Dispatcher

I suppose that cow pie tossing contests would be frowned upon?

We totally agree that more data is needed. I think besides orbiters, we need aerostat and more lander probes there. It would be nice to obtain weather data at multiple locations, spanning a Venusian day (which is longer than its year). Only with more information can it be determined how to deal with further efforts at Venus.

Welcome! While I'm not into online games now, I had played FPS games online but I've never played online-only games. If/ when Squad implements multiplayer in KSP, I'll be tempted to try that. Got my brother and a friend into KSP so online would be a natural progression.

My style shifts to the mission at hand, but builds on past successful missions. I tend to slightly over engineer each stage or subassembly and payload (at least in terms of dV). Together, they give me some flexibility for errors or changes to the mission. I use no mods except for Kerbal Engineer, Protractor and my own fueled adapters (the latter in Sandbox). I plan on using additional mod parts once I've finished Career mode (yes, I haven't completed it yet; taking my time). I also will configure my own mod parts to allow them to be used in Career mode. I like single launch missions and since I shy away from docking, my final vehicle is usually a combined lander/ return vehicle. lately its also a rover. I do use several techniques, including asparagus staging and sometimes jet boosters. Lately I've not needed to use SRBs. So most of my craft are big at launch. My latest payload is over 200 parts/ 45 tons and the entire craft can exceed 800 tons. I'm sure that they are not the most efficient designs, but they do the job.

As "they" say, 'it is what is is'. I've built models in Blender at a scale of 1 meter, imported them into Unity and exported them for KSP. Usually my .cfg file is scaled at 1, but not always. If the OP was begun in part (no pun intended) to figure out how to scale mod parts, usually 1 meter works for a "medium" diameter part.

This has the effect of the poster making his or her "point" prior to a moderator closing the thread; thus the rule breaking post stands as the "last word". I know that moderating a forum requires balance and patience, and that there may be no "easy" solutions for the situation as described. Perhaps one solution would be to determine if the same forum member(s) repeat the behavior in 3 or more threads, contributing to all of those threads being closed. Then a warning could be PM'd to the party contributing to the closure and appropriate forum discipline following up on further continued rule violations?

Having used the "search" feature, I've found threads dealing with the suggestion, but not in this thread (edit: not thread, but sub forum). (I'm sure there must be something somewhere in this thread [again, sub forum, not thread]; just not found.) The most pertinent find was this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68617-WIP-Connected-Living-Space-API-for-connected-habs-%28new-download-15-2-14%29?highlight=crew+transfer I think this would be a welcome addition to the stock game. Thanks!

I've had success with jet boosters which use small fuel tanks. These are radially mounted to an upper stage and set up to be decoupled shortly before flame out (which is sometimes at the same staging to decouple a lower stage). These boosters contain the jets of course, as well as their small tanks and air intakes. The radial decouplers need to be those with maximum explosive force so that the spent boosters clear the rest of the craft. I start the jet engines as the first stage, so as to let them warm up for several seconds before igniting the main rocket engine(s) and releasing the launch stabilizer clamps.

It would be nice if Squad would develop the "ability" to transfer Kerbals between directly attached (inline) habitable modules, as well as specialized radial habitable modules. Such would not allow a Kerbal to transit through things like fuel tanks, etc.

150 Kerbals? Oh, I'd love to see a pic of that! Practice, practice, practice.

There are also reaction wheels in pods (or stand alone), which will allow you to save a little monopropellant.

I read an op ed piece by a congressman, on NASA researching about how congress (in the US) works, costing over a million dollars to research. Perhaps NASA should stick to sending spacecraft to ... space. I imagine that more contracts for space operations would get fulfilled by doing so.

Perhaps you'll get an unstable population of at least 100 instead.

While I'm not a "young-Earth" creationist, I'd imagine that most of them believe in a heliocentric solar system.

Regarding the OP, I consider the notion that any significant percentage of Americans (I suppose what's really meant here is U. S. citizens) really doesn't know that the Earth "revolves" around the sun to be absurd. I've lived in a few states and visited more. I've never met anyone who expressed the opinion that, say, the sun revolves around the Earth. True, I never thought to quiz anyone about it, but the very nature of our educational system and of science fiction entertainment would tend to cause most "Americans" to understand the fundamental idea that is embodied in heliocentrism. Perhaps the people interviewed were just visiting the U. S. from some island where geocentrism might prevail? Really though, I think its more likely that the so-called poll was either flawed or fiction.

... using KSP stock parts -- http://www.bungie.net/en/News/News?aid=11412 If this thread fits another sub forum better, I imagine that a moderator will take care of that.

Actually, I think a rover at Io would be a LOT more doable than one at Venus. I think the attraction of Venus (no pun intended) has to do with the extreme challenge that it presents. Its Hell, so lets go wrestle with it.

I agree about the density. Yet that quality might sweep a rover off the peaks and down into a valley, like a slow moving stream pushes pebbles. I'm also wondering what kind of control would be needed to deal with hurricane force winds at the higher elevations of the atmosphere?

" "

Wut? Yu meen ta tel me thet the Urth runs aroun the son and thet yore mama is distinguished from a long line of chimpaanzeeez or setch? Nekts yule be a tellin me thet the Urth is round er some setch nonsense.

The highest peaks on Venus are well below the acid cloud and mist layers. But as for design tolerances, unless a rover landing can be guaranteed to land (edit: whoops! "to occur") at a high elevation target, the device must be designed to survive and function no matter where it lands.

Notice that I wrote that there IS energy available at Venus. I'm not saying that we cannot extract materials from Venus, but I am saying that its is far easier to establish a processing and habitat infrastructure on a solid surface (land) than it is to establish one in sulfuric acid clouds. The largest hurdle is setting the thing up in the first place. The second hurdle is maintaining it. If those first two things ever succeed, then the third hurdle (producing a usable excess) can be pursued. Hawking is a theoretical cosmologist. He is not an engineer nor is he an economist; even if I like his work. And you are obviously passionate about this topic, which I admire.

In relative terms. Hot and crushing is still hot and crushing.

AngelLestat, I understand your arguments and I have seen most of the charts you provided before. However, the atmospheric gases do not differentiate completely either on Venus or Earth. In other words, the gases are not clearly stratified. As an example, while oxygen is heavier than nitrogen (barely), if you light a match near the ground at sea level, you will not ignite the lower portion of the air at that location. Conversely, you will not suffocate if you go to the rooftop of a skyscraper building. Granted, CO2 molecules are heavier than nitrogen, and that implies an upward drift of nitrogen, but that doesn't mean that there is a nitrogen pocket floating "up there" at Venus. Also, if you go up to about 60 to 70 km (if I recall correctly), CO2 will sublimate into snow, which of course sublimates back into gas lower down. According to some of these charts, the temperature is more like 0 C or lower at 1 bar pressure/ elevation. You'd need to go down a little to have a non freezing temperature (and the pressure would be a little higher there). The winds at your target elevation range from about 60 to 125 m/s. These are gale force and above winds. As for the chemistry; what is needed is energy, which is available. However, the equipment needed to process atmospheric components would be heavy. Massive to get there and heavy to keep floating in the clouds. I'm not saying that Landis is wrong (I actually agree with him), but I am saying that the tasks required for survival at Venus are extremely daunting. In practical terms, it will be more economical to survive on the Moon and on Mars. The costs of an infrastructure at those locations will mean a quicker return on investment at those locations as well. In other words, "follow the money".

Interesting discussion. As to symmetry, for rockets I also use 3 symmetry. I have had no significant problems with balance and control, and when using LV-Ns the mass savings of 3 vs. 4 engines is very attractive. If balance and control is an issue that I have simply ignored, it may be that in a future update of Unity and/ or KSP such issues will be resolved. In such an event, I will not need to redesign my vehicles. As to the use of multiple engines on a stage (at all), I think its ultimately a mission and craft design consideration.