Jovus

1 hour is 1/24th of the time it takes for our planet to rotate completely around its axis. 1 minute is 1/60th of this time. 1 second is 1/60th of that time. It's not exact, but it's close enough for communication, and the ostensible phenomena mentioned are much easier to observe than a lot of other possible definitions.

We either invent FTL and get there faster than any conventional probes could, or civilization collapses before any such probe is in position to transmit data anyway. At least, that's my prediction.

Actually, it's a translation. Real 'Kerbali' sounds nothing like what we hear the Kerbals say, and the translator chose backward Spanish to preserve the 'feel' and 'sense' of their utterances. "But," you say, "that doesn't make sense! Translations should be sensible, not gobbledegook!" No. Translations should reflect the source material. And here we have the secret of KSC: the Kerbals are all just screwing with each other by using their own form of an obtuse Pig Latin whose only real use is telling jokes, insults, and confusing the listener. What Kerbals who aren't doing this sound like, nobody knows. First you'd have to find one not affiliated with the Kerbal Space Program. Rumour has it there's a settlement at the deepest point of Kerbin's ocean...

You cannot inject into an orbit of lower inclination than the transformation of your orbit across the difference in orbital planes between the parent body and the target body without doing a normal burn. For the Mun this is easy. If you are in an equatorial orbit about Kerbin, then you can inject into an equatorial orbit about the Mun. (In this case, which is degenerate, in fact you must do so. The fact that this doesn't often happen is due to the fact that you're rarely in an exactly equatorial orbit.) If you're in an orbit inclined 12 degrees around Kerbin, then you cannot inject with an inclination lower than 12 degrees in the target orbit (and in fact it will sometimes be a lot more, due to offsets in your inclination - the inclination between the plane including your ship at the moment you start your burn and the target body and the plane including the parent body and the target body determines the exact inclination). For Minmus, if you are an equatorial orbit, you cannot inject into an orbit lower than 6 degrees inclination (and this only if you get there at the ascending or descending node). In order to get to a lower inclination, you have to start from an orbit with a lower inclination. Funnily enough, depending on starting conditions, you might not be able to easily lower your target inclination either - depends on where the AN/DN is on your transfer orbit. Increasing target inclination is always easy - you do a normal burn well out from the target, which costs you a pittance in delta V. You may need to include tangential and radial component not to miss your target or to keep a sane periapsis, but this should also be small. (If it isn't, back up - you're doing something wrong.)

I'm tempted to say the Space Cruiser Yamato, just because it's so silly... but I'll be boring and say the Atlas 1. Or, actually, the Atlas-Agena D, just because it's so...strange...

If you have trouble reading the font of the default forum theme because it's too small, every major browser has an option to increase the font size an arbitrary amount. For example, in Firefox, if you hit the Open Menu button (the three bars on the right top, by default) then in the popup there will be a plus (+) sign. This should increase the font size. Or, if you're comfortable with keyboard shortcuts, CTRL++ also works. (That's the CTRL key and the + key, not a typo.) I don't know how to increase font in other browsers because I don't use them, but I'd bet the same keyboard shortcut works. There still does need to be a way for users to manually set various forum appearance parameters, but this might work for you as a workaround until that functionality is added.

Because that's what DARPA does. It pursues hundreds of different projects, only a handful of which ever come to fruition. As to whether that's a good thing, well...I suspect it depends where you are on the contractor -- taxpayer axis.

Um, I do, for one. Less money spent per launch means more money spent elsewhere means a more effective fighting force. The difference between <$1M per launch and >$40M per launch is also the difference between, "Let's husband these and use them only when we feel we really need to," and, "Screw it, throw one up to see what's there and corroborate our intel," i.e. the difference between soldiers dying and living. As for possible reasons for the cost-saving: These planes are already on-station and require no special modification or training not already dedicated to other missions. That's a big one right there. Facilities require no modification and no training beyond normal take-off procedures. That's another big one, right there. Beside all that, what is this, Grinchmas? So DARPA's working to 'duplicate' the work of other people (which I don't think is true, but I'll grant for the sake of argument): why are we upset that there might be three microlaunch platforms instead of two? Aren't more platforms better?

The whole point of this game for me is that it simulates real-llife physics as closely as possible while not just being an engineering and modelling program but actually a game. So it depends what you mean. I don't mind using Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. I don't mind planets being 10x too small. I'd appreciate it if Isp made some kind of internal sense other than 'game balance', but it's not a big deal. I find the over-powerful reaction wheels irritating, though I understand why they are the way they are - magical torque covers a multitude of sins on the part of our SAS/heading hold. It really, really irritates me that the fuel tanks in stock are so heavy. I wish there were some simple life support, because space exploration isn't solved simply by the ability to accelerate quickly - there are a lot of other considerations, and they're potentially interesting. Plus, it ups the stakes. (There's a difference between "if I don't make this landing, Jeb is going to die," and "if I don't make this landing, I can always come get Jeb when I feel like it.") And if you're talking about changing things like conservation of momentum or energy, then get out.

If I'm understanding your description of events, and I remember rightly about how flying wings work, this is pretty accurate to real life.

How so, if it's a force exerted by the particles themselves?

[quote name='cfds']A totally inelastic collision still preserves (linear) momentum.[/QUOTE] Yes. Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking regarding inelastic collisions. However, the rest of what you said doesn't make sense. Let's try another way. Total energy of a system of two particles is the particles' kinetic energy plus their potential energy: E = T + U Let's restrict motion to a path that doesn't change the potential, which we can do without violence to the idea. Therefore, and deltaE = deltaT Now we clearly agree that certain non-conservative forces (e.g. friction, B) can take energy out of the system, viz. reduce T. T = 1/2 (m[SUB]1[/SUB]v[SUB]1[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP] + m[SUB]2[/SUB]v[SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP]) in our two-particle system. Friction acts to reduce velocities of the objects undergoing friction - in this case, v[SUB]1[/SUB] and v[SUB]2[/SUB]. If both of these velocities are reduced to 0 relative to our origin, then T = 0, which is perfectly possible. But the total momentum P is defined such that P = m[SUB]1[/SUB]v[SUB]1 [/SUB]+ m[SUB]2[/SUB]v[SUB]2[/SUB]. So how is momentum conserved if both v[SUB]1[/SUB] and v[SUB]2[/SUB] can decrease?

Proper medical treatment can reduce and even eliminate long-term effects of ion burns. Okay, seriously this time: generally I don't. That said, there are several potential helps if you're determined to use ion engines: You can propel it most of the way with a higher-thrust engine, then use the ion drive for small mid-course corrections. You can strap multiple ion engines on your craft. You can use physical timewarp to shorten the real-world burn time. You can play other games while you burn (see next point). You can use mods to either execute the burn for you, or set up an alarm that will let you know when you're close to done (so you can ignore KSP in the meanwhile).

Every time you use F12, Whackjob kills a Kerbal. Think of the Kerbals!

[quote name='Shpaget']Propose a model that would produce a net change in angular momentum.[/QUOTE] Sure. A rod is rotating with a certain frequency omega in a vacuum chamber. Air is introduced to the chamber. As a (very!) rough approximation, air resistance is modeled as F = bv + cv^2 For friction specifically; A wheel is rotating with a certain angular momentum L, frequency omega, mass m. Its bearings are frictionless, it's in a vacuum, etc. Then sand gets in the bearings, so they suddenly exert a frictional force modeled by F = kv, where v = omega x r, the radius of the wheel. Or apply brake pads to the outside, sure. Yes, I'm aware the pads will pick up some momentum, but as far as I can see angular momentum is only conserved in this case if you assume the condition of no slippage (which is the angular equivalent of an elastic collision, for these purposes). As a simple proof that we already know in classical mechanics that angular momentum is not conserved when subjected to nonconservative forces, put a rotating electron in a magnetic field. The angular velocity changes. (In this case it doesn't change in magnitude, but it does change in direction.)

One thing I don't understand still is why we don't use friction to dump angular momentum from our reaction wheels. Yes, conservation of angular momentum, but that only applies to conservative forces. Friction is not a conservative force.

If you're capable of solving the storage/mixing/use problems of LH2/LOX for use in a personal sidearm, so far as I can tell, by all rights you should be able to make a gauss weapon. Which would have a higher specific impulse. (Given that your optimization category is specific impulse, and the rest is just window dressing to ask that quesiton.)

[quote name='FancyMouse']Unless you're talking about planet oblateness - otherwise (to be precise, assuming spherical symmetry of planet mass distribution) gravity force passes through both CoM of the ship and planet. How could that change angular momentum of either object?[/QUOTE] You shouldn't assume that. But even if you do, the plane of the ship's trajectory around the planet and the planet's CoM is by no means guaranteed to be the same plane as that between the Sun and the planet. Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming the effect is big. In fact, it's probably so small it's not measurable with current instruments. But it's there. I'd show you the math, but posting math on a forum is a huge pain in the ass and hard to follow for a reader.

I recommend making a torus, putting the sphere inside, connecting it to a driven oscillator, and then measuring the time it takes for the sphere to obtain the frequency of the oscillator. (That is, the sphere goes around the hoop in the same time as the oscillator drives the hoop through one sequence.) But only because I'm mean. Don't do that. You could, but it would be...hard. To say the least.

Have you tried putting the CoL [i]behind[/i] the CoM?

[quote name='FancyMouse']Nothing angular involved - you don't gain/lose angular momentum because of gravity, so the planet doesn't gain/lose angular momentum (thus rotational speed). The speed that changed is the planet's orbital speed. [/QUOTE] False. You do lose both rotational speed and orbital speed. Further, even if you only lost orbital speed, angular momentum would be lost, since the total angular momentum of a rigid body is the angular momentum of the center of mass plus the angular momentum of each piece of the body around its center of mass. (Yes, sometimes you gain rotational angular momentum instead of lose it. Depends on the direction of rotation and the geometry of the gravity assist.)

Since, as we know, orbit is halfway to anywhere, first you have to send it to orbit. Then, you have a choice. Since you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere. There are oceans on Kerbin and on Laythe. Sure, you could reenter on Kerbin right away, but doesn't that strike you as a little silly? So you send up and dock an interplanetary tug. Finally, after the transit, you do an aerocapture and then a hydrocapture at Laythe. Voila! You're on the ocean!

[quote name='Jimbodiah']Whu...what??? do you need special parts packs for that?[/QUOTE] Generally users of Real Solar System will also install Realism Overhaul and its suite of mods, which basically act collectively as a total conversion for KSP. Stock engines are woefully underpowered and stock tanks are woefully heavy compared to their real-life counterparts

More serious answer: what's the TWR/dV breakdown stage by stage?

Not gonna happen. It's even less economically feasible now than it was the first time.