Search the Community

Boy I sometimes hate how Gramerly and Firefox interact... soo many problems with THIS and ONLY THIS Forum. Sorry, to answer your question Entr8899, do a full send. If it works great, if it doesn't then revert the launch. None of these rockets are perfectly scaled. Some are pretty close to Scale Factor X, Some are close to scale factor Y, and others use yet further scale factors to bring the parts to a lego-able playable experience. That being said there are just sometimes things be like this. Could it have been made "more playable?" MAYBE...but not certainly! But making it more "playable" will throw the scale off of other things and people would rage about that. In the end the BDB Team has to choose what they feel/hope is right and just do it. A great example of this is while it is the correct design, the Agena Interstages almost all of them clip if anything other than And it is not like we are paying CobaltWolf, Zorg, InvaderChaos, Roger, and when they were active Jso. Each of them volunteers their work and more importantly time. Time is a thing few of us have a lot of free to do this stuff. I kind of wish Cobalt was still doing his "Dev Streams" like he used to so a lot of new players can see just how hard it is to actually make these things look as awesome as they are! A great example... The Titan IV upper stage, took 2 or 3, 3ish hour Streams for ONE color choice as I recall. The amount of effort put into these parts is amazing. I was helping (well trying to help) to find reference photos for the Atlas rebuild FOUR YEARS AGO... That is when Zorg started the Atlas refresh. Zorg can talk to how much time he spent reaserching, and how much time he spent designing and then modeling. But suffice to say it started 4 years ago It is for this reason I only asked for a node to be added to the Existing GEM-60 SRM to work with the new Atlas V SRM decouplers. Because the time it would take to rebuild the GEM-60 to match current standards would be a lot of work! And the GEM-60 is a pretty simple part.

Wow. Talk about frontal area drag. With weight shifter aft given an bay empty on return the lower shuttle cocking of the short and wide airframe is surely spooky to pilots, I'd imagine

Okay I first reported this (nothing against you) for possible off topic. Since I'm back from work and it is still here, I take it discussing game launchers in this thread isn't off topic, unless you're allowed and I'm not, so here it goes: Epic offers free games, and that's where the positives end. Steam's forums are flooded with Epic customers asking for support since Epic doesn't offer a form of discussion or contact. They've let their store be flooded by crypto/nft scams after forcing all users into arbitration with a new EULA, compounded with the fact their human support is abysmal. Even if you chose to not purchase there and submit yourself to a subpar experience on anything that isn't giving them money, they've been a cancer for gaming and games: Helped bring Tencent to the West. Buying off and then killing/forgetting about studios (like fall guys too). Scamming people with the Save the World mode on Fortnite. Bringing exclusivity wars garbage to PC, though devs are slowly realizing that people just don't buy games on Epic, most recent funny failure being Alan Wake 2. They talk about giving better shares to the devs but some of those some extra costs of transactions are pushed onto the player. Their account security is subpar garbage. <- Did you know they deleted their own report? just found out whilst sourcing it. Still, here it is. They started off their "famous" sales by not telling the devs they'd devalue their games. I could probably go on for longer, and that's just on the player's side, if you check on the dev side... But hey, they give free games, and people are free to choose. Finally, to keep topic-relevant, the points about their human support being subpar applies a lot to trying to refund KSP2 past the arbitrary refund window (impossible through Epic, hit and miss on Steam), and the quality of the store and guidelines for publishing games is what protects Take Two from leaving an unfinished, soft canceled "early access" game in there with zero fear of repercussions.

To go back to the topic, I'm surprised that the original suit-makers for Apollo are unable to deliver on-budget. I remember one literal high-flying rich guy asked them to build him a high-altitude suit... *searches* Alan Eustace! He did a TED Talk about a high-altitude jump in 2014 about ILC Dover, not Collins, making him an environment suit that basically dangled him and the suit from a high-altitude balloon to avoid the mass of a capsule. https://www.ilcdover.com/aerospace/spacesuits/ This proudly proclaims, "Anyone can try to make a spacesuit. Only ours have been to the moon." Oh-kay. But who's building the current suits? *more searching* It seems the turducken of mil-industrial goes like this: RTX owns Rayethon, Collins and Pratt & Whitney Collins subcontracted ILC Dover (Apollo suits) and Oceaneering (oil, gas, wind turbine platforms, ocean ROV and subs) to make the xEVA suits. Makes sense. However, ILC Dover was recently bought out by Ingersoll Rand, who seem excited to use them and their equipment for their pharmaceuticals industries. Barely a peep about aerospace.

I did not talk about conjecture or anything. You're not arguing against my conclusions, what you're trying to run against now, is word from producers, engineers, and other various developers and employees, you're trying to tell them that their game is not dead even though they've been looking for a job for at least a month for the freshest out the door. You're contradicting the news and the statements of anyone official but the CEO. So yeah, you're only playing for the guy that is set to make money of off not saying the game is dead, and expecting him to say the game is dead. It's not just a bad argument that runs against reality, it's naivety.

As I was saying, the agnostic argument. It's dead officially, they just haven't said the one specific thing about it you want them to say in the way you want them to say it, which is most probably not gonna happen. The office was closed, confirmed by the WARN. The people that worked on the title are all fired minus Nate which is the only person we can confirm was absorbed into PD. Effective this Friday. Confirmed by the WARN and later on by some employees themselves, and one of the KSP2 producers. Some people were fired even before all this debacle without anyone new replacing them. Confirmed by Wes and later on the SZ video. They updated the game to complete the credits and remove the branded launcher. Don't think I need a source here. They've ceased all talk about future updates. Again, you can just check the forum, and other places too. They tried offering the IP with or without the studio for sale, and they tried offering the whole of PD for sale too. As confirmed by news. Now, that's direct evidence, i.e. not conjecture or hyperbole or theories or whatever. Your "proof" is asking a rotting corpse to climb out of its casket and tell you "yes pal I'm pretty dead". Not only does the corpse provide enough evidence of its death already, it's also very unlikely that there's any life left in it for it to raise up and give you the answer. And I've put my money on Factorio, Space Engineers, DRG, Besiege, Barotrauma, Rust, Rimworld, Beam.NG, KSP1 and many other successful, fun, fulfilling EA projects that have been a pleasure to be a part of (well, KSP1 not so much). On the other hand I've also paid up for this garbage, StarForge, Stormworks, Hydroneer (was fine until the multiplayer update), 7 days to die, and many others. It is definitely not a system that guarantees success, or even something as basic as a good game. But it is also a system that lets you be part of great stuff and enjoy great games much before others get to it. And yes, you're very right in saying that $50 for an early access is a huge red flag. Wish more people had listened back then, and I'm very thankful to Steam for regionalized prices and to every dev/publisher that uses them correctly.

That is wildly exaggerated, TBH. Your typical interplanetary transfer is in tens of km/s. A 2RPM rotation involves a rotation around a point 250m from the center of mass (this can be more or less than 500m of cable, depending on your counterweight, naturally) and has velocity w.r.t. combined CoM of only 50m/s. This is well within the mid-course correction burns you'll be doing anyways. Likewise, loss of gravity, while disorienting, is about as dangerous as riding on a drop tower at an amusement park. You do still have the spin of the rocket itself, but it's likely to be a fairly stable rotation and the resulting centrifugal effects will be minor enough for this to be at worst comparable to a slip-and fall on flat ground. You can never exclude a risk of injury in any sort of a fall, but you can also slam your hand closing a hatch, so you know. What is a real risk is the cable snap-back. Back of an envelope estimate, a lot of materials you'd consider for a cable would stretch by about ~10% before failing. You want a good safety margin, so you're probably going to be looking at a little less than 5%. Call it a 10m stretch from CoM, where the cable's most likely to snap. A fully-fueled Starship is 5kT, which means you're looking at 1/2 * 50MN * 10m = 250MJ of energy stored in the cables. It's not a LOT, but it's enough to get the tip of the cable flying at you at a decent speed. (Yes, I know the energy is split between multiple cables, but so is the mass of the cable you have to get moving...) With a very rough estimate of 20T of cables in there, you'd get something like 50m/s average speed, but the tip is likely to be traveling closer to the speed of a bullet. The odds of that tip hitting the ship are not zero, and it will absolutely slice clean through. There are safety measures you can take. The tension wave will propagate at the speed of sound through steel, which is on the order of a few km/s. That technically gives you enough delay for emergency severing of the cable. If you put accelerometers everywhere along the length of the cable, you can cut all the cables from the ship, causing both ends to snap together instead, resulting in very low chance of any part of the cable hitting the ship with significant velocity. You obviously want this system to be rock solid, but what emergency system isn't? And we are looking after a catastrophic failure, which is very unlikely to begin with. We build suspension bridges using essentially the same tech. All of that said, when people talk about testing a centrifuge on ISS, people do talk about small radius centrifuge. As mentioned earlier in this thread, we do now have strong evidence that even a sub-5m radius centrifuge is viable for artificial gravity with a trained crew. Especially if you don't mind ramping up the speed over a few days when the trip starts, and winding it down on arrival. And that is an entirely different structure. Something with a revolution period of about 4 seconds and compact enough to fit in the inner hull of the Starship. If we're going to see artificial gravity on a trip to Mars, that is far more viable than any tethered design. And it's also something we can comfortably test on the ISS with very reasonable expense. I mean, it's still a full sized module requiring some amount of orbital assembly with current launchers, but again, if we're looking at testing this for interior of a Starship, the best way to test it would be to assemble one within the Starship, dock it to ISS, and just keep it docked for a few months. What better proof of Starship's capability to take a crew to Mars could you possibly ask for?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/ars-live-recap-is-spacex-a-launch-company-or-a-satellite-communications-company/ Transcript of talk here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Starlink-Conversation-Transcript.txt tl;dr With Starlink, SpaceX is the largest satellite operator in the world right now, both in sheer numbers of sats and ground stations, and in revenue: Viasat/Inmarsat and Intelsat/SES ~$4 billion, Starlink $6.6 billion. They have a foot in the door with Indonesia, which is a prime market for satellite internet. If they enter India, despite the recalcitrance India is showing to OneWeb, that's an even bigger market. Estimated launch costs are below $20 million.

Again, we fall under the same disagreement: If your boss tells you to do bad work, and you just follow his instructions, you are a bad worker. I understand office politics and lazyness leading to you to just follow those orders because it can prove beneficial, however you don't get to also complain about the state of the industry, layoffs and what not when you're being exactly part of the problem by taking 4 weeks to produce some basic code. So when you're cleaning house of bad apples, you need to fire the musicians, and the people ready to dance to them. Sadly, when most of these layoffs happen, they fire only the dancers, but some very scarce times they also fire only the musicians. I don't remember a case where both get the boot. Voting with your wallet can be completely irrelevant depending on scale. In our current case, even if we round up everybody left in this forum and the discord (~1000 active people) we'll never get TTI to do anything about it but laugh. This is my last message on this topic as I don't want to do off topic. If we can continue this talk, hopefully it'll be on another thread that isn't sent to get lost in the shadow real of irrelevant subforums.

i renumber burt rutan's tech talk about how fast we went from shoddy gliders to landing on moon, and that the past few decades have done nothing nearly as impressive as that burst in development. with spacex and others pushing the envelope again, this slump seems like its to come to an end. these kind of development cycles seem to happen in bursts. we just get to the point where we dont feel like barking up the same tree even though there might be juicer fruit on the higher branches. nuclear is in a similar situation and because of a couple bombs and 3 accidents at powerplants were afraid a coconut will land on our head and we leave that tree alone. based entirely off the half a paragraph i managed to read before my eyes wigged out. also i do kind of like the idea of winged boosters. its kind of the role skylon should be designed for rather than ssto. it doesnt even need to go to orbit or even build up enough speed where reentry becomes a hot mess. it just needs to loft stage two high enough so it has time to complete a circularization burn. of course the end result to that is an overcomplicated falcon that can take off from any airport. what we need to do is figure out how to make that kick stage recoverable. but it has to deal with the same issues that starship does. so again it feels like a hard way to reinvent the wheel. still the landing part of reusable second stages is going to be a huge problem both here and on other bodies (heat shield is still an issue but it looks like we have made some headway at least, eg move the flap roots leeward as planned, even make them retractable, eg on linear bearings). think we really need to start looking at lateral engine mounting, except now the turbopumps have to be able to move propellant half way up the ship under thrust gravity. as a second stage this can be reduced depending on whatever loft time your first stage (winged or otherwise) gave you. also fine for lifting off of moon/mars and keeps the regolith out of the engines. but then your structural loads from thrust need to be handled and more mass required (possibly also from a slightly bigger turbopump) again less of a problem at low gravity (real or otherwise) but you must also support the weight of the engine. and losing one of the two pods would be bad. multiple engines per pod would be better but then you need to isolate them better so you dont get a cascade failure in the pod. complex geometry like this also makes re-entry problematic (see starship's liquid metal flaps). heat shields like to be simple.

Here where I live, we call this the Mediocrity Pact: you pretend you are doing meaningful work, I pretend I'm doing meaningful work, and we cover our arses so no one will caught us. 10 to 15 years ago, I was hired on a Industry to help code some firmware - not going to give too much details on this one, you will understand soon. First thing I did: I spend a whole week reading every single piece of technical paper the project had, including protocol specifications. Second thing I did, I specified exactly what I would be doing, feature by feature, with alternative paths to handle the expected exceptions. It became a PHD thesis compared to the specification documents they were used to. It took me a month and a half, a time my immediate manager wanted me to do some coding. But I had someone above him getting my back, because I did my way nevertheless. On a conversation, with that manager visibly nervous, he bluntly told me that I was going to be responsible for that use-cases, and I will be responsabilised if the use-cases would not be validated by the QAS team. I remember looking at them with a puzzled face (or at least, it's how I felt my face's muscles) and asked: "And there's any other way to get the job done?" TL;DR: The Company had outsourced the development of the product to a company (mine), but also outsourced the QAS to a direct competitor. So it would be the best interest of that competitor to get rid of us to score the positions for their own contractors. So my direct manager's problem was that he had hired my company to the development job, and he didn't wanted to lose points on his boss if we fail on the job - what, in theory, would be our competitor's best interest and, so, writing a so detailed and specific Requirements would play against our best interest. Problem: such Requirements was still the best (if not the only) way to get the fracking job done! What follows was probably my finest hours on that Industry: I had already worked for that Company, so I knew how they think and I understood why they hired competitors for Development and Quality. TL;DR: if the project fails, BOTH OF US would be sacked, so we were all in the same boat. So my next task, after writing that document, was to talk with the QAS guys and explain to them (including their manager, that understood and agreed) that our best interest was to work together in this project, and let our respective bosses to handle politics up there in the top floor - far away from the trenches. I did everything I could to make their lives easier, and they made everything they could to make my job effective (not exactly easier however ), and we delivered the product not as specified, but better. EDIT: I want to stress the pronoun WE. I didn't saved the day, I just did my job while they did their job and together we delivered the product. Unfortunately, that project was an exception on our Customer, not the norm. That Industry had already started to crumb - in the exact same way this one is doing now. It's the reason I think the Game Industry is "over firing", not to mention firing the wrong guys. The real troublemakers depicted by this video are not the cheeks-covering developers that wanted 4 weeks for a simple task. The real culprit is the idiot that negotiated the 2 weeks. Get rid of that idiot, and the developers will just cope with the demand, or they will be punctually replaced - and problem solved. It's exactly about "seniority". Under par people were hired as "Seniors" without the merit. And these people climbed the corporate ladder and started solving technical problems with politics. Firing the people that danced with their music is not going to fix anything. You need to fire the musicians.

The Wikipedia articles on the Uranprojekt are quite enlightening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_nuclear_program_during_World_War_II&diffonly=true Even more interesting are the Transkription of the talk of impridoned German scientists envolved in the Uranprojekt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon They show that ( imho luckily) they did have quite some failure in estamting the needed amount of Uran, needed devices etc. But in the end if sonething don't work you mess around until you find sonething that works.

I think it was found out in its own time. There is a thread of talk among the sci-fi / fearful / weird crowd to the effect that 'humanity is destined to destroy itself'. The companion to this is 'the reason we don't talk to Aliens is that they've all destroyed themselves.'. Apparently (according to the line of thought) once a species acquired nukes it is inevitable that they will destroy themselves. That is probably hogwash. The '23d century tech' bit is the key: they think that somehow, magically, by the 23d century that we would be so enlightened as a species that we could handle the awesome responsibility of having such terrible weapons. If you recall your Star Trek canon, there was a terrible nuclear war, which humanity survived, and two centuries later we were bigger and better than ever. (might also be hogwash)

They. Did. Not. They moderated people who were yelling and screaming and frothing at the mouth. You've always been able to talk bad about the game and the developers. The problem comes when anybody disagrees with you and you freak out.

Saying something so condescending and negative about someone, so confidently and with such little information is absolute bananas to me. Just because some YouTube influencers did some "research" and forum members have obsessively scrutinized every pointless scrap of info doesn't mean we have any clue who's to blame. We don't know what the day to day operations were like. We don't know who was pushing for what, or who was expressing doubts. We don't know what was said at meetings. Nobody who was there can apparently talk at the moment. To publicly condemn a man and call for harm to his career based on so little, and while hiding behind a pseudonym, should be embarrassing.

Matt Lowne said, during his conversation with Harvester on the Tube, that he'd reached out to Nate and got a response saying 'I look forward to talking when I can' or something along those lines. Reading between the lines there, he can't talk right now due to some mitigating factor, no doubt a non-disclosure agreement but it sounded like he'll be able to talk sometime in the not too distant future. If there's anyone who has the full details, it's Nate.

You know, i didn't even think about FAR affecting seaplanes in that way. As for the rest, yeah i left prior to KSP2's "Launch" and then came back to talk mad **** when it went EA lol (Then left again because bored). But that's good to know. Thanks Marr! I need to do some testing now.

Yes and the M-21/D-21 incident did lead to the cancellation of these concepts. But there was a group of aerodynamicsts and Physicists who pointed out that the B-70 and the A-12/SR-70 are aerodynamically VERY different aircraft. Also the X-15 would be mounted 3x higher off the wing than the M-21/D-21 combo with Vertical fins instead of inward canted fins (which is what the D-21 actually struck first.) And lastly, The D-21 had a rudimentary Autopilot that couldn't compensate for anything (exactly how many D-21 pods were recovered.... 1!) So on the scale of tolerances; we are talking about is almost an order of a magnitude greater than the very tightly fit M-21/D-21. All that being said. Yes I agree this was risky. (Note the D-21 wingtips are almost the same width as the rudders!) Re the B-52/X-15 issue. It couldn't at all have to do with the fact they had to cut a huge NOTCH out of the B-52s wing and the eddy and vortice generated were striking the rudder directly on the X-15. B-52 was not an ideal launch platform for something the Size of the X-15. If the B-36 would have been able to fly Faster/Higher it Might have been ok. There was even talk about re-tasking one of the two YB-60s (B-36 with 8 J57s and swept wings) to carry the X-15 in the bomb bay like the B-36 did with its FICON aircraft (Which dropped away, flew their mission and then RETURNED and landed in the B-36 Bomb bay! (In theory) Note the B-60 would not actually do well because the wing was so thick (it was just a B-36 wing with a new center section that gave it a 35 degree sweep) that the B-60 could barely fly once it actually flew and it's handling was... in a word... atrocious. Look how thick the wing is! It is still the worlds largest (in size) all jet bomber aircraft in the world. The Bomb-bay, when equipped with cutouts for the wings, could hold an X-15 similar to how Maestro carried the X-1 and X-2s. I actually know one of the Engineers who flew on Maestro for some of those fascinating X-plane flights. BTW Said engineer was scheduled to fly on the X-1-3 flight under the B-50 mother-ship (I don't remember that one's name now) At the end of the flight (they did not drop the X-1) they were de-fuling the X-1 when the plane exploded. The F-84 there is roughly 4/5ths the size fuselage to fuselage of an X-15. In the Case of the FICON the tail goes into the bomb-bay.

Do not use post it notes to talk on the web.

Musk has always been a manipulating idiot who's failed upwards getting a bigger pile of cash. He's never been actually good, just good at corporate manipulation and control and selling himself as doing things he never did. He's always bought into corporations and manipulated his way to control--sometimes failing and getting fired. Along the way, Musk gathered a cult following who just think he's the best thing since sliced bread. He may have slowly grown to believe his own propaganda, maybe. Careful examination of Musk has always shown this. However, when he played silly buggers with Twitter and got caught in a deal to buy it--which the Twitter Board held him to--Musk got forced to buy Twitter. And now has demonstrated no matter how bad Twitter was before Musk, it was a paradise compared to how it is now. Showing how bad his decisions are about an actual tech company has really shown to more that Musk isn't a genius but an idiot. But I think it's likely his long pile of promises for Tesla will be what sinks him. It will eventually become like Enron but even bigger. How long this will take to play out and how is unknown. But despite Musk convincing first his tame Tesla Board of Directors and then the Shareholders, there's no true justification for him being paid US $45 billion for what he has done. That's a massive share of the profit for every vehicle that Tesla has sold. When its latest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a horrible design--demanded by Musk--and a complete failure. They and other sane investors likely voted against Musk's bonus. But he apparently convinced enough of the Shareholders to get that past. There was a "fear" that Musk would quit as CEO if he didn't get his massive bonus. There's some crazy talk about Musk being vital for the success of Tesla. HOW?!? He's the one destroying it. And the value of Tesla Stock went up after the vote was announced. Stock Market Investors can be quite stupid in the short run. However, when real sales and finance figures come out and it's more and rising failure, things will get rebalanced. When this will catch up to Musk, not sure. But I think it will eventually.

We don't really need to make up any announcements. The official KSP X feed said it best: We are continuing to support, and we will talk when we can. That's about the best you are ever going to get.

Granted. The bottle opener can not only talk, but can automatically identify and open bottles. Unfortunately it thinks you're a bottle and "opens" you (i.e. removes your head). I wish for nothing in particular.

Has been a while since I commented on my own post but I hope that people continue to talk on this post.

They get cancelled quickly because of corporate greed. I wish for one of those lost 2003 bottle openers that talk

Not necessarily. Do you know the Enigma encoder machine from Germany used during WWII? Someone coded it in VB6, creating the machine application where you pressed buttons. At the same time, he released the source code. Various applications could be developed by reusing the code already written on the rotors and pegboard. An interesting application is that you typed the message, pressed a button, it was encoded with the Enigma and it was passed to Morse effortlessly. And vice versa. That is why I do not think we have to start from scratch, but we have to access what has already been written and talk to those who participated. Documentation is very important, whether written or transmitted verbally.