Clockwork_werewolf

It might be 10% after the rebate, I'm struggling to find a source that will give me the numbers in percentage there than total value. "A crisis meeting will be held this morning in Brussels between Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the Commission, Martin Schulz, the president of the Parliament, and Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister who chairs the rotating presidency." That sounds like it is important even if it was scheduled either way. I expect this thread to be locked as well.

It is very hard to tell, but it is likely too. " the Bank of England stands ready to provide more than £250bn of additional funds through its normal facilities." Due to the drop in the pound (this quote was what stopped the fall from going further) People will be able to buy less and food will be more expensive "Britain...imports 40% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising". You might think house prices would fall but with the stocks in house building firms falling this will likley stabilise the house prices meaning the poor will still be renting BUT as the landlords will have lost value on savings they will push up renting prices again. The bailout by the bank of England which might be needed will be pushed on the tax payer, which with the present tax breaks for the rich will cause more cuts in services. Farrage has already gone back on the idea that the "extra" money will be spent on the NHS.

The EU has lost 20% of it's funding, so are right now going into talks about reorganisation. It takes two years to leave but if we finish the process it will make the EU the second largest economy not the first. Closer to home the pound has dropped but a huge amount to the value it had in 1985. The prime minister will step down and probably be replace by someone even more right wing. We could see EU economic collapse followed by a world economic collapse, again.

I voted in as well. Some people may have believed the Brexit camp would spend that 350 million on the NHS, if they did they are idiots.

The point is this is fine for a suit (NASA do it on EVA's) but in a craft it risks fires and other problems. Also you get to vent air into the water and you don't have to pay $100,000 per kilo you take with you. In term of detail the request was never to add the detail just a change of the name from oxygen to to something like air, breathable air, atmo tank, atmo. With no need to change the mod mechanics at all. If it's air you can assume what you like is in the tanks and other mods can add stuff but oxygen makes no sense to mod.

I agree about the fact that lithium is rarely used now a days and I am interested in all the upgrades but it would be used for initial craft. it's an interesting discussion but not why I'm here to begin with. My point was never to model all of this detail. The request was never to add the complexity. The request was ONLY to change the name to something like air, breathable air, atmo tank, atmo, or something OTHER than Oxygen. If it is Air then the complexity can be added later or by other mods but if it is oxygen it makes no sense. I can explain later if you like but I wanted to make it clear it ONLY a request for the resource name change (which without being changed name in the code as well would suffocate everyone).

While it will go up depending on pressure, there is no reason (except perhaps on Eve, deep Jool or deep Kerbal ocean) to have anything higher than 1 Atmo although there are reasons to use lower pressures. On Nasa EVA's they do actually run with 1/3 the air pressure and can therefore use lithium hydroxide and pure oxygen but in the ISS they use earth normal pressure "Several systems are currently used on board the ISS to maintain the spacecraft's atmosphere, which is similar to the Earth's. Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi); the same as at sea level on Earth." http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/faq/eva.html. I will go into why later. I'm not sure what Kerbal mission you are running but nothing but a suborbital trip is likely to take less than 24 hours risking toxicity if above 24 hours http://www.divingmedicine.info/Ch%2021%20SM10c.pdf .The point is you still only have 4 options. 1. Vent air, add O2 and N2 to replace 2. Scrub CO2, add O2 3. Add only O2 and vent air IF enough nitrogen present at start AND O2 Max doesn't go above 40% AND the mission is less than 24 hours 4. Have 1/3 Atmo, vent air and have pure oxygen. Only options 3 and 4 let you have only oxygen in the tanks and they are both risky. 3 is only possible for a short time such as 24 hours and you risk O2 fires. 4 Is not a problem time wise but it is at risk of O2 fires despite the low pressure. For the Apollo missions they used 1/3 Atmo and pure oxygen but Apollo 1 killed the crew in an oxygen fire. Russia quickly changed to a O2 Nitrogen mix. Options 1,3 and 4 all are very wasteful of gas which has to be carried into space as well and options 1,3 and 4 will be venting good oxygen along with the CO2 they are getting rid of.

I'm running with hard difficulty but 6x the cost of all parts and only 3x normal money (5x hard money). This means that one cheap rocket can cost 100,000. At this cost two or three failed rockets will doom my career. Having a rocket that I know can get a payload into Kerbal orbit is worth having a spare 20% fuel wasted. 20% less profit is far better than needing to run six missions to make back the money. Once I have a space-X like launcher (results vary depending on tech level) then everything light enough gets launched on it. First stage only losses fuel, second stage can lose some money from inaccurate landing sites but only about 2,000 (300 normal money). This system launches ten tones into a LKO. At about 3,000 (500) for a ten ton launch, it's not worth making any adjustments for a bit of fuel efficiency.

Ok so to be more specific when I said oxygen toxicity happens at 6% I meant about 24-27% oxygen composition OR 6% above normal. I know how breathing works which is why I said "If the tank is oxygen and lithium hydroxide (it captures carbon dioxide so you don't need to vent air and take up nitrogen) why call it just oxygen not oxygen and atmosphere scrubber? I know they game has a CO2 converter module but without a CO2 scrubber earlier they would all die of CO2 poisoning, see above." I KNOW the normal way is to remove CO2 and add O2. This is usually done with lithium hydroxide which binds with the CO2 to produce water and lithium carbonate. Which is useful as it make some water too. My point to reiterate is it CAN'T just be oxygen in those tanks in any situation.

I realise this might not seem like the right place to put it put if you are doing an update for this I have one request. Change the resource oxygen to air or breathable air or something like that. It shouldn't be too hard a find and replace but it has always really bugged me because it is not accurate. If you pump in pure oxygen to breath you die of oxygen toxicity at 6% oxygen. If you pump in oxygen as fast as you vent air you lose nitrogen and end up with too much oxygen. If you only pump in oxygen when the oxygen gets low enough, and vent air to match you end up with too much carbon dioxide at 3% and die (note this also happens first in the other two points). It's a shame that tac carbon dioxide doesn't kill but I understand that would take adding coding. If you pump in oxygen and nitrogen why is it called oxygen? Why not air and have a second nitrogen tank? (because it's extra weight) and they don't really take up much nitrogen. If the tank is oxygen and lithium hydroxide (it captures carbon dioxide so you don't need to vent air and take up nitrogen) why call it just oxygen not oxygen and atmosphere scrubber? I know they game has a CO2 converter module but without a CO2 scrubber earlier they would all die of CO2 poisoning, see above. Simple fix of find and replace. Rant over sorry for the wall'o text.

So after getting laid off at work (with 40% of my team), I have some free time. I have updated (but not uploaded) the "new" 1.0.5 fuels to match their "new" mass, but the real fuels is not working. I will upload and do admin (fun!) once I have the real fuels problem sorted. I know 1.1 is in testing but its full of bugs at the moment and that can take up to 2 months (I hope it doesn't take that long) to fix. Also even at release module manager might need an update. The code I am using for realfules is below and works on two parts but with obvious pattern. Has there been a realfuels update? @PART[adapterSmallMiniTall]:NEEDS[RealFuels] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks volume = 200 type = Default } }

The Helium 3 was intended to be the nuclear fuel not the reaction fuel but after some investigation I found that my initial search criteria of fission had appeared but in articles about fusion. As no fusion reactors exist I retract my suggestion of H3 and submit the possibility of mining for uranium http://www.space.com/6904-uranium-moon.html. I can't find any clear evidence for the presence of the elements needed to enrich uranium on the moon but this would be a very small payload weight needed compared the to thrust produced. The ice water would be for the reaction fuel with or without a nuclear reactor. Of course the tug would need some fuel to start with to at least maintain a lunar orbit if not land on the moon. this would depend in the ability's of the lunar mining vehicle. The likelihood of it exploding in earth orbit are very low but it would be a problem. While initially only a tiny proportion or parts would enter the atmosphere unless it exploded in a very high orbit the parts would eventually slow down and enter the atmo. The shielding was low due to two reasons. Heavy shielding reduces thrust to weight, which is still a problem but the tug was being launched on a Saturn rocket so the weight added the normal cost to weight problem for launching it up. If the shuttle has no nuclear fuel when launched, it doesn't need any shielding at that point. The shielding can be mined and added at the same time as the nuclear fuel. You can also use a lot more shielding if it never lands but stays in orbit and still have a better fuel to thrust ratio. It should be noted I am mostly playing devils advocate. The dangers of nuclear contamination (while not as bad as most people think) would still stop any modern nuclear rocket program. The masses involved also mean that other tech like VASMIR engines and mass drivers on the moon would probably be better in reality even if not from a pure physics point of view.

Project Pluto In-atmo, then Nerva out of atmo. The complex part would be changing from heating air to make thrust, to heating liquid hydrogen (or another fuel) using the same core. The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 bans nuclear bomb propulsion like Orion but not nuclear thrust but it could be considered close in design.

While you may be able to physically build a very good nuclear SSTO, I have to agree about the difficulty of getting it authorised. In reality I think you need to use a sabre engine or reusable rocket like space X if you want the ship built in the next 20 years. A space X rocket can be used with only 5 years development as they are already using it. Sabre or skylon COULD be up and running in ten. Once you are up there you could have a nuclear tug IF it used lunar Helium 3 and or ice water fuel. As no nuclear fuel would ever need to enter the atmosphere this could get around the anti nuclear lobby. One shuttle with a small payload fraction using Sabre engines and just carrying crew or a small amount of cargo and one large nuclear craft in space. I could see this as possible with a lot of funding in twenty years. Especially if asteroid mining provides the economic funding or investment (leading to future profit) to develop the Tech.