rpayne88

Yes they do. Planes generate lift two ways. The first is burnolli's (I can never spell his name) principle. The other is Newton's third law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The "rotor" are forcing air down an inclined plane. This force produces and equal and opposite reaction, which should, in theory, produce lift. The thing is, Newton's third law doesn't produce enough lift to overcome the force of gravity.

Every manned capsule must have at least two escape systems, prefreably three No nuclear burns in atmo No nuclear impact on Kerbin or any planet that has not been visited (to protect any life that may be there.) I use the Mun as my dumping ground for nukes. FAR and DR No Asparagus. The turbo pumps for these things would be too heavy IRL and make too much drag. Every mission must have at least one redundant comms system Every LV must have an RSD (provided by TAC) Every manned mission must have 25% more supplies than will be needed (also provided by TAC) All manned missions lasting more than 14 days must have a hitchhiker. All manned missions lasting more than 30 days must have "artificial gravity." (i.e. four hitchhikers docked to a hubmax so it can, in theory, be used as a centrifuge.) Drouges or braking rockets must be used to slow manned craft down before main deployment For manned missions over 14 days, each kerbal must be provided with twice the space necessary for a mission less than 14 days. All debris must impact a body or burn up in atmo. No five year missions with a single kerbal in the capsule No Kerbal left behind Yeah, I have a lot of self imposed restrictions.

1. Yes. Midair or orbital collision 2. Yes. Survivability is a diffrent question though. 3. Yes. Build AND fly, maybe. 4. Yes. Make it an automated process. 5. Yes. With enough atmosphere and no need for a survivable amount of G's 6. Anything you can build it to. Your results WILL vary. I'm sorry, I had to.

They are 100% reusable spacecraft. IRL, they would allow us to reach orbit cheaply (in theory, anyway.) The could be flown, landed, refueled, and sent right back into orbit. None have been made IRL. And, no, they are not just rockets with wings. SSTO stands for single stage to orbit. It is incredibly hard to get a payload into orbit without staging. Then factor into the equation things such as stability. It is a milestone to make a successful SSTO in KSP.

Kerbol. Every module I've sent there has blown up before landing.

That is actually a smart move in economics. The demand for their services is extremely high. And they have a monopoly. So, they can, in theory, ask for anything and get it.

I like this, but can you please add a category for people who use FAR?

Makes me wonder if we could make a "staged" engine. This engine would start out as a typical turbojet for takeoff and landing. This engine would have "hinged" compressor and turbine blades that will be spun out using centrifugal (I think that is how you spell it) force. One set of turbine blades will be magnetized and held "up" using similar polarity provided by electromagnets. The starter motor will then begin moving to crankshaft, causing the compressor blades and other turbine blades to spin out. From here it starts like any other jet engine; fuel is injected, the starter spools up the turbine and compressors until the engine can keep itself running. After takeoff, the engine will engage the afterburner located aft of the SCRAMjet portion of the engine. As the spacecraft reaches the limit of the turbojet portion, it will shut of fuel to the turbojet section of the compressor and reroute it to the SCRAMjet combustion chamber. A clutch is then applied to the crankshaft of the turbojet portion, causing the blades to spin down. This, combined with the onrush of air, would blow them flat against the crankshaft. The air then flows through what is, in essence, a tube and reaches the intake portion of the SCRAMjet. The SCRAMjet then continues to accelerate the vehicle. Obviously, you would still need a rocket engine to "kick" the spacecraft into orbit, since my whole idea of a "staged" engine is air breathing. I'm just typing this as it comes to me head. I have done ZERO research on this idea, and more than likely, I have made some critical oversights. I'm also not an engineer.

I've only seen Armageddon, but I'd still go with Deep Impact. I mean, its easier to train astronauts to become oil drillers than it is the other way around. Then, please explain to me why an over sized rover would be flown in on a shuttle if there is no atmosphere? Why would said shuttle be making an approach the same way a 737 does to a runway? And finally, WHY THE HECK WERE THERE MINI-GUNS ON THE ROVERS??? I doubt guns even work in space. Even if they did, why would you need them? You're not destroying the asteroid with a s---load of 7.62x51mm bullets. I hope that Deep Impact is much better than Armageddon.

I actually saw that one.

I have DR and FAR installed. How can I use an inflatable heat shield to protect my spacecraft without making my heat shield become my parachute.

2674 km/s Dv? How did you get that much, even with NERVAs.

64-bit KSP. I'm sick of crashes. Although I know its kind of out of the devs hands.

Just in case the OP hasen't heard of it: I don't think you're talking about the band. You're talking about the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Its a good starting point for topics you are completely unfamiliar with. But DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES cite it in your paper (I'm assuming this is for school.) You can get topics out of the article and then research them individually using reputable sources.

You can't get into orbit without burning at apoapsis This is because your current altitude would eventually become your periapsis, and your Pe would still be in atmo. Since apoapsis would be outside of the atmosphere, you would need either liquid fuel+ oxidizer, solid fuel, or RCS. It should be doable if you do indeed allow yourself to use RCS, but you are going to need to get your craft very high to have enough time to thrust your way into orbit.

That's it. I'm running for president when I turn 35. It doesn't seem like we will get anyone with some common sense for the next 17 years at least. I'm half tempted to take a sledgehammer to my laptop now. Edit: Why did it double post?

That's it. I'm running for president when I turn 35. It doesn't seem like we will get anyone with some common sense for the next 17 years at least.

Not to mention that we now seem to be fighting a counter-insurgency war. I mean, why do we need to develop a new stealth aircraft (F-35A/B/C) if we already have three (F-117, F-22, B-2) when the best anti-aircraft weapon terrorists can throw at us is a .50. Edit: I really should have condensed these three posts into one.

Can we make the Earth and all of space except the areas beyond the event horizon of a black hole no fire zones?

I would have to say I'd save Cassini. We have sent more than enough probes to Mars and not enough to the outer planets. And because I don't want to kill the most advanced mission on Mars right now, I would suggest selling the Curiosity mission to a private company or organization.

The USAF operates a fleet of satellites in LEO (almost typed LKO) for the express purpose of receiving 409 MHz ELTs and EPIRBs (distress beacons.) 409 MHz beacons can be equipped with a GPS chip and will relay GPS coordinates to the satellite, then the USAF RCC (rescue coordination center) and finally to search and rescue on the ground. These beacons go off more often than you think (I'm a member of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol and have first hand experience with these things.) They will go off if a plane touches down hard. Meanwhile, the pilot walks away with no damage to the aircraft. (Then, if its in my area, a radius of about 150 miles, I have help find it and shut it off.) (And they always seem to go off at 3AM:D I don't know for sure, but maybe we could utilize the capabilities in these satellites to receive transmissions for flight recorders (A.K.A. black boxes.) If not all the data on board, maybe partial data?

How can I make FAR recognize KW and NP fairings? The parts under them are shielded, although FAR gives the line "is shielded= false."

I don't get it. I have to take algebra, trig, and calculus courses for my major (aerospace engineering.) But if these course are anything like what I took in high school, I will be dealing with stuff like "find all real zeros for the equation f(x)=-5X^3+3X^2+59X+12." I've looked in the engineering review book my father (a civil engineer) purchased before he took his general engineering test in college. It is full of formulas. From what I have experienced from my chemistry class in college and honors physics I took in high school, all you do is plug numbers into equations. I'm getting a B in chemistry and I got an A in physics in high school. Yet, in college algebra I'm getting a D-. I need to take algebra and trig before calculus. I know trig has to do with the ratios of a right triangle. But it too is marred with theoretical math (I took it in high school and barely passed.) And I've been told that the gist of calculus is determining how things work as a variable gets exponentially smaller. If all I'm ever going to be doing is plugging numbers into equations, why do I need anything past solving two step equations? I mean, if I can't find a variable through a two step equation, why won't I be able to determine it experimentally. And why do I need to worry about stuff like (3X^2+5)/(4-x). I will never run across a variable without a REAL number in the REAL world. To sum up my question, why do I need to worry about theoretical math I will never use after these classes and not the "practical" math I use on an almost daily basis?

Please see title. I fly my rockets using FAR and KW fairings. When is it best to drop them. In other words, where does it begin to cost me in delta v to carry the mass of the fairings more than I gain from the decreased drag. Currently, I am carrying them up to 70km and dropping them.