tomf

How would hot staging give a 10% payload improvement? I can't think of any way that the difference isn't trivial.

The fuel tanks probably won't be spherical because spheres are much more of a pain to manufacture than cylinders.

Yup, he's completely ignoring the cost of recalibrating everyone's calendars.

The alien ship isn't powered by something as primitive as hydrolox. That would have evaporated long ago and wouldn't have got it here/there in the first place. It's powered by unobtanium that our physics barely imagines/ can't comprehend at all. Is unobtanium storable? Yes, it says so right there in the script.

Good question. My guess is that both drag effects and solar wind are significantly smaller on something planet sized than the outwards spiralling caused by mass loss of the star. I hope someone who actually knows the answer comments though because I am curious.

Just to add - this could be a useful advanced feature for very low TWR burns where the craft needs to spiral out with a single burn lasting a significant fraction of the orbit, but the maneuvre node predicted orbit needs to support it and definitely shouldn't be a default.

During a large burn the position of the maneuvre node on the navball shifts around meaning that burns that significantly change the direction of the craft aren't executed as expected. Impact Large accurate burns are impossible. Reproduction This affects every maneuver to some extent but can be very clearly with the following reproduction Place a craft with a high TWR into a 100 km equatorial circular orbit of kerbin. (I used a mod to get my test craft into orbit) Create a maneuver node to plane shift the craft into a polar orbit. This should have a deta-v total of about 3181 (again using a mod I can see -2246 prograge, +2246 normal and +126 radial) Observe that the predicted orbit is now a polar orbit with 90 degree inclination and ~ 100km AP and PE Use SAS to orient the craft Try to execute the maneuvre Observe that the burn progress bar decreases to about half way then starts going up again. Continue the burn for the predicted length of time (in my case this burn was predicted to take 29 seconds Observe that you are now completely the wrong trajectory Analysis The issue appears to be that as the burn was executed the maneuvre node moved in order to stay fixed relative to the current velocity of the craft. However the projected trajectory line (and the KSP 1 behaviour) shows the result of the burn at a fixed direction relative to the body being orbited. For this maneuvre I would expect the burn to be fixed at a 45 degrees north while the velocity markers will migrate from initially having prograde at 90 degrees moving upwards to 0 degrees at then end with prograde passing under the maneuvre marker half way through the burn. Workaround (untested) Use SAS to allign with the node and then switch to SAS locked heading mode and ignore the maneuvre node wandering.

Would it be possible to add the ejection angle to the readout? The KSP 1 version had it and it is used by lots of trajectory planning tools.

That isn't actually an option in ksp2. And I do want to be able to control the pitch.

Trying to accelerate a rover that has a reaction wheen on it also pitches nose down casing the rover to try to somersault.

My searching suggested that the human retina could register a single photon, so in that sense you could potentially see light anywhere if only as occasional flashes. However for the signal to register with consciousness 5-9 photons within 100ms Edit: Further searching has turned up a study where participants could detect single photons with better than pure chance. Apparently it was less like seeing than having a gut feeling that there was light. So I guess anywhere in the universe you would have a feeling that galaxies are out there somewhere.

It's been a while for me too, but my recollection is that all reactions are equilibrium reactions even if the equilibrium constant is extremely large or small. And that increasing the temperature for an exothermic reaction pushes the reaction to the reverse.

A quick search suggests that at the 3000k typical of a red dwarf the reaction to form water from H2 and O2 will be in an equilibrium with roughly equal equal quantities of each gas.

After a scrub line this are they venting the methane/oxygen or are they able to pump most of it back into the storage tanks?

It's re-entering in a belly down attitude rather than nose first though, so I would expect the pointyness to have much less effect. The plasma flow around a tip would probably be complicated, but not the same as a capsule style.

Burning hundred dollar bills would be foolish, you will get much better propellant density from 500 euro notes.

Many missions with nuclear engines are going to involve long coast phases so you probably want a design where you can produce electricity without thrust. The ones that tap the exhaust aren't going to be able to do that.

I don't know how you would do open circuit CO2. It's going to be a lithium hydroxide scrubber, which releases additional heat as it absorbs CO2. For divers you insert a stick with temperature sensors into the scrubber cartridge and by measuring where the heat from the reaction front has reached to sense how much of the scrubber has been used.

The image shows a basic asparagus style rocket with a single pair of side boosters. By default the DV for the booster has been split into 3 stages, the third of which has no events in. The DV shown for all the stages is wrong. It should be Stage 1 Stage 2 ISP 320 320 Mwet 32.93 11.74 Mdry 16.93 5.74 DV 2086 2243 I tried rebuilding the rocket a few times and each time it came up with different wrong answers.

KSP2 0.1.1.0 To repoduce Click to rebind roll keys bind to F and G Click to rebind again Press Q then E roll will remain bound to 'Q G'

A lower pressure at higher 02 would be easier to manage and shouldn't have and adverse effects.

Couldn't you have a scenario something like this? Triton and it's partner are in a fairly right orbit whose barycentre passed just above Neptune. At pe the partner is orbiting with the direction of travel and Triton is orbiting in the opposite direction so Triton is in fact moving at less than escape velocity and the partner at more than escape. however the partners trajectory actually passes through Neptune and it is destroyed, leaving Triton in a very eccentric orbit.

Neptune and Pluto have a 3:2 orbit resonance so can never colide so you can argue that they don't share an orbit. But the real reason is because Neptune is 8000 times more massive than the most massive thing that crosses is orbit.

When leaving Minmus the prediced orbit in Kerbins's SOI is incorrect. Starting with a rougly circular, equatorial prograde orbit if I use the standard escape of ~190 m/s with the burn in the middle of the kerbin facing side of minmus I should end up with a kerbin orbit with a low PE. However the orbit line was rendered showin an orbit that escaped Kerbins SOI. Playing around with the manuevre node I found the one shown below which claimed a PE at Kerbin of ~80km. Orbital mechanics tells me this is incorrect. And when I executed the node and warped out of minmus's SOI I found myself on a Kerbin escape trajectory as I would have expected. This screenshot doesn't show it terribly well but I was prevented from creating a better one by a variety of other bugs

R, the same as for RCS on craft