DDE

So, take two. It still veers to the left, but at this point I'm convinced it's a feature of the Dessert Runway. I do have a new problem, though: it just doesn't fly. Even at 70 m/s I can't get the two main wheels off the runway! I've already drained fuel until it's back at 6 t, no effect.

Also, separately, I believe I started off on the wrong foot. The Pitchperfect setting I used ties throttle to blade angle. What if I switched it to the setting that maximizes thrust at all times, and went back to managing RPM and perhaps torque?

@KerikBalm, yeah the ducted fan blades should basically result in an unducted propfan a la Progress D-70.

The latter. Otherwise I would've probably shared the craft )

First craft in years, so naturally I had to try to master the "simple" art of single-engine turboprops before moving on to rockets. This thing can fly. I've got Pitchperfect autoadjusting blade angle. Front tanks are B9-switched to LF only, rear tank is half-full to make it at least bounce pack off its rear end when it loads. Problems: I've still got no idea about optimizing torque and RPM; While I was fully prepared for some degree of induced roll, there's quite a bit of it. Overall, SAS can't handle it at all, and vigorous manual corrections are required to keep it steady (MechJeb 2, though, can). NOTICE ME SENPAIS!!1!

Quite unlikely.

To be fair, there's been a lot of misinterpretations. Both sides of the Cold War suspected the other had subs that go below 400 m out to 1000 m. The only boat actually confirmed to have done so caught fire and sunk.

Quite low, actually, knowing the history of narcosubmarines. The narcosubs of today can't even submerge fully. Meanwhile, 2000 had this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/16/latest-giant-narco-submarine-discovery-reminds-us-of-the-greatest-ever/?sh=4044c2bd3a71 And the guy isn't kidding about Soviet/Russian design influences - double hull (i.e. more complex and expensive than single-hulled boats typically used by NATO), low-mounted propeller, all instantly recognizable. So they actually became cheaper and shoddier over time.

They do. http://www.hisutton.com/Narco-Aircraft-101.html

Now this is pod racing.

I'm mildly miffed. The description of 3.14 on this forum doesn't mention Harmony, whereas the one on SpaceDock for 3.13 does. I had to step on a rake to find out about this dependency...

Hm. Small packages with soft-landing capability, IRBM range? In terms of tech and size this sounds like North Korea from a few years back. They generally spent a lot of time scaling up the basic design of the SCUD with its nitric acid oxidizer.

I'm napping the ground! You're napping the ground! Everyone's napping the ground! (to prevent any misunderstandings, this is several years old) Edit: @Lisias your incident is just as much in the clear - it's from August 2020. Because I recognize the blurred TSN logo, here's your original video

A bit of a soul-searching topic. Years ago I had for some reason always insisted on removing city lights from EVE configs. The contrast between clearly visible city grids at night and the complete desolation during daytime led to dissonance.

Just dropping by to say "thank you".

It's ridiculously over the top. This makes it an effective meme for wowing the outsiders and signalling your belonging to the space/hard SF geek club.

I don't think it becomes a spherical cow in a vacuum - it's worse than that. Max speed would in large part be deiven by power density (governed by cooling, thus largely determined by the density of the medium) and the efficiency of the locomotion system that turns that power into movement. With the exceptions suggested, underwater travel becomes easiest due to the availability of coolant and the ease of converting shaft rotation to forward motion. Which is, of course, complete nonsense.

Keep in mind that the nukes used in Project Orion were shaped charges and were to be detonated at a fairly high altitude. It would actually be relatively easy to survive blasts from those unless you're in the cone... where Orion would already be. Anti-nuclear hardening of rockets is a known quantity. Part of specifications for the R-36 was launching through a series of repeated nuclear blasts over their silo farms.

I think there might be mild issues with collecting such a traffic packet.

I think there was a recent movie about the dangers of provoking the Moon...

I'll just leave this here To quote VatFor,

There was also at least one version involving a truck-based TEL moving either in a trench with overhead camouflage, or a shallow tunnel with spread-out firing position. An area the size of a national park would have to be riddled with such tunnels. This was seemingly matched by the Soviet/Russian Skif project, although by now there's controversy whether it existed or was just misperception or disinfo around the Poseideon torpedo. Continuing from there, I believe the Soviets had ideas about hiding SSBs in Lake Baikal and even the Kaspian, and the US considered the Great Lakes.

* Elona Ultimately, yes, he's definitely using the full power of celebrity worship to his benefit. And this provokes a bit of a gag reflex in the celebrity-averse. Either way, I don't think it's wise to trade witticisms with those in possession of both kinetic and non-kinetic ASATs. Whether space infrastructure supporting combat operations is a legitimate military target is still an open question, and The Times have been inconsiderate enough to publish a graphic of Starlink being used as a tactical military datalink, likely feeding off said celebrity cult. Fist-pumping and calls for an immediate inducement of Kessler syndrome by the anti-Musketeers ensued.

Interesting remarks from Roscosmos press secretary. They talk as if the only obstacle for retrieving Kazachok is the disruption of air transport. Also, they admit that the module's systems will be too aged to use it in the next attempted launch campaign. https://ria.ru/20220323/mars-1779550453.html

Baron von Ungern has entered the chat