1101

Except interesting effects like resonance won't be entirely realistic or relevant unless you do one with the actual vehicle. For example, STS-1 had some interesting acoustic issues and damage that NASA did not design for or expect, up to the point where one of the pilots said he wouldn't have flown it to space if he'd known what the damage was.

Windows 10. Because KSP doesn't have a Linux/ARM version to use on Raspberry Pi. Or Pi doesn't have enough RAM. Or possibly both... Have formally (pre 1.0) used KSP on linux (I think Mint and an Ubuntu release), however due to weird UEFI bugs, not reinstalling again until I get a newer computer. Windows 10 is an upgrade from Win 8, and I really don't want to have to use recovery disks to get Win 8 back, possibly without the upgrade...

Back in previous versions, when parachutes were near instantaneous, or didn't get destroyed at high airspeed, I would have one or two mounted on the cockpit part of a spaceplane, and if it was nosediving, try everything else (control Authority limiting/removing, RCS, any remaining staging etc) and then pull the chute at about 500m. Now, you can't do that so much, so it's more of a do everything I can to reduce airspeed, then pull the chute, and hope to slow down enough, or at least hit tail first. I have tried ejectable cockpits, but they take more kerbals than they save, because I'll almost certainly need it in a non-standard situation. For example, an upward firing cockpit ejection is unhelpful when in an inverted nose down dive, at about 50m altitude. For rockets, a good old Apollo style abort system does the trick. But you need to do something silly to need one of those.

Probably added a line of: import lack_of_self_preservation into the rockets programming.

I thought the saying was 'Any landing you can walk away from......', not 'Any landing you can swim away from.....'?

I bought this game on 1st Jan, 2014, in the UK. Arguably it was probably 2013 somewhere in the world when I bought it, but I don't want to pay nothing when Making History comes out. Let's face it, KSP has changed a lot since .23, when I bought it. We got a lot of new parts, the 'Souposphere' was mostly made less viscous, Windows 64bit support came out, and so many other things since then. And I've got all those for free, essentially, because I haven't paid for it since 2014. What's more, I paid $27 for it, and at the time it was something like £18 from the exchange rate, given that it would now cost £29, that is great. How many hours I've played, I don't know as I didn't get it on Steam, but it must be a lot. Total cost of operating KSP for me would probably be larger for the Electricity to run my laptop. As far as I'm concerned, I would like Squad to 'hurry up', release Making History and Take my Money!:P

Why not - it's a naming scheme like that of the Spitfire, or B-17 (or where those A,B,C,D etc?). Both of those were fine aircraft... Really, SpaceX should extend the droneship name system to the rockets, or at least the Dragons. I'd love to see a news article along the lines of "Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall docks with ISS"

With infinite money and no restrictions... I'd presume a railgun/magnetic accelerator style launch system built into an artificial mountain up to the stratosphere could be done, thus reducing the need for an actual rocket liftoff, thus launching payloads to essentially their second stage, and presumably recovering the discarded sabot. Of course, using Orion would probably be less ecologically damaging than that, which is not something one gets to describe often.

So.... something similar to Special Circumstances in the Culture Novels by Iain M. Banks? Where the in setting view on warfare with the Culture is just the plain and simple warning 'Don't (BLEEP) with the Culture!' But where will Kerbfleet get the expertise to make that happen? That being said, without the militant forces of Kerbulus so far there might be only peaceful beings in Kuzzter's Universe.

Well, which movie? There has been quite a few, you know. Even the National Socialist government of Germany made one. And it was more of a space saver, as it wasn't that exciting a picture, unlike this particular launch attempt:

Captain Smith Kerman begins to question his lookouts' ability to spot an Iceberg:

Even [insert deity here] could not get this ship to orbit!! Oh, OK then: Atmosphere, Dead Ahead!! Not, technically, sinking:

Portal Space Program (2) Space? Space! Spaaaaaceeee! And that's just Jeb....

I don't know the maths for this(trying to learn orbital mechanics, not very hard though). That said, I think if you could (magically) teleport an object from Kerbin surface to 113,000km as per Red Iron Crown, the lateral Kinetic Energy (if kept in the teleport) should keep you in orbit. I think the difference though is that in the rocket powered ascent you would lose some (all?) of that horizontal K.E. as you travel across (an admittedly small) part of the surface of Kerbin. I think this would be due to the trajectory moving across the surface at 175m/s, so gradually it would become a more vertical component and be nullified by gravity. If the game drew the trajectory on the map relative to Kerbin's surface rather than centre, you might get a weird looking trajectory. Feel free to prove me wrong.

So, on page 53 of Eve: Order Zero, there was this little exchange: Things that make you go 'Hmmmm......'

I seem to remember that at some point in TNG, Voyager, DS9 and associated Films, Scotty, Kirk, Spock and Sulu? (in a Voyager episode, maybe) all appeared, so that isn't quite as appropriate as it could be....

Playing KSP. Listening to guess what soundtrack.....

I feel doing the latter is rather hard when you're resorting to non-violence. The conversation from Futurama along the lines of: "Why do we have to resort to non violence? Why can't we just kick their S?" "Young lady, their S is a living thing too...." Comes to mind.

Yes, but it's not like such a dramatic shift is even in scope for George "Red Wedding" Martin. Some semblance of Protagonist Survival is seen, even in ASoIaF. It would be like having J.K Rowling rewrite HP5 and call it "Voldemort and the Sudden Application of Competence". On topic, that missile is drawn on a very narrow miss trajectory...

OK, just checking.... Looking forward to the landing video then.

Given that they could just only broadcast images of the engines (Which is all they normally do anyway) (and that plenty of people in visual range of 10+ miles above Cape Canaveral will video it anyway), and that anyone who really wants to know where it's going could find out anyway - why cut the live feed? It feels a lot like secrets for secrets sake. Also, careful analysis of the trajectory it flies away on and then returns on would also tell where it has gone (since plane changing is so dV intensive, and it's not like it will go up somehow not via LEO), so....

Yes, that is a nice looking ship.... If I were to guess, hull design would probably be a mixture of streamlining, maximised cargo volume, redundant hulls (and watertight sections - presumably horizontal as well as vertically oriented), and (even for an ocean going vessel) mass ratio (what good is a ship with all the strength but no remaining buoyancy). Presumably tied into streamlining and useful mass would be the issue of engine power and propulsion. Given that steam and older diesel would be less efficient per unit weight (and obviously, a complete lack of CFD), I would presume that older designs like the Olympic class would be designed more toward a knifing bow to reduce hydrodynamic drag. The propellers being mounted quite far into the flow (and huge) along with a fairly streamlined hull to get the water to flow smoothly (-ish) toward them would, I assume, increase the risk of being pulled into them if you are in the water. I may be wrong on this. https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-deckplans/tank-top.html Useful link - it should give you the lowest deck plan, with an idea of the shape of the hull.

Well, I don't know for certain, and I don't really want to go too far into the fluid dynamics right now, but it certainly used to be possible: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic#Last_voyage I can't remember where exactly I read it, but I believe there were accounts from RMS Titanic's sinking that they did not immediately lower the lifeboats for the same reason. Bear in mind of course, that this was a 110 year old ship design, there may be mitigating factors these days. That being said, this concerns rowed lifeboats - I would presume it would be much worse for someone swimming.

"Is it start mass over final mass, or the other way around?" "Orion is suffering all these delays, because it really IS the 1960's version..... We just needed a cover story"

What are the transfer windows like in that time frame? I mean, is it helpful and the [hypothetical] launch could occur toward the end of the timeframe, or would planetary alignment cut the time in half due to bad alignment? I'd love to see this happen, but I know it isn't going to. I could maybe see it rushed to 2025 maybe, if NASA/Whoever used every trick they've ever come up with, and increased reliability at the cost of mass and used, say, NERVA to push the additional mass. But even that would require a massive funding boost to get a Man capable Mars return vehicle, so...