wumpus

I'm pretty sure I got it over Christmas holiday from the Steam Store. Note, I don't think you can get the demo from an account that already has KSP, you have to make on for someone else. I can't say if they are still shipping the .18 demo on steam or not, but the KSP store seems to be using the 1.0.0 demo.

Global Thermonuclear War? I mean, the whole thing was planned out and practiced for decades. It seems a miracle it didn't happen (hasn't happened yet). And it certainly would largely happen in space (suborbital, but still space). And the weapons are still there, waiting to be used. Seems a lot easier than theoretical wars between hypothetical combatants using weapons as of yet undreamed up.

There *was* a rebellion on Skylab. Or more like an astronaut strike. I thought there were a couple more (of course, one was on the shuttle where they did all the experiments [which had been canceled] instead of sleeping like they were supposed to).

Note that the BACC should work with the octoprobe. Don't try it with the stayputnik (unless you have 4 winglets as fins). Note that while all "real" satellites discard the engines (presumably they are worried about explosions?), there is no reason to do so in KSP. Don't worry too much about aerodynamics. Try to keep things behind a nosecone and keep things symmetric (more to balance mass, but it helps with aero as well). If you are running Kerbal Engineer, you might have to crank the TWR down to 1.8 or so. Blowing things up on the way up typically means you are going *way* too fast.

Then why would you bold the bit about the real capsule? It wasn't a "high visibility crew module" at all. There was a claim (although I think it was just the book/movie "The Right Stuff") that NASA didn't plan on a window at all and made one as a sop to the "super 7" that were the PR heroes. It certainly wasn't anything you could use for piloting (although later Gemini and Apollo *were* used for orbital eyeballing. But don't count on seeing very much). Also make sure those mods are 90fps friendly. What works fine on a static monitor is completely different in VR.

And really good radios with tons of filtering. NASA still tracks Voyager I/II (or at least did for decades) and was getting virtually zero signal from them (for shocking low values of zero).

Have you tried landing in IVA mode yet? Or even looked at the controls of a Mercury capsule (hint, the IVA for the mark 1 has bigger windows)? I don't think KSP-VR is going to fly any time soon. On the other hand, I really can't think of a good KSP 2.0 follow-up. KSP-VR might be the best KSP 2.0 that Squad could make.

As I commented on another thread that mentioned this title, it appears more or less the exact same decision that lead to the "Krikket Wars" in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (actually quote from Krikket after breaching their thick cloud cover "it'll have to go"). The US anti-science movement simply assumes that nothing beyond their little villages (and what extremist News and many-told-(and forwarded)-tales say). They wouldn't be interested in destroying such (well not paying much to destroy it anyway) as they simply won't believe it exists. On the other hand, pretty much the entire population works similar to this in practice. Like Shelock Holmes (who had to be informed of Copernican theory by Dr. Watson), information on astronomical data is plugged away in "stuff that won't effect me" and as such has low barriers to belief (this also leads to believing conspiracy theories). Tell a man that a chair has wet paint and he has to see for himself.

Generally speaking "protects against radiation" is nearly always synonymous with "has mass". I wouldn't count on it being much better at such things than *anything* else, and in space simply piled local mass (assuming on a planet/moon) makes more sense (unless you can turn local dust into foam, which might make more sense. Especially on Mars where there already is an atmosphere of sorts).

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4040 Note: I think I've commented that the stuff is probably RP-1 (and it isn't "delta-v" without an oxidizer as well). The yellow "0" just doesn't belong in rocket fuels (expect maximum "evilness" in your rocket chemicals).

Long time warps (waiting for interplanetary launch windows for example) probably have the biggest effect on contracts expiring. If you have a science outpost, or mining colony, that will suddenly become wildly more powerful (in Earth time). Obviously, if you plan on traveling only by launch windows, it would make sense to have such things in space already. The stock game doesn't care, but presumably you could miss important (and rare) launch windows (think Voyager I/II) while zooming toward yet another Duna window. One thing to remember about life support is that it will certainly make some rescue missions impossible. Combine that with some sort of "real building time mod" (a long standing mod that makes building rockets take time) and rescue missions typically become impossible unless you have a "planetary rescue patrol" already in place (which generally will never work for any mission "where no kerbal has gone before"). I find rescue missions to be far more important to KSP than bothering to calculate and include specific life support packages, your delta-v may vary.

Generally speaking, high efficiency solar power is pretty pointless groundside and absolutely critical in space. If they can make the rectennas cheaper than traditional semi-conductor solar cells, they might have something, but pretty much any kind of complicated structure will have a hard time beating traditional solar (which as far as I know, is pretty much the simplest "chip" you can imagine). Also note the 40-90 percent weaseling. I'm pretty sure space applications can get 40% efficiency solar cells. The upper bound would require some sort of magic to do with semiconductors, but other RF voodoo might not be so unlikely (and yes, RF is weird stuff).

Did somebody think the "Cricket Wars" were a good idea?

Hardest mission I've ever tried and give up: launch a thumper into escape velocity. Difficulty: extremely early contract, probably before putting a kerbal into orbit. I eventually concluded it was impossible without stronger engines or fuel lines (or heavier rockets). I've seen it on a few test games at that level and suspect it was a "sucker mission". Probably the biggest "did I sign up for that?" was rescuing two kerbals from Munar orbit (separate contracts). Turns out they were orbiting in opposite directions. Luckily I brought a NERV with tons of delta-v. I'd assume you do Moho and Eve first, return to Kerbin to refuel (and possibly add more landing stages). Did you build a Joolian mining/refueling station, or was that not available yet/non on your mod list?

The first one (land landing) was suggested for such a thing. I was just down there and checked the lengths of the displayed exhibits against the recovered booster (Falcon 9 is twice as tall as anything on display). I'm sure I've seen comments on such things, but this thread is (of course) wildly more informed than even the most science enthusiastic sites.

For those wondering where to put a falcon9 booster in a museum, the booster is 41.2m. A Redstone missile just *barely* fits in the Smithsonian hanger where the Discovery is housed, and it is only 21m tall. The Skylab copy is 25m and just barely fits in the cutout downtown. Presumably it can only fit on its side in the Smithsonian (although I remember a few rockets/missiles being parked outside of the Castle pre-1976). I'd guess the only other place they could stand up would be in the "rocket garden" in Florida.

There are more than enough parts to get you to Minmus and the Mun. I doubt the other planets are included (although if you can return from Mun you can easily land a probe on Duna. Getting back is harder). The style of rocket needed to do this is very different from that typically used in the full version and much more like "old school kerbals". [Optional] Clustering solild parts together (if they explode, reduce their thrust to ~80%), and then [required, and your main source of delta-v] lots of "asparagus staging". Asparagus staging is when you add pairs of liquid boosters to the side, and add fuel lines from the first pair to drop to the next pair to drop (the order is critical, as that is which way the fuel flows). This lets you keep your fuel tanks full as you rise to the heavens. KSP seems to go on sale every few months, from 25% to 40% off. Or just pay full price if you really need the hit.

Anybody know how energetic those decouplers are that jettison the fairings? I've had a few issues in KSP where they stayed on and you want them off now. What you pick up might not be reusable. Best guess is that they (and the proposed parachutes) aren't terribly recoverable (and I would guess saltwater is worse than the decouplers). If they thought that fairings were easy to recover (just add parachutes) they would have started recovering them with Falcon(1).

I have to second this. Some things first: not recommended with life support mods (this is the danger of "Apollo skipping off the atmosphere" try to make it through with your engine still attached have solar panels if possible (so you can keep your ship pointed engine first) try to keep things retrograde yourself, then hit SRS when needed (it will drain EC) don't overdo your retrothrusters. They are for two things, getting your PE down, and cutting your velocity to allow parachutes. A PE less than 1000 (when you hit 1000) isn't helpful. you shouldn't need them for allowing parachutes (you can come in hotter without a heat shield) If your PE is less than 70,000 (and you ejected your engines) you *will* come down. You might want to read a book for awhile (can you play in a window? You could always cruise the forums...). The only time you need a specific amount of delta-v in an atmosphere is during aero-capture. And that is just needed to get below escape velocity in one pass (assuming you won't burn fuel). After that you can do as many passes as you want for low orbit or landing (although the delta-v you just did in one pass should be enough to land on. No need for more than one or two more passes).

Somehow I doubt they are WiFi. In the US, WiFi is open under some pretty specific guidelines and I'm absolutely certain that delivering a signal over 300km is forbidden (not that they will interfere with you connecting ranches in Idaho. But the minute someone doing similar without illegal pringle's cans complains that the reason it doesn't work is because of Space-X's extra WiFi signal, Space-X will get a "cease and desist" letter from the FCC). But something like WiMax is pretty likely. It is a matter of owning the spectrum and politics. And as long as existing competitors have sunk huge sums in their spectra, they won't let Space-X use free spectra without a fight.

An expendable vehicle that would take longer to build [and as mentioned, only one passenger]? Not better. I have no idea why they didn't plan on landing the thing. The three X-15 planes made 199 missions all together (although mostly not into space as the link implies. Typically they went fast and relatively level). Maybe they already understood just how rough re-entry would be and didn't plan on upgrading the X-15 to survive it multiple times.

Impressive. Just how long do you have to make a go/no-go decision on defibrillation? I'm guessing they had to make the decision, somebody saw the fitbit and realized it would tell them. Probably had one himself as you hardly have the time to download the software when someone is in the ER with a stopped heart. SCE to AUX guy, this is a "steely eyed ER doc".

I suspect that Falcon 5 suffered when the Merlin engine could "only" be throttled down to 60% or so. Coming down with a minimum throttle with a TWR well over 2.0 (anybody know minimum TWR of a landing Falcon9?), it would be much harder to land than a falcon9 (which is what, 1-5?). This thread needs the Orion. http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857

Before 1.0, traditional onion made zero sense. By "traditional onion" I mean drawing from multiple fuel tanks (more than one pair) and feeding multiple engines. You would always get more delta-v (and higher TWR) by grouping the engines together and dropping each pair of fuel tanks as drop tanks, and then finally dropping all the engines along with the final pair of drop tanks. Post 1.0, this whole thing *might* work better aerodynamically with the classical setup, but I'd be extremely surprised. I'd still expect a poodle+multiple drop tanks to beat a terrier-based onion setup. Note: for any asparagus-inspired design, always try to connect each pair of tanks to the next pair of tanks to be dropped. This means that any extra decoupler parts are jettesioned in the next stage.

The last bit leaked about this seems have been 1.5 years ago "to be announced in three months". Note that there are two different types (at least) types of communication satellite and some big differences between them. LEO (Iridium style). These birds act as antennas that point down from a few hundred kilometers from Earth, that typically don't expect the Earth-based antenna to do any sort of tracking ("up" might be helpful, but presumably not required). This typically means that the satellite user needs to own the spectrum being used. I'd expect this to work more or less like cell-towers: with a single (ok, cell towers typically provide 3) cell, but if you really wanted to you could presumably provide multiple cells with a single satellite (assume not important as I doubt it would save weight and simply give additional points of failure). GSO (traditional style). Not F9's preferred customer (unless you like making holes in barges). Since they are easy to track (for fixed ground-based users), they can likely get away with using any spectrum they want (on the other hand, that orbit is prime real estate). I'm pretty sure that each owner of whatever degrees of GSO has specific ideas about frequencies and modulations used, and I think there are only 180 positions allowed (spacing is important). Don't expect these mass-produced anytime soon. I'd guess that space-x has made considerable progress on building LEO communications satellites (and I wouldn't be surprised if they already shelved the idea. But they made enough progress to run the idea up the flagpole). I can't imagine what other satellites they could make... GSO satellites: Low double digit production rate might be worthwhile. Probably beyond what space-x can afford to get into, maybe with outside investors (with radio expertise) it should be possible. It really depends on the owners of existing birds wanting to upgrade and money. Lots of money. Science satellites: While reproducing experiments is important, I can't see mass produced science satellites. Spy satellites: LOL. I'm sure the NRO wants to have their black budgets in that kind of high-visibility scheme. I'm sure they are equally eager to let other nations have access to similar toys and won't get between the builder and previous customers. science probes [taken to LEO and provides its own booster]: I *thought* NASA considered a single-digit group of similar probes that would visit a bunch of planets/asteroids/comets. I don't think they ever got produced, or at least without heavy customization. Asteroid mining: I wish. Probably even more LOL than spy satellites, but maybe less so in a few decades.