KerbonautInTraining

I wonder what those little silver things are at the top of the shock absorbers?

@ap0rAh. When I saw "torch" I assumed it was something like this:

Drag is well above 1 G just before the landing burn, so I imagine that helps quite a bit.

They would have done it on previous Skylab missions but they had no idea if the docking port could handle the thrust. They designed it to push the relatively light lunar module when the command module was stuffed full of fuel, not a giant space station when the CSM was nearly empty. (I'm not saying this was the only reason, just adding on to what others have said)

We're all still running RO on 1.0.5

Only problem is you'd be lucky to get a 3mm spark out of a piezo lighter, depending on what it came out of. Why not use a torch? You could mount it below the nozzle so it shoots flame up into the plume of unlit fuel. You'd have to shut it off remotely, but it may be useful for preventing build up of unburned gas. (Like the "sparklers" did on the shuttle)

Yeah, that's efficiency for ya. The upper stage is only for pushing stuff out to the Moon or further. If you want to put stuff in LEO just slap the payload straight on top of the core. When using the upper stage you have to use the core stage to push your apoapsis some 3 minutes away just before burnout. Don't worry if you end up in a high orbit, that's normal. As for payload capacity you'd have to ask NASA, or better yet, @maccollo.

I was referring to PC/phone based calculators.

Probably not. I'd be surprised if you could even feel it, as far as temperature and mass expulsion go. Remember, in the case of Dawn there's only 30 millinewtons of thrust being produced. Combine that with the massive specific impulse and there's essentially nothing hitting your hand. However, the engine is consuming many kilowatts of power and if more than a few percent of that makes it to your skin you'll definitely feel it [Break] Why are most calculators limited to 8-10 digits? Would it be possible for an application to calculate irrational numbers to, say, 100 digits? I'm pretty sure any modern CPU could do it without breaking a sweat. Is it just a matter of brute forcing it or are there complications involving 32/64bit architecture?

Nah that's an old bug. It happens when the camera mode changes, which happens when you change it manually or transition between suborbital/orbital/escape orbits. Also, no devnotes?

Sorry for the thread revival but I recently discovered how (seemingly) close we are to fusion energy. Like, before now I assumed that we haven't managed fusion on earth at all. So, a few questions. The reactors we have now, what's stopping them from producing power? Are they not efficient enough? Or is it like scientific fission reactors where the energy just isn't harvested? Also how would we go about extracting energy in our first fusion power stations? Running coolant through the walls and using heat radiated from the plasma? [Fusion hype intensifies]

Two radial symmetry'd moving solar panels. Think about it. It's absolutely perfect because there's only one orientation where they won't produce power. 100% output can be achieved by rolling no matter where your nose is pointed. Whenever I use SRB's I never use sepatrons. I always put two angled basic fins about 1/4 down the boosters length. It works with every size, although it can be a bit iffy on kickbacks. Whenever I radially attach a 1.25m tank to another tank I always use the type B (slanted) nose cone, especially when they're being attached to a 2.5m core.

IIRC the general consensus was they'd feed 6 of the core's engines with crossfeed.

@PB666 He was using Real Solar System with realistic Isp/mass values. A TWR of 1.1 when you're already going at least 1500 m/s is perfectly fine. The current Falcon 9 upper stage has a starting TWR of ~0.6 and starts at ~2000 m/s. Not to mention it spends much more time at those lower TWR's.

On an early version of the F9 a corner engine died, it continued flying straight and true. My guess is that engine failure = no stage recovery. (You don't know the extent of the damage) The fuel reserve for boostback/landing would far exceed the increased gravity losses.

Depending how long your takeoff takes I'd be surprised if you managed a TWR of 0.1

That's the stick I was planning on using, so glad it works properly now Are you sure the inputs aren't interfering with SAS? Try opening the mad catz software and softening the curves.

The devnotes mentioned fixed HOTAS implementation, is that a thing in this patch?

For launching rockets? Detach. For general space flight I really like Stellardrone. I love all of the songs in the link, but here's another so you don't have to leave the forums:

Now that's something I can sink my teeth into.

"Would you kids lighten up?"

Oh... yeah I didn't see that either... [we're reaching levels of stupidity that shouldn't even be possible]

Oh. I read the first few pages and didn't bother to check for a changelog... oop.

Oh. My. Goodness. I'm currently burned out in KSP but when this updates to 1.1... you can bet I'll jump on it as soon as I can. I thought there was gonna be a long list of "X code was taken from Y mod" at the end of the OP but no, you did it all yourself! Absolutely stunning work!

Sorry to be pessimistic but this isn't hugely useful most of the time because you can transmit crew reports for 100% science. I imagine it would come in handy if you forget an antenna or have limited power reserves.