Arugela

What I just said is the definition of the question of sqauring the circle.

The fundamental definition for the question of squaring the circle is the definition of the integration of two system. If a constructable number does not fit a transcendental number that is not proof it cannot happen. The quickest solution to an answer is to factor them together(after having defined them fully.) and their is always a possibility that a, not thought of yet, more complex solution might exist. So, the question is is there a way to bridge two systems. Transcendental and constructable numbers. The inability to figure out the first part of a sqaure root of pie is part of not even defining a constructable number as an entire system. 2. Have we even defined a transcendental number as a total system. 3. Have we looked past either as a new unusual logic might exist to bridge them beyond eithers scope. This is the flaw with saying you can't square a circle. It's true within a limited definition/parameter you can't. But that parameter is not being looked at correctly and treated in a manner beyond it's even basic logical definition. So, even if defining both systems and then not finding a solution does not find an answer there is also the chance to find one outside. Which may(would) indicate another lack of definition of one or another system outside eithers supposed internal logic. This would mean that some natural logic exist outside each system to define them that is not internal by some viewpoint and a potential missing definition overall. Which is potentially possible as the natural ever present basis of logic is where did god or matter come from. The never ending +1 to logic we, as far as I know of, have not figured out. The proof of the fundamental absurdity of all human reasoning. No matter what you do to ask where did matter/god come from you always get the same question left. Where did it come from. If we are made by an interdenominational being with science from limited matter, where did he and his dimension come from. It's the true oddity. BTW, this should be answered by the other part of the equation. An interface logic to the human brain and human reasoning as a machine. This could be in a partial immediate sense or a potential absolute limited to our thinking abilities.

I'm assuming aircraft with lift can get off the ground with less than 1.0 TWR. I think bombers usually do like 0.6 according to wiki. Could be wrong though. What about supercavitation in the lower atmosphere to reduce drag to improve the lift. I haven't gone over this yet, but I think the drag coeeficitient for a 90 degree shape is 0.8. If cavitation helped it might improve it more. Assuming this works this way. If the drag coeeficient let it get off the ground with x% less thrust. 36000/0.8 = 45000 then It has effective thrust from the lift. If the difference from 90 degrees to 60 degrees is 1.5 modifier then 80/1.5 = 53.3333..... This gives effective thrust of 67500 tons. Just enough to fly fundamentally. I'm assuming I'm probably missing something though(And that that is probably not how it works.). I think the max expected weight on takeoff with full fuel is 64,000 tons. I still haven't gotten through the formulas for this to know how it works though. But if it close to correct there might be a chance at hypothetically working. I wonder how much you could use air intakes to supplement the lox in general while still in the atmosphere. Edit: I changed the craft to have(absolute max fuel) 13500 tons lch4 + 51300 tons lox = 64800 tons fuel + 6480 tons body+cargo(4320 body + 2160 cargo) = 71820 tons on takeoff. The engines are raptor 2's with presumed chamber pressure of 360 atm, 300 tons thrust each, fuel rate of 312.5lb/s=45000lb/s lch4(might be wrong.) @144 engines(1500lb/s@3.8ratio*144=216000lbs/sec/2000=108tons/sec). With a flight time of 10 minutes and a maximum thrust of 43200 on takeoff the only hope is the vehicle can get off the ground with around a 0.53333 coeeficient to lift. If that even makes any sense. The delta v would then be with a ln(11) coeeficient on takeoff. Body dimensions: 432*250*144 = 15552000/6 = 2592000 ft3/20= 129600ft3 empty space/surface area/2.4 = 54000ft3 cargospace@80lbs/ft3 and wing surface area. The downside is that is has a wing loading on takeoff of 2640 lbs/ft2. With about160-240lb/ft2 (no cargo/cargo) wing loading empty. So, it needs lots of structural strength.

Would it be possible to launch something extremely small and light weight into orbit and then to the moon or mars in something like a fluffly light weight grid of cotton candy like material. Using winds and other similar function to get into or near orbit and then assisted to other location with a leo satellite(maybe with a collection tether or something.). Then make it travel to the moon or mars and land and explore a planets surface or start a construction project. Eventually possibly building a base or rover or return vehicle to return more then the payload that was sent? If some of the stronger materials are much smaller in scale maybe it's a better direction for space flight. It could benefit from better structural strength and hence better vehicles. The material could be made of nanites or carry a small load of nanites. If it's made of nanites it might get a lot more nanites to the target. The nanites could also carry other needed materials with it as part of the vehicles construction.(Also saving weight as the payload could be the structural weight.) Then when landed it could use localized materials to construct things. If this could go far enough could they make a return vehicle, fill a payload, fill a rocket with fuel(methane/hydrogen), and return a payload or even themselves. This might allow base testing for pre human settlements or other constructs on other planetary surfaces. Even make exploration vehicles and whatnot if it's possible. I'm assuming we don't have tech that advanced yet. But could a primitive version be sent and then even just do something very small for fairly cheap and then return a signal and some data? Or could something super small and light weight use the magnus effect to get to orbit or as close as possible. If not to predate human exploration it could be used for places that would not be survivable by humans potentially. It could be a good way to probe location regardless. Even asteroids and other smaller objects. If it's feasible. Maybe one day this could be used to send stuff to a moon of jupiter to build a fuel manufacturing or collection plant and send fuel to the rest of the solar system. If solar winds/radiation are a problem maybe a bunch of these are sent up, collected, then put into another container together with a protective layer and sent out of earths orbit.

I'm stupid. The size of the tank increase proportionally, but the amount of fuel in a sphere is 8x per doubling... So, the solution is to increase the size until it has enough fuel. Hopefully without a problem with engine thrust still. Still haven't gotten that down mentally. I did a 72 foot one the size of a modern aircraft, but it only got 2 minutes of burn time at best. Even refueling couldn't help it. So, this giant geometry ship has to be scaled to the fuel type in essence. With denser fuel needing a bigger ship and hydrogen potentially fitting a smaller on. Especially with lace concepts. But it probably has worse thrust. I'm assuming an RP1 version would have horrific thrust unless the thrust to geometry is better. That seems to be important for this type of design. I'm looking at a 576ft version to see how it pans out. Not sure what the ideal size for a methane version with raptor engines would work out. I know it would take hundreds or engines. And any such ship would literally bankrupt spacex itself. 8) I think the 432 version is in the 10's of billions to make or more. Spoke too soon. The relevant fuel flow to get 8 minutes stays the same and the max engine thrust is stuck at 1.8 time less than the a moderate maximum tonnage of fuel and body weight. Although I think the flight time still increases. I'm thinking that doesn't actually sense. So, the only solution is intake of lox or refueling. If the max flight time increases as it scale up a super large version might be able to refuel. But nothing could physically refuel it but another version of it. So the only solution for a smaller ship is to go hydrogen and lace potentially. The other solution is to decrease the body surface and shape. But I'm not sure how simple that would be as that might even increase the amount of material used and surface area. Without abandoning the diamond ship design that is. I'm still not sure on the aerodynamics. Could an ssto plane with 0.5 thrust to weight make it to orbit?

The geometric limits of the craft are that if you take it's volume and divide it by 6 you get the remainder of the volume for cargo/etc. so 5/6's of the craft is fuel if fully taken with you. 432*250*144/6 = 2592000 ft3 max *5/6 = 2160000 max fuel space with lch4/lox. A 432ft wide model is 2,160,000 ft3 of space for fuel. This is 12000 tons Lch4 and 45600 tons lox. The problem is that this allows only something like 2400 tons for cargo and body mass(Although 7200 would still give near 7200delta v at worst case scenario.). 9.81*337*ln(25) = 10641.50691073952563083774 (60000/2400) 9.81*337*ln(9) = 7263.95853593622119292388 (64800/7200) The body must be super light and super strong. The other problem is to get 8 minutes of travel time you can only do 25tons a second of lch4 fuel use. This is approximately 108 raptor 2 engines at around 32,000 tons thrust. For a absolutely minimal 60,000 ton ship. So, ideally you want a ship that never weighs more than that 32,000 tons(maybe 28,800 tons) of thurst(assuming that is enough thrust to fight drag.). and you need a super sexy sleek craft. Which might be possible with only 1-6 inch of carbon fiber as a surface. Assuming that is enough. I'm assuming not as the plane needs 2200+lbs(literally a ton) of wing loading at 60,000 tons of body weight. The wing surface is approximately 54000ft2. 60000*2000/54000 = 2222.222222222222222222222 lbs. I'm not sure if the pure or nearly pure diamond nature of the craft modifies the normal wing loading formula. So, you need to literally or effectively collect around 28,000-30,000 tons of fuel assuming you can't go super heavy. Basically the geometry doesn't allow the full storage of enough fuel and enough engine thrust to carry it. I don't know but it might have enough potential room with the sphere cap idea to potentially carry cooling equipment if you can chill and collect /air/lox/lair as a fuel or additive. Not sure if that is possible with lch4. It would allow some extensive cooling which it might need for extra thrust. I'm not sure if it can carry enough hydrogen to get to orbit. It might though. Something I read said you can hypothetically get 4400dv from pre close cycle saber stuff. And then just need around 3500dv for the other. This help with the geometry problem. But it still suffers from thrust potentially. Especially if the body ends up being heavier than this. It might be a fragile plane. http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/lace.txt The body surface has approximately 129,600ft2 of surface just purely as geometric diamond/rhomboid shape. I'm assuming the logic after this goes from the sphere that a sphere is more versatile weight wise. But then aerodynamics/volume/something else then lead to a cylindrical rocket shape. Haven't gone over spheres yet. But, if you could do some spiffy(extreme) stuff with it you might be able to get it to orbit...

Is there any way to run lace with methane rockets. Potentially using the raptor engines space x runs? I don't know if you can simply take the air and bypass it into the exit of the rocket or afterwords as a way of mixing it? One idea was to set all the engines midline into another object that would encompass the entire thrust of the rockets and then funnel it to another location farther in the rear and in essence be a second giant vector exit consisting of all other thrust. If the air was bypassed to this area and ignited could you split the lox addition between in engine and out of engine for different mixture ratios to reduce the total lox carried. Then do closed mode or bypass some of the lox to the bypass similar afterwords if it's needed to keep the same ratio. (IE air/lox/lch4, or lox/lox/lch4.) I'm assuming this would produce more thrust, which would be nice on takeoff, and might allow more weight to be carried overall. That seems to be a limit for the craft. It needs a lot of thrust. I'm assuming the limit might be heat for the engine vector surface. I'm assuming the air/methane could also be passed into this to try to cool this also. Could a massive exit vectoring design like that work to remove the weakness of engine failures making you shut off more engines. This design would have a potential problem of having to shut of 4 engines for every failure if it has to maintain synchronized/balanced geometry for the thrust. If you funnel all the thrust would you be able to minimize or eliminate the problems of asynchronous thrust sources? IE maintain only 1 engine thrust loss instead of multiples. Or in worse case scenario maybe only 2 from the engine in the opposite corner to the lost engine. Let alone be able to do something like try to artificially allow both the vacuum engines and regular raptor 2 engines fire at the same time by artificially adjusting the realities in the second larger chamber to extend their usability potentially. Or allow a different single engine to be used that works in this artificial atmosphere made up of the engine exhaust.

To lower the takeoff weight. And possibly spare a runways destruction. Although I don't know the specific values enough. I'm looking at a vehicle weighting different amounts depending on the fuel used and which way to use it. In this case air breathing at takeoff and then fills up with a lot of oxidizer. I was hoping to spare cargo space by using a single tank for fuel. The original design is supposed to be a giant diamond shape based on dividing by the sqaure root of 3 for each dimensions to get the other parameters.(with the goal of getting 120 and 60 degrees for more optimal flight.) I'm trying to find the limits of the vehicle and the fuel tank is what naturally fits in the vehicle in it's center. But I'm wonder if a pure sphere vehicle would be better as I think it reduces the structural cost and weight of the vehicle. Unless I'm doing the math wrong. Which is very likely. The current design is 432x250x144 w/l/h. But I found out that the carbon fiber at 1 ft thick is over 7000tons...(If I did the math right.) I originally accidentally did the calculation in cubic inches and thought it was clear for my desired weights. The sphere on the other hand is only like 21 tons for 1/6th of the total volume. And I assume better structural strength. The engines are on a partial sphere plates on the top and bottom of the craft that go with the spherical part of the craft. The vehicle is supposed to go at takeoff/low altitude flight aiming into the 120/60 degree front then swing the body sideways or rotate the engines 90 degrees and fly into the 60/36 degree edge for hypersonic flight. I'm assuming a complete sphere would reduce this need but add drag overall and potentially lower mass for the body. Then I could also stack sphere in sphere and potentially move the engines to one location. It's for an SSTO design. So, it might be a little odd.

Is there a simple way to figure out how much wing loading of carbon fiber per sqaure foot you can get per inch/ foot of thickness. I was looking at 1ft+ of carbon fiber then trying to figure out weight and cost of that much carbon fiber. How much wing loading would a cubic foot of carbon be able to handle? Could it potentially handle a literal ton of wing loading per sqaure foot? How much overhead to you need past the expected maximum wing loading as a safety margin?

I'm thinking of making it liquid methane and then do pure lox collection. Not sure if that is possible. 120ft diameter sphere does approximately 12000 tons of fuel. For a 3.8 ratio using raptor 2 and raptor vacuum engine you could get 57600-60,000 tons of thrust using a lot of engines... But using existing tech. Then potentially doing a collapsing bladder tank.

This might be stupid, but could you use the frozen collected lox/air as the insulation and just build it up? The orb I'm thinking of are around 80ft and or 120 ft diameter for a larger ship variant. Although a much smaller version could be made. The ship(ssto spaceplane btw.) is a giant diamond shaped ship where the width of the body is divided by the sqaure root of 3 for the length, and that is divided by the sqaure root of 3 again for the height. The sphere is approximately the height divided by the square root of 4/3 subtracting a bit. Not sure what other ship shape would be good for this. Any such orb would have humongous volume to use for any collected oxidizer as the main fuel depleted. You could probably even use plain air given the volume for hydrogen based fuels. Unless you put in a main fuel with a much larger density. For instance liquid methane. Actually, with a ratio of around 2-3 Liquid methane might be ideal fuel for such a shaped vehicle given the geometry. But I think it would force a liquid oxidizer. I'm guessing engines built around methane or hydrogen might be useful along with air/oxidizer collection for getting off earth.

But what if people want a mode with more...

That blows up if you use too much thrust and only works for smaller rockets. Something under 7000 tons of thrust converted to KSP scale.(Or starts that with a to be determined upgrade path! ;p) and start adding realistic problems like engine failures for all the reasons engines can fail. Make rockets as interesting as space planes or more. We need more realism!!

Is it possible to make a huge orb tank for hydrogen/liquid hydrogen/maybe slush or gel hydrogen then have an inner lining that shrinks on use to be filled with collected liquid air or lox? Would this be a good idea. It seems ideal from geometric sense. Is there sufficient ways to do with pressure/embrittlement/whatever other issues like cost. This is assuming you are less worried about perfect optimization and just if it can be done.

Then whatever it would look like from kerbin. Would that change with the scaling of kerbol though? It is much smaller. Or would the atmosphere make up for it? I'm not sure how that works specifically. Do we know what type and size of telescope and other tech they have at KSC?

I wouldn't blur it. I would make it realistic to what you can see inside the telescope/tech used from kerbin. Or from any previously accomplished missions. Then you realistic scale up as you go. This could ultimately include satellites that you scan the planet with including your ship to gain maps etc realistically. Although once you have gone over with a ship visual/recorded data could be applied to each orb. Maybe with filters to show different things you have collected. Make it realistic. BTW, if you did the same to kerbin, couldn't this lower the problem with the massive resources used on the runway.

Can we please get the option for fuel types somehow. I really want to make a hydrogen base rapier plane as it's the obvious choice to replicate a workable sabre vehicle. Will we be able to do this. Can we now and I missed it?(super laggy for me) If not It really needs to go into the game somehow. The game needs to be done around defaults to get the current game design. Then just allow advanced users to change it for other things. But make it so it has to be realistic. At least in certain game modes. Why can't changes in fuel type just change out the rest of the stats to make realistic limits. Even if unusable.

Allow all parts to select materials. then make it dynamically change the qualities like weight, cost, heat tolerance limits etc. Maybe even allow control of the thickness of the materials if you wanted to. The default could be for standard use and the modification could be for custom design needs. what are common materials? I know I would use a lot of carbon fiber or maybe carbon nanotubes. Various steels, titaniums, aluminums, etc. God forbid custom materials. You could even allow parts of the part to have different materials if the game can use it. If not for future updates or mods.

Gives about a 50% gain for me. If you start underwater!! Anyone try to make a sub base water launcher? I mentioned this in KSP1 back in the day and they mached me...

It's so you can run a scramjet like the sabre at 3600 isp for higher in the atmosphere and up to a higher mach speed..

If you put a scramjet in a fitting where you can add intake to an intake. IE a prechamber before the normal intake. Can you fill it with air converted from liquid air to feed a scramjet with an artificial atmosphere? https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ramth.html If a scramjet takes 100lbs of air per second per 2 lbs of fuel(not sure which type), and air is 710 less dense than liquid air why do we not feed it into a scramjet with reserves of liquid air turned back into air to make perfect potentially vacuum based scramjets? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/liquid-air-and-compressed-air-density.975471/ Is there some technological hurdle that stops this? From a fuel storage concept this is easy. The weight of storage to feed this is 50/710=0.070423= 7.0423% of the mass. This seems as ideal as possible for a rocket. Does this ratio change when using something like a sabre engine with liquid hydrogen fuel? If you take this concept and add the ability to generate hydrogen and or liquid air in flight you can just keep extending the rockets abilities potentially. At which point is it feasible to generate clouds sufficiently from a crafts body to collect the water to make some of this? If you do a tank of 183 tons of liquid hydrogen and have around 12 tons of liquid air to feed it. That is near 200 tons of fuel. Wouldn't that allow a vehicle of 600 tons to orbit and back potentially. 800 tons on takeoff and 600 for body/cargo? Is the sabre 16 or 24 tons per engine. It is 14:1 thrust to weight. But is that at 440k lbs of thrust at sea level or 660k thrust in vaccum. If it's at sea level you can do 36 engines at 16 tons each for 581 tons and around 19-24 tons of cargo depending on hull weight. Not sure how this works enough yet.

I've been looking into the sabre for a giant diamond SSTO I've been trying to make for fun. I'm trying to figure how many hypothetical sabre engines I could shove into it. Does anyone know the potential diameter of the rear of the sabre and or the max trust of any of the variants. I can't fine a lot of info. And the mk 4 looked like it lost thrust. The idea is the center of the diamond has a massive sphere. This could be for slush hydrogen or other things. But as I'm looking at a sabre probably slush. The idea is the top and bottom of the sphere has sabres along the surface in the middle arch. The front is a massive intake(possibly variable sized) this creates a space that is basically artificial atmosphere. Could this be used to make the sabre run in efficient thrust air breathing mode for longer hypothetically. I'm not good enough at the math to figure out how much air it would need or lox/lair to fill the space for the engines intake needs. But if it could get up to mach 25 with slowly amended air into the intakes it could hypothetically reduce or eliminate the need for the rocket mode unless it has too. I estimated a row of engines that are 7.2 feet in diameter could fit 9 engines top and bottom each(18 total). The problem is the max thrust is only 5400tons of thrust and I technically wanted around 14400 tons of thrust minimum. So, it would have to operate at reduced functionality. The original sabres ran at 440,000lbs thrust or 220tons at save level and 660k/ 330tons in vacuum. That is 3960-5940 tons of thrust at 18 engines. Are the sabres smaller than 7.2 ft diameter or likely larger? Not the best visual, but the ssto is a diamond of originally(blue filled in) 96ft length, 54ft height, 166ft width. Outer size is 128ftx72ftx222.8ft. accordingly. The original dimensions weren't enough. I think it has a total of 430,000-440,000 ft3 of space(assuming a straight flat diamond body and no curves).(Edit: Possibly only 400kft3.) The main tank has an inner diameter of 54ft (82,570ft3)and an outer diameter up to 56.7ft. Approx 2.7 ft. The tank with slush hydrogen could hold a max of 219tons or 183tons liquid hydrogen. The idea is: 0.5. There is a, possibly rotating, set of engine plates(top and bottom) taking up about half of the spheres outer diameter(56.7ft-72ft diameter). 1/4 top and 1/4 bottom area on the surface. 1. The front of the engine plate is an intake of potentially variable shape and closable. (Could this be used to fill to feed the sabre past it's normal atmospheric limits?) Haven't figured out how much that might need to be yet. 2. The engines are center lined physically in the top middle, The back is a massive exit(hopefully not an issue) that either directly fires into space/air or funnels it down to use the body of the aircraft as an aerospike. 3. The engine and top canopy/engine pods rotate to go from the wider 60 degree angle?(can't remember) as front during low slower flight and changes to the 36 degree? angle for hypersonic flight for better aerodynamics. Assuming that is useful. 4. it's ideal design would use metalic hydrogen fuel(and possibly different engines) and would have a max cargo weight of 7200 tons fuel and 7200 tons full cargo/body mass for around 14,400 tons total weight and 5 times the max thrust(72,000tons thrust). This is trying to make it work with realistic potentially existing tech. So, probably max take off weight of up to 5760 tons or less. Maybe much less. 5. From top down it has a wing area of approx 14,400 sq ft. It has horrific wing loading, but it is a massive diamond. Does that make that less of a problem or more? I was hoping most of the design would be dealing with hypersonic flight. 6. Cargo room: 100,000ft3 of cargo, 82,570ft3 main fuel, 250,000ft3 oxidizer. Under current design. Changeable as needed. 7 Rough Estimate: 100,000ft3 cargo at 80lb/ft3 = 4,000 tons. 82,570ft3 slush hydrogen = 219tons. 250,000ft3 liquid air = 6750tons max(30.8 times the slush hydrogen.)(Edit: 180-220kft3 = 4860-5940tons liquid air = 22-27 times * slush hydrogen). 14,400 tons max weight(not considering engine power.)x14,400 sqft wing surface. 3,431 tons max empty weight. Edit: 1890 less liquid air = more cargo or better flight characteristics or LOX. 8. Can 2 feet of carbon fiber body hold up 1 ton per sqft of wing loading?! 8p (Which is around 2880tons of carbon fiber and over half a billion dollars. So, pony up elon if you want a real rocket!! ;D) 9. You could change it so a diamond of the 250,000ft3 is in the center for liquid air and the surface layer is all carbon fiber surface and thinner chambers for cargo. Haven't done the math on this yet. But given that the original diamond is about 180-190k ft3 and make the inner area 330kft3 instead with the surface a bunch of removable cargo bays. It could have hex shaped or other surface structures that can be detached in orbit and collected. If something like this could use the 3600isp or anywhere near up to mach 25 it could probably easily get to orbit and back for massive payloads. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) The engine appears to be nearish to half of the body diameter. So, it's possibly near that size. There is a small margin for room potentially. Or just a custom casing to hold it as it would be encased.

Randomly ran into this on youtube. I thought maybe someone lit a fire as a joke about the game or a review using this as a heading, but it's too old. Think of this in terms of past video game forum problem where they shut the forums down in the past. You can make some funny jokes out of some of it. 8) Maybe it's just me. lol Lock down your dumpster fires! ><

It's not a business. And such things used to be an active engineering environment with more ability to get work done in a given time and think it out ahead of time... Let alone put more work in overall for fun. Fun is work. If the work ain't fun. You ain't doing it right. Or aren't doing it at all. Depends on which side of it you are on. It's now a world of bad 80's business men. Even bringing back dead necro business like activision and running on a world of badly educated artists... Because Impressionism.! We used to at least maximize our games so people could enjoy them. We have gone completely way from that. Forethought is design. the more you have the more you can get done and avoid traps like redoing work. Or you make a tool to make it easy to redo work. Or you take it all the way and correctly automate the work. Software is farther behind than people understand. All old game genres should be drop in automated bits with full working old game genres generated as standard. We are not really trying and software and game design are all retrogressing. And we aren't even getting fun retro stuff out of it!!3 There is a process to software design. Correct answers in logic are simply 100% of the information. That is the same definition as what it takes to do work correctly and to automate something in a computer. These things should go a certain way. That is not happening. The cycle is broken and hanging like a broken bike chain. The only thing closed to automation were old 80's tools for older games before they were used to make 90's games. It did not progress after that. This applies to all software development. If you can't define it, you don't know it. If you know it you can automate it. The object is to be able to automate it. This is the same standard for education(although not in practice at this point in time.). No one will undstand this, but emotions are a part of the brains data gathering functions. you have data use mode and data gather. If you have feelings, it's data gather. Put more info in and it will revert to data use until out of data. This is what makes feelings. If it's hard it's a feeling. It's the brain tricking you to argue partial data sets in your brain to try to learn.(argument is part of a data feedback system.) It's a trick of the brain. It's always a result of a lack of knowledge. Fix the problem the feeling goes away and you can do work again.

1. KSP1 graphics. Literally with updated game logic. Not sure if something make this impossible. Does anyone know. I would love to know out of curiosity. 2. Elite 80's graphics mode. Pure lines and space. Literally original old game graphics. Then the surface elements on Kerbal are not a problem. ;d Is any of this possible? elite even had color at some point: then they could add an old text rpg interface from early games like maniac mansion and make some retro text games into KSP! 8) That could make some fun stuff to do when you reach your destination. Or in the KSC. KSP murder mystery game!!! 8D