This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@bonzoesc this is a hall of famer
-
@bonzoesc this is a hall of famer
@capotej not mine; i'd seen it a year ago and lost it so now it's here
-
This post did not contain any content.
@bonzoesc@m.bonzoesc.net wait, what's the original message here
-
@bonzoesc@m.bonzoesc.net wait, what's the original message here
-
This post did not contain any content.
@bonzoesc we must rise up and defeat the tyranny of the rocket equation
-
This post did not contain any content.
@bonzoesc@m.bonzoesc.net That's just how I play kerbal space program I don't see the problem????
-
@Two9A@hachyderm.io @syn@plasmatrap.com @bonzoesc@m.bonzoesc.net I mean, hey, he is taking care of animals.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@bonzoesc And everyone who has played Kerbal Space Program gathered together to rejoice at a rocketry joke they understood all too well.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@bonzoesc Reminds me of a time when I half-jokingly critiqued the phrase “it’s not rocket science” to mean “it’s not complex”. I argued rocket science was really pretty simple (TL;DR version: “conservation of momentum”) and the really hard part was rocket engineering (finding ways to use that concept that didn’t explode, incinerate the crew, or poison half the planet on the way up). Someone brought up Tsiolkovski’s rocket equation as a counterexample; it’s a first principle that’s not immediately visible from conservation of momentum (though of course it’s part of the derivation of the equation). Ok, fair, but as KSP enthusiasts can attest to: getting a usable spacecraft within the constraints of the rocket equation takes a lot of rocket engineering as well.
