tater

We have a method for programming complex maneuvers for spacecraft in stock, it's called a maneuver node. There is no reason for a probe flight computer to be more complex than this. Make m-node, m-node is uploaded to probe (meaning the node must be at least _light-lag_ seconds ahead of the craft), probe executes m-node at the right time. Ideally all this should be able to happen out of focus. Landing is trickier.

The problem is not that a jet of roughly the same size/cost might b able to burn an alternate fuel, the problem is that the same engine would be used on 4 different worlds equally well. We can make a ducted fan that works in the air, and we can make one that works underwater. Having the same plane also fly just as well underwater is the problem.

Photosynthesis doesn't mean they don't use supplies, it just changes the mechanism. It's not like plants don't need raw materials.

There is a threat din the Science forum about Mars One (LOL). It links to an article that has the debate between the MIT paper authors who basically demonstrated in great detail why it is not a viable plan. I watched the vid. One of the more interesting stats they gave was the mass of spare parts required to keep the life support functional based upon RL data from ongoing LS maintenance on ISS. It amounted to multiple full Dragon loads of parts for a 26 month resupply period to have just a 50% chance of having the right parts available. Their figure for one crew of 4 for 26 months was 10,000kg of spare parts for a coin-flip capability to fix any LS problem (bad odds when the next possible resupply is 26 months). They show 9 Dragons required for the first 4 people (preloading with supplies, etc). The MIT guys show that they would need 4 more just for LS spare parts (wow). This makes what we normally think of as "consumables" look pretty easy, mass wise. I don't think any LS mods include this at all, so I bet their mass numbers are really optimistic. For a simple, stock system this just means increasing the mass of LS supplies used per kerbal, per day. It's also an entirely legit reason for having an engineer aboard reduce consumption (he's fixing the LS all the time). No outposts should be 100% efficient unless they have the capacity to manufacture spare parts (EPL?). It might also be cool to have cheaper and lighter, but needs more resupply vs heavier, and way more expensive to need lower resupply.

The single most useful thing to come from Mars One is that the MIT paper gives us some good data on the amount of spare parts needed to maintain Life Support---which will be useful for KSP mods. Seriously, that's the most actually useful thing that will come of Mars One.

So the trailer just came on regular TV... the music is Jimi Hendrix. Totally should have been disco. Staying alive, perhaps?

Cool! might be worth the 2.5 hour (pretty) drive. Only issue is that is the first weekend of the Balloon Fiesta, so there will be a crap-ton of tourists in NM.

This. That's aside from the part description saying it cannot possibly survive reentry. I have no issue with it being between 1.25 and 2.5, with no other parts: Another analog would be Orion and its smaller diameter SM. KSP parts need not be analogs of US craft in historical context. The conical shape is in keeping with extant pods, though. A goal IS for such a part to be early, though. Heck, it could have an appropriate heat shield (its own diameter), and no other parts whatsoever. Throw a fairing over it.

Has anyone ever taken Mars 1 seriously?

My nukes already use hydrogen. That said, the gameplay issue is should you be able to make a craft that is 100% self-sufficient regardless of where it goes with just a few extra parts (drill, isru, ore tank, magic jet)? To me that simplification removes problems that need to be solved, and to me that problem solving is the fun of designing systems that work (as opposed to a single craft that works).

An arbitrarily large enough 2-man pod (1.whatever meters) with a service module to 2.5m would also work. Adding a decoupler and heatshield part is presumably no big deal with 1.1 memory fixes. It's hard to make a 2-person 2.5m pod without loads of extra volume. Basically, you get a shape that is like the mk-1-2, but it ends at the height of the mk2 landercan. You could make the top node exactly 1.25m. Mk1 is 0.84t Mk 1-2 is 4.12t Mk2 lander can is 2.66t. I'd expect a 2.5m 2-man to be a similar mass to the lander can, I guess. Perhaps it could use some of the excess volume for increased battery and mono?

I think parts that use any local resource should all have to be purpose-built. Any places that share a resource, can obviously use the same technology. ISRU on the Mun would not be ISRU on Duna. The "one size fits all" approach just trivializes those parts, and turns them to magic.

Perhaps you might have just written that? BTW, as cool as the possible (it's just an SBIR, after all) CO2 jet is, allowing ALL jet engines to magically work all places is silly. Adding a NEW part, that works using just CO2 would be a different matter (which might make it stink on Kerbin, I dunno). It is unbalancing to make jets that are magical, and work everywhere. It is interesting (and might balance nicely) to have parts that are specific to limited missions. Honestly, ISRU should be like this as well, it's kind of silly to have a part that might work using soils on one world, but is imagined to use atmosphere on another. Technologies like this would likely be optimized for specific target worlds. A jet capable of dealing with Duna might not work without heavy modification on Eve, for example. The one jet that would work in all atmospheres would be a nuke ramjet. Air is just a propellant, then. Thrust would vary by altitude, and by composition of the atmosphere.

Reporting someone for disagreeing with you? Wow, just wow.

One, I was never nitpicking linguistics. You said a building upgrade could make jets work anywhere (with an atmosphere, obviously). This is not an issue of word choice. I think that making craft that are already grossly overpowered (spaceplanes) magically work in every atmosphere equally well is a terrible game balance decision. Now THIS is an excellent post. So for the game, this would be a new part that would work only on Duna and Eve. Very cool. I'm fine with that. If similar tech is plausible for a Laythe jet, that's fine, too.

I agree it's a derailment, but there is no "between the lines," since he said that a building upgrade should make jets work everywhere (with an atmosphere---see, I read that between the lines). Should I have read it that Duna, Laythe, etc have their atmospheres change upon SPH upgrade?

They are adding "contextual" contracts, right? Maybe that will help. The problem is that even within the current system, all the contracts are awful. There are mods that add sensible contracts, so clearly the people writing them for squad have some issues with writing contracts I fully expect to see bad contracts replaced with bad contextual contracts, sadly. I'll be the first one to praise them if they surprise me. That said, at least some will improve. I fear we will get spammed with build station contracts, AND resupply/add on/whatever station contracts. And that won't address the fact that if you build/launch a station/sat/whatever for some customer, they should own it. Maybe mods will make career better, and with 64 bit, we can perhaps add more mods without crashing. - - - Updated - - - Career gives no clear and concise goals. It spams you with random tasks that make no sense, period, and even less sense within the context of a "career." The goal of career should be limitations that force novel design decisions. The notion that sandbox requires more imagination is silly. It's the difference between designing a house on a specific site, with a budget, and designing a house with any site you like, and no budget. Both can be creative, but the limitations of site/budget force you to make interesting decisions that you would not have to make with no limitations. They are different, not quantitatively different.

Assuming the 1.1 hype train is not off the rails, part counts (total parts in the game) might not really matter. In that case, 1.875 would be nice. The idea of Soviet analogs is also pretty cool, as it would be fun to see some ability (multiplayer?) to do a space race of sorts. - - - Updated - - - Yeah, but I mean helmets touching each other, and the side walls of the spacecraft, not "tight" like Gemini was tight (it was).

I know what you meant by what you said, as does everyone else. If you meant changing atmosphere, you would not have suggested that a VAB/SPH upgrade might allow jets to work anywhere.

Career was added without a real plan as far as I can tell. There is no "arc" to it, and unless you play on "hard" (which is really "grind" mode), there is zero chance of "losing." Most contracts are absurd, and have little rationale to bother with doing them. It really needs "a point."

You did not suggest changing all atmospheres to match earth/kerbin, you suggested making jets work anywhere (because magic).

Those are your words, I'm putting nothing in your mouth that didn't come out of it.

Yeah, the problem is that in order to make Kerbin reentry have a non-zero chance of reentry problems, denser atmospheres become lethal. It's an artifact of the mini-sized Kerbol system.

LOL. Then War Thunder should be worried, as the first time I saw the word used was in the 1980s (Space 1889, a roleplaying game that is probably the progenitor of "steampunk" even if those people don't know it ever existed).

Aside from the fact that they are, and have been, analogs of Mars and Venus? You have been asking for "jets that work everywhere," not to change all planets with an atmosphere to have free O2. Jets anywhere is like asking for jets underwater, or in space. It's silly, and no different than asking for reactions drives, or other magic. There is such a thing as a jet that uses anything as propellant. It is a nuclear ramjet. It is using whatever the air is as propellant, not as oxidizer for your fuel. In low-density atmospheres, it would need to be moving pretty fast. At least it's not utter fantasy. - - - Updated - - - You said: All my posts are answering that utterly silly suggestion.