sgt_flyer

As you said, the results are interesting, and can be interpreted in numerous ways. as it could be argued you that the side in favor of RB was split between 4 different answers, VS only 1 answer for the side against it. (Ex : "the please keep it" and the "it must stay, no matter what anyone else thinks" can be considered the same answer :) - with, as you stated, the "keep zokesia" in favor of keeping at least a part of RB. One could interpret it as 60.8% if the voters would have been glad if it stayed at least - among the people who would have been at least glad it stayed, 41.8% can let it go - the remaining would have wished to keep at least a part of it :) All in all, could be an interesting social experiment :) - and yeah, blurry boundaries for categories can do that ^^ Now, people are free to interpret the numbers as they want to :) Ultimately, as some people could have been counted twice in your results (as it came from two threads) it represents only a fraction of the forum users :)

Thanks :)

One thing though (outside of the great accomplisment of landing the rocket), the BO crew capsule seems to have kicked a lot of dust when it landed on parachutes - wouldn't that be a bit of a hard landing for a tourist crew ? (Or do they plan to have something to cushion that landing ?)

It's keeping the replies that are the problem. A thread like this one was built upon the replies - simply copying the OP is nowhere near enough :) (And the company RP argument can't be held against this one...) [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/34125-Rocket-Builders-OKB-1-Russian-Rocket-Design-Firm-and-Repository[/url]

There was no RP in the whole thread - but i can understand that it would be difficult for mods to check whole threads. - it'll be sad to lose the discussions with it if i copy the original post myself though.

Will be sad to see old stuff disappear like that when the rb subforum will be gone - spent qute some time along with others on the OKB-1 thread (Even if old, it's still a nice thread to showcase what was (and is) possible to do with the stock game) And threads like this can't be represented by the first post either... The okb-1's discussions are the nice thing to it :)

Hello, Can my craft repository thread be moved from the rocket builders to the spacecraft exchange ? (There's no company RP in it) Thanks ! [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115416-sgt_flyer-s-KSP-stock-craft-showcase-taking-requests[/url]

Heh :) 18 m/s - that's nearly 35 knots - the real titanic had a maximum speed of 24 knots :) Even the fast cruise liners keep their cruise speed under 30 knots :)

Hint : you could use the rapier in rocket mode if you want 4 nozzles in a 1.25m package :) (or even two of them clipped together) Here's an old 0.23 version i made with those :) [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/34125-Rocket-Builders-OKB-1-Russian-Rocket-Design-Firm-and-Repository?p=1040611&viewfull=1#post1040611[/url]

i guess he used the new MK1 cockpit to create 'access' doors / airlocks on anything at least, with that we can easily place access doors almost anywhere we want to (and it fits in a 1.25m tube - unlike the lander pod which is larger than 1.25m )

Yup, but how many cats vs how many windmills ?

Yup, snoopy's a possibility, as they remotely fired it's engines after they jetissoned the lunar ascent module before the CSM got back to earth. The engine firing sent snoopy into an heliocentric orbit - we might have catched up to it Current weather forecast for colombo in sri lanka.http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/sri-lanka/colombo/hourly Seems the emirates sponsored airborne observation. http://www.astronomycenter.net/events/2015/11/03/wt1190f?l=en Though, if there's thunderclouds in the area, they'll have some problems getting to a good spot. (Thunderclouds go way higher than plane's service ceiling)

good job on findind a way to miniaturise the hinge even more very impressive .craft overall MJ

well, made some tests, it works with the small landing gear (veeery tight fit though ) tried the same bearing configuration as my fairing based animated jet engines inside it, it rolls (now, to try how strong it is, time to get out my stress test bench ^^ )

mmh i want to play with the new structural fuselage - it's collision box matches it's new appearance it could allow us even nicer bearings than fairing based ones here's jeb checking the plumbing ! (yup, he walked from it's pod and climbed directly inside the structural fuselage it fits !

Among the stresses the frame would have been submitted, you'll also have all the vibrations from the launch itself - so between all these stresses, (launch, reentry, splashdown, corrosion) the frame might not be reusable as it. You maybe can recycle the materials, but studying how those materials handled that is as much valuable to help design a more robust and/or more lightweight version The electronics on board might be much easier to reuse though

Once phobos will get through the roche limit, it will break apart. once it has broken apart, all those fragments will slowly drift apart (as they will be on slightly different orbits), creating a small asteroid belt around mars, until those fragments themselves impact mars's ground. Of course, if we ever build some colony on mars, it would be better to build nothing under Phobo's orbital path - as that's where the impacts will occur (unless we can find a way to stabilise phobos orbit before it's ripped apart by mars's gravity.) Still, if we ever manage to create a huge colony on mars, it'll mean we'll have develloped some proper interplanetary mean of travel - so phobos would likely be heavily prospected for materials for things such as in orbit construction

It has been considered before, but liquid ozone is much too unstable, due to the molecular bonds. Ozone is not a stable molecule by itself, and can easily decompose - in an exothermic fashion. Basically,in a O2 / O3 mix with more than 24% O3, an O3 molecule decomposing in O2 + O can trigger an exothermic chain reaction - and heating a cryogenically liquefied gas - you'll have to deal with a huge overpressure spike when that happens and boom

yup, you can add those kind of extensions. if you don't want to risk those extensions to collide with your rocket, you can use counterweight or separatrons systems to eject them away from your rocket on liftoff however, if your rocket's upper stage is wobbling / heavy enough to need launch clamps to support them on the ground, it will become much worse after liftoff (you should not need to use launch clamp elsewhere than your first stage - unless you build intricate 'real life' launch towers, real life launch towers generaly have two purposes : fuel the rocket stages, (so you need to get your fuel lines up to the upper stage) and provide lateral stability against wind - two problems we don't have in real life once liftoff, each real life rocket first stage is able to fully support the upper stage's weight, even against the rocket acceleration. here's an example of counterweight based launch clamp extensions (real life example of counterweight launch clamps : soyuz Iron Tulip) counterweight physics can be fun and fully works in KSP the two launch clamps are attached to the structural fuselage, which are attached to the rocket with structural pylons. both launch clamps and structural pylons are staged at the same time. the structural parts i attached to the launch clamp act as a pivot point for the clamp extension + counterweights, so the extension folds upwards during liftoff, allowing the rocket to completely clear the clamps despite it's wide 1st stage the key is to design an articulation point that will prevent the rotating part from escaping and risks collision with the rocket if you want 'complex' launch towers, it's fully doable stock (like i did with my mini saturn V ^^) (the arms on this launch tower use separatrons to make the 'empty' SRB rotate, making the arms rotate with it away from the rocket.)

Both 'manual' captures you listed still had help from the RMS which was installed in those shuttles. in those cases, the evaing astronauts were attached to the RMS - it's invaluable for the astronauts to be kept in a stable position during such an operation and stop any unwanted relative motion of the satellite before it can damage the orbiter. A 'tether' leap of faith grab + pull would result in uncontrolled motions of the target spacecraft. And you wouldn't want to risk to have further damage to the orbiter by having a collision between the two.

Depends if you are moving around a lot in this case, an e-mail program can keep a copy of your mails locally so you can read them even if you don't have network coverage Having worked as a telecom engineer, it was quite useful to be able to read the mails i downloaded prior to getting on a site with no internet access avaible (cause i don't have the customer's network rights) nor mobile phone network coverage (because it's a faraday cage building like datacenters can be) @pawelk198604 Though, there's plenty of existing mail programs you can install on your computer, so maybe try some of those

Does someone have some infos on how the h2/o2 tanks for the shuttle's fuel cells were filled prior to launch ? Notably did the fuel cell tanks were filled from within the pressurised crew cabin or from somewhere else on the shuttle (which would require an EVA... And in this case, i hope the access procedure don't require more dexterity than what's possible with the EVA suit (if they have to remove access panels etc)) With microgravity, you'd have a hard time refilling liquid tanks (unless you bring a helium pressurised tank to help with it. (Plus, they would have needed to create this kind of procedure + ressuply tanks within the 30 days time frame)

Hehe when i first accidentally created an open ended fairing, i ended up researching the thing to be able to reproduce it consistently (and then posted the technique ) it really allows to do a lot of things (including bearings !) - as columbia stated though, you can't use symmetry on it though so the best way is effectively to save the section with the fairing as a subassembly, and create a separate 'hardpoint' that you can use with symmetry - then attach the subassembly to each of the hardpoints. (That's the trick i used to circumvent the symmetry problem with my turbojet engines subassemblies here) There's 0 symmetry within the engine pylon subassembly, so i can attach the pylon to the wings using mirror symmetry without fear of symmetry bugs. the last part of the pylon is a cubic strut, onto which the engine's subassembly root part (another cubic strut) can directly attach - so no risks of assymetric thrust

You need to add either a docking port or a probe core pointing in the good direction (their up side pointing the opposite way of the engine's thrust) then rightclick this docking port / probe core and hit 'control from here'.

Another possibility, is to use the translation tool technique to create a gap between the fuel tank and the decoupler, then put your terrier on a radial attachment point and radially attach it to the fuel tank http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics?p=1709894&viewfull=1#post1709894 Basically, place your upper stage fuel tank, add a 2.5m decoupler directly under it. Use the rotation tool to turn the decoupler vertically by 90° (In 'snap' mode, then translate the decoupler downwards as far as you need (in smooth mode, to avoid unwanted sideways movements). Go back to the rotation tool in 'snap' mode to put back the decoupler horizontally, and you'll have a gap between the tank and the decoupler. Finally add your radial attachment point + terrier underneath the tank. No more 2.5 -> 1.25 -> 2.5 problem (you can add a few struts to connect the lower stage to the upper stage if you want, to keep a 'realistic' connection between the two