Psycix

Self replicating machines are the key here. You can't expect any sensitive data storage to last for 5 billion years, so even with redundancy I would look into manufacturing and re-writing storage over time. Another interesting idea might be to send the data to a celestial cluster 2.5 billion lightyears away, have it return due to a complex gravity lensing effect and receive the transmission another 2.5 billion years later.

Well it can, but it's not the radiation that glows green. It is more like fluorescence or phosphorescence where energetic photons are absorbed, and then released at a longer wavelength (which is visible light)

The exhaust of the nerva is not (very) radioactive. It is hydrogen that has been heated by a nuclear reactor. There are no fissile materials in it (unless there is a problem with the cladding)

It is... beautiful.

Beautiful! Do you think it could be possible to scale the effects? Moar fire.

That just gave me an idea: For the NERVA's, they should make ISP related to heat level. This way you cannot use them for unrealistic short burns, and the thrust-nerf can be loosened.

The warp bubble will probably collapse in the presence of mass, so it will break out of warp as soon as it hits the thinnest parts of our atmosphere. Note that the ship doesn't actually carry the kinetic energy to go that fast, it simply takes a shortcut while traveling at newtonian speeds. (My assumption, feel free to disagree.) The main question that remains is how much energy is contained in the warp bubble, or ship fuel. Even standing still it is likely / possible that the ship is extremely energetic upon destructive reentry, consisting out of antimatter for a large fraction of its mass.

The v1.1 is simply longer than the v1.0 by design. We will probably never see a v1.0 fly again; even the falcon heavy will use v1.1 cores. It's all tall rockets from now on. I think the reason for the extra length (and therefor extra fuel) is because the Merlin 1D engines have more thrust than the Merlin 1C engines.

Blocking the exhaust of an engine can nullify thrust completely.

Why did you conclude it was cheap and reliable? Even the Soyuz is about twice as cheap, and has displayed more successful flights with less failures. However, the Space Shuttle had one unique capability: The ability to bring large cargo back to earth in the cargohold. That's just the launch vehicle, so excluding crew capsule. I think you are too pessimistic (although you may say realistic) about SpaceX's future endeavours. -The dragon capsule has achieved several milestones in NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program. -The Falcon Heavy is for the most part identical to the Falcon 9 hardware, which exists and has been proven. -The Falcon Heavy has three upcoming missions on the manifest. It'd be a bit odd to sell a rocket they can't build. -All of the hurdles for reusability have been demonstrated to be passed. Upper atmosphere retroburn and reentry has been successfully executed on the CASSIOPE flight and landing on the surface has been demonstrated with grasshopper. They will try to execute the complete maneuver on next ISS resupply mission in early 2014. I wrote my post mainly because there was talk about launch vehicles in the thread. It indeed does not apply to the Soyuz spacecraft. However, the Soyuz spacecraft is old. Even though improved and updated over the years, sometimes it is best to start over from scratch, with 21st century materials and construction techniques. This is the main reason for the Falcon's success, and if SpaceX manages to apply this reputation to the Dragon spacecraft the Soyuz can retire. Aside from Dragon there are more next-gen crew vehicles in development, like Boeings CST-100 and perhaps the SLS. In overall design, the Soyuz has an orbital module AND a descent module, instead of just having one capsule. (+ service module) Next-gen capsules which do not have that extra module will be lighter, carry more crew and cargo, while being cheaper and more reliable.

The Soyuz was great. Reliable and affordable proven over a large amount of flights. But it WAS great. Not anymore. Cost to LEO in $/kg Delta IV Heavy 18,913 $/kg Space shuttle 13,494 $/kg Saturn V 9,915 $/kg Soyuz 6,940 $/kg Falcon 9 4,297 $/kg Falcon Heavy 2,547 $/kg Reusable Falcon rockets: At least 50%, and up to an order of magnitude reduction in cost." 250 - 1250 $/kg Any questions? Sources: http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf (2002 paper, I adjusted for inflation using: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=5%2C357&year1=2002&year2=2013) http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html Calculations: Space shuttle: $10,416 in 2002 dollars adjused for inflation to 2013 dollars Soyuz: $5,357 in 2002 dollars adjused for inflation to 2013 dollars Delta IV Heavy: Calculated from: $435 million / 23 metric tons Falcon 9: Calculated from: 56.5M / 13150 kg Falcon Heavy: Calculated from: 135M / 53000 kg

Seeing as all crew to the ISS are currently transported by Soyuz vehicles, they pretty much acknowledged this.

Based on the current implementation of aerodynamics, the only factor that can separate your center of drag from your center of mass (and therefor determining aerodynamic alignment) are parts with a non-0.2 drag ratio. This means you want <0.2 parts at the bottom and >0.2 parts at the top. I believe the parachute (once activated) has a high drag ratio (activated, but not opened, so that the staging icon is blue) so that should keep it upright. What is the drag value of that heat shield? If it is larger than 0.2 then that explains everything. You could also try to add a few fins (near the parachute, as far above the CoM as possible) I'm not sure when reentry heat kicks in compared to aerodynamic forces, perhaps you will be best off slapping on a probe core for minimal reaction wheel control.

But these rockets achieve 10,000 m/s delta-V instead of 4500 m/s, so payload fraction is diminished accordingly.

Try adding an engine and raise the TWR to 1.5 to 1.7 (some radials or a more powerful one). Yes, your DV will become slightly lower, but the delta-V needed to reach orbit will also become lower as you spend less time countering gravity.

Allow it to be changed with an ingame warning message. This way those of us who understand how it works and what the consequences are can use it appropriately. Examples for usage: -Have boosters land with parachutes while your upper stage inserts into orbit. -Launch a pegasus style rocket from a plane in the atmosphere without losing the plane. -Fly multiple crafts simultaneously using kOS -Drop multiple parachuted modules into an atmosphere. Perhaps, instead of just a physics bubble, we need to be able to include/exclude specific vessels from it, so that my spent booster stage stays loaded while the space station flying overhead doesn't.

That is correct. My statement only applies to genetic mutation through ionization. Which, however, accounts for an overwhelming majority of the radiation induced cancer hazard by orders of magnitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation It is physically impossible to get cancer from any kind of electromagnetic wave with a longer wavelength (=lower energy) than UV. Only the highly energetic photons such as UV, Xray and gamma radiation carry enough energy to ionize atoms, breaking up molecules and therefor altering DNA and causing cancer. No, you can not sit in the microwave or stand next to a radar sending out a few dozen kilowatts. The extremely high dose will cause burns. Low doses, such as a Wifi router or cellphone can not sufficiently heat you up to do damage. Any cellphone radiation hitting your brain matter is simply absorbed as heat without changing chemical structure. The main reason people are radiophobic is because they do not understand what radiation is. People are afraid of the unknown, so when scientists say "gamma radio waves kill you" they assume the same applies to any other radio wave.

Let's see if this snowballs... à ¼¼ 㤠◕_â—• à ¼½ã¤ SQUID GIVE CHRISTMAS PLANET

I think that the absence of a loss condition (by simply waiting a while until you get funding again) makes the game more fun. By not being able to lose, loss of spacecrafts is affordable. Instead of having to reload saves and redesign a mission until it works, we can keep on playing and try again without having to pretend it was a simulation. By making the game losable, spacecraft loss will be circumvented by saving and loading, which is a lame way to play.

No space idea is ridiculous. It is in our nature to explore and experiment. Without crazy ideas (with spaceflight itself being one), no revolutionary inventions are made, and our species die out on this planet without ever going to space.

What I wonder, is why half of the KSP weeklies / devnote tuesdays show a majority of the staff being busy with attending events rather than adding to the product.

That's two KMP patches within 24 hours after .23 release, great work Gimp!

A fun read as always! One little request: Less breaking of the 4th wall.

(1) Is always a very good reason to do something. I don't agree with your assumption, I think one would be able to fit a lot more xenon in there, as the xenon shouldn't replace the liquidfuel 1:1 in volume. (2) This is incorrect, drag is dependent on mass. Ten 1 ton tanks have as much drag as one 10 ton tank.