FleshJeb

@Overland The last three would be pretty easy. The first one. . . I wonder if the Double-C Seismic Accelerometer reads differently on different parts of the train. That might be very doable... I'm going to play with it tonight, but I don't have KOS installed, and there's no internet at home. I've tried to control tail-whip with various "cabooses", but no luck yet.

TAC Fuel Balancer wouldn't fix all your problems, but it's MUCH easier than doing it by hand.

There's a myth that human beings are capable of being perfectly rational creatures, or that this is even the optimal state. I attribute this worldview to the devaluing of liberal-arts education. For reasons of evolutionary biology, we NEED physical frontiers. Discounting and devaluing this need is foolish, not pragmatic, and not realistic.

Your craft isn't very aerodynamically stable. Personally, I use the MJs "absolute" surface controls (upper right SURF button). I find they result in more stable flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct Mars Semi-Direct quotes $55 billion over ten years for a four-person mission. I recall reading that Mars Direct was $40 billion. Personally, I'm in the "Mars to Stay" camp. "Twenty or more persons could be sent for the cost of returning four." If we're going to be so cost-conscious, we can't afford to be risk-averse.

Thanks for this. My compulsion to put shadow-shields on NERVs is not being satisfied by the powers of greebling and roleplay.

I have a save with over 250 craft files each in the SPH and the VAB--This would be a godsend.

Europa Report Apollo 18

I haven't played much past 0.25 and I can't remember: are Ore concentrations static, or do they change with each save? If they're static, what can we infer from them?

I need to experiment to see if batteries are stagable...

I can't answer your question on the current version, but I've done some incredibly precise multi-docking with MechJeb's SMART A.S.S. (on the order of centimeters of clearance). You can control relative roll, and set RCS to Translation Only to make it super-controllable.

I've got about 20 hours into Minecraft. I have over 3000 in KSP. Ultimately the game I want is some mashup of KSP, Minecraft, and Colobot.

I applaud your efforts to do it with math. I do it the lazy way with MechJeb. I'm assuming you have your phase and ejection angles calc'd, but you can verify them with this: http://ksp.olex.biz/ The link to the tutorial is broken on that page, here is the correct link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/16413-tutorial-interplanetary-how-to-guide/ Many people used to press a physical protractor to the screen in map view. You could still do that. Alternate method that I've not seen used: Get your transfer craft LKO. Calculate your orbital period. Calc the time it will take for your craft to get from noon to your ejection angle. Have a sundial made with an antenna on the craft. When the antenna shadow disappears, you're at local noon. Set your transfer node ahead of yourself at the ejection angle time. Also: The Protractor mod was just recompiled by Z-Key: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/75115-10x-protractor-continued-rendezvous-plugin-v251-may-15th-2015/&page=5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude Correct. Although when it's oblate, you can't really model gravity as a point mass, per the last paragraph of that section. (I'm just a surveyor with a casual interest in geodesy.)

Look at the mountains north of "India" (I call them the Kimalayas). There's some great flying up there. They're at the intersection of Greg's Western, Northern, and Desert Plates. The lake system west of Derbo's Plate is beautiful as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain#History

I'm out of "likes" for the day, dammit!

Oh, duh. How did I miss that?!? Blowback issues: Someone mentioned one-way valves, but a blowoff valve might be better. I saw some 300psi ones for $16. I don't know if they'll handle fluids or just air. Ignition: I don't know if it's typical to light these from outside the nozzle or not, but you could always ground the body and run an insulated wire up the nozzle to spark in the chamber. It'll fly out when it lights, and it's a cheap solution that doesn't require you to machine another hole. I've been assuming you're going to use some sort of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezo_ignition Fuel-oil nozzle: This looks like a good resource: http://www.delavaninc.com/pdf/total_look.pdf Although the alcohol is going to have much less viscosity, so the numbers will be different. Anyway, I'm sure you know much more about the mechanical end of this than I do, I'm just having fun playing along. I'll double-check your calcs eventually, no energy tonight.

This is a fantastic thread. Over 20 years ago, when I was in high school, we got to visit NASA Ames Research Center. When we were viewing one of the wind tunnels, they explained that the scale models they use don't adequately reflect fluid dynamics. Dynamics don't scale linearly with size. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law). They had figured out how to compensate for this, but it was still an issue. My concern is that your source materials assume you're designing a rocket nozzle that's 10-100 times larger than the one you've proposed. All the constants and "rules of thumb" will reflect this. The circumference of your cross-section vs the area is going to be proportionally much higher than your literature expects. (I know that "wetted-perimeter" controls velocity in hydraulics calcs). Therefore your back-pressure/friction will be much higher than you expect. Those are just my initial thoughts; I'm looking forward to seeing how this progresses.

I'm still playing 0.25 because I have ongoing saves. I'm still waiting for 1.1.x (or 1.2.x) to be stable. I played with 0.90 and 1.0.5 a bit on my work computer, but it doesn't add much to the game that I can't mod in to an older version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld The first two books were a really fun and engaging read. I haven't read the others yet.

I love the aesthetics and the engineering on your chopper and the orbiter.

On Earth, $80-160 million, (assuming costs of $1-2/cubic meter). Maybe double it for the ultra-high accuracy required. I'm sure we could find a good spot: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_rdr/WAC_CSHADE The civil engineering is the easy part. However, I can only see it handling about one landing a month, given the time it would take to re-tune the surface. Terminal guidance and control would certainly be challenging, but doable with laser reference stations on the ground. Finding the flipping UNOBTANIUM for the skids is where this ALL falls apart. Better off just carrying the fuel and doing a standard landing.

I agree that the rest of the idea is far-fetched. However, I'm a land surveyor, and this is entirely possible. I could design the systems and procedures necessary to make it happen. We already do machine-controlled grading to a very high degree of accuracy here on Earth. In an airless environment, laser-leveling would be much easier.

That first one was like my last trip to the bathroom.