GoSlash27

Camacha, You've had your say and I've had mine. I'm really not interested in arguing back and forth about this. What you perceive to be a "fist fight", I perceive to be a "hostage scenario", and if the powers- that- be truly shared your opinion on the matter, they would've disarmed themselves by now. They haven't and haven't made any moves to do so. I'll let you have the last word on the matter, but I really have nothing left to add and no wish to continue this disagreement. Best, -Slashy

I've been playing with this some, and thus far have mixed results. A stock Mk1 capsule takes about the right attitude with a mass offset of .3m, but this makes it way off- balance during launch. It's also way more offset than should be needed. Also, the canted angle doesn't seem to affect the flight path. This may require a change in how it generates drag and lift in order to make it do what you want. A little resource that may help: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690020179.pdf Best, -Slashy

I'd say we keep the little can as- is and reduce the mass of the big can to 1.2t. Both would have very poor heat and stress tolerance, owing to their "pop can" structures. The Mk1-2 command pod also needs it's mass reduced to about 2.4t. There should be a slight economy of scale for using parts with higher crew capacity. Best, -Slashy

This could also apply to bodies *within* the kerbol system. Like their tracks don't show up in the tracking station until they are "discovered", and only rudimentary info is provided about them. Further discoveries from additional missions would puzzle together more info about them as the game progresses. Plus... "orbital telescopes" anyone? Best, -Slashy

People don't want nukes in space and there would be a huge political backlash. Best, -Slashy

Again, I disagree. Full- scale conventional war is not an effective deterrent against using nukes. That deterrence is what "MAD" is all about. The moment that deterrence is softened, some nut will decide it's worth the risk and trigger WWIII. Universal disarmament is not a reasonable course of action. I wish it was, but it's not. -Slashy

I wouldn't have to hide it. I'd do it right out in the open. I bet I could. And notice that you have just proposed a global war as a direct result of your own scenario that would not have happened had everyone just kept their nukes. Apologies, -Slashy

With 11.6 km/sec? You can go wherever you want, except low kerbol orbit. Best, -Slashy

Camacha, If only. Not only would you never get every country (or potential bad actor) to dismantle their nukes, but the ability to make them is simply a matter of time and money because the science is known. If I was a bad guy and the rest of the world was foolish enough to dismantle their arsenals, I'd *for sure* keep mine. And I'd use them, too on the first country that dared defy my will. Best, -Slashy

I work it out to about 85.7 metric tonnes of kerosene and oxidizer, assuming from this video that the fuel starts to flow about 7 seconds prior to liftoff and the turbopumps take about a second to get to full flow. The maths: assuming thrust at sea level is 34 MN and Isp is 263s, mass flow rate= 34x106/(9.81x263)= 13.2 Mg/sec Assuming 6.5sec full flow, that's 13.2x106 x 6.5 = 85.7 tonnes. this would convert to 189,000 lbs or 94.5 tons. Best, -Slashy

Ribby Kerman, A suggested improvement: It can be much smaller, cheaper, and more efficient than that. ^ Props to Foxster. By way of demonstration, I knocked this example together using that technique to follow your mission profile (as best as I can tell from your pics). I chopped out a lot of the excess DV but still left plenty of reserve. It weighs 428t at launch and costs $140k. In truth, it could be scaled down a lot further than that by employing more aerobraking and orbital rendezvous. Best, -Slashy

Seeing the Claw- erator on the staff is kind of like a "local boy makes good" story. Congrats to you both! -Slashy

The difference being that both of these examples were economically viable and self- sustaining. A space elevator isn't.

Camacha, Granted, but nuclear arms do exist and there's no way to make them not exist. Best, -Slashy

Suggestion: Don't send manned (I mean "kerballed") rescue missions. Drones are cheaper, easier, lighter, and most importantly they don't put even more kerbals at risk when something goes wrong. Best, -Slashy

Arguing over whether the queen Borg is *the* Borg or just a Borg? I don't know whether to recoil in horror or grab my popcorn.

On a long enough time line, 100%. As bad as that sucks, there's just no alternative. Without a reliable defense, the only thing that will stop a nuclear attack is the threat of a credible offense. Best, -Slashy

Especially this part. A space elevator would never be able to haul enough payload in it's lifetime to recoup the initial investment. Also, an addendum to #1: Should the cable break, it would cause an incredible amount of death and destruction for anyone and anything in it's path. Best, -Slashy

Right... but my spreadsheet doesn't account for this It just says "you need this many tanks" and calculates the price appropriately. To use the larger tanks, I would have to teach it how and when to substitute tanks. Either that, or actually build them to get the exact price. Best, -Slashy

Hmm... Seeing as how drag losses are pretty low in KSP, I wonder if something like that might be worth doing. 7 Poodles in an asparagus arrangement with Kickbacks...

I compiled a quick and dirty list for comparison. I assumed 1,600 m/sec DV and 0.7 t/w, then adjusted the payload to have the fuel tanks 100% filled. Tank costs were estimated assuming the smallest available size in the appropriate diameter, so prices are overestimated a bit. Type Payload Mass Cost $/t %payload 48-7S 1.03 2.25 500 485 45.8 LV-909 4.31 8.74 1,440 334 49.3 RE-L10 15.0 30.2 3,700 247 49.7 RE-I5 46.6 94.6 13,300 285 49.3 KR-1x2 138 288 36,850 267 47.9 KR-2L 136 266 44,500 327 51.1 KS-25x4 290 588 84,500 291 49.5 This is a good starting point for an upper stage, but overkill for a core stage. As the payload increases, decouplers and fuel lines become cost- effective. Best, -Slashy

Nefrums, Ahh, but we aren't looking for cost for thrust. We're looking for cost for DV. Figuring (as an example) an upper stage with 0.7 t/w initial and 1600 m/sec DV, we have to figure in not only the engine's thrust and cost, but the entire stage as a whole. Furthermore, the cheapest upper stage doesn't necessarily mean the cheapest overall launch vehicle. A more expensive but lighter upper stage can make for a cheaper booster, reducing the cost of the entire assembly. Looking at it that way, size 1 doesn't stack up as well as it's bigger counterparts. Especially once you figure in the loss of parallel staging and more expensive tanks. Best, -Slashy

Sovek, You can go into the .cfg file and add the following line: CoMOffset = x.x, y.y, z.z "x" should be the vertical offset in meters (positive toward the pilot's head) "x" is the lateral offset (positive toward the pilot's right) "y" should be the longitudinal offset (positive toward the front) "y" is the longitudinal offset (positive toward the front) "z" should be the lateral offset (positive towards the pilot's right) "z" is the vertical offset (positive toward the pilot's bottom) I'm not certain I have the axes and directions right. I'll try it out to verify. *EDIT* Here's the results: Best, -Slashy

I don't have a "favorite". I use rockets for some jobs and spaceplanes for others. Best, -Slashy

I had a series of SSTO spaceplanes named for memes from "Idiocracy" (Brawndo Mk.2, Camacho XL, etc.). I had another named for obscure songs that were sampled in '80s hip-hop tracks (Peace Frog, Wind Walker II, etc). Sometimes I change the naming conventions just to see if anybody will catch the reference. There are really no limits. Best, -Slashy