satcharna

While I didn't like the show nearly as much as, well, most shows I've ever seen, I'd support this petition. Getting SGU revived would bring hope of finally getting the Atlantis film moving, and perhaps even some material for SG-1. SGU's fault was the characters and the way focus was put on them. It became less like the successful SG-1 and Atlantis concepts, and more like, say, House. While SGU did have some things I liked, I really didn't care for the focus it put on actual religion (Yes, SG-1 and Atlantis also had a big religion concept, but I felt like it was handled a lot better with those shows), and killing off the only character I actually liked certainly didn't help the show. SGU was good enough for what it set out to do, but it wasn't Stargate.

Indeed. The future is with Roskosmos and China.With some luck, the rest of the US will soon follow the same path NASA currently is. While it is sad that manned spaceflight keeps getting slimmed down, the technology for unmanned flights hasn't been advancing as quickly as it currently is since the Cold War. With some luck, we'll soon find a reason to send people into space again.

6/10 I've seen you all over, yet I know nearly nothing about you. Creepy.

8/10 for the Cage, 2/10 for not knowing who Eduard Khil is.

You really should just rename "The Space Lounge" back to Offtopic. It would clear up all of the ambiguity, and look better in the first place. I'm a big fan of Sturmovik, having played all the games with moderate skill. I'm primarily a fan of the eponymous plane, but I've also had some successes with most of the planes available.

You're most likely flying Arcade mode. In Arcade, all planes maneuver a lot easier, and without much realism at all. Try playing Historic or Real instead, you'll find the planes behave a lot better. Lower your terrain resolution, tree range, and grass. Disable water reflections, object shadows, advanced shore and terrain far details. Are you leading your shots properly? In Arcade mode, you should get a little indicator ahead of the other plane, which is where you should aim. In Historic and Real battles, you need to do this on your own. Also, try holding your fire until you're flying straight behind the hostile plane. It's also a good idea to aim a little ahead of the lead indicator in the first place, as it shows the centre of the plane's mass, while you want to be aiming at the cockpit.

My first all-stock Eve return mission. Ran into some trouble when my ascent vehicle refused to dock with the orbiter for some reason, but Dudbus was able to transfer vehicles with his EVA pack instead.

It's Jool Dipping Probe 2. It descends by parachute and slowly probes Jool.You'd be surprised to learn how warm Jool is, and how dense. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81551041/Capture_b054d80.wav

They don't support any charities I think deserve my money, and it gives publicity to the worst company in the industry. I'm just going to continue not buying those games. They didn't interest me on release, they definitely don't interest me now.

I lost 213 poor kerbals in a tragically botched Dunabase landing.

My advice for you is to treat it like a conventional lander. Take it down vertically, land on your tail, and then flip over to your landing gear. Mun's gravity is low enough that any sane plane design can do so safely. Trying to do a horizontal landing, such as a runway landing, would be foolish. As Mun lacks atmosphere, you'd be going down at a very high speed, while also moving over the surface at a similarly high velocity. Your plane would probably just explode on contact.

Made a new one. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yrhsl2nulnj223t/Capture_31e360.wav

Your KSC render would make Artyom proud.

Sure thing. It usually doesn't get much further than this, probably because it doesn't recognize the signal as Robot.

Discovery One most likely wasn't capable of nearly 1G acceleration. Additionally, the force would come from a single direction, as that's how thrusters work. It's very easy to suspend equipment from a lightweight structure for that. Even further, it would be idiotic to keep most of the actual equipment in the centrifuge, and most of what we see are simple computer terminals, a food dispenser, and the cryogenic pods, none of which show much apparent weight.

For the centrifuge to be nearly frictionless, such small changes WOULD be significant. Your battleship comparison is a poor one, as a battleship carries a lot of weight in guns, while being built to withstand bombardment. About as far from a civilian science spacecraft as you can get. The centrifuge actually would be featherweight, as it would only have to suspend a minimal weight. Remember, the vessel was constructed in orbit, and never intended to withstand the forces involved with atmospheric entry.

In those conditions, even a small change would be significant. The centrifuge would also be as light as possible, simply because of the expense of firing things into space. As it isn't load bearing, and would only be capable of rather low spin, it wouldn't need to be very heavy (comparatively) in the first place.

8/10, would into space with.

I'm on Linux. I would do that, but I'm afraid the only option my motherboard has for a sound loop is a "stereo mix", which unfortunately only produces violent, static buzzing. That's the best I'm able to produce, by holding my old microphone against my headset. It's still just a violent buzzing, but you can at least discern what it's supposed to look like. It is! It's a shot from the Navcam on Munokhod 2, slowly roving up to Munstation 1 for a quick bit of servicing (one of the wheels popped off). I've no idea why it's upside-down, though.

My post was unclear, I apologise. What I meant was that the center of mass for the centrifuge would shift around quite a lot.

Looks like a space station? Very nice.

The mass of the centrifuge wouldn't be uniform, especially considering that it has people moving around inside of it.

You're forgetting the inevitable friction. You'd pretty much be forced to constantly apply force in order to keep the centrifuge spinning, which renders rockets impractical. Secondary reaction wheels were what I had in mind, actually.I'm just happy they have a centrifuge in the first place, instead of magical gravity generators like most other sci-fi.

I was referring to the centrifuge. You would need another centrifuge or reaction wheel spinning in reverse in order to cancel out the rotation, otherwise the whole spacecraft would begin spinning. I was not aware that the pod bay was supposed to have velcro, they did not share the peculiar gait of the stewardess when they used it.

Discovery One is beautiful for what it is, a rather realistic spacecraft. While it is true that the rings would be too small by far (one of them is actually not there at all), and the pod bay would by necessity not have a centrifuge, they're rather small problems compared to what most spacecraft in films are like. Discovery One doesn't run its engines on full thrust for the duration of the trip, when it meets an asteroid there is no surprise, the two just drift by each other, and it has radiators to both support life and cool the power supply. Few other spacecraft have had so much thought and scientific influence during the design process. There's also the fact that it was equipped with tablet computers decades before they became anywhere near commonplace. If only we could have had had joint Soviet-US commercial moon bases as well, life would be good.