Elthy

Maybe they are hoping/waiting for the next gen consoles. KSP needs lots of CPU power, there will be large improvements there.

I dont think you need a new PSU for a 2070S and an uspecified 6 core CPU, even if thats an old overclocked Sandy-Bridge-E or similar you are still not realy straining the PSU, except its some cheap chinesium mainly filled with concrete instead of components. Im currently planning a new PC in a small case, too. I will go for the Phanteks Evolve Shift Air, an R5 3600 and keep my RX 480. Will be interesting to see the thermals on that, the "Air" variant should have plenty of airflow with those large mesh surfaces.

Dont forget that it also has a bigger power draw resulting in more heat. This is allready a challenge in small cases, so i would recommend to go with the smaller option.

Is the wall we see around the engines the outer hull or do you think there is another layer beyond that? If this is the outer hull i dont see how they want to fit legs in there, maybe they will be added to the outside.

Two things: What happened to Mk2? All current updates are about Mk1 in Texas... I realy wonder if they will be able to lower the dry mass from 200t to the proposed 85tons from the 2017 presentation. They need top add lifesupport and other interior stuff with that budget, too, it seems realy optimistic...

Those look very small, i kinda doubt enough fuel fits in there for landing. Maybe its a ballast tank to simulate a varrying payload...

Yeah, the old plan of using the normal tanks as dewars for the header tanks sounded realy good. Maybe issues with structuraly supporting them under engine power when the main tanks are empty?

My bottle opener arrived, thanks a lot! Im currently not in a position to use it, though, several weeks of intense learning for tests are ahead of me...

War just increases the technological developments in small but highly visible areas (e.g. aviation), but drasticaly hinders everything else. Also look at the current times, the western nations havent had a military conflict on their homeland for decades. At the same time we see technoloigical revolutions in ever increasing speeds, especialy in information technology. If you dont have to worry about being shot or bombed to death you will have more time for science...

Both pure water rockets and soda+vinegar rockets work by pressing water (vinegar is mostly water) out the nozzle at high speeds. The difference is that a water rocket has its pressure supplied form the outside by a pump while the soda rocket creates it with a chemical reaction. You can improve both by increasing the pressure inside the rocket, here your limit is the valve and the bottle. The valve of the soda rocket is supposed to fail, you "just" have to make sure it happens later, so thats an easy way to optimise it. If the bottle becomes your weak point (i hope your are wearing safety glasses even at bigger distances) you can try reinforcing it, e.g. by wrapping firbe reinfroced tape around it. Edit: There is a limit on how much pressure a soda+vinegar reaction can create, im not sure if its low enough to be reached by household stuff. You will notice it if the rocket cant press the plug out anymore.

@kerbiloid You assume that satellites are chaoticaly bouncing arond like atoms in a gas, but thats not the case. In one orbital layer with different inclinations all inclinations will likely be >100m apart in height, also they can make the orbits resonant. Both variants reduce the risk of collision in the constellation itself to zero, its physicaly impossible for them to ever crash. Other individual sats can only crash if they intersect starlinks orbits, but even then its realy rare (as ive shown using your numbers), other constellations will use different orbits or resonance just like starlink itself. Also SpaceX (and everyone else if they publish) will know the location of every sat quite precisely, they need to because they are using focused beams for transmission. Especialy coupled with laser links between the sats that results in high predictability of the orbits, greatly reducing the size of the 1/10000 collision sphere.

Yeah, thats why i continued my calculations, read the next paragraph

No, you are missunderstanding me (its hard to write that correctly). In this scenario, one sat had to move after 13 years to avoid a collision, the others can remain stationary. After about another 13 years another maneuver would be neccessary, propably by a different sat. If there is an imminent collision, only the affected sat has to move, not the whole constellation.

@kerbiloid: Lets go with your numbers of one collision in every 80000 orbits in the lower layers. As an orbit takes about 90min thats over 13 years per necessary course correction of a single star link satellite (the one that would have collided). So for evey other sat in that layer one starlink sat (out of the whole constellation) has to do a course correction every 13 years, the others none at all. This is an incredibly low number! Actually its way to low since orbital paths arent measured precisely, so they will maneuver even with a low chance of a collision, ESA states over 1/10000 as the limit. This would result in a course correction every 12h for one of all SpaceX sats in the layer (about 7500) -> Each one has to do a correction about every 10 years for every other sat in the same layer. There isnt much flying around that low other than other planned mega constellations, which will propably coordinate with SpaceX, reducing the collision chance (and thus need for maneuver) drasticaly.

Request bottle opener. I certify that I am over 18 and over the age of majority in the country where I reside Awesome giveaway! You realy ship worldwide for free? Thats extremly generous of you.

The Crucial drive is speced for 180 TBW, the Samsung one for 300TBW. But it realy doesnt matter at all, durability isnt a concern in modern SSDs. My >6 years old Samsung 830 has 30TBW after daily usage as the only harddrive in my PC and tests have shown that SSDs lasts several times their guaranteed TBW. Im sure he wont be able to wear down any SSDs currently on the market...

I wonder why the exhaust greatly changed color/luminosity shortly before touchdown. Seems intended, an engine failure wouldnt have resulted in such a smooth landing. Maybe the injected extra fuel to cool the exhaust to reduce stress on the landing pad?

Now is the time to be dreaming about what KSP 2 could offer. As its (hopefully) developed from scratch without the legacy issues of a hobby project the possibilitys are endless. Stuff i hope for: -Way better graphics (they dont need to keep those age old recommended specs in mind) -Same moddability -More stuff to build/explore on the planets (the trailer showed lots of large structures) Im not so sure if i like the teased sci fi technologies from the trailer, though...

Lets hope it will keep the gameplay at least as scientific as it is without dumbing it down for a wider audience... Also i hope it will be at least as moddable as the current game. Since its a new developer we cant be sure they understand the critical role mods had in KSPs history... Edit: I watched the long dev trailer, they seem to have the right attitude. The hypetrain is accelerating

I would definetly advise against buying the "Pro" variant of samsungs SSDs, the "Evo" variant is way cheaper while being exactly as fast in real world benchmarks. The "Pro" variants have a bit higher theoretical speeds, but this doesnt result in better boot times or loading speed.

It seems a bit expensive for the hardware, i saw comparable specs for about 800$, but cant recommend specific products.

If you allready have a laptop you would be way better off buying a dedicated gaming PC, you can continue to use your old laptop for everything else you need to do mobile.

There should be a sticker with the key on the laptop, otherwise you may be able to read the activation key from the OS. If you have the key you can simply download the OS from Microsoft, for installation with a DVD or an USB Stick.

You could look in the taskmanager how much RAM you are currently using. I dont know enough about those programs.

I think you are realy overspending on your mainboard and the RAM: Do you even know how much benefit you get from the SLI? Most modern games that would need more power than a single 970 can provide dont even support it, the technology is more or less dead. I would sell one of the GPUs and dont worry about SLI support (which afaik doesnt need special mainboard features, just a second PCIe port with x16 size). You could also add Wifi/Bluetooth with an extension card, that would enable you to buy way cheaper mainboards. A cheap B450 MB comes at less than 100$, but if oyu want to upgrade the CPU later there may be some reason to go with an X570 MB. The RAM is realy overpriced, a good but way cheaper option is Crucials Ballistix Sport series. Also i think 32GB are totaly overkill for almost all tasks, are you sure you need that much? The savings could go into a new GPU, that would be more powerfull than your SLI 970, a M2 SSD or a new CPU cooler (afaik AM3 coolers are not compatible). Or you just save it for later...