Corona688

Thanks, this testing and reporting of results is no doubt very useful to the devs.

More probably because it's toxic at milligram levels. I did my research, you know. Killed an afternoon on it. You caught my interest. But you keep mixing different types of hazard. Nuclear is okay because it's less dangerous to the pilot, but UDMH is bad because it's bad for the environment to make? What?

Of course it's an explosion and flammability hazard. We're talking rocket fuels, what did you expect?

? Liquid oxygen isn't directly harmful unless it sets you on fire. Nitrogen-based rocket fuels are toxic as hell to eat but they're actually not that bad to burn. Do it right and you get air. Do it wrong and you get dirty air. Flourine/Fluorocarbon ones are their own special circle of hell but nobody uses them. Monoprop is probably hydrazine, toxic as hell in person but so reactive it doesn't stick around when spilled. It reacts -- explosively or not -- with oxygen to produce nothing more complicated than pure nitrogen and pure water. It's too simple to have any complicated products, so it's what they call a "non-cumulative poison". When used without oxygen as monoprop, the worst thing you get is ammonia. You know -- fertilizer. It uses UDMH, technically less toxic than hydrazine, but more insidious -- its ambient breakdown products aren't all harmless gases. In particular, it can become NDMA, a persistent soil pollutant. A UDMH spill would certainly be a nasty thing, and there's regulations about it. As rocket fuel however: Efficient combustion of UDMH produces nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Messy, loose combustion -- let's face it, when a Proton goes down it goes down in flames -- produces a dirty mushroom cloud of mixed nitrogen oxides. That's what causes the ugly brown look, lots of car smog, basically. So, producing and moving all that UDMH is bound to be an ugly business, but the main toxicity hazard of a Proton launch is accidentally eating one.

If you know any Newtonian mechanics, rotational mechanics actually translates fairly easily, with torque in place of force and inertia in place of mass. The trickiest part is figuring out what the inertia is for a given shape and mass, and dealing with the stupid untypeable symbols. Symbol Linear Rotational Example Example Distance d θ d = V * t Distance is velocity times time. θ = w * t Velocity V ω V = a * t Velocity is acceleration times time. ω = α * t Acceleration a α "fish" Force F T F = m * a T = I * α Mass m I So, momentum in linear motion is m*v. Ergo in rotational motion that's I*ω . Meaning, my equation above actually gave ω not θ, and needs to be multiplied by t again to produce "distance" i.e. θ

No newtonian mechanics? F = ma and all that?

It wouldn't. I'm talking about constant force, like a moon lander landing tilted, preventing itself from falling over with a reaction wheel. The reaction wheel only exerts force on the lander when it accelerates. So the wheel has to constantly speed up to hold it in place. Take my math above with a grain of salt, I'm making a table and think I had some errors.

What kind of "wheel" they have inside and what happens to it is an interesting theological argument, as reaction wheels in KSP don't behave anything like real reaction wheels, but since you ask: For pushing things, mass is all you have to worry about, for rotating things, you have to worry about how far it is from you too. The farther it is, the harder it is to do, like a lever. This is why torque units describe the force it takes for you to pivot a weight on a stick. One foot-pound of force is the force needed to pivot a one pound weight held by the end of a one-foot stick. So that's what force is. For mass, you have I, angular mass or moment of inertia. For a weight on a stick that's just I = m * r^2 where m is weight and r is length of stick. For more complex things like a disc, it's modelled as the sum of an infinite number of tiny weights on sticks, but there's lots of ways to cheat. Suppose your disc has a hole in the middle, with all of its weight on the rim, a thin ring in other words. Then you're just back to I = m * r^2 again. r is radius, which is length from the center of the ring to the edge. So your reaction wheel is a thin ring 2*r wide (because radius is half diameter), weighs m, and has T torque applied to it for t amount of time, how fast does it end up spinning (@)? The formula is T = I * w, where I is angular mass, substitute that: T = m * r^2 * w So: w = T / (m * r^2) ...which makes sense on first look: Stronger torque makes it faster, bigger weight and/or wider wheel make it slower. Now what's missing? Time (t). Just multiply it by time to see how far the wheel actually turns. The longer you push, the further it moves, and the faster it goes. @ = (T*t) / (m * r ^ 2) @ because nobody's got that stupid theta symbol on their keyboard. It's an angular measure, and angles in physics mean radians, so you'll get out a number from this where 3.14159 means 180 degrees. I won't go into momentum, and if you go into it yourself you'll quickly figure out why KSP reaction wheels are magic: To provide constant force, they have to be constantly speeding up! Yet KSP reaction wheels do that all the time without complaint. This is half barely-remembered college facts and half wikipedia, so if there's anything blatantly wrong, I tried.

Craziest thing I can ever recall happened to this guy:

Putting it on phone would mean simplifying it to the point you couldn't call it KSP any more.

I don't know, but they're apparently not willing to.

Well, I feel my key point has been ignored -- Squad can't give something free which they've already charged people money for. That's the same problem which prevents them hosting old versions.

That's probably what happened, duplicate data from the same biome.

You need to put your control module, or at least a control module, closer to the center of mass and 'control from here' to reduce wobble. Otherwise, it's just an unavoidable effect of building a large rocket.

I don't think so. Technically you could bolt two spaceplanes together wingtip-to-wingtip and get one spaceplane with twice the mass and cargo capacity. In fact, most of the really big SSTO spaceplanes I've seen in KSP are butterfly-like constructions of many apparent planes bolted together.

Agreed. I managed one of those annoying 'make crew reports landed at these 5 nearby spots' mun missions with droptanks, a pair of terriers, and 4 suborbital hops. And I suspect thrust vectoring will be needed if you ditch one of those rovers and take off with the other.

What if I told you you could do that already? Anywhere you can pause the game, you can change volume. OK, I misunderstood the question.

The game is weird about that anyway. You can scan an entire planet from polar orbit in a few seconds. So I just assume that they've done what they needed with it by the time the contract is fulfilled, and that as a space-agency working for a non-space-agency, we always retained control. This is supported by the satellite-moving contracts which buy use of existing satellites and want you to move them.

Are you asking me to be sassy to a moderator? I smell entrapment! ;p

I think they'd have to use mechjeb or something for the vanilla game, if they were willing to do so at all. Again, they're unlikely to give us for free what kspedu users have paid for. I think this in part explains their extreme reluctance to do so all along, if this is what they had in mind. It already is easy, and we already haven't.

That one I actually don't see much wrong with. If they're going to keep developing this, they either need more money or more customers.

That was possibly the most economical choice. Sending them back to Earth would have been going the wrong direction.

You confuse the quicksave and restore keys. Your rocket's flight plan includes mandatory back-flips from 25,000m-35.000m (after which the atmosphere becomes thin enough to regain control.) "emergency stop" and "destroy everything" are a bad, bad, bad key to be so close to each other.

The funny thing is, the orange suits come back anyway. The one loss I had on my program was a rescue which went very wrong. Since then my rescue craft have been much improved, they no longer ride in the duct tape section, and there's short-range, long-range, and multi-passenger versions.

You'd be wrong, it's every few days.