ScallopPotato

My hope is that KSP will set a standard for space video games, similar to how games like Halo set the standard for first person shooters. Spacecraft would have to follow orbital mechanics or physics and would have to avoid various fallacies, but players wouldn't have to worry about limited delta-V budgets, a TWR less than one, or not having time warp.

IIRC you can put a gnome and a headcrab in the payload section of the rocket.

What was the problem with Ares I? Whatever it was, it doesn't matter, as commercial crew has replaced it in the LEO taxi role and SLS/Orion for BEO missions.

Apparently the mission elements of the constellation program were way too over budget and behind schedule to be recovered. Apparently the Ares I wouldn't be ready until 2017-2020 or so, Ares V wouldn't be available until the late 2020s, and the Altair lunar lander was a whole mess in itself. I guess NASA was trying to do too many things with too little of a budget. Fast forward to 2014. Orion is going to be tested later this year, and the SLS seems to be on budget and ahead of schedule. However, NASA has said that trying to make another lunar landing would "take everything back to square one". So I can say "we're going back to the moon, but we aren't landing on it". That'd make for funny dinner table conversations. What's the difference between the two, both technical and management wise? It seems odd that the SLS is doing better than the Ares I, considering they seem very similar (ie SSMEs for first stage).

My most used mechjeb feature is vessel info. Max acceleration and the current TWR are both very useful.

Bailed out? That's... new.

Which wasn't the case when the federation space pirate marines came aboard the orbital installation.

Which seemed to be a big plot point in Black Ops 2 (drones getting hijacked). I'm not 100% sure if the infinity ward and treyarch CoD's are in the same universe. If they were, you'd think America would have more safeties on their weapons systems after getting their drones hacked.

It's not a bug. It's that the decoupler was put on the wrong way. Ever notice how your decouples stay attached to your rocket stacks? Well, sometimes the direction of the decoupler makes it stay attached to the craft you just seperated. And that often happens to be where the engine bell is. It'd be easier to explain with pictures. But it has happened to me, typically involving issues with craft added in as subassemblies. It's one the reasons I've been using stack separators more often.

Tl;dr verison: It seems like bombardment satellites tend to most often be used on their owners. WHY BUILD THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. So I curiously looked up the backstory of CoD: Ghosts, and *spoilers* half the U.S. gets smashed by their own rods-from-god satellite (ODIN) when the enemy hijacks it. Millions die. Brushing aside any Hollywood-esk inaccuracies or the way the Federation hijacks it (why use space marines when you can use robots?) , I would first want to say that a virtual nuclear arsenal in space would have to follow the same rule of two safety rules that nukes require. There's not that many details on ODIN, but I'm going to say that any enemy should not be able to turn a super weapon on its owners so easily or quickly. It's like one second is return from EVA, and the next is OH NO FEDERATION OH NO THEY'RE SHOOTING AT OUR CITIES OH NO! Why would the United States or any other super power build such a weapon? It seems like only reason why it was around in the story was to be used on its owners. I understand that the satellite is simply a plot device for the story of a mostly multiplayer game, and the CoD franchise uses crazy moments in their story (No Russian, east coast invaded, ISS blows up, etc). But I find this event highly implausible due to the lack of safeties and the why-is-the-sat-there-in the first place. My personal guess is that the DoD wanted ODIN built in exchange for an expanded space program. I dunno. I was just irked by that one plot point. Rant over.

I don't get why people think realistic aerodynamics would kill asparagus. I play with FAR and single-layer asparagus isn't noticeably less aerodynamic. Multiple layers of asparagus aren't optimal, but one ring of boosters is fine as long as they all have nosecones. Multiple rings won't be needed anyway due to reduced dV requirements (an aerodynamic rocket cuts quickly and swiftly through the lower atomsphere) and larger diameter parts. I have yet to set an upper limit on what I can put into LKO with the 3.75m KW parts in a one ring asparagus, but I do believe it's somewhere around... 300 tons or so.

Sandbox save: on an escape trajectory from Jool to Kerbin, having successfully landed on and ascended from Tylo. Career save: on an inbound trajectory at Jool, about to go through a Tylo gravity capture

*aboard fritz station orbiting jool at 110,000 km Chuck: I've been in my window room for over a year! Life is great! Wow look out the window! Ribfen: This crew can is great! Me: I'm surprised you two aren't bored. When do you want to come home? Chuck: Whenever you feel like it it! Just don't install TAC LS!

My monitor is part of a 2009 27 inch iMac. Is that a really bright monitor? I think it was because my eyes were tired. woah i just randomly had a moment of remembering a dream omg The room was well lit at the time. And I only squint when I'm really close into Kerbol (ie within Moho's SMA or closer). It's like a big white mass of white in low Kerbol orbit and I guess my eyes are trained to squint at. Wow I'm really tired right now.

Mostly when I hit tab in map view to switch to it. My eyes squint but I'm sure I won't blind. I dunno. I think it's funny how a video game sun can be so "realistically bright". It sure adds extra challenge to a low Kerbol mission.

Yeah, but doesn't the DragonRider, Dream Chaser, and CST-100 spacecraft all fit into the same role (deliver crew to LEO)?

"end of species kinds of risks" sounds something a conspiracy theorist would talk about a lot. How the media hypes it up and downplays the risks, how the FDA is turning a blind eye because the makers company bought it out, etc. "Mummy? Are you my mummy?"

Making snacks for kerbonauts

Have any conceptual design studies been done on making components for a mars mission launch by Falcon Heavies? I know there's studies done for ~140 ton launch vehicles and even one from Skylon flights, but nothing in the ~50-55 tons to LEO range.

I could possibly do this on a seperate install of KSP. B9 takes up too much space right now. What does Novapunch and AEIS provide that KW doesn't? I would love designing a mars ship/base in RSS launched with a bunch of Falcon Heavies to see how the rocket would actually fare against the SLS.

Speaking of life support systems, does anyone know what's the world's most reliable toliet that uses little to no water? I know the first space toliet on the ISS lasted 7 years (which is long enough for one mars mission lol). I imagine toilets on naval ships are very reliable, but a mars craft or base isn't going to have an ocean to do the flushing.

How expensive is the Falcon Heavy vs the SLS even if the FH's boosters aren't reused or turnaround isn't as cheap as expected? I'm very much skeptical of big reusable systems because of what happened with the space shuttle. Now, space shuttle and FH are apples to oranges, but the concern remains the same.

I tried docking two ships on minmus, with the ship doing the docking upside down. It didn't end well. But I landed two ships at minmus at once and it worked!

Well it turns out the image link doesn't work. It's under William Black. Space donuts really won't be an issue because the entire spacecraft will be a centrifuge, spinning in a way that produces the artificial gravity. The habitation module would probably be two or more "floors" with a ladder connecting them. The command area and storm cellar would be located closer to center of the ship. Here's a video of the constellation program mars mission, where the crew vehicle is the artificial gravity ship I mentioned.

10km tether? Well sure as hell won't be testing that in KSP.