AngelLestat

You should play with KSP RSS and try the Falcon Heavy in reusable way.. Even that numbers would not be all the same.You will notice a key fact. You dont need much extra fuel to make the side boosters go back, the center core booster to complete the orbit speed after decouple, and the second stage to re entry. That is only the 3% to 10% of the fuels remaning depending each stage. And you can accomplish that with just an small reduction of 30% in the payload. For the last time, can you go out from the box? Not all the things that you launch into space are comunication sattellites! Less if the cost is so low to attract new markets. If there are 100 people in the world that owns a bugatti veyron, it does not mean that number would stay the same if cost drop a tenth. I will made a prediction: Knowing how Elon Musk think, I am sure that after he accomplish the full reusable program, he would make a new company that would develope and sale "spacecraft components, as kits" to allow anyone and even bigger companies to make cheap spacecrafts. And he will sell all that stuff at manufacture cost (without profit) Because he is the only one that can launch them due cost. He already did some things like this one, he allow the use of any of their patents on electric cars to their competitors, he made a new lithium battery factory. Those are actions that only clever people do. Toyota copy his strategy with their hydrogen car.

I dont know where you get 58 tons, in all sources (including spacex.com) it said 53 tons (not reusable with crossfeed). So this mean 40 tons being reusable.. But it does not matter if they launch a payload of 15 or 20 tons. Because if it is reusable then does not matter if they dont use its full capacity.. Their cost will still be some orders of magnitude lower than the competence at that mass. After that they plan to make a 100 tons - 200 tons launcher (similar in configuration than falcon9 and falcon heavy), the same example will be apply here.. If they need to launch 50, it will be cheaper to use the 100 tons launcher in reusable mode than drop a falcon heavy to the toilet. yes they are. Why spacecraft are expensive?? tell me reasons.. Why you can not use heavier solar cells with lower efficiency instead the best you can find? Why you can not use a simple phone as computer instead specialize hardware made it for the satellite. The answer is because the launch cost is expensive, so if you launch something you need to be sure that it would work and it would do it for many years. But when launch is so common and cheap, everyone would have softwares and techniques of spacecraft manufacture that would reduce all the cost. You dont need to do anymore special hardware, you can buy normal hardware and use software to accomplish what do you want.

Yes Kryten, you can keep your lack of vision, you are in negative mode and there is nothing I can said to change that. Elon Musk is so success, because he knows about business, he has vision and he thinks out of the box. Now.. I would keep watching and enjoying each step that spacex does towards their goal. Meanwhile you or others will see with each step how wrong you were. Have a nice day. Dont forget your words..

You think that way because you are ignoring all possible uses that might have the space other than for communications. With these new cost you can launch a lot new sattelites with science objective, or to provide accurate data for agro-industry, or as a new 3D map system from the surface, for space turism (once it start, you need to carry people up and down all the time), for cubesats (with those cost, the cubesat manufacture cost would drop even more, and everybody would launch cubesats, and universities would be able to launch big cubesats to other planets. Then you have space full of stuff, so you need to send specialize craft to deorbit old sattellites, etc, etc, etc.. If you have so many launchs, then cost are lower even more, because you have more oportunities to launch several crafts in a particular orbit, so clients does not have to paid for particular launch oportunities at long term because its provider can not full their farings with extra crafts. If you dont see a new market with lower launch cost.. then is your lack of vision.. Insurance cost is all related to the manufacturing and launch cost. So if both are reduce by a factor of 100, then the insurance cost is reduced by a factor of 100

sattellites and spacecraft are very expensive just because launch cost are expensive.. There is no point to make a spacecraft that worth 1 millon if your launch cost worth 100 millon. The same for a 100 millons spacecraft if the launch cost is 1 millon. In those cases you make spacecraft a lot cheaper, if they fails, you launch another. They does not need to be perfect in efficeincy, because with the new cost you can launch 50 of them. With these cost, new markets arise, and Elon musk would control all the space markets, that is even more important than the profit you get for each launch.

if your cost is 1 and you reduce that by a factor of 100, then your new cost is 1/100 your are forgetting of the extra launch you get by year. Also the rockets has a lifetime, after 5, 10 or 40 times you need to make new ones. Then you also need workers for new prototypes (developement cost), so you dont need to fire anyone because your company is grown up very fast. You can also sale engines to different agencies.

Nibb31 gets his info from a cookie fortune Elon Musk said that is even possible to reduce their actual cost in a 1/100 with a full reasuable program. And I believe that. Most of the saving cost comes with the manufacturing costs, the testing cost and how fast you can launch the next rocket. A stage core that you launch and goes back, it means that it works fine, so it does not need months of testing, just maintenance. Your developing cost is not taken into account in the launch cost. Because that money comes from investments.. And if you reach a new step in your development, then you attract new investors that would paid the profits of old investors plus the new ones.

That is right in a rocky planet, and if you have a thick atmosphere then you also need more distance to the star to avoid higher temperatures on the surface. Being far from the star also reduce a little how strong the super rotation winds will be. To avoid higher pressure then your gravity needs to be lower with a magnetic field. But I have a better idea. A tidal locked world with a Huge Sea. Water is very effective to absorb heat and carry that to different places. Take a look at england, they should have very cold weather, however they live in a constant warm myst due the main sea current. The heat capacity of the oceans are 1000 times greather than our atmosphere. And this taken into account that you use just the first 30 meters deep of that capacity. Density and thermal capacity of water is a lot higher than gasses. So with this scenary, you can control how much water this world has, to make the story you want. The water would control how much difference in temperature you might fine, it would also control the winds at surface level, they would not be so strong, but at higher altitudes you would have constant faster winds that can be used by airships to fly from one point of the planet to another. Yeah that documentary is pretty inaccurate.

Yes we can breath liquid, and if we do, then pressure inside our body would be similar to outside. That is the point. Take the case of the Cachalot, a huge mammal that can dive up to 2250 mts (220 atm) without breath liquid (only air). And may not exceed that because after all, has to rise to surface to breathe again. The problem with pressure (and humans) is that nitrogen dissolve into the bloodstream at higher pressure. For that reason scuba divers remplace nitrogen with hellium, and if they wanna go more deep, then they remplace hellium with hydrogen. So they breath oxygen and hydrogen. But even with that mix it reach the point when hydrogen or oxygen also dissolve in the blood, and we die. They can reach 300 mts with this technique, they take 14 min in go down, and 12 hours to rise (body becomes soda if we rise very fast) If you remember the movie Abyss, they put a rat in perfluorocarbon (with red tint for a cool looking), and the rat breath just fine.. That scene was real, Cameron take the rat as pet before that. This same thing was do it by Navy seals in 1980, they were searching ways to go out from submarines without descompression issues. In fact, breathing liquid, you can go down to 1000 mts or more, and go back fast to the surface, spit out all the liquid, and you will be fine without any decompression sickness. In the actuality, breathing liquid is used to save premature babies, adults with lungs issues and as thermal cooling (the same as top computers). http://www.independent.co.uk/migration_catalog/article5262850.ece/alternates/w620/DiverSuit.jpeg You can use this technique to survive in a liquid world with a gravity of 5 to 10G (in case your breathing liquid had the same density than external liquid) Why not? See, this is hard, a lot of people had problems with this concept. The atmosphere density doesn´t matter. Because you are moving with the atmosphere, so in your case there is no wind. The same happens at earth, we can said that there is no wind, but in fact the wind is also moving at 460m/s with the surface. So the only apparent wind that we feel comes from the difference in wind speed with respect our speed. Ballons does not feel any wind speed, because they travel with the wind. Jupiter case! Tell me how do you would measure its rotation speed? It does not have surface that we can measure.. However Jupiter is the planet that most fast rotates.. but the thing that rotates is the atmosphere.. "winds", in other words, the whole planet. So you have many layers that you can call surface, and each layer has its constant distinctive speed. If you are in one of those layers, then you will feel the same as at earth, any difference on wind at that altitude is the thing you would call "wind". But we have big difference in winds here at earth because our atmosphere is very thin and is very close to surface (terrain change winds the same as rocks in a river), you have clouds and different terrains which change the way you distribute the heat. Plus other factors that you dont find in big atmospheres. So being in one of those atmosphere at any height, you would not feel winds or turbulances, if you do, they would be a lot more soft than fly at high altitud in ballon here on earth (which is still very soft). Also when we enter in worlds, we always do it following the same direction of winds, so instead brake 8000 m/s, we need to brake 7600 m/s (earth´s winds that follow earth´s rotation). Comparing with earth is not fair. If we need to colonize other world (by X reasons, does not matter here), then you came to the conclusion that each m2 on mars is more complicate than a m2 of floating base to grow up crops. Depending the compounds of the atmosphere, we can get a lot of materials from the atmosphere it self, we also can find an atmosphere a lot more dense than our air, which means that a m3 of air would lift a lot more in that place. For example, trees grow using co2 from the air.. they need the soil just to not fall and get water.

Lol, all this last week I was searching all the data that I could find from Falcon Heavy. Because I made few days back a similar copy for KSP stock kerbin, buy I was not sure the size of the boosters or the fly pattern that each stage follows. In fact I read that the booster would be a bit longer. I knew that my falcon 9 imitation had similar payload to orbit (reusable and max version) and my falcon heavy too. This was not Real solar system mod, so it was a terrible comparison, but even with that I had the hunch that longer booster as we can see in the page had no sense. http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy Now I am happy to notice than in the video the boosters has the same size. than the center core. This is my imitation with procedural parts: I imagine that the center core first stage, would separate before reach orbit speed, then it would use the remaning fuel to boost at prograde and complete the turn over earth to go back at base. Meanwhile the second stage would finish the burn to orbit. It has more sense for the GTO case, when the first center core stage reach orbit, and then the second stage goes to gto and then go back.

yeah, I am so done with the "ground-surface" 2D way of thinking. To understand my posture better: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108772-Living-at-other-worlds-A-paradigm-shift I dont see any point to visit venus ground with a manned mission, when is so easy to use tele commanded robots from the atmosphere. In any case, I will help you to imagine the best way to do it. You need the floating city and 2 extra floating vehicles. None is attached to the other one. You can not do that, the difference in speed at different altitudes is too high, this would produce huge dynamic pressure over the two vehicles. So how is done? First, a variable bouyancy airship depart from the cloud city, this vehicle is capable to float between 50 km to 35 km, teflon cover. Then this vehicle dock with a second variable bouyancy airship (or we can call it almost a submarine), able to float between 35 km to ground. At that height it does not really need acid protection, but in case it needed, can use tantalum.. It has perfect sulfuric cover and melting point is 3000 celcius. Is not expensive either. So compressing and expanding gases, these two vehicles can rise and down any number of times. We need 2 first airships operating at 50 to 35km, because if we use just one, we need to wait at least 4 days until we can dock again, with humans inside we would need to expend a lot of energy to keep that heat outside. A little remainded: wind speeds goes from 100 m/s at 50 km, to 3m/s on the ground. Of course those 3m/s at 92 atm carry a lot of energy. It would not be possible to be stand on the ground without fall due the wind.

Recently, I notice how hard is for humans to imagine a living place without a ground. If we search solar (or other star) system colonization, we will see only these examples: mars, moon, space stations, europa surface, titan, hypothetic ground worlds, etc. Are those the best options? I will prove that if we only search Earth-like planets in look and conditions, then we would be discarding more than 95% of planets that might have better conditions for us without the "ground" look aspect. So, lets detail the range of conditions which humans can survive and grow up: Pressure: 0.2 atm to 15 atm if we breath gas, up to 100 atm if we breath a liquid rich in oxygen with density similar to water or less. Temperature: -10c to 40c (without expend extra energy). Gravity: 0.5g to 1.3g (hard to know with accuracy) Radioctivity: Less than 10 mSv per year. Elements: water, oxygen, carbon, etc. Energy: Can be chemical, electromagnetic, kinetic, thermal, etc. Extra things that helps in the choice: -Easy access to space; being an interplanetary sociaty this helps. -Ground, if there is none, there are cases that we need to build it. -Economic purpose; as value resources, easy access to energy, strategic location. The surface misconception: Instead starting to compare, lets think some possible cases to open our mind. If we search saturn gravity at surface... we will see that surface in this case means heigth with 1 atm of pressure. Some said: "is not possible to live in uranus, saturn, venus, etc because there are winds from 50 to 600 m/s." With this same mentality we can said that is not possible to live at earth equator because the ground moves at 460m/s. Now, we always thought in planets with a 2D point of view. What are the conditions at ground level if it has any? this takes us to reject almost all worlds. When in fact we need to ask: Does this planet have any zone (3D point of view) with similar conditions to the earth? ----------------------------------- Example: Enceladus is a very bad place to live in its surface. We do not know how it looks inside.. So lets try to imagine the best conditions that we might find: If the temperature rise with depth, then we would find a place which water is at liquid state, with certain pressure and temperature we might find a liquid substance which retain lot of oxygen and we can breath, in case is not good carring co2 out, we can filter the co2 from any important vein. The strong magnetic fields may produce a luminescence that allow us to see inside at certain depth, or it can be related to some living organism that expell oxygen using thermal energy. If there is nothing of that, then is easy to just build a thin plastic envelope to contain our air habitat, if this thing rotate we may have artificial gravity. --------------------------------- Gas giants depending their distance to the star, they all have layer places where the temperature and pressure and water vapor (which always matches temperature) are inside the human parameters. So, lets compare places in the solar system using these parameters to find which might have potential. Also lets try to imagine what it would be the most weird case to live.

This is something that I suggest at least 2 times in the old remote tech topic. Yeah, is silly that the probes has not an inside algorithm to search signals and deploy the antennas, so yes, we need to be able to deploy antennas and point them as many times we want (if we have electrical power?) Good done sir.

yeah but the memory space is not my only concern.. i dont like to have many parts in my menu. I enjoy having the lower number of parts to do anything I want. In this case these new parts are very similar. So... how can I remove them if I wanna keep only those parts that came with the mods that I install (which I also delete some parts of them)? Because it seems that not only adds new parts, also adds those parts that I remove from other mods. I guess if this is a physsics mod changer.. then it just need to change the parameters of each engine we have, not add nothing new. In any case those new parts may come as optional.

how memory/performance intensive this mod is? Is an amazing work, but I have the idea that it will be too much, I am at 2.7 gb on memory already with opengl. I use active texture management. There is some settings to decrease the terrain or structures quality/render distance?

welcome bahamutod!! we are just happy to read you.

I really love what this mod try to acomplish, but each time that I play it, all the mechanism and some physsics seems very far from reality. I have some understading on pressure, density, buoyancy, airships mechanism and different technologies and how all this can be applied with the ideal gases equations. Maybe I am wrong or I dont understand what you try to accomplish. I was trying to see the source code, but all that logic and variables behind make it harded to understand all the steps that you take. But let me point what is more annoying for me: The pressure control mechanism. First I dont understand where the source gas is comming when you inflate or where it goes when you deflate. Also the speed of how fast is filled goes beyond any practical gameplay or reality. Second, the pressure limit.. we can see a value of 0.000x (not sure in what units) which if it just vary a little.. we explode. Those changes are not so drastic in reality, it may be when you get speed, but I guess you simulate that very good, but for sure does not happen due a 2 seconds of fill or few meters on altitude. Vents: Why it explodes when you vent too much? Why explode due high pressure when you are in fact venting sometimes? If your internal pressure rise, then it will vent faster, and it will do (at higher rate) until your pressure find equilibrium with the outside.. So is impossible to explode due pressure if you have an automatic valve that opens when the pressure is too high. The ballast part is fun if we wanna experience old airship technology. But it could have a variable bouyancy technology as submarines or the new aeroscraft. And it will add more reality to your source of gases. For example: If you joint to Community Resource Pack, and you add new code to your plugin, then: You can use any tank as source of your lifting gas. if is half fill, then you can inflate your airship or compress the gas inside the tank, we can use and extra part to allow this using the fuel ducts and electrical power to compress. In case we use real fuels, it may calculate with precision the liquid tank volume. This same tank may be used as fuel or for a fuel cell plus electrolysis with universal storage mod. Right now when somebody install this, if they dont use the default airship, they only see a thing exploding all the time in the pad for no apparent reason. And they quit before even ask. I cant help you with code.. But I can help you with the math and logic system.

Ok. If I found the problem I will share it.

One question about all the parts that comes with this mod.. there are suppose to be new parts, or they are just remplacements to the game and other mods parts? If that is the thing, why it does not use module manager for that? Because I dont wanna have too many parts, but I am not sure if I need to delete the parts from the others mods that are clone.

My design is a first stage core imitation of the falcon9, in this case was the center core of the falcon heavy. I already did the same test with the 6.4 version many times, and I dint find problem (without heat shield), of course I explode some times when I reach 30km altitude with bad angle.. But never at 65km height with negative temperatures. Was a bug for sure, also the first time that I test 6.5 version.. Dont worry I will try it again tomorrow and see if I can repeat the bug, this time with screenshot and extra data. Bac9 question seems more important now

I use the 6.5 beta, but something was wrong, just at 65km in stock kerbin 2200m/s all my things started to explode. I reach only 63 km. The temperature was super low. I dint have much time to make a propper test. sorry. My download was like 5 hours ago.

You are developing faster that we can test You need extra people testing this.. A way to get them is moving to release phase. I remember the toolbar was in release section, and we had all days new updates. So that does not mean that you decrease your update rate, just means that is enoght complete to release. Now I add kerbal reinforment mod.. I will try with this, but I dont have much time, just testing one airplane design with small changes.

Why matters? if he is not profiting with this. ----------------------------------------------------- Somebody knows how the center core first stage is reusable in the falcon heavy? You should left the second stage before achieve orbit, then ignite engines with almost dry mass on the center core in prograde to complete the turn and go back to the the pad? Meanwhile the second stage completes orbit or goes to GTO. That is how the original center core stage would come back?

I tested, much better now... thanks.

I love the idea of compatibility with CRP. Something that I hate, is to have water, oxygen or hydrogen from a life support mod, but there are not the same resources than in real fuels. I dont like to have 50 fuels options, meanwhile in reality mostly all rockets use 10 as much. I hate the fact that with realfuels each engine only works with certain types of fuel, so you need to have as 30 engines types to keep some liberty in craft creation, then mostly all those mod engines does not have in-fairing when you place a decoupler under. I love the idea to have a default set fuel for the clasic fuel+oxydizers from the game. Maybe RP1?? Things that I dont understand yet: This version would work in Stock, 4x (next kerbol system size mod) and 10x (real solar system)? Or only in one of these versions? Also.. what is that of 6x or 64x??