DerekL1963

Reviewing which thing? Your link goes back the first post of the very thread you're posting in.

It can happen with any planetary encounter (even flying to the Mun) because of the inevitable +/- normal errors in your burn, but yeah. Much of that is just Dres being Dres. (Though you'll see it at Moho too.) If your target planet's orbit is inclined with relation to your departure planet's orbit, you're going to generally end up in an inclined orbit at your target. That's just orbital mechanics at work.

Dreadnought did not fight at the Battle of Jutland because she was undergoing a lengthy refit at Portsmouth. Otherwise, she was the flagship of 4BS and at the Battle Of Jutland she'd have been with the Grand Fleet - right near the center of the battleline. (You're not far wrong about the other stuff, but it's common misconception that she was deliberately left behind.)

Pretty much this. And Congress doesn't care if a commercial option exists or not. Heck, they don't even actually care if SLS ever flies or not. The Senate Launch System is a jobs & pork project.

That's not reasoning, that's simply repeating yourself. (AKA "proof by assertion".) No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't change the fact that you've refused to address the facts that have been introduced by others or answer the questions you've been asked. Nope, you didn't.

Yeah, there's some pretty strict size/weight limitations (mostly) due to carrier weapons elevators and the size of the hatches on submarines..

The problem isn't "what has happened so far". The problem is that the past is apples and the future is oranges, and thus it's less than clear that the past is a useful guide to the future. You can't get apple cider out of oranges no matter how much smoke you blow.

There's a lot of clear and unequivocal demands for a large number of different user groups within the playerbase. Some of them are possible. Many of them are mutually exclusive. The problem every dev team faces is sorting out which ones will actually provide the best "bang for the buck" - which ones will please the most and liquid off the fewest. The real problem is actually determining the views of "the most"...

That would invariably end up in you wildly missing the target. A node is a precise instant in time, but it's a mathematical fiction because thrust is applied over time, not instantaneously. So in reality you have to 'split the node', I.E. start burning before you actually hit the node and burn after passing through the node. Where exactly to make the split (when to start burning) is a complex calculation (and partly magic) that's sensitive to both your spacecraft's performance characteristics and your orbital parameters. (And subject to the limitations of the game itself - for example, throttles aren't instantaneous.) Something very weird is going on then because using MechJeb alone I can almost always (99%+) hit Dres with no more than two burns. One transfer burn from Kerbin orbit, and one mid-course correction burn. (The latter is rarely very large nowadays because the transfer calculator now combines the ejection and plane change burns into a single burn.) Try using MechJeb alone and see what happens.

Precisely this. Remember those grinding slums that feature in so many of Dickens' works? They were in a large part a direct result of jobs lost to industrialization (across a variety of fields) in England in the 1800's, and it took the better part of a century for that bolus to work it's way through society. Disruption is real and has real effects. But what's happening today with many jobs is very different. Shifting a job (such as drafting, or travel agents) over to software doesn't create that many new jobs selling or maintaining software. A few dozen people can maintain and sell a software package (or operate a website) that puts thousands or tens of thousands (or more) out of work.

If there's an existing node, no matter how it was created, the "Execute next node" button will execute that node. "Set delta", sets the amount the + and - buttons will change the burn (value in the left hand entry box) by. (Or you can enter a custom value in the right hand entry box.) "Conics mode", I have no idea. "Tolerance" sets how close MechJeb will try to get to your desired velocity. I would highly recommend not messing with it. Lower values can cause MJ to execute some very weird burns. Higher values will result in you invariably missing your target.

Basically the original Yamato had catapults in that position (for scout float planes), so the anime one had to have catapults there too. Plus it meant cool(er) space fighters and a unique launch sequence for the main characters. In the anime, the hangar deck is indeed zero G during the launch sequence, and the pilots are depicted as "jumping" (for lack of a better term) to their craft. There is artificial gravity available for maintenance periods. Vacuum or pressure is never a subject that comes up... But yeah, soft sci-fi, physics and practical considerations take a definite backseat to "the rule of cool".

Did so and it works gangbusters! Thanks! - Links need to be added to the first post for Click Through Blocker and Toolbar Controller. - Space Tux Library needs to be added to the first post as a dependency. (It's in the changelog, but not in the dependency list.) Wishlist: That the throttle window could be open without having to have the main window open . (I know I can drag it out of the way, but then the next time I open it, it's in the out of the way position.)

Overly nerdy nitpick... Space Battleship Yamato 2199. (A reboot of the original series, and a darn fine anime. Well worth searching out.)

When meausuring distance to a target between a target and a craft in atmospheric flight, it is the true distance (measured along the surface) or the chord?

Catch up on the KSP forums, check Twitter, catch up on blogs I follow, flop on the couch and watch some anime...

Here they are: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vg04g746c8jzbk2/Throttle Mod Troubleshooting 01.zip?dl=0

nods Virtually all of the focus in the debate on 'automation' is on blue collar jobs... But there's been a revolution in white collar jobs that's gone all but un-noticed. My wife is an accountant, and she's the boss accountant for a retail business that's considerably larger than it was in the 70's-80's... But has only a fraction of the office staff. (In real, not relative, terms. And in her twenty years there, the office has gone from four to two.) POS software eliminated a large percentage, and integrated vertical packages (POS combined with payroll/time management and other financials and misc functions) have eliminated virtually all of them. (And much of what's left in the accounting/bookkeeping field has been dramatically deskilled because the software now does the work, E.G. tax prep.) I'm a trained draftsman (or was anyhow), and that's a profession that's been eliminated lock, stock, and barrel by CAD/CAM software. Etc... etc... Once you know where to look, it's everywhere.

Where do I find that?

Even with drop tanks... still not quite enough fuel for an unrefueled circumnavigation...

No. The closest we've ever come is TDRS. Several Mars probes have given over part of their payload to act as relays as well.

I've been using the latest version from the release thread with no problems. (Also, please trim your quotes!)

I have no idea, the crew complement is listed as 107.

re:submarine escape Yes, in conventional diving, you ascend slowly (and take breaks) to avoid the bends. But conventional divers have air tanks - submarine escapees do not. But keep in mind that reaching a state where you can get the bends is a product of pressure and time. Submarine escapees minimize the latter. The escape system is pressurized as quickly as possible, and the escape conducted as quickly as possible. (At least on US boats, there's a plaque in and adjacent to the escape trunk listing the pressurization rate for various depth.) Very crowded... Here's the interior of the pod on a Borei class SSBN:

In theory, yes. In practice it's never been really tried from any deep depth as it's pretty risky. Escape was considered the last resort, better to wait for rescue. Of course, out of a three month patrol only the first 9-12 hours and the last 9-12 hours were in waters shallow enough to bottom and wait for rescue. (For boats in the Pacific, it's frequently even less.) We called the various escape and rescue systems "mommy systems", their only practical usage being to keep mothers, wives, and congresscritters happy. We were under no illusion of what was likely to happen if we couldn't put the boat on the roof. The escape pods are pretty well known if you follow that sort of thing. Here (for example) is one of a Typhoon's escape pods, and here is where it fits. Here's the one from an Oscar. Here is a list of all classes with escape pods and their specifications. I know there's a full page about them, but I can't dig it up at the moment.