KSK

I think the technical term is ‘a metric shed load’. Historically, I believe that most rocket engine failures have been down to the turbopump going kablooey.

I can hear the pre-launch checks now. "Propulsion?" "Propulsion is Go." "GNC?" "We're Go." "Retro?" "And proud of it too!"

They're going to need a bigger net to land that puppy!

Ahhh - (with apologies to Douglas Adams) what they need is the Joojanta 500, Super-Chromatic, Peril Sensitive faceplate. At the first sign of danger it turns completely black, thus preventing the intrepid passengers from seeing anything that might alarm them. Optional feature - the blackness is caused by an intumescent fire-retardant material, which doubles as an ablative TPS.

BFH the tea towel! BFH the movie! And always remember to drink a brew from Mr Coffee whilst watching Mr BFH. Yeah, I made a right spaceballs-up of that joke... And moving this post back on topic - cheers for posting the fairing drop-catch test! Until the very last moment, that looked more like the opening credits from a movie than real life. Kept expecting to see the camera zoom in to see 007 sitting calmly in the fairing half.

Ooooh - I see what you did there you wascally wabbit.

Its certainly one way of fielding any questions... I'll get my coat.

I think they both tie together don’t they? Character emotions are a big part of making them real and believable, which in turn makes the reader feel for (or against) them in those big or small moments. And as a quick addendum to that thought, the most satisfying moments for me as a writer have been when my readers post a comment and it’s plain that they really got the mood or moment I was trying to convey. The last First Flight chapter for example, is all about two prototype spacecraft modules finally on-orbit and docking after many many trials and tribulations along the way. To which somebody over on Spacebattles replied with a picture of a real life Mission Control center after a particularly momentous event. There’s cheering, there are hugs, there are probably tears if you look closely enough and, in general, the whole scene is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind for the final scene of my chapter. Somebody really got it...

If we're talking about paleo diets, surely these cold ones (skip to end of clip) are more appropriate?

This thread got me remembering about laminitis in horses (my folks used to run a riding stables). Very nasty, basically inflammation of part of the hoof, and my mum was always aware of it and the need to avoid feeding her horses too much 'overheating' food that could bring it on. To me, 'overheating food' doesn't sound too far away from the concept of 'inflammatory food', but it's also consistent with respectable veterinary advice. Diet isn't a treatment per se but it is important in managing laminitis. I would assume its important in prevention too, as per my mum, but I don't have anything to back that up. However, from that website (the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London): "Laminitis is a medical emergency and horses should be treated as soon as possible. Various medicine can be given to control the pain. Vets may give non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as phenylbutazone or flunixin and opiates like morphine and pethidine." *snip* "Box rest along with dietary changes are important. Rather than grass, horses should have poor quality hay and no or minimal concentrates. Roughage rich foodstuffs like unmollassed sugar beet and the Hi-Fi feed product can form part of a revised diet. If the laminitis is the result of an underlying condition, such as an endocrine disorder, that disease should be treated accordingly." Obvious caveat is obvious - humans aren't horses. But still, I thought this was an interesting and validated example of the inflammatory foods concept.

Restless Legs Syndrome is my favourite 'sounds like a fake' complaint but apparently it is an actual thing. Back on topic, inflammatory foods certainly sound like quackery but immunology (and by extension, inflammation since inflammatory responses are immune responses - I think!) is one of those fields where I know enough to know that the actual answer is probably extremely complicated but not enough to have an inkling as to what that answer might be. My gut (haha) feeling though is that the AIP diet might be legit but probably only in connection with GI inflammation, and that its proponents have probably vastly overstated its merits. From aiplifestyle.com, for example. Comments added in parentheses. "The Autoimmune Protocol is a diet that helps heal the immune system and gut mucosa (possibly. At least we're talking about food having an effect on the parts of your body responsible for processing food). It is applicable to any inflammatory disease (doubtful, or at least I remain skeptical unless presented with more data. Inflammation is complex, hence I'm not inclined to believe in this supposed one-shot cure for it)." "The Autoimmune Protocol (AIP) diet works to reduce inflammation in the intestines. Many elimination diets are not complete enough and often do not remove immune triggers that promote inflammation in the gut. (Not completely implausible. Remove the antigen and watch the immune response disappear. And given that damn near anything can be an antigen...) AIP works to calm inflammation in the gut and also calm inflammation in the body. (Ahhh - this is where I get skeptical again, without more data, or at least clearer definitions of what we're talking about here. Removing the cause of an immune response is one thing. Actively damping down an immune response in progress is something else altogether.)" As an aside, my wife suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which seems to be a blanket term for 'something is wrong with your guts but we're darned if we know exactly what.' She can and does treat it with a mild elimination diet, since certain foods have a predictable (and painful) effect. As far as I know, IBS (unlike Crohn's) is not an inflammatory condition but still - seeing one medical condition treatable through diet makes me disinclined to reject something like the AIP diet completely out of hand.

Or possibly a troll who's just trying draw attention to themselves and be controversial for the pure devilment of it. The internet isn't short of those. I agree that a dislike function would be a terrible idea. Speaking personally, I hand out likes for all sorts of reasons, most of them disconnected to the actual quality of the post. I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one. Hence 'like' becomes a bit of a misnomer anyway. As would 'dislike' - it's a blunt instrument of a response that covers a lot of possible reactions to a post, and none of them very well. I mean, what does 'disliking' something even mean in this context: I don't like your post because reasons? I respectfully disagree with your argument? I reject your argument because it doesn't fit with my worldview but neither can I think of a good counterargument? Your post disagrees with a prevailing groupthink, so I'm jumping on the bandwagon and 'disliking it'? None of those options seem like a good enough reason to implement a dislike feature, although please feel free to add any other options that I've missed. In my opinion, a better response to any or all of the above is a politely worded reply, not a lazy downvote. Edit. Also, again in my personal opinion, having 'like' and 'dislike' options would tend to polarise any debate into 'you're either 100% for this or 100% against it', aka the fanbois vs the haters. Again, far too much of that nonsense on the internet already and its squeezing out nuanced debate.

I enjoyed Moonseed. Worth reading IMO and relatively cheerful for a Stephen Baxter book!

Nah - the Musk we know is the 'my programming doesn't quite cover this', socially awkward Beta unit. The Star League are refusing to let the real Musk go, partly because he's a badS Starfighter but mostly because they're a bit leery of letting Gunstar technology fall into the hands of us backwards Terran types. Because they quite like us Terran types and don't want to see us wipe ourselves out. Or that's what purpleivan's mate told me anyway, so I guess it's true enough.

Not much point sticking Merlins on there. Guess they're the real deal, or a decent facsimile thereof... Edit. And if you'll forgive me a spot of horn-tooting, I'm loving this 'building a rocket in a field' schtick. Life imitates art* once again... *For given values of art. Actual quantity of art may vary and may have settled in transit. Take care when reading or opening overhead lockers.

Apology accepted. And yeah, that was pretty much my thinking. Tweakable CoM as an assist or a fine-tuning tool rather than a magic ‘fix everything’ button. Tweaking the capsule CoM on even a modestly sized rocket would make a negligible difference, tweaking the crew cabin on a rover will help its stability but wouldn’t stop a really bad design from flipping over at speed. Or to use a personal example, my first Mun lander (Mk1 pod, FL-T800 tank, engine and legs) is going to fall over on a slope no matter where that capsule CoM is! I’m thinking you could exaggerate the CoM tweak a bit for aircraft parts because KSP aircraft parts are very oddly designed compared to their real-world counterparts (fuselage sections as strictly passenger or fuel carrying for example). A better solution might be to allow limited CoM shifting on complete aircraft but I can see that being a complete bear to implement or balance. With respect, I think it would work quite nicely as an advanced tweakable in stock. Not something a new player will see by default but there to be found (or ignored) as they like. No need to relegate everything to mods, especially when it (tweakable CoM) would already work quite intuitively with the stock widgets and CoM indicator.

Not as I understand it - you could redistribute that base mass instead. That’s why I’m suggesting that only certain parts be CoM tweakable. For most parts, I think the current CoMs are either good enough or it’s difficult to see a real world justification for allowing them to be tweakable. Fuel tanks would be a good example, since to a decent approximation they’re just homogenous tubes and there’s not much you can do to shift their CoM, short of draining them - which the game already takes into account. A crew capsule though is definitely not homogenous. They contain all kinds of internal structures and sub-systems which, in real life, can be moved around to give a desired centre of mass. If I recall correctly, the Apollo capsule is a good real-world example - it was designed with an offset CoM to provide additional control during reentry. KSP doesn’t model internal part structure in fine detail so we can’t, for example, change the CoM of a Mk1 capsule by moving the pilot couch. However a CoM widget would provide a reasonable simulation of that ability. You could think of it as a way of modding parts on the fly to better work with a particular craft. A Hitchhiker module used as part of a space station would be fine with a central CoM. When used as part of a rover though, I don’t think it’s unreasonable or unrealistic to shift things around inside it (or to simulate that shifting) to lower its CoM to provide a bit of extra stability. I would see that as sensible engineering rather than an easy-mode option.

Given how much KSP abstracts away real world engineering concerns, I think that argument is more than a bit subjective. To use a much chewed over counter-example, one could argue that the lack of life support requirements in the stock game is enforcing bad design habits by giving players an easy way out, vis ignoring a significant constraint on spacecraft design altogether. With some caveats to the original proposal (see my previous post), I would regard a CoM widget as a convenience, in the same way that using existing widgets to fine tune aircraft wing position is a convenience. The player still needs to understand why that CoM needs to be in a particular place but having a widget to move it around (within reason) means that you don’t need to completely redesign a craft to implement a minor change, or hang a bunch of extraneous parts off that craft simply to move its CoM around a little. Put another way, it would help the player design elegantly and well with a limited number of parts, as you wanted.

Kindly don't fix my posts. Especially when you're ignoring my argument and inserting one of your own.

Actually, I think that bus makes @Daveroski‘s point quite well. It’s centre of mass isn’t dead centre, KSP style and will be sufficiently low that it can corner safely, despite its height. KSP design isn’t finely grained enough to let us make like bus designers and, for example, put the heavier subsystems of a Mk1 capsule at the bottom to lower its centre of mass. So we’re left with fixed CoMs which may or may not be realistic or useful, or ugly hacks like sticking a jet engine on a Mun rover to make it more stable. With a couple of tweaks to @Daveroski‘s proposal, I think a CoM widget would be a good and useful addition to the game. Tweak number one - only allow parts with significant internal heterogeneity to have their CoM tweaked. In other words, crew compartments and possibly the RoveMate. Big components with a decent amount of internal space which the player can readily imagine being made up of various subsystems in real life. Tweak number two - the CoM can only be shifted to within a certain distance of the collider for that part. Or some other mechanism that would a) prevent the CoM moving outside the part and b) reflect the fact that real world parts do have a thickness and shouldn’t be considered as an arbitrarily thin shell with a mass somewhere within it (even if that’s how KSP is modelling it ).

Gorram shiny.

I think you’re taking my comment slightly out of context. There’s no particular reason why all Kerbals shouldn’t have the same surname - my post was a reply to a previous inbreeding joke. I’ve never been a big fan of k-word overuse (k-word kreep if you like) but each to their own. It’s definitely been a persistent meme on these forums since pretty much the earliest versions of the game.

Today's earworm is Simon & Garfunkel's "At the Zoo." Monkeys stand for honesty; giraffes are insincere. And the elephants are kindly but they're dumb...

Make it so... It's what Jeb would do.

Turn the volume up - you may discover the answer to that old philosophical conundrum and be able to tell us... what is the sound of one hand clapping. KSP - it’s educational.