StrandedonEarth

That looks suspiciously like the ride formerly known as the "Jaguar" (now known as "Music Express") at Playland in Vancouver.... But I suppose there are many identical rides around the world

The main factor is the airflow between the vehicles as they separate at supersonic or hypersonic speeds, especially how turbulence and/or shockwaves interact and affect both vehicles, which may vary greatly depending on the AoA's. Lots of simulation and testing required, and the aero forces involved are huge. IIRC that is/was one of the major considerations in developing FH and DIVH, ensuring separations would go smoothly.

That's hilarious!!! I don't know how to follow it up... except I just stumbled across this rather aggressive little gem I know how to follow that up... I must say, that was pretty good. Sounds like it should be in a movie soundtrack somewhere....

What a surprise, downloads are going soooooo slooooow and I cant even post from my pc right now. Text box not working... Edit: oh sure, now it is... Downloads picking up up a little speed...

I never had any wisdom teeth. My wife would say that’s because I’m not wise. And there’s another four teeth that were never replaced with adult teeth

Spooky! One day here, the radio at work started playing a song I just finished listening to on my phone. Three times that happened in one day. I think they were spying on me.... When one of the chambers has finished curing tires, we bang on a steel support post to summon a crew to break down the load. It sounds like a gong. One time after that summons, the radio immediately started playing “Hell’s Bells” and half the shop burst out laughing Speaking of which, I hear that gong now. Break time is over

I forgot to set my alarm a few minutes earlier, so I guess I missed this morning’s 3am pass, although I did see a bright sat moving SW (ISS?). I suppose it could have been a starlink with my eyes not being night-adapted to see the rest. By the time the next pass was due when I got to work, it was almost daybreak and everything was washed out of the sky except what I assumed to be Jupiter

Unlike in KSP, there would only be one shot at aerocapture; quickloading is not an option. But KSP has also shown us that the difference between flying by and burning up (or landing) can be as little as a few kilometers. So trying to aerocapture would be a very risky proposition unless the atmosphere has been carefully characterized first, possibly by a probe flying a week or a month or so ahead. Short enough to hopefully still be accurate, but far enough that course adjustments wouldn't need much dV.. But even the time of local day could be enough to change the atmosphere enough to throw off an aerocapture attempt. Once captured, then aerobraking passes to lower the apoapsis can be conservative enough to be safe; it may just need more orbits to reach the desired altitude.

I'm rapidly closing in on the half-century mark. On double checking, I see that I do have one user on my ignore list, but it's only the signature that is being ignored. It must have been large or annoying for some reason

Looks like my best chance to see them will be Monday morning at 3 am, when I get up to go to work

Not really. Scifi ships are generally more about aesthetics: Looking good, or looking like how people think it should look. Realistic engineering considerations take a back seat. Although given the basis for your thermal-expansion drive, one nozzle per reactor core would make more sense, requiring much less heavy, high-pressure plumbing. Much like how the kerbal LV-N's are discreet, self-contained reactor+nozzle units, which aids redundancy. I never gave much thought to the nitty-gritty of nuclear-thermal engines. I suppose it would need a turbopump to pressurize the propellant to go through the reactor. What drives the turbopump? A portion of the exhaust gas? A separate steam loop, either directly or by electricity generated by the same reactor? I really don't know. But for the purposes of sci-fi those details can be ignored, unless it pertains to the story (pump breaks down, etc.)

I hadn't noticed that. Thermal considerations?

Well, everything is a trade-off, and using a zillion engines that small would run into issues with cost and fuel-system complexity. Also bear in mind that nozzle area is proportional to the square of radius, so doubling the radius gives a four-fold increase in area. A large (car-tire-sized) nozzle would only need to be marginally bigger to add the area of a small (hand-sized) nozzle. While it is probably cheaper to build one big engine instead of ten small ones (depending on scale), developing and setting up a production line for another engine class (especially huge ones) is very costly and time-consuming, And it's mainly the truly huge engines that run into combustion problems. Regarding fuel delivery, engines are usually valved/throttled at the engines, not the tanks. so throttle response should not differ between single and multi-engine setups. There are also placement constraints to consider (can't put an engine there for whatever reason). Optimizing is a big part of engineering, with all the factors I listed to consider. Scifi ships are more interested in the rule-of-cool than sound engineering, so the ideal scifi ship rocket nozzle configuration is whatever looks the like the best combination of cool and function. Writers rarely need to justify those choices, unless it pertains to the story.

I've never felt the urge to hit anyone with the ignore hammer. I simply disengage from the discussion and/or 'manually' ignore, if needed

I find that I do not need sepratrons, even with the type B nose cones wanting to push the nose in. I use the offset gizmo to slide the boosters down so the nozzle is below the nozzle of the core, with the decoupler being well forward of the center of the boosters, along with a pair of struts at the bottom. This way the decoupler pushes the top of the booster away from the core, while the bottoms only hit each other, if anything. The exploding boosters adds a nice kerbal flavor to the launch, and Kickbacks are so cheap they're not worth recovering anyways.

Suggested emphasis to avoid getting misconstrued... Good luck, Yeet. There are far worse things to waste your time on than KSP, as long as you work in plenty of fresh air and exercise.

TWR: more engines equals higher thrust. Nozzle Area. Generally, more nozzle area gives more thrust for a given chamber pressure. A single nozzle with the same area as multiple smaller ones may not fit the cross section of the ship. How would a Star Destroyer look with a single gigantic nozzle at the back? Engineering problems: Larger engines tend towards uneven combustion / combustion instability problems, which require additional engineering work to solve. (Saturn V's F-1 engines) Simplicity. It's easier to use multiple smaller off-the-shelf (already developed) engines than develop a whole new gigantic engine (Falcon 9) Engine-out capability.

Mmmmm, blueberry flavor!

Having all these surface features everywhere is probably also meant to entice players out of Kerbin's SoI. Of course, it would be nice to have some tools to make that easier *cough@TriggerAu'sTWPcough* I know it's not perfect, but it gets me into the ballpark...

Grooty!

I've used this handle (or variations of) on various media for almost twenty years now. I've been fascinated by rockets and space since I was a kid, and with all the endless bullcrap going on in this world since forever, I've always wanted of this rock... I was using this handle on Yahoo Chat when I met my wife of thirteen years there. But she is so totally NOT a science geek. Think Penny from TBBT, but not blonde.

Loser Cruiser