qzgy

Ahh, ok. Out of curiosity, what is the actual energy density increase of a hybrid system rather than a solid one? Like, is it significant enough to justify the extra work in making it a hybrid system? Agreed. This is wishful thinking, but perhaps if a design is agreed upon and is simulated to work and all that kind of stuff, it may be possible to reach out to some other group to actually build the rocket (and crowdsource it maybe?) I too, don't have the time, resources, skill, or money to build one.

One thing at a time

Exceptions being fuel lines and adjusting flow priority. Rockets, which use oxidizer, are generally much more inefficient when compared to jet engines. Therefore, they consume more fuel quicker. Oxidizer being one part of this, it goes pretty quickly while on jets, you have very efficient source of thrust, but not as much versatility and thrust.' I would say switch 2 of the outboard tanks to one that contains LF and Oxidizer. That should help fix the problem. Also - do you really need that many jets and solar panels? You do realize that jets (and maybe rockets, though I can't say for sure) produce EC, right?

Upload your images to a site like Imgur and copy the direct image link from there. Imgur is free, so that's a plus. Here's a more bricky one! Also redesigned and retested my SLSSTO (Sea-Launched SSTO) - Actually made it to moho this time! Also helps that the maneuvers were much more efficient. Solution was to add more tanks.

It might be a better idea to looks at a Japanese Lambda or SS-520-4 kind of system. I'm just suggesting this as these two things, especially the SS-540-4 system was designed to be a small payload into orbit, unlike the Atlas launch system. From what I have found, it has 3 stages, in a dropping sequence. I'm not sure what kind of rocket motor it is, but judging from the text on this site (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/s-520.htm) I think it might be solid propellant. Also, (I might be wrong about this, I'm not highly qualified or anything), I think it might be easiest to have to payload and upper stage integrated. In all likelihood, the upper stage is probably going to be a kicker SRB, so that would probably stay in orbit (until orbital decay happens). Why not just leave the satellite on the upper stage? As a final note - has anyone actually considered the legal requirements for doing this kind of thing? Like, we don't want to chuck something into orbit and have it hit something important.

How about a frequency count of each pair of letters?

For at least lower stage attitude control, have vernier thrusters been considered? Something like on the R-7 family? It might add unnecessary weight, cause an integrated RCS system might, if good enough, be able to already perform this job. Also, I just joined this thread, but what kind of payload are we thinking of launching? Something similar to an integrated satellite/upper kick stage like Explorer 1?

I quite like the idea of the individual companies having backstories and this kind of "auto pruning" feature. However, I also think that there should be some diffuculty setting for this. Like, off, easy, hard-ish and super ultra hardcore battle scarred missileman . Or something like that. I also think a way of balancing this "company goes bankrupt? too bad" is the ability to donate a certain sum of money to restart the company (albeit, with limited potential until you "re-level" them) and perhaps some sort of strategy that keeps siphoning a part of your money off to keep a company going.

Got frustrated with landing on Moho. Think I need a craft redesign. Soo.... after I figured that out, I just murdered a kerbal by chucking him into the sun. Yay.

About that - I also feel sometimes that the warp limits as you get closer to the planet are sometimes too high. Take gilly for example.

Well, true, but they'll break and become useless unless you have an engineer. Better to just use landing gear in this regard.

So..... I finally launched that SSTO 'seaplane' and visited minmus for a quick refueling stop. Hoping to do a mini-grand tour, visiting and landing everywhere but eve. I think I have enough fuel and stuff for a tylo landing. Also figured out what pointing the camera directly at a nuke engine looks like. It's alot worse IRL cause of all the minor flickering... After gilly, I went to moho, to promptly discover I have to restart from gilly because of a delta-v shortage.

What about that hang glider thingy? @Speeding Mullet is away, so you or someone else may need to set the rules.

Don't use a rover, biome hop. Literally, take your lander with an engine on it, chuck it into a suborbital trajectory, and aim for the desired biome.

Yup! Depressingly, this is how rovers work. On the upside, people have made mods like the ones above to help with the tedium. Also, the mars rovers only went about 40 to 50 km... Not that far, and over about 13 years. Rovers aren't great for Kerbin, planes are better.

IMO, this would probably be the best solution: Bring along a relay sattelite and have your antenna link via that. Fairings and an 88-88 would also work, and you might be able to make a nice looking thing too.

That is a fair point.....

I hate most of the decouplers, with the exceptions being the 0.625m and 3.75m ones, which, while ok, are a bit on the thick side.

I have some particular questions about AI's (artificial intelligences) and the ethics around them, but feel free to discuss any other things My question: Let's assume AI's are a real thing and counted as a sentient entity. A) Is it possible to kill an AI? B) In a court of law, would this be considered murder? The question I have is since murder, as far as I know, only applies to when a human is killed intentionally by another human. Also, since AI's are digitally based and cannot per-se, be "destroyed" in the same way a human can, is it possible to kill one anyways?

I believe that's more a PC issue rather than too many mods

After fiddling around with CameraTools, I remembered to make an X-24B for X-jet of the day. Not too happy with it, But I think it came out ok, given how annoying the shape is.... (a new unseen picture!)

August 1973: Martin Marietta X-24B The X-24B was the finale of the Dryden lifting bodies program. The design came from a number of studies trying to improve the lift-to-drag ratio of the original shape and also have it suitable for re-entry. To save costs on building a new air frame, the X-24A was just modified to produce the desired shape. The craft flew 36 times, testing the feasibility of accurately landing an unpowered glider from a reentry. On two of the final flights, an accurate landing was performed by the X-24B on the main runway at Edwards Air Force Base. These flights helped with the development of the Space shuttle program with validation of the concept of landing a lifting body or lifting body type spacecraft unpowered to a runway landing. After testing, the X-24B was retired to public display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Ohio. Download: https://kerbalx.com/qzgy/Martin-Marietta-X-24B Tommorow's Craft: @NorthAmericanAviation's YC-14

NOOOO, Not his teddy bear! Lights are probably a good idea for docking when it inevitably happens on the night side.

She's on Dres.... Not sure why I'd like to go there...

You're on the right track.