Mad Rocket Scientist

As you can see, the fuel tanks can't move the tilters properly. It might work with heavier marbles of a different tilter design. Have you considered a hybrid system where engines push rockers back and forth?

I've previously tried to make an adder like this in KSP: But I couldn't get the parts to tilt properly.

So it seems like the Oberth effect would come into play somewhat in this situation. Although it's not the main reason orbits are more efficient than going straight up, orbits get you going sideways (and thus faster) sooner, providing a small compounding bonus relative to going straight up thanks to the Oberth effect.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

OBS studio to capture video, Camera Tools (I think it's currently a part of BD armory continued) for better in game camera controls, and a time control mod to make KSP run with smooth framerates at low simspeeds. Or

I recall BDA having a bomb impact prediction marker. But I remember it only showing up when a bomb was selected as the active weapon.

To echo @Snark, when I wanted to do calculations on interplanetary transfers for my blog, I just used the the vis-visa equation. http://www.deltav.xyz/2017/07/alternate-its-missions-part-3.html I really should update that post with nicely formatted math.

8/10, 8 dots.

These are both great explanations, thanks. I was thinking it somehow increased the amount of Delta-V you got from the same mass of propellant.

Solving 2 + 2 = 4 for 2, we get 2 = 2 or 0 = 0. Please don't leave unsimplified equations lying around, someone might get hurt.

IIRC, everything Cupcake makes is stock. It looks like Texture Replacer Replaced was used to remove the EVA suit helmets. But the zodiac is made out of either a wing panel or a rovemate, with radial ore containers as the inflatable walls, two ant engines for exhaust effects, and some other rocket engine for propulsion. infinite fuel is almost certainly used.

Prop flow remains constant, but Isp varies with pressure. Ve varies with Isp. Thrust is Ve*prop flow, so thrust also decreases.

If you want to build your own rocket, there are quite a few safety concerns. I'm not an expert (never built a liquid engine, but researched it since I want to), but this is the safety basics: Don't use frangible materials (such as steel) for your chamber. Copper is good. Treat the firing engine like a grenade. Don't let anything that you don't want hit by shrapnel be within line of sight of the engine. Especially not humans. Protect your fuel + oxidizer tanks with a metal plate. Stay far away and behind an earth berm or shrapnel proof shield while firing it. Observe the test fire with a mirror or remote cameras. Make sure there's nothing flammable nearby, and probably check with the fire department. Make sure there's no way someone not part of the project could get anywhere near the test firing. Use airhorns, etc. Don't take this as any kind of comprehensive list, there are many more ways untested high pressure devices can injure or kill you.

2+2 approaches 4 with increasing precision of calculation. You won't need to worry about that until calculus, in the meanwhile just graphically approximate.

IIRC, there's an ingame button to unlock them early. Module design is probably the best part of the game (there's no staging, launches to orbit, docking, landings, freeplay, or even quicksaves) but if KSP tosses you into the deep end with only a pool noodle, COADE teleports you into the Mariana Trench with a link to wikipedia and a note saying that submarine design can be trivially derived from basic physical equations.

Thanks for catching that. I can't write at the end of school days and I'm too lazy to proofread. EDIT: I probably made a markup vs. margin mistake too. Oh well.

I like to make models sometimes. I'm not great at it, and tend to work on them on and off, but I've made a decent number of them. These are the ones that came out the best. They're really dusty. And a bunch of wheels fell off when I picked them up to take photos. I made this quite a while ago: This is a bit more recent: It's a Mini Cooper kitbashed with a Jeep Wrangler. With a Hemi.

I've always understood "IMHO" to be a politer variant of "IMO," whatever the H stands for. And I pronounce gif with the "g" of "graphics." But that's entirely because my family pronounces it that way.

If you go there, make sure to look at the museum tucked away behind the operation center. It is much more dense with artifacts than the KSC, even if they're less important. They have an early atlas engine (can't remember if it was the booster or sustainer) in very good condition (not covered in 500 layers of paint) you can basically touch.

It's definitely true that Elon Musk likes to make a show and use popularity to his and his companies' advantage. But I don't really buy the idea that his celebrity status and success of his companies is entirely because of public relations expertise. Of course there's really no way to know.

The Oberth effect may come into play to some degree here too. But the Oberth effect might as well be black magic to me, so I'm not sure.

It's not worth it since Isp scales with altitude, not just thrust. i.e. a NERV burns as much fuel ASL as in vacuum, and only produces 0.3x the thrust. The Vector has the best ASL Isp, with the aerospike a close second. The best option would to make a electric propeller if you're not worried about speed.

Scott Manley just made a video on this company: Also, 5 first stage engines? Don't they know that all newspace smallsat launchers have to use 9 first stage engines?

I think it's a little unfair to say that people consider him as the sole and ultimate creator of space exploration, most people I've heard (either in person or on the internet) either are like "SpaceX, they're the ones landing rockets right?" or "What SpaceX has done considering how much money and time they had is absolutely amazing," and generally attribute much of that success to Elon Musk. I don't think anyone would suggest that whoever put the money into SpaceX was who made it successful, even if its success relies on that money. IMHO, the most impressive thing Elon Musk has done is starting SpaceX and Tesla. There are plenty of good ways to make rockets or electric cars, although you'd probably see a lot of convergent evolution. The thing is that Elon Musk was willing to risk starting them, and just trying any way to make rockets or electric cars. Whether they will continue to succeed is in many ways beside the point: They've proven that you can make money with rockets and electric cars. I also appreciate that those companies were, I believe, not just started to make money for Elon Musk.

I just tested it by doing that with your post.