Themohawkninja

BUGGER! Thanks for the math though. That's kind of neat (and annoying) that my suspicions are fact.

That's TBS-style multi-player. Most people want real-time multi-player. Doubtful, all game companies specifically state that they are not responsible for online interactions. That's why the ESRB doesn't rate the online parts of games.

I currently have a probe that was supposed to get to Dres, but I horribly miss-estimated my launch window, so I though I would just wait a few orbits until I got really close, but the points of closest separation seem to be repeating. Periapsis: 13,341,828,171 meters Apopapsis: 38,543,004,848 meters I don't know the math, and the only equation I found that looked like it was the one I needed required degrees per day, which I can't do in KSP without an external application, so if somebody would be up for it, that would be much appreciated!

I would like a chip in the form of a wireless I/O device for controlling computers (and by computers, I mean my PC, car, environmental controls and lights in my house, etc). It would run on a closed shell system to prevent hacking/viruses.

Don't forget the also familiar problem of viruses and hacking. (If anyone here has player E.Y.E: Divine Cybermancy, you know exactly what kind of havoc a hacker can do).

Something tells me that the constant rapid movement of the parts would create a very unreliable system, but the general concept of a computer system that constantly moves control surfaces to compensate for course deviations shouldn't be too hard I would think. Isn't that in modern jet planes, so they fly straight with the least possible human interaction?

It's because when you do the math, you end up with the answer being 1/0, which equals "complex infinity" that is always described as "just" infinity.

Here is where I can throw a real curveball (that I have just learned as of a few minutes ago from watching a cool video on black holes). Black holes that spin create a centripetal force that pushes the matter that makes up the singularity outwards, which thereby (and this is where my though process comes in) should create volume.

Oh... now I see where this debate can get out of hand, because my first thought to reading that is: "But black holes are made from normal matter imploding, so it should still be matter, even if it takes up a super-tiny space." Then I realized that unless we discover some quantum version of electron/quark degeneracy force, there is no resistance to gravity.

It has mass, and takes up space... isn't that all you need for something to be matter?

Would a black hole merger count as consuming matter? Yeah, black hole mergers do a lot more crazy things than just that. The magnetic fields fluctuate a lot, and gravity waves are emitted... violent stuff.

Could you cite your source where you got the information of the origin of Sol from? I know that Sol is a generation II star, which means that another stellar object came before it, but that object didn't necessarily have to end it's life as a neutron star or a black hole. It could have been the result of a hypergiant star who's mass exceeded the Eddington limit, and thereby the stellar material was throw off into space, or Sol could have been the result of some other event.

Only when consuming matter as I understand it. Black holes (excluding the very faint Hawking radiation) emit nothing when they are not consuming matter.

It's terrain scattering looks like granite if you ask me, so that might give you a clue.

To me, the Grasshopper rocket seems wasteful, because SpaceX (or any other future company that wishes to design a VTVL rocket design) could just utilize all of that extra fuel to get a bigger, better payload into orbit, so is it really worth soft landing a fuel tank (which brings up the other question of: "Why don't they just use parachutes?") by burning all of that rocket fuel? The Space Shuttle used two SRB's (which as I understand it, solid fuel is usually cheaper pound for pound than liquid fuel), and NASA had those parachuted to the ground after they decoupled, and it was still economically inefficient (they did it because of the bureaucracy).

This was the very first thing I suggested on the forums, and a dev told me he tried and failed to do this, but you succeeded... sweet. I think I'll wait until .21 since it's nearly out, but I almost can't believe this now exists! One question though, does welding wing parts together effectively work?

The hatch one really doesn't make much sense, when there is nothing for a foot or two around the entire hatch, and yet you still can't get out!

Those metals corrode the engine, because they react with the casing. xenon is (virtually) %100 inert, and so therefore it doesn't react with anything. However... it is a bit expensive, since (according to Scott Manley) 100 tonnes of atmosphere will yield about 1 kilogram of xenon. It's about $120 per 100 grams of pure Xenon. To put that in perspective, the Dawn spacecraft used 425 kg of xenon propellent, which would cost $510,000.

It also looks like Gir's head without the dog suit.

If you want my honest opinion, I think it will determine whether or not a Kerbal might defect from the commands you give him when you can let Kerbals fly the ships. I can see it now, you let Jeb fly the ship, and you set up a nice maneuver node for him to burn at, he instead burns in such a way that skims the craft a dozen meters off the Muner surface while flying at 2 km/s. Also, this:

Since this is about aluminum in combustible/explosive materials, I have a question. Why is it that aluminium is used in combustible/explosive materials like rocket engines, or thermite?

They just got backing? I thought Skylon was being funded by the British government for some time now. Well, it's a good thing they are now! I can't wait until the first sub-orbital test flights begin, even if it is at LEAST a decade away!

I didn't think it had power problems, I'm just wondering if you could do it for the sake of redundancy. I'm mainly wondering if the torque plate would be less effective if the stellar wind is absorbed rather than deflected.

As I understand it, the James Webb Space Telescope will have a metal plate on it (I think it's called a torque plate, but I may be wrong) that is designed to counteract the force of the solar wind to keep the telescope in the correct alignment, and at the L2 point. What I wonder is, would it be a good idea to put solar panels on the plate to give more/redundant power?

What propulsion systems would you like to see money be put into? OT: 30 million Newton seconds of ISP... that should suffice for getting anywhere in the Solar system.