If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Space.com)   What would a Mars colony look like? With KSP looking base. Post your KSP version to the right   (space.com) divider line 233
    More: Interesting, Martians, life on Mars, martian soil, space radiation, manned mission to Mars, Red Planet, ice crystals  
•       •       •

3541 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2013 at 10:00 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 08:43:48 AM  
Put those in the united states and they would attract tornadoes.
 
2013-12-05 09:03:46 AM  
I'm guessing more like an oil rig or perhaps the research station in Antarctica. Where you live and work in the same building.
 
2013-12-05 09:08:24 AM  
Lansdorp
Landsorp
Lansdorp
Landsdorp
Lansdorp
Landsdorp


I commend the author for consistency.
 
2013-12-05 09:09:19 AM  
I was promised geodesic domes.
 
2013-12-05 09:25:25 AM  
I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.
 
2013-12-05 10:04:40 AM  

RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.


My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.
 
2013-12-05 10:07:06 AM  

Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.


Might be your angle of ascent too.
 
2013-12-05 10:09:43 AM  

Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.


One thing I've started doing is putting four large liquid fuel engines/fuel tanks on a rocket (which gets my ships to about 25K meters in altitude) then another booster, then another engine on the capsule. One trick I've found is to throttle back on the liquid engines and your rocket after engines cut out will still gain altitude, so I usually let it ride for another 5K meters or more before staging the next booster, if that make sense. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong still. Fun game, though. What I don't like is the decouplers fail very easily seems like.
 
2013-12-05 10:10:30 AM  
I was promised geodesic domes.

static3.wikia.nocookie.net

Ganymede was promised geodesic domes, and look what that got them.
 
2013-12-05 10:19:51 AM  
I was promised converted fuel tanks from the earth orbital lift rockets.
 
2013-12-05 10:20:20 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.

Might be your angle of ascent too.


I'm almost entirely sure that this is the problem but I don't really know what a good rule of thumb is and my trial and error never gets me far before I need to go do something else.
 
2013-12-05 10:20:34 AM  
lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com

But redder.
 
2013-12-05 10:30:25 AM  
My first ever landing on Duna was quite nearly a success:
img.fark.net
It was a one way trip from the start, so I wasn't too upset I didn't stick the landing.  Besides, it was only Hanmore Kerman.

In Career mode, my first Duna attempted landing resulted in the loss of Bill Kerman because I came out of warp too late...
 
2013-12-05 10:34:32 AM  

The Grim Sleeper: Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.

One thing I've started doing is putting four large liquid fuel engines/fuel tanks on a rocket (which gets my ships to about 25K meters in altitude) then another booster, then another engine on the capsule. One trick I've found is to throttle back on the liquid engines and your rocket after engines cut out will still gain altitude, so I usually let it ride for another 5K meters or more before staging the next booster, if that make sense. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong still. Fun game, though. What I don't like is the decouplers fail very easily seems like.


I'd recommend burning all your rockets at once, rather than daisy-chaining them. Their efficiency increases with altitude, so the faster you get the ship up in the air, the more lift you'll get out of them.

I've had pretty good success with burning straight up to about 15k, then turning 45º to the horizon. Do that until your apoapsis is at least 70k (which would put your highest point outside the atmosphere). Then you can rotate to 0º to the horizon and burn until your periapsis appears on the other side of Kerbin and is >70k.
 
2013-12-05 10:34:34 AM  
What I think it would look like, if done using current understanding of physics, energy, propulsion, and engineering:

wakpaper.com
 
2013-12-05 10:35:01 AM  

Saiga410: I was promised converted fuel tanks from the earth orbital lift rockets.



I blame Thiokol Corp., and USBI.
 
2013-12-05 10:38:25 AM  

Egoy3k: I'm almost entirely sure that this is the problem but I don't really know what a good rule of thumb is and my trial and error never gets me far before I need to go do something else.


Go onto Youtube and search for videos by Scott Manley. He has a lot of KSP tutorials and other fun stuff.
 
2013-12-05 10:39:49 AM  

meanmutton: What I think it would look like, if done using current understanding of physics, energy, propulsion, and engineering:

[wakpaper.com image 850x680]


You complete and utter LUDDITE. Computers got better, therefore your little "physics" and "engineering" are irrelevant.

Physics is just like, a suggestion, man. I saw Star Trek as a kid, you know what I mean? I think there are more elements yet to be discovered in the periodic table that will enable our glorious expansion to the stars.

I mean all you have to do is look through a telescope to see the teeming and thriving alien civilizations out there just waiting for us to join the partay!!
 
2013-12-05 10:43:36 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: What I think it would look like, if done using current understanding of physics, energy, propulsion, and engineering:

[wakpaper.com image 850x680]

You complete and utter LUDDITE. Computers got better, therefore your little "physics" and "engineering" are irrelevant.

Physics is just like, a suggestion, man. I saw Star Trek as a kid, you know what I mean? I think there are more elements yet to be discovered in the periodic table that will enable our glorious expansion to the stars.

I mean all you have to do is look through a telescope to see the teeming and thriving alien civilizations out there just waiting for us to join the partay!!


The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.
 
2013-12-05 10:47:09 AM  

meanmutton: The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.


We are exploring the stars from right here with our telescopes. You seem fixated on some sort of juvenile Indiana Jones of the Stars fantasy about going there in a beat up spaceship and having adventures with biologically similar sexy aliens.

The 19th century spectroscopists explored the Sun without even having airplanes.

See what I mean?

What does "exploring the stars" even mean? It's a catch-all meaningless stock phrase trotted out regularly by people wihout a clue.
 
2013-12-05 10:49:15 AM  

The Grim Sleeper: Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.

One thing I've started doing is putting four large liquid fuel engines/fuel tanks on a rocket (which gets my ships to about 25K meters in altitude) then another booster, then another engine on the capsule. One trick I've found is to throttle back on the liquid engines and your rocket after engines cut out will still gain altitude, so I usually let it ride for another 5K meters or more before staging the next booster, if that make sense. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong still. Fun game, though. What I don't like is the decouplers fail very easily seems like.


Look in to asparagus staging.  In KSP, you draw fuel from the tank furtherest away from your engine.  By connecting lots of small fuel tanks and staging them to drop off from furthest to closest, you can carry more fuel but less weight as you gain altitude.  You may need to use a strut or two on your tanks in combination with decouplers.  Attach fuel ducts inward (note the direction of the arrows - click on the object the fuel is going from and connect it to the object the fuel is going to).  Stage it so the outermost tanks drop in sequence:
img.fark.net
Note: design just to demonstrate the idea - not actually stable on the launchpad. At all.
 
2013-12-05 10:49:43 AM  

meanmutton: Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: What I think it would look like, if done using current understanding of physics, energy, propulsion, and engineering:

[wakpaper.com image 850x680]

You complete and utter LUDDITE. Computers got better, therefore your little "physics" and "engineering" are irrelevant.

Physics is just like, a suggestion, man. I saw Star Trek as a kid, you know what I mean? I think there are more elements yet to be discovered in the periodic table that will enable our glorious expansion to the stars.

I mean all you have to do is look through a telescope to see the teeming and thriving alien civilizations out there just waiting for us to join the partay!!

The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.


He wasn't always such a sad troll. There were times when he actually contributed to conversations. In fact, he occasionally will make postings that have nothing to do with screaming for attention about space/3D printing/Luddites. But since so many people dance for his trolling, those days seem to be getting fewer and fewer. C'est la vie.
 
2013-12-05 10:50:02 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: What does "exploring the stars" even mean? It's a catch-all meaningless stock phrase trotted out regularly by people wihout a clue.


To explore strange new worlds.
To seek out new life and new civilizations.
To boldly go where no one has gone before.

It's like amateur hour here.
 
2013-12-05 10:52:52 AM  
Not that I have any problem with colonization on the moon on Mars, but it doesn't make any sense to me. We have millions of square miles of land not inhabited due to do extreme climates, etc. Two thirds of our planet is water. Why not colonize those areas where there are resources available without having to shoot a rocket into space?

How about colonizing desolate areas of the earth or underwater? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler?
 
2013-12-05 10:54:42 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.

We are exploring the stars from right here with our telescopes. You seem fixated on some sort of juvenile Indiana Jones of the Stars fantasy about going there in a beat up spaceship and having adventures with biologically similar sexy aliens.

The 19th century spectroscopists explored the Sun without even having airplanes.

See what I mean?

What does "exploring the stars" even mean? It's a catch-all meaningless stock phrase trotted out regularly by people wihout a clue.


You're reading a lot into things.  Obviously, that's bunk.  However, being able to safely put people onto Mars, onto asteroids or moons out surrounding other planets in our solar system, onto other planets around other stars -- that would be kind of cool.  Not worth the trillions it would cost to get people to Mars, no, but it's kind of sad to look up at the heavens, see that the near infinite vastness full of stars and planets that no human will ever set foot on.
 
2013-12-05 10:54:45 AM  

Farkomatic: Not that I have any problem with colonization on the moon on Mars, but it doesn't make any sense to me. We have millions of square miles of land not inhabited due to do extreme climates, etc. Two thirds of our planet is water. Why not colonize those areas where there are resources available without having to shoot a rocket into space?

How about colonizing desolate areas of the earth or underwater? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler?


Why would we bother? We aren't running out of nice places to live any time soon.
 
2013-12-05 10:57:05 AM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-12-05 10:57:32 AM  

Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.


Throttle back on launch. You don't need to be at 100%, and typically shouldn't, since you can easily hit terminal velocity going up in the lower atmosphere and the drag will just mean you waste fuel without going any faster. I usually stay around 100-150 m/s until above 10km.
 
2013-12-05 11:00:46 AM  
Haven't managed to land a manned mission on anything but the moons of Kerbal. Anything beyond that is going to be a either a one way trip or a long wait for rescue. KSP is a great game. I will not use Mechjeb, trying to do it the hard way. If I ever manage to dock two spacecraft in orbit I'll be beside myself..
 
2013-12-05 11:00:47 AM  

Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.


Check out "Asparagus staging". Basically you setup fuel lines that burn through your first tanks quickly so you can carry a lot of fuel but you drop extra tanks faster (saving weight). Secondly keep your throttle low for the first part of your accent. My target for the first 5k meters is about 150 m/s.  I can usually do this at about half throttle.  This is because going any faster you waste fuel to atmospheric drag. Thirdly go straight up and then start your turn around 8k - 10k meters. This also reduces fuel consumption because you don't fight the atmosphere horizontally, just get out of it as quickly as possible.
 
2013-12-05 11:01:32 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Quantum Apostrophe: What does "exploring the stars" even mean? It's a catch-all meaningless stock phrase trotted out regularly by people wihout a clue.

To explore strange new worlds.
To seek out new life and new civilizations.
To boldly go where no one has gone before.

It's like amateur hour here.


You assume they are strange. There is plenty of strange here.
We already found new civilizations. We destroyed them.
Yeah, we boldly go to extend our lifespans like no one has before... Oh no, we don't. So much for your boldness and strangeness.

You basically want to meet suburban middle-aged aliens on other planets, but with green skin.

Farkomatic: Not that I have any problem with colonization on the moon on Mars, but it doesn't make any sense to me. We have millions of square miles of land not inhabited due to do extreme climates, etc. Two thirds of our planet is water. Why not colonize those areas where there are resources available without having to shoot a rocket into space?

How about colonizing desolate areas of the earth or underwater? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler?


Yeah but that wasn't what most sci-fi was about when people grew up. It's like a religion. It doesn't make sense either, but you don't suddenly go apostate. Few do.

Instead, you just cling to the fantasies harder and make up ever more complex rationalizations for them.

croesius: meanmutton: Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: What I think it would look like, if done using current understanding of physics, energy, propulsion, and engineering:

[wakpaper.com image 850x680]

You complete and utter LUDDITE. Computers got better, therefore your little "physics" and "engineering" are irrelevant.

Physics is just like, a suggestion, man. I saw Star Trek as a kid, you know what I mean? I think there are more elements yet to be discovered in the periodic table that will enable our glorious expansion to the stars.

I mean all you have to do is look through a telescope to see the teeming and thriving alien civilizations out there just waiting for us to join the partay!!

The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.

He wasn't always such a sad troll. There were times when he actually contributed to conversations. In fact, he occasionally will make postings that have nothing to do with screaming for attention about space/3D printing/Luddites. But since so many people dance for his trolling, those days seem to be getting fewer and fewer. C'est la vie.


So I was fun until we disagreed. I see. Nice to know where you stand.

No one will colonize the Moon or Mars. No one is leaving the Solar System. Not now, not in a hundred years.
3D printing is a mish-mash of unrelated technologies that people lump together and make all kinds of absurd claims about.

There. That's what I'm screaming about.

To sum it up: "Make sense, damn it!"

That's what I shout about. Then I throw in sarcasm and bizarre humor because it amuses me.
 
2013-12-05 11:02:00 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.

We are limited by our current technology to exploring the stars from right here with our telescopes.

 
2013-12-05 11:04:24 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: To sum it up:


i290.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-05 11:06:37 AM  
Go home QA you're dru... no actually this is normal for you. I picture you like Weyland from Prometheus. Very old and near death, hoping technology can prolong your life even if just for one more minute, you cling to this mortal coil. Yet unlike him you fail to see how investing in space can benefit you.

Also you turn every thing everyone says from their original point into "let's go to Mars tomorrow and play golf, also i'm driving to Alpha Centauri tomorrow, what's unrealistic about that?" Then you very easily challenge those arguments that you made up.
 
2013-12-05 11:07:16 AM  

Migrating Coconut: Haven't managed to land a manned mission on anything but the moons of Kerbal. Anything beyond that is going to be a either a one way trip or a long wait for rescue. KSP is a great game. I will not use Mechjeb, trying to do it the hard way. If I ever manage to dock two spacecraft in orbit I'll be beside myself..


Took forever to learn that skill... Easiest is to make sure that your target ship is on a circular equatorial orbit, with its docking port pointed due north or south. That way, it won't change orientation as it orbits.
 
2013-12-05 11:08:40 AM  

meanmutton: Not worth the trillions it would cost to get people to Mars, no, but it's kind of sad to look up at the heavens, see that the near infinite vastness full of stars and planets that no human will ever set foot on.


No human will ever set foot on the core of the Earth either. Is that sad too? Well then go grab a shovel!

Guess what? All those stars and planets? They're the same matter as right here. It's gonna be the same thing.

It's like saying there is an infinite vastness of carbon atoms in China that will never be inside your body. (Considering that a lot of our food comes from there that's not really accurate)

And that makes you sad? Why? You have carbon atoms right here.

It's just that you aggrandize something you'll never have. It's emotional. It's like that chick you walked by and didn't talk to. She's obviously so much hotter and better and smarter and cuter than your real girlfriend, right? Nah, not really.

When you think it through, it makes little to no sense to pine about these things.

For what it's worth, I think there is plenty of life in the universe like we have right here. They probably look at us and think of us as the infinite vastness they'll never set a tentacle on.

So what?

Then toss in the fact that as you say, our engineering and technology are simply too limited to even play in our back yard, and you want to move to another country?

Grow up.
 
2013-12-05 11:09:54 AM  

Farkomatic: Not that I have any problem with colonization on the moon on Mars, but it doesn't make any sense to me. We have millions of square miles of land not inhabited due to do extreme climates, etc. Two thirds of our planet is water. Why not colonize those areas where there are resources available without having to shoot a rocket into space?

How about colonizing desolate areas of the earth or underwater? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler?


I think we should start doing that. Especially deep underwater. It will be great for experimenting on how to build self-containing colonies in harsh environments, which is what we'd be doing if we every get to any of our closer planets.
 
2013-12-05 11:10:06 AM  

The Grim Sleeper: Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.

One thing I've started doing is putting four large liquid fuel engines/fuel tanks on a rocket (which gets my ships to about 25K meters in altitude) then another booster, then another engine on the capsule. One trick I've found is to throttle back on the liquid engines and your rocket after engines cut out will still gain altitude, so I usually let it ride for another 5K meters or more before staging the next booster, if that make sense. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong still. Fun game, though. What I don't like is the decouplers fail very easily seems like.


I've been pretty successful putting just about anything attached to the one-kerbal command pod into orbit around Kerbin by using 2 big rockomax fuel tanks attached underneath the lander stage, surrounded by a set of 6 more 2 big fuel tanks. I have the 7 engines going at launch, but all the fuel is going into the central tank, so when I jettison the six the central has a full tank. After turning to 90 degrees at 10km, I can get about 25k before I need to jettison the six external tanks. Then I just keep burning until i hit 70km (probably wasting fuel doing so, but at least my AP doesn't drop due to drag, so I can have accurate node burns when I make my orbit). Then I still have a ton of fuel in my remaining 2 big tanks, which have so far gotten me to Minmus surface without needing to even use my lander stage, and I can get to the Mun to where I barely need to use my lander stage to finish up, and this design recently got me to a flyby of eve and duna before detaching my lander stage. Still working on how to slow down to orbit eve and duna. My lander stage doesn't have enough fuel to do that yet. Nuclear engines suck for landing on, so I'm having trouble doing more than fly bys
 
2013-12-05 11:12:20 AM  

Slaxl: Yet unlike him you fail to see how investing in space can benefit you.


Oh god, that old canard again. We "invested" in space when we had the technology and resources already in place.

Why don't you go to Russia and see how it benefited them? Oh yeah, look at that, there's no farking connection between the two.

WWII advanced technology like nothing else, should we invest in world wars?

Guess what? Some people are just naturally gifted in one domain and will explore what interests them just fine without barrel-chested hero test pilots in rockets.

Give the money directly to people instead of the dog and pony space/defense show and you'll have the same benefits without the middleman.

Grow up.
 
2013-12-05 11:12:33 AM  

Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.


Overweight astronauts? Too many rocks on board? Are you making the rockets out of lead, by any chance?
 
2013-12-05 11:14:54 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: He wasn't always such a sad troll. There were times when he actually contributed to conversations. In fact, he occasionally will make postings that have nothing to do with screaming for attention about space/3D printing/Luddites. But since so many people dance for his trolling, those days seem to be getting fewer and fewer. C'est la vie.

So I was fun until we disagreed. I see. Nice to know where you stand.


Actually, it is quite forward to say that we disagreed, as I don't recall stating my stance on your hot-button issues. You seem to be knowledgeable on quite a few subjects, especially relating to sciences, and I personally have been educated a few times by your postings. It's just that nowadays, I (and many others) know that as soon as soon as certain stories get greenlit on Fark, we can be sure that the "other" QA will show up in the comments, and thoroughly derail the discussion. In fact, it's to the point now that you don't even have to be present in the comments for this derailment to occur, the initial postings will be comprised of people mourning the inevitable rant which is surely to arrive.
 
2013-12-05 11:15:24 AM  
in before CPL D.
/just kidding Cpl D.
 
2013-12-05 11:15:39 AM  

meanmutton: The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.


Humanity has a long way to go before we should be able to leave our solar system. We've got a lot of stupid to stamp out of existence first.
 
2013-12-05 11:16:14 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: Not worth the trillions it would cost to get people to Mars, no, but it's kind of sad to look up at the heavens, see that the near infinite vastness full of stars and planets that no human will ever set foot on.

No human will ever set foot on the core of the Earth either. Is that sad too? Well then go grab a shovel!

Guess what? All those stars and planets? They're the same matter as right here. It's gonna be the same thing.

It's like saying there is an infinite vastness of carbon atoms in China that will never be inside your body. (Considering that a lot of our food comes from there that's not really accurate)

And that makes you sad? Why? You have carbon atoms right here.

It's just that you aggrandize something you'll never have. It's emotional. It's like that chick you walked by and didn't talk to. She's obviously so much hotter and better and smarter and cuter than your real girlfriend, right? Nah, not really.

When you think it through, it makes little to no sense to pine about these things.

For what it's worth, I think there is plenty of life in the universe like we have right here. They probably look at us and think of us as the infinite vastness they'll never set a tentacle on.

So what?

Then toss in the fact that as you say, our engineering and technology are simply too limited to even play in our back yard, and you want to move to another country?

Grow up.


You are some profoundly desolate wasteland of sentiment. If everyone was like you the human tribe would never have left Africa.
 
2013-12-05 11:16:22 AM  

Theaetetus: Egoy3k: RedPhoenix122: I would, but I can't seem to do anything but shoot into orbit around the sun and run out of fuel.

My standard Kerbal mission ends with my crew orbiting the earth with no fuel. For some reason I'm just burning too much fuel on my launch.

Throttle back on launch. You don't need to be at 100%, and typically shouldn't, since you can easily hit terminal velocity going up in the lower atmosphere and the drag will just mean you waste fuel without going any faster. I usually stay around 100-150 m/s until above 10km.


100-150 m/s?!? I've got places to be, man!

If you have enough thrust, there's no reason you can't accelerate all the way to orbit. When my bottom stage finally detaches and I rotate/burn to create orbit, I'm usually 700-800m/s (somewhere between 70-80k alt, I think). My bottom stage isn't excessive, either - can usually do that with 4 or 5 liquid rockets with the big fuel tanks. But that's also lifting a rover that's the size of my folk's GMC Yukon.

This is all in sandbox, of course. Haven't tried career mode yet, so perhaps this design would be cost-prohibited in some games.
 
2013-12-05 11:19:04 AM  

ThatBillmanGuy: I have the 7 engines going at launch, but all the fuel is going into the central tank, so when I jettison the six the central has a full tank.


You can do even better by cross-feeding fuel between those outer tanks and dropping them in pairs as they run out.

ThatBillmanGuy: Still working on how to slow down to orbit eve and duna.


Aerobraking - let the atmospheric drag do most of the work, then you only need a small burn to fix up the orbit. The trick is to know what altitude to aim for, so look it up on a wiki and/or use the quicksave+restore functions a few times until you figure it out.
 
2013-12-05 11:19:36 AM  
Anyone who says we will never leave this rock, I think, is ignorant. Never is a long time. There may be a way to warp space-time. There may be a way to somehow travel the stars. People several centuries ago said we would never be able to fly.

In our life time? I agree, but never is a long time.

Unless you are talking about the Cubs winning the World Series
 
2013-12-05 11:19:41 AM  

give me doughnuts: Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: The difference, good sir, between you and me is that you seem excited that we can't explore the stars whereas it really makes me kind of sad.

We are limited by our current technology to exploring the stars from right here with our telescopes.


And physics. You know, technology isn't this magical thing that people just wish into existence. Have you noticed that a 747 from 1969 pretty much looks and acts like one from 2013? Yes yes, you have in-flight videos but that's not why you're paying to sit in the thing, right?

Some technologies are just limited and propulsion is one of them. We hit those limits pretty early and pretty hard.

Yes yes, there are improvements in jet engines, I KNOW. But nothing even close to the improvements that would suggest we missed something the first time.

We burn stuff and throw it out one end of a tube. That's it. We can get burnier and tubier, but it's not enough. Sorry.

No one's going anywhere.
 
2013-12-05 11:20:59 AM  

Lando Lincoln: . We've got a lot of stupid to stamp out of existence first.


including statements like this
 
2013-12-05 11:21:28 AM  

Slaxl: Quantum Apostrophe: meanmutton: Not worth the trillions it would cost to get people to Mars, no, but it's kind of sad to look up at the heavens, see that the near infinite vastness full of stars and planets that no human will ever set foot on.

No human will ever set foot on the core of the Earth either. Is that sad too? Well then go grab a shovel!

Guess what? All those stars and planets? They're the same matter as right here. It's gonna be the same thing.

It's like saying there is an infinite vastness of carbon atoms in China that will never be inside your body. (Considering that a lot of our food comes from there that's not really accurate)

And that makes you sad? Why? You have carbon atoms right here.

It's just that you aggrandize something you'll never have. It's emotional. It's like that chick you walked by and didn't talk to. She's obviously so much hotter and better and smarter and cuter than your real girlfriend, right? Nah, not really.

When you think it through, it makes little to no sense to pine about these things.

For what it's worth, I think there is plenty of life in the universe like we have right here. They probably look at us and think of us as the infinite vastness they'll never set a tentacle on.

So what?

Then toss in the fact that as you say, our engineering and technology are simply too limited to even play in our back yard, and you want to move to another country?

Grow up.

You are some profoundly desolate wasteland of sentiment. If everyone was like you the human tribe would never have left Africa.


Thog already have bone, why Thog try shape knife?  Thog is knife nutter.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report