More Boosters

[quote name='PB666']No, since most of the planet is iron the are no differentials. You would have to begin dumping large amounts of nuetrons into the core in hopes of converting them to iron, a very stable isotope, into something that undergoes fission, and then hope you can do that fast enough so that the entire core goes prompt critical. The problem is that there are few isotopes or fission pairs that combined energy is less than iron. It means you would have to add more energy in nuetrons than you would get out of that blast. Their is an easier way that does not require going to the core, just find a nuetron star and open a wormhole that points to the core and the nuetron star.[/QUOTE] You know something is not easy when an easier solution would be to open a wormhole between it an a neutron star that is light years away.

[quote name='Kryten']If there are valid reasons, then give them. This kind of mealy-mouthed vagueness is exactly what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] There is no economic gain to sending out a science mission. There are scientific gains. There is no envisionable economic gain to build a moon base, or a Mars mission or even a Mars base, but there are scientific gains. Yes, sure, you can do most things with rovers or probes and what have you, but there is still a lot to learn from boots on the ground. We're still at a time where it is commonly accepted that theory can only go so far and at some point, you need to get your hands dirty. Eventually we will have to expand beyond our planet, but there is a lot to be learned before that can be done. We still don't know how people would fare with 1g, and microgravity itself has shown itself to be troublesome. We still don't know a bunch of things I don't even know that we didn't know. I sincerely believe that we need people to go to these places and find out what it is like. "[COLOR=#333333]Requiring humans on a mission has nothing to do with science goals." itself is flat out wrong and I think it's time that you start clarifying your point and making your case. Just opposting makes for one sided discussion.[/COLOR]

Preferably fueled, is there a mod that does this?

[quote name='Kryten']Non sequitur. Requiring humans on a mission has nothing to do with science goals.[/QUOTE] It's not strictly about sending humans out on a mission, it's the ability to move large payloads within and without Earth's SoI. It's meaningless for me to talk about stuff like building bases on the Moon/Mars or orbital construction when there is clearly not enough interest in it, but there are valid reasons to do those things not dissimilar to why we send out science missions. The only difference is scope.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Y'all have tried the new Vector rocket engine, haven't you? It fits these bills really well.[/QUOTE] Apples and oranges. Radially attached with less Isp is the idea here.

[quote name='Algiark']Wow, what a thread this has become! It's a wonder anyone hasn't invoked Godwin's law and talked about how Nazis created the first physics simulation engine for their unfinished V3 rocket project :confused:[/QUOTE] V3, the Verteltungswaffe (retaliation weapon) 3 was not a rocket. It was a long cannon. If your claim about the first physics simulation engine is true, then it is probably about another rocket in the Aggregate series.

[quote name='Kryten']To do what? And why?[/QUOTE] Similar reasons to why we send out scientific missions all across the solar system.

[quote name='Kryten']It's only a problem (leaving aside the problems with the specific shuttle we actually got) if you assume NASA's goal should be 'moon and beyond' stuff. At least 'reduced cost of access to space' is a clear defined goal, it's pretty hard to come up with clear reasons for missions to Mars et.c.[/QUOTE] Really? I see the opposite. "Moon and beyond" is a clear goal, "reduced cost of access to space" is a means to an end. I'm not saying NASA shouldn't do anything in Earth orbit like launching satellites and stuff; but they have contractors for that. I do think that anything "big" they themselves build should have more ambitious goals than a means to an end. Maybe trying to cut corners on Saturn or trying to make it partially recoverable would have been a better idea is what I am saying, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and the shuttle probably wasn't expected to cause as much trouble as it did.

Why not just mod in a proper looking carrier rather than parts you can't use for anything else? I mean it's not like you made an interior. Part count: 1

KR-1 "Boar" Liquid Fuel Engine Mass : 4 t Thrust : 1000kN Gimbal: 8 degrees Isp: 280-300 Radially attached.

I have one on the way to Dres right now; the propulsion bus had enough Delta-V to take it on a Dres intercept course from a failed Moho intercept course.:confused:

[quote name='Stone Blue'] Also, there is a strong sentiment in the US that space is just a waste of money... Publicly, space is a hard sell in the US...We pretty much shot ourselves in the foot when we ended the Apollo Lunar program...[/QUOTE] Not that much to be gained from repeatedly going to the Moon is there? I'd say a bigger problem arose when they replaced a moon and possibly beyond capable LV (Saturn V) with one that wasn't (the shuttle). I can't blame them though it's a frickin spaceplane! /s

Can someone check the imgur album I posted in my earlier post to see if I am doing it right? I do have a Tylo intercept already; well I will after I perform the burn there. The un shown Tylo periapsis is 93km and I'll lower it further later. And precise node lets you change the number of conic patches on the fly so if you get clutter you can just turn it down.

Install KJR, never used a strut since.

Why is the poll closed? There's still time yet, no? Or did you guys decide on a Phobos mission already? Oh well might as well visit the poor thing before it gets rekt.

[quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']But, if you make nanobots out of a planet, then you still have a planet, just one arranged into lots of nanobots. If you want to destroy a planet, look here: [URL]http://qntm.org/destroy[/URL][/QUOTE] It's not just energy that is left after matter/antimatter annihilation.

[quote name='SmartS=true']By thick I didn't mean a hydrogen envelope such as what the gas giants have, but an atmosphere of anywhere between a dozen and a few hundred bars.[/QUOTE] There is one way actually, but not like you would think. They wouldn't be dwarf planets, but they could be [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_dwarf"]gas dwarfs. They probably wouldn't form all the way out there however. [/URL][HR][/HR] Sorry for hijacking the thread OP but you'd probably find this interesting and I didn't want to create another thread, is there any chance that Mercury is a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonian_planet"]Chthonian[/URL] planet,that is, a planet that used to be a gas giant but lost all its stuff to the sun?

[quote name='Mastikator']You could do a powered gravity assist, and the highest peaks are something like 12km so you could do an even lower flyby for more effect.[/QUOTE] Would that be more effective than just getting in a low orbit around Jool and benefiting from the Oberth effect?

Maybe I am overestimating how accurately, if at all, we can locate the solar system's barycenter, but it occurred to me that, if we have a way to measure it other than just plugging the numbers with all the bodies we have, we might know how much mass in the solar system there is that we haven't accounted for. Am I making sense?

[quote name='Vanamonde']Is there enough chemical energy in the planet components to, when converted into self-destructing nanobots, overcome escape velocity and expel matter from the location of the planet? Because if not, you'll have a big boom and then all the mass will settle down into a ball again. Whether in the form of rock, bots, or debris, mass is mass and will exert the same intensity of gravity.[/QUOTE] But the debris isn't as uniform as the gas clouds that formed planets during accretion and there won't be enough central gravity to pull everything back together. What are you escaping from if you already unbound the planet? But yeah if the goo ate everything then it would just be a planet of goo. [quote name='Gaarst'] Also, interesting fact: the barycentre of Jupiter and the Sun is outside the "surface" of the Sun despite the mass difference between the two.[/QUOTE] Well, Jupiter is the most massive planet in the system. I'd find it more interesting if Saturn and pals had the same.

Well, with two small active radiators and a single NERVA, I did a 15 minute burn without overheating. When it ended the engine was at 2200 K I believe (KER), over the maximum allowed 2500. It was glowing red hot.

I wouldn't give anything out there a high chance of having a thick hydrogen atmosphere as most hydrogen in the system is likely to have collapsed into the accretion disk when our sun first formed, and those planets probably didn't form out there to begin with. You could argue that there's less challenge in holding on to hydrogen but then the thing itself is that much sparser.

[quote name='Wolfos31']To use Physics warp instead of time warp in space hold the Alt key while pressing < or >. I don't know what keybinding you'd have to use if you're on a Mac.[/QUOTE] Well, Alt's the modifier key and it's right shift on Linux. Will try.

[quote name='Empiro']It may take some time to properly get the trajectory set up. You need to do it early, and it may require you to speed up or slow down slightly. However, if you're passing within 9km of Tylo, and your path within Tylo's SOI looks like a straight line, then you're moving way too fast (i.e. bad transfer). If your path does bend a lot in Tylo's SOI, then it's just a matter of entering at the right time and place. Don't forget that Laythe can also be a good target for a reverse assist.[/QUOTE] It doesn't look like a straight line but it doesn't bend much until low altitude either, but that should be expected. Maybe I can take a screenshot for you? [url]http://imgur.com/gallery/bOysg[/url]

[quote name='MalfunctionM1Ke']physic warp x4 is your friend :) So is playing KSP in windowed mode and do something else for a while :P[/QUOTE] Yeah about that, I could never get Physics time warp to happen in space. Someone said > < but those really just throttle whatever timewarp you currently have as default.