makinyashikino

I feel like that would be a bit disappointing, or fun maybe, like archaeology, in SPACE! depends on it's execution. Maybe it would give you a science bonus or something? But then I think some people would be pretty pissed to send a mission all the way to an asteroid only to find a part... Unless it was a new part... Maybe you could "Discover" parts left in space, if .24 has stranded kerbals launched by other companies, why not assume that they launched a "prototype" rocket, that's how the kerbals got caught in LKO anyway. You could get a part slightly down the tech tree? or even something completely new

I wanna be as stringent as possible. If I have to do a rescue mission, I'll bring the claw with me to pick up the fuel-less ship.

Bump. I really like this idea. Maybe debris that's left alone around Kerbin or Solar SOI would "Disappear" and in the future, when you find an asteroid, it has bits of that stage embedded in it!

You wouldn't need a grappler if you timed the docking right. But doing this would be worse than achieving orbit then changing Apoapsis because burning straight up is incredibly fuel inefficient. Also, atmospheric drag lowers your horizontal speed and you would pretty much need to time it perfectly. Complicated but theoretically do-able.

Flywheels!

That's very shortsighted.

Well, knowing how it works is quite different from ACTUALLY doing it. the problem is it's been "50 years away" for 50 years now, it's gonna take time. What we need is modern technologies to solve our problems

Too bad we don't know how to do it yet

But would hydrogen combustion engines run on clean water exclusively? If we used clean water, we would strain our dwindling freshwater supplies even more, as the millions of cars in the US alone would consume insane amounts of water. If it could run on wastewater, then our problems would be solved, as we could use wastewater from the hydrolysis and nuclear plants, or even seawater if it didn't corrode the engine.

In your opinion, what fuel or way of generating power is the best for replacing our dependence on fossil fuels. Is it Nuclear or renewable sources. Biofuel or Hydrogen fuel cells. Discuss. In my opinion Nuclear and Solar are our two best bets. Nuclear gets a bad rap, but it's mainly bad management and outdated hardware that create these problems. With state of the art engineering and computers, we could built much safer plants. And solar is becoming more efficent constantly, as well as cheaper. I think that solar roads is an incredible engineering challenge, but it would solve all of our problems.

What intakes are you using? Could you post a picture of your craft?

Maybe things that re-enter the atmosphere, it would do a series of checks to see if it is recoverable or not, rather than just deleting the parts that fall back outright. Like Speed, under a certain amount of m/s? okay, it survives re-entry, does it have a parachute? Okay, it survives landing. Did it fall over land or water? Increase refurbish cost for saltwater if water. etc. EDIT: Ninja'd! I really should have checked the last page!

2.5m!?!?!?!? Augh how BIG are your probes?!?!

Sound Idea, don't see why not.

With .24 adding a contract system, does this mean that we also will get money in the game? What will it be called? If so, then it will finally feel balanced.

If anything could survive on MERCURY, a vacuum with no atmosphere and the insane surface temperatures, I think they could survive a little nuclear waste.

Eve? Unless you enjoy one way trips, or lots of driving. Bases there are very impractical. EDIT: WOO 100th post!

FYI Devs have said that they wouldn't do procedural gen planets because they want the same experience for every player. But this would be a neat mod.

You mean like the ones they had on Voyager and Curiosity? I wouldn't imagine those would produce too much power...

What if our universe is simply a stick figure laying rocks for millions of millenia? I've thought about this before, it terrifies me to no end, because for all I know, it could be true.

I was wondering if scientists could use breeders to change waste into usable uranium, in that case we could launch it when it is waste, to mars or the moon. If we ever do go to colonize these places, we could use the now-enriched uranium to produce power for the base.

Yes! I would love to know if someone responds to something I said, rather than having to search through a sea of subscribed threads that get multiple posts daily. Other forums do it, I mean hell the rinky-dinky forums I used to run did that.

I realise that this is kinda poor advice, especially from an "Answering your question standpoint" but you could always just Hyperedit your way into Moho flyby, it's kinda cheaty I know, but you would fix your problem.

Gilly isn't too much of a problem staying on the ground just don't move alot, and if you want the kethane deposit AND ore that's 2KM away, you only need about 30m/s DV, you could fly using RCS! You could use more DV it you didnt want to wait. Eve is WAY more trouble than it's worth. I remember when I made a Minimus Launchpad base, and the Kethane deposit was 10km away from the ore. I used a rover and it was awful. took 1km to slow down. Gilly would be IMPOSSIBLE for rovers, just use a hopper ship. It will be WAY better than using a rover or landing on eve.

Honestly, video games make the most sense in space, as 1) They take up VERY little room, as they can be played on an playing card sized device, were talking about board games and things of that nature. The reduced space means more food and more room for other things. Maybe they could launch some more powerful laptops and play KSP! 2) They don't get lost or interfere with the equipment. If a velcroed chess piece floats away on accident, if could interfere with the machinery if it floats and jams into something. If you lose a chess piece, you have to improvise pieces or play a different game.