stellargeli

Just FYI, water is not compressable so not sure why you would have a water compressor...

In regards to the surface attachment patch: If this patch is installed, does it make the engine BOTH surface and tank-end attaching, as opposed to surface attaching only?

Gotcha. Thank you. I can't say that's a bad thing, lol.

Copyright is for media. DNA is patented. Totally different thing. This subject IS political at a level, so not sure how you expect that to happen.

Well, unfortunately, the GMO companies ARE winning against the farmers in court. And then the farmers have to pay the GMO companies, because their crop is now crossed with the GMO companies' patented seed so in the eyes of the court they are using the patented intellectual property. These companies are also patenting natural non-GMO plants. Basically, whoever submits the patent first wins when it comes to plants that already exist. The GMO companies are finding the plants that it will benefit them to have control over and submitting for patents (and being granted patents). It is a ridiculous and IMO dangerous situation that needs legislative oversight and limits. That is one problem of the many. It isn't a question of people being paid for their work for me. I'm ok with that. The issues are patenting things you did not create, and the fact that you have no control over that patented DNA once it reaches the world outside the lab. Being sued because someone is not in control of where their patented DNA goes is terribly unjust. Like most problems, this one isn't simple.

On the legacy seeds part. yes a farmer can use legacy seed. If that farmer were also protected from being sued by companies with patents on their own seeds, whose plants end up crossing with the farmers, then I think that would be a huge move in the right direction. As I have said, I personally am not terribly worried about GMO as a health issue directly. It is all the other issues tied to it that concern me. I'm NOT against GMO per-se, I'm against the not fixing the why we are becoming dependant upon them and causing a multitude of other problems in the process. GMO is also solving a multitude of problems as well. It isn't an all good or all bad thing, but I feel that generally it is well-intentionally misguided in some fundamental ways, and coupled with that, I take issue with the business strategy side of it. You don't need to invent an organism to consume your poo, you just need to stop pooing on the floor (yeah, gross, but I think you can see what I mean), many of our issues are us pooing on the floor. I think that there are smarter ways to address several huge issues and GMO is sort of a profitable, here-right-now sort of answer. Now if you could make a ton of money doing it the smarter way, well, then this would all be a lot easier Farming practices and GMO are and are not two different things. GMO development is informed by farming practices, which then feedback into farming practices optimizing themselves to take advantage of the new GMO. They are not independent of each other. I'm not saying they are tied to each other at ALL levels. GMO is an amazing application of technology, it just needs more wisdom in its application. Money complicates everything. Always

Technically, you are talking about quad-rotors, quad-copter is a misnomer term since there is nothing "copter" about quad-rotors.

I've heard Bill Nye's explanation, and while I get it, his reasons had more to do with what the benefits he saw were, but he did not actually address safety and medical concerns. Also, Bill Nye is not the Holy Grail of wisdom, so be careful about putting him on pedestals. The truth is that we DON'T know what the impacts are down the line, and each specific modification probably has different impacts. BT corn kills other organisms other than the ones intended, which is an impact not directly related to health, but may in fact have consequences on ecosystems. To me, the issues are more a matter of what we don't know and won't know for a decent amount of time. Funny that rather than addressing things like population, which are the need for GMO in the first place we are instead wandering into unknown territory putting a bandaid on the problem. And yes, corn syrup is a HUGE issue. Corn is incredibly stupid to be growing anyways, as its nutritional value isn't that good. Massive amounts of land are being used to produce corn syrup and fuel, basically, not food. GMO is a bandaid to the issues of runaway population and unsustainable farming methods that negatively impact the environment. THAT is my issue against GMO more than health concerns. Then on top of that, GMO has been used as a way to FORCE farmers to have to continue their relationships with the seed providers indefinitely. This I am very concerned about. This is just a few specific implementations of GMO I'm talking about, but it illustrates that there are issues and some of the issues are political and economic. Some are environmental, like Roundup resistant crops which create ecosystem problems because now fields are being sprayed with Roundup which kills all plants that aren't resistant. And "protein" does not equal "safe". Prions are proteins too, and they will kill you. Your cells and everything they do involves proteins, which can go awry and kill you. There is no way you can say that just because something is only creating odd proteins that it can't be harmful. That is scientifically absurd. Now, I'm not saying all GMO is bad. In reality, just crossbreeding plants is actually a form of GMO. My position is that each specific GMO implementation needs to be evaluated for health impacts, environmental impacts, genomic impacts, etc. And if we rigorously did that, we would likely find that some GMO implementations are perfectly safe and others have negative impacts. GMO is a pretty broad term. The way we farm industrially is actually quite unwise and GMO tends to be a way to just keep on doing unwise things. That, I think is a huge downside. Using GMO to stall impacts from other problems, like population, is simply kicking the can down the road so we have monstrously huge problems later to address, like population, ecosystem collapse, environmental damage, etc. It doesn't HAVE to be that way, GMO could be part of solving issues, but the ways it tends to be implemented these days is more focused on making lots of money, being able to keep on engaging in unsustainable farming practices and keeping farmers tied to the companies that are making tons of money from them, rather than addressing root issues.

Its pretty hard not to eat GMO food, even if you are wanting to avoid it, in the U.S. anyways. For example, most of our corn is GMO and I think most of our soy beans (just to name 2). Packaging only says somehting has corn in it, but unless it specifically says its "GMO free", then you don't know if it has GMO products in it. Probably the safe bet is that it does, but my point is that it isn't specifically tagged as GMO.

Easy there cowboy, people are just having a discussion. I don't think anyone is trying to bother Ferram4. Do we need a new thread just to discuss aerodynamics? Wondering if there is one, gonna go look....

I did give him credit. I said its an awesome mod and I enjoy what it brings to KSP. My point was that it can only approximate RL up to a point and people should not expect it to be 100% accurate, differing airfoils for different aircraft being an example of a limitation, among many limitations. I'm glad to learn that there is a specific airfoil shape being used in the modelling. I assumed it was either a single shape, or just a set of characteristics taken from an RL shape. Either way, my point still stands. "Made-up" was probably not the best best choice of words, but hopefully you can see what I'm driving at. No offense was intended, and I didn't intend to imply that FAR is somehow sloppy or fantasy. I'm not saying anything bad about FAR, I'm pointing out that it has limitations and people shouldn't go overboard with their expectations, that's all. I love FAR, please don't misunderstand me. It is one of my favorite mods, and as both an engineer and a programmer I have a lot of respect for the job ferram4 has done in creating it. On that note (and NO, I am not asking ferram4 to do this, his mod is awesome as is and I am grateful for having it to use, and I would never ask someone to do a bunch more work for free), I'm wondering if it would be possible to create a companion/addon for FAR that would allow you to select different airfoil shapes. Then you could have that Cessna that flies more like a Cessna, while keeping your supersonic type craft. That is something I might be willing to put some time into if I knew 1) it can be done, and 2) I could bug someone with questions while working on it. I've been looking for a mod project to work on (new to KSP modding) and that would certainly be something I would enjoy trying to create. That, or working on a mod that makes helicopters work like actual helicopters. Not sure which of those two would make me pull out more hair...

Everyone needs to stop comparing FAR to real life. Making comments about landing speeds being better in RL and what FAR models, etc. is really, really silly. To my knowledge, airfoil shapes are not part of of any of this, so lift values are all just made-up anyways. Basically the aero stuff, stock or FAR, can sort of approximate some sort of RL performance, but as this is not actual aero modeling with parts that have actual airfoil shapes, etc. the comparision to RL gets pretty silly at some point. I get that something near real is trying to be accomplished, but seriously it will never be anything except a gamified approximation of some assumed characteristics. Now, if airfoils, etc. were accurately represented by different surfaces, and we designed all our parts in SolidWorks, then that might be different. I am not saying FAR is bad. I am not saying stock aero is bad. I am saying that there is not enough part detail, or possibly even aero modelling detail to create some sort of RL accurate planes in KSP. For example, a Cessna 172 has a different airfoil shape than a Boeing 747, and both have different shapes from an F-16. Saying what the takeoff speed of a KSP plane is in RL, for example, is actually fairly impossible. FAR is an awesome mod and I really enjoy what it brings to KSP. Just don't go overboard comparing things to RL.

Sure, I get that, but you can't project that onto everyone who shares a workaround. Using workarounds as excuses for bugs is a Squad issue, not a player issue.

So mysterious with your lack of details...