Space Viking

Wow, really cool! I did use a Pentax K200D, so it's using a mirror. I did consider in a retrospect if the sensor would fry while using the original objective with a max focal length of 55 mm, It would have happened long ago already. Thanks for the info. Well, I'm not really interested in the sun in general, I'm rather more into what lies in the darkness. But that's a really great advice everyone should know! Next time when there will be some solar action, I'll sure be ready.

So many cool images by you guys. =) Most I've seen appear to either be through heavy cloud, or have the sun overexposed but the lens flare shows the crescent shape. That's a good question. My camera settings for the direct eclipse photographing was: F-stop: f/27 Exposure time: 1/4000. sec. ISO: 100 So in my case the camera received as minimal with light as technically possible without resorting to any solar filtering... in fact I didn't even have any filters at all. Was afraid if I tried experimenting with any longer exposures multiple times in a row it'd risk damaging the sensor. The region was mostly covered by heavy clouding, but there was some moderately clouded patches that allowed me to photograph the event. Probably will a picture of the then just recently peeking Sun give an idea about the scenario:

It's cool how much fascination there is regarding the 2015 Solar eclipse. Here in Nordic mountains the weather has been pretty clear the last days, except from today it had to get cloudy with some snow fall. Fortunately I was blessed with the clouds cracking up just where the eclipse was occurring for some mediocre imagery: I also pieced together some photos for this kinda awkward animation: Because I lacked the proper screening, I could unfortunately never directly behold the beauty of the eclipse myself. I had also hoped to be able using my binoculars for a greater image magnification, but the eclipse didn't occur within my balcony view while as the improvised binocular mount wasn't precisely a portable solution.

As a game still under development, I think the Kerbol System as a whole should be seen as a WiP that yet haven't been entirely thought out. I think ex-developer NovaSilisko made a good example on much of the current work is based on early ideas that could, depending on how the current team is thinking, be a subject of further elaboration and thereby change in the future. Since you are also supposedly collecting scientific data for a space agency, I think it would be really nice if it could develop to reasonable theories about each (major) celestial body's history instead of just having some generic egghead saying "We got a lot of research done here!". Could probably be interesting for the educational version, since it would give some bonus insight about alternate star systems. About Tylo's origin, there's at this point no official explanations regarding it aside from it's a rock that's been long dead. It beats me, but perhaps it's a coreless body that was either an independent planet, or formed from a rather massive circumplanetary disk of Jool that was mostly rocky debris. The atmosphere Tylo originally had might have already been thin and was perhaps lost to hydrodynamic escape during its early history. The concept behind Laythe is basically a global cryosphere that melted due to tidal heating. I'd imagine there's some artistic licence behind it, including its atmosphere. Either is the oxygen according to conventional belief a sign of life, or maybe it's replenished by UV-radiation that separates water vapors in the upper atmosphere. Current ingame science implies Laythe's ocean is gradually being depleting as a presumable consequence by this. But yet again, as the realism behind Tylo and Laythe is understandably questionable, so is the game still undergoing development. I think most things should be seen as arbitrary and a subject that can change in the future whether it's to suit scientific accuracy or not.

Interesting, but I do have one question though: Just like KerbMav reasoned, even though the lungs would deoxygenate the circulating blood during vacuum exposure, would that really matter if an oxygenation implant was attached ahead at the artery? The blood that passes through the vein (and in this context, also the lungs) has already been deoxygenated through natural body functions, so it would seem logical no major rerouting of the bloodflow would be necessary. Of course, I wouldn't imply it's a practical application. Technically, there was nothing to fix. The referred suit was outdated and used beyond its designated design specifications, as it was meant for Space Shuttle missions associated with routine maintenance back on Earth. It would seem to have been a better idea allocating some resources from that, what is in my opinion, overrated Space Shuttle program and use it for additional R&D on an improve suit design.

Seems like the quotes are of unclear context to me. It's like reading: "You're all sheep because 'the experiment' does not care what you believe." I guess the last quote is a rants over some unspecific propulsion theories being rejected because they where supposedly "the most promising ones"? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Heh, NoPan beats me to it. Bravo! Now it's on! This is a 2 stage SSTO that is pushing the previous limits by one single part: S1: 1 Stack Decoupler 1 Tri-Coupler 12x FL-T500 Fuel Tanks 3x LV-T30 Engine S2: 1 Parachute 1 Command Pod 1 FL-T500 Fuel Tanks 1 LV-T45 Engine 21 parts.

Wow. Things sure was trickier back then than it is now. I was discouraged at first over the idea of downloading another client. But when I noticed it was just around 70 megabytes of data, I thought "Sure, why not". My rocket setup was: 1st stage: 1 Stack Decoupler 1 Tri-Coupler 9 FL-T500 Fuel Tanks 3 LV-T30 Engine 2 Strut Connectors 2nd Stage: 1 Stack Decoupler 2 FL-T500 Fuel Tanks 1 LV-T30 Engine 3rd Stage 1 Parachute 1 Mk 1 Command Pod 1 FL-T500 Fuel Tanks 1 LV-T45 Engine Total Part Count: 24 Perhaps I could have miscalculated the part count, so it would be cool if someone with a keen eye could correct me if necessary. Eitherway it's essentially a simplified copy of 8MMW's rocket.

Well, have you two actually even calculated the escape tower's thrust-to-weight ratio with a CM+LM combo and looked into important structural factors inhibiting the installation of an escape tower in such an unspecific configuration? Not saying I'm disagreeing, but nobody's gonna learn if the the answer's only gonna be "can't be done because it can't be done".

I'm quite curious over what the OP is specifically meaning with "correct positioning". Would that mean the default configuration but with the CSM upside-down, or having the LM on top upside-down? Nevertheless, there's always other possibilities relative to design. AFAIK, the minimalistic Soviet LK lander would remain attached under the Soyuz spacecraft all the way to the Moon. It could theoretically do it Apollo style, but it would grant no benefits since the docking system didn't have a crew transfer capability and the Soyuz didn't have a mighty service module that had to be cleared. Cosmonauts had to perform an EVA in order to board the lander and then detach during Lunar orbit.

I begun this challenge three days ago, and I must say it was pretty tricky. Great work for those who managed it or will! I'm also sorry for what happened to you, esinohio. Given the time I had perfecting the mission, I went for a rather high-achieving goal of fulfilling all conditions and maximizing end score. So that's about everything except from bringing additional rovers, which is an implementation I don't like anyway. I guess that makes a total of 233 in score? I don't have much time for elaboration right now. Anyhow, here's how my mission was:

There's indeed a practical aspect behind the Z-1's white color and fluorescent stripes. But by also having a resemblance to Pixar's famous space ranger is a great bonus in my opinion. It's popular culture and people tend to love such things. AFAIK it wasn't even at first called a "Buzz Lightyear Suit" by news articles – it was people who saw and commented on that resemblance, which then the media was quick to catch on. I personally don't mind the design vote itself, it's just that I think it really should had the original Z-1 scheme as an option.

To be honest, I think the original Z-1 with the Buzz Lightyear look was the best.

Admittedly, I did use an incorrect page reference in my previous post. Eitherway, it says in the initial page of root causes, pdf page 22, that they knew of the "drink bag anomaly" in EVA 22, but was practically left unchallenged in favor to the upcoming EVA 23. They was perfectly aware of a potential problem of water build-up and its eye irritating effects due to an anti-fog agent. Yet, it was regarded as "fine" because they assumed the water would only accumulate on the visor based on tests performed in regular gravity. And again based on corrected reference, it says in pdf page 31 the suit's certification had been exceeded. So obviously, it's hardly a black on white matter to just simply assume the answer is quoted in the report as "who could have known?" or "we don't care".

Although, the suit was a model which was designed for shorter durations in Space Shuttle missions and then brought right back for maintenance. In page 22 of the report it says "Continuous flight of the ISS requires spacesuits to be left on-board for longer periods of time than the suit’s original Shuttle certification allowed.". So by professional standards, isn't it a safety violation using those suits beyond their assigned specifications?

In relevance to the topic, I think it's more like a firefighter suffocating to death during duty because of a known issue with the SCBA was being ignored and left in obscurity by the fire chief.

Given current technology, the biggest challenge behind constructing a surface rover for Venus is electronics. There's microprocessors that can withstand nearly 500°C under development, but until then, the best we got is operating reliably at a maximum of around 300°C. Aside from developing this heat-resistant electronics, we would with current technology either need to research an active cooling system or somehow house the computer system inside a relaying aerial drone. Sensors would also require development. When it comes to power generation, a typical RTG could work on Venus, albeit limited to a electric production of 30W (as opposed to Curiosity's 120W). Therefore, it would be ideal researching a radioisotope generator using Stirling conversion. With a theoretical output of almost 500W, it could cool down the rover's interior to a workable 250°C. The only real problem left would the shortage on plutonium. For more information check out this link: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090001338_2008047211.pdf

I would ask: What can a high atmosphere drone achieve an orbiting probe can not?Well, the idea is you can have something performing studies on the actual surface. Neither an aerial drone nor an orbiter can do that.

Because we don't have a well-managed and properly funded program for such kind of mission, I guess? Since the series of Venera landers did actually perform above expectations on the Venusian surface, it was proven our engineering was more capable than previously thought. A rover designed for Venus would require some extensive R&D (since some critical technologies are pretty much bleeding edge). The proposed Venus rover concept seen on the original post is meant to be capable of an ambitious 50 days mission duration, which would truly be an outstanding achievement if proven possible.

Since I'm strongly against Steam's policies, it's KSP Store all the way for me. Although, I think there are some fishy parts in their EULA which in fact can't be agreed away according to the European Consumer Rights Directive. Still, kudos for an EULA you can actually read through in less than five minutes.

It appears my mission has ended as a failure due to underestimating Laythe's atmosphere. Jebediah, Bob and Bill is in for a loong vacation. Hanbree and Gilwise currently in orbit may good as well join them. Lander details: Stage 2 is mainly intended for a brief powered descent as a complement to the parachutes. Stage 1 and 0 is purely for ascent.

Using an unspecified type of lander as an example won't say much. It would probably be a better idea installing Kerbal Engineer Redux or MechJeb and start experimenting with how various configurations affects your craft's efficiency.

Target: Titan Ground Activities: Unmanned airplane performing in-flight observations. Propulsion: Liquid-propellant for the spacecraft. The actual plane itself would by powered by a radioisotope power system. Goal: Performing geographical and atmospheric studies of the moon. Other: This is based an an actually proposed concept known as AVIATR.

A $350 millions construction frame for the sake of testing a part of an officially defunct program? That's crazy. Atleast, a retirement of Cassini wouldn't be entirely useless on its own. It wouldn't be about the cancellation itself though, but rather a potential controlled fall into Saturn. There have also been other less likely proposals, like aerobraking into a stable orbit around Titan. Of course, I'd rather atleast see a successor being deployed before Cassini actually gets retired. This I didn't know. I just know that NASA's budget this year allows them to keep all their current projects going, and prevents them from having to axe certain new projects, like the SLS.I did a quick read into the matter and aside from funding the launch vehicle, it seems NASA did design the Cassini orbiter itself, so it would make sense they are the ones in direct responsibility of it. ESA share of the work was the designing of the supplied Huygens entry probe which landed on Titan.

So despite the mission was originally a collaboration between NASA, ESA and ASI, the current funding of Cassini is all on NASA? I remember how hyped I was back in 2004 when Cassini had finally reached Saturn. I was dying to know what results the supplied landing probe Huygens would yield about the mysterious moon Titan. It's a shame there haven't been anything more sent there made by man.