magnemoe

Yes, use the radial decopler with built in struts, put an seperatron or two on the booster to get it away.

Clever, you use stacked winces? Another option is to modify the cfg file to get longer wire.

The Rendez-Vous part of mechjeb 1.9 was of the save before activate type. Not sure if this is updated. It usually missed and had to compensate by overshooting. If you dropped stages during the burn things goes wild. Like you start burn with mainsail from first stage, then switch to poodle from second.

The game should had backup saves, this saves you if it crash during save. Pretty common for programs to do this, instead of overwriting then saving it save as an temp file, then delete old backup, rename old save to backup and temp to save. It will however not stop you from an bug who let the game continue but corrupt the saves however this is far rarer.

True about the ship design, if you are operating with constant trust this becomes even more important. Even if you have artificial gravity you would want the skyscraper design as its far easier to deal with variation of trust or artificial gravity. Say you accelerate with 3g, suddenly the artificial gravity who keep you at one g fails. Now would you prefer the skyscraper or ocean liner design. As for space fighter planes, I guess an realistic space fighter would be more like an missile torpedo boat. Life system for 2-6 crew, endurance of an month, not able to trust for an month but plenty of capacity to operate inside an solar system. benefit of it would be to avoid light speed delays and jamming who would cause problem for remote operated probes.

I saw an actual shot of US fighter planes attacked an Japanese cruiser during WW2, they was doing multiple passes over the ship, first thought was Stat Wars. But yes it was more kinematic than an modern attack would be. launch of sea skimmers at 100 km, Next scene is the sam and aaa on the ship try to shoot them down. Note that this work better in books.

As movies has very long time and serious problem with getting the numbers of bullets in an revolver right, just basic rocket science will cause some confusion in the same way an nuclear bomb is noisy.

Downside is that ions needs an 300kg solar panel to be useful and they weight 250kg themselves, nice for long range multiple target missions. Not for an satellite you deploy in orbit, here the ant and an oscar tank or two is perfect. for orbital adjustments. if you want to map target and move on the ion is usually better. This rover and lander weight 530 kg, and can land on any light gravitation moon or place with atmosphere. add an toroidal tank or two and it can land everywhere except Tylo and still weight less than a ton. it uses the ksp-x in line version of the small radial engine.

Done one of them. The boosters are 5 meters with matriarchs. the core is larger. Gets plenty of fuel to orbit. Has only launched one, this is an prototype for an ultra heavy lifter. I would replace the top tank for the cargo and should be able to lift around 300 ton. However the heaviest things I have lifted has been spare parts and motherships, they use their own engines and drop-able mainsails to reach orbit. Also mine a lot.

Atmosphere is to thin up in the high attitude where the burning going on for this to be possible. Try it in KSP and you see the problem. Note that an light probe with an inflatable heat shield can get an gentle reentry because of the huge surface to mass area.

Thanks, however I was able to get serious airtime on Gilly however it might be that the gravity worked like ground effect and went away then airborne. Will try with stock rovers and see if work better they will be lighter to.

True, the capital investment are somewhat larger. Other factors like transport are much cheaper. And to compare oil and uranium are pretty flawed, world demand for uranium is an very limited number of ton, think of it as an rare earth metal. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/#.UYAB-7WeOmU You extract where its cheapest, nobody would mine a place who is 10 times as expensive. Also uranium cost is just an small fraction of running an nuclear plant. Finally breeder reactors can get energy from uranium 238. I would be more afraid of running out of iron. Earth can support 10 million humans. Then we reached the limit we cheated the system and started with farming. Anyway birthrates are way down over almost all the world. Not only Europe and China is below 2 but most of the Arab world and lost of south America

Peak oil is an condition where oil supply go down dramatically over a few year creating an crisis as you can not get oil for almost any price. Its not an gradual process as seen from 2000-2010 where increased demand raises prices, this process will continue, oil in 2020 will be more expensive than today 200$ barrel look realistic. At these prices other methods as coal to oil become economical and this will level out the price. An civil war in Saudi Arabia will also give an oil crisis, this however is an political issue and would be resolved pretty fast.

Various graphs from temperature since the ice age has been around, remember I was I kid and thought it was unfair then I saw the graph. Naturally it has been variations, for Europe and especially the northern part the gold stream has major impact. An yes we pretty much agree here, its an effect but its probably pretty small. As in I support far more monitoring few limits on money for satellites and supercomputers, and yes the bonus of being able to predict with some certainly that next summer will be cold and wet or warm and dry will pay for the cost in one year because of better harvests. They are far from good enough to set energy policy on an global scale. Also notice the national view on this, China is simple we want cut in the west so their industry moves to China. Russia is funny, they supported Kyoto as they was shutting down lots of old non economic industry so they got lots of carbon credits, now they are building up and predictable. Thanks for the info about the graph.

No its accurate, only fail source is that many of the measurement stations are close to or in cities. It does however not explain why temperature was falling from 1880 to 1910, why it was stable from 1940-1980 and then does as jump from 1980 to 2000 similar to the 1910 to 1940 jump.

This reminds me of my problems with the previous version. I had an winch with an junior docking port. An ant rover with another port. On kerbin I was able to park the rover, lower winch and dock then retract and lock the winch. On Minmus with low gravity and no atmosphere the rover started to swing wildly, this turned into rotation as I retracted. Trying to lock winch brake the junior docking clamp connection. As the ant rover with wheels retracted ignored collision this worked, with wheels out the lander was destroyed. Issue was worse on bodies with low gravity and no atmosphere. It worked nice on Laythe. On Duna it stabilized over time. On Mun this took an day or something.

Result would be that the US gave NK an Ohio broadside. China and SK fight over the reminds. EMP was never an huge part of the cold war strategy, and its easy to do with an ballistic missile. Balistic missiles require less delta-v than to put something in orbit. Also think an 400 km height strike will require an multi megaton bomb to be effective. Yes you can launch something and then hide it, the X37 is the most known example. However if the Russians can track it will they tell? How many has the capability? If you use it for an nuclear strike and the enemy could track it you are dead. If the US could not track it they would look at NK as primary suspect as ask them to prove they are innocent or they will be attacked. Sadam died as he was an US enemy and the US was pissed after 911,

this lander is an extreme example. it can land in slopes where kerbals are unable to walk One 2.5 meter tank with four 1.25 meter in the corners, put landing legs on them, I usually put the tanks on vertical separators and put rcs tanks on top. drain the side tanks first. This gives me the the option to jettison the side tanks if low on fuel, dumping of rcs tanks is part of the strategy, dropping legs makes the lander non reusable so I can just as well do an spacewalk to mothership and leave / deorbit it.

Probably, for an minimum cost do an Laythe aerobrake, hohmann to Val then to Tylo, not sure if its best to do Bob or Pol first. However if you want to drop rovers on all worlds this increase the mission profile a lot so lighten them gives an serious boost. Thinking 1000m/s for Laythe, 2000 for Val, 4500 for Tylo and as small as possible for bob an pol.

Agree about the unassailable facts, no question about them. However today is no way the warmest period since the ice age, this is easy to prove with archaeological evidence. Forests has been growing places to cold for forests today many times the last 10.000 year, other plants are probably more accurate but trees as easy to find. In short it was multiple long period before Christ with hotter weather. Historically roman time was also warmer, after medieval time where the vikings colonized Greenland we entered an cold period who lasted for hundreds of year and finally ended in the 19th century. This is European temperatures global the situation have probably been different but I guess Europe has not been unique here, Greenland closer to America shows much of the same trend. Temperatures are warmer than around 1980 but has been stable or even going down the last 10 years. This break the models pretty bad, yes it could be an natural cooling who cancel out global warming but the models did not catch it. And yes going back to the time of the dinosaurs we had an way hotter climate, even higher oxygen concentration in the air and this was an stable configuration for 10 of million years. The last snowball earth event was 500 million years ago, an different earth, continents was radically different, much less oxygen in the atmosphere. An asteroid/ comet impact or volcanism might be the trigger here, going even longer back earths crust should be thinner and more junk in the solar system.

Satellites has the same use as manned crafts except that you can not do eva. Far ligher than manned pods, lightest manned is 1.1 ton, lightest probe is 40kg. Downside is that they use some electricity. So you can put up satellites just to get an view, putting something in 10 km Mun orbit is pretty fun. And as they are unmanned its no reason to bring them back. And as other say some mods add functionality.

I'm working on an follow up mission to Jool. With the new rover wheel I wound I could put wheels on an small fuel tank, and get an 1000m/s delta-v from an 500 kg lander/rover, almost 3000 m/s from an one ton one, how is overkill except on Tylo. Guess an drop tank would be better for this.

Its an valid statement but also flawed. First oil companies has lite reason to worry about global warming. Most oil goes to industrial use or cars, non of this uses will stop, fuel taxes don't reduce use much and no problem selling oil on the international marked. Regulations who cost oil companies money directly has far more impact on the bottom line than increased cost for their customers. Natural gas is an co2 reducer as it often replace coal. The coal industry is the one who should lobby here. Oil companies are interested in drilling more places and the thing who stop this is fear for oil spill. Now nobody who work with global warming as field will say that global warming is not an problem. Just as likely as an union president will say wages is to high or an department head say they department get to much money. yes it has happen but its very rare. Is this an conspiracy among department heads or union president worldwide? No they are doing their job. Unless things get real bad you don't get internal critic on things like this.

It makes sense that the small tanks has worse dry mass / fuel ratio than large ones however mostly it scales linearly, my main issue is that engines has so low twr, would prefer ligher engines and heavier fuel, however this would make SSTO rockets even easier.

Do you have the patent number? All patent needs to be registered, this include blueprints and description. So you can just start making the solution and see if the government sue you. A bit more likely, the government hold the patent to keep it public domain. However the device is not cost effective. Most probably its an urban legend like the suppressed forever lasting light bulb. Yes you can make an old fashion light bulb run almost forever by running it on to low voltage, this will also dramatically reduce efficiency so you end up using more electricity. And today we have led lights who last for very long times and also use lite power and no action has been made to stop them. World does not work like this.