Synapse

Okay, but I'm not just talking about NASA. I'm talking about the whole industry created by our demand to explore space. That might include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and private companies who supply the satellites. The industry, as a whole, driven by our desire to explore beyond our atmosphere, is what is being questioned here. Don't worry, I'm not offended at all. Hit me with whatever you've got.

As discussed in another thread I think you can come close to Kerbin whilst in the influence of Kerbol, so you can effectively hover near the planet ala barycenter. What would be the purpose of sending a ship underground to the barycenter anyway?

Remove FAR, THEN complain about SAS on planes...

Lol you guys are discussing game assets and you don't even know what the gameplay is gonna be. Sounds for what? Are there characters? Top down what? Shooter? It is a RPG game? What are strings? What is the goal of the game?

And what has NASA done so far to affect climate change or do they just monitor it? What if that money went into renewable energy and planting forests? What if the money spent developing satellites so that we can all sit around on the internet (let's not even discuss that all our computers are made from tin mines in the Congo) was spent on earthly things like protecting our ocean biodiversity? I'm not disagreeing entirely, just playing Devil's advocate. I'm interested to hear your justifications. I will post my answer later.

Malletface it would be difficult to prove that inventions like long-distance communicatons, wireless aircraft, satellites and even the wheat have SAVED lives. Haven't they also taken them? How many lives have been killed by military aircraft since they were invented? Or through the use of long-distance military communications via satellites etc? Climate change I agree is very important. But we don't need to send probes to other planets to fix that. Of course, but ther's nothing noble about that. They wanted more intelligence on each other's rocket capabilities. You forgot to mention things like; drones, bunker busters, napalm, jet fighters, strafing, apache gunships, ICBM's, air-to-ground missiles, cluster bombs, Tomahawk missiles, MiGs which are all quite direct descendants of space-race technology

What about using a rocket at a tiny amount of throttle with the jets providing the main thrust? And a computer system that slowly adjusts from one to the other?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that exploring space doesn't have value/allure. But can you not be humbled by looking at the Milky Way from the ground level? What did we discover from the Moon or Mars? Nothing except that they are largely dry rocks. No great inventions came of them, no political revolutions. Since the space industry began in the 50's, it hasn't as far as I'm aware given us anything of value. Physicists on the ground have. Even the Manhattan project had nothing to do with space. The only thing it has helped us do is make better rockets - what do we use those for? Sidewinders and cruise missiles. Please tell me what we have achieved through space programs to date.

And what if it doesn't? It's as easy to conjecturise that we would find those cures in the Amazon rainforest, if we de-industrialised our societies. Most of our developments have been made through war, rather than space travel. But nevertheless that doesn't mean that I should condone war OR space travel, if those things are accidental side effects of it, and ones that aren't possible to predict. Consider that the average salary in Bangladesh is somewhere in the range of a few dollars a year - take your space program funding and you can double the salary of millions of people. So I do think in a way it's a simple choice between which is more important. Not to say I don't love the idea of space travel, but it's not up there with our greatest priorities right now.

Have you played MDKII? That had a science portion of the game which worked kindof nicely.

Smooth. 10 chars

So it is a science puzzle based Assassin's Creed?

What is the gameplay? Your description did not describe anything at all. Is it a first person shooter based on alternate histories like Assassin's Creed? A science game about string theory? I really didn't understand

What idea do you have?

I'm sure a lot of you believe that even our space program should have more funding. The question is why? On Earth we have starvation, war and conflict, artificial poverty, HIV/malaria, nuclear proliferation, deforestation, global warming ETC. Why put money into launching rockets, looking at rocks and stuff when we need to solve these real problems first?

No comments?

I've amended the title

It would be nice to have colour schemes, rather than selecting each colour tediously. If anyone remembers homeworld, you could choose your colour scheme (main colour and stripe colour) from a chart. That would be nice to have custom coloured rockets.

It might be less, that was just an estimate. I don't have mechjeb to tell you the exact weight/TWR

Yes they work. It's purely for aesthetic value. I've just tested this again, and if you add another rocket fuel tank the craft is capable of 4300m/s, which is more than enough to reach Dres (and there's potential to reach Jool). However the ascent is much slower.

You don't need 4 atomic engines, just 1 and a large fuel tank. My standard interplanetary rig (one way) is 5 of the 1500 thrust engines in asparagus staging, and 1 atomic engine with a x-3200 fuel tank

Or if you don't want to use jets, use mainsails to get out of orbit and then an atomic engine to burn to Duna. Atomics are very efficient.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/43909-Stock-Hermes-Jet-Delivery-System-Duna-on-80-tonnes This gets to Duna for about 400 liters of fuel. You'd need more to take a rover though.

Yeah you could cut all horizontal velocity in space and just drop down on your target...

It moves the default position of your control surfaces You hold alt and W/S/A/D