ScallopPotato

Do you have a link to Bridge Diode?

I probably sound like a noob for asking this, but is there any way to produce megawatts without reactors or beamed power? I have neither unlocked in my career save and I need a way to power my science lab.

Can we talk about the whole "space is an ocean" theme? I'm surprised no one has brought that up. I was actually thinking about this earlier and I want to ask: Why is a bad thing for sci-fi movies to have inaccuracies? What sort of harm does it do to the quality of the movie or the public's understanding of space, other than annoy the nerds? I can say that it can break the immersion in the movie, especially if it's already mediocre (i.e. armageddon). Secondly, it makes for bad habits when people start playing KSP. But what does it do to the perceptions of the voting public or the inspired children, who likely have been receiving most of their impressions of space from science fiction and maybe the occasional education program? We can tell about the examples of people being inspired by star trek or star wars, or how movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon thrusted the dangers of asteroids into the public's consciousness. I think one of the biggest problems is that it makes sci-fi writers used to working with the broken tropes instead of finding ways to be creative within the bounds of physical laws. It also makes it harder for genuine sci-fi fans to appreciate hard and near future sci-fi, because they think's going to be slow paced as 2001, when really it doesn't have to be.

Another difference between NERVA and a modern NTR is that they won't be used as an upper stage like Saturn S-N. Stephen Baxter's Voyage gives a pretty good reason why not to do that. Any NTR stage would be inside the fairing of a large rocket with the control rods deep in the reactor. The control rods wouldn't be removed and the reactor powered up until after they're checked out and cleared in a parking orbit. I probably wouldn't power them up until the ship has it's payload and is ready to depart. Radioactivity doesn't really pick up in the reactors until they've completed the TMI/TVI/TJI/TLI burns. Think of an unfired reactor like fresh firewood. If nuclear fuel is firewood, then an always active RTG is like a candle. The only conceivable threat to Earth is if a returning Crew Transfer Vehicle is on a collision course with the Earth. I'm thinking the main threat the NTRs pose is to the crew, when they're far away from Earth. I'm sure they'll be lengthy studies done about safety.

Linking to the wiki page on NERVA for some reference And the atomic rockets page on solid core NTRs Many of you know that the NERVA rockets being tested in the 60s and 70s were highly successful, with the NERVA XE and Pewee (the basis for the LV-N in KSP) almost ready to become flight prototypes. All the mars missions proposals during or after the NERVA project were based off of the tested rockets. So if Congress appropriated funding to make flight prototypes of those designs and finish up the work in the NERVA project, how long would that take? Not including set-up time, I imagine the rockets would be ready for a full flight test within 5 years of starting work.

I do believe the dust was one of the key reasons why Curiosity has a RTG for a tail instead of being a table of solar panels, because solar panels get covered by dirt and have to be cleaned by the wind. Still, does the dust affect anything besides its wheels? I'm just thinking about the contradictory claims of how dangerous martian dust would be to any manned missions.

Curiosity looks quite dusty now. Does that affect it's performance in any way?

I have a feeling that a lot of the cargo payloads in the 2020s (ion tugs, lunar station pieces, logistics for the station, lunar landers) will be launched by rockets like the Falcon Heavy and tugged out to lunar orbit, but the cis-lunar orion will be launched by the SLS to provide direct Hohmann transfers. (versus the months long spiraling outwards by solar electric tugs).

I'm really enjoying building planes with B9 and Ferram right now. It's so satisfying to create a plane or spaceplane that works. I could be collecting science on Minmus, but I'm just experimenting with spaceplanes in my Career mode save right now

I would build my giant Joolian mothership. I myself I have had to go back and redesign it because my CPU was crying as soon as I added the 12th giant NERVA core in the VAB. It wasn't even halfway done at that point.

I've been watching to record videos so I can upload them onto youtube and whatnot, but I haven't been able to find any for my uses that fit within a reasonable (~$50) price range. I say $50 because I have a $50 Best Buy gift card lying around and I'd ideally like to use it to get that software. I have goggled video capture software already, but all the results I found were for professional level software that costed hundreds of dollars. I don't need that and I can't afford it anyway. I've also used quicktime's video capture, but it only records video, not audio. So it's fine for GIFs, but not youtube videos.

Indeed. But there is a way to get around that with the largest inflatable, by arranging the hab in a way that makes the floorplan work out with the "down" direction in the artificial gravity. I'm probably not explaining things clearly. My issue is not knowing which side of the large inflatable has the "private lounge" when looking at it from the outside, if you get what I mean. I'm trying to work out this issue on my own, but it's taking a long time and I need to dedicate my time towards studying for finals.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask questions about the parts, but which way is "down" in the largest inflatable hab? It's arranged in a weird way compared to the other inflatable hab.

I'm building a massive mothership in the game. First, I would like to thank Kerbal Attachment System for the strut end points. Without them, this ship wouldn't be feasible. But I'm finding new uses for the claw every week and I love it. It makes so many things much easier. For one, I can just attach the claw to one of my standard orbital vehicles (it looks like an apollo module) and use it to deorbit debris. Beforehand, I would've had to use a complicated and relatively dangerous set of electromagnets and winches in KAS to do the same job. But, using the same craft, I can assemble pieces in orbit without having probe cores and RCS on every structural piece. I've used the probe core + RCS to assemble things before, but the number of pieces was only two. This ship is going to have dozens on structural pieces, and eliminating probe and RCS will cut down on the part count. The reason for using pieces is because I'm using Ferram and I want to keep my fairings reasonably sized. Thus, I'm not going to send up each piece unfolded. I could use IR, which would make the process even simpler, but I'm glad I didn't due to the 23.5 compatibility issues. I really want to post pictures of my ship because it's GONNA BE AWESOME.

Might I ask what you're doing with all those boosters?

What if astronauts brought along bicycles on surface moon or mars mission? EVA bicycles anyone?

The concerns about the solid boosters really can be limited by choosing one of the liquid booster options for the advanced boosters. The dual F-1B boosters are estimated to outmatch the performance of the advanced solids in terms of tons to LEO. I'm sure NASA will be very vigilant about safety for EM-1 and EM-2, but the slip-ups are more likely to occur later. Like, at first, things are dangerous, then they become routine and people become complacent.

I would add that the SLS is a possible launcher for the Mars Sample Return Mission and the Europa Clipper, but that's still only 4 launches total. There is a lot of missions to be done, technologies developed and SCIENCE collected in order to prepare for a mars mission. I stated this earlier, but I think that a commercial heavy launch vehicle competition (SDHLV vs SpaceX BFRs vs ULA phase II) would've been a better idea than going straight for a SDHLV, Technologies like cryofuel storage, solar electric tugs, NERVAs, etc are needed for a Manned Mars Mission but they are absolutely required for BLEO payloads when using the ever so popular Falcon Heavy or the fuel depot strategy. The logic seems to be that the cheaper Falcon Heavy will free up money to develop fuel depots and VASIMR tugs and various other payloads. Personally, I think that fuel depots need to be developed anyway as they are a win-win for both manned and unmanned spaceflight.

Jebidiah is the one Kerbal who's proficient at litho-braking - aka survive slamming into the mun at 70 m/s because you started your suicide burn too late.

The ideas of population control and resource reduction relies on the assumption that less people/more renewables = less CO2 = reduction in CO2 levels = reduced warming. The problem with that is that CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time, so any sort of decrease is really delayed. My understanding is that current CO2 levels are at the point now that even drastic, draconian steps to reduce carbon emissions wouldn't stop the increased warming in the 21st century. Still, my questions about space mirrors haven't been answered. What sort of materials would work well for a space mirror (lightweight and strong), and how much surface area would be needed at ESL1 to reduce the global temperature by 1 degree Celsius?

I always felt like snacks was a very kerbal way to refer to food. But who remembers the earliest reference to snacks in people's stories and LPs?

I think I've heard Scott Manley make references to snacks back in the .18 days, but it seems like the meme is more of a post .20 idea. I know the hitchhiker has a "SNACKS" bin, but I'm not sure if that's the meme creator or it was following an existing meme. I would imagine some old-timers would know the answer. I think the meme is very kerbal and fits well with their nature.

None of them look like they have any mods installed.

The rocket goes through stages of development, and it's been hitting those milestones on time, so that's where the "on schedule" part comes from.

I don't get where people are saying the SLS is being delayed and is over budget. AFAIR, the rocket is on time and on budget. The SLS is really good, it's just that there may be better rockets than it. I feel that there should have been a commercial heavy launch development program like there is for cargo and crew. If the commercial programs had been this current point back in 2010-2011, I think Congress would've felt confident in having a CHLVD (SDHLV vs SpaceX Falcon BFRs vs something else). But it is what it is.