rpayne88

You shouldn't need to station keep. KSP doesn't simulate not spherical SOI or miniscule aerodynamic drag in orbit. IRL, these are both issues that are remedied by station keeping. Ions will allow you to change its orbit, though.

SSTOs are not necessarily the most economical way to place things in orbit. If you use reusable systems such as SSTOs, IRL you would have to maintain them. II don't know if Squad is going to implement a maintenance feature into career mode. Also, I think Squad should implement some sort of penalty for killing a tourist. I mean, they were not subjected to the same training as your Kerbals. Also, their surviving family members may be tempted to sue the space program for their loss.

How much altitude were you gaining? If you wind up at high altitude, no amount of intakes will work.

I don't even think you could use explosives in space. The reason being that an explosive is basically a fuel that burns VERY rapidly, producing a pressure wave. If it did have an oxidizer so it could detonate, it would not have a medium to produce a pressure wave to destroy the target. Even if it did somehow produce a pressure wave, how would you make it survive until the target vessel arrived? Most explosives are heat sensitive. Compounds such as C4 need a "primary" explosive to detonate it. (This knowledge is coming from a forensic science class I took in High School.) This primary explosive is heat sensitive. How would you stop the extreme heat from the Sun from detonating the explosives? Why even bring explosives in the first place. As said above, spacecraft are fragile. Why not go for a kinetic kill vehicle.

I could spend the next three hours typing a rant about how politics and poor budgeting is f---ing up major government organizations. But that would be in violation of the rules.

Now I have another problem. It seems Kerbals are incapable of loading liquid fuel.

Where are the igniters? I can't find them anywhere.

Instead of boosting them up to a graveyard orbit, why not drop their PE into LEO and place it in a decaying orbit? It shouldn't take that much DV from up there.

How do I configure the tanks? I can't find any icon or gui to change the fuel/ oxidizer ratio or the type of fuel in the tank.

I'm not going to be a grammar Nazi, but PLEASE use periods. You don't need to use anything else. Its just hard to understand what your saying without some kind of punctuation.

Dell Inspiron 17R Special Edition 3rd gen i7-3630QM quad core NVIDA GT650x AND intel HD4000 1TB Hard drive 8GB RAM Cooled with a fan 6 months old (and the housing is already cracking) back lit keyboard $1300 USD before tax and shipping

Am I the only one who thought the thing exploded on touchdown? I don't think you can use the word "burn" for the landing thrusters. More like "detonate."

My pods are reusable. Each pod has an escape system and an ejection module should something like the chutes fail.

Can you add a category for people like my self who use FAR? I know it decreases the Dv needed to reach orbit, but it also make rockets less stable during their gravity turn. And if you include FAR, can you also include KW (for the fairings only, no engines or fuel tanks?)

May I add my two cents? The capsule is incredibly cramped. It would be incredibly difficult to escape in the event of an emergency while on the pad or shortly after touch/splashdown. Also, the window, or rather, canopy, is HUGE. There is a reason why windows on other spacecraft are so small. The extreme pressure differential between the cabin and the exterior requires an extremely strong window to stay intact. Next up has already been said: redundancy. A single parachute for a manned spacecraft. Are you kidding me? Just about every manned spacecraft ever launched (correct me if I'm wrong) has had at least one reserve or redundant parachute. No LES either. Finally, there is the orientation of the pilot during flight. Why is the pilot's spinal column aligned with the spacecraft's vector. Every other spacecraft has the crew's spinal columns perpendicular to the acceleration (more or less.) Although I'm sure the g's are not this extreme, do you know what happens to a fighter pilot if he ejects? He/ she will be noticeably shorter due to his/ her spinal column compressing due to the g's pulled during ejection. All this coming from a person who jumps at any opportunity I get to fly, much less go into space. The only way you would get me into that capsule would be by force. Edit: by your formula, its safety is "undefined." You can't divide by zero.

I'm actually watching an episode of the universe about the possibility of life. I already forgot the exact depth, but they suggested that at a certain depth underwater, you would be shielded from radiation while still getting enough light for photosynthesis. If you have photosynthesis, you can make habitation by extraterrestrials (humans or Kerbals, in this case) relatively easy.

I've got a problem. My coding won't save. I'll type and save it, then go into the VAB to tweak the design. When I go back to the launchpad and try to execute the program, it doesn't exist. I wind up having to recode the ship. Right now, I have about 100 lines for each manned ship in three programs: launch to orbit, EDL, and abort. I don't want to be retyping that constantly. Is there any way I could fix this?

"Soft Landing." Makes me wonder if anyone's ever been knocked unconscious upon touchdown.

Do you have problems getting your apoapsis to the Mun's orbit, or do you just have trouble encountering the Mun? Edit: didn't even notice the second page.

I'm not going to answer because you don't have a third option. I would say that clipping fuel tanks or engines into others is cheating. But clipping parts that you could put there IRL is not. Think of it this way, if you were designing a space craft, would you leave batteries, autopilots, life support, communications, and what not hanging on the outside. I wouldn't. But part clipping to get twice the fuel capacity for the same volume, is, in my opinion, cheating.

That's the problem with sugar free candy. The sweetener was originally developed as a laxative. Had more than one experience with that myself, only with sugar free lifesavers. People, sugar does not warrant such a side effect from its replacement.

Don't know how to make this appear from the website. Here is the link: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=post+war+V-2+tests&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=06955424B1FB2742638B714AEE5417C7460A9E15&selectedIndex=3 You can't forget the first relatively "successful" rocket. Damn shame it started out as a ballistic missile in the hands of a mad man.

Lets see, Texas is 1125Km wide (according to Google Earth.) The asteroid in Armageddon was "the size of Texas." I would send a team of crack oil drillers (and Bruce Willis) to land on the surface, drill into it, drop a nuke down the hole, and get off the thing. This should be easier than that thing since its only a quarter the size. Don't know what I would do that hasn't already been mentioned if this were real, though.

If you want to, there is a mod called deadly reentry. It simulates heat and g-force damage to your parts. It also comes with multiple heatshields that will survive reentry provided you reenter correctly.

Same here.