Pipcard

So I'll see a Falcon on Friday and a Falcon on Saturday.

I like Mars Direct (and Semi-Direct even more), but its main criticism is that the masses of the components (such as the ERV) were thought to be underestimated, and a mission involving on-orbit assembly (simple docking of propulsion stages, no EVAs), on-orbit refueling, and/or high-Isp propulsion (e.g. nuclear thermal or solar electric) would have better mass margins as opposed to a direct HLV launch to Mars.

Akatsuki had 100 metal plates, used as balancing weights. A few of those plates bore images of the virtual singer, Hatsune Miku*, the result of a successful >10,000-signature petition supported by Prof. Seiichi Sakamoto of JAXA. *what you're seeing is "Hachune Miku" (the chibi version)

[quote name='Jimbodiah']Pipcard... that would work if you get into orbit with that first stage, you'd have time to switch back to the main stage. But I often have a main stage that is rejected while still underway to the apoapsis. I've tried adding chutes but there is no control to have them open on time (besides manually switching back and waiting until it is safe).[/QUOTE] Flight Manager was supposed to make it so you didn't have to do that, but sadly it doesn't work in the latest version, as you have pointed out.

It is possible. I use MechJeb for my [URL="http://imgur.com/a/QNgA2#2"]Kappa launch vehicle's first stage[/URL]. But it is also important to use [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80292-1-0-2-Flight-Manager-for-Reusable-Stages-%28FMRS-v1-0-00%29"]Flight Manager for Reusable Stages[/URL] (it works for 1.0.4, haven't tried it with 1.0.5).

[quote name='fredinno']Lol, why is the Spacecraft IN THE FAIRING?[/QUOTE] I put it there just because.

Rocket I made up in 2009. All values were arbitrarily chosen. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qCzqAgj.jpg[/IMG]

As people above me have said, an SSTO version of a launcher's first stage will have too little payload to be useful. [quote name='Nibb31']Musk is just being an ass because he got burnt by Bezos.[/QUOTE] He didn't get "burnt," landing a stage that has a higher horizontal velocity, and is much larger/taller (because it is the first stage of an orbital launcher) is still a much harder challenge. (I'm just wondering, are you hoping for SpaceX to fail or something?)

[quote name='Legendary Emu']I like the H-11A. Mostly because it's not white.[/QUOTE] It's H-IIA. (Roman numeral for 2) And the core stage is not white because it is unpainted insulation for the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen propellant (like Delta IV, Space Shuttle) However, the [URL="http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/rockets/h2a/upgrade.html"]upgraded H-IIA[/URL] (which will actually [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZo7RTSBXY"]launch in a few hours from now[/URL]) will have its second stage painted white to protect the liquid hydrogen from boiling off.

[quote name='Motokid600']The movie came out awhile ago about there childhood, but that's it. There's been no signs of continuing the anime which is why I personally chose to start reading it.[/QUOTE] There's a recent sign (or I hope it is): [URL="http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2015-11-16/space-brothers-anime-trailer-promotes-the-martian-film/.95441"]a tie-in advert[/URL] with "The Martian" (film), called "Odyssey" in Japan.

I know that, but I would prefer to see Space Brothers in an animated form, with voice acting, soundtrack, etc. I wouldn't have had the same emotional reaction to some scenes if I was experiencing it in a manga format. I just don't know how long I will have to wait for the anime to start back up again, or if it is really on permanent hiatus.

I enjoyed both, but Space Brothers has a better plot, more character development, and very emotional moments. It is slow-paced, though, so if you're not into that... Anyways, I only watched this series in 2015 because I would have been too prudish to watch it a few years ago.

Which is better for KSP, a GTX 960 or an R9 380? (joelhowell [URL="http://pcpartpicker.com/guide/xfmPxr/i5-4460-gtx-960-gaming-pc"]here[/URL] claims that an R9 380 is better in general)

The Saturn V/Shuttle launch pads were not that close to Missile Row. edit: it's for Saturn IB (source)

It's taken from the "Mars Underground" documentary. Anyways, you did a great job.

I meant 5 cores total, like Angara-A5. And reusability would be for the single-core version (and for the three-core, Falcon Heavy style in which two cores return to the launch site and the center core is either expended or lands on a barge). The issue is that 8 m is too wide for the 20-tonne LEO crew launcher/GTO comsat launcher.

Between these two schools of thought: "a mission with a few big pieces involves less mission complexity than one assembled in many small pieces" "a launch vehicle that is only designed for heavy payloads would fly too rarely, resulting in expensive fixed costs" (that is, unless you're trying to do something like mass colonization of Mars) there is a compromise: modular booster stages. Think of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, or (an upscaled version of) the Angara family. That way, the same manufacturing processes and launch facilities can be used for a super-heavy launcher or a medium launcher. A one-core launcher for comsats or crews to the space station, and several three or five-core launchers for manned missions to the Moon and Mars. Five cores would be a reasonable maximum for an expendable launcher, otherwise integration and operation of the launcher becomes too complex, or each modular core cannot handle all the extra loads during launch. Three cores is the reasonable maximum if you want to have SpaceX-style reusability operations. Of course, there's also the issue of fairing size. Heavy payloads may not be able to fit in a small fairing, and the fairing can't be too wider than the stages, because you might get aerodynamic problems. So what I'm thinking of right now is a 5-m diameter launcher, capacity of about 20 tonnes to low Earth orbit, that scales up about 3 times with a 3-core version, which can have an 8-m fairing.

I was wondering this about Real Solar System: what about the Kerbals, aren't they much shorter than the average human, or are they rescaled too? (they would have very strange proportions compared to us)

Mission 94: Project DIVA 2nd (Designing Interplanetary Vehicle Architecture) Description & objective: The Transfer Module + Lander Module travel from Kerbin to Low Duna orbit. The crew uses the lander as a surface habitat until an efficient launch window from Duna to Kerbin occurs. Afterwards, the crew makes a rendezvous with the Transfer module to return to Kerbin (the Lander is expended to save mass). They arrive back at the depot, transfer to the Negi Star spaceplane, then re-enter and land back at KSC. Crew: Jebediah, Valentina, Bill, and Bob Kerman Wet mass: 73533 kg Click below to see more:

Mission 91: Project DIVA 2nd - Duna Transfer Module (Designing Interplanetary Vehicle Architecture) Description & objective: The first part of KASDA's manned Duna mission - this is where the astronauts will live in during the interplanetary transfers. It docks at the WiM-3 propellant depot for refueling. Mass at launch: 15925 kg dry (but with monopropellant); 55580 kg refueled Mission 92: Negi Star flight 06 Description & objective: Four-crew transfer to PjD 2nd. Crew: Jebediah, Valentina, Bill, and Bob Kerman Mission 93: Project DIVA 2nd - Duna Lander Module Description & objective: The second part - a habitat that lands on Duna, and has a small rover and surface science package. Mass at launch: 17953 kg Click below to see more:

I'm worried that you'll only "gloss over" them, and anything other than US, USSR/Russia, and Europe... Anyways, I'm glad to see this series starting back up again.

2 hours away, the sky above my area is currently overcast. This is terrible.

(I hope you're going to include Japan's space program in this - I know that their first orbital launch is in 1970, though)

I thought your mindset was that reusability wasn't worth it unless it is used very, very frequently, and that producing more units instead is more economical? Like what you keep saying about reusable Falcon 9?

But what about everything that would support them, like farms?