DerekL1963

No - because the Earth isn't stable in the inertial reference frame and as a result, Polaris being the North Star is only a temporary thing. A couple of millennia ago it was Kochab. A couple of millennia hence it will be Gamma Cephei.

Changing the science system involves much more than the tech tree... But off on another though, thunk up while I should have been concentrating on this weeks post on my anime blog.... I think the one of basic problems with the science system can be defined thusly: It's easy to add the ability to gain more science (via mods), while reducing the ability to get science is hard. On top of that, the method of reducing the amount of science gains is about as subtle as a thermonuclear weapon. The latter is the real problem, it makes it hard for the veteran player to usefully make the game harder and increase the interest level. (For some values of "harder" and "interest level" as these things vary from player to player.) So far, for me, the workable solution is a counter-intuitive one - I do both, making it easier and making it harder. I use dMagic's science mod (which gathers more science and distributes the science tools around the tech tree) and I turn down science returns. Distributing the instruments across the tree is the important change (IMO)... I can concentrate on incremental increases in booster capability and fly more missions early on. Later, when I need science in big thawkin' chunks to buy a node, I have to fly later developed instruments to places I've been previously. Which is a reasonably historical model - look how many mission's we've flown to Mars for example. Early crude ones because we didn't know much (scientifically speaking), later more successive advanced and refined ones to answer the questions raised by the earlier ones. (YMMV of course, this is designed around my preferences.)

Well, the best reply I can give is the same one I've already posted - it would be nice if you would explain what you meant instead of just indulging in a drive by (with bonus personal aspersions). We're trying to have a discussion here, and drive-by's aren't very useful. If your problems are with my particular playstyle, that's actually not very useful either. As far as game modes go, that's why I pointed out in my original reply that there's not going to be a "one-size-fits-all" solution. That's simply not possible. As any number of games have discovered, easy for beginners boring for veterans. Interesting for veterans, too hard for beginners.

More accurately, they would probably be the 90 degree and 270 degree engines (or 0 and 180) - measured clockwise from a defined zero point as seen from the nose. (At least that's how US SLBM's work.) Even if they did call them "left" and "right", that's going to be in relation to a defined position.

I never saw any (Shuttle) design with 4 SRBs, the bids were for a pair of SRBs (per flight).

Inertial attitude is defined with respect to the stars (which is why I used them in my example). The Earth's inertial attitude is not fixed... As to why they maintain it (at least over short period)? Newton's first Law of Motion - "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it". (It's sometimes formulated as "every object at rest", and that's the case here.) They don't stay fixed very long because, as I said, there are plenty of sources of external forces.

There's no shockwave in space because the shockwave is a product of the energy of the bomb interacting with matter (in this case, the atmosphere) around the bomb. However, you provide matter in the form of a lead block...

It would be nice if you explained why rather than indulging in a drive by...

Until it was disturbed by an external force it will retain it's existing (inertial) orientation (presuming it has no pre-existing rates). That is, if the nose is pointed towards Polaris and belly towards Betelgeuse it will maintain that orientation at least for a little while. But having no rates is rare and external forces abound; gravity, Earth's magnetic field, the solar wind, drag (even though it's a near vacuum)... To stay nose forward, the vehicle has to rotate at a rate equivalent to it's orbital period. That requires active control to establish and maintain over any length of time. There is no "natural state" as there is no airflow or anything to force it towards a 'natural' state. Generally, absent active stabilization, AFAIK anything in orbit will eventually tumble.

Buran was side mounted - just like the Shuttle.

The bottom of the Shuttle was not noticeably better at protecting the crew from ionizing radiation than the top... (And except during a flare the main problem is cosmic rays, not from the Sun.) The Shuttle relied mostly on being beneath the Van Allen Belts and inside the Earth's magnetosphere to protect the crew from radiation. The Shuttle's orientation at any given time (it varied) was chosen around three factors: Maximizing the efficiency of the radiators mounted to the back of the bay doors. Thermal control and field of view for cargo in the bay. Protecting the radiators and the equipment behind the bay walls and floor (which were made of Beta cloth) from debris strikes. That depends on the orientation mode chosen.

I don't own a copy either... I get it via inter-library loan every year or so. Inter-library loan is an useful service, I get all kinds of amazing stuff via my local library. I've got a stack of academic works on Restoration/Meji era Japan on my coffee table that I wouldn't be able to get otherwise. If it's only $4 used, and shipping is reasonable, I'd say go for it - though that's almost certainly one of the earlier single volume editions. There's good stuff in them, but it's been long enough since I that I can't vouch for what is or isn't in there or it's accuracy. Dennis put in a ton of work on the final, three volume, edition to make it as definitive as possible with the material available at the time. Yes, large monolithics were tested... and IIRC the tests served mainly to uncover issues that could be dodged with a single fixed test grain but could not be dodged with paired mobile operational grains. Basically the problems were casting and handling. In normal practice, all of the ingredients for a single grain are mixed and poured all in go to maintain consistency. A monolithic was too big to safely do this with a single grain, yet alone enough propellant for two matched grains. (Two Shuttle segments, a LH and RH pair, were much easier and safer to manufacture and would match within the required 5%.) There was some work done on continuous processing, and one of the big grain tests was produced this way... but it burned extraordinarily roughly. This was blamed on the bonding between the "ropes" of propellant as they merged under the weight of the grain above them. I've seen some hints over the years that stratification was also a problem due to the high pressures (from the weight of the grain) and extended cure times, but nothing definitive. I've also seen hints that stopping the grain from flowing as it sat (again, due to extreme weight) was also foreseen as a problem. Segments were small enough that they suffered none of these problems. The other big issue was simply handling the darn things. At the time, 1.3 million pounds was out at the extreme edge of technology... Not just for getting out of the casting pit, but for transporting it from the casting pit to storage, then to the Cape for storage, then to the VAB, then erecting it on the MLP. (And remember, it was cast nose down, handled horizontally, then nose up for installation and flight - all without flexing the tube and potentially damaging the grain.) Then there's the VAB cranes. At the time, the biggest crane was 250 tons, now there's a pair of 375 ton cranes added in the 90's... a monolithic weighs in excess of 500 tons. Upgrading the cranes and the VAB would have been very expensive.

The grapple points were installed for two reasons: a) as a hedge against robotic repair capability becoming available, and b) so that a de-orbit module could berth itself. If we had a robonaut with sufficient dexterity and capability... But we don't. (Let alone one that qualified for space and sufficiently mature to trust with a multi billion dollar national asset.) We're not even close. As far as EVA goes... Any kind of astronaut maneuvering unit is Right Out. (Not that we have one ready to go, SAFER is only qualified for one time emergency use.) Great precautions were taken during the Shuttle mission to avoid contaminating the mirrors with gases or residues from the RCS system. There's also the question of the spacecraft... Without an airlock, you need to depressurize the entire vehicle. No proposed vehicle is certified for operations with the crew cabin at vacuum. (Nor are there any plans to do.)

*Facepalm* Liquid side boosters were more than just "discussed", they studied extensively and proceeded as far as preliminary designs. Ultimately they were rejected because of high development and operations costs and concerns over whether they could be recovered. (Nobody at the time could work out a method that seemed viable.) When it comes to the SRB's, four of the five bidders on the contract bid segmented boosters. Two segmented bids were rejected on the grounds that lacked the ability to do the work. (One, Lockheed, had neither a factory or experience. The other was running at full capacity producing Poseidon motors and had the Trident contract and a MX development contract (as well as other, smaller, contracts and was judged not capable of taking on additional work.) The monolithic bid was rejected on the grounds that monolithics were an immature technology and that there were too many unanswered questions. (Which in fact there were.) That left two standing with only minor differences between the bids. There is absolutely zero evidence of any impropriety in awarding the bid. In fact, both NASA's Inspector General and the OMB investigated when the award was protested by the loser. Segmented solid boosters were a product of three problems that continually plagued Shuttle development: First, a hard cap on annual expenditures. Second, schedule pressure to meet the planned 1978 launch date. Third, focusing on the ability to support the planned launch rate. This is all in Jenkins (Space Shuttle: Developing an icon), which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the Shuttle and it's history. (Get and read the three volume final edition, which has a ton of stuff not in the earlier editions.) The fanboi theory WRT Utah is just that - a theory.

Probably not. For all it's hardness, diamonds are extremely brittle - the explosion alone would probably turn them into dust from the shock.

The difference between a counterfactual history (alternate history) and fanboi porn is this: The former generally works within reality or provides a reasonable explanation as to how and why the counterfactual diverges from history. The latter throws reality in the trash and like all porn is nothing but pure fantasy right out of the box. This counterfactual (though we're assuming the existence of budget for this one thing*) "what happens if this variant of the Shuttle happens" has already been interesting, I'd never really thought about how history would proceed with a less capable Shuttle that requires heavy lift expendables and is subject to their limits. It surprised me to find that it still ends up in the same general place NASA is today - having to make a hard sell to keep the money flowing. And that circles back to reality, unless you break the "one assumption" rule and assume the budgets continue endlessly... at which point you're clearly in the realm of fanboi porn. Or, to put it another way, we're having this discussion because it's providing some useful insights. "We could have had we wanted to" adds no useful insight, as it's a true statement long accepted as fact by all. * Some schools of counterfactual discussion allow a single assumption so long as it's not too unrealistic. I'm no purist in that matter and I'm OK with the "one assumption" school so long as the existence of that assumption is clearly stated and understood by all participants.

There's a couple of those "grievances" are not organic to the stock science system, but rather are a direct result ofgame play choices. "There is too much science available in the Kerbin system, reducing the incentive to explore beyond." This is true of people who grind their way through all the science in the Kerbin System. But grinding all that science is boring, and I do not understand why people do it and them blame the game for their choices. I usually head outward as soon as I have a chance. (With clever design and careful play, you can hit Duna pretty early on.) But on the flip side, having all that science available means that folks who want to fly planes, etc... don't have to leave the Kerbin system. Stay or go, the choice is up to player. "Mobile Processing Labs make gathering science too easy." Then don't use them. (duh) The great and deep beauty in KSP is that it allows so many choices. I've topped out the tech tree without using the MPL and didn't find it that difficult. (The trick here is Jool and it's moons...) "The tech tree is restrictive and prevent me from developing my program in the direction I want." I have mixed feeling on this... Yes, in some ways the tree is badly designed. (Some of that bad design is the fault of bad system coughCommNetcough design though. On the other hand, no matter how the tree is designed the player is going to have to make choices as to where and when to spend his points. There's no stock tree that's going to satisfy everyone. If the tech tree does have a problem, it's that the early game is so restricted - you're kinda forced (at least a little bit) into strip mining Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus for science. But you don't have to strip mine it all (not even remotely) to go interplanetary and really start scoring the science points. (Or you can do as I do... I wrote a MM patch that moves enough equipment down to the start node that I don't have to strip mine/grind.) I have to ask - satisfying to who? There's a myriad of play styles out there, and there's not going to be any one solution. As I said above, the problem isn't as simple as "the system is borked beyond belief". With a modest MM patch to move some items around, the stock tree works for me and my play style. But if my tree were going to be standard, there would be people who would complain that it doesn't match their preferred play style.

How is it not fair to point towards something that makes a task easier? Why do you assume that they want to learn docking rather than viewing it merely as a tedious chore in service of a larger goal? [snip] MJ doesn't design vehicles, if you don't have enough D/V or a t/w greater than unity... MJ won't make up that lack. MJ doesn't design missions. It's up to you to choose LOR or EOR (for example), design the appropriate vehicles, and make the decision what to tell MJ to do and when. Etc... etc... MJ is a tool, and no different than any other tool it depends on the player's hand to make use of it.

There is no such thing as "a" proper way to play KSP. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Yes, we know that. You've said it six times now. Repeating it accomplishes nothing.

Oh, here we go again. You may be a better pilot than Mechjeb - but not everyone is. You may find flying manually more challenging and fun - but not everyone does. For better or worse, I'm over on the left hand side of the bell curve when it comes to eye-hand and twitch reflexes, Mechjeb is a much better pilot than I. (And don't pull that "all you need is practice" nonsense. Practice can no more correct my slow reflexes and poor eye hand coordination than it can cure my nearsightedness.) Without MechJeb, I literally could not play KSP. In the same vein, I don't find flying much fun at all. I get my fun planning and designing the missions (I'm about sixteen hours into planning and testing detailed mission architecture for a Dres expedition. I figure I'm about one third to half done.) The only reason I fly at all is to prove that my planning and designing produced the desired results.

Sadly, yes, it is still a thing. There are plenty of people who still take it upon themselves to insist that anyone who isn't playing the game in one particular way are "cheating". This isn't a problem with the existence of MJ, it's a problem with people and problem with their egos. [censored] them. There is no "one true way" to play the game. Right. Using MJ I've never learned how to optimize a launch vehicle. (Oh, wait, I have.) Nor have I learned how to design and implement a mission architecture for one of the most complex challenges in the game - and then executed that architecture and mission. (Oh, wait, I have - see my signature.) Etc.. etc... As I said above, the problem here isn't MJ. It's people. [censored] them. Precisely.

Another trick is to set your RCS for translation-only, and use SAS to keep yourself parallel to your target. This mod will help ensure your RCS is balanced:

No, we don't have sufficient spare (ISS) modules to make a new station. Even if we did, we'd have to design and build at least one new module as no existing or planned USOS module has the RCS systems that Zarya has. The RCS system is used for minor reboosts and (most importantly) for desaturating the CMG's. On top of that, as Canopus correctly points out, USOS modules are designed to ride as passive cargo in the Shuttle's cargo bay. Launching them on expendables would require developing some kind of space tug to provide propulsion, power, attitude control, etc... etc...

Yeah, during the "don't worry about cost" phase, there were indeed some cool designs... One wonders how practical some of the were, and even with money-is-no-object, how much they would have changed in the transition from paper dreams to flying hardware. The X-33 stands as a stark reminder of how badly things can go wrong! Something many folks don't have a good handle on is just how conservative NASA was with both Apollo and Shuttle - they only went outside the lines when they really had no other choice. Sometimes (*cough*SSME*cough*) that cost them dearly.