Kerbart

Forward movement is created "against" the air (propellors, jets, etc) not by the wheels. Wheels don't count in the sense that what happens underneath the wheels is irrelevant.

And accruals. No financial reporting would be complete without extensive accrual analysis. Which, given the way contracts work, is essential.

The bigger question is how they make THREE three hour movies out a book of 200 pages.

There's a Gary Larson (The Far Side) cartoon* where a male mosquito wearing a fedora, trenchcoat and briefcase enters his 50s style home with his wife cooking on the stove. “Work SUCKED today†Larson mentions that everyone seemed fine with the fact that apparently mosquitoes talk English, wear 50s outfits, have a home, cook dinner on a stove, etc. BUT OH THE HORROR OF GETTING THE FACT WRONG THAT IT'S THE FEMALE ONES THAT SUCK THE BLOOD OUT OF YOU. Now, why am I reminded of that? * which I can't post as it's copyrighted and Gary Larson is not Scott Adams

While manned before unmanned is something I can see that is defendable (though questionable), I really, really, draw the line at “we can go to the moon. We just haven't invented ladders yet.â€Â

If the stock functionality is truly mediocre, the mod will continue to be popular. If the stock functionality is equal or superior, the mod's popularity will wither. Assuming the willingness of the mod developer to continue working on the project is purely based on the mod's popularity there would not be any concern. Either the mod is no longer needed or it will continue to exist as it feeds a need not covered by stock.

What I hope to see is that a rocket gets shredded to pieces if, at 10km and Mach 1, you try to go to an instant 45° angle (at which point it spontaneously will become 90° I guess)

Well, yes, not "straight" as in "to the moon in a straight line", but straight as in "without bothering to set up a Kerbin orbit". Basically launch as usual, but instead of circularizing your orbit (raising the periapsis) raising the apoapsis for a Mun intercept instead.

I turn early anyway. While Unity takes care of parts outside the Real Physics bubble, it still doesn't feel right to be ditching boosters and stages while straight over the KSC.

Would a trajectory that inserts you straight from launch into the Mun SOI bring some savings? I'd imagine that not having to raise your Kerbin periapsis from -600km to +75km would save you some 500m/s dV.

Thank you very much! I hope you can endure my questions!

I'll try. What throws me off is that altitude, etc do work. One would think those would be zero too then? EDIT: It was a good suggestion, but alas. Velocity is zero, independent of the reference frame used. Both surface_reference_frame and orbital_reference_frame (well, more specifically vessel.flight(vessel.surface_reference_frame).velocity -- for the nitpickers) return (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) when the vessel is clearly moving.

Ugh. The number of missions I had to cancel over that!

flight().velocity (and the related speed values) seems to be stuck to (0.0, 0.0, 0.0)

Organics as in chemistry based on oxygen, carbon and hydrogen? About as alive as gasoline. Good way to get the interest of John Q. Public back though.

Wait... you can leave the VAB?

Wouldn't it be much easier to put a glass dome on earth with all the "ingredients" in it, sterilize it and seal it off?

The real challenge would then be construct an arch and have your craft pass underneath the arch with each orbit!

Isn't that how patents work? You just file the concept, let others do the dirty work of figuring out how to actually make it work, and then cash a check by claiming they're using your "invention?"

From John D. Clark's ignition:

What we need is a 3D printer that can print wax. Then you shape sand around it and cast your metal model. A complete integrated model that would take care of all the ugly stuff would be pretty awesome to have around in your average tool workshop.

Google "Newton's second law of motion"

I'd like to see some quotes on truckers, cubicle workers and flight attendants who spent months after another in their confined workspace without ever leaving. The issue is not "being in a small space raises stress levels". The issue is "being in a small space without ever getting out" which raises stress to unhealthy levels. Of course crew is pretty much selected on being highly resistant to this, but anything that can be done to lower stress levels is welcome. Miners get out every day. If they get locked in because of, ehm, logistical problems at the mine, they tend to have pretty severe mental health issues after recovery. Old fashioned submarines mainly sailed at the surface with the hatches open whenever the chance was there. Modern submarines (even Diesel ones), while cramped for the most of us, are fairly spacious, especially compared to ISS quarters. Nothing to do with space sickness. The size of the ISS is driven by the mission equipment that needs to be on board. There are detrimental effects to large volumes. See Skylab. One of the lessons was that astronauts routinely go stuck in the middle of the volume with nothing to grab on to. ISS modules are designed so that astronauts are always in arm's reach of a wall or a handle of some sort. Likewise, inflatable modules will never be used as large open spaces. They need outfitting with walls and floors. Instead, someone has to inflate the module and then spend quite some time outfitting the interior with everything that couldn't fit inside when the module was deflated. In order to be used, an inflatable shell needs internal walls, floors, wiring, ventilation, and then furniture and equipment. This can represent a lot of expensive on-orbit work and some logisitics flights for the interior equipment. This isn't necessarily cheaper than launching an equal-size volume in two hardshell modules. All paid for by your taxes. You're welcome. I don't see whats so new about the government paying contractors to do stuff.

There might me long hallways but there's not wide space to my knowledge; something an inflatable segment can provide. Nothing boosts morale like the feeling of freedom (as opposed to being locked up in a tube) As for liking to sit in a 2×2×2m room for monthsâ€â€the novelty will wear off quicker than you think. I used to be quite excited of flying but many business trips have killed that enthusiasm. Of course being in space is different but I'd like to meet the astronaut who will say “nah, we're fine here, no extra space needed†And it's not just luxury, I think it's the sanity of your crew. Effectiveness will suffer if half your crew is depressed by being locked up for months inside what is basically a boeing 737.

Will they, just like the Porkjet one, hang a dartboard on one of the walls?