impyre

aerospike is most definitely not the weight of a feather. It is much heavier than some of its simpler counterparts. The lv-909 is almost always preferable on 1.25m landers when atmosphere isn't involved (assuming it has enough thrust). Of course, it all depends on mission parameters.

@LaytheAerospace lol. That's awesome. However "handy-wavey" you may think it is, my point was not that it is probable or sensible... my point, in counter to the previous post, was that it may be possible... and that is a far from saying the idea is rubbish. As for... "then you're left with no complexity" that argument doesn't even stand up against simple algebra. Decreases in complexity on a fractional or even exponential curve will never hit zero... and my point was that regardless of the *relative* complexity of one universe compared to another, we can only ever consider the idea of complexity as it relates to our own experience and knowledge... so there's no way to know whether someone in a universe with 1 billionth the complexity of ours would consider their universe complex by their standards. As a simple thought experiment, all you have to do to see that this is possible is simply forget what you think you know, because it may or may not apply to higher-order universes. As for you pointing out that doubling statistically insignificant odds still leave them rather insignificant... so? Again, I wasn't suggesting that it was significant or even probable... just that it's a possibility that exists... and when you have a whole universe to deal with (let alone possibly countless universes) then "statistically insignificant" is just a super fancy way of saying uncommon... not nonexistent. I could continue here, but I get the impression I've already wasted enough of my time.

You might consider a three stage probe. They will be larger overall, but more capable. Basically, build the first probe stage to establish encounter, the second stage to establish orbit, and the third stage with ion propulsion for simple orbit adjustments when desired. You could probably merge the second and third stages, but who wants to break escape velocity with an ion engine?

The theoretical maximum dV that can be saved by using a spaceplane is the dV attributed to change in elevation only. Considering that for a normal rocket launch it tends to go around 4500 dV, and orbital velocity at 70km is somewhere around 2200 m/s, this means that the maximum you could save with optimal ascent profile for space plane over a rocket would be somewhere around 2300 m/s dV. This is because of all the fuel a rocket spends attaining orbit, only the horizontal component adds to orbital velocity. In the spaceplane, you use lift to counteract gravity and provide increased altitude while still gaining horizontal velocity for relatively low fuel cost. Your change in dV must be related to some other change unless you were previously flying your spaceplane in a manner that allowed it to be less efficient than a rocket... which is really hard to imagine.

Yah, I wouldn't imagine you'd wanna time warp that way. At 10000x time warp that'd still take 25 hours real time.

I looked through the persistence file and didn't find it. It may be simpler to just go to the space center at time warp a bit. Just a suggestion.

Yeah, best encourage close mindedness.

I've read quite a bit about alternate methods of getting to space.... space elevators, guns, etc. What about a space "ladder" as an alternative? Basically, put up a platform and structure at high altitude and hold it up with balloons, then tether that thing. Depending on how high you're able to get it, you could get into orbit relatively easily. You could launch small rocket-borne payloads up to one to two hundred kilograms in small reusable rockets. With this, the transit time could be pretty low and require somewhat less fuel. The only downside I can think of is that the payload limitation being so small would require everything to be built in orbit of much smaller parts. However, this could be offset somewhat by having vehicles that never need to reenter... like a shuttle that just hangs out up there. If you need to get back, use the reentry pods that were launched unmanned from the floating launchpad in the sky. If you need to get up there, just ride up the elevator, hope on a small rocket and rv with the station. Thoughts?

Well, anything's possible... especially where you cross into realms outside our universe (but even potentially within). All the best thinkers and scientists will tell you that you are much more likely right if you state that something is possible than if you state that it is not. Obviously no conclusions can be drawn about the truth at this point, nor can any experimentation be done at this point. As a thought experiment however... it's a feasible concept. I will use some of the previous poster's arguments to make a couple of points. This is undoubtedly true. What he fails to consider is that the exponential decay is natural, and as a rule can be viewed both ways. In fact, it would be equally reasonable to describe the situation as there being exponentially increased complexity in each universe further up the chain. Just because we cannot imagine a universe more complex than our own doesn't preclude its existence. It's entirely possible that computers in this universe don't work the same as ours, and that their laws of physics are much more complex than ours. For example, it could be possible that their computing architectures use a system that employs basic switches and processing on signals/data-bits that have 40 states instead of the 2-state binary system we must use. We need to use binary (at the moment) because it's all we've got that works with our technology. In fact, it could be entirely possible to make higher-order computers in our own universe. This means that the universe being simulated would have more simplistic rules, and likely be smaller than the universe in which it is being simulated. However, as all we know is our own universe, it's hard to get a reasonable understanding of the relative sizes or complexities of other universes (or even what the realm of possibility includes). Again, we have the fallacy of thinking that everywhere else must be the same as here. This entire line of reasoning is entirely accurate if you were to try to simulate your own universe.... then again, who would do that? Even those interested in simulations for practical purposes are generally only interested in much, much, much, much^10*10 smaller simulations... like weather patterns or political patterns. The only reason one might wish to simulate an entire universe is for a basic understanding of how universes tend to change or develop... or how universes with other types of laws might behave, or even to allow people to play with the universe (like ksp for example). Of course, as in ksp, so too would a game likely use less stringent physics and rules to make play more fun. It doesn't have to be exactly like our universe, it can be whatever we want it to be. Conclusion: 2-fold A) It is entirely possible that our universe is simulated. The odds of it obviously cannot be estimated, although if multiple universes exist, the odds go up that at least one is simulated. Given that we have no reference point, and no way to reason or logic the answer into something likely resembling the truth while postulating about existence outside our own dimensions or universe... then speculating about the methodology behind how this simulation was achieved is pointless and baseless. It would be far more interesting and reasonable to speculate the ways in which we might ourselves simulate a smaller universe. (by dumbing down physics? AI? exotic computing methods? etc)

I highly doubt warping will ever be used on small fighter craft. It would likely be a very energy-intensive process that would require a lot of heavy equipment, and would only be useful on vehicles that travel great distances. Fighters (when used in concert with a carrier) would never need to go large distances, and in fact may need to double at atmospheric fighters (making weight more important). With this in mind, and considering that if warping did exist as a technology, it seems equally likely that smaller more mobile technologies would also exist to protect said fighter from most damage (at least on one side). This, coupled with high agility and computer assisted controls (if not outright computer controlled drone fighters), means that fighting would likely be pretty boring. The more advanced and well-armed fighter would take up a stationary position, and simply reorient to track the target and keep the forward shield in between it and it's target... while the less advanced or less well-armed fighter must attempt to maneuver behind it. (or more likely, outnumber it) For anti-carrier attacks, the fighters may attempt to maneuver into less heavily defended approach paths, but other than that, not much could be done but get close and shoot (or shoot from further away).

That's a good point. I assumed he meant self-aware.

cpast, you're wasting your breath. Vilheim: I agree that nationalism can be dangerous. However, it can also inspire people to help their community. Esprit de corps is not always a bad thing. Having pride in your community can lead to volunteerism, having pride in your country can lead you to want to change it for the better, and taking pride in the world can drive you to take care of it. The real problem isn't being proud of something, it's when people put that pride above everything else, including safety, kindness, and peace.

Are you sure the permadeath is off? It used to be off by default, but I think it's changed to on by default now (I might be wrong on that). In any case, if permadeath is off he should respawn soon enough... of course if you can't be bothered to wait you may as well just re-add him to your rosters through the files. Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure it's on by default now. You can check in alt-shift-f12.

Actually, as long as the target orbit isn't 100% polar, you can meet it from launch with no inclination change if your timing is good. If your timing is poor, or the target is 100% polar then the best solution may be to raise your apoapsis well above the target in such a fashion as to bring your apoapsis very close to an ascending or descending node, then correct inclination at apoapsis. At smaller bodies with relatively low gravity, it doesn't take a great deal of delta-v to raise your apoapsis. And since prograde burns are most effective at peri, and inclination changes most effective wherever velocity is least, this type of maneuver can sometimes save fuel. You could fiddle with maneuver nodes to do a cost comparison just to be sure though.

1. optimal orbit for orbiter is generally as low as you can safely get and still land without smacking into the terrain with a bunch of horizontal velocity. That said, it will depend on lander design. My typical lander has a kerbin TWR of about 1.6, so when it fires the engines at mun or minmus it really slams on brakes. It can safely descend from 12-14km at the mun, and from 8-9km at minmus (depending on terrain elevation). If you use something with less thrust, just know that it will take longer to kill your horizontal velocity... and the whole time you're fighting gravity. The best way to learn is to simply experiment. 2. If you select a planet in mapmode or from the tracking center, a small box appear on the right side of the screen with an "i" in it. This contains useful information like ASL gravity and atmosphere height.

I use the navball by itself 90% of the time. But i also use enhanced navball and kerbal engineer, which allows you to keep a pretty good eye on things. I only use nodes occasionally, but when explaining things like this I always suggest maneuver nodes first, and navball as a tip/hint because it's where I started (and because not everyone uses enhanced navball mod).

As an addendum to my survey response, I'd like to explain one of my answers. I think they will obtain rights and be subject to laws... primarily because process required for them to become truly artificially intelligent creations will undoubtedly result in an imperfect computer (one that makes guesses and mistakes)... I think you'll find them to be much more human than you might expect. It's also a lot closer than you might expect.

Seems like a lot of going about on what black holes are. It seems to me that there's two ways you could easily define a black hole... You could define it as the matter/energy singularity that causes the gravitational effects, and only that singularity. But it seems that an equally useful definition is that a black hole is said singularity and it's associated sphere of influence and the effects it has on space-time. Of course, if you define it as only the singularity, the event horizon then is not part of the black hole proper. I think most people consider the event horizon to be part of a black hole... or at least part of the hole anyhow, heh. On to the OP, I seriously doubt it. As someone else mentioned, if you had the technology to do this (assuming it's even possible), then you'd likely have the technology to find a much better solution. Also, there are low-tech solutions that seem to be overlooked. Sufficiently advanced technology could add mass to the planet by physically adding matter to it (maybe having automated drones sprinkle a steady supply of dust over it), or possibly by generating said matter from massive energy sources in a reverse fission/fusion reaction. Put the genie back in the bottle so to speak.

I don't think this question can be answered fairly. It's not all that different than asking "does joe dirt represent america?" or "does obama represent america?" Even if a company could be said to "represent" america, it would undoubtedly only represent a portion of us. Of course that brings into focus the question of how you define america. By it's constitution? By the average citizens? The worst? The best? By it's culture(s)? To me, America means two things... freedom to pursue opportunities that arise and the diligence to make something out of them. Of course that's the idealized version, but in that sense these companies seem to represent those ideas very well... especially spaceX, whose founder Elon Musk was born in South Africa and founded or co-founded several large companies, including spaceX and Tesla motors. I don't believe their choice to use russian engines makes them any less american than my choice to buy imported chinese goods does me. It simply comes down to what is most practical in terms of efficiency, cost, reliability, and whatever other factors are important to him.

That's not what I wrote... but that's cool.

While the inclination can be performed at low kerbin orbit, it's more fuel efficient if done in mid-course (when velocities are lower). to get a feel for where it will be the cheapest, simply establish mun encounter, drop a maneuver node somewhere around halfway between kerbin and the mun, and drag the purple normal/anti-normal adjustment just a little, maybe 10-20 m/s. Then change focus to the mun, and (while focused on the mun) grab the maneuver node and slide it around. You'll see that there's one point where the inclination change is the greatest. That's your sweet spot. Leave the node there, and further adjust the purple normal/anti-normal handles until you get the orbit you want.

For rendezvous: Match orbital inclination. (While intercepts can be done at odd angles {I've done it plenty}, it's much easier to plan intercepts if the inclinations match. Get your orbit to line up in at least one point with the target orbit. This is easiest if your Pe aligns with their Pe, or Ap to Ap. If it isn't perfect, that's fine because you can fine tune in a bit. Set a maneuver node at the target altitude. Adjust prograde/retrograde until the closest approach is within 10km. Then shift the node left or right to fine tune it. You should be able to easily get within docking distance (<2km) that way. Execute the burn. Travel until near the closest approach, then (using the target navball) kill relative velocity and fine-tune approach. Tips: Treat the final approach as you would a landing. Don't come in too hot. Orient to retrograde, and burn "outside" of retrograde. (This is because burning near the retrograde marker tends to "push" it away from the current heading.) You want to try to keep the retrograde marker closely aligned with the target retrograde marker. Also, RCS will make fine-tuning of intercepts much easier. Also, you can use thrust limiters in place of rcs to allow for fine-tuning.

Does this post really belong here? How about we get mods to look at every single post? On a serious note, please consider contributing to the discussion in a constructive fashion. I realize that there are stickies about the rules... and people should think before they post... but isn't it entirely possible (and human) that this person didn't see the stickied post? It might've been more helpful to direct them to it than just complain.

That's the point... noone gets to see it yet.

Well, there's a number of ways to declare winners. You could make it a race by real-time (first to finish, or first three to finish), though that may really set back participation. You could make it a race by mission elapsed time at completion of objectives, with lower time being better. Or, instead of just saying "do all these things" you could say "do these two things to qualify, but these other things earn points" and then keep a leaderboard. The possibilities are numerous. Example of the last option: Complete base with 20 hitchhiker cans to qualify. Earn points by: 1. Permanent modules must have no RCS, Rocket Motors OR Wheels attached. (Hint: Separate rovers or with wheels or "Sky Cranes" are allowed as long as they can be detached from the permanent module) 1000 points 2. Must be able to disassemble and relocate modules to anywhere on the MUN surface. 500 points (plus additional 2000 points if combined with number 1) 3. Must be infinitely expandable in all directions. 500 points 4. All Hitchhiker modules must be accessible (boardable) from the exterior surface at some point. 500 points (plus 1000 bonus if combined with number 3) 5. BONUS: Arrange hitchiker modules or provide corridors so that an imaginary Kerbal could internally travel through the base from one Hitchhiker Module to any other without travelling through a third hitchhiker module. (Basically the Hitchhiker modules cannot also be the sole connecting node to any part of the base) 2000 points 6. Time bonus: (30 - met days)*100 points (so basically, if you complete in 20 days, you get 1000 points... and in 15, 1500.