Psycix

What have we just learned about certain types of fire and water? You want a foam extinquisher or fire blanket to deal with fluid fires. Oh, btw, the glass cracking could also simply be due to being rapidly cooled. First it's hot, and the water cools part of it down so rapidly that thermal stresses cause it to break.

Never douse fluid combustibles with water. This is what happens: Water mixes with molten wax Water flash-boils Molten wax gets dissipated through the air All the wax reacts with oxygen Violent deflagration

I can't seem to find it, but I recall a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that went something like this: "All gravitational sources in the solar system have been accounted for." If there was another mass, our observations would not match with our Newtonian (and relativistic) calculations.

Try this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81543

I always wondered why we have science without funds, but not funds without science.

No, this entire thing is caused by temperatures raising exponentially with higher speeds. This wasn't the case in 1.0.2. Therefor, you can break quite hard at low velocities, even in dense atmospheres; whereas a thin atmosphere at 8000 m/s is going to be destructively hot. The low density might lower the heat flux, but the immense heat makes up for that and melts everything, especially through long exposures like skimming across a gas giant...

Interesting. I've always assumed this had to do with floating point errors! The good news is that we can tweak our crafts to minimize this effect by changing the root part. My precisely positioned commsats are going to get a revamp!

In the case of remotetech, retracting the antenna makes sure it can be used in atmospheric flight. Not re-entry, but at least it can survive flight, just like stowed solarpanels versus expanded ones.

Have they been to orbit yet? The most valuable achievement per body is what counts.

Circular stations.

It's good to bring stuff like this up every now and then. Just the chance of it being answered is already worth it. GP2, never forget.

I only consider SSTO to be viable if we dare to go with nuclear propulsion from ground to orbit. >900 isp is no joke. Bend the rocket equation to your will. Chemical rockets simply don't have enough energy per mass to get high enough isp for an SSTO with over 8 km/s delta-v.

Take a look at remotetech. This mod will ensure that probe cores need an active connection, and commands are executed with a realistic time delay. You need to build comm networks to ensure connection coverage throughout your destinations. They can also be programmed beforehand, for example to execute a certain burn while not connected through the network.

Bumping. Just opened the devnotes again and was greated with horrible background noises coming from 15 screens worth of scrolling down the page.

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/ Whenever I pop into the blog to read the devnotes, suddenly a twitch stream starts making noise. I have to scroll down a mile to pause it. This is very annoying.

Thank you for your kind words! My inspiration draws from the Muskinator, he tends to go with what works, and then improve on that instead of relying on novel technologies that may or may not work well. Of course the reusable launch vehicle thing is exactly what SpaceX is working towards right now. LANTR is a good suggestion. Though I wonder why you think it wouldn't it be possible to make a simple solid core nuclear thermal rocket that runs on any gas you push through it? Mind you this thread assumes we're in a post-warp era. LANTR is probably just as good if not better though. The whole nuclear thing is not even needed though, this whole system could be executed with chemical rockets. It just makes the payload fraction a lot larger, and we're in post-warp anyway so NTR's should be easy. I'm not too fussed about radiation. In space there is tons of radiation anyway, and I'm sure that mankind has found ways to deal with that by then, be it shielding, healthcare, genetic manipulation or evolution by artificial selection. Yes, you would need infrastructure on the ground. This could potentially be created from in situ resources (Might always be a good idea to start a colony, or at least leave some hardware for one!) The ease of reusing a rocket is something I hope SpaceX will demonstrate in the next few years. Exciting! Regarding planet sizes, it is likely to land on a larger one, simply because those are a lot easier to find. (Kepler I'm looking at you!) This makes SSTO's less feasible.

I think that the second thing is a lot more viable! The question is, does this really need to be emphasized in such a way that it is worth it to go about systematically eradicating certain words from KSP? After all kerbals are comical representations of humans. Now opinions may vary, but I don't think it's worth the effort nor at all necessary to vanish certain words. As stated before I think the first thing is completely void, the even the root word should not be offensive to anyone other than people purposely looking for offense.

You would probably want multiple reusable launch vehicles for redundancy. Maybe even a way to manufacture new ones. (If your starship is truly big, is likely to have a full scale manufacturing unit already.) I imagine it would allow you to recycle a stage that had many runs into a brand new one. If the ship is big enough, and the number of rides large enough, the reusable launch vehicles will be nothing compared to the complete ship. You'd probably want to keep as much of the big ship as possible in orbit though. No need to bring the entire warpdrive down to the planet. Orbital reconnaissance is going to be important anyway. In all likelyhood you would also want deploy some hefty probes in various orbits to scan the planet.

But that is not what the word is intended to mean at all. Manned/unmanned is already genderless and as equitable as it gets. Purposely avoiding it because some people like to get offended by things they have no business being offended by is silly. This.-Offense is when someone speaks out a phrase purposely offensive to an individual or a group. There is an intention to offend, the offense is created and intended by the source. -Offense is not when someone uses a common word, and an individual or a group decides that the word is offensive to them. They have manufactured the offense; the offense is created and given intention by the offended, while the source has not created an offense nor has the source any intention to.

The origin of the suggestion is clear. Being pedantic about gender neutrality of words that have been used in unisex context for decades simply because they have the word 'man' in it is definitely part of a certain crusade.

This stings me. I doubt that a horizontal takeoff spaceplane SSTO is the way to go. I think it might be more effective to simply use NERVA-like nuclear thermal rockets in a vertical configuration. Going straight up makes the airframe a lot easier and lighter than having to have a hypersonic plane. You could use the nuclear engines with multiple fuels. At first you push CO2 or N2 or something like that through them for low-isp (relatively) and very high thrust. Later in flight, once you have exited the atmosphere, you gradually switch to H2. 9K delta-V with an SSTO is a lot though, so I would suggest to top the orbit off with electrical propulsion, using the nuclear reactors to generate immense amounts of electricity. But I've got a better idea: Send the ship up in pieces. Reusable first and second stages fly up and down until the entire ship is up there. This removes many limits to how big that ship can be.

How about this: Reaction wheels get saturation in 3 different axis. Pushing back and forth on the same axis cancels the saturation out. You can dump saturation with a button, utilizing RCS to spin down the wheels. When in-flight using thrust vectored engines, SAS could automatically use the thrust vectoring the spin down the wheels as well whenever little torque is required. Preserving angular momentum in timewarp will need to be implemented. For balancing reasons, the reaction wheels could now use much less electric charge to operate, and the saturation capacity should be quite big. For simplicity, saturation is done for the vessel as a whole, no need to do it for each separate wheel. Upon docking reaction wheels would balance out against one another.

I once made a thread about this. For some reason it got a lot of resistance from a handful of people, but many others thought it was a good idea. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43740-The-war-against-lag-Anti-lag-fairings The hangar thing looks interesting. Glad to see something like it exists now, albeit a bit simpler. EDIT: Sorry for the ninja Kermunist! Haha

Although I am happy with the way KSP is progressing, I too think too much feedback is blindly shot down 'because alpha' or 'because WIP'. This goes for many other games as well, not just KSP. From the indie-age we crossed over to the alpha-age, where every game we play is unfinished for some reason. Actually, multiple games I own and play are still in alpha while I only play a handful of 'finished' games. In every community I see the same attitude of "it's an alpha, therefor you have no right to complain" Unless a feature is explicity announced (read: promised) by the devs and estimated for completion within an expected timeframe, telling someone to wait for whatever they are complaining about (read: giving valid feedback) is not always justified. People have the right to give feedback or complain about the product they purchased.

Yet thus far the whole rocket has been developed out of their own pockets. Musk has invested gigantic amounts of his own money into SpaceX and Tesla. Not for profits, but because he wants to push innovation. He's not the kind of guy who earns a billion and turns into a stock investor or retires, he invests it in innovation and techonological progression which he believes humanity needs, despite extreme risk of financial loss. If he becomes rich enough, I'd not be surprised if he founds a small Mars colony out of his own bank account. Yeah. Though I've heard Musk say that the current pricing is not counting any future reusability.