wumpus

I re-started for 1.0.x (probably missed 1.0.0 and 1.0.1) and noticed that the basic chute had already been horribly nerfed. Have you changed the height that the chute opens? In 1.0.2 it wouldn't open until far too late for anything past the absolute minimum. Slide it over a bit and you might live with a can o'boom. Haven't checked with 1.0.3

Go for it. I thought GOG was only something like 25% off ($30?). $9 would be *very* cheap for the US, but other areas have different pricing.

Change the title [at least for now]! It is 25% off.

A few other issues: "lander cans" vs. "command chair, fuel, engine. Pros [lander can] You can store science in a lander. You can also do a crew report in a lander. Pros [command chair]: .2T per Kerbal does wonders to your delta-v. Put two chairs symetrically across the fuel tank. Let Jeb do the flying [no SAS module needed], Bob do the science ]land multiple places and reset the science]. You will still be able to bring back two sets of science (less the crew report) [in Jeb and Bob's hands, er arms.] and send more reports from different biomes with an antenna (with the materials bay, mystery goo, [and, I think] eva reports and soil samples [the biggest return]. Also remember that the *real* issue is Direct Ascent vs. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. Even if there is no reason to build separate landers (you haven't unlocked command chairs or are avoiding them for a different reason), you can still gain from Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. Just leave a fuel tank with a docking port in orbit and refuel with it for the journey home. Cons: You need the lander tech tree item plus another 90 point item for the clamp-o-tron jr. You might also need an upgraded building somewhere to transfer fuel.

Definitely grab the demo (and the old ~.25 one if possible. I think it might have included a few more things). Also wait for flash savings, the rule is never buy something that will be on sale to the end unless it is already 75% off (and even then you should wait until at least the end in case it winds up in a nice bundle). Another point: according to internet chatter, the steam FAQ on refunds claims that asking for a [standard] refund is fine to get a better sale (I'd read the official document before trying this). This might help if it comes up in the "curtain call" sales.

Anyone see the latest [posted] Scott Manley video? It shows Stuart Manley (Scott's brother) and his job cutting thin pieces of metal with a laser. The OnTopic part of this is that Stuart routinely refers to all measurements in "thous" (presumably what are typically called "mills" in the US, meaning one-thousandth of an inch. Presumably "mils" is confused for something else in Scotland). I would assume that pretty much any customer building PCBs in the US (or most other US customers for that matter) will be sending gerber plots measured in mils. Quite possibly all his software controls is based in mils as well. Personally, I am glad that mils are typically the only imperial measurement an electrical engineer is expected to work with (and they rarely need to interact with metric electrical measurements). I'd hate to have to deal with 18 3/4 Edisons to the Franklin every day. I will point out that I had less issues converting everything to metric than most of my classmates in US engineering school, thanks to a high school chemistry teacher who mainly concentrated on the factor label method (google hits it right away). Considering that other 10th grade chemistry topics were (I assume still are) the octect rule and the ideal gas equation (both nearly worthless* in real life), this seems like a great idea. * worthless in "will not give sufficiently accurate results" (although I think NASA can use the ideal gas equation to model ISS drag. Get the atoms far enough apart and they act "ideal"), not "who needs science anyway".

[mshnrmoe is quoting my suggestion to use SRBs in a second stage] It looks like I spoke to late, I'm definitely noticing that most of my old SRB tricks have been nerfed to death. I still use the "kicker" (biggest stock) SRB tied to the sides of a liquid-fueled main stage, but forget about lighting anything after liftoff. Even using smaller (you would think the new "flea" parts would be ideal for this) cans-o-boom for initial acceleration usually can be replaced with a kicker for better cost-effectiveness (especially if you already have one set there and paid for the separator. The kicker ISP (atmospheric) is 170 (the other SRBs are worse, although I think the Rokomax BACC is slightly buffed relative to the other SRBs in 1.0.2). Shuttle SRBs have an ISP of 230. Do you think we can have a buff here? The new atmosphere (I don't think the ISPs changed) seems to have knocked the SRBs out of tune a it too much. A (somewhat) rich array of SRB tricks in KSP are no more due to the nerfing, and KSP is losing options (although not having everything outside of a gravity well be either LV-N or 48-7s is a plus).

The Rosetta probe was going to a comet. Not remotely helpful for using the moon's (or mun's) gravity to get to the moon. The "obvious" ways are to go retrograde and capture/circularize at a low periapsis. It may be possible to find a means that involves a mun flyby that kicks your orbit into something that more closely matches the mun's orbit. This may take a bunch of encounters and careful planning of burns during Mun encounters (to set up the next encounter). Ideally you will end up with a process that looks like a [ship to ship] rendezvous encounter (only at munar orbits and seriously slow). Get close enough and you should be almost to a gravity capture (no idea if a true gravity capture is possible with KSP's two-body gravity hack, but it shouldn't take much of a burn at all). Also don't be surprised if this requires going to Minmus and using it to slow down (maybe a few times). Note that this probably doesn't come close to real interplanetary transfer network methods (supposedly you can get to the moon in a couple of years on the cheap) due to KSP's two-body hack. I really can't recommend this method. If you have KSP set to extremely hard, try it in sandbox to find if it is possible. Otherwise just add moar boosters and get the delta-v needed for a conventional capture (and just tighten up all your maneuvers).

Are you seriously suggesting the use of furlongs/fortnight is an advantage? Quick, which weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? And why should there be a difference? [hint: there is one. There is only a difference between 2 1kg weights if they are in a different gravitational field.] Thomas Jefferson *told* us back in the day to get with the metric program. But did we listen?

"A large reusable multi-purpose orbiter" this should tip you off as a problem: large (aka massive) is everything you don't want in a reusable orbiter. The shuttle was designed to bring back a keyhole (presumably something Hubble-sized, thus the size of the cargo bay) back from polar orbit. Without that, it could simply use fairings like everything else and not need to bring up the heavy cargo bay (+ heatshield and everything else it cost) every time. Having the main engines in the orbiter was another major weakness, one that every other multi-staged vehicle avoids (unless you are using the "works in KSP" defence due to the deletion system). Older shuttle designs tend you use lower and upper "spaceplanes". This seems to be the difference SpaceX grabbed hold of, 90% of their rocket motors barely touch space and don't have to deal with full re-entry (and they aren't bothering with the other 10%). As far as tossing the fuel tank, that seems to be a no-brainer. Unless you have a multi-stage rocket (and you should), that fuel tank is way to big to bring down. Just imagine trying to replace all the tiles on both the shuttle and the fuel tank (and carry all those tiles up as well). As far as wings: I'm surprised that SpaceX doesn't use them. I wouldn't suggest shuttle sized wings, more like shrunken X-15 with barely a 1:1 glide ratio. Someone pointed out that such wings were originally designed for the shuttle and they had to switch due to hypersonic issues, so I suspect that they've moved past nearly all the low-lying fruit (such as parachutes). PS: In KSP, using a delta-deluxe winglet works great for bringing home a rocket with a couple of orange tanks and a mainsale. You will also need tailfins (or better yet, vertical stabalizers and airbrakes) as well (the cheap stuff has a <1000C temp range, so don't expect to use them).

Isn't the answer to this thred "absolutely nothing"? Congress isn't spending money on SLS to get anything in space. Congress is spending money on SLS to keep the pork from the Shuttle going. The whole point of using shuttle parts isn't "cost saving" but "cost prolonging". Since it is more politically painful to lose money you have been getting for thirty years than to miss money you never had, SLS always goes for shuttle parts without looking at costs. SLS plans a single launch in the "near future". It basically lets them prove some progress, then lets them keep the gravy train going for plenty of more years (on government schedules, so expect ever more prolongation). An explosion would be bad in the sense that the worst thing you can do in government is to embarass your bosses, but with an unmanned craft most of the danger is gone.

First: Kerbin->LKO takes roughly four times the delta-V of LKO->LMO. Make sure your ascent rocket and gravity turn are as efficient as possible. Second: I'm pretty sure Khazar has most of it, although I suspect I've easily spent more than 250-450 m/s each time I've tried a retrograde munar orbit. A few more pointers: To fine tune your munar encounter select "focus view" on the Mun. This will let you see where periapsis is. You want to get it as low as possible as soon as possible. Depending on the adjustments, they should be either right after your initial burn (prograde/retrograde) or halfway to the mun (inclination changes and lowering periapsis via those blue circles). If your periapsis isn't quite where you want it (i.e. you can go lower and expect to live), just burn enough at periapsis to get an orbit at all. [edit: If your docking skills are up to it and you have unlocked the command chair, switch to your lander (I'm pretty sure no other module is worth it, but if you can live without F5 I *think* you can stay on just a ladder: there may be other penaties as well (I gave up on it).]. Then adjust your periapsis at apoapsis, and back to periapsis to circularize (according to Obereth, circularizing at periapsis is optimal, but once you get apoapsis below 100k I doubt it makes much difference. At this point you are mostly concerned about finding a landing space). To optimize descent, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124760-How-to-time-suicide-burns (especially redironcrown's nifty use of manuever nodes. Or just look at kerbal engineer). To optimize acsent, I'm pretty sure an amazingly fast gravity turn is in order. I tend to turn 45 degrees as fast as my craft can turn, and look to be 90 degrees within a few thousand meters. Not sure what is optimal. Once you've circularized around Mun, set a manuever node that intersects with the trailing side of Mun's orbit (you will have to zoom out to see it, but it takes a few seconds to fade once you zoom back in). Optimal burn is very close to just barely escape velocity (I give it a touch more while watching periapsis get closer to Kerbin, but I'm not sure that is best. Also actual burn time might be slightly different than on the orbit, but it will be very close). Wait nearly a full orbit to apoapsis and bring periapsis to just under 30,000m (depending on how much you trust your heat shield) [if you have any spare fuel at all, going the extra orbit is likely a silly habit of mine]. Beyond that, I don't think there is anything you can to optimize a trans munar injection (ignoring capture). For a "flyby the mun" mission, any burn that leaves apoapsis just inside the mun's SOI is going to be optimal. The only tricks come in reducing capture/landing costs. You could wait to intersect the Mun at [its own] periapsis, but I think it's pretty circular. The trick with Minmus is to wait till it is above (or opposite) KSC and then launch in its inclination.

With 1.0.1 following the next day quickly followed by 1.0.2, I'm not so sure about the "glorious success". Maybe "success after hitting the big revert to launch button a couple of times". In fact, I think that would be a great stealth-update of the video: Include the explosion, have gene hit the button [twice], followed by glorious success.

If you brought them back to Kerbin (or even hit the Mun too hard), you can easily kill kerbals in the hitchhiker container. Use landing legs and plenty of parachutes (and/or retro rockets).

I'd say the engines are balanced. If anything needs the nerf-bat, it is the airbrakes (try using them during re-entry).Has anybody had success sticking fins on the LV-N in 1.0.2? That is supposed to be the answer, but I couldn't get them to stick to my last LV-N powered rocket.I hope SRBs haven't been nerfed too hard since .90. As long as the rules are: "go [practically] into orbit or don't get recovered", I tend to use a lot of SRBs for early stages.

WARNING: If you do this, your focus orb gets rotated around with your controls. I tried this and crashed a lot, then gave up and used a straight capsule. Note that the new-fangled "scampering kerbals" make getting back into the cockpit much easier.My recommendation would be to run a quick grind once you have the following:basic aircraft (for the wheels and engine)soil samples (upgrade science building to level 2): soil samples return the highest science of any experimentSC9000jr (probably the next biggest return)- the thermometer should be available right around there (maybe after a quick "science dance" on the runway).- the barometer is further down the tech tree. If it matters, try adding up the science gained and then "recover vessel" and adding it. Don't expect much more science, and you probably have higher priority unlocks instead.[apparently leveling Bill by sending him to orbit has no effect].The grind is long and boring (that "science dance" gets old fast, and a land jet is clumsy). You do get a lot of science, and a lot of it when the contracts seem to involve testing gear at silly altitudes/speeds. It lets you move on to the Mun fast, probably much faster than doing it via missions.

Even this isn't always true. As long as the next stage/payload is reasonably big, you won't see the Isp hit of the SRB. My preferred "basic lob a kerbal to orbit" 0.90 was a couple of stages of RT-10s with a high efficiency 48-7s or LV-909 as a third stage. This stayed well under the 18T limit and could even be launched with explosive staging to save the roots on the extra separator. I don't think I've used a third stage of SRBs, though (unless trying to build an all-SRB rocket, or other experiments).In the early game it is hard to beat an extra [explosively staged] stage or RT-10s for cost. Not sure how this works in 1.02's atmosphere (kerbal engineer isn't working for me).

1. Space "contracting". Depends if you are asking about special or general relativity. In special relativity, space only contracts from the point of view of an observer moving at relativistic speeds. The general theory explains why the planet Mecury measurably processes (the Aposis and Perapsis rotate around the Sun). The gravitational field of the Sun is contracting space enough around it enough that the circumferous around the Sun near Mercury divided by its diameter isn't pi. 2. It just is (or as Newton would say, "I fain no hypothesis"). Relativity tends to hang on the idea that C is somehow the definition of time, and that this is fundamental to the universe. Einstein appeared to believe that since the the speed of light could be derived from the Maxwell Equations without requring a reference state, so should C. Michealson and Morely essentially answerd an old [but a hundred years after M&M] Steven Wright joke "if you are going the speed of light and turned your headlight on, what would happen" to point out that no matter how fast you go (it would take Einstein to show that accelerating an object with mass to C was impossible), you always measure light moving at C with respect to you (by experimental result. They did the obvious check of measuring the speed of light in two seperate directions and got *zero* movement, when the Earth was "obviously" moving much faster just going around the Sun. 3. They aren't. Entropy doesn't change with distance. 4. I don't get this one at all. PS: Special reletivity (that doesn't bother with gravity and accleration) is wildly easier and requires only algebra. Bringing gravity into the mix requires general relativity and is beyond my pay grade. I still suspect the question doesn't make sense. edit: I remember reading a book by Albert Einstein himself called: "Relativity, an easy explanation anyone can understand". I'm almost sure it existed, but Amazon isn't helpful. It did explain Special relativity down to Jr. High level (but probably included some algebra), but had to handwave really hard on the general side of things (it didn't go into tensor calculus).

I think pi is wildly overated compared to e (Euler's number). Unfortunately, you can only celebrate e to two digits (Feb 7) instead of three (March 14). Other problems include: No obvious tasty desert: cake only works in comparison to pi (which isn't that bad considering Euler's identity). No reason to eat half a pie: Since pi is half a circle, it stands to reason that the obvious size of your slice of pie is half of the whole thing. Nothing similar for e.

Only the terminally geeky read Playboy in those days (although many on this fora might qualify). This made it a favorite of writers: Playboy paid top dollar for top writing. And since nobody read it, you could sell it again to a more widely "read" audience. I can't see Hustler publishing it, as far as I know they were pretty juvenile and concerned with pictures of purely gynecological interest. Other competitors (Penthouse comes to mind, they occasionally published things worth reading. Playboy always did) could have done it. I'm a bit too old to remember much Shuttle bashing in current media (I saw the first launch/landing in elementary school). I do remember it being slammed by SF writers in books (RAH especially), although I think it was mostly after the program was done (attacking it too early was seen as a great way to have *no* human space program). As far as the "right" way to design a shuttle. KSP has help confirm my suspicion that the ability to return cargo to Earth was fantastically expensive for the shuttle. Placing the cargo ahead of the cockpit might have political issues (especially considering those paying the bills have zero knowledge of actual design issues), but would wildly cut down on the mass needed on the orbiter (and thus the return flight) [see here:http://xkcd.com/1461/]. SpaceX has pretty much confirmed that the earlier "two-stage" spaceplane would be wildly better (assuming a rocket powered first stage that would get up to at least mach 6 or so. Forget about jets.), although there is no real reason to believe that engine rebuilding would be all that much faster (although no serious re-entry on the main engines is a big reason why SpaceX is confident about engine reuse). - - - Updated - - - Getting back to the original point of the thread, there is supposed to be some sort of VASMIR ion engine added to the ISS. It looks like a load of vapor to me (the company that makes it, Ad Astra, is still asking for money to design it), but that looks like the only real hope of boosting the ISS to some sort of graveyard orbit. Presumably the VASMIR would be able to get it (eventually) to somewhere like lunar orbit or L3, where being turned into space debris would be less likely and less dangerous if it eventually happened.

A better question would be nitromethane vs. [other] hypergolics. I remember reading that if there was a way hydrazine could be dangerous, it was (flammable, explosive, toxic, caustic, mutagenic, etc.). I assume that it has less Isp than those already used/in use, but might be something to consider.

Again, orbital velocity is the key. Even without the atmosphere, a rocket will still burn half of its mass just to get to mach ~3 (assuming typical rocket fuels). And then half again to get to mach ~6.Orbital Sciences Corp launches the Pegasus. This rocket launches from a airplane (and has been launching since the 90s). Typically, the smaller the rocket the higher the gains for avoiding the atmosphere are, but don't expect more air launched vehicles. I suspect that Orbital customers are more interested in that it is easier to launch closer to the equator (and thus avoid inclination changes). Remember K[erbal]SC is on the equator. K[ennedy]SC is not even tropical. Getting an equatorial (or on the solar elliptic) orbit can be expensive.Play the game some more (especially with more realistic aerodynamics) and all will be clear.

In 1989 I had just started a job in college "unix first aider", basically someone who babysits the computer lab and helps out with the easier problems. The computers were Sun workstations (3/50s and 3/60s, probably less powerful hardware (except the monitors) than most PCs, but with an OS roughly more advanced than XP) and really, really, cool (especially to someone previously used to 8 bit machines). Then I realized that the thing was connected to roughly every other unix-powered (more or less) computer in the world. Then USENET (webforums are a pale shadow of USENET. Client-based discussion FTW). At some point I remembered I read a WarGames parody/fanfic involving the arpanet and simply assumed that the arpanet described was fiction. Now I had access to said network after nearly a decade of development. It was awesome.

Huh? Terminal velocity is the speed an object reaches when it is subjected to 1g (typically by freefall) in the atmosphere. When you fire off a rocket straight up with a TWR of 2.0, you lose 1g to gravity and accelerate at 1.0g. It isn't that far off to say that terminal velocity is defined by a TWR of 2. This will cause you to asymptotically approach terminal velocity. If you have a TWR>2 you will actually hit terminal velocity, but will need to throttle down a bit once you hit it to conserve fuel (assuming you have the liquid rockets to throttle). The only magic here is having terminal velocity be the path of least resistance. One thing I haven't seen mentioned much is that KER will give you two numbers (per stage) for TWR. When using SRBs, I've found that a TWR closer to 1.8 works better (in stock, .90 and before) as it lets the rocket last longer in "the sweet spot" of ~100% atmospheric efficiency. For single-liquid stage + SRBs, I often find it hard to keep the throttle near 100% (a better explanation is that price-effective configurations don't always get close to 100% atmospheric efficiency. Don't sweat it too much.) Quick question: from memory, gravity at LEO is something like .95g. Is gravity at KEO similar? Judging from the wierd density Kerwin has I would say not, but the size of the atmosphere might be scaled to make it so.

Mass ratios sounds like it comes down to staging. Of course, I'd assume that the first stage (the balloon) is pretty fixed. And if ignition is one of the bigger problems, each stage just multiplies that (unless you are using some sort of self-staging model rockets).