KSK

Sooo - you're building the Alan Pars....Jebediah Kerman Project for *pinkie* twenty meeeeelion funds?

Hi - and welcome aboard! You've probably found them already but if you're looking for any of those long, elaborate stories there's a link to an archive thread in my signature that might help. Unfortunately I haven't had time to update it much lately but there's still plenty of material of all shapes, genres and sizes on there.

That last post got me thinking, so I thought I'd throw a question out there to the thread. Encouragement vs pestering - is there a good time to give a thread a friendly bump to ask the author how the next bit of writing is coming along? Obviously spam-bumping the thread will be frowned upon by the mods, as will necroposting so some care will be needed but what are folks' views on this in general? I have to admit, if I'm going to post comments on a story, I'll normally only do so in response to an update from the author. I've always been a bit reluctant to do anything else simply because writing takes time at the best of times and there are so many reasons why that time might be longer than expected. Having a threadful of 'can we haz next chapter now plz. Now? Now? How bout now? PLZZZZZ' style of comments didn't strike me as being terribly helpful to the creative process. On the other hand - it is nice to be appreciated and to know that people are still out there waiting for the next update, so maybe a bit of judicious bumping would encourage more writers to keep writing. Which would be a good thing! Is there a happy medium between benign neglect and pestering?

Good old Marvin: "There was no Kaboom? I was waiting for a Kerbin shattering Kaboom!" Which, not entirely coincidentally, makes KSK as an acronym.

Cool. There's also a mod somewhere that gives you bigger stock fuel tanks and (if I remember correctly) lets you swap around their textures. I'd like to add that to the wishlist - swapping the relatively clean 1.25m tank textures with the 'oil drum' 2.5m tank textures would make them fit better with First Flight. Oil-drum style 1.25m tanks would work quite nicely for the early years KIS spacecraft, whereas clean 2.5m tanks would work better for the more professionally built Rockomax designs and the later Eve class KIS boosters. Best of all, we can just repurpose the existing stock textures without having to rootle around in the mountain 'o mods or create our own parts.

I'm not sure there is one. However, if it helps, I've read very good examples here that cover pretty much the whole range of options from 'classic' after action reports consisting of nothing but screenshots and film script style dialogue, all the way through to stories with no pictures at all. So I'd say go with whatever you find easiest to write. If you want a couple of examples, I always liked Patupi's fics which I would consider to be illustrated stories - the pictures are nice but the writing would pretty much stand on its own. For a more recent example, it's pretty hard to beat Just Jim's saga of Emiko Station. That's a bit more picture heavy than Patupi's work and the pictures tell a little more of the story, although there's plenty of good stuff in the text too! Thinking about it, that might be the kind of balance you're looking for. Edit: Completely off-topic but Jim and Kuzzter's screenshots and craft designs are really giving me the KSP itch again. Not a lot of point starting a new game this close to 1.1 but I sure can't wait for 1.1 to hit.

Gene: "Hold my beer and watch this!" Which went about as well as such things normally do. Right now I'm imagining a Looney Tunes style spacecraft powered by Mort chasing Gene on a treadmill and shouting at him. Great chapter and good choice of names for the kids! Edit: On a more serious note, I did like having a Grand Tour mission be the result of a drunken bet! It's very kerbal somehow and a neat way of linking the two parts of that last chapter.

I'd definitely like this. I would also like it if building upgrades could be tied to tech tree progression somehow rather than starting with a maxed out KSC.

Because for that to happen, gravity would need to get stronger. If a body is moving at a constant speed in a circular path, it's always accelerating towards the centre of that circle. Which sounds a little crazy until you remember that acceleration is a change in velocity - that is speed and direction. The body is constantly changing direction as it moves around the circle, hence it's always accelerating. Now, the faster the body is travelling, the more it needs to be accelerated to keep it in the same circular path and thus the more force is required. But in our case, the force is provided by gravity and so remains constant (or constant to a reasonable approximation). So going faster in the same orbit doesn't work.

One other thing that I've noticed about YAMLs is that, when they do go for world building, it often hews quite closely to human history and the motivations for human spaceflight programs. There is a war, there is a brilliant scientist who worked on weapons during the war and helps to start a space program, there is a space race based on national prestige... etc. None of that is at all bad mind you, it's just something else that most people on the forum are aware of or have seen before in another YAML and so doesn't immediately grab their attention.

My vote - both your statements are wrong. The current mathematics regarding the conservation of momentum or energy is correct and complete because you've just used it to deduce the properties of your negative mass particles, should they exist. The fact that we haven't observed a macroscale particle with negative mass doesn't necessarily say anything about the completeness (or otherwise) of our understanding of conservation laws. Therefore statement 2 is wrong. Whether or not negative mass is possible, it won't lead to either unstoppable objects or infinite energy. Arguing by Wikipedia: "Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists (primarily Hermann Bondi in 1957,[3] William B. Bonnor in 1989,[9] then Robert L. Forward[10]) have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Einstein field equations: Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses. Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses. For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a gravitational pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs however, there is a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and a pull that attracts the negative mass towards the positive one at the same time. Hence Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object,[3] an effect called "runaway motion" by Bonnor who disregarded its physical existence, stating: “ I regard the runaway (or self-accelerating) motion […] so preposterous that I prefer to rule it out by supposing that inertial mass is all positive or all negative. ” — William B. Bonnor, in Negative mass in general relativity.[9] Such a couple of objects would accelerate without limit (except relativistic one); however, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0. This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy." Emphasis added. I think that disposes of the notion of infinite energy. Constant acceleration (hence unstoppable objects) assumes that the objects are only interacting via gravity. However they can be stopped by employing other forces, for example electromagnetism. More simply, if we have two such bodies travelling through space, they can also be stopped by putting something very large in their path - which statistically, will happen eventually. If the unstoppable objects were travelling at sufficient velocity, any repulsive force exerted on them by said large body would not be enough to appreciably slow them before impact. At which point you have a pair of objects travelling at possibly relativistic speeds and colliding with something. Whatever is left after that is entirely open to speculation but the original objects have most certainly been stopped. Therefore statement 1 is also wrong.

Like Bill Phil, I find it easiest to think about this in terms of energy. At any point along an orbit you'll have a fixed amount of energy which is the sum of your kinetic energy (due to your speed) and gravitational potential energy (due to your altitude. Because that total is fixed, the lower you are (less potential energy), the faster you go (higher kinetic energy) to compensate. So the lowest point in your orbit (periapsis) is also the fastest. Likewise the highest point in your orbit (apoapsis) is also the slowest. Now what happens if I burn prograde at periapsis? I give myself more kinetic energy which I then have to exchange for more potential energy at apoapsis (highest point, therefore slowest, therefore least kinetic energy, therefore most potential energy) And the only way that can work is if my altitude at apoapsis increases. The same logic applies at apoapsis (or anywhere in your orbit for that matter. Burn prograde, increase kinetic energy, exchange for more potential energy aka altitude on the opposite side of your orbit. Which is why you burn prograde at apoapsis to circularise your orbit. The same logic in reverse explains why e.g burning retrograde at periapsis lowers your apoapsis. Hope this helps.

I'm flattered - thank you very much! And yep, things have gone quite well so far, although the coolant leak on Pioneer 1 could have been a close call. On the KIS side, their 'we all build them, we all fly them' mentality helps a lot. Friends don't let friends ride badly made rockets and management, such as it is, also have (or had until very recently) hands-on roles in the engineering and manufacturing side of things. Rockomax - well they could be good or they could just be lucky. They do have a rather forceful flight director though - I can't see Nelton putting up with any Go Fever nonsense. Also until fairly recently there hasn't been a serious time pressure or national prestige at stake that might have tempted either main protagonist to cut corners. Even the competition between Rockomax and the KIS was fairly pragmatic - back before the Moho 1 launch, Jeb was keen to be the first kerbal in space but not so keen that he wanted to be the first kerbal to stay in space! Obviously things have just changed significantly, so who can tell what will happen... There's no released mod that I'm aware of, although minepagan did make a start on modding in the early KIS engines. Not sure what happened to that - I suspect real life reared its ugly head. I'm not sure what Jake has in mind but it sure sounds interesting and I'd definitely be up for trying it! I won't be much help on the coding side of things but I could certainly help with flavour text for the contracts. I was also wondering about a re-worked tech tree with SMAC style descriptions of each of the parts or technologies as seen from the POV of some of the major characters. Something like this maybe: Start. The Kerbin Interplanetary Society was founded on enthusiasm, dreams and no shortage of wild ideas.The hard realities of building any kind of working spacecraft forced us to shelve most of those ideas - but we didn't forget about them... - Jebediah Kerman: "KIS - a history of kerballed spaceflight."

Stability. Four tanks with a landing leg on each gives you a nice wide base for your lander, making it easier to land on slopes. That was always my reason anyway.

Yeah, at least with bad sci-fi you do have a chance of it straying into 'so bad it's good' aka 'cult classic' territory.

Uh yeah. In another shout-out for the older timers on this thread, lets back off on this before the hammer of the mods drives this thread to new lands. I should also point out that when I said 'quite a bit of detail', I didn't mean that much detail! Whatever happens between consenting kerbals stays - and will always stay - between consenting kerbals. I wouldn't dream of invading their privacy!

Two words: Rocket Skis!

My pleasure and thanks for dropping by to say so! The next chapter is finally under way. Only about a page and a half of text so far but it's a start - and that's always the hard part for me, especially when I'm starting a new section of the story.

A slightly odd answer perhaps but they're quite common in Elite: Dangerous. The reason I mention that is because it's a game set in a simulated Milky Way but a simulation that's built on actual astronomical data where available and with individual star systems generated through a pretty detailed process based on our current best understanding of planetary formation. So, I would say yes they are, according to our current understanding. I'm not aware of any that we've actually observed though.

Another vote for 'In the Shadow of the Moon' here.

For somebody who wasn't going to waste their time replying to a fantasy, you seem quite willing to waste your time being rude. Besides, even if we exclude any sort of FTL drive, we're going to need some sort of exotic propulsion system for interstellar travel. Avatar was certainly exaggerated (accelerating to 0.7c using solar sails seems unlikely to me) but at least it made a reasonable attempt at a sensible (for want of a better word) interstellar propulsion system, with some thought given to the challenges involved. Need for a extremely efficient source of energy - check. Logistical challenges involved in using actual propellants - check. Use of ISRU to get around some of those challenges - check. Even the antimatter catalysed fusion drive is at least rooted in actual science even if the details and the actual engineering are necessarily hand-waved away. Muon catalysed fusion has been proposed and tried, although it didn't break even. Using the muons created from matter-anti-matter annihilation might be one method of producing a sufficient muon flux whilst providing a way of actually harnessing some of the energy released from that annihilation.

Put like that, I think SpaceX but as you say, time will tell. The SpaceX approach of 'first start by making money then figure out a way to make more money' seems like the more financially sustainable approach. On the other hand, Blue Origin might have a great design but I think (without a shred of evidence other than my gut feel) that scaling up that hand-crafted prototype whilst keeping the cash flowing is going to be tougher. On the other hand this is two extremely successful businessmen being critiqued by some random guy on the internet who knows almost jack-squat about the challenges of running any sort of business. So my comments will probably turn out to be so much hooey.

I always understood the Hohmann transfer to be a low energy but long time solution for getting somewhere else in space. If we're seriously contemplating a mission to Alpha Centauri, then we want a short time solution and are probably less concerned about low energy.

Heh - they'd better move the airlock controls out of reach of small fingers. I can just picture the nippers crawling around underfoot, probably having an absolute blast in low gravity. Or the Emiko Station, low gravity soft-play and flying practice area. Population: 2. But yeah - some other story perhaps.

Hey, hey - let's not derail the thread by getting into that debate again. Besides, bigendered kerbals have one stirling advantage for us English speaking authors - the pronouns get a lot easier to use! I'm not kidding - my own 'fic has quite a bit of background about that side of kerbal biology and originally, my kerbals were intended to be genderless (in keeping with prevailing canon at the time) with gender only becoming a thing under specific (and obvious ) circumstances. In the end, I just went for male/female characters, in part because I wasn't really happy with 'he' as the generic pronoun (stylistically it's OK but I wasn't comfortable with it) and none of the neutral or deliberately asexual pronouns really worked for me. Greg Egan does it very well. Me - not so much. Edit - I totally agree with Jim though about kerbals being so fun to write about because of the lack of canon! We have some instantly recognisable names, a handful of characters, maybe a meme or two - and that's it. Everything else is up to us. It's the best of both worlds - a recognisable setting that's almost completely malleable.