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 (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2013-12-05 11:22:42 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: 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.


launch loop

/although, i do agree using rockets to escape the gravity well is pretty dumb and dangerious
 
2013-12-05 11:22:49 AM

aelat: 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.


Career mode is fun, not really any cost, but most items aren't unlocked until you build enough science points by doing experiments and sending reports back.
 
2013-12-05 11:23:24 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?


It is orders of magnitude more difficult to get to the bottom of the ocean than to get into space.  Two words:  Pressure Gradient
 
2013-12-05 11:23:56 AM

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


It's odd to me that you followed this with posting "grow up" several times, as though that was "disagreement" and not the kind of idiotic trolling he was talking about.
 
2013-12-05 11:25:05 AM

croesius: 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.


I didn't realize a paunchy middle-aged impotent man with no penis who hasn't had sex in over 10 years had this kind of power.

Just be glad I don't use my powers for evil, but rather to educate.

Hot damn, I'm gonna go break some kid's toy rockets now.
/jk
 
2013-12-05 11:25:43 AM

RedPhoenix122: aelat: 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.

Career mode is fun, not really any cost, but most items aren't unlocked until you build enough science points by doing experiments and sending reports back.



Ah, cool. I never knew what the "cost" referred to on the part, assumed it was used somehow in career mode. Haven't played KSP in a couple months, and now I really want to call in sick so I can go home and play. Problem is, I'm already at work, hmm..
 
2013-12-05 11:26:50 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: 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.


Well, burny stuff to launch the meatbags that can't taks high gees. Maybe railguns (or whatever they're called now) to launch the non-meatbaggy things into orbit. Then assemble the parts and go someplace else.
 
2013-12-05 11:27:20 AM

EvilEgg: I'm guessing more like an oil rig or perhaps the research station in Antarctica. Where you live and work in the same building.


You know, they were doing an experiment about 10 years ago, somewhere like Greenland where there was a high altitude volcanic caldera where the thin area and low temps were pretty close. I remember reading about it, one of the guys from Devo was actually going to stay in the facility(I think their target was 6 months or a year of isolation from the rest of the planet), Unfortunately, I can't remember which member of the band, and I can't remember the name of the project, let alone how it turned out, but yeah, it was pretty much a live-and-work in the same place, with a requirement that they wear environmental suits outside, as if they were on Mars.
 
2013-12-05 11:28:16 AM

pastorkius: Thog already have bone, why Thog try shape knife? Thog is knife nutter.


Thog made knife from locally available real materials using real technology in a few days instead of fantasizing about it for half a century.

Thog understand better now?

Thog have no knife in this case. Thog will have to be happy with bone.

A Cave Geek: 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?

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to get to the bottom of the ocean than to get into space.  Two words:  Pressure Gradient


But technology gets better and physics is just like an inconvenient opinion, man.
 
2013-12-05 11:28:58 AM

aelat: RedPhoenix122: aelat: 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.

Career mode is fun, not really any cost, but most items aren't unlocked until you build enough science points by doing experiments and sending reports back.


Ah, cool. I never knew what the "cost" referred to on the part, assumed it was used somehow in career mode. Haven't played KSP in a couple months, and now I really want to call in sick so I can go home and play. Problem is, I'm already at work, hmm..


What's your phone number?  I'll call you up and then you can claim a family emergency.
 
2013-12-05 11:29:23 AM

croesius: 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.


Like anything even remotely linked to 3D printing?

/runs away
 
2013-12-05 11:32:13 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..


This!

I managed to land on Duna a couple of times but I've not made it back. Much rage quitting has occurred do to my docking attempts ...
 
2013-12-05 11:32:40 AM

aelat: 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.


Terminal velocity - you literally cannot go any faster than this at launch:
Altitude (m)Velocity (m/s)
75 - 100.9
1000 - 110.5
2000 - 121.9
3000 - 134.5
4000 - 148.4
5000 - 163.7
6000 - 180.6
7000 - 199.3
8000 - 219.9
9000 - 242.6
10000 - 267.7
12500 - 342.4
15000 - 437.8
20000 - 716
32000 - 2332

After 10km, you can really start pushing things faster, but below that, you're just straining against a brick wall.
 
2013-12-05 11:34:45 AM

mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: 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.

launch loop

/although, i do agree using rockets to escape the gravity well is pretty dumb and dangerious


Well there you go. Another problem solved! I mean that looks perfectly reasonable and feasible.

So let's say you have this magical technology. Now what?

simplicimus: Quantum Apostrophe: 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.

Well, burny stuff to launch the meatbags that can't taks high gees. Maybe railguns (or whatever they're called now) to launch the non-meatbaggy things into orbit. Then assemble the parts and go someplace else.


There you go, even simpler. This stuff is all so simple, one wonders why Russia, the country with the most space firsts, therefore the country with the most benefits (right?), hasn't already built one. Or five for that matter!

Thanks guys, you've made me see the error of my ways. Clearly, this space stuff is simple and doesn't require magical materials or technologies whatsoever.

Just things that are so big as to dwarf everything we've done collectively as a species by several orders of magnitude.

But no worries, we desperately dig in the ground for pockets of natural gas, that's surely the sign of a civilization on the cusp of Galactic Dominion.

What does one wear for Galactic Dominion? I'm never good with these social things.
 
2013-12-05 11:35:34 AM
monsterhuntermoviereviews.comwww.darrenmcgavin.net

I thought it would look like the Wild West, only the buildings were shipping containers.

Thanks, Ray Bradbury.
 
2013-12-05 11:36:22 AM
I know why I go into space exploration threads.... I love space.... but I do question my sanity for not stopping and questioning will this turn into a KSP thread and the possibility that I will become hooked on that sim.
 
2013-12-05 11:36:32 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.


Go for asparagus staging, as per the picture someone else posted but also make sure you have engines on the tanks.  Ignite EVERYTHING on the pad and throttle down to 75% or so once you're off the pad; it's pointless going faster than 200m/s inside the light blue area on Kerbin.  As each pair/quad of tanks on the outer layer empties jettison them.

Yes you can do this with orange tanks and mainsails.  With a 'mega-smasher' and proper staging you can pretty much hump a space station in to high Kerbin orbit in one or two launches.

Also put it in to Sandbox mode and install a mod called MechJeb, it's avaliable on Starport (google Kerbal Starport), lots of people get snitty at using MechJeb but a) I've gotten in to orbit on my own, I know the rocket can do it this is my 50th launch so meh and b) watch what it does and how it works through your stages, when it starts its gravity turns and so on; then mimic it.

Once you're in orbit over Kerbin the amount of fuel you need to get to Mun or Minmus is quite small, pretty much like real life in that respect.
 
2013-12-05 11:37:38 AM

Night Night Cream Puff: croesius: 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.

Like anything even remotely linked to 3D printing?

/runs away


Noted.
 
2013-12-05 11:37:48 AM

Vaneshi: Once you're in orbit over Kerbin the amount of fuel you need to get to Mun or Minmus is quite small, pretty much like real life in that respect.


This is true, however, the tough part is judging speed and angle so you don't miss.
 
2013-12-05 11:43:00 AM

Vaneshi: Yes you can do this with orange tanks and mainsails.  With a 'mega-smasher' and proper staging you can pretty much hump a space station in to high Kerbin orbit in one or two launches.


There's a realism problem there, tho*... When you've got your mega-smasher heavy lifting vehicle and your first set of tanks runs empty at 500m, you haven't even started your gravity turn. You jettison those tanks, and they're going to come right back down and smoosh your space center:
www.tentonhammer.com
So, I always feel bad because I know that I'm not even halfway through the atmosphere and there's a construction crew is already coming out to rebuild the entire launch pad yet again.

*No, not the obvious ones

/I suppose you could try to launch retrograde and see if you can drop a tank right through the open doors of the VAB
 
2013-12-05 11:43:19 AM
agentsofgeek.com
 
2013-12-05 11:44:34 AM

Theaetetus: aelat: 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.

Terminal velocity - you literally cannot go any faster than this at launch:
Altitude (m)Velocity (m/s)
75 - 100.9
1000 - 110.5
2000 - 121.9
3000 - 134.5
4000 - 148.4
5000 - 163.7
6000 - 180.6
7000 - 199.3
8000 - 219.9
9000 - 242.6
10000 - 267.7
12500 - 342.4
15000 - 437.8
20000 - 716
32000 - 2332

After 10km, you can really start pushing things faster, but below that, you're just straining against a brick wall.


If you're topping out at 125m/s (averaging your 100-150) until 10k, you're still going less than half the speed you could be. I'm sticking with, "I've got places to be."
 
2013-12-05 11:44:48 AM

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


No, the ones that keep fantasizing about impossible technologies and remote possibilities are the ones wasting their time.

The ones thinking about reality and what's feasible are what got the "human tribe out of Africa".

You've got the "profoundly desolate wasteland of sentiment." part right, but I'm not the one pining over half-century old techno-fantasies.

Africa, 25000 years ago:

"We could just walk"
"No no! Let's wait for warp drives and the gods surely will ...."

Which one happened?
 
2013-12-05 11:45:52 AM

RedPhoenix122: aelat: RedPhoenix122: aelat: 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.

Career mode is fun, not really any cost, but most items aren't unlocked until you build enough science points by doing experiments and sending reports back.


Ah, cool. I never knew what the "cost" referred to on the part, assumed it was used somehow in career mode. Haven't played KSP in a couple months, and now I really want to call in sick so I can go home and play. Problem is, I'm already at work, hmm..

What's your phone number?  I'll call you up and then you can claim a family emergency.


Too risky - they'd find me out. Better make it a real family emergency.

/make it look like an accident.
 
2013-12-05 11:47:04 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: simplicimus: Quantum Apostrophe: 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.

Well, burny stuff to launch the meatbags that can't taks high gees. Maybe railguns (or whatever they're called now) to launch the non-meatbaggy things into orbit. Then assemble the parts and go someplace else.

There you go, even simpler. This stuff is all so simple, one wonders why Russia, the country with the most space firsts, therefore the country with the most benefits (right?), hasn't already built one. Or five for that matter!

Thanks guys, you've made me see the error of my ways. Clearly, this space stuff is simple and doesn't require magical materials or technologies whatsoever.

Just things that are so big as to dwarf everything we've done collectively as a species by several orders of magnitude.

But no worries, we desperately dig in the ground for pockets of natural gas, that's surely the sign of a civilization on the cusp of Galactic Dominion.

What does one wear for Galactic Dominion? I'm never good with these social things.


I was just pointing out that some technology exists, some is near. We know we can build stuff in low orbit (ISS), so launching something large into space is possible. We still have no where to go that won't (most likely) be a one way trip for humans. And we need to learn more about self-sustaining colonies in unforgiving environments and the social dynamics of small groups of people who will be stuck together for long periods of time.
 
2013-12-05 11:48:01 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Well there you go. Another problem solved! I mean that looks perfectly reasonable and feasible.

So let's say you have this magical technology. Now what?


First...there is nothing magical at all about it. It is basic Newtonian physics.
You want to demonstrate the effect for yourself? Go outside and turn on a high-pressure open ended water hose and watch the hose flail around. The force of the water pressure is simply over coming the weight of the hose. Same basic principle of the launch loop with the difference being magnetic force instead of water pressure force and since the tube of the loop is evacuated of air, means you can build it as high as you like.

As for "now what". Simple...build. explore, learn, have fun, enjoy the new frontier in what ever manner floats your boat.
 
2013-12-05 11:49:26 AM

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

including statements like this


So you're saying that the human race is ready to go and spread our population to other systems? You really believe this?
 
2013-12-05 11:50:16 AM
Quantum Apostrophe:

But technology gets better and physics is just like an inconvenient opinion, man.


Pretty sure that was snark.....not good at picking snark off of written word....
 
2013-12-05 11:50:39 AM

mr lawson: First...there is nothing magical at all about it. It is basic Newtonian physics.


I was asking about the technology. You can plug any numbers you want into Newtonian physics. Now, go build it.

That's like saying earning a million dollars an hour is basic algebra.

Yeah, and?

mr lawson: As for "now what". Simple...build. explore, learn, have fun, enjoy the new frontier in what ever manner floats your boat.


Right here on Earth. Because you failed miserably to demonstrate what TECHNOLOGY would be required. I have a feeling you know very little about materials science.
 
2013-12-05 11:52:24 AM
Theaetetus:
So, I always feel bad because I know that I'm not even halfway through the atmosphere and there's a construction crew is already coming out to rebuild the entire launch pad yet again.

My Kerbals are just happy I stopped the Project Orion static tests on the pad.   Their little squawks translate as "Hurry up with that concrete or she'll get the nukes out again".
 
2013-12-05 11:52:37 AM

Lando Lincoln: So you're saying that the human race is ready to go and spread our population to other systems? You really believe this?


all of the human race? No. People like you do not. Some of us. Yes.
 
2013-12-05 11:52:39 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: No, the ones that keep fantasizing about impossible technologies and remote possibilities are the ones wasting their time.


Oh yeah? What if we discover a comet on a collision course with Earth whose mass renders it an ELE object?

What then, smart guy with all the answers?
 
2013-12-05 11:52:55 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: techno-fantasies.


Here's my techno-fantasy

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-05 11:53:06 AM
KSP?

Korillian Secret Police?

/obscure
 
2013-12-05 11:53:11 AM
Oh sure, it's all fun and games NOW, but you just wait.

web.mit.edu
 
2013-12-05 11:54:14 AM

aelat: Too risky - they'd find me out. Better make it a real family emergency.

/make it look like an accident.


Alright, do you have a preferred family member or just anyone in the vicinity of the blast?
 
2013-12-05 11:54:48 AM

A Cave Geek: Quantum Apostrophe:

But technology gets better and physics is just like an inconvenient opinion, man.


Pretty sure that was snark.....not good at picking snark off of written word....


No no, I've been converted. Hard drives store more information now, therefore every technology scales at the same rate.

It's pretty clear to me now.
/jk

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

including statements like this

So you're saying that the human race is ready to go and spread our population to other systems? You really believe this?


2.bp.blogspot.com

And how! Boy golly gee that there space sure looks fun and easy!
 
2013-12-05 11:56:14 AM

RedPhoenix122: aelat: Too risky - they'd find me out. Better make it a real family emergency.

/make it look like an accident.

Alright, do you have a preferred family member or just anyone in the vicinity of the blast?


Blast?! What are you going to do, tamper with the gas line on my stove?!

Wait, I don't want to know. But I have two cats, and I really don't want to be here right now, so...use your judgement.
 
2013-12-05 11:57:28 AM

mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: So you're saying that the human race is ready to go and spread our population to other systems? You really believe this?

all of the human race? No. People like you do not. Some of us. Yes.


Unfortunately for you super enlightened geniuses, the space program will be funded by cretins like me.
 
2013-12-05 11:58:12 AM
It would be interesting if we got a colony started up on Mars, and then some disaster pushed back civilization and prevented us for going back for a million years.  I wonder how much the species would diverge during that time?
 
2013-12-05 11:58:52 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Now, go build it.


well...i did just purchase 6.3 acres for the express purpose of research and development of it.
Ground breaking should be around Feb.

As for material science. I will admit, i do not have a P.h.D in it. My degree is in Econ. However, living near Oak Ridge, I do know more than a few people who do and they have expressed interest in helping developing it, which is nice i guess.
 
2013-12-05 11:59:39 AM

aelat: Blast?! What are you going to do, tamper with the gas line on my stove?!

Wait, I don't want to know. But I have two cats, and I really don't want to be here right now, so...use your judgement.


Are there any Chinese restaurants in the vicinity of your home?  We can make this real easy.
 
2013-12-05 11:59:40 AM

Lando Lincoln: the space program will be funded by cretins like me.


No....it won't.
 
2013-12-05 12:02:29 PM

mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: Now, go build it.

well...i did just purchase 6.3 acres for the express purpose of research and development of it.
Ground breaking should be around Feb.

As for material science. I will admit, i do not have a P.h.D in it. My degree is in Econ. However, living near Oak Ridge, I do know more than a few people who do and they have expressed interest in helping developing it, which is nice i guess.


OK. Let's watch how it goes. My money is on: "forgotten within a year". At best, you have an expensive and unconventional way of launching a specially-hardened grapefruit into LEO.

In other words, nothing.

Hollie Maea: It would be interesting if we got a colony started up on Mars, and then some disaster pushed back civilization and prevented us for going back for a million years.  I wonder how much the species would diverge during that time?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-05 12:02:53 PM

mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: the space program will be funded by cretins like me.

No....it won't.


Oh really? Who's going to fund it? Richard Branson?
 
2013-12-05 12:03:37 PM

mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: the space program will be funded by cretins like me.

No....it won't.


actually....i take that back.
You very well might get the opportunity to directly help to fund it in exchange for a one time orbital trip around the Earth. Fair?
 
2013-12-05 12:05:04 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: 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!!


Help us, TechoBevets.  You're our only hope.

Seriously, though - this thread is one of your more thoroughly insane efforts.  It's really a work of art.
 
2013-12-05 12:06:14 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: Now, go build it.

well...i did just purchase 6.3 acres for the express purpose of research and development of it.
Ground breaking should be around Feb.

As for material science. I will admit, i do not have a P.h.D in it. My degree is in Econ. However, living near Oak Ridge, I do know more than a few people who do and they have expressed interest in helping developing it, which is nice i guess.

OK. Let's watch how it goes. My money is on: "forgotten within a year". At best, you have an expensive and unconventional way of launching a specially-hardened grapefruit into LEO.

In other words, nothing.


Fair enough. We shall see.
 
2013-12-05 12:06:45 PM

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.


Resources are limited.
Space is limited.
There are tons of man-made and natural factors that would lead to our extinction.

For just those reasons alone, it is a good idea to invest in expanding our options and colonizing new planets (at the very least harvesting). If Earth goes away, then we still have other civilizations. It does not make sense however to disregard the cost and to try to progress faster than technology currently allows. The thing with research and development however with concerns to space exploration is that we learn a lot of cool shiat that improves conditions here in the process. This is completely outside of the deeper reasons of exploring the meaning of our existence, environment, and life in general. I find that we typically learn the most through trial and error, mistake, and pushing the boundaries. This is where breakthroughs come from that speed up our progress significantly. There really isn't much you can lose in this endeavor. The fact that it isn't more of a priority tells me that people are just myopic.
 
2013-12-05 12:09:46 PM

the money is in the banana stand: For just those reasons alone, it is a good idea to invest in expanding our options and colonizing new planets (at the very least harvesting). If Earth goes away, then we still have other civilizations. It does not make sense however to disregard the cost and to try to progress faster than technology currently allows. The thing with research and development however with concerns to space exploration is that we learn a lot of cool shiat that improves conditions here in the process. This is completely outside of the deeper reasons of exploring the meaning of our existence, environment, and life in general. I find that we typically learn the most through trial and error, mistake, and pushing the boundaries. This is where breakthroughs come from that speed up our progress significantly. There really isn't much you can lose in this endeavor. The fact that it isn't more of a priority tells me that people are just myopic.


Not to mentioned the technology developed during this process could be adapted for things that we use every day.
 
2013-12-05 12:10:46 PM
There is a staggering amount of mineral wealth in the asteroid belt and yet somehow QA thinks we won't find a way to exploit it.  I'm assuming that he doesn't really understand humanity and greed all that much.
 
2013-12-05 12:10:49 PM

mr lawson: You very well might get the opportunity to directly help to fund it in exchange for a one time orbital trip around the Earth. Fair?


So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.
 
2013-12-05 12:12:22 PM

Khellendros: Seriously, though - this thread is one of your more thoroughly insane efforts. It's really a work of art.


Oh I know. Completely insane. Pointing out that we're limited to actual materials and real engineering.

Clearly, I just need to believe harder. Not a religion at all.

So, we're alone in the universe? We're the only ones who are going to figure out how to travel among the stars?

How special for us!

Here I was thinking we're just one among countless stars separated by vast gulfs of deadly nothing.

Instead, I now realize the universe is a mall-sized artifact full of like, stuff, man, for us to plunder!

Pack the bags honey, they've put a big rubber band on a tree! We're going to Mars! Yeehaw!!!!
 
2013-12-05 12:13:04 PM

Lando Lincoln: mr lawson: You very well might get the opportunity to directly help to fund it in exchange for a one time orbital trip around the Earth. Fair?

So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.


Duh, obviously. People go diving, therefore we will colonize the ocean floor.

Why are you such a Luddite?
 
2013-12-05 12:17:17 PM
This thread makes me want to buy Starbound.
 
2013-12-05 12:17:53 PM

Lando Lincoln: So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.


In it's entirety? Absolutely not! The purpose of "tourism" plan would be two fold. First, help defray cost of initial R&D and secondly, build goodwill with a large base of people who will not qualify to be part of the continual space operations (plus it will be a hell of a recruitment tool).
 
2013-12-05 12:19:11 PM

the money is in the banana stand: Resources are limited.
Space is limited.
There are tons of man-made and natural factors that would lead to our extinction.


Wow, such caring and passion for the species.

Egoy3k: There is a staggering amount of mineral wealth in the asteroid belt and yet somehow QA thinks we won't find a way to exploit it.  I'm assuming that he doesn't really understand humanity and greed all that much.


That's right. There's staggering mineral wealth dissolved in the ocean too. And?

I suspect you don't understand technology that well. You're a software engineer, or an economist perhaps?

We don't really get rid of the minerals we use here, Sparky. They're all still here, concentrated by previous mining into garbage dumps.

Human greed powered by reality will exploit that resource.

It costs too much to put poor brown people into space suits to go play Miner 2049er in space.

If we had automated space mining, we could do it here for far cheaper.

No one's going to mine asteroids. Perhaps some addle-brained bored billionaire will maybe get a spoon made from an asteroid because he could. Once. But that's it.

You don't really believe what you're saying, do you?

I think you're a dewy-eyed optimistic doofus.
 
2013-12-05 12:19:14 PM
I didn't know you were a singer and songwriter, QA!
 
2013-12-05 12:19:42 PM
cloud-3.steampowered.com
 
2013-12-05 12:21:36 PM

mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.

In it's entirety? Absolutely not! The purpose of "tourism" plan would be two fold. First, help defray cost of initial R&D and secondly, build goodwill with a large base of people who will not qualify to be part of the continual space operations (plus it will be a hell of a recruitment tool).


We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?

They were already bored by Apollo 12.

Get real. Give me your money, at least you'll have helped a real person with real problems. Not played Grown Up LEGOs.
 
2013-12-05 12:22:13 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: If we had automated space mining, we could do it here for far cheaper.

No one's going to mine asteroids. Perhaps some addle-brained bored billionaire will maybe get a spoon made from an asteroid because he could. Once. But that's it.


you realize you just described Planetary Resources, right?
 
2013-12-05 12:22:40 PM
When playing Kerbal space program you build something symmetrical.  If it falls apart during ascent, you add more struts, if it fails to make orbit, you add more boosters
 
2013-12-05 12:22:49 PM

RedPhoenix122: the money is in the banana stand: For just those reasons alone, it is a good idea to invest in expanding our options and colonizing new planets (at the very least harvesting). If Earth goes away, then we still have other civilizations. It does not make sense however to disregard the cost and to try to progress faster than technology currently allows. The thing with research and development however with concerns to space exploration is that we learn a lot of cool shiat that improves conditions here in the process. This is completely outside of the deeper reasons of exploring the meaning of our existence, environment, and life in general. I find that we typically learn the most through trial and error, mistake, and pushing the boundaries. This is where breakthroughs come from that speed up our progress significantly. There really isn't much you can lose in this endeavor. The fact that it isn't more of a priority tells me that people are just myopic.

Not to mentioned the technology developed during this process could be adapted for things that we use every day.


Now you've done it. Don't you know that any technology that spun off from the space program would have been created eventually in some other way anyways? Geesh. You can't just mix your tech around, it has to have a single purpose and never be used or adapted for anything else. And you can never learn more about a given science unless it's in the field of medicine.
 
2013-12-05 12:23:16 PM

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.


When I was having similar issues it was due to me pushing up against terminal velocity while in the atmosphere.
 
2013-12-05 12:23:30 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Get real. Give me your money,


Give give me nothing I value in return. Why would I?
 
2013-12-05 12:24:12 PM

RedPhoenix122: Not to mentioned the technology developed during this process could be adapted for things that we use every day.


Or we could just bypass the middleman and give money directly to scientists and engineers. But no no, it's important to have a middleman.
 
2013-12-05 12:24:44 PM
OK, so I finally looked up that launch loop thing, and from what I can tell, there are two major hurdles for this idea:  Statics and logistics.

Statics:  Small scale models of this idea will have far different physics when built full scale
Logistics.  2000km is a lot of real estate....expensive to maintain.
 
2013-12-05 12:26:03 PM

mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: Get real. Give me your money,

Give give me nothing I value in return. Why would I?


Help your fellow human. I'm part of the species. I could be someone that like invents something totally important but now you'll never know.

That's the usual argument for plowing billions into space fantasies, yes? But it doesn't apply to individuals?
 
2013-12-05 12:26:27 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.

In it's entirety? Absolutely not! The purpose of "tourism" plan would be two fold. First, help defray cost of initial R&D and secondly, build goodwill with a large base of people who will not qualify to be part of the continual space operations (plus it will be a hell of a recruitment tool).

We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?

They were already bored by Apollo 12.

Get real. Give me your money, at least you'll have helped a real person with real problems. Not played Grown Up LEGOs.


So you think we are at our technological maximum right now? Oh wow...
 
2013-12-05 12:27:37 PM

A Cave Geek: OK, so I finally looked up that launch loop thing, and from what I can tell, there are two major hurdles for this idea:  Statics and logistics.

Statics:  Small scale models of this idea will have far different physics when built full scale
Logistics.  2000km is a lot of real estate....expensive to maintain.


Never gonna happen. It's just one of those "promised land" things like religions have.
 
2013-12-05 12:27:46 PM

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.


Use struts between sections to reinforce the structure.
 
2013-12-05 12:28:55 PM

machoprogrammer: Quantum Apostrophe: mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.

In it's entirety? Absolutely not! The purpose of "tourism" plan would be two fold. First, help defray cost of initial R&D and secondly, build goodwill with a large base of people who will not qualify to be part of the continual space operations (plus it will be a hell of a recruitment tool).

We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?

They were already bored by Apollo 12.

Get real. Give me your money, at least you'll have helped a real person with real problems. Not played Grown Up LEGOs.

So you think we are at our technological maximum right now? Oh wow...


Um, have you seen many real changes and breakthroughs in the last 30 years? We're still coasting on physics from the 1920s mostly.

I would really like to know why and how you believe the things you do.
 
2013-12-05 12:29:02 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?


some on Earth always will.
But you are right in one aspect, novelty.
There will be quite of few people who experience it once or even after a few years and will want to go back to Earth (churn rate).

But those who stay for their own reasons (maybe they want to get away from Earth society, maybe they want medical treatment not available on Earth due to restrictions, maybe they are life-long adventures...hundreds of reasons), They are the people I am looking for.
 
2013-12-05 12:31:47 PM

mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?

some on Earth always will.
But you are right in one aspect, novelty.
There will be quite of few people who experience it once or even after a few years and will want to go back to Earth (churn rate).

But those who stay for their own reasons (maybe they want to get away from Earth society, maybe they want medical treatment not available on Earth due to restrictions, maybe they are life-long adventures...hundreds of reasons), They are the people I am looking for.


Wow, you're barely hanging on to reality, aren't you? You better have a "non compos mentis" clause somewhere in your will.
 
2013-12-05 12:31:50 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Help your fellow human. I'm part of the species. I could be someone that like invents something totally important but now you'll never know.

That's the usual argument for plowing billions into space fantasies, yes? But it doesn't apply to individuals?


I care not about individual plights. I care not for the society Earth has adopted. I care only for the survival and sustainability of the species as a whole.
 
2013-12-05 12:33:16 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: 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?



Aside from being lighter, able to carry heavier loads, having greater range, and using less fuel?

Have you noticed that the ion-drive space probes from 1969 look nothing like the ion-drive space probes from 2013?
 
2013-12-05 12:34:23 PM

mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: Help your fellow human. I'm part of the species. I could be someone that like invents something totally important but now you'll never know.

That's the usual argument for plowing billions into space fantasies, yes? But it doesn't apply to individuals?

I care not about individual plights. I care not for the society Earth has adopted. I care only for the survival and sustainability of the species as a whole.


Yeah, that's not a mental breakdown waiting to happen. You only care about your novelties in your bleak, dreadful and misanthropic existence.

Why are you Space Nutters so easy to unmask as total loons?
 
2013-12-05 12:35:20 PM

croesius: Noted.


I know, I was trying an experiment to see if he'd jump on that since it seems to be the hot topic I've noticed him in the most. Experiment failed. C'est la vie.
 
2013-12-05 12:35:31 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: machoprogrammer: Quantum Apostrophe: mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.

In it's entirety? Absolutely not! The purpose of "tourism" plan would be two fold. First, help defray cost of initial R&D and secondly, build goodwill with a large base of people who will not qualify to be part of the continual space operations (plus it will be a hell of a recruitment tool).

We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?

They were already bored by Apollo 12.

Get real. Give me your money, at least you'll have helped a real person with real problems. Not played Grown Up LEGOs.

So you think we are at our technological maximum right now? Oh wow...

Um, have you seen many real changes and breakthroughs in the last 30 years? We're still coasting on physics from the 1920s mostly.

I would really like to know why and how you believe the things you do.


You're more than welcome to go live with only the tech we had 30 years ago. That would at least spare us your idiocy. Make sure you also tell the doctor that any evaluation and treatment for whatever you're visiting him/her must be done only with what was available to them 30 years ago as well.
 
2013-12-05 12:36:39 PM
I don't have a Duna base yet, but here is my latest rover mission to Mun.


http://imgur.com/a/FiBjS

Note: Contains a spoiler. If you don't want to see an easter egg avoid the end.
 
2013-12-05 12:40:20 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: bleak, dreadful and misanthropic existence.


I see no bleak, dreadful and misanthropic future. Only hope and happiness as mankind fully reaches its true potential for greatness as we cast off these fears and doubts of the unknown and unleash the the true loving power of humanity.
 
2013-12-05 12:42:57 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: You're more than welcome to go live with only the tech we had 30 years ago. That would at least spare us your idiocy. Make sure you also tell the doctor that any evaluation and treatment for whatever you're visiting him/her must be done only with what was available to them 30 years ago as well.


Yet none of those things are what's required to enable the insane Space Nutter ideas. Glad to see we agree. 30 years ago we already had computers everywhere, cars and planes did the same thing, houses and food and clothes were the same.

None of the changes from the last 30 years point to better propulsion on the scale to match the size of space. We're still going to LEO and GEO, we're still sending (better) tin cans to take (better) pictures of remote dead rocks.

The basic principles haven't changed in 30 years, and there is nothing to indicate we've missed some huge chunk of physics or chemistry.

I don't know how to put it plainer. You're conflating things that don't compare and think you're clever.

Computers got better. Medical care is better. Fine.

OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?
 
2013-12-05 12:46:37 PM

mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: bleak, dreadful and misanthropic existence.

I see no bleak, dreadful and misanthropic future. Only hope and happiness as mankind fully reaches its true potential for greatness as we cast off these fears and doubts of the unknown and unleash the the true loving power of humanity.


Yet individuals can FOAD. There is no unknown. It's quite known. Space is empty, huge, deadly and hostile. There. Save your money. No one's going anywhere.

I don't see a bleak future either, I see humanity adapting to the realities of our shrinking cheap-energy sources, our limited materials and technology, and building a better and happier future right here on Earth.

Because I have news for you. You seem to think you can run away from what you perceive as the less desirable aspects of humanity in some sort of toy.

But you're bringing humanity with you.

So it makes no sense.

Our future will consist of massive social changes, but selfish, small-minded adult-children gearheads like you can't see that.

Maybe 20 more years?
 
2013-12-05 12:47:49 PM

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

including statements like this

So you're saying that the human race is ready to go and spread our population to other systems? You really believe this?


The idea that we can achieve a Utopia from starting over and change the nature of our species is as preposterous as believing that we can stamp out the stupid here. I don't know about you, but I think it is time that we stop hating each other and find some common ground. Creating a mind-share of best and brightest minds and working toward a common goal will hopefully help unite us rather than the division we have right now. We are becoming increasingly a global society, but instead of promoting community, it is promoting competition and conflict. This is a very good way to distract everyone from the day-to-day problems that are mostly fabrications of having too much damn time on their hands to compare dicks or biatch and moan.
 
2013-12-05 12:48:45 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: But you're bringing humanity with you


only the good kind.
You need not apply.
 
2013-12-05 12:48:51 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Space is empty, huge, deadly and hostile.


So is Australia...
 
2013-12-05 12:49:29 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?



Or I could go buiild a rocket, or a plane, or a car and chances are I'd be building something vastly different from the things we had 300 years ago with different materials, with different physical principles, with different energy sources, with different theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?
 
2013-12-05 12:50:03 PM

the money is in the banana stand: The idea that we can achieve a Utopia from starting over and change the nature of our species is as preposterous as believing that we can stamp out the stupid here.


you stamp out most of the stupid by not allowing the "stupid" to enter in the first place.
 
2013-12-05 12:51:55 PM

give me doughnuts: Quantum Apostrophe: OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?


Or I could go buiild a rocket, or a plane, or a car and chances are I'd be building something vastly different from the things we had 300 years ago with different materials, with different physical principles, with different energy sources, with different theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?


Trust me, guys - you're much better off just putting him on ignore.  He's worse than Bevets or CzarAngelus.  Save yourself the trouble, there's no point in arguing with him.

Never wrestle with a pig.  You'll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
 
2013-12-05 12:52:09 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.


Not the same economics.
Untapped Demand is there
Lower the supply cost and things change.

What is so hard to grasp about this?
 
2013-12-05 12:54:13 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Dingleberry Dickwad: You're more than welcome to go live with only the tech we had 30 years ago. That would at least spare us your idiocy. Make sure you also tell the doctor that any evaluation and treatment for whatever you're visiting him/her must be done only with what was available to them 30 years ago as well.

Yet none of those things are what's required to enable the insane Space Nutter ideas. Glad to see we agree. 30 years ago we already had computers everywhere, cars and planes did the same thing, houses and food and clothes were the same.

None of the changes from the last 30 years point to better propulsion on the scale to match the size of space. We're still going to LEO and GEO, we're still sending (better) tin cans to take (better) pictures of remote dead rocks.

The basic principles haven't changed in 30 years, and there is nothing to indicate we've missed some huge chunk of physics or chemistry.

I don't know how to put it plainer. You're conflating things that don't compare and think you're clever.

Computers got better. Medical care is better. Fine.

OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?


Do you try to be a condescending jerk in these threads, or is it something you can't control? If it's the former, your message gets lost in the delivery. If it's the latter, you have my sympathies.
 
2013-12-05 12:55:46 PM

give me doughnuts: Quantum Apostrophe: OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?


Or I could go buiild a rocket, or a plane, or a car and chances are I'd be building something vastly different from the things we had 300 years ago with different materials, with different physical principles, with different energy sources, with different theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?


No no, you don't understand. You have to look small scale! You're talking 300 years ago! You have to stick to his extremely narrow guidelines for comparing knowledge and tech over a period of time, otherwise his argument looks like the blatherings of a threadshiatting attention whoring troll.
 
2013-12-05 01:01:37 PM

Thrag: I don't have a Duna base yet, but here is my latest rover mission to Mun.


Hey, not bad. Never actually found that one myself.


Now let's see if you can do it with a few more Kerbals...

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com


104 Kerbals to Mun and (almost) back home. I can probably do it by tuning my flight profile for better efficiency, but getting another ~300m/s or so after LKO would also be really helpful.

Payload: ~184 tons. Total rocket is ~1,600 tons on the launchpad. I might stick some nukes on it and try getting one to Duna next...
=Smidge=
 
2013-12-05 01:02:12 PM

the money is in the banana stand: The idea that we can achieve a Utopia from starting over and change the nature of our species is as preposterous as believing that we can stamp out the stupid here. I don't know about you, but I think it is time that we stop hating each other and find some common ground. Creating a mind-share of best and brightest minds and working toward a common goal will hopefully help unite us rather than the division we have right now. We are becoming increasingly a global society, but instead of promoting community, it is promoting competition and conflict. This is a very good way to distract everyone from the day-to-day problems that are mostly fabrications of having too much damn time on their hands to compare dicks or biatch and moan.


Until we move on from our religious/tribal/pre-disposed-to-war ways, we should contain our stupid to this planet. We can't even manage to feed the starving or heal the sick and we want to go even further? That's not a good idea.

I don't think that us working on goals of even further colonization is going to help mend those problems. Unless we colonize Mars and shoot all of the assholes over there so they can start their own asshole colony. Worked for the British and the Pilgrims.
 
2013-12-05 01:02:50 PM

grinding_journalist: Quantum Apostrophe: No, the ones that keep fantasizing about impossible technologies and remote possibilities are the ones wasting their time.

Oh yeah? What if we discover a comet on a collision course with Earth whose mass renders it an ELE object?

What then, smart guy with all the answers?


Then we all die.
 
2013-12-05 01:06:31 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: machoprogrammer: Quantum Apostrophe: mr lawson: Lando Lincoln: So you think that space tourism is going to fund a trip to Mars and beyond. Hm. Well...good luck.

In it's entirety? Absolutely not! The purpose of "tourism" plan would be two fold. First, help defray cost of initial R&D and secondly, build goodwill with a large base of people who will not qualify to be part of the continual space operations (plus it will be a hell of a recruitment tool).

We don't even have supersonic passenger transport right here where everything is. Once the novelty wears off, why do you see people caring about space?

They were already bored by Apollo 12.

Get real. Give me your money, at least you'll have helped a real person with real problems. Not played Grown Up LEGOs.

So you think we are at our technological maximum right now? Oh wow...

Um, have you seen many real changes and breakthroughs in the last 30 years? We're still coasting on physics from the 1920s mostly.

I would really like to know why and how you believe the things you do.


Quantum computers, cell phones, nanobots are all recent developments and pretty dang breakthroughy. Look how much has changed even over the past 5 years. GPSs in our car were breakthrough; now almost no one uses them because our freaking phones can do that.

NASA is actually working on FTL technology and ways to get around the universe. People are lazy and we have been able to, mostly coast using the old physics. However, when that well dries up, greed and ingenuity will push more breakthroughs. Hell, look at the 1400s-1700s. There was no real breakthroughs for 300+ years. Then, in the 1800s, we had the industrial revolution. Then in the 1900s, we had the break technology revolution. And you think not being able to go from "going to space" to "going to another star" in 50 years is a lot? Who knows what is going to happen even 10 years from now
 
2013-12-05 01:09:27 PM

Smidge204: Thrag: I don't have a Duna base yet, but here is my latest rover mission to Mun.

Hey, not bad. Never actually found that one myself.


Now let's see if you can do it with a few more Kerbals...

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 489x757]


104 Kerbals to Mun and (almost) back home. I can probably do it by tuning my flight profile for better efficiency, but getting another ~300m/s or so after LKO would also be really helpful.

Payload: ~184 tons. Total rocket is ~1,600 tons on the launchpad. I might stick some nukes on it and try getting one to Duna next...
=Smidge=


I'd switch the positions of the orage tanks and the half-height ones that are just above them. The metal tanks conduct heat better than the foam tanks and can help lower the risk of overheats
 
2013-12-05 01:09:34 PM

RedPhoenix122: Not to mentioned the technology developed during this process could be adapted for things that we use every day.


This is where I disagree with most people. Technology should researched for what we use every day, and use that offshoots of that research to get into space.

E.g. working fusion and super-conductors go a long way into solving a lot of space exploration problems.
 
2013-12-05 01:11:11 PM

impaler: RedPhoenix122: Not to mentioned the technology developed during this process could be adapted for things that we use every day.

This is where I disagree with most people. Technology should researched for what we use every day, and use that offshoots of that research to get into space.

E.g. working fusion and super-conductors go a long way into solving a lot of space exploration problems.


True, but advances in propulsion technology could go a long way into solving our energy crisis.
 
2013-12-05 01:11:23 PM
Quantum Apostrophe:
No, the ones that keep fantasizing about impossible technologies and remote possibilities are the ones wasting their time.

img.photobucket.com

There are rules in life! We cannot fly to the moon. We cannot defy death. We must face facts, not folly. You don't live in the real world.
 
2013-12-05 01:14:05 PM

Lando Lincoln: the money is in the banana stand: The idea that we can achieve a Utopia from starting over and change the nature of our species is as preposterous as believing that we can stamp out the stupid here. I don't know about you, but I think it is time that we stop hating each other and find some common ground. Creating a mind-share of best and brightest minds and working toward a common goal will hopefully help unite us rather than the division we have right now. We are becoming increasingly a global society, but instead of promoting community, it is promoting competition and conflict. This is a very good way to distract everyone from the day-to-day problems that are mostly fabrications of having too much damn time on their hands to compare dicks or biatch and moan.

Until we move on from our religious/tribal/pre-disposed-to-war ways, we should contain our stupid to this planet. We can't even manage to feed the starving or heal the sick and we want to go even further? That's not a good idea.

I don't think that us working on goals of even further colonization is going to help mend those problems. Unless we colonize Mars and shoot all of the assholes over there so they can start their own asshole colony. Worked for the British and the Pilgrims.


You use the word "we" a lot. Our species isn't the problem as a whole. The only way of really fixing the problem is culling the herd. We have agreed that isn't the humane thing to do, so here we are.
 
2013-12-05 01:17:48 PM

the_sidewinder: I'd switch the positions of the orage tanks and the half-height ones that are just above them. The metal tanks conduct heat better than the foam tanks and can help lower the risk of overheats


That's so pre .22 thinking.

Seriously, the overheating issue was fixed with the .22 release. Check it out.
 
2013-12-05 01:22:11 PM
I think we can all agree that Quantum Apostrophe is both a turd and an attention whore.  That said, arguing with him makes no sense, for he clearly lacks any sense of wonder in his soul.

Oh, and I just started playing KSP yesterday and so far I've gotten to where I can get a guy into orbit, but he gets stranded there due to lack of fuel.  I purposefully pushed him back into the planet (landed safely) because I just couldn't stand the idea of having a space mummy endlessly in orbit.  Better a high velocity viking funeral than cold starvation.

Any ideas when the next update is?
 
2013-12-05 01:22:48 PM
Hey, so long as someone who calls himself The Doctor doesn't happen to visit, it's all good.

/not obscure
 
2013-12-05 01:23:20 PM

Egoy3k: 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.


I'm fairly new to KSP.  Had the same problem.

I start tilting around 19k, tilt to 45 degrees for a bit, and around 35k start tilting more and more until I can tell I have the vertical speed to go past 70.  Then I go horizontal and blast to get up to orbit speed.

Something that came to an epiphany to me was that you can stack fuel tanks.  I was using an engine (motor?) with every tank and was in the same position you were in.  Now i have satellites circling the Mun and off in space everywhere.  I even have a kerbal stranded on the moon because I put a goo container close enough to the hatch as to block him from grabbing it.  His rescue party is currently out of fuel and permanently orbiting Mun lololol.

Fun game but I'll prolly put it down when my Arduino kit comes in tomorrow.
 
2013-12-05 01:25:23 PM

Migrating Coconut: I will not use Mechjeb,


Same here.  I consider it cheating.
 
2013-12-05 01:31:00 PM

KidneyStone: Migrating Coconut: I will not use Mechjeb,

Same here.  I consider it cheating.


I don't think it's cheating. Modern spacecraft can do everything without a human. I just want to do it without Mechjeb. After I am able to do it and it be routine, maybe i'll install it.. until then... no...
 
2013-12-05 01:37:22 PM

the money is in the banana stand: You use the word "we" a lot. Our species isn't the problem as a whole. The only way of really fixing the problem is culling the herd. We have agreed that isn't the humane thing to do, so here we are.


Welp, until shooting dumb people in the head is legal, we're stuck. So perhaps we can work on making dumb people less dumb, or letting the terminally dumb die off and don't replace them with more terminally dumb people.
 
2013-12-05 01:43:43 PM
Just watch out for Martian mermaids!
 
2013-12-05 01:45:14 PM

KidneyStone: Migrating Coconut: I will not use Mechjeb,

Same here.  I consider it cheating.


Engineer redux is great. All the data, none of the automation.
 
2013-12-05 01:48:31 PM

Smidge204: Thrag: I don't have a Duna base yet, but here is my latest rover mission to Mun.

Hey, not bad. Never actually found that one myself.


Now let's see if you can do it with a few more Kerbals...

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 489x757]


104 Kerbals to Mun and (almost) back home. I can probably do it by tuning my flight profile for better efficiency, but getting another ~300m/s or so after LKO would also be really helpful.

Payload: ~184 tons. Total rocket is ~1,600 tons on the launchpad. I might stick some nukes on it and try getting one to Duna next...
=Smidge=


That's a hell of a rocket.
 
2013-12-05 01:50:40 PM

impaler: Seriously, the overheating issue was fixed with the .22 release. Check it out.


Though it is true that the center engines of those clusters get about 50% overheated, that's due to crowding more than anything. Those stages burn out pretty quick anyway. The real problem is the thing wanting to disassemble itself. Currently it's ~740 parts with at least a third of those being struts.

Other tips on improving efficiency would be nice. "Asparagus" staging will not work with such a heavy payload since you can't keep the TWR above 1. This thing is a real slowpoke off the pad.

Maybe it's time to try "Moar boosters"...


Migrating Coconut: After I am able to do it and it be routine, maybe i'll install it.. until then... no...


Having tried it I find it rather unreliable for flying larger rockets. At best I'll use it to set up maneuver nodes for interplanetary missions, but i've been meaning to use the protractor mod instead and try it manually. Trying to line up the orbits by eye is such a crapshoot.

+1 for Engineering Redux though. Very helpful.


MadMonk: Just watch out for Martian mermaids!


chungkingmansions.com

?
=Smidge=

 
2013-12-05 02:05:42 PM

impaler: That's so pre .22 thinking.

Seriously, the overheating issue was fixed with the .22 release. Check it out.


I dunno, I've still had some mainsails get pretty damn close to overheating, hell, taking the same lifter design I built in .21, I got pretty much the same thermal load in .22

/and the changelog doesn't seem to mention any changes to that system either
//I'm also eagerly awaiting .23 as I've run out of things to spend science on, but have not yet run out of things to perform science on
cloud-4.steampowered.com
 
2013-12-05 02:08:09 PM

KidneyStone: Migrating Coconut: I will not use Mechjeb,

Same here.  I consider it cheating.


IMHO MechJeb is fair game once you have successfully done the same task (e.g. launching into a circular orbit) manually.
 
2013-12-05 02:12:50 PM

the_sidewinder: impaler: That's so pre .22 thinking.

Seriously, the overheating issue was fixed with the .22 release. Check it out.

I dunno, I've still had some mainsails get pretty damn close to overheating, hell, taking the same lifter design I built in .21, I got pretty much the same thermal load in .22

/and the changelog doesn't seem to mention any changes to that system either
//I'm also eagerly awaiting .23 as I've run out of things to spend science on, but have not yet run out of things to perform science on
[cloud-4.steampowered.com image 850x531]


What's the best way to get all that science? I softlanded probes on the two moons and 1 planet and didn't come near to all of that. Even reporting over and over until i was getting nothing for it.
 
2013-12-05 02:19:47 PM

Migrating Coconut: What's the best way to get all that science? I softlanded probes on the two moons and 1 planet and didn't come near to all of that. Even reporting over and over until i was getting nothing for it.


The Mun and Kerbin have areas called Biomes where the same tests can be performed again for more science. If you are using probes (as I did past Minmus) you should do your science both in orbit around any celestial body you are in the SOI of, and on the surface of that body. Lastly, don't forget the classic science parts (Thermometer, barometer, accelerometer and the negative gravioli detector), they are quite useful for getting lots of science. Though I think the gravity detector has an issue where it says that it has more science to give than it can
 
2013-12-05 02:24:24 PM

Migrating Coconut: What's the best way to get all that science? I softlanded probes on the two moons and 1 planet and didn't come near to all of that. Even reporting over and over until i was getting nothing for it.


http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Science has some tips. You can start with missions which orbit Kerbin and land in various regions, then send out distant probes after you have unlocked more of the scientific instruments.
 
2013-12-05 02:27:49 PM
the_sidewinder:

The Mun and Kerbin have areas called Biomes where the same tests can be performed again for more science. If you are using probes (as I did past Minmus) you should do your science both in orbit around any celestial body you are in the SOI of, and on the surface of that body. Lastly, don't forget the classic science parts (Thermometer, barometer, accelerometer and the negative gravioli detector), they are quite useful for getting lots of science. Though I think the gravity detector has an issue where it says that it has more science to give than it can

I guess i haven't unlocked some of those. I use the goo canister and the larger experment as well as the thermometer, baramoter. Don't have the other two or haven't noticed them in the tech tree. I also managed to get a probe into orbit around the farthest planet out there but ran out of fuel before i could attempt a landing. It's current orbit intersects with one of the moons there, maybe i'll get lucky and it will crash and survive.
 
2013-12-05 02:30:32 PM

the_sidewinder: Migrating Coconut: What's the best way to get all that science? I softlanded probes on the two moons and 1 planet and didn't come near to all of that. Even reporting over and over until i was getting nothing for it.

The Mun and Kerbin have areas called Biomes where the same tests can be performed again for more science. If you are using probes (as I did past Minmus) you should do your science both in orbit around any celestial body you are in the SOI of, and on the surface of that body. Lastly, don't forget the classic science parts (Thermometer, barometer, accelerometer and the negative gravioli detector), they are quite useful for getting lots of science. Though I think the gravity detector has an issue where it says that it has more science to give than it can


I built what I call the "Triple Hop Explorer" - a heavy lifter to the Mun, with a payload of a command module and three separate sets of science bays, temp sensors, grav detectors, etc., and plenty of fuel. Choosing carefully using one of the biome maps on the KSP wiki, you set down in one biome, and take readings and ground samples; gently lift off and travel to the nearest different biome, repeat; and then once more; and finally return home (usually using aerobraking if I'm running low on fuel). Each mission ends up being around 2500 science.
 
2013-12-05 02:37:04 PM

Theaetetus: I built what I call the "Triple Hop Explorer" - a heavy lifter to the Mun, with a payload of a command module and three separate sets of science bays, temp sensors, grav detectors, etc., and plenty of fuel. Choosing carefully using one of the biome maps on the KSP wiki, you set down in one biome, and take readings and ground samples; gently lift off and travel to the nearest different biome, repeat; and then once more; and finally return home (usually using aerobraking if I'm running low on fuel). Each mission ends up being around 2500 science.


I did something similar for the Mun Biomes, but in a way that took me much more time that yours would have. (Curses and such) I built a large kerbined rover and landed it near an intersection of 3 biomes, and drove it around each, doing all the science. The rover is still on the Mun, though I did send a recovery vessel for the Kerbal (Bill, Jeb was elsewhere on the Mun). I'm looking forward to .23 where I can finally transfer the mission logs off that rover...
 
2013-12-05 02:38:13 PM
I really need to get around to getting this KSP game... All this talk constantly makes me want to shoot those green people to the sun...
 
2013-12-05 02:45:11 PM
Wouldn't be a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe shiatting on everyone who dares to post anything remotely optimistic about anything.

WE GET IT, YOU HATE SPACE.  YOU'RE SO EDGY AND ENLIGHTENED, AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE THREAD ARE CHILDISH IMBECILES THAT DESERVE NOTHING BUT YOUR MOCKERY.
 
2013-12-05 03:17:28 PM

GleeUnit: Wouldn't be a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe shiatting on everyone who dares to post anything remotely optimistic about anything.

WE GET IT, YOU HATE SPACE.  YOU'RE SO EDGY AND ENLIGHTENED, AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE THREAD ARE CHILDISH IMBECILES THAT DESERVE NOTHING BUT YOUR MOCKERY.


I'm pretty sure he has clinical depression.  Man needs Zoloft and talk therapy.

/and I'm not bringing up the subject ever again
//nice people get multiple reminders
///angry people get 1
 
2013-12-05 03:21:40 PM

Theaetetus: aelat: 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.

Terminal velocity - you literally cannot go any faster than this at launch:
Altitude (m)Velocity (m/s)
75 - 100.9
1000 - 110.5
2000 - 121.9
3000 - 134.5
4000 - 148.4
5000 - 163.7
6000 - 180.6
7000 - 199.3
8000 - 219.9
9000 - 242.6
10000 - 267.7
12500 - 342.4
15000 - 437.8
20000 - 716
32000 - 2332

After 10km, you can really start pushing things faster, but below that, you're just straining against a brick wall.


You've got a funny idea about terminal velocity. It only works going the other way and only unpowered. One can easily reach and exceed those speeds but it isn't worth the extra effort. That's why the general rule of thumb is to stay around 200m/s until over 10k meters.
 
2013-12-05 03:38:40 PM
This thread needs more Kerbal posts
 
2013-12-05 03:46:19 PM
Quantum Apostrophe:
OK, now go build a rocket, or a plane, or a car. Chances are, you'd build the same thing as we had 30 years ago with the same materials, the same physical principles, the same energy sources, the same theories.

What is so hard to grasp about this?


Plasma engines (rocket), carbon fiber bodies (plane) and gas/electric hybrids (car.)

What's so hard to grasp about being incorrect?
 
2013-12-05 04:18:24 PM
So is Q.Asshole just an Asshole in any thread hes in, or just the geek ones.

Because I only ever see him in the geek ones, being an asshole.
 
2013-12-05 04:20:17 PM
Gravity wells are poor targets for early colonies, the Moon excluded. All targets should represent wet low energy destinations that can support vast microbial life, like QA's mom.
 
2013-12-05 04:20:18 PM
Why have a normal base when you can have one that moves?img.fark.net
 
2013-12-05 04:31:55 PM
i.imgur.com
Linking this one because it needs to be huge sized to see the underside ports. This is my overly elaborate Mun Hotel in progress. It sits just outside the rim of a crater inside another crater, making for a nice dramatic landscape. The underside ports will host crew pods to serve as rooms as well as a scaffold that serves as a docking garage for vehicles and a link outside the "dome" for the fuel depot and launch pad. Sandbox mode, not far from an arch. That is good for my next idea assuming arches are solid and not like the memorials and ground scatter.
 
2013-12-05 04:39:31 PM

Smidge204: Thrag: I don't have a Duna base yet, but here is my latest rover mission to Mun.

Hey, not bad. Never actually found that one myself.


Now let's see if you can do it with a few more Kerbals...




104 Kerbals to Mun and (almost) back home. I can probably do it by tuning my flight profile for better efficiency, but getting another ~300m/s or so after LKO would also be really helpful.

Payload: ~184 tons. Total rocket is ~1,600 tons on the launchpad. I might stick some nukes on it and try getting one to Duna next...
=Smidge=


Wow.
 
2013-12-05 04:43:55 PM

Mentalpatient87: [i.imgur.com image 800x450]
Linking this one because it needs to be huge sized to see the underside ports. This is my overly elaborate Mun Hotel in progress. It sits just outside the rim of a crater inside another crater, making for a nice dramatic landscape. The underside ports will host crew pods to serve as rooms as well as a scaffold that serves as a docking garage for vehicles and a link outside the "dome" for the fuel depot and launch pad. Sandbox mode, not far from an arch. That is good for my next idea assuming arches are solid and not like the memorials and ground scatter.


How are you going to dock those additional elements from underneath?  Is the surface even enough that you just drive them underneath and the 'close-enough' feature docks them?
 
2013-12-05 04:49:30 PM
Below is a link the the most amazing and complex KSP mission I have ever seen. It is a joy and a pleasure to watch.

It is a complex Duna mission, and return mission.

I hope you all enjoy it as well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp6yj2k0Fpc&feature=youtube_gdata_pl ay er


Here is another Amazing KSP mission he did, a recreation of the Curiosity Lander/Rover!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RzFaEF5Rg&feature=youtube_gdata_pl ay er

Enjoy!
 
2013-12-05 05:17:47 PM

Heliovdrake: Below is a link the the most amazing and complex KSP mission I have ever seen. It is a joy and a pleasure to watch.

It is a complex Duna mission, and return mission.

I hope you all enjoy it as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp6yj2k0Fpc&feature=youtube_gdata_pl ay er


No wai, that's amazing. He's doing stuff I've never even seen. Bah, no wonder the best I've been able to do is fire a rocket into the sun.

Also, is it just me or wouldn't it be great if it was a little less cartoony and more realistic. To have our solar system instead of theirs. Also people, with traits and skills, and families, so you might feel bad if they died. As it is I feel nothing when I send intrepid explorers into their sun.
 
2013-12-05 05:32:43 PM

Slaxl: Heliovdrake: Below is a link the the most amazing and complex KSP mission I have ever seen. It is a joy and a pleasure to watch.

It is a complex Duna mission, and return mission.

I hope you all enjoy it as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp6yj2k0Fpc&feature=youtube_gdata_pl ay er

No wai, that's amazing. He's doing stuff I've never even seen. Bah, no wonder the best I've been able to do is fire a rocket into the sun.

Also, is it just me or wouldn't it be great if it was a little less cartoony and more realistic. To have our solar system instead of theirs. Also people, with traits and skills, and families, so you might feel bad if they died. As it is I feel nothing when I send intrepid explorers into their sun.


1. Remember KSP isnt even close to finished yet, and
2. People already have tons of mods for it, there are a few True Solar System mods out there already look around!

This is the kind of game that I think is good for society, it gets people interested in space, science, math an technology.
 
2013-12-05 05:45:57 PM

Mentalpatient87: [i.imgur.com image 800x450]
Linking this one because it needs to be huge sized to see the underside ports. This is my overly elaborate Mun Hotel in progress. It sits just outside the rim of a crater inside another crater, making for a nice dramatic landscape. The underside ports will host crew pods to serve as rooms as well as a scaffold that serves as a docking garage for vehicles and a link outside the "dome" for the fuel depot and launch pad. Sandbox mode, not far from an arch. That is good for my next idea assuming arches are solid and not like the memorials and ground scatter.


I saw a screenshot of someone that landed on an arch recently.
 
2013-12-05 05:49:24 PM
i only recently started barely dicking around with KSP and i think it is one of the most amazing and intimidating games i have ever farked around with.  i dont know if i have the time or patience to do anything nearly as awesome as i would want to.
 
2013-12-05 06:40:36 PM
People still bite QA's trolling?  Wow...
 
2013-12-05 06:45:35 PM

Markoff_Cheney: i only recently started barely dicking around with KSP and i think it is one of the most amazing and intimidating games i have ever farked around with.  i dont know if i have the time or patience to do anything nearly as awesome as i would want to.


The learning curve is indeed steep, but once over things get to be second nature. At this point I can slap together a rocket for a given mission pretty quickly. I would recommend getting the Engineer redux plug in or MechJeb. I did without any such plugins until just a couple of week ago and I wish I have checked them out sooner. Even if you don't plan to use the automation, MechJeb's delta-V screen is of immense value when building a rocket (I haven't checked out Engineer redux myself yet but I will have to do given I keep seeing it being reccomended).

There is a strong community so getting answers on how to do things or ideas for good rocket designs is pretty easy.
 
2013-12-05 06:54:09 PM

Heliovdrake: Below is a link the the most amazing and complex KSP mission I have ever seen. It is a joy and a pleasure to watch.

It is a complex Duna mission, and return mission.

I hope you all enjoy it as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp6yj2k0Fpc&feature=youtube_gdata_pl ay er


Here is another Amazing KSP mission he did, a recreation of the Curiosity Lander/Rover!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RzFaEF5Rg&feature=youtube_gdata_pl ay er

Enjoy!


Now I know how the people who post "I built a dirt house" on minecraft forums feel.
 
2013-12-05 06:55:43 PM

Migrating Coconut: I will not use Mechjeb


The MechJeb plug is in more than automation. I installed it initially just for the various info panels. Even if you never plan to use the automation being able to see orbit stats, delta-V stats, etc. is really valuable.

I only started using automation when I built a large probe with an ion engine to make a tour of the various planets to gather science. It's thrust to weight ratio was so low that burns could take hours. I set up mechjeb and left the game on the background.

Gallery of The Slow Probe being launched.

Here it is orbiting Jool
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 06:57:13 PM
ive read up quite a bit and downloaded mechjeb but havent used it.  again its more of a time constraint/attention span thing.  although i read the updated added some proper missions with objectives instead of just... GO TO SPACE OR DIE TRYING!  i always end up firing up something else whenever i sit here after all the news is read.
 
2013-12-05 06:59:39 PM
One more screenshot. Someone was asking above how to gather science. Early in my career game before I had things like solar panels enabling me to transmit science back to Kerbin I sent several of these out to orbit Kerbin, then Mun and finally Minmus to get science by flying over the various biomes and bring it back home.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 07:10:41 PM

FrancoFile: How are you going to dock those additional elements from underneath? Is the surface even enough that you just drive them underneath and the 'close-enough' feature docks them?


I'm glad you asked. The plan is to drive the craft into place underneath a port and use a small bit of thrust to lift it up there. I'm thinking a Hitchhiker pod, a tiny tank and some little bitty engines will dock and undock from a reusable trundler. Basically drive it in from the side and jam it up from underneath.
 
2013-12-05 07:14:28 PM
I imagine it will look a lot like Moonbase Alpha
 
2013-12-05 07:17:01 PM

Mentalpatient87: FrancoFile:  Basically drive it in from the side and jam it up from underneath.


we are still talking about the game right?
 
2013-12-05 07:23:41 PM

Cormee: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x341]



They all die of dysentery?
 
2013-12-05 07:26:27 PM

Markoff_Cheney: Mentalpatient87: FrancoFile:  Basically drive it in from the side and jam it up from underneath.

we are still talking about the game right?


We're talking about whatever you wanna talk about, sweet cheeks.
 
2013-12-05 07:38:11 PM

Thrag: Wow.


Thanks, but that's not "wow" territory. That's a tiny rocket compared to some of the things other have made. I'm a coward.

You ought to check out Scott Manley's YouTube channel. Man's got skills and dedication.


So now that I'm home again, here's a base with 104 Kerbals on the Mun:


www.smidgeindustriesltd.com

That's actually a lie; it's empty. Kerbals don't have mass when inside the ship, so until I have it tweaked to get to the Mun and back it'll be unmanned missions only. If it had enough fuel it's capable of returning home and landing safely on land or sea.

Here it is motoring its way from LKO to Mun. Six Aerospikes give it a respectable TWR of over 3 on Mun with full fuel tanks.

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
Sorry for the bad lighting. To make up for it, here's a pic of my orbital refueling station with two revisions of my SSTO spaceplane docked to it:

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
=Smidge=
/Best game since Minecraft, IMHO
 
2013-12-05 07:47:31 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: mr lawson: Quantum Apostrophe: Now, go build it.

well...i did just purchase 6.3 acres for the express purpose of research and development of it.
Ground breaking should be around Feb.

As for material science. I will admit, i do not have a P.h.D in it. My degree is in Econ. However, living near Oak Ridge, I do know more than a few people who do and they have expressed interest in helping developing it, which is nice i guess.

OK. Let's watch how it goes. My money is on: "forgotten within a year". At best, you have an expensive and unconventional way of launching a specially-hardened grapefruit into LEO.

In other words, nothing.

Hollie Maea: It would be interesting if we got a colony started up on Mars, and then some disaster pushed back civilization and prevented us for going back for a million years.  I wonder how much the species would diverge during that time?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 325x551]


The body was found on the Moon, not Mars in Inherit The Stars.
 
2013-12-05 09:12:15 PM
img.fark.net

For my first mission to Duna, I took a monster truck. The top section returned to orbit and the crew went home on nuclear power.


img.fark.net

The final mission of my first Science campaign took 5 probes to the Jool system, one per moon. It ended up getting over 13,000 science, even though two of the landings were unsuccessful.
 
2013-12-05 09:53:50 PM

ArmoksHolyBeard: Why have a normal base when you can have one that moves?[img.fark.net image 850x510]


I was trying at one point to build a big rover like that with the giant wheels and multiple hab modules, but I had so much trouble in the build interface getting things to attach. How the heck do you even build something like that?
 
2013-12-05 10:00:48 PM
This KSP sounds like fun. I'm jealous of all you guys with functioning computers (my 2001 shiatbox died a month ago and it was too slow to play YouTube by then anyway)
 
2013-12-05 10:14:47 PM

Ivo Shandor: 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.


I will try that! How clever
 
2013-12-05 10:25:11 PM
How do you guys get rovers to... Anywhere? I have no idea how to even attach it to my rockets, and then disengage it to drive it around.
 
2013-12-05 10:46:15 PM

ThatBillmanGuy: How do you guys get rovers to... Anywhere? I have no idea how to even attach it to my rockets, and then disengage it to drive it around.


I like to use docking rings (and struts to stabilized them) but you can also use stack decouplers if you don't mind leaving the rover behind
 
2013-12-05 10:59:35 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: 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.


so base.  Food: eat and poop.  Like an animal.  Animals don't fly in space, well, um, some do, but only because us gifted humans put them there.  We must shine our candles, and do the hard things, not because they are easy (like eating and pooping) but because they are hard, like spaceflight.  Spaceflight inspires our hearts and minds, not our mouths and digestive tracts.
 
2013-12-05 11:04:51 PM
KSP = Keralian Secret Police??
 
2013-12-05 11:21:05 PM

ThatBillmanGuy: How do you guys get rovers to... Anywhere? I have no idea how to even attach it to my rockets, and then disengage it to drive it around.


I always go with a rover that lands on the surface Skycrane style. The transfer stage decouples leaving the bottom free and you land using a quad cluster of weaker engine on a tank strapped to the top. When you're on the ground and ready to let the landing stage go, just throttle it up a tiny bit and hit the decoupler. It'll fly off and crash somewhere in a spectacular fashion. Or even boost itself back into deep space.

And I have to chime in for Scott Manley on Youtube as well. It sounds corny, but watching his videos are the best way to learn to play the game. They're also not terrible to watch, either. I wait for new episodes of his Interstellar Series daily. It drove me to install the Kethane mod, Kerbal Attachment System, and a couple of the popular part packs. No Remote Tech, though, it seems too farky.

Tobin_Lam: I saw a screenshot of someone that landed on an arch recently.


blog.khanneasuntzu.com
Operation: Medallion is go.
 
2013-12-05 11:29:17 PM

Mentalpatient87: And I have to chime in for Scott Manley on Youtube as well. It sounds corny, but watching his videos are the best way to learn to play the game. They're also not terrible to watch, either. I wait for new episodes of his Interstellar Series daily.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 11:40:47 PM
I use the small Mechjeb controller. Automation is nice when you have like 5+ minute burns. As I type this I'm 3 minutes into a 5 minute burn, and I've got Smart A.S.S. set to keep the ship pointed at the node marker, but I'm still watching the timer to manually kill the throttle at the right time.
 
2013-12-05 11:42:10 PM
How do you get multiple kerbals on an EVA?
 
2013-12-05 11:47:15 PM

Thrag: How do you get multiple kerbals on an EVA?


[ and ] will switch between objects close to each other. Pop out one, switch back to the ship, pop out another.

Another tip, clicking on the space where your velocity is displayed will switch the navball between Surface, Orbit and Target modes. Target mode is essential for docking.
 
2013-12-05 11:47:16 PM

Thrag: How do you get multiple kerbals on an EVA?


Switch between nearby ships with [ and ]
 
2013-12-06 12:05:18 AM
I know it's not the point, but there's no reward or even acknowledgement for when you send a probe/Kerbal out on a Kerbol escape trajectory. Those idiots never stopped grinning never mind the fact that they would never see solid ground again, much less other Kerbals or Kerbin.
 
2013-12-06 12:11:14 AM

ThatBillmanGuy: How do you guys get rovers to... Anywhere? I have no idea how to even attach it to my rockets, and then disengage it to drive it around.


While my creations are small and unimpressive compared to other shots here, here are some shots from my Mun rover missions.

This is a close up of the rover where you can see how it attaches. I use the smaller stack separator on the bottom. On top there's a pair of clamp-o-tron Jr.s connecting to the lander. For these designs the initial part was the lander can.

i.imgur.com

The lander extends around the over with legs set so that when they extend the rover is above the ground a little.

A more zoomed out shot of the rover/lander combo where you can see the lander. This is a different iteration of the design as you can see by the larger transfer stage and beefier lander.

i.imgur.com

While building the various iterations that led up to these rovers I would set just the lander/rover to launch without a lifting vehicle just so I could test detaching the rover and driving it around.
 
2013-12-06 12:14:54 AM

Mentalpatient87: Thrag: How do you get multiple kerbals on an EVA?

[ and ] will switch between objects close to each other. Pop out one, switch back to the ship, pop out another.


That will be useful. Thank you.
 
2013-12-06 12:25:51 AM

Fubini: I know it's not the point, but there's no reward or even acknowledgement for when you send a probe/Kerbal out on a Kerbol escape trajectory. Those idiots never stopped grinning never mind the fact that they would never see solid ground again, much less other Kerbals or Kerbin.


The game is still really just an early alpha. Only in the last release is there even the barest of outlines of a campaign. However in the campaign you do get extra science for milestones like orbit, polar orbit, mun orbit, landing, etc.

I would imagine the developers intend to eventually have various missions, reward screens, and things like that.
 
2013-12-06 12:27:42 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-06 12:28:39 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-06 12:29:29 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-06 12:45:22 AM
What mod are those giant legs from?
 
2013-12-06 01:31:42 AM

Thrag: What mod are those giant legs from?


They are handmade using stock parts, usually.  In this case I used the round kethane tanks instead of the round aerodynamic frames as I usually do.  A little extra kethane capacity is well worth it.
 
2013-12-06 04:00:48 AM
This game looks like shiatton of fun.  I need a new comp.
 
2013-12-06 06:24:51 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.


I know, I`ll go to a place where people have hope for thing and I`ll just do a big crap in the middle of the room because I am an arsehole, eh?

Why don`t you guys just sit in a room together and have a big wank over pictures of space with no people in them and failed 3D prints?

You do know people are actually going into space now?

and they are 3D printing rocket parts that operate at full rated strength?

You know reality is making fools of you?
 
2013-12-06 06:27:22 AM
If you think KSP stock is fun, try using KOS and writing your own custom mechjeb for each mission...
 
2013-12-06 06:33:15 AM
The only hard part about space is getting people who already live on the planet into it. Once you are there you don`t need huge anything, just efficient. As someone said who has actually been there. "Once you are in orbit you are halfway to anywhere"

People are great, they make new people like some sort of self replicating machine so you don`t need many, they just need to be viable.

Then the fact that they breed forces them to build more places for humans which sets in motion a load of resource gathering, habitat forming, tech development etc out of sheer need.

Not all the mass in the system is down a deep gravity well. The rest would build a lot of stuff...

Give it a few hundred years and we will be swarming over this solar system like ants on a picnic.
 
2013-12-06 11:02:30 AM

dready zim: If you think KSP stock is fun, try using KOS and writing your own custom mechjeb for each mission...


Mechjeb.  For people who want to play the game without actually playing the game.
 
2013-12-06 05:33:42 PM

Cpl.D: Thrag: What mod are those giant legs from?

They are handmade using stock parts, usually.  In this case I used the round kethane tanks instead of the round aerodynamic frames as I usually do.  A little extra kethane capacity is well worth it.


I've really got to check out the Kethane mod.
 
2013-12-06 05:33:58 PM
cloud-3.steampowered.com

Duna sure is a pretty planet.
 
2013-12-06 06:04:33 PM

Cpl.D: dready zim: If you think KSP stock is fun, try using KOS and writing your own custom mechjeb for each mission...

Mechjeb.  For people who want to play the game without actually playing the game.


90% of mechjeb is just information. You can use it without every engaging the autopilot.

Also for some people the game is about designing rockets and manual flying is secondary at best. I happen to like all aspects of the game, but if someone never wants to do a manual launch and they just want to play with designs what is the problem with that? It just adds to the wide appeal of the game.
 
2013-12-06 06:53:27 PM
i.imgur.com

Full size

Yay~ just gotta repack 'em and send 'em home. Got plenty of fuel for it, too!
=Smidge=
 
2013-12-06 07:29:49 PM

Cpl.D: dready zim: If you think KSP stock is fun, try using KOS and writing your own custom mechjeb for each mission...

Mechjeb.  For people who want to play the game without actually playing the game.



To me this is kind of like arguing: "Map maneuver mode. For people who don't like doing complex orbital math on the fly."
 
Displayed 233 of 233 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report