CleverClothe

The Infinite Improbability Drive.

The PB-ION is the definition of over powered. It is over 2,000 times more powerful than NEXT (comparable ion engine). And about 500 times more powerful than the VASIMR that will be tested on the ISS (which needs capacitors just to run the thing).

First thing that popped into my mind: http://xkcd.com/327/ Perhaps annoying Wikipedia with 999546 B'g]R''k.

No, limited by the resolution of the T.V. I too have been using my T.V. as my monitor for several years. But the lower resolution is noticeable. The up side is that I can watch content from my couch and did not have to by a separate 3-D setup for my monitor.

I feel Dihydrogen Monoxide gets a bad rap for that. Especially since it literally has nothing to do with dehydration.

Preposterous, this is the only proper place to discuss such topics. Stop trying to stifle topics that YOU don't like. That is a colony, in the way the word is used around here.

Aye. This is also something that happens with XKCD comics that reference Google search results.

In aviation it means that engines can pull from tanks on both sides of a plane. Not between tanks. SpaceX is planning true asparagus.

Not flow freely. Cross-feed is probably a bad term because it isn't the exact same concept as in aviation. But for rockets, the Space Shuttle, KSP fuel lines and the proposed Falcon Heavy are all the same concept.

I think Nibb31 is just one of those guys that would rather sit around drinking beer and remembering the "good ole days" when men shat into bags and counted themselves lucky. Which, admittedly, is a significant improvement over ****ting into holes in the ground.

Per the quoted definition, Skylon can not be considered vaporware. Vaporware is a very specific term. I get that some people have a malicious attitude toward Skylon, just don't abuse language because of it.

KSP is the same in both, so it will apply.

First, don't necro. It is bad form. Second, if you are lacking thrust at any point, your asparagus is poorly designed. Even so, once you are horizontal you only need about 1.0 TWR.

Please do not necro old threads. Also, Fractal_UK was referring to real life construction, which probably won't help you.

Skylon isn't vaporware by any stretch of the word. Even assuming that you can apply that term to something outside the computer industry. OT: My answer would be Dragon for flying/flown craft. What can I say, I like the new hotness. If you include proposed/prototype craft, then I would say the Venture Star (X-33).

This topic has come up numerous times, as had the invisible body suggestion. But it just will not work for Lagrange points. Here is some suggested reading from the most recent search results. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/34704-Lagrange-Points-in-KSP?highlight=Lagrange+point http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/18623-Lagrange-points?highlight=Lagrange+point http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/44159-Lagrange-Points-Could-Squad-cheat-them-in?highlight=Lagrange+point http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39620-Barycenters-and-non-spherical-Volumes-of-Influence-%28an-idea-for-binary-planets-stars%29?highlight=Lagrange+point http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20522-Wouldn-t-Lagrangian-points-be-easy-to-program?highlight=Lagrange+point

The old sub assembly mod had this same problem. I think it was solely because of struts/lines appearing in the CRAFT file before the part that they were connected "to". If you are building a craft, you probably put on struts and fuel lines last so they are fine. But if you copy a sub tree, it probably sorts the parts by parent, thus potentially breaking struts and fuel lines.

In complete agreement. I drool at the thought.

That is a 6.6 meter structure. I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't tell you what exactly an equivalent 2.5 meter structure would carry. But I can tell you it would be less. That thing also weighs about 2 tons, while the KSP large decoupler is 0.4 tons.

Due to the aforementioned single contact points (joints) between parts. If this were LEGO, you could connect the pieces of your construction at many points and provide cross support. You can do the same in KSP, but it is done by a dedicated part (the strut). This is done to limitations of the game engine (i.e. hierarchical part tree and single points of contact). REAL physics doesn't like those type rockets too much either.

Not docking ports, the connection joints between parts that are snapped together. In the editor, these are highlighted by a green and black sphere.

From your last image 1. and 7. Hundreds of ribs to support the rocket between the fuel tanks (the fuel tanks themselves are quite strong) and large rings to connect and support the weight above. Now, due to the limits of Unity, KSP rocket components have a single very strong point of contact. Real rockets have dozens to hundreds set in a ring. But even those are not needed in KSP unless you have a very weak component or a very heavy load.

Uh oh, he brought out the bold text. I still stand by my statement. I think part of the problem is that KSP rockets look OK in the editor when you snap them together, so people think they will work just like they look. But real rockets have a lot of strutting that is built in to their structure. That is not something that is obvious until you try to build rockets yourself. Then when your rocket fails, the game doesn't give you a lot of information or help about what to do. I went through this same process when I picked up the game.

This. Since KSP does not simulate everything that happens, the RAPIER is implemented in one part and just needs some intakes to supply IntakeAir. The SABRE engine will burn oxygen from the air directly like a jet. When the oxygen runs out, it would switch to internal LOX. Also, the combustion chamber is special as well. The RAPIER doesn't need a special intake because KSP does not simulate the compression heating of the air at high speeds.

You realize that the S-1C is a single well supported structural piece and not a bunch of separate building blocks glued end to end right? Our rockets do not require massive bracing. You just need to think about the structural forces at play.