DerekL1963

Cool, thanks.

Will MechVal work with MechJeb created nodes?

That's like comparing the cost of a 1960's car to the cost of a 2010's car... at a gross level, they're both cars - but in detail they're very different animals. It's simply not a straightforward comparison that can be judged solely on price. That being said, there's not much in the way of competition. And even if there were, these are complex machines turned out by the dozens per annum, not toothpaste that's rolled out to the tune of a hundreds of thousands of tubes a day. So again, not something that can be simply and easily compared.

Somewhere after 2025. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/spacecraftlife.html

Cones are more difficult to design, analyze, and build than simple barrels. Real life engineering has more tradeoffs and more complex tradeoffs than KSP does.

A mixture. Some parts are heated by seperate heaters powered from the RTG, others (I.E. the electronics) are self heated and use a passive cooling system. Why would you expect them to be blurred? There's no vibration, and except at or near encounters the size/position of the body being imaged changes very little, even over a period of as much as an hour. That being said, the camera was mounted on a scan platform to compensate for movement during close encounters (among other things). Luck, good design, luck, skilled construction, and luck.

Landed about six iterations of the same lander on Laythe as I work out landers in preparation for taking on the Jool 5 challenge. Executed a dozen or more ascents (F5/F9 is my friend) working out my ascent strategy (The Tylo/Val lander is already done, just about done with the Laythe lander, then the Bop/Pol lander should be easy peasy.)

Ah... then what I've done on several occasions, and what I've seen done by friends on several occasions obviously didn't happen because it's impossible. My bad. Seriously, you can weave your own story in Career mode by choosing which contracts to accept and when, choosing the order their executed in, and by flying your own flight either as a lead-in or follow-on to contract missions. It takes a bit of imagination, but it's quite doable. And not so different from a choose-your-own-adventure book. o.0 No offense, but I'm not sure you grasp the difference between storytelling and reading. You wrote the story by writing the mission packs, your reader reads the story by reading the expository material and executing the missions. That is indeed storytelling, computer games by the bucket load have told stories using that exact framework.

Thanks! I've just about got my landers nailed... soon time to start considering how to get them there.

Huh? You can tell your own story regardless of mode (career, sci, sandbox). In career sometimes you have to be a bit creative to work the hand you've been dealt (via contracts) into your narrative, but it's certainly not impossible.

Indeed. Kazakhstan is less than impressed with the amount of toxic waste the Soviets dumped, and the Russians continue to dump, on their territory.

Anyone who has been on the 'net more than a week could tell you, given the tenor of his replies, that's not going to happen.

You don't even need the basic organics... you could start with the base elements. The problem is, the further you get from the complete molecule the higher the cost in energy.

This is their first tank rupture, the previous failure was in the structure restraining the tanks. (The structure failed and the tank tore loose from it's piping.) The tanks aren't steel, they're COPV

0.o The whole text is there - scroll down.

Is it really necessary to keep replying to this guy?

Noodling around with the possibility of trying this challenge... and I don't see Modular Fuel Tanks on the modlist. Would it be a yea or a nay? It's very handy for stock tanks and LV-N's.

It wasn't "just broke by cryogenics" - it was blown apart by a near explosive internal event. I don't think there's ever been, or ever will be, a flight worthy booster than can withstand severe overpressure of it's tankage. This is what was left of a S-IVB stage after an external helium tank ruptured and tore the stage apart.

It was done at least as far back as the S-IV stage of the Saturn I, so it's not exactly a "new" way of doing things. And yes, it would take significant engineering to move them - the whole reason they're there is because cooling the helium down to cryogenic temperatures lets them put more of it in smaller and lighter tanks than would be required if the helium system were at ambient temperatures.

No, if you actually read the bill rather than the breathless and overhyped interpretations of it... Congress mandates that NASA produce a report on how we might go to Mars in the next 25 years, and reminds them in no uncertain terms that the Senate Launch System is the preferred way to go about it.

Falcon's second stage has a higher proportion of total performance than is considered optimal because the first stage has to reserve delta-V for flyback and recovery. Without a doubt this impacted the design. And so a second failure in the second stage's helium system (even if unrelated to CRS-7) is... troubling.

Looking at the other books they've written, they're O'Reilly staff authors, churning out whatever O'Reilly needs a book on.

Nit: Some rockets (most modern rockets) run the turbine exhaust to the main chamber. Others just dump it overboard. (Lower overall efficiency, but it simplifies the design and construction of the overall system as well as making it lighter. There's always a trade off.) Some early rockets sent it to nozzles and used it for attitude control.

It also depends on your occlusion settings.

If you want to send a bunch of individual ships in one window - this guide should prove helpful.