Rokker

Actually, last time i checked Edison has the 4th most patents of anyone in the world while Tesla has 1/10th the number as Edison. Tesla honestly did very little inventing, and like Edison, was mainly an innovator who's most common work was simply improving the work of Faraday. Overall, while some of Tesla's inventions/innovations were amazing and leaps and bounds ahead of his time, for the most part, he is somewhat overrated, mainly because the Internet loves to blow **** out of proportion. Was he great, yes, was he some amazing super genius who was always right and we would have teleporters and free energy if Edison didn't hold him back, no.

Um, no he was not. Edison was still a great inventor. In fact the story about Edison conning Tesla out of money is not verified and most likely utter bull****. And remember, While Edison may have been wrong regarding DC over AC (which turned out to work well for certain cases), Tesla didn't believe in the Theory of Relativity. Both people had their faults. Another example, Edison refused to ever make an invention that would be used for war, whereas Tesla at some times seemed almost obsessed with it. I like Tesla, I do, but to say yay for him, but screw Edison is wrong, short-sighted and moronic. And don't try to defend your view as most people on the internet do when caught in something they thought they knew about but actually don't, cause I will tear any argument apart.

The way he is suggesting 1 and 2 are actually realistic, and much more common in the real world than the 3rd (which is similar to something i suggested back in the 180s-190s pages i think, as a suggestion on how to create a failsafe that doesnt make RT too easy.) All dishes create cones, and typically anything within those cones, capable of receiving that frequency would be possible to communicate with. this is the entire basic idea behind dishes. whe you point the dish at an area, such as a part of space, anything that passes through tthe cone surrounding that area, within range, will be able to communicate. As for your mid-range suggestion, i disagree wholeheartedly. It starts off with an antenna to get you into orbit, then one to get you to a sub-geostationary orbit, then to the moon and minmus, then the next largest one gets you to duna, the closest celestial body, etc. the whole thing is based on its overall usefulness. there is no use or reason for something like a mid range antenna as it would not reach any locations.

Only to perfect Remotetech communications satellites so that I can save myself the time of micromanaging the orbits of the satellites over time. I fly the satellite as close as I can to where I want it to orbit and then hyperedit it into perfections.

Tiberion's may not be a replica but it is fairly close.

Hey frizzank, any plans on possibly making the Vanguard rocket or maybe the adorable, yet somewhat useless Little Joe booster?

I'm probably just trying to pitch it a little too aggressively.

Love it. Explorer's antenna are a bit to straight, but beautiful none-the-less. Although I do find the Mercury-Atlas nearly uncontrollable with FAR, though that could just be me.

So... feeding would be a more proper term than cross feeding. I believe that was the term more often used when referencing the orbiter-ET configuration. Hell, come to think of it, the KSP, SpaceX and general aviation terms "crossfeeding" are all different actually. Aviation means being able to move fuel around between tanks in an aircraft, SpaceX is... I think its allowing fuel to flow from the sides to the center in a "sort-of" asparagus style(?) and KSP's use just means that fuel can flow through that part to an engine if I'm not mistaken.

-.- you disgust me

Nope. Crossfeed implies an ability for fuel to flow freely. The Space Shuttle's orbiter-ET system could only flow one way. That being said, I guess the Kerbal fuel ducts are similar to the umbilicals for the orbiter-ET system on the Space Shuttle. Without the instantaneous fuel transfer of course.

If you all want the not-so-quick and simple explanation as why asparagus staging doesn't show up in the real world, it is a mixture of reasons. One of the main reasons would be its hard enough to pump that fuel from a tank directly above an engine, much less move that much from a bunch of side tanks. You have to remember fuel crossfeeding is a capability that does not exist on any currently or formerly used rocket and will not until at least later this year when the Falcon Heavy is supposed to launch. Another big issue that would appear is that it would really increase drag to absurd proportions in some of the more extreme examples of asparagus staging. Also, I should point out that in real life, we aren't constrained by tanks with set sizes as we are in KSP. This means that adding a number of smaller tanks just uses extra material as opposed to just throwing all the fuels into one large tank. With the smaller tanks you have to cap the ends of the tanks and separate the fuels and whatnot, making it easier and more weight and cost effective to use the one tank design. Then we find the issue for some rockets, specifically those with cryogenic fuels, that would be much harder to cool before launch than a single or stacked tank vehicle. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that the margins used in real life would really need the relatively small boost to delta-v that asparagus staging gives you. Lastly, doing this increases the complexity significantly and the more complicated your vehicle is, the easier it is for something to go wrong.

Ok, thanks, just wanted to make sure.

Hey, I was wondering what somone would need to do to make a cargo bay be recognized as a cargo bay if they were doing something like, say, trying to use Touhou Torpedo's old Mk3 bomb bay.

No, it really doesn't make sense. I can get that same coverage from a three relay system much lower than stationary orbit. Exactly. I mean take a look at the use of telecommunications satellite constellations in the real world. The only geostationary ones are either a 1 satellite system like China's Tianlian, or operate in a way so that dishes on the ground and on the satellite can remain pointed in one direction at all times such as DirectTV's DirectTV satellites.

Um... why would you even ask if you should continue? We're all going to say yes because its badass.

Oh and in other news, I have figured out one of the most inefficient ways to use redundancy to deal with drift. I call it the Kessler or Ring constellation: It uses the process that has been used to give rings to Kerbin only instead of useless pieces of debris, they are probe cores with antenna and solar panels.

I meant to say stationary constellations Nathan. A single stationary satellite over KSC makes sense, making a stationary constellation does not, at least in the RT/KSP world.

Ok, I still can not figure out why so many people purposely put their comsats into a stationary orbit, or a synchronous orbit at all for that matter. It has no point at all and requires much more engineering than just throwing them into a random circular orbit much closer to Kerbin.

Last time i checked Cliph is still working on kOS compatibility. So probably not.

I say the best solution is to throw a bunch of comsats into the same orbit at different in the orbit and hope for the best. Also, what is KEO and what is a keosat.

You will always have to worry about drift.

Woah there, don't go over complicating things and making him have to overthink and over-engineer his craft by telling him he needs to make a geosynchronous comsat constellation. Bobe, not very many people realize this, but I will let you in on a lovely secret about comsat coverage, its all about simple geometry. Think of it as you are looking down at Kerbin from the north pole. Also imagine the lines going from comsat to comsat, the closest you can get to kerbin is the point at which the lines from a polygon and an inscribed circle. this means that the more satellites you have, the closer you can get to Kerbin. In my old .22 save I had a 4 satellite constellation of antenna based satellites at 400 km and I had a 3 satellite configuration with dishes in geosynchronous orbit. I would also recommend throwing a few extra satellites into the same/similar orbits as a redundancy measure against the constellation drifting out of position. Also, if you are ever looking for polar coverage as well, may I recommend throwing a few satellites into two separate (north focused and south focused) 90 degree inclination Molniya-style orbits Now as for your dish/antenna question, if you have a relay (with a connection of course) and it has a dish pointed at a ship with a dipole antenna that is within 500 km, it should relay the signal, if the dipole ship is farther away than 500 km from the ship with the dish, this will not work

RemoteTech is not yet compatible with kOS. You will have to wait and just do what you can with the limited abilities of the built in RemoteTech Flight Computer.

Does a comsat need a probe core to act as a relay?