Stargate525

But the original question wasn't 'is it likely,' it was 'is it possible.' I agree, the water would have to basically be sitting on a ball of tidally-heated magma, though if the water is polluted enough, you can buy yourself another 18 or 20 degrees of leeway in your freezing point. LOL. I can imagine the poor inhabitants on their first Gemini missions, discovering that they're swimming in Chernobyl. You've caught me. I do remember the mechanics of planet-finding from my own astronomy class. But it is undeniable that we've had to rethink the idea that gas giants only live out in the boonies of a solar system.

Okay, hold on. Laythe, as it is in the game in every respect, is clearly impossible. It's neutron-star dense, so that's its kill right there. But! Is a habitable moon around a gas giant possible? Is liquid water that far out from a goldilocks zone possible? Is a moon that's not super-radioactive around a gas giant possible? If you take not Laythe EXACTLY, but what it represents (A semi-earth analogue orbiting a gas giant), is it possible? I'd argue yes. Especially since a great majority of the gas giants we've found outside our system are much, much closer to their suns.

I had the same problem with my lander. The suspension spring-back from my landing actually sent me back a dozen meters into the air. I had to thrust down with my RCS to ensure I actually stayed planted!

Considering that Kerbin, I believe, has the density of lead... the funny thing about spheroids and gravity is that you actually need a rather large mass increase to get a noticeable gravity change, assuming the same or similar density. Smash two earths together and you don't get 2 gees at the surface. You get something around 1.07.

Depending on the time of day, it might be Mercury. That one's usually much brighter in the sky.

I landed on Gilly for the first time ever. ...Good grief the space potato is light. Kerbals can't even WALK there without getting an apoapsis.

Aye. And Saturn's moon, Titan, has an atmosphere that is thicker than ours. Laythe has always struck me a mixture of Titan and Europa. Possible, and considering the number of gas giants we've found among the exoplanets, I'd hazard to say that there is a similar moon out there somewhere. But indeed, probably glowing with ionizing radiation.

Because you'd be fine paying in to early-access a game that was unplayably crash-happy? You could do meaningful testing on that? Either it's playable and sold or bugged to hell and kept internal. Not much room for a middle ground. Go see all the posts yelling about how ripped off people feel because the game ISN'T polished and stable. Being able to replicate a bug is not the same as being able to fix it. You should know that. I'm confused... we're looking at one of the fastest turn-arounds for a numbered update, and that's both too long of a cycle that doesn't do enough? What, precisely, would 'quick to develop' mean to you? Two weeks? Three? Give us a number here, that you think career mode should be developed in. ...And because someone comes up with a solution the devs didn't think of, and they put it in vanilla... that's... bad? How many of the dev team were picked up from the mod boards? I'm also curious as to what these magical, impossible things were. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Lesse... -I've accidentally called our fourth planet 'Duna.' -There are a trio of soldiers in my game of X-Com named Bill, Bob, and Jeb. -In Crusader Kings, the VonKerman dynasty has taken over most of Europe, and is trying to figure out how to conquer the moon. -I can no longer watch any science fiction movie because the ships don't thrust in the correct direction. -Scott Manley and Kurt are A-list celebs in my brain. -I get very confused when people don't know who those two are.

Wasn't 100% certain whether it belonged there or here. And Sorry for getting it wrong. And I brought it here because to those who don't mind a little toilet humor, it's hilarious.

...And they've eaten gummi bears. Link (warning, this is... a little bit dirty. You've been warned): http://www.amazon.com/review/RDGJA7YL703CG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000EVQWKC&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag= Thoughts?

That doesn't seem to make sense... Although, the way I worded it... Right. If you're moving just the payload, and just the fuel. The engines used will matter, correct, as well as the containers? Because in one trip you're moving x engines and y fuel, whereas in the other you're moving 2x engines, which will bring the total 'payload' (of drive engines and miscellanea rather than useful materials) up. Is that right? The numbers you used, Weasel, make me think that you're using the nukes. If you have one nuke, the fuel to get the 2500dv, and the 40t payload, that will be more efficient than two vessels. In the other scenario you, by necessity, are hauling out 2.25 tons of extra engine. Less efficient, but a better thrust to weight ratio.

This thought occurred to me while I was constructing my all-in-one Duna mission. Suppose we have a payload of, say, 40 tons. All else being equal (dV needed, positions, ignoring (un)wieldiness of the design), is it cheaper in terms of fuel expenditure to ship one payload of 40 tons, or two payloads of 20? Does this answer depend on the payload size or the dV? Basically, is there a point at which a mission, base, etc, becomes so large it's more efficient to ship it out in parts than it is to do one large burn?

Ampster, how much have you budgeted for reaction wheel consumption?

An atmospheric probe in Eve's upper atmosphere rates at 1200. But I haven't recovered it, so I've only gotten a fraction of it. A full suite of sensors dropped to eve's surface will net you around 2400.

Or those black Styrofoam meat trays you get at the store?

I don't know about the 3-man, but when I transmit crew reports from the 2-man lander can, the % shows as 200%. Incentive for reports, at least.

I agree that a sample is a sample is a sample. However, there IS a difference between 10kg of mun rock and 50kg of mun rock, especially when you plan to recover them. I wouldn't mind if the samples decayed as if you'd went and recovered three times, but I think there should be a way to reflect that your three-man lander can simply hold more dirt.

As far as I can tell, right now the larger pods don't have a use as far as science is concerned. Whether I've got a Kerbal in the 1-man Gemini, the three man pod, or the two man can, it can store one copy of any given sample or EVA report. Is there a reason we couldn't expand that to be one copy for each kerbal it can hold? Ie, if I send a three man pod to the Mun, each one of the crew can store their own sample and eva report without walking miles to get different regions.

HAH. Atmosphere goes up to at least 69. I've aerobraked at Kerbin in 50k. For me, I usually go to between 240 and 400k. Lets me use the next highest time warp, and I don't lose too much of the Oberth for transfers after refueling.

I usually make my booster stages extend slightly below my main engine. They seem to want to rotate, for me, around their engine, so when I eject them they naturally fall back behind my ship. *shrugs*

Mope. It's an engine limitation. You've got to be focused on it.

But it would be VERY interesting to see if, for example, there's a way to find a 4,200m safe orbit on Dres that's incline 80 degrees, and just happens to skirt the mountains.

Darned staging errors...

Input! Moore input!