FleshJeb

Ahem ^ I know a regular user of these forums (not me) with photosensitive epilepsy, so this is NOT a theoretical issue. Perhaps you could hit the Community Manager (author of said GIF) with the clue bat? On-topic: The Mun looks good.

Editor Extensions mod. I won't play without it. You can set any angle you want.

If you've got a week, stuff them in the wastewater treatment system, let the microbes do the work and decant the results. On a sufficiently large spacecraft, the maintenance hatch will be man-sized. If you must disassemble the body, freeze it first--There's plenty of cold to go around. Hacksaws should be in abundance. I used to design and inspect wastewater systems, so I'm hard to gross out and ruthlessly pragmatic. The first step to solving any problem is believing that a good solution exists and then going from there. There's no room for fatalists in space. If we were to approach this realistically, you wouldn't start a journey with insufficient propellant. So, we're probably looking at mid-transfer propellant loss from a micrometeroid in at probably one tank. Which means you have a braking/capture problem at your destination. The solution to that is to start hacking dry mass off the ship that's not strictly required. That will get you a lot further than 70kg of meat soup. For a similar situation, I'll refer you to The Cold Equations. I'll spoil the TV version by saying they ripped out everything from the ship they possibly could and everybody lived. The book version is FAR more satisfying.

Using a corpse for propellant is the ethical equivalent of "feeding the tree" in the Integral Trees, or reclaiming the "gift of your body's water" in Dune. It's not that dissimilar from Soylent Green, except there was no consent involved. While I've read a generation-ship's worth of science fiction and can't specifically recall corpses being used as propellant, I'm certain it's been done before, but perhaps I found it so non-shocking that I didn't note it. Personally, if I believed in an afterlife, I'd be giggling my non-corporeal butt off as my component parts were blown out the engine. It's the most exquisite "burial at sea" I can think of. (Space travel will almost certainly be following naval traditions, because all lasting traditions are pragmatic, and are a product of the circumstances, rather than the other way around. You even could build a very fun religion around the spiritual/poetic aspects of being reaction mass.)

There's an old bug (that I'm not sure still exists) where making the cargo bay the root part of the craft can prevent it from shielding the parts inside. Are you closing it with the slider or the button? Even if the slider is set to 0% and the button says open, it's open. I've never heard of that engine bug, I'm inclined to think it's mod-related. I'm assuming it's a mod engine? Did it work correctly on that planet before? For diagnosing problems, it always helps to have pictures of the craft and a mod list.

(I actually have this book)

More pics and links here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40391/the-biggest-airplane-in-the-world-has-taken-to-the-skies-a-second-time-after-two-year-hiatus

How does that work if you're flying something like a dropship, where your control axis is horizontal to the planet instead of vertical? "Down" is relative to the craft, not the planet. What you're experiencing is a case of your TWR being too high for a precision landing with the controls we have--It's a design and operations problem. Precision Mode [Caps Lock] can help by giving you finer throttle control, but you can also bind the thrust limiters on your engines to an axis [like H,N] to tweak them in-flight. My favorite solution to this problem is a pair of overlapping spotlights facing the ground. The size of the lights on the ground, plus how fast the overlap changes, tells you everything you need to know about which way you're heading, and what altitude you're at.

I can confirm that I've had serious warping issues in 1.11. I'd go back to the 1.9s, although 1.7.3 and 1.3.1 are the most stable KSP releases. I've quit playing because I've given up on Squad's quality control. 6000 hours in, and I'm using my energy to tell people not to buy KSP 2 because the current knucklehead management have murdered the franchise.

Shoutout to @mobylettespaceindustriesfor the vid.

My dumb question of the day is: Is there a propulsive efficiency cost in the phase-change of the fuel from liquid to gas? I forget all my thermodynamics, and I am now frantically googling what "adiabatic" means.

I kind of want to hit up the Contact page, pretending to be one of: An enthusiastic venture capitalist Retired Air Force General-turned-defense industry "consultant" A particularly venal congresscritter Must include the line, "Liquid fuels and the metric system are a Communist plot." Unfortunately the creative writing bug and the necessary sadism are not coming together. EDIT: Nevermind, I did a little doxxing, and I'll skip it.

The average density of Kerbin is 58.48kg/liter, so I'd like to complain that the fuel is too light. /s

I'm going to agree on this--The long-reach boom just makes it look spindly. Because I'm unbearably nerdy, I found a high-res photo and determined it's a Komatsu. It looks like an early 90's PC220LC-5. Those are 25-ton class, so comfortably mid-sized. I got to drive a 35-ton once and it was a monster. (I also saw the operator pull a lit cigarette out of a guy's mouth without breaking it. He was VERY good. )

I don't think that's the right pronunciation, but you do you. (Also, it's Myoon not Muhn, because we're not sociopaths.)

I did a Block Element on those with Adblock Plus and it works fine. I trimmed it down to just this: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com##.ipsComment.ipsComment_ignored.ipsType_light Up to about 70 on my ignore list now.

Yes, SLS bad, but damn, that was exciting. I'm sure they got some excellent data.

The ore concentration is dependent on the save seed. This challenge as-written will have highly varying difficulty (or be impossible) for each contestant. You might want to specify a seed that works, and have contestants edit their persistent file to use that one.

Hi Mike. Since you are so new and so gracious, this is the thread you're looking for:

I have this anthology somewhere (I have a LOT of anthologies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Wonder:_The_Evolution_of_Hard_SF I remember the essays on science fiction in the preface, as well as the author bios being really educational. Not limited to hard science fiction, but you might as well consider the best of the best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_joint_winners_of_the_Hugo_and_Nebula_awards I can't find a comprehensive list with all categories in one place, but these are a useful reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award#Categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula_Award#Categories I've read 1/3 to 1/2 of the entries on all those lists (up through the 1990s), and I've never been disappointed.

In addition to Liam's advice, Rhinos are vacuum-optimized. They produce relatively little thrust at sea level. I will avoid writing a paragraph and just say, use the Mammoth for your side boosters.

I hope so. Wonderfully documented and the formatting is exquisite. It's like something you'd see from back when games had manuals.

I find "cool" comes from the restrictions you place on the design, and then the style evolves out of that. It gives a path to focus on, and narrows your choices. You find this a lot in art and poetry. (I'm thinking of you, iambic pentameter.) My personal restrictions (entirely vanilla, and minimum graphics settings): Must be very capable of doing a mission I pick. Performance comes first, because functionality is the coolest. Whether this comes as limiting dry mass, or making something aerodynamically sleek, or very survivable against heat. Must not do "everything". Craft that are under-specialized become an ungainly mess full of compromises. Must be easy to pilot and operate. Having a robust craft informs where you can place parts. Sometimes a craft or a set of craft are so fiddly or so fragile, you don't want to play with them, and this is the uncoolest. Every part has to have a functional purpose. Parts don't get thrown on because of aesthetics. There's an old axiom about getting dressed to go out: Put on all your stuff until you think you look good, and then remove one thing. Must be at least somewhat "realistic". The structure and shaping usually start with an impression of a real life craft, and I try to restrain my clipping to what is "volumetrically sane". On the other end of that, I think hyper-realistic recreations are boring and fly like crap. It's Space LEGO, and it's OK to leave things up to the imagination. As a result, I tend to come up with some fairly understated, but very sleek designs. And they move like absolute bats out of hell. Of course, I know a dude that builds some very spiky anime mecha, and another one that builds almost nothing but micro-craft, and they're super-cool, so do what you want. Pick the restrictions and parameters that make you happy, and your personal style will flow from there.

You can build your own struts with a pair of unpowered universal joints (servo-hinge-hinge), a lightly-powered piston, and a strut. Granted, that's 8 parts, but it's very possible. If you only need to constrain 2D movement, it's hinge-piston-hinge-strut.

1. Pictures ALWAYS help. 2. CorrectCOL is a fantastic, reasonably easy to use mod that gives you a more accurate picture of the aerodynamics as well as a stability graph for all angles of attack. (See my sig for links). 3.a. I'm not sure if the bug still exists, but cargo and service bays, and fairings should have their internal attachment nodes occupied by something of the appropriate size. For Mk3 parts, that's a 2.5m part. Otherwise the drag on the cargo bay is hellacious, even when closed. 3.b. Also an old bug: Don't use any of the above cargo parts as the root part of your vessel, because they will be super-draggy. 4. I set all my control surfaces to 5 deg or less, fly in precision mode (Caps Lock) and have no problems. Canards ARE highly recommended. 5.a. When using wings with AOA, make at a good amount of horizontal tail area unmoving, and with 0 AOA. This will damp out a lot of pitch problems. You can put the COL (as shown by CorrectCOL) right on the COM and have a very good plane. 5.b. I recommend flying SAS Surface Prograde for the above setup. The plane will tend to fly just a hair nose down, so you can add 5 deg of anhedral to that flat tail and it will damp your roll as well. If you've successfully balanced the plane to take out the phugoid oscillations, you can circumnavigate the planet without touching the controls.