FleshJeb

I called my ex-wife (who is a mediocre graphic designer), and she said you'll really have to look at the specs to know., and that it's worth asking around on forums dedicated to graphic design. We both agree that the best option is probably to send the files out to a local print shop and have them do it on their really expensive printers. My office has outsourced all our high-end stuff to the blueprint shop around the corner and they do an excellent, cost-effective job. Having seen my ex through her education, I know there are some complexities around optimizing color for print that your daughter might want to know if she chooses to pursue this as a career. I know my audience.

I watched that one as well as the fishy one. Both excellent. Speaking of the fishy one, this channel covers a lot of marine (no crayons) biology. It's much more "atmospheric" and relaxing channel, but quite informative: Which leads me to the thought: We're pulling out all this biomass from the ocean, and effectively "onshoring" it. If we're not then sequestering that carbon for its atmospheric lifetime of 300-1000 years, then it's a very CO2-positive process. There's potentially an argument to be made for pumping untreated wastewater off the edge of the continental shelf, with the side effect of it contributing to phytoplankton blooms and supplementing marine snow. In arid areas it's probably better to treat it and irrigate crops, but in wetter zones?

With good reason. That was an amazing production. The speed at which we're learning natural science is phenomenal.

You made a mistake on that post. The fairing is only 5m, not 7m.

“Is Kansas as flat as a pancake?” http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html

@sevenperforce In addition to your recent calcs here, I've been running your numbers from: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/156515-rocketlab-discussion-thread/&do=findComment&comment=4061314 and coming out with a negative dry mass of the first stage. Expendable first stage: 5630m/s = 320s * 9.81m/s^2 * ln (480 / (4.6 + 79.1 + x)) It doesn't even cross zero until ISP = 329s This suggests a problem with the assumed ISPs and/or the dry mass fraction of the second stage.

This is NASA's Design Reference Architecture 5.0 for manned Mars missions (July 2009): https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf (No mention of centrifuge. See PDF page 35 for Transportation) Addendum 1 (July 2009): https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373667main_NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD.pdf (Centrifuge mentioned in passing. See PDF page 190 for Transportation) Addendum 2 (March 2014): https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD2.pdf (search for "centrifug" = 51 matches) This is the best document of the three.

One of the things that's bugging me about this is the bottom-end aerodynamics. We know that the overall "reverse bullet shape" is designed to keep shockwaves from attaching to the vertical sides and causing heating. We can also expect that the blunt bottom will create a bow shock. What happens when that bow shock intersects the legs? What about the shocks coming off the tips of the legs? There's going to be some ridiculous constructive interference between these two and it's going to create localized hot spots on the bottom of the rocket. Granted, they'll be changing locations as the Mach number decreases, but still... I'll be really curious to see if they release any aerodynamic modeling.

Project "Moo" Just let Kerbiloid talk until the manure stacks up high enough that you can WALK to orbit.

Hi there. Nice mission and it sounds like a fun concept! The usual way to do this is to post your thread here and ask for it to be moved: However, I hit the Report button (three dots on the upper right) on the top post and left a note to alert the moderators that you want it moved. ("Report" around here just means, "Hey, can a moderator please look at this?")

Put a leash on it and bring it on the plane as an Emotional Support Lobster. Or: https://www.cagettebkk.com/product/lobster-maine-750g/ (I just googled “deliver lobster to Thailand”)

I wish blunt-bodies actually worked the way they do in real life. Having a little bit more surface area for the fairing to radiate heat with might do the trick. Maybe a one-tick high vertical section just above the base. (Provided they're actually calc'd the way I think they are.) If you end up experimenting with this some more, please ping me--I find KSP's aero and thermal systems endlessly fascinating.

Those screenshots are pure art. Well done.

Which part is failing? (F3 screen). If the fairing is the root part of your RV, it won't shield what's inside. This is a long-standing bug with all drag-occlusion parts. If it's the fairing, they have really bad radiative properties (60% ? emissivity, close to 0 heat transfer to attached parts). They can handle a quick shock heating due to the high temperature limit, but they barely dump any energy overboard, and have no ability to spread it into attached parts. You can try a steeper re-entry, or at least make sure it gets into the coolest part of the atmosphere (25km-10km) as soon as possible. For flatter atmo-dives, I like the Small Nose Cone and the NCS Adapter (95% emissivity and high heat transfer to attached parts). I've got a fuel tanker that can survive aerobraking down to 28km from Minmus orbit. What I would try is: Small Nose Cone NCS Adapter (empty) Service Bay with all the fragile parts. 2-4 small elevons attached to either the nose cone or the NCS, and offset behind the Service Bay. Elevons are also fantastic radiators. The whole thing will glow white, but it should live.

This is THE reference for atmosphere modeling in KSP: These are the curve values for the stock planets: https://github.com/Kopernicus/kittopia-dumps/tree/master/Configs You will also want to looks at the Trajectories mod for modeling the interaction between craft and the atmosphere: Source code here: https://github.com/neuoy/KSPTrajectories

Try a center core of 3x the longest 3.75m tanks with a Mammoth. Then 6x the same boosters around the outside, with fuel lines into the center. Add SRBs to the outer ring to improve the initial TWR. 6-12 Kickbacks will do it. I've done a lot of heavy lifting with that combo. I just did the math, and it should easily get 442 tons to orbit. That might actually be too much, so you can maybe go with 2.5 of the longest tanks, and/or swap the center engine for a Rhino. I recommend keeping the trajectory vertical until the SRBs burn out so that they stage cleanly, and limiting the acceleration to 30 m/s, because the TWR gets insane. If you run out of vertical space in the VAB, you can grab the whole craft and shift it up and down to clip through the floor or ceiling.

I land my tanker and drive the mining/processing facility under it. The tanker retracts its landing gear, and the miner's extends.

Those are modeled into the spacesuit.

Or you have to increment i within the loop, like this: https://www.w3schools.com/python/python_while_loops.asp OOPS: Nevermind, Mike is correct. I've never used the range() function.

They probably put some compensatory backspin on it, just like throwing a ball.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this "Mmmm Bork Bork Bork!" (Alternate rating: "Beaker sings Yellow")

I can put forth better ideas any time I like: https://usnc.com/ultra-safe-nuclear-technologies-delivers-advanced-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-design-to-nasa/ referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_depot#History_and_plans It's not like I called Starship a garbage scow, it's just got some glaringly obvious issues as a moon lander. (I also happen to think methalox is a bit of a dead-end technology beyond LEO.)

I knew a "bear" that carried an M-14 in Vietnam. (Dave was a Marine and a giant nerd. He would have loved KSP if he hadn't passed on before the release.) Before we all get sent to moderator-hell, here is the latest ISS news. Spacewalk set for Nov 30: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2021/11/23/spacewalk-preps-during-human-research-robotics-and-physics-today/

I'd argue that for NASA, having a robust and well-tested orbital refueling system is a more important development than going to the moon. That's the key to the rest of the solar system. If I were them, I'd get that done, cancel the Starship lander, and re-open bidding for a more fit-for-purpose moon lander.

Relax, you goobers. If they thought it were critical, they'd be delaying it by more than 4 days. They're probably going to run it through the same checklist that they did when they pulled it off the boat. It's like watching a kid fall off a bike: You look them over to make sure they're not leaking fluid and you put them back on the bike.