RichieD76

It\'s crazy. If they controled what was on there site, it would be invasion of privacy, keep it and it\'s piracy. I always say the end user who steals it is the pirate anyway. You download it illegally why the hell should the person who uploaded or hosted it be to blame. Eg. You rob a shop...is it the shelf stackers fault they put it on the shelf....or the manager for letting you in the store? Neither obviously. Oh an capt\'n...better change your avatar, planet of the apes invented human looking monkeys and they might sue your ass

Noooo... They have been SHUT DOWN. Including 18 other domain names. Seizure of $50m in assets and the US has issued 20 arrests warrants for the HongKong based file sharing site. The sites founders have been arrested in Auckland New Zealand

And so it starts! SOPA hasn\'t even been made law already and there closing massive sites. The government going to arrest someone at google too? Because in the UK, if someone commits an illegal act and your seen to be either promoting or (google adds) effectively funding them!!!

I guess NASA arnt spending all there money on making half decent models of there own creation. Is nice to see that the Kerbal mod makers are doing more detailed work

Photo bucket ect would be shut down. Flash game hosting sites would be removed and America would be try to extradite the whole world to there shores for prosecution. Another case of 'America.....World police' Personaly I think its America looks at all the money china has and thought...'hey, they monitor EVERYTHING there population do on the Internet to brain wash and control them...and china has tons of money too...let\'s copy what china does' On the bright side though. Apple would only be able to advertise the apps store for what it really is...1500apps with 285000 crap copies!

i just hope its aluminum fuel tanks rupture while ist nice and high. The fuel that thing containst is toxic as hell. At a guess i would say 60/70% of its weight is fuel too.

oh...i thought it was because his UCD had suction

I like the size. If you make it any smaller it will be so fiddly tying to build it up when it\'s made of all the separate parts. Like some of the other pods on here there next to impossible to build unless you mess around zooming right in while othe VAB. Kept it big! Women like big ;-) and I like big women!

I can\'t wait for something like the HAC or other range finding tech to be implemented in game

Thats what i use them for OMS. I usually end up running out of fuel practicing docking with discarded stages before though . I think once RSC is implemented it will be easyer, plus i can use the mains solely as OMS engines. As i\'ve said before though i love the vangard. If I had any coding or graphical skills i would ask if i could tinker with making RCS and other things but for now...its fine as it is. Would making 2 RCS tanks, front and rear mounted, ballance out the weight to leave it ballanced just as it is now? either giving them zero mass or giving the wings more lift to compensate? . Might be worth going back to it once reentry heat/friction is modeled in game.

What? So ur saying being stuck in the can with an oxygen tank is the hard part? There is NO fair way of comparison in the world you could use to for space activities. It\'s just to big a topic. Manned/Unmanned, lunar/LEO, relibility/mission success I do think the differences show how when it comes to diversity. The US HAD a platform to build, retrieve, fix, dock, and rendezvous with multiple objects in orbit. No other craft can do that. The shuttle was always a compromise. It was there to explore just as much as throw satellites into orbit to make money like the R7 devived rockets. albeit puting a space station in space....MIR On the TFNG astronaut core of 1979 has as there slogan...'we deliver'....problem is they knew the Russians did to.....but Russia really did just only deliver...hence the need to move on with the rest of the world. I swear to this day Russia will end its space program before they retire current rockets...no ex soviet engineers want to be the guy that spend billions on the new rocket that blew up and didn\'t work

Right i\'m no artist Nova so dont take the pi** to much . But have a request...strike that...i have a challange! I know your busy putting Vanguard in orbiter but personlly i love it in kerbal and havent used anything other than it since you uploaded it. So....If your willing to invest a little more time in modeling it how about changing the rear fuel tank into 3 parts...2 tanks, and one RCS tank. I\'m trying to work the way in which it would stage, but simply put...RCS drives thruster built into the tank (ala Durgun, mei long ect) I\'v ilustrated them on the back but they would be in the sides, other than the lower ones that would alter pitch as they would point 45degrees down from the back face, if you get my drift ??? as the heat shield on the bottom doesnt want fouling. Main trusters would work as per they do now but once there either ran out or not needed, you can press space and have a fast, couple of seconds, powerfull burst from the OMS engines to de-orbit. Maybe the OMS would be better as a SRB with a couple hundred thrust, like the Noyus capsule landing rockets....either way i love this pod. yeah its not 100% realistic but people shouldnt complain about a a decent mod for an uncompleate game. Keep up the good work..

i mean in all fairness the european ariane program (from 1979 onwards) was pretty good...: 201 launches, 9 failures. 43 successful in a row for Ariane V. And ESA in general...they have lauched the last 5 soyuz, hold the record for mass of payload at geo-orbit. who knows what the chinese will be doing in the next 10 yrs...only took 10 for the americans to crack it. With technology what it is today its feasable they could be on the moon by 2020 if they gave it a shot

RCS effect by altering throttle on differnet engines??? I know its not possiable just yet but hey i can dream. OR its this going to be gimbled in an interesting way?

thats my point. none of this is important...people bickering about two craft that were built for totaly different work loads. the shuttle has had two incidents with loss of life and the soyuz with lost of payload. either way they are way beyond there shelf life. as for the probe though as far as mission success the US has a better track record. Hubble was the bit that got left in space but that didnt matter to the public...it didnt work...just like Phobos-Grunt Its hardly a spare hubble at that altitude, nor is it a cost the tax payer is aware off when there classified. the hubble was HUGE news..when it didnt work there was a massive outcry from congress that nasa was abusing public funds. The KH-11 was USAF and CIA funded. With only NASA subsidising half the launch cost. My opinion is NASA screwed up from day one but made it work and work well doing missions no other craft could do and the Soyuz HAS worked reliably even in great volumes but its about time they move on before more lives are lost. I\'m still suprised that no one has mensioned ESA rockets. there are at the moment the only agency running 3 different rockets at a running cost equall to what spaceX are doing and havent had a lost of payload in years

And the mars rover that Russia built will be cheaper to replace than repair.....But they look mighty stupid not being able to send a rocket to mars after America have done it countless times. It\'s not always about safety, money or being better than the other....it\'s about pride and success. There\'s a saying in the USAF and in the astronaut core 'better dead than look bad' When Hubble was found to be faulty, who in the public was looking at the receipt for all the shuttle launches? No one, all they cared about was did in work...No=anger, waste of money... Repairing something was a lot more heroic than saying to the tax payer...'oh that one didn\'t work, we\'ll get it right next time....can we have a few more billion'? By repairing it they showed no matter how bad things got...'failure was not an option!' While also showing how valuable and flexible the shuttle was. STS-36 I think launched a classified recon satellite for the USAF/CIA (1990-O19b AKA KH-11 as Kryten said above) which is reportedly the same as Hubble in size and optics at a much lower altitude. It apparently broke in less than a month. But the was no repair mission for that...no point....it wasn\'t in the public eye with it being classified at the time. On a final note there has been hint that the USA (god know what they were thinking) also but wepons of nuclear technology in space during the 70\'s 80\'s. Leaving their orbit, no matter how inert, is perfect reason for having a platform that could retrieve payloads from orbit....and as such is the reason the airforce had it as a design requirement and why Vanderberg AFB was building its own launch facility.

But then no one has noted how the shuttle could return whole satellites intact back to earth. And there isn\'t another ship created that could do what the crew of STS-61, STS-81, STS-103, STS-109 and STS-125 did. The Hubble has been repaired, maintained, reengineered practically! All would have been impossible without the shuttle. If James Webb telescope finally gets into orbit sometime this century and it\'s broke.....it will be the single biggest failure of all time with no chance of a repair... The Russian mars lander that was launched before Christmas..may have been sucsessful if it had been launched from a platform like the shuttle. It could have been recaptured and returned, or a repair in space could have been attempted. Yes the shuttle was heavy (remeber it was designed back in the 70\'s and earlier though) but it took a lot of risk away from mission success, even though it was putting lives at risk.

My stance is if you take a part someone has made and you re skin it...fine. But not release it for others to use as though it\'s your own, even if you change the peramiters. I think even if you have the original modellers permission you shoud acknowledge then in the readme. I\'ve been making my re skin of the vanguard, I\'ll post pictures but other than that it stays on my pc only

Oh man that would kick ass!

Guess so. Only problem is there wouldn\'t be much need for simulated movement. Maybe other than a simulated roll and pitch over I don\'t think there\'s any static movement you could do to simulate g-forces. For what little manual control there was needed on the Gemini it would be wasted money on hydraulics. Although other than the rendezvous with 2 Gemini capsuals on Gemini 8 ( I think?) I can\'t think of anything worthwhile simulating on just screens and instruments. Ideas??

As greedy as it sounds I would try my damn hardest to turn it into a simulator. Blank cheque permitting!

Well if those are the rules deduct the challenger explosion as that was at 48,000ft

Location also counted. The Buran had to be a throw away really. Shuttle designers tried the idea of liquid engines for both first stages but realised landing them in salt waters wasn\'t going to be ideal (akin to driving a car in the sea and hoping it starts after) They looked at landing the boosters on land but at 150ft and 12ft diameter...they would have been damaged. Hense why they settled on SRB\'s. When it\'s empty it\'s just a steel tube with little moving parts to go wrong. Even NASA admit that the SRB recovery was more of a economic function than worthwhile. Reusing them sounded a cheaper option to congress than throwing them away. Plus they could argue that reusing them kept people in jobs. For Buran with no water mass around the launch site it would have been just as impossible as the NASA engineers found to try reuse the liquid boosters.

Kim Jong-ll isn\'t dead anyway, he\'s on hitlers secret moon base with Elvis and Michael Jackson. And it\'s out duty to go find them!

Regardless of what anyone says...there is no such thing as operational in spaceflight...only lower risk. And I take it you didn\'t read the bits where 57 we\'re killed filling up the Vostok & Kosmos rockets then? But we\'ll not get into how many scientists & engineers were beaten to within inches of there life\'s if the kremlin saw fit... For some reason I\'ve been looking into the shuttle MISTAKES (chose not to call them disasters as disasters are unavoidable) like you say the foam strike was only a matter of sending the boom arm over the edge to look at the leading edge of the wing. I herd one engineer had even asked to use telescopes or military satellites to look at columbia, and was denied. Even though he argued they had done so on sts-1 through 4 to check on thermal tiles.