Psycix

Ok guys I'm going to make a reply to this thread about what I think of this thread. Don't worry about this post, I will relocate and spiff it up some.

It is the most realistic movie you will see in a while. Sure, a few things didn't make sense, but that's simply needed for the plot. Watch any action movie and they will violate the laws of physics dozens of times in a single action scene.

I agree. The more physically correct things are, the better!

Steam offline mode only works if you were logged in (online) and then lose the connection. You cannot boot offline. Personally I love steam. All my games readily available online, auto-updated and installed with two simple clicks. Next to that come the community features including friends list, and stuff like steam workshop, something that a mod-dependent game like KSP can make great use of.

Actually, why do scanners not speed up while warping?

If firing a single engine provides too much thrust, landing is still a possibility using a suicide burn.

My entry: VTOL - VTOL Training Or Learning A versatile VTOL craft suitable for practicing space cadets. It is easy to control and can take very rough landings. It's main design is to allow new players to practice with a rocket-powered landing. It's a bit simple, but that is exactly what makes it so effective; the less you have, the less can break. Features: -Extremely easy to control (2 reaction wheels) -Can take extremely hard touchdowns (up to 24 m/s!) -Contains an emergency chute -All legs and the chute can be repaired/repacked from the ladder while hovering midflight Craft file here.

Another great reason to use methane is the fact that it is possible to create methane on Mars.

That's what I was thinking as well. Single-hex deposits all over the place. I think it's possible to do it through the config file, you can change all sorts of parameters, even per planet.

.24 is likely going to overhaul physics. It'd be interesting to see if that fixes these issues.

We can create super-heavy elements by bombarding heavy particles with other particles. Most of them are highly unstable though.

VTOL with a specialized vehicle is one of the pieces of the puzzle. Doing it with a full size Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage using first-stage engines is a different piece of pie. Very excited about the new Grasshopper pics! I hope spaceX releases a video soon. Is it grasshopper v2 or v.1.1?

Because we can't timewarp with engines on, Ions have a lot more thrust than IRL for gameplay reasons. There are Ion thrusters that go up to 20,000 ISP, so the ISP in KSP isn't an odd number at all. The ion thruster is not the only engine that has been tweaked for gameplay reasons. In real life the NERVA has way more thrust. It is basically a T30 with an ISP up to 900. Of course this would be extremely overpowered, so they nerfed the thrust. Note that they are actually "overpowered" in real life, but aren't used because people are scared of nuclear things.

Although no piece of the puzzle is truly new, they ARE the first one to actually try and build that puzzle. Actually doing it, landing a 10 story aluminum fuel tank on rocket power, is an impressive thing that nobody has attempted before. (And certainly not with 21st century tech) The parts of the project may not be new, but the entire thing combined certainly is an ambitious and innovative concept.

Well done. Now rendezvous with it.

IIRC they lose about 30% payload capacity. Fuel is only 0,2% of rocket cost. Reusing the rocket lowers cost by up to 10 times. If they can pull it off, it will be effective. Parachutes are different in real life. The parachutes on the space shuttle SRB's weigh several tonnes. Since landing the rocket engines in salt water is a bad idea, they need to gently touch down the stage down on land. THe parachutes would have to be gigantic. Bringing several tonnes of fuel instead is cheaper, lighter, more effective and more reliable, allowing for a more precise and softer landing.

What is with the disbelief? Rotation while on rails is not impossible at all if you simply put the rotation "on rails" as well. Angular position will simply be a sine function of time.

Do a launch to prove it, where you focus the boosters and let the payload go out of range. I never really liked the "there's parachutes on it so it is reusable" thing though. It's too easy to score extra points by slapping on a few radials.

I find your "K-syndrome" naming of this behavior very konfusing.

At first I also thought he was wrong, but what he is getting at is that a longer burn can be less efficient, therefore requiring more delta-V.

As much as they would deserve a larger budget, it is interesting to see SpaceX developed an entire rocket from scratch for less money than one space shuttle launch.

There is a big difference between a low TWR and a practically nonexistent TWR with thousands of DV to go. Adding more nukes on big designs reduce delta-V by a few percent. However, it slashes burn times from hours to minutes. Is it worth bringing 5% extra fuel to save 40 minutes of watching a craft perform a burn worth it? Definitely.

Looking at your name, I would almost say it was intended. (The irony! )

This is my modificaton of the Kerbal X, I call it: The Kerbal Xi Perhaps it can serve as inspiration. It features an extra light upper stage which is extremely easy to land. The upper stage contains a girder-adapter, with the fuel tanks attached radially. This allows me to use a center decoupler, while running a multitude of rockomax engines. I also avoided the huge, ugly and heavy decouplers at all cost. I have the craft file somewhere if you want it.

Good idea, but you don't even need to make multiple trips! Just send the hard drive at near-C in orbit around a black hole and those 5 billion years will pass like minutes!