TwoHedWlf

I believe you can manually edit the gimbal range in the part's file yourself if you want.

Yup, it's CPU limited, not HD limited. I did a test of loading time on a physical drive once (a few versions ago) and got something like 47 seconds, on my SSD which is several times as fast got 45. Which i'd imagine about as big a difference as I'd get between different different loads on the same drive.

There are no other structures because most of the Kerbal are a green non mobile moss/fungus like coating across the surface of the planet. The mobile kerbals are a fruiting body of this mass who have an irresistable drive to travel outwards and then die, bursting and spreading spores in a cloud. Similar to a puffball mushroom being stomped on.

It was about 12 hours. Big stack of xenon tanks and a couple ion drives, trying to get a low solar orbit. 4x time warp and left the game running in the background. Got the perigee down to almost touching the surface, but then ran out of fuel.

Yep. Mineral oil transfers heat a lot better than air. Though, if you have a thick plexi tank that it's in you might end up with a poor heat transfer to the atmosphere. Ideal would be piping the mineral oil through a big radiator or chiller unit. I don't think you could put the hard drives in though. The electrics would be fine, but HDs are not sealed units. Due to the big changes in air temp(And therefor pressure changes) they have a filtered air port. So the hard drive when it heats and cools would push a little air out and then try to suck a little oil in. Don't know if the filter would stop the oil, but if it doesn't a HD full of oil would be very bad.

Well, for one it's only been two days as of when you asked this question. Right now it's 3 days and it's more than halfway to its goal with 27 days to go. If it keeps going at the same rate($7333/day) they'll be at $230,000 by the end of the funding period.

Well, you've got got the weight of a tank to hold about 3000 PSI of pressure, some plumbing, some nozzles, some electronics, batteries to power the electronics, some gyros, some valves, some electronics to actuate the valves, some latches, a structural frame, some fabric...Obviously adds up.

2nd in the world would be the Yak-38. F-35 is the third. Actually, could be possibly argued that the AV-8B Harrier II is redesigned enough to give it the 3rd slot meaning the F-35 is the fourth if you dislike the F-35 enough to want it bumped down another slot.

It would be possible, hypothetically, if you were to put a one way valve on each side of the case, one in only and the other out only. Then if you had a speaker mounted to the side the vibrations could move a tiny bit of air in and then a tiny bit of air out. And what you would have done is made an extremely poorly performing, positive displacement air pump. Basically the same as a diaphragm pump like is used for fishtanks.

Definitely workable. If we assume the atmosphere is roughly similar to Jupiter then the atmosphere would be about 90% fuel/10% other gasses. 0% oxidizer, so almost perfect for a nuclear rocket. Not much good for a fuel/oxidizer rocket. Being able to combine aerobraking and refueling would be nice.

KSP .22... Fires bullets WITH MOAR BOOSTERS.

No, what we're saying is that once you've designed the rocket and run the flight manually at least once you can delegate the day to day menial tasks to other crew. They can run the refueling flights in the background.

Ooh, I forgot X Rebirth is out soon. Definitely that.

One problem with your idea...They did not hire macguyver for the mission making it impossible.

I disagree if they're implemented like the ion drive. Basically with a huge increase in thrust but still low enough to be generally very slow. Maybe something like a tenth the thrust of an ion drive for a sail about 7 meter diameter.

It's a fact, not really a theory. However, it is soooo slow, tedious and unstable that it can't really be exploited for anything practical except for a few very borderline cases. I have used EVA to deorbit a spaceplane that ran out of fuel just on the edge of space. But that just needed enough delta V to drop the perigee down by a couple thousand meters. And it took me about an hour. I'd hate to think how long it would take to even get to mun orbit. Days maybe?

Maybe. Depends on if the fan is temperature controlled or not and which fan. But generally, fans should always be spinning at a low speed if it's temperature controlled regardless of temp. I'd expect it to be almost silent if the computer is cool though.

Nope, again, good batteries are up around 90% efficiency. Yes, the energy density is much lower, but don't confuse the two.

Except internal combustion engines are FAR less efficient than electric motors. Around 20% vs electric engines which are usually over 90%.

Yeah, going by how much ram is being used/available isn't really that meaningful. It will keep things in ram that might be needed, because there's no point having heaps of unused ram. If it needs more free than is available it will just automatically dump something into your swap file to free up space. Mine is sitting at 87% used at the moment, with just a couple programs open. Best thing you can do, install win 7 and get rid of Norton/symantec AV if you have them. Install something that doesn't slow everything down.

Unless it runs off the liquid rocket fuel and oxidizer.

Let's see what you've done wrong...You forgot an SSD, your video card is weak and ... windows 8. The rest looks ok.

I've also had the thought of a kind of modular nuclear rocket, maybe the nuclear reactor for power could double for the rocket. Basically, you've got a nuclear reactor providing the heating for the fuel. The higher the reactor temperature the higher the ISP, the higher the total output the higher the maximum thrust. Then a nozzle for max thrust(Difference between the reactor and nozzle's max thrust is electrical supply?) gimbal and isp vs altitude.

Realistically, it would be impossible. Even if you were somehow able to flood the entire combustion chamber(Which is essentially the entire interior of the booster) with water it probably wouldn't do it. If I remember right the boosters that could be "Shut down" used doors at the top or or could blow the entire top off the booster. Essentially letting out all the pressure/exhaust. Has been, surprised it's not on the What not to suggest list. It would be nice, but if done in a realistic fashion it would be a bit complicated. Say you have the nozzle and one segment of fuel produces X thrust for Y time. Adding a second identical segment on top will result in roughly 2X thrust for Y time. Possibly more like 3X thrust for .5Y given the higher temperatures. This can be changed by modifying the interior structure of the fuel to give it more or less surface area to burn. But without doing that if you want a longer burn time you'll need a wider booster, not taller.

The respectable quantity of antimatter produced by a generator powered by a black hole or ZPM (Or Zed PM if you're from the Commonwealth)