KerikBalm

Poor twr and poor isp. They have been somewhat improved, but I don't use them much... Only for applications that don't require a lot of dv or twrr, which can still leave options open around low graviity bodies

It would also be useful if you want to have connected shielded docking pirts, right now you have to launch 2 separate craft, and then connect them. ... Or, you know, when the docking port is open, it could have a node in the editor. Anyway, I try to make sure a lot of stuff will line up on the surface, so I approve

After making a stock+ BG DLC reusable eve surface to orbit shuttle that takes 1 kerbal to orbit with 800 m/s of dV to spare, I have been trying to get a reusable eve cargo shuttle to work. Initial goal was a mk3 long cargo bay, mk cargo ramp, and 40 ton payload, my standard cargo requirement for cargo shuttles, I realized that the part count would be way too high. I reduced the bay to the mid sized bay, and the payload to 18 tons... First orbiter failed to have enough Twr to get into orbit, let alone before the suborbital carrier reentered. 2nd one had more TWR, but came up short of making orbit.... Darn cargo bay+ ramp still masses 7 tons for an 18 ton payload, compared to my other setups of 10 tons for 40+ ton payloads. I feel like I am right on the edge of cracking it, even if I will have to be more creative and frugal with the payloads. Eve will need special reduced size payloads, and I won't be able to reuse my standard designs

I'd say just get OPM. As to what stock lacks, I would say a body like Titan- Opm has tekto, and a body with a real thin atmosphere like Mars - duna's is about an order of magnitude thicker, with only 80% of the gravity... Opm has Thatmo(?) Which really has a thin atmosphere... And co-orbital bodies as mentioned.

Yes, I was referring to incidence, I don't know why you want to call it built in angle of attack, when you can have positive incidence and negative angle of attack, and your statement about getting incidence by pitching up is just rubbish. Dude, there is no inherent difference in trim drag from elevators vs canards. if you trim an elevator down, it makes more lift behind the CoM, if you trim a canard up, it makes more lift in front of the CoM. If a plane is balanced so that you need to pitch down as much as you need to pitch up, then it doesn't matter. And the payload in those designs is at the CoM, and thus if the CoM is at the approximate center, then the lever arms are approximately equal. They reduce lift when you need to pitch down. If an elevator is constantly making lift because of incidence then it doesn't reduce lift of the whole plane for small deflections. And canards in neutral or very low defelction generate little/no lift but still generate drag. That canard can generate extra lift to push the nose up is exactly equal to an elevator that is generating extra lift to lift the tail up... This is not complicated. You have to remember that Canards generating no lift are basically deadweight you have to push to orbit. And the same holds true for elevators with incidence, so the amount of deflection isn't that great (since to avoid stall, you also need deflection that isn't that great. If you use incidence, your elevators are generating positive lift. The key is simply not to place too much burden on the elevators relative to their area . they should be able to maintain control with maybe 6 or degrees MAX deflection (so most of the time they only deflect 2-3 degrees) Seriously, your arguments are so easy to defeat by simple word substitution... [snip] It most definitely lies outside the nozzle [snip]

Probably means that the sequence data was indeterminate at that position, which can happen if there is a mixture of 2 or more sequences in the sample, where they are largely identical, but differ at that position

"N" means nucleotide, and I don't think you will find that in a reference sequence, but it will be used in other contexts, like a restriction enzyme cut site that is outside the recognition site... Like 5' nnnn'nn,ATCGAT 3' ... Where the atcgat would be what the enzyme recognizes, and the ' and , indicate where it cuts relative to the recognition site. I would also see N's at the beginning and end of sequences for samples that I sent for sequencing... The sequence data/chromatographs at the very start, and towards the end are low quality, and you can't really tell what is there, but there are clearly some nucleotides

I said incidence, I meant incidence. Nosing up in flight doesn't give incidence. #1) as I said multiple times, I am using stock parts, no larger canards for control are possible. In the ssto case, and the 2 stage case, the com is where the payload is, and hence leverage is about the same. #2) only the small delta winglets, the shuttle style tail, and whatever that 1200 heat tolerance one is that goes with the fat-455 wings act like that. The fins with canards in the name are all moving planes #3) you have to look at total l/d, not part l/d. A part with 0 AoA will have no lift, but still some drag. It won't affect craft L/D much in such a configuration. A canard at high AoA on the verge of stall will generate lift, but also a lot of drag. If the part l/d is worse than total l/d, it brings the total l/d down. In some cases, its better to gave a little drag with no luft than some lift with a lot of drag #4) jets in ksp do have their com offset forward, the effect is less and less useful as planes get bigger. You could always put them in a tube, and mount them in the middle (as in many RL designs), or like skylon and airliners, and mount them close to center. I use fore and aft mounted engines to keep com from shifting too much as fuel burns off

This is correct, but unlike real life, its easy too get high twr designs in stock (high twr= shorter take off distance), and stock aerodynamics have really good coefs of lift at low speed (acting like high aspect ratio gluder wings at liw speed, and swept/delta wings at high speed), which makes low landing speeds relatively easy. Scaling up the system makes it harder to achieve acceptable twrs (for orbital craft), and increases dry mass when landing, making it harder. At 3x I often taxi off the runway. Anyway, stock scale doesn't decrease the runway length needed, but stock aero and part balance makes the stock runway fine for stock spaceplanes. Start scaling up, or modding aero, and the runway length becomes a problem.

T becomes U when transcribed into RNA. And vice versa for reverse transciption. If you want to work with the sequence, DNA is much easier than RNA, and the default is to display DNAsequences. Rna isn't really directly sequenced. Like the pcr tests for detection of the virus, you reverse transcribe it first and then sequence the DNA.

In this thread, there seem to be 2 distinct situations being contemplated. One is a derelict/disabled "human" (built/operated by humans, or for humans in the case of non-rogue-human-developed AI) spacecraft. In this case, there's probably laws about a duty to assist if practical. Even greedy companies understand that there may be rewards, or cooperation is mutually beneficial, and if one of their craft has trouble, they would benefit from such laws. As to whether it would ever be practical, that depends on what the tech in use can do. And... Alien spacecraft. In the case of an Alien one, first contact protocol would overrides other considerations, if the alien race is unknown. If the Alien race is known... What should be done would massively depend on what the relationship is between humans and those aliens.

Updating the physics engine obviously involves making sure new features are well integrated and not tacked on. Thus is goes hand in hand with new features like on rails thrusting, support for multiple light sources for solar panels, multiple star systems, and colony mechanics. Also, mods like kopernicus won't be needed anymore. I'd pay money for KSP to run faster or acceptably with higher part counts, so if they do a proper job on re-writting the physics engine, I will buy it

You realize that all the wings and cntrol surfaces on those designs have incidence? There's no negative lift from the rear surfaces until deflection angle exceeds the angle of incidence. Even positive lift in the front can be bad if its achieved through a high AoA, which is very draggy

Did you get Breaking ground? It adds "robotics", joints, servos, extendable pistons, rotors + prop/helo blades, a controller to make programmable sequences for the servos and pistons (and more) It also added scannable surface features that you need to find, some need a robotic scanner arm to give rovers a purpose, others are small enough that a Kerbal can pick it up. They also added deployed surface experiments that you need kerbals to set up, for which they added an inventory system (kerbals can have 1 surface module in their inventory slot, craft container parts can hold multiple). Engineers and scientists are useful, because they enhance performance of the power generating or science generating (respectively) surface modules. So, robotics, more science, and an incentive for some surface exploration with rovers. I expect KSP2 to bring at least most of the BG elements to ksp2

Is your problem launching the tank, or docking to the station?

I don't understand your complaint, other than there is something that you find hard to understand about the controls. The rest... I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to convey.

Do you not have KSP, and you are thinking of jumping into KSP2 when it comes out? Generally speaking, rockets are reusable if you desire and build appropriately. In practice, I would define 3 classes of launch vehicles. Disposable: no provision is given for re-entry or safe landing. It gets you the most performance, but you lose the vehicle. Recoverable: you can't really re-use it "in the field", but it can safely land back on Kerbin, and you get a refund for the parts you bring back. If you get it back to the runway or launchpad, its 100% of the cost of the parts. These are generally the most common, because attaching another payload can be impractical in the field, refueling can be a pain, and solid rocket boosters cannot be refueled. Recoverable launch vehicles really only work on kerbin without mods, as a vehicle to get to and from orbit if Duna or Eve (for instance) cannot be recovered (only craft landed on Kerbin can be recovered for funds), and there's no building that enables you to launch a new vehicle from there (unless you have such a mod) Reusable: you can go to orbit, land refuel, go to orbit again, ad nauseum, in one continuous playthrough, with no scene changes like when you recover a rocket and go to the space plane hangar or vehicle assembly building to launch something new. If properly designed, you can even take new crew and payloads to orbit without recovering the launch vehicle... You just need to drive out a fuel vehicle or run on board mining equipment long enough. SSTOs are the most common method of doing a recoverable or reusable vehicle. Since you can only control one craft at a time, reusable or recoverable 2 stage designs are harder to make. I make them where the 1st stage goes suborbital, and the 2nd stage gets into a stable orbit fast enough that I can switch back to the 1st stage before its too late to save it. Without mods, SSTOs are so easy that its not worth the hassle of a recoverable or reusable 2 stage design on Kerbin, but on Eve, 2 stage is the only way I have managed to make a practical reusable craft for getting to orbit and back.

Yea... But its pretty much useless advice.. So... A whole bunch of stuff about arranging surfaces for control and trim, when my designs are balanced just fine (really, what is with the tip about disabling yaw on horizontal surfaces, I already do that), something about biplanes that 1) doesn't work in stock, 2) doesn't work in FAR, 3) I don't think works in RL because no proposed designs use it (are you trying to refer to the design of the xb-70 wings)... An insistence on using non stock canards when my sstos already use large canards, incorrect info about stock wings, etc. And some advice which is fine and I was already aware of, but don't use for aesthetic reasons

Hmm, I haven't really mined asteroids - I have captured them to be additional moons... But not really mined them aside from a test when they first came out. I don't want to mine them because once you take ore out, you cant put it back... Having a large but empty roid seems cheesy to me

Many KSP parts are unrealistically massive. Parts with more mass than they should have results in lower dV, which sort of fits in with the stock size system, and encourages staging even at the 1/10th scale... but then when building planes, they are heavier than they should be, so then aero needs to change... and... Its actually a bit of a balancing mess as it is I think its not so bad as it is, and a bit of a miracle that it's not worse.

*sigh* looks like a line by line response is in order The above is incoherent, and I do not understand what you are trying to say. Yes it did, some type of plastic explosive on the demonstrator back in the 50s. I'm pretty sure they didn't use mini nukes for a proof of concept. (I hope they didn't anyways.) And that relates to the 2 points I made how? Neither of the two points do you address. So they tested orion mock ups with conventional explosives... points 1 and 2 are still valid, the rotational detonation engine does not use a shaped charge, is not pulsed (implicit in the use of a shaped charge), and the detonation is internal, not external. Hey, if I start a bonfire, its an uncontrolled (by those standards) reaction releasing energy, ... so a bonfire is the same concept as an orion drive using that logic. A continuously burning rotational detonation engine won't make a pressuree wave in the atmosphere like you mention (the pressure wave from detonation is inside the combustion chamber only) Cool... but a rotational detonation engine isn't a pulse detonation engine... I'd agree that a PDE uses a very similar concept to Orion drives. Only if you speak in terms so general that I can say a propellor and an Orion drive have the same end effect. This rotational detonation engine is like a normal rocket engine, except in the very specific method by which the combustion front propogates... which is completely not applicable to nuclear reactions. If you say this is the same concept as an Orion drive, then so is a normal rocket engine. Build what into what estimate? You really need to be more specific dude... I don't understand what your point is over half the time.

The rove max xl3 ones... 1.25 tons per wheel... A set of just 4 is thus 5 tons. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/RoveMax_Model_XL3

Why? Because you can go 100 m/s across kerbin like a boss, that's why (yes, I know its a quote from the part description)

If you set play position to absolute, it does, but then you have no fine control... But with robotics, thete is a delay as the hinge moves, and you can have different action groups to change the amount that the hinge moves. Or... You can use the really big wheels that don't turn, but work by differential torque. Those things are tough, and can go over 100 m/s -seems to be a bit of an exploit, if you just hold forward, the top speed is low, but if you hold forward and right/left, it will accelerate, foward and alternating left/right can allow you to accelerate foward past 100 m/s depending on the rover design. The differential torque steering is also pretty stable even at high speed. I use them on kerbin, but their size and mass make them rather inconvenient to take to space

While waiting for Kopernicus, I decided to take a crack at 2 stage reusable Eve shuttles using BG parts. While I had done a tail sitting proof of concept, I previously had no way to reattach the orbiter and the carrier (and the orbiter lacked wings for reentry and wheels for landing. This time I made the carrier a horizontal takeoff and landing plane, and they can dock together horizontally on the surface (as I was doing for my recent candidate for a reusable kerbin cargo shuttle for 3x Kerbin, once kopernicus updates). Now the whole thing seems just about ready for transporting 1 kerbal too and from Orbit. Power consumption far exceeded production, and at 11km, I had to power down the rotors and engage rockets (but pitch of the blades is still important to control, or the plane gets hard to control with all the drag up front, even if deployed to 90 degrees, they'd still act like giant fins up front, affecting stability= Preping for decouple: I couldn't build them already linked with the shielded docking ports, so I tested the oribter separately for the ability to make it through eve's atmo, and built them linked to save time when testing: 803 m/s left in the tank... not bad, definitely has room for orbital maneuvers... Well, need to switch back to the orbiter before it falls too far and gets deleted for being in the atmosphere. Unloaded, it can cruise much higher, and the solar panels produce more power, and it can sustain flight: Suuppper low touchdown speed: and then lowering it to be in position for surface docking: The orbiter would come back as a glider, and its the carrier that would have to move forward and back to dock. I think I could get better margins if I started from a higher altitude, and thus had more power reserves to climb higher. I suppose it should be able to fly to a higher elevation, land, wait to recharge, then takeoff again. I also tried making an orbiter with similar dV margins and a mk3 cargobay with a full orange tank as payload... I think I'd need to make the entire shuttle system 20x larger, which results in impractical part counts. I might be able to reduce part count by using helo blades instead of so many fan blades... but... that brings its own problems.