Deutherius

-2 5char

I tend to put a small amount of RCS on every craft that might require docking/station keeping/precise manuever corrections. I also slap one or more of the O-10 monoprop engine/s on the craft, so that if the mission does not requiring docking, the RCS isn't all that useless (they are massless, have better thrust and Isp than RCS ports and are just generally nice).

With a good enough joystick it would be a pleasure. Without it... Eh, there's always a place and money for one little probe core, even if it only offers stability assist. (Yes, I suck at stabilizing the spacecraft manually, even with fine controls I always overcorrect too hard. And I don't really feel like timewarping all the time just to kill rot.) Slightly unrelated, but if you ever want to dock bigger things without SAS, good luck - I seriously hope your RCS placement is on point and your CoM isn't shifting.

You definitely have a point there. I'll need to think about this concept some more. Also, since we are in the realm of theory and not existing game parts, we might as well throw away fuel dependencies and go back to an electrically powered engine (duct fan/propeller). Electricity is cheap and looking at reaction wheels, kerbals seem to have no problems creating unrealistically high powered rotating things

-2 5char

0 5char

I don't think so. The thing is, jets (and specifically high bypass turbofans, which I believe you were referencing) usually have pretty low fuel/air ratios (they burn a lot of air per unit fuel). That makes them efficient on Kerbin/Earth, because they get the majority of the fuel essentially for free. On Eve, you would have to supply the combustible air yourself, and you'd need a lot of it, which would be bothersome. If you use pure oxidizer, which would burn much better than air (giving higher fuel/oxidizer ratio), you'd need much less of it per unit fuel - but hey, that sounds exactly like what a normal LFO rocket does. So it basically boils down to exhaust utilization: nozzles vs. fans. And if my physics knowledge isn't wrong, nozzles win. They utilize their energy straightforwardly (and pretty efficiently if we use aerospikes... also independent on air pressure). The turbofan engines would have to use most of the chemical energy to turn the fans, who would then push the air. I haven't done any math, but intuitively there is an extra step that would be wasting energy. And you cannot gain more energy from a system than you put in, so unless the Evian air is giving you energy like Kerbin's air does, the design is going to be less efficient. Also, because the thrust of a turbofan engine is a function of intake air mass flow, as the air pressure decreases, so does the thrust. But I could be wrong

The Kraken got bored.

-1 5char

...aaaand back to 2 again.

I have no words to describe the majesty of that station. And the spaceplane is nice, too. (Just a minor correction, NERVA stands for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application. The engines that you have two of are RAPIERs (or SABERs, if you want the real world equivalent)).

Kind juniors, let Stanley demonstrate - hemorrhaging ain't fun. vepwbtud

Whoa. Chill out, guys. There's no need to be upset. 5

You guys are going to hate me... But hey, at least I'm telling you now and not at 94 Looking at the sequence: Deutherius: -6 Xannari: -5, last right post Prof. Endwalker: -7 and -6, nulled Deutherius: -8, reacting to Prof. Endwalker, nulled Xannari: -5 (rightly confused), doesn't have any impact Ethanadams: -4 (edit: to clarify - this is correct, last valid post is -5) Deutherius: -5 ...and so on. I see no incorrect posts past that, therefore the current number doesn't change at all. The last valid post before RainDreamer stepped in was: ...and that hasn't changed. Sorry Ethan, but that doesn't count. You had the game already set at -4. Which, again, means I set it to -5.

-5 better go do it then

-5 isn't there something more to life?

-5 I feel like we do this every day

-5 tired already?

-5 well, you did want to stall the game It could also mean "94 more subtractions until we are at -100", which should be kept in mind. Your post should state the current progress unambiguously, even without context (e.g. when your post appears as the first one on a new page. It should be clear where we are without the need to dig through old pages).

-5 no need to be sorry

Basically, until a higher authority decides, any progress from now on might be completely worthless. Live in fear. Logically since Prof. endwalker edited his post and it cannot be proved that I replied before said edit, I conclude that my post gets nulled. So yeah, we are at -4 by Ethan right now. Which means -5 by me.

Professor please, ninja doesn't work in this thread. The two of you did opposite operations at the same time, the last of you won. Not sure how to handle this, because when I posted a "-8", the edit was not in place yet. But since there is no edit timestamp, I can't prove it.

-8, prof. Endwalker wins! At time 13:37

-6 if you had that gem up your sleeve, could you resist?

Anyone know Jeff Dunham? Hilariously funny. vtowbrsa