tipsyMJT

If you look at them in the designs of space planes they don't always have to be considered inefficient. Plenty of things change when making a SSTO spaceplane with RAPIER engines opposed to the old way of putting both jet and rocket engines in the design. With the old design there had to be around 3 engines in the back at the least (unless you did some weird thing with two fuselages on top of each other), that meant a lot of weight in the rear of the plane which meant you either had to have most of your wings near the rear or put a large counterweight on the front which is impractical so the former is mostly use . This often makes the rear of the plane a very crowded place. With the RAPIERs you can get away with just one engine in the back. The RAPIER's inefficiency may not be compensated for in very quantifiable ways but it's definitely a godsend for people that make SSTO spaceplanes.

For those skeptics. During the Twitch live stream yesterday just before kurtjmac came on. (Around 1:30 PM PST) the devs made a reference to a surprise and said we had to search for it but it's all over reddit so it shouldn't be hard. A viewer then posted a link to the Pcgamer article and they said with smiles that they couldn't say if that was the surprise or not wink wink. It may not be an official confirmation but it sure as hell confirmsit for me.

It's said at 2:00 in PST so if i know my timezones that means 5:00 there right? There is a thread for all the common timezones http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/37055-KSP-TV-Programming-Schedule?p=469342#post469342

I don't think there is any problem at all with launching humans into space. No ethics problem whatsoever. The astronauts know the danger of what they are doing and they understand that something could come along on their mission that was unforeseen and could make them endure a very torturous death. I dare to bet that if you ask any astronaut they will tell you that anyone who believes that space travel is unethical and cruel to the astronaut is ridiculous. It's the same as saying being a soldier, race car driver, construction worker, or crab fisherman is unethical. They all know the risks of death going into their occupation and they still choose to do it. It's their life and their life only that they are putting in danger so why stop them. This proposes a peculiar question for the issues of suicide but i'm not going to go into that because it is a much too touchy topic. BUT Now that that is out of the way we get to the root of the question. The only logical reason i can imagine having anything to do with the good or bad ethics of space travel would be with the launching of animals into the dangers of space to test the ways their instincts may freak out upon interaction with the foreign environment such as space and this breaks down even farther to just the basic animal rights and anti animal testing movements. Is it unethical because of the harm that may come to the animals? Is the fact that they are in more danger then they would be if they were sitting on your couch make it cruel? i don't know, but, does letting your dog run into a crowded street make you a cruel person? No matter your answer to the previous questions I have another for you. Does making an animal freak out and spin violently because it's natural instinct is to right itself but then it can't because there is no direction to right itself to in the zero gravity (okay fine outward inertial force equaling gravitational attractive force inward) situation of space, cruel? I sure don't know the answer. I foresee this conversation possibly branching of into religion, animal rights, and maybe even civil rights. I'll be coming back often i know that.

Did someone just out do Whackjob????? But... But...But... that's imp-... *universe rips apart*

Well there is one argument for imperial. It is a lot easier to design a house with feet being divisible by 3, 4, and 2 opposed to the meter being divisible by 10. It's just that threes pop up a lot more often than 5's

Thank you everyone. I asked my physics techer and he looked at me like he'd never expect someone to ask that and he just pondered and said. It's much to small to even detect so in theory, yes, but in practicality it's not.

I was thinking today. Would the command center of a certain interplanetary mission need to tune in to a lower frequency because the ship would be moving away. If it's a neglible amount, at what speed would the Dopplar effect change anything?

Well I had a rocket that did so many flights I knew it like the back of my hand. I could reach a certain orbit every single time then I decided ti use Mechjeb once and it couldn't make the orbit with as little fuel as I used.

Once you learn to do something right you don't even really want to use Mechjeb. It's a waste. It wastes fuel and RCS . You watch it do it's procedures and you just think to yourself. "Oh Mechjeb you're just such a waste." That's not to rip on Mechjeb users, jist ince you can do the procedures it really isn't very helpful anymore.

I take my time with this game. I dlstill haven't ladned on Minmus. I started playing around .13. I remember updating and being mesmerized by Minmus. I remember looking in awe at the people that landed on the Mun with winglets. I just perfect every aspect before I go on. I have my ascent path almost mastered, I have docking perfect, and I can land on the mun within 4Km of my target almost every time with absolutely no mods(not that I'm anti-mod it's just I haven't installed them) I just haven't landed on Minmus yet... and I'm also more intent on getting a refueling station up aroun Kerbin and both the moons first.

Attach some struts from the wheels to the Rover. It makes them flex less. I'm assuming that when the wheels bend during a turn, the wheels will pull the rover a small amount trying to return to original shape and flip. The struts make it more rigid and flex less.

My first Mun landing for this save was the EKER-1, an Apollo style spacecraft that failed miserably after I forgot the LM's fuel lines, I lost 3 Kerbals on that mission. The LM crashed shortly after takeoff from the Mun, killing the crew. The CM then was left stranded in Mun orbit. An unmanned rescue vehicle was sent to rescue but an ill-timed accidental space bar pressing put the CM on a suborbital trajectory killing the pilot. My first successful Mun landing was with the Munhopper-1 to place a memorial at the EKER-1 landing site to forever remember Bob, Jebediah, and Stedsen Kerman. You will be missed.

358.) We don't look at a catastrophic failure that killed three in a test launch as a tragedy. We treat it as a learning experience and show it to our children so that they can "oooh" and "ahhh" at the pretty flames.

Stahp, what are you doing? Remember the last time we pointed out to the devs that something was impossible? Now we just have a memorial and something that holds 1/3rd the amount a Kerbals it used to. Mk1 cockpit: you were my friend.

I was wondering, do pilots have to compensate for the less dense air that would happen with higher air temperatures. Do they have to fly faster? And if not, is there even a miniscule change. Does air temperature have any effect on lift?

Jeb was the pilot. I wasn't about to tell him I was going to make him quit.

My scariest mission yet would have to be when I docked my space stations battery module to the solar panel module. The solar panels were already in a nice 120x120 orbit so I went to launch the battery modules. I launched at the worst time, by the time I got to the same 120x120 orbit I looked at the map and solar panels were on the absolute opposite side of the planet. I decided to see what would happen so I increased my orbit and went to high time warp. After many orbits (probably about ten or so) I was finally able to start thinking about docking and then I realized, I left rcs and ASAS on while taking screen shots and such and was now left with just 30 units of rcs to close in the 10 Km I had left. I had to use my very unwieldy orbital stage to adjust my pro and retrograde vectors after that was all done I was hurtling toward my target at a scary 75 m/s (yes that's scary when you have barely any rcs). So, with my orbital stage empty and barely any rcs I had to decouple the orbital stage and hope to sweet baby jesus that I was inaccurate enough to have it go off course and avoid collision with my target. After that had been done I got my little battery module pointed staright at the target but I had to tweak my prograde vector (it was just a tad off.) I swear I yelled at myself for only putting a set of rcs blocks on one side of the CoG. So after struggling with barely any rcs and an unbalanced pod I was finally able to get within 20m of the target and as I closed in at too high of speeds I started translating retro to get down to safe speeds and I was bareluy able to get it to .8 m/s before my rcs ranout and luckily it ran out right when the docking magnets kicked in. Closest call I have ever had.

Thank you for a mathmatical explanation. It helps me understand a little bit more.

[E=Jokurr;432178]This can also be represented mathematically if you are interested (neglecting loses due to drag): Simple equation is that rotational velocity (usually measured in degrees per second or radians per second) is equal to velocity divided by radius. In this case your velocity is fixed at 180 m/s. As your rocket goes up, your radius from the center of Kerbin increases. Thus, according to that formula your rotational velocity must go down as radius increases. Since your rotational velocity is less than the surface of Kerbin, you appear to be moving westwards.

Thank you. That makes some sense

Well if you launch a rocket straight up, at least in ksp, the orbit has no arc, and it goes up and comes down in a much different place.

I'm not so good at physics so I'll ask you people that really know. Everyine knows the surface of a planet, Kerbin or Earth or any other for that matter, is moving at a high rate of speed. I think earths surface moves 1000 mph? (That's my memory, correct me if I'm wrong.) It seems that when you launch a rocket straight up it shouldn't lose that velocity. It started out going whatever speed it was going to the east. Kinda like if you were in a car going 60 mph in a vacuum and you shot a bullet straight up it should travel just as far as you did laterally when it hits the ground. I know a greater radius means it would slow down but it seems like it jist stops...