kzauner

Yep. And go with time, invest in the cheapest HD-Video-camera you can get your Hands on, which can record @120fps and providing optical zoom. And a tripod. Such a device can be used for other things too. And if in doubt, use an even bigger distance between you and the object tested, You don't need to see anything 'live', as you have it on tape, anyway (and: slow-motion imagery of test-anomalies is cool, anyway). Why the cheapest cam: So you never, ever get the impulse to 'save the equipment'. take care!

Well, like IRL. I think you have no idea, what 'possible customers' sometimes want you as company to do. Economically its usually wise to let them find another supplier. Therefore Squad ingeniously implemented the option to decline a contract.

This is a somehow complicated topic, IMO. I'm not from the game-producing industry, but I assume that such 'small' improvements would in fact have a huge impact on the whole development and the team, and staffing. KSP, as it is has absolutely no storyline. There are some contracts. which are, are, as we all know are more or less randomly generated, and sometimes hilarious (this is addresses in game as you can just 'decline' them). here The moment you start scripting a story/progress you can easily introduce 'game breaking bugs' on a logic level. As it is now it's completely irrelevant if you get a 'explore ike' contract or not. The starting contracts as they are just give you some initial funding and a rough guide of progress (and, after 'land on mün/minmus' the most players should have figured the basics out anyway and don't require a guiding hand anymore, or don't they). Yes, squad may look into some 'logic issues', probably in form of blacklists, to rule out some rather stupid stuff. I totally see the point in asking for a more complete contract system - but if i think about it: this would mean some story-telling and scripting and a complete other focus on development as well as Q/A. As such a system would likely introduce game braking logic bombs. And It would be a problem if you don't get a 'explore Duna' because you won't get a 'expore Eve' later on on a story-line tree. In the end, this would mean KSP would require some play-through logic. To my mind: The issue boils down to 'what is KSP intended to be, gamewise'. I look at it as a sandbox-game. Yes, I play career - but for me it's still a sandbox game, you just don't have all the parts at the beginning of your career.

Like IRL tourist-businesses: Just deny them. Really, there is absolutely not a single really-bad-idea which would not be missed by at least one tourist a season (goes for every tourist destination in the world, and hencefore tourist wherever from). On earth, space-tourism is still in its earliest stages. As soon as humans are as highly evolved as kerbals when it comes to space travel, we will have human space-tourists asking for sundives. I take any bet on this. Ask whoever you know who is working in tourism industry. They will approve on this subject. KSP models the reality in a frightening realistic way. But they seem to use some simplified form instead of the correct and more precise n-body-stupidity calculations. It still looking for the signs that larger groups are more stupid than smaller ones in KSP. Probably the later would put to much strain on even high-end PCs.

Can sbdy explain to me what just happend? I saw the booom, but I'm currently unamble to hear anything (medical sit.); and there are no streams with subtitles. Thanks! 1Stage blow up? Must habe been close to stage sep.

Keep an Eye on the VSI. It is OK, when your get off the ground fast, but you should get your climb-rate under control. I assume that your Craft maybe has quite an TWR when the tanks empty. If your G-Meter displays more than 3 G you basically have two options: Turn earlier, flatten out more, or throttle down. The above rules are more-or less a general advise, for typical launchers. Basically what you are observing is that your climb rate is relatively high regarding your horizontal speed. As a rule of thumb: as soon as you have passed transsonic try to keep the ascend-speed somewhere between 200 and 300 m (thats a Time to Apoapsis somewhere in the range of 20 to 35 seconds). The VSI on top has a logarithmic scaled analog readout, then there are also mods like KER or MJ giving our digital display. I personally prefer using thottle to adjust the climb-rate - once you are used to it, a 'late gravity-kick' can easily circumvented. With a little practice you can gravity turn by using throttle alone (after the kick), only correcting heading with steering-inputs. If you find yourself mainly correcting the angle with steering input, than your TWR is off for the current phase of the flight (too high, or too low). In your case - IMO to high. I assume that somewhere within you flight path a throttle-down to 2/3 for about 10-20 seconds would solve your problems; probably somewhere between 10 and 20k as most are going supersonic there.

That's true. Atmosphere saturation would mean levels close to 100% (Mars atmosphere for instance is saturated with CO2). You continue to use technical terms in a slight misleading way. And again ... The fact, that some CO2 is currently bound within large waterbodies (either as dissolved gas, or somehow bound as carbon within lifeforms) does not qualify as 'removed'. It is still here. This is a buffer. Small amounts of Carbon within this buffer will someday end up permanently bound within sediment layers (compare: OIL) or even more dangerous 'not so permanently' bound, for instance as methan-hydrate (the later will be released for instance when the water gets warmer). Point is: The oceans are not able to take a lot more CO2, as the aquatic acidification is already a problem. because a huge amount lifeforms of within the oceans require some kind kind of calcium-based support structure. This does not go very well with acids. Krill, hummer, shells, whole Coral-reefs. With the stress of overfishing the results can be seen by anybody - even when you are just snorkeling. Just compare the development of the last 20 years. Additionally alarming is the coral bleaching (you can just google that, I'm sure it turns up some images). This happens typically due to warmer water (other factors possible); as the coral push out their zooxanthellae (they live in symbiosis with these algae) the more acidic water can attack, weaken and finally kill the coral, so their symbiotic algae can not repopulate them (as they are under permanent stress). The whole issue here is: the carbon cycle is a highly complex feedback-system (to be more precise: a whole lot of them). You can not pick out a very specific aspect, making wild assumption based on misunderstood technical terms and building up a 'solution' on these 'facts'. This does not work. But again: Lets assume you are right. How exactly do you explain the constant rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since WW2? What other explanation can you offer? I'm bringing this up because: You can't explain these just with 'concentration grades and gradients' in the larger water bodies of the earth. Oceans are slow, but they are not that dead-slow. As we are here in a somehow space-related forum: NASA has a great deal of information concerning the subject, with tons of links to scientific papers, raw data, and a lot more (also a lot of pictures!): http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ You can download the CO2 measurements since 1958 as csv-txt and test the validity of your assumptions against this data. If your model can explain the levels we are measuring (not, not just one ore two cherry-picked datasets, but all of them within reasonable deltas) then a lot of people will be highly interested in your findings. - - - Updated - - - ninja'd... Point is: you understand 'absorption' as in: Is 'absorbed' - hencefore permanently away. This is misleading. CO2 is dissolved in water as the other gasses in the atmosphere too (O2, Nitrogen); CO2 also forms cabonic acid with water (H2CO3). The later is an all but stable acid. Just open a can of soda. When there are more bubbles to see, then heat it up. What happens? If you are looking for an analogy: The water bodies on earth are not CO2 storage, they are more buffers. I ignore you made-up numbers here and concentrate on the first sentence. So, not 'right away' you say. What time-horizon do you assume? The data in posting you have quoted shows a timerange since 1960. So you do have more than 50 years in mind? You must have - else the effects you claim should be visible in the data ... because if its 50 years - we should see the 'absorption' effects for the gas emitted in the 1960's. I can't see that. Can you? No? So more than 50 years. 100? 200? 1000? What do you have in mind? An alternative explanation to yours is: There is no absorption. At least not in the way you are implying.

Please mind the difference between 'exchange' and 'absorption'. The whole subject is rather complex and IMO you are using a to simplistic way to interpret smallest sniplets of science. But - if we assume that your interpretion points in the right direction, why we are seeing all-time-highs in atmospheric CO2 from year-to-year? Just compare: http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/03/07/an-inevitable-headline-in-2014-planets-co2-level-reaches-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-existence/. Contains Data from last 60 years. If you are assuming that your point is valid, and oceans are absorbing the CO2 anway, why do we see a constant rise in atmosperic concentration? If 'a new model can't explain this (and the other data), its likely flawed.

And, if you are limited regarding tanksizes (as you still need to unlock some of them): 5. Try locking the topmost tank, so your COG shifts not that much down. But don't forget to open the valves before you run out of fuel (just bind it to an action-group not used for rockets, for instances 'brakes'). An option 'invert fuel flow logic for this stage' would come in handy with the new aero.

I checked all options. Yes: Propulsion. Especially on very small probes (satellite contracts, for example). I just add 1-2 extra linear ports so I get some extra push in prograde-direction. The sats do everything on Monopropellant: circularisation-burn, transfer & injectionburn. For many crafts the O-10 is just overpowered. cu Clemens.

Do some 'touch and go', leaving out the touch-part. Start, climb to a few 100m turn 180 to the left (now heading 270), don't bother lining up with the runway and try to keep you plane level and choosing your speed in a way that your descending in a rate that you would touch down 'about where the runway is'; a few meters above ground. Throttle TOGA (hit 'Z'), pitch up slightly, climb to few 100 m, turn 180, rinse and repeat. You might consider using lights, for giving you an idea about the height above terrain. If you are confident, try the same but with a slight 'pitch up' attitude (so your main gear will touch down first). Here stock aero really sucks a little bit, as you will experience too much lift (or maybe its just the bad design of my planes). Most important point here is: control your rate of descent with your throttle, not your pitch. Well - if you can do the maneuver with a slight pitch-up, you can land. Because if you don't throttle up, you will land. Do your first landings on flat green grass, there is lot of room (for error). Next logical step is lining up with runway (early), and landing there. Important: use your (scarce) instrumentation, especially the VSI (the thing right to the altimeter) and the altimeter, as well as the speed (surface). Never ever hesitate to declare a missed approach and go around for another, and hopefully better try. If you feel you need to do some major adjustments regarding attitude, requiring serious banking or pitching when you are on your final approach - go around.

Well, for me it's money. And easy to remember: 'Money is the root of all evil'. So: build moar rockets with moar boosters an get rid of it as fast as possible!

Ok. For adding more hilarious speculation ... V means V. A Indian Film director went by 'V' (Shantaram). And he is dead already. And Project 'V' is some kind of instant replay-fuctionality of your crashes test-flights as film, with some bollywoodesque music and dancing kerbals with the fireworks in the background. I mean, how could it be something else?

Well, I was just trying to give lower and upper bounds (of plans which are more than just a powerpoint-presentation). In fact, there will be multiple launches (there are other mission ideas, as sending the Mission bit-by-bit, so that that some hardware will already be at mars when crew arrives - obviously this also requires multiple launches, but there is no need for LEO-assembling; as well as you 'know' as you send the crew that you have a working habitat in place). Yes, DRM-5 requires orbital assembly. One of the problems is also that the max. output of KSC is limited to shy of 3 SLS launches per year (shy of 5, if they are working in shifts 24x7). So I don't believe we will see a final mission profile grossly exceeding 500-400t in LEO, if no major changes to the ground infrastructure (read: a 2nd VAB, ...) will be made.

Not really. Total mass in LEO start shy of 200t, upto 1000+ tons, depending on the mission parameters. As we speaking of NASA, you can peek into the 'Design Refererence Architecture 5', or one of its appendixes: <http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD2.pdf> (I think the DRA-5 is the currently 'active' one (for small values of active). There are others, as well as there are projects from other agencies, even officially abandoned plans give an idea. For ESA, search for the Aurora-Program. There are some ideas to cut tonnage in LEO, as in-situ production of fuel and water (some of them with added complexity as sending some stuff ahead).

Well there is a similar quote, a little bit less friendly 'You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.' (W. Churchill). And I hope hope for the world, that they finished trying everything else, and build that damn thing. Especially as there are some missions which will for sure be co-funded by other agencies (especially the Telescopes). Thanks to budget-constraints there seems also to be an opening concerning cooperation for the whole system (like: SM coming from ESA, somewhat unthinkable years ago). International cooperation will for sure lead to further delays, but makes canceling a little bit harder as you won't go through the hassle if you as politician are just 'ignorant', it will require some deep rejection of the whole idea.

Na, the document gives not away what you are implying. The loss-rate is iherent, it was known from the very beginnig, in fact - if you go through the documets you will find, that they are very, very proud that they could maintain the rate even when the engine was used out of the design limits (for instance as a fuel-seal broke). The elements kept their integrity. The loss was specified. The elements were not compromised, they operated within specifications. The results are an all go. There was no crack, or worse. The reason for the end of project rover was money, human resources and no real usecase.

I was not comparing 'nuclear' vs. 'chemical' versus electrical engines. I said, that - when it comes to mars-projects, nuclear engines are by far not a must-have. If you have a look at the concepts, you will quickly see that 'travel time' is a rather moot point. Due to orbital mechanics the missions usually have multiple-months at mars (the 'shortest stay' is a few weeks, AFAIR). So you gain nothing mission-wise, as the operative radius of the ground crew will be rather limited. The trips are BTW by the way not decade-long, mission-times were between 400 to 800 days (OTOH). Flight times vary, typically between 120 and 180 days. By going nuclear you can in fact shorten flight times by using a higher energetic transfer, but using way more fuel. In fact electical systems may give you shorter travel-times (given 'constant thrust'). But as said, travel time is not really a concern. So it boils down to 'fuel-requirements'. Lets say you need 1 extra launch for providing fuel (tanking in LEO) then your development of the NPR-engine must be lower than the cost for that 1 launch. Thats just not very plausible. But back to 'ISP' - even for chemical-rockets one would likely not use LH/LOX but other propellants, despite the worse ISP as for instance the LH boiloff is a real problem for such a mission. And never forget: dV requirement for mars is not that high. If you compare it with a flight to the moon (and the US pulled that off, some time ago using chemical propellants). If you are interested in real mission plan, NASA has about 5 years ago published mission-profiles, about a half a dozend, older an newer ones. There is a lot of stuff to find in their archives. Requirements concerning propulsion may change if you have multiple mission, maybe a real permanently manned outpost on mars (or in its orbit) and a lot of flights. But I don't see such an endeavor within the next few decades.

It was called 'project pluto', some sort of nuclear-powered cruise-missile. It was a ram-jet design. Never took off and was canceled as reliant ICBMs were developed (providing easier means to deliver warheads across the atlantic ocean).

Because you said so? Sorry, I just checked if the information is really that hard to find, But no .. just google 'Nerva moderator loss'. First hit, for instance: <http://www.astronautix.com/engines/neralpha.htm> ... The fuel-element weight loss by diffusion of carbon through the coatings was assumed to be, based on calculations, 12.3 g/element/hour under these conditions ... I stand corrected, the loss seems to be 12.3g, and with 564 element, not 500 as i had in the back of my head this gives you an overall loss of 6.9 kg per hr, not 5 as I assumed. And these are the design specification, so sorry: the NERVA was designed to bled the Moderator. Well ... maybe, just maybe this is a result of the Uranium decay? Did that cross your mind (I think the way is U->Te->I->Xe, but can be wrong). Do you accept the austronautix? If not, then take the old docs (mostly scanned typewriter-things) like: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920001919.pdf (NASA Technical Memorandum 105252) ... examination of the fuel elements showed an average mass loss of 10-13 grams per element ...

Yes, But Tritium is. And the later is a quite common result of nuclear reactions.

Ah yes. You are right. But I think the French continued bombing around for another decade or so. Tempus fugit, tsk, tsk.

No, I was not pulling you legs. Point is: Nervas exhaust was radioactive. As a lot of the projects documents are declassified nowadays you can easily check this up yourself. It was usually summarized as 'acceptable' of 'neglibile'. But you know, they had other emission limits back then. You will not get a permit to conduct such a test now (with those emission values). It would not be a problem for a 'real rocket', becaus an NPR will not be the Lifter stage. The whole discussion started because sbdy stated that they are harder to test (on the ground) that electric propulsion systems. One of the fallacies is to conclude that there was no irradiation due to the fact it was within the 60's emission limits. Anyway - the whole discussion started when - i think Red Crown - stated that there will be only Hydrogen in the exhaust. A point which is just wrong, and i pointed that out. You have a lot of stuff in Nervas exhaust - D/T, as well as bleeded Moderator ©. And other radiating substances, as Xenon-Isotopes. The irradiated C makes up the most of the problematic stuff (as I wrote, the loss was about 10 grams / hour and element - which should sum up to about 5 kG for the engine). I'm not completely sure with this figures (but I'm sure they a correct dimension-wise; so let it be a kilo plus or minus), but It should be easy to check that. This is also the reason why later on there were exhaust scrubs invented, for testing (not the nerva, but for other designs). Which is problematic that tests get a way higher pricetag, making NPRs even more expensive in development.

No, not really. Yes, there are safety-concerns, but they are not show-stoppers. One can build such a thing that it stays more-or-less intact. In case of a catastrophic launchpad-failure you will maybe have some reactor debris, but 'chunks' of Uranium are not very dangerous. Decontamination would be easy.

Jep, it was quite funny. Anyway, HO2 in fact really exists, Its somehow necessary in metabolism (don't remember the details); there were also some stuff going on with the Ozone-Layer. But wether biology nor meterology are fields I pay specific attention to... Well, this is somehow OnT here: One can use the stuff as mono- or as bipropellant. But I bet that in times like ours if you try to buy a few litres 70% H2O2 a SWAT team enters right after, as for sure you must be some sort of terrorist, which has to be detained immediately. But maybe I'm nowadays too old for playing around with things which can easily lead to a loss of a finger or hand.