Hotel26

I've done similar in the past and I've simply used the standard Drawing app in Linux. I think it's very similar to Paint3D. So, I can help you with doctoring an image, yeah.

"Full speed ahead in 2025!" is going to provide much excitement. That is great. In my personal view (as a space dilettante, not quite afficionado), I'd say the big technological milestones I look forward to would be a) orbital refueling and b) developments in robotics. Keys to progress. Having said that, achievement milestones, such as establishing a permanent presence on the Moon, might just happen within my lifetime. I hope so! [Just a perspective.]

v = at and s = at2 / 2 and both are linear with a (acceleration) and lunar a is 1/6th of earth. So a 40' fall on the Moon would be equivalent to about 6' earth. (Just a guess: I never double-check my work.)

It's an interesting comparison to try to make. Firstly, IFT-5 was a coaster ride for an hour or so. Spectacular and gripping. Highly climactic. The achievement technologically was powerful, particularly because there was a load of incredulity to overcome, which is normal when something brand new and so thoroughly audacious is being attempted. It has implications for progress and advancement in the future, for those who understand those implications, but the sensational appeal of IFT-5 is directly, visually accessible to a whole world audience. As a contender for second to Apollo 11, I cannot think of another worthy. Maybe Juno comes to mind as a further-off third (but that's only me). Apollo 11 took place slowly, painstakingly, step-by-step over a number of days in a quite tranquil fashion, but with the whole world watching, in suspense. A number of days or the better part of a decade if you started the clock with JFK's challenge speech. NASA had the planet and a good part of humanity captivated. The experience was communal, shared amongst all peoples as an inspiration to mankind, but nevertheless a glowing testament to the American "can-do" spirit that truly existed at that time. This last part -- that "can-do" spirit -- is wholly embodied in the SpaceX culture today, but sadly I say no longer in the American population. Perhaps SpaceX, amongst other future accomplishments, may reignite that spirit, in America or elsewhere. Nevertheless, this is one aspect positively in common between the two missions, then and now. I was 14 then and there is a sense of Apollo 11 that may be lost now, or certainly not so obvious, the one that stood out then for me and I think shared by all in 1969; and it was of this: from the very first evening in which homo sapiens sapiens looked at the night sky and wondered -- with the most obvious celestial body, useful and interesting, being our Moon, -- whether it would be possible for humans to voyage to that body and has concomitantly hoped and dreamed to be able to do so. In the field of aerospace, after Apollo 11 returned, it was clear that all time had been neatly cleaved in two: that before Apollo 11 and all that that follows after. "Standing on the shoulders of giants..."

+10, my man!

The Chris Bergin - NSF feed was a dud. I've switched VPN to North America, but have yet to see anything. (I'm looking at a SpaceX feed now which shows Starship at 201km altitude 18m into the flight. ) OK, so caught up now.

Unless it adopts its free-floating vapor form (GHG)...

I can only say that I am annoyed that Starship launches are not being conducted from equatorial regions. It doesn't make sense to me for reasons of a) physics!, b) economics (out-sourcing[1]), c) regulation and d) pollution. Musk is a smart guy and I am just waiting for him to figure this out. (What applies to the social-network-formerly-known-as-Twitter also applies to <fill in anything you really care about>.) People will object that the costs of relocating are prohibitive ('astronomical'); and yes, this is precisely the trap. Read the tea leaves. I want my IFT-5 launch and I want it NOW. [1] truthfully, I think there may be quite many dedicated, well-credentialled Americans who would not mind at all being offered the opportunity to live somewhere else with very much lower costs but still having a high-power career path with a cutting-edge company. Like SpaceX.

P.S. Whether one version or another takes 30s longer or not to get to orbit, is not really the issue either, I should state. One is going to burn more fuel getting to space and that may mean less fuel available once in orbit. That may make or break a desired destination (dV). And it may necessitate orbital refueling, which now gets into mission controller time & wages (i.e. your time) . I have payloads that are going to the Kerbin environment only and will operate there indefinitely, periodically refueling; in those cases, I care less about drag/efficiency on the way up. So, consider this also.

I think f12 opens the aerodynamics overlay and this might be the fastest way to bring home the drag penalty for nodes mismatched in size. Launch your rocket and use f12 to take a look where the significant drag is: maybe in your case it is not so bad. (Make your own conclusion.) Then, if you like, put a fairing around it and compare. In my case, I run KER and I have Acceleration displayed in the HUD. Probably too much effort to do this, but I'd be looking at it, comparing. An easier way is to do a couple of launches to orbit with and without a fairing and compare the time it takes to raise AP above 70km. That's an easy comparison. It's also the bottom line that will show which is worse for you: a little more weight or (a lot) more drag.

progress: there does seem to be a Toggle Hinge control on the G-12L available (only to the KAL-1000) and I'm hopeful now I can have a single button push that will raise/lower the hinges. I'm flying by the seat of my pants at the moment, but if a) success occurs, I'll outline the procedure better b) if I understand it that well. (Expect this post to be updated with that information; I won't be adding an extra post to this.)

Your question is an implication that some knowledge might better be forbidden. By which omniscient knowledge should this judgement be made?

I have the Target Angles of two G-12L Alligator Hinges linked to a KAL-1000 controller. Custom1 and Custom2 are set for Absolute Control and one for Normal Control and the other for Reverse Control. When I use incremental control, the keys progressively open or close the hinges as desired. Movement stops when you release the custom key. When I use absolute control, I am expecting (hoping) to be able to tap the key to get full opening or full closing under the control of the KAL-1000 controller. What happens is that the hinges both go to about 45 degrees (in the permissible range 0-90), as if the custom key inputs would be fighting each other (although neither depressed). If you hold one key down, movement in the desired direction is seen but only manages about 22.5 degrees. When the custom key is released, the hinges return to the median position (~45 degrees). Something simple is wrong. Please do tell what this might be.

It was dead at inception. (A small number of people knew that at the start, too, which simply means that it was 'knowable'.) Wrongthink[1]. I bought Factorio (thanks to @Bej Kermaninadvertently plugging it) The ('gaming') community there is probably just as bad a set of self-entitled children consumers (some of them complaining about the future expansion pack) as you can find but... I'm not interested in its forum anyway except for solving problems. (I posted once and got good response.) I am not and will never be done with KSP1 but I have had it forever with the KSP2 whining. Self-inflicted wound of unrealistic expectations and get over it or suffer mentally forever. (And I direct this to the whole "KSP2 crowd"; not anyone in particular who has posted here.) [1] video game junkies are serial fanatics : 50$ for 3-6 months -- so just move on and stop expecting sympathy.

Yes, any basic training on IP for engineers will cover not only patents but also Trade Secrets. It's a tool in the corporate toolbox. Nothing to see here.