sgt_flyer

That's known since a long time it's basically the pivot point between the krakendrives high reactionless thrust and hover / anchor mode - what happens is the krakendrive switches modes at this specific speed, it wants to instantly slow down to hover speeds (around 5 m/s) while the rest of the craft tries to continue flying at the same speeds

Gathering minerals / gases from asteroid could be useful for space exploration - if associated with in orbit processing / 3d printing. Then, the only thing you'd need to send up is the stuff you cannot build in orbit (like electronics) - which will require a much smaller rocket - ex once you built a transfer stage hull and engines, you send the actual probe up with the control electronics, dock with the stage, and fuel it with the gases you had been gathering too - and hop, you can send your probe far away with only a small launcher

the problem with NTRs, is that they have fuel tanks attached to them (with the fuel flow they use, it's hard to have a specially engineered way to shear the plumbing ), and, typically, the payload above them. the planned US Nerva stage weighted 178 tons fully fueled, and 36 tons unfuelled - the planned Orion capsule weight is 8 tons - so that makes a huge difference in the weight to support for an escape system. (you'll have to increase a lot the escape system's solid fuel, which weights a lot ) of course, such an NTR stage would only be used outside atmo - so during ascent, the stage will still be fully fuelled with tons of LH2 the reactor + nozzle itself weights a bit less than the stage's dry mass - but not that much for the fallout risks in case of booster failure, check out the Kiwi TNT experiment (which was a worst case experiment) - those stages are not bombs, they are nuclear reactors - and those things are built to be tough

Another feature (and difficulty) of staged combustion cycle, is the high chamber pressure. (70 bars for the f-1 engine, 145 bars for the nk-33. To support these kind of pressures and keep the weight of the engine down also require superior metallurgy. In the end, the higher chamber pressures gives a higher exhaust velocity for the gases - so better ISP. (Rd-180 has 266 bars of chamber pressure)

The only 'initial' delay known for the moment is for the atlas V carrying NROL-67 is delayed until at least april 10. So i guess the other launch should be delayed by at least that amount too - we're looking for at least two weeks delay (as the atlas V should have been launched on March 25. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/eastern-range-radar-upcoming-launches/

You'll need to find some form of water (ice, for example) Then, with the water from the ice and co2 you could scrub from atmo, you can make methane + o2 with the help of electricity. (Basically, 2H2O + CO2 = 2O2 + CH4) - so you could make both methane and oxydizer

the soyuz block I (the stage just below the spacecraft) is dropped before achieving full orbital - so it will burn up when reentering atmosphere. it's the soyuz spacecraft who finished orbital insertion, just after separation (basically, when we saw the cosmonauts be 'nudged' in their seats, was when the engine stopped ). (the spacecraft will afterwards make several burns for the rendez-vous with iss)

still, be sure to check before starting the experiment if there's any shift of the center of gravity to only one side of the 'zero', when the oars are extended / retracted - if the system shifts to only one side, it will mess up your results

sooo, how much time before someone will turn the claw into an hinge?

One quick note about the pendulum test : the system should be zeroed around the average center of mass of the equipment to not be flawed. Basically, with those gyroscopic oars, your center of mass will not be in the same position when the oars are fully retracted or fully extended - your average center of mass will be somewhere halfway between the two points. For exemple, with the system at rest, If you pick your 'zero' with the oars fully retracted you will notice a shift of your laser marker relative to the 0 when the oars, still at rest, are fully extended.

Well, the falcon 1 rocket first 3 launches failed - spaceX didn't start directly with the falcon 9

@cantab i think they tried to replicate SLS block II with the pyrios LRB's (dynetics/rocketdyne 'entry' for sls block II booster competition, powered by two f-1b's ) http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/ Seems quite a match for me

Well, the ariane series of rockets were quite sucessful from the start too i think a spaceX like company would not have performed so well if they started 30 years ago - today's computer modelizations and better materials understandings helps a lot - yet the falcon 1 was only sucessful on it's fourth launch. Heck, Ariane's viking engines may be one of the most reliable rocket engines ever built - 2 engine failures out of 958 used (all versions of the viking included)

Don't forget we are still in alpha for ksp - lots of textures / models will be improved before the official release. (I'm looking at you, mk3 parts )

Well, bipedal / quadrupedal robots will become really useful the day they will be able to run efficiently on various terrains One key feature needed for that is the work done by our tendons. tendons (in addition to keeping things attached together) send back informations to the brain, regarding how much force is exerted on them.) Of all tendons, there is one which is key in allowing us to run : the Achilles tendon. It's this one which allows energy efficient running, because it stores the energy generated by the feet impact, and gives it back when you want to 'push' on this feet to continue the running motion (achille tendon is basically the nature's equivalent to the KERS) So basically, for a good bipedal / quadrupedal running robot / mech, we would need to 'sense' the ground with the robot's feets and process all theses informations fast enough to allow running, and use a way to recuperate the kinetic energy of the feets impacts for an efficient system.

I usually launch with a heading around 106° when i want to fly over the badlands

Well, the only components designed and built were the small scale ones for the x-33 project - upscaling those for the venture star might be still too much for just lockheed martin to do on their own dimes

Huh ? Sea launch use a zenit-3sl rocket - the zenit family was designed as a space launcher from the start - it was never built to be an icbm... Of all russian rockets still in service, zenit is the only one not derived /built upon ballistic missiles

I think conservative approaches can't be used for SSTO designs. Heck, nasa's Venture Star SSTO was anything but a conventional approach : extra wide lifting body, extremely new lightweight materials, linear aerospikes, etc. And in all of this, their main problem was in creating a bizarrely shaped fuel tank to maximise the used space inside (in the end, they never managed to develop this special fuel tank before the project was shut down) At least, Skylon's fuel tanks are much more conservative in design than the venture star's tanks

@Kerbmav skylon's TPS will be much more lighter and durable than the space shuttle TPS - mainly because the Skylon would only experience temperatures up to 1100 K during reentry - (the few part which would be exposed to more would be actively cooled with the Skylon's LH2) the space shuttle experience near 2000 K during reentry. which is why the Space shuttle TPS is both heavy and fragile - there's not many materials which can withstand such temperatures for the duration of the reentry. a TPS rated for 1100 K therefore can use a much wider range of materials, which will have better mechanical properties in the end (i think they plan to use a ceramic skin - much lighter than the space shuttle silicate based TPS)

The spacecleaner bot won't survive reentry - it's disposable, and designed to be launched basically like cubesats (due to it's small form factor of 10x10x30cm). I doubt it would be used for any debris of size over 1m anyway If you were asking for the skylon's Thermal Protection System, they will have a much more lighter and cheaper system than what was installed on the space shuttle. (Because skylon has a much less agressive reentry profile - skylon's bigger than the space shuttle, but weight less than it once it's fuel tanks are almost empty, so they can start to have a meaningful drag slowdown at higher altitudes. They'll also use active cooling for the leading edges with the lh2, (in order to not need the same heavy and fragile advanced leading edges ceramic tiles they used on the space shuttle.)

For most of my payloads with weights under 60tons, i have a series of subassemblies based on angara, which allows me to assemble a suitable launcher in a few clicks, for a large range of payloads.

my Kliper reentering atmosphere

the only thing i'd change on the material bay, is it's radial attachment point, from the side to the back. - it's not really usable in rotation based symmetry right now because of that

well, the CRS-3 will be launched by the falcon 1.1, which has a 13tons payload to LEO - the dragon capsule is almost half this weight (with payload), so i think they'll have plenty of spare fuel for their test (after all, after the initial turnaround, the descent is 'free' until landing )