the other. This allows me to use them like "hands", grabbing sections of ships or stations and assembling them in place. I deliver kerbals, fuel, and RCS propellant using SSTO spaceplanes. Sections of ships/ stations are delivered using boosters. Best, -Slashy

I have a pic of what to do Lemme see if I can find it... Ahh. Here we are... Best, -Slashy PS For future reference: In order to tell how much DV you have left, we'd need to know fuel, oxidizer, current ship mass, and engine type.

UR, Congrats on making it. That's quite a feat! And I'm sure Nich didn't intend to insult you. I could picture myself thinking the same thing if I didn't understand why you chose those parts. Best, -Slashy

Kamenjar, As I said in my first post, there is no useful purpose in the career game for large transports whether slow or fast. As for "fun" that's a matter of personal preference. Best, -Slashy

Definitely small. I shoot for achieving the mission objectives as cheaply as possible, so my upper stages are light and my lower stages are cheap. I do sacrifice mass for safety and crew comfort, though. Long duration missions require proper crew quarters and I like to make my ships reusable. Best, -Slashy

Good stuff! Is it under 18t? The lack of electricity and patched conics is workable in stock. How did you get it stable? Best, -Slashy

I've got one. In fact, I have a lot of hardware that would be epic for use with KSP. But unfortunately... I'm still playing KSP using the keyboard and default settings. Too lazy, I guess... Best, -Slashy