razark

Functional > minimal > aesthetic; with the idea that technology is around a 1960s level. My computer is quite old and can't handle a whole lot. I'm very used to the clock being yellow. So I build some thing that works, and build it as small as I can (with a few exceptions), and only then worry about how it looks. The only thing I build with anything over 100 parts is space stations, and I dread docking with them. Occasionally I will design something to an aesthetic goal, such as an Apollo-style Mun landing, but they are rather few. I see this term thrown about. What exactly qualifies something as a "pancake rocket"?

Random generation of meaningful text is not trivial. Random generation of gibberish is easier. (As a side note, real space program documents very often read more like gibberish.)

MOL was an Air Force project, not NASA.

How about version 0:90? (I'm sure that somewhere, there's a very detailed and interesting paper about the history of version numbers, and why they use a period as a separator instead of some other character. Maybe it's related to file naming rules?)

We've seen the movies. New Zealand isn't a real place, it's just composited together from CGI and miniatures.

Damn Texans! They're all over the place where I live.

Not that I completely disagree with your assessment of the direction KSP is taking lately, but pilots have flown spacecraft.

Ok, in 1969, NASA faked the landings. 40 years later, people are questioning if it ever happened. Suddenly, there's pictures of the landing sites to prove it. But what is the source of those pictures? Of course! NASA itself. It only figures that NASA would have an interest in maintaining the conspiracy. Of course the background wouldn't change, since it's a matte painting. They only need to get the foreground correct, and the rest can be done with special effect techniques commonly in use at the time. No matter what evidence you give these people, they are always going to come up with some crazy reason why it fits the conspiracy.

<sigh> Yes, yes, people. I know it wouldn't work. I know why it wouldn't work. Did y'all notice the post I was replying to? Someone said "Launch for cameras, secretly deorbit, fake it in Nevada, secretly relaunch, and then deorbit for cameras." My response is that if you're going to do that, it's easier to launch, broadcast already faked footage, and then deorbit.

There has been no part that performed the ASAS (attitude hold) function for a while. The ASAS function was transferred to capsules and cores. The SAS parts have been functioning as the reaction wheels. Fixing the name of the parts to properly reflect their function might help stop the confusion.

Well, of course. Don't forget that they tracked the telemetry. Aside from any number of amateur radio hobbyists that tracked Apollo to the moon and back as well. I pointed out yesterday that any Apollo fakery must include the cooperation of the United States' worst enemy.

They took it out so they could rework the model but insist that the silly thing will be put back in after they make it look better.

Nah. That's too much effort. Here's how to do it: Launch them into space on the Saturn V. They spend several days in LEO, talking and sending pictures to Earth. At the end of the mission, they deorbit and get picked up. The trick is that during the mission, you broadcast previously recorded footage of the moon landing and EVA.

Ok, I'll go with them not being dumb, per se. I will say that many of them are willfully ignorant. They don't know, and they avoid any chance of learning why they are wrong. And they way I see it, refusing to learn is no better than choosing to be stupid. I saw a video a while back, where someone was claiming that spaceflight was impossible. Their evidence included the fact that in the video of the spacewalk, you could see a diver with a scuba tank, and bubbles rising from the astronaut. How should this be described, besides "dumb"?

No, I do not agree at all. Any limits are going to be artificial limits. The size limit is just as artificial. There's no actual walls keeping us from building bigger, just as there's no actual part shortage keeping us from adding more parts. It's just a game mechanic to limit players and force them to start with smaller ships. In the gameworld, however, the size restriction makes more sense than part count restrictions. Besides, if construction takes no time, then the contractor building the parts takes no time, and shipping them takes no time, so we've got an infinite supply ready at any time.

Sadly, hoax supporters will point out that we landed probes on the moon, and the Soviets even landed remote rovers. No matter what you point out, they've got some excuse for throwing out the evidence. Even sending a probe to take pictures of the landing sites wouldn't convince them. They already claim that the pictures are faked. They're not going to believe new pictures aren't. Short of taking them to the moon themselves, there are some of them too dumb to ever believe it.

So I put in an order for some more nuts and bolts and wait a couple of days, and now I've got all the parts I need to put whatever I want together.

Ugh. Same old stupid arguments. I do wish they would come up with something new for once.

One of the best arguments against the Apollo hoax argument: What did the Soviets get for faking it? The Soviet Union had their own space program, with their own radio network, and they knew what needed to be done to get to the moon. The Soviet Union was the one entity that not only stood to gain a huge propaganda victory over the US, but also had an independent ability to confirm or disprove the Apollo landings. If it was fake, how did NASA keep the Soviets quiet? Although, you want to know why haven't we been back since Apollo 17? Well, that's easy. They broke the moon and Lunar Lander sets. Everyone knows the the crew of Apollo 12 were a bunch of clowns. What isn't well known is the pranks they played on other crews. For example, on Apollo 13, the 12 crew hid the moon set from them. That's why NASA did the whole "accident" thing. If you watch the movie Apollo 13, Tom Hanks says "We just lost the moon." This was a true statement, but he wasn't speaking figuratively. They actually couldn't find the moon sets, so there was no landing. After Apollo 17, the 12 crew pulled another one of their famous pranks. What happened isn't exactly clear, because the people who know what happened have been carefully silenced, either through bribes or other means, to hide the truth. What is known is that after 17, both the moon sets and the Lunar Lander sets were destroyed, and couldn't be reconstructed. The Apollo capsule set was saved, so they were able to reuse it to fake the entire Skylab program. The space shuttle program was all done with CGI, though. Bonus points if you can repeat that to a hoaxer with a straight face.

or Flag of the Miskatonic University Space Transport Advanced Research Division. "Because the stars are now right."

I still find this utterly silly. A pilot can hold the ship at prograde or retrograde, but can't figure out how to point the nose normal or radial? It's just turning the Kerbal into a different kind of computer, not individual pilots. Piloting ability should affect how well a Kerbal can hold a craft on target, not if they can find a marker on the nav ball.

Uhh... That's one HELL of a conversion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11

Station has multiple meanings. Not all of them require something to be stationary. But: Trains go to train stations. Buses go to bus stations. Spaceships go to space stations.

Sheesh. Next you're going to tell me that they don't really sell satellites, right?