kzauner

This substance you are trying to referring to goes by the name Dihydrogenmonoxide (DHMO). At least I think thats what you are referring to by 'hydrogen dioxide' (sic!). Not that your substance is completly unheared of (but it goes by another name). And its not formed by burning hydrogen and oxygen. You know, trying to make fun of sbdy using chemical formulas can really be dangerous if one does know chemistry ... be careful!

I know this page, but to be honest: It does not really provide a lot of background. But I'm a big fan of nowaydays old SciFi, in book, film and comic^W graphic novel form. In fact, the bimodal engine you posted was proposed in a NASA approach for a Mars-Mission. Nah, the Nerva is at least 1 decade older. I think the test-firings were in the end of the sixties; In the 70's there were proposals to use the Nerva for a possible Mars-Mission (to get the idea back out of the shelfes). Yeah, because the late 60's were so anti-nukular, weren't they? As were the 70's. Sorry, I think you are somehow making up some reasons ... In those times atmospheric nuclear tests were not uncommon. You really think people were concerned by the comparatively miniscule amounts of radiation from those engines? The shutdown of the program started around '69 and was finally dimissed '71 or '72 (or so). And as far as i know: not due to environmental concerns. Russia hold on to their RD-0410 (or so) a little bit longer. 'till the eighties. Also shut down. definitely not due to environmental concerns. The only significant barriers to the concept are: * There is no real usecase requiring them and therefore there is * no Money And for all the Mars-Projects I've got a glance, there were some sporting nuclear Engines. But I don't remember any of them providing a real, plausible advantage especially when it comes to launch costs.

Would you an Kryten please read up at least some basic Design principles of the engine we are discussing here? The Nerva used the LH-Tanks also as shielding against the Reactor-neutrons when the later was firing. You may be right, that the intake during core-passage is not really high, but the overall absorbtion-rate was more than just notable. OTOH the payloads n-fluxrate was around 50% higher when then tanks got empty. Well, a lot of other people think a little bit different about these issues. But it's not really important, as its unlikely that a nerva-based design will play a significant role in space-travel in the near future. And the radioactive exhaust is not really the showstopper when one writes down a list of reasons-why (it would be somewhere way down the list, filed under 'one might also consider...').

Well, it was an issue. And It could not have been that small, the NERVA 'lost' more then 10 gram of each fuel elements (there are >500 of them in one engine) carbon per hour. This was rather high irradiated, totaling for more than 5 kg loss in moderator. I have no intention in digging around in the old historic stuff, but OTOH the 2H & 3H was clearly the second big concern. So sorry: no Bequerel numbers at hand. Anyway - its irrelevant: The engine has a bad ISp if you compare it for instance to a VASIMR-Design, and the longer burn-times of the later not really be relevant given the overall trip-time to Mars or beyond. Nerva looks like a bad idea, from many standpoints. Sorry - you need cooling that engine for a few hours after you have finished your burn (means: you need another power-source for the cooling system, capable handling a few 100 kW). You may not restart it for some time due to the buildup of Xenon-Isotopes and so on, and so on. If you go with a small reactor & an electric propulsion system you get 2 cool things: a) power for your spacecraft (the reactor stays on) and propulsion.

We ar talking about the same concept (NERVA) here, in which the LH is the primary coolant of the reactor? Yes, brace yourself: Science has found out that releasing the primary coolant into the atmosphere is not such a clever idea as it might look. Even not for means of propulsion. Yes, no fissile material from the reactor will get outside (if there is no RUDE). But the irradiation will generate H-Isotope which will react with the O2 in the air to form a liquid substance, which is usually ingested by lifeforms on this planet.

Well, this is stated frequently - and is partly true (regarding the 'soft' support). But don't forget there is currently no use-case for nuclear propulsion systems. Things may shift, if humanity needs to push 100t's interplanetary. And here I see a general problem with funding of such a mission in respect to public support. Even if I ignore the propulsion-system. In respect to the later we will probably see a VASIMR or ION-Thingy, powered by a small reactor. If you run the numbers you will see that it's not unlikely you get a better ISp out of such a construction.

On can't rule out a crash; but the feed comes via akamai. They usually have the resources and bndwdth to handle a lot of users. So I think we wouldn't see a overload of the content-delivery Infrastructure.

Without that SOI-boundaries you will reach relative velocity of close to 0 m/s at an infinite distance. To be precise: you will never be able to 'escape' the gravitational field of any body as the later is infinite. But your question was of theoretical one, as the universe is a) finite and expanding and hencefore messing up the situation anyway. HTH Clemens.

No, they didn't. Just look at the launch windows, they were set-up in a way so that the TLI also came with a plane-change. reason was: if the first TLI-oportunity was missed for whatever reason, they wanted to have a second oportinity (and the orbit-plane angle changed relative to Apollos orbitplane with each orbit). So NASA set the launch incliniation in a way that the 2nd TLI window was within the .6° maximum plane-change capability; but this made the plange-angle for the 1st TLI opportunity also non-zero). Then we had the Free-return-strategy: This is not the most fuel-efficient way for reaching lunar-orbit (but has an enourmous gain in security, as a SPS failure was possible). Why? I didn't do the math but generally speaking: a lower orbit means less dV for the lander. Thats also why they changed the landing-procedure with Apollo 14: They used the SPS-engine to lower the Orbit (to about 17 km before undocking the lander (after undocking, the CM returned this his higher parking Orbit). Not me - but on the one hand I'm not really sure if your calculations are correct, and on the other hand: The flight-time restrains along with the free-return trajectory put an narrow margin for where the perilune could possibly be. As far as I know, there were two other options: on with a flight time greater than 80 hours and one with a flight-time <60 hours, the later beeing inefficient as hell. fly safe!

Yes. But you can use the transfer-window-planer anyway - especially when it comes to jool, as the window is wide. Take The planers data an plot a course as suggested. Remember that. Now try to get a mün assist that gives you about the same trajectory. One could also calculate that, but I'm a lazy guy. If you fiddle with the nodes a few minutes, you will get an encounter. Takes a little bit of experience, to see when mün will be in about the right position...

It isn't that hard. First of all, put it on the pad, turn SAS on, throttle up and launch straight up (attention: the clamps are a separate stage, maybe you want to alter that). Do nothing, just watch (OK: stage the boosters when flamed out). You will notice that after Boostersep the thing will pitch-over in a way that the orbiter is 'below' the Tank. You will see that this pitch-over happens as you are reaching the maximum pitch authority (lower lefthand 'instrument' on your screen - the 'staging controls'). When you then right-click the Orbiters radial engines, you see a thrust-limiter (forty-something percent) [if you check in the VAB, this is clearly for having Cot going through CoM - but the later 'moves' as the Tank drains), you will also see that the turbojet isn't active at all. Now Pause your game, and watch some Space-shuttle launches. Especially pay attention to the attitude of the craft and hows thats changing during ascent. -> Revert to launch! This time go for the real thing. Turn SAS on. I also enable the turbojet first, but this is not necessary. Liftoff and when you have cleared the pad roll (Q/E) the stack that the orbiter is where your intended inclination would be (so, if your are going 90° your Orbiter should be on the Booster-Bay side of the Tank). Remember the shuttle launches? The "Rollprogram". "Roger, Roll" (No, they don't call "Rock'n Roll" out) - part?. I personally prefer to roll in way that the Stack is pitched over like 5°-10° into the desired heading, makes stuff easier later on. A last note: If you have trouble doing the roll, turn RCS on for this. Turn it of when done. Now ascend, keep an eye on the pitch-authority. Stage boosters. Watch pitch authority. When it starts to max-out you will have to intervene. There are the following options: Alter Thrust-Limiter on the Tank-Mounted engine *down*. Or alter the thrust-limiter on the orbiter-Radials *up*. Use the Main-Throttle to stay below 3g. When you are passing 25 to 30 km consider turning RCS on. Control you pitch toggling SAS (the stack will usually have the tendency to topple over, right into you desired path). That's basically it. when your AP is at about the desired height go for MECO (hit 'x'). While you are drifting to your AP you will have work to do: a) Roll so that the tank is down, orbiter is up (about 180°). Stage the tank. c) Enable the RCS-Tank in the back of the orbiter d) Disable radial engines e) shut down Jet-engine (if still enabled) f) enable the OMS (the four Mono-prop engines at the back of the orbiter). g) tap 'k' a few times, so the orbiter drifts upwards away from the ET. Wen you reach AP, circularize ('throttle up'). Thats basically it. You might consider using action-groups - especially if it comes to orbital configuration (the steps c - f from above fit well within an action-group). I personally prefer a very shallow ascend-path with this beast in a way that when MECO-Time arrives my PE is somewhere between -50 to 20 km. One last word: I'm not using MJ, so im not an authority here - but i thing its impossible to get MJ to launch this thing successfully. And yes, I also would prefer if there are more easy ways to influence the thrust of engine(groups), such as 2 or more throttles. The 'right-click' is a little bit un-imersive. Have fun!

I'v one simple 85t launcher (100km) consisting of 2 ascend stages, the upper Maindail + 3-fold symmetry Mainsails, the lower also Mainsail-Core and 6-fold symmetry around Mainsails too. Lower-stage is (1 Orange + an 320) *7 , AFAIR, 2nd stage only Orange *4. If you use just 2 such constructions, one at each end? Don't have a craft-file at hand, it is somewhere in some gamefolder, and I didn't even remember how i named it. I just remeber, because I wanted to go for a 100t launcher, and fell a little bit short.

I personally imagine all the tanks in KSP having the valves installed (which makes sense, if you consider you can disable fuel consumption per tank) and having fuel lines running through them. And by constructing there is a preset valve-opening sequence, from top (read: farthest) to bottom). It would be pretty neat if final version gives one the option to tweak the consumption order, as i sometimes run into balancing issues (as COM shifts). I know, that the game doesn't handle it this way - it's just the way I look on what we got as a model, as it helps me when designing the craft as I need a rational explanation for what I observe. So when i'm adding fuel lines, I treat them mentally as tank-external fuelducts, which give me some control about the order in which tanks are consumed. To come back to the subject: I rarely do asparagus-staging, as such designs often produce aerodynamic madness (I'm playing without FAR, but I try to build Rockets which would fly given a more accurate stock aerodynamic model). The first asparagus I build was btw. for the BSC-Kerbal-X challenge. Later I tried some more - and now I can do simple designs that way which don't handle awkwardly during ascend.

The Pump sits on the engine; The fuel-line(s) have 'only' to have valves, so that the fuel is sucked from the fuel-line part as long as its there, sparing the Tank. Image of such a pump: . The Valves are smaller: From an engeneering standpoint it isn't impossible, to include such a device (valve) into a Tank. Why it isn't currently done in real world (IMO): First, the dry-mass to wet-mass ratio is better in RL, so drop-tanks weren't worth the Effort (until now). Second: Aerodynamics and structural reasons. Third: Rocket design. IRL all parts are designed to meet the rockets requirements. As SpaceX tries to use 'stock' parts its no wonder that they come (maybe) up with such an alternative staging method (as well as they are using engine-clusters) - even though its for sure more work to build it, than just a few clicks like in KSP. Given their business concept and design principles it seems that it will be cheaper for them to go asparagus for heavier lifters than going the usual way (designing new engines and this stuff). As they are profit-oriented, I'm pretty sure they are not doing it only FOR SCIENCE.

This is true if you fly a 90° inclination. But if you set it slightly below/above 90° (depending if you are going north or south) your orbit will rotate around kerbin, which in turn is turning around the sun. Such an Orbit is called 'Sun-synchronus', in your case you are looking for a dusk/dawn orbit (your object in space is always above the terminator). The inclination you are looking for is defined by your orbital period and the length of a kerbal year. Sry, don't have the formula at hand. But here with earth & sol the inclinations are typically between 96° and 98° for earth-observing satellites; such orbits are used for getting 'same time of day' for using shadow-length for height determination and radar-sats (and maybe much more). For the necessary calculations, I'm pretty sure googling for 'sun-synchronous orbit' turns something up. Or you just guestimate it the kerbal way, and checking with timewarp. Should at least minimise your plane-changes. HTH Clemens.

You are deceleration, thus having a longer and longer flight-time until you reach node (on the ground). The resulting function isn't linear. Mathwise OTOH try aproximating by 2/3 of the suggested burn-time (it should be around 62%, IMO). But I'm not taking the increasing TWR into account, nor your trajectory over ground (and gravitational acceleration). I'm too lazy to calculate this throughoutly.

I think that the game models real-world physics not so badly. I see your point here, but to be honest - the problem are not the joints per se, to my mind. Most problems arise from large-small-large diameter constructions (in 'real world' there would be a load bearing hull-structure). This is one example, where i see no other way than simulating this structure with struts (this is btw. the reason I see use of the poodle-engine - she saves me often from running into strutting-out-issues). Other Problems are just construction-issues. Large things wobble; especially with the forces we are talking about. This not really a game-issue, you can see the same IRL with bridges, towers, sky-scrapers, planes and lot of other stuff. Too badly the editor has no information-display concerning lateral forces, maximum loads, and the like. And concerning vertical load something like max-g load (one has to find out about these things, and guessing future constructions). Especially the Mainsail is a beast here, throttle-down is a must if you don't want to go crazy with strutting. Again, this very real-life-esque. Shuttle e.g. had a max-load around 3g, IIRC. And there was lot of throttle up/down during ascend (to around the lowest setting of about 2/3). And guess what: since i follow similar regimes, my rockets started to be a lot more stable. Mainsail liquid boosters are an example where i say yes to struts (as a rule of thumb i use 2 per booster in a V-shape for taking the load at the bottom). I see no real problem to reach around 100t LKO capcity; which is around the same capacity which has proven doable on earth.

Then redesign it, so that your steering-input leads to the wanted result. The Torque on top with all this winglets will create wobble. Too many different force-vectors. You might also consider making the lowest stage a little bit longer, an cutting out the middle-stage (and doing so also ditching the winglets in the middle). Maybe use 3 struts for holding the engines of the bottom stage together (a real-world rocket would have some structural component there too). And yes: steer carefully, with minimal inputs. Yes, and strutting is an art. OK, you can just randomly snap some onto your design. But look at each strut as an error in your building and flying skills.

Exactly thats what ION-Engines are good for (I use them on light probes). Fire them up, glance at the burn-time and go for a lunch.

Definitely not. My Laptops AMD-E450 (integrated GPU) also handles stuff a lot better now. I even have to use the 'no speedstepping' Powermode so KSP doesn't get 'bumpy'. And its the first time that KSP is actually playable in 1366x768 on this machine. As a side note: the VAB still lags like hell with 3-4 fps ...

Objection. Both Modes have their use. But 'Docking Mode' ist especially useful for docking (surprise! maybe hence the name?). Because in docking mode your controls are NavBall-relative, not ship-relative as IKJLHN in staging-mode. No need to switch to 'chase view' or the like. If you are docking using the navball, docking-mode is the way to go. If you are docking looking at your ship: yes, then staging mode. I'm usually quicker going docking-mode, with less fuel consumption - because there is no need to 'kill all your relative velocity', ... bla bla stuff. When closing in, just use AD SHIFT CTRL to move your relative direction marker onto the target (or better: slightly off, so you get over the port you are aiming for). And it gets you the better screenshots; you can easily place the cam in front of your vehicle aiming back - so you captures of your vehicle closing in from a viewpoint slightly above target. No need to remap controls in your brain. That said: in about 3/4th of all my dockings I go docking mode. Some especially trivial stuff, I don't care switching (Like: Apollo style - separation - 180° turn - dock).

RCS turned *ON*? The Control on the lop left of your navball should be highlighted. And I'm sure you have RCS fuel left, don't you?

Maybe two Sats in an polar Orbit (90° +/- x) are easier. You can calculate the X by orbital period of Kerbin/sun and the orbital period of your sats. As Kerbin has 106 days, and if we asume 1 day for the sat it gives you 360 / 106 the inclinations should be 93.4° or 86.6°, depending if you are going south or north at launch. Launch at the terminator for the best results. I bet that I have overlooked something mathwise, so recheck.

You mean when resuming after a suspend? Then me too; but I don't blame KSP here, as it happens only with the latest beta-driver (which I have installed, as it's noticably faster on my laptop). Had no problems before the driver upgrade. Well, it's a beta-driver anyway. And fix is easy: after playing, don't suspend, but shutdown instead.

Maybe nobody has noticed, but the part you are attaching to is highlighted in the staging-strip. So - if unsure. before you 'click' it on, glance on the decoupler-icon in the staging-strip (right side of the screen). If it's highlighted, you are snapping the Tank/whatever to said decoupler with your next left-click. HTH