NovaSilisko

Well, huh. The more you know. Makes one wonder about the Apollo command module pilots, now. Now I want to find further pieces of evidence into this phenomena.

Mostly in the eyes of a variety of members of the public who want ammo to talk about how spaceflight is bad. "You spend millions of dollars to send them up to do what?!" and such. Also, I seem to remember an oblique reference to... how was it phrased... "I know of no bodily functions that don't work in space" or something to that effect. Or was it more of a... direct statement? (One more for the list of conversations I never expected to happen on the KSP forum)

That's the thing though, I don't think it could or would stay secret. I think it would get out pretty fast. And, if it did, it would be an utter scandal - not just for the astronauts, but for the whole agency, and could jeopardize their careers as a result. And I think that possibility alone would be a deterrent.

I think it's insulting to their professional careers to suggest that it's being done and subsequently covered up. For one, it's kind of insane to think that nobody would blab, through the entire history of the space program. They're up there to do their jobs. They also, I should note, send people who are older than their mid-20s, generally 30s and 40s seems to be the most common. Beyond the, shall we say, "years of common activity". But let's not get into that very much... Maybe you could send in a Freedom Of Information Act request about it.

I'm sure, by playing KSP, you know far more about these things than the hundreds/low-thousands of people they've had working on it for several years now to determine that this is the best way to proceed for reusability and low-costs... in any case, be wary of the SSTO hype train, it's laughably easy in KSP and laughably difficult in real life. SpaceX already makes a profit on some level. They sell flights on their rockets for more than what the rocket costs to build and fly. Reusability is just a bonus, all told - it will reduce their costs more. Now, there's always the possibility they don't lower their launch prices with that, and enable themselves to make even more profit...

I'd hardly call it a publicity stunt, it's just a bit of goodwill to let people feel they're participating. I stuck mine on it.

Can we quit using the terms Aerobrake and Aerocapture incorrectly? This has been a peeve of mine for a long time. Aerobrake: the slow reduction of an orbit by gentle passes through the atmosphere Aerocapture: the aggressive reduction of an escape trajectory to a closed orbit by encounter with the atmosphere, generally only possible with extra heat shielding to accomplish this Reentry: Basically an aerocapture that doesn't result in a closed orbit - ie, you land afterward (or explode and die)

The issue there is actually separating overall development costs from per-flight costs. You'd need to know the cost of the CSM, the Lunar Module, and the Saturn V, each time, as well as the support infrastructure that goes into each mission. Just dividing total program costs by number of flights isn't going to give a good estimate. However, in a program with as many flights as the shuttle, I think you can use that method to get a decent estimate.

1. Real aerobraking is a very slow, progressive process, only dipping in a tiny bit of the atmosphere at a time. Going in deeper requires more heat shielding and thus more mass. It was done very successfully by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, as one example. Coming in from an escape trajectory and slowing yourself into an orbit using the atmosphere isn't called aerobraking, also. It's called "Aerocapture", which has never been performed due to the mass issues I mentioned before. In the case of the Apollo missions, there were no retroburns before entering the atmosphere. They just entered directly, keeping the G-forces down by offsetting the capsule's center of mass slightly, which allowed it to enter at a slight angle, thus producing lift - the capsule actually briefly ascended again after entering the atmosphere, in a very slight skip trajectory. ("Interstellar flights"? Did you mean interplanetary?) 2. There is no "limit". It just fades out to nothing very slowly, but even at the altitude of the ISS and beyond you get subtle atmospheric drag. It's almost impossible to tell a minimum limit. Around 100 km to 120 km (maybe a little low), though, is about the limit where you can make a few orbits, depending on the aerodynamic characteristics of your spacecraft. 3. Around 11 km/s and 7.6 km/s respectively. 4. Yes. In interstellar space you are still affected by the gentle gravity of the stars around you, and the supermassive black hole in the galactic center which all stars orbit around. There's no such thing as a hard-limit Sphere of Influence like you get in KSP. You're always affected by all bodies. Technically, everything in the universe is exerting a gravitational pull on you, even if it's absolutely ludicrously infinitesimally tiny. 5. Around 400 km or so, but it changes a little bit every so often for various reasons (it frequently requires reboosting to compensate for atmospheric drag, as well as occurances such as adjusting it to make it easier for a vehicle to rendezvous. The whole altitude of it was kept lower for the sake of the shuttle, and after the shuttle was retired it was raised) It's generally an agreement between NASA and Roscosmos to maneuver the station, as the manuevering will be carried out by Russian Progress vehicles. The European ATV used to do reboosts, but that was retired. 6. Possibly. Walter Schirra on Apollo 9 7 (thanks harbingerdawn) had some conflicts with flight controllers over his unwillingness to carry out parts of the flight plan due to the fact he was generally miserable after developing a cold. John Young and Gus Grissom smuggled a corn-beef sandwich to orbit on their Gemini flight, which the controllers were incredibly mad about. Sexual activity? Not as far as anyone knows... it would be pretty difficult to hide. There was one astronaut who kidnapped somebody, I think, but that was on the ground. I forget her name. 7. It hasn't ever happened, but IIRC the jurisdiction depends on what country's module you're in. 8. Almost impossible to say. Depends on the value of the cargo, which rocket and spacecraft, etc. The shuttle was about 1.5 billion dollars per launch. Apollo, actually, was fairly similar, only a bit higher. (adjusted for inflation, not sure if my memory is correct on the last fact though)

Not again...

I hate my parts. Hate them. I never managed to really finalize in my head how I wanted the style to look until it was too late, really. The Tantares pack is, artistically, the closest thing I think. As mikegarrison says, you can witness the different geological layers of the game's art style as different artists made their mark. It's... messy.

The way the article was written has me cringing. Okay, first of all it's SpaceX and not Space X, and in any case SpaceX aren't making a lunar rover. The article then subsequently states: So they got their own facts screwed up within the span of a few paragraphs. Great. This is just a short-term PR stunt if you ask me, and I don't expect it to really come to pass.

I love spiders, until they enter my living area - with the exception of the chill ones who just hang out up in the corners of the room and catch gnats and stuff. They coo'

4. Stop asking this question

Are we talking robotic exploration? For robotic, I wouldn't land at all, really. I would place a solar-powered robotic aircraft into the atmosphere to fly high above any inclement weather, and scout across wide swaths of landscape. Perhaps include some hard-impact drop probes to dump into interesting areas. If we're staying with only soft landing, anywhere with vegetation would be very very risky. So the best option in that case would be to land something softly in a plain region that borders an area of dense population of organisms. The African Savannah would be a great choice. Huge biodiversity, large, open landscapes, and nearby rainforests that a rover or short-range aircraft could easily reach. Assuming it doesn't get smashed by an elephant or something. Also, powered landing via thrusters should be avoided so as to not incinerate several hundred square kilometers of your landing site in a forest fire. But parachutes are unpredictable - something with a skycrane and airbags might be preferred.

Have you considered the possibility he's doing it because he enjoys it and wants to produce music...?

And this is why I am going to pass on win10 for the foreseeable future. It was free, so there was always going to be a catch...

n...y..wh...what Oh. Right. That's a thing... I think my brain was suppressing the memory of its existence.

... There's a 4? Hell, I forgot there was even a 3. Or a 2.

Your comma, placement needs some refinement

If you ask me, the engine isn't really that much of an issue, contrary to popular belief. A larger problem is that a lot of the systems were made a long time ago when the team was less experienced, but by now are so deeply-ingrained in the rest of the game's systems that refactoring them is next to impossible. I really hope the UI upgrade for the game at least makes it usable. UI is one of the biggest frustrations I have with it at the moment. Well, he's not there anymore, so...

Why do I even try to make reasonable discussion here when we just immediately turn to insulting those involved... A more reasonable and reserved response would perhaps have been along the lines of "I don't agree that that's a good candidate, as it's based on the assumption that the gas giant in question has a large moon, which we can't know for certain without far more detailed observations than are currently possible."

I'm more a fan of Kepler-438b. It's got a higher ESI, though is probably tidally locked. We've got a bias toward stars like our own star, and are scared of red/orange dwarfs However, I think life will turn out to be a lot more resilient than people tend to give it credit for. Even if the red dwarf in question is a violent flare star, any life in the oceans would be well-protected. I want to say earth is on the high end of terrestrial planets. I consider 452 to be closer to a super-venus than super-earth. More gravity at that distance means a massively increased rate of atmosphere accumulation. Oh, by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOI-433.02_m

Nova's official unofficial may-or-may-not-be-considerable-as-canon pronunciation list: Eeloo: Ee-lue Jool: "Tool" with a J. Laythe: Like "Faith" with an L. Vall: "Fall" with a V. Tylo: Tie-low. Bop: The sound made when I hit people who pronounce Laythe using two syllables. Pol: Poll and Pohl have equal acceptance. Dres: Drezz. Duna: Doo-na, or if you're British, Dew-na. Ike: Like, like "like". Kerbin: Godfellow Trampoline Mangione Breadstick Defiler. Mun: Like "moon", Muhn is also acceptable when the umlaut is misplaced or unavailable. I just call it "the moon", however. Minmus: Min-musz Eve: Eve, like the name, biblical figure, or album by The Alan Parsons Project Gilly: Gill-E (like wall-e but with a gill instead of a wall) Moho: Mo-ho. Kerbol: Ker-bohl/Ker-bowl I was really confused until I remembered evolution could be said with a long E

CANONICAL PRONUNCIATION: Laith, like faith. One syllable. However, pronouncing it like Lathe with a subtle y sound after the a is also acceptable. Anyone utilizing any two or more syllable variants will be smitten.