Nathair

Maybe ask them, ask in that thread or provide a link for us?

Update: Started a new career, TACLS works fine. Reloaded old save, same problem persists; vessels not being updated.

Same situation here.

Do you prefer it to RT2?

Mars Climate Orbiter Syndrome strikes again!

Sorry about that, Curious George.

Certainly it is. As far as I am concerned, pedantry is perfectly acceptable concerning any part of language. What's more, as it's your game, you can maintain your own headcanon however you like! I was just confused by you so strongly asserting as fact what is just a part of your own imagined lore. And people keep starting threads saying "What would you like to see added next" when the answer is right there. Plus, since we're here anyway, swapping out the word "Biome" for a proper replacement term seems like an easy fix.

Not at all. I was just trying to address the assertions that "Every single body in the Kerbal system contains already contains biological life according to the game" and "The game itself literally claims there is life on all the planets". I agree that the "Biome" abuse should be no big deal but I don't think people should be embracing that mistake and actively trying to further confuse the issue.

Not for me, unless I misunderstand you. Behaves just like any other probe core as far as I can tell.

Do Black Holes Have No Hair? (plus)

Lost Moon, Jim Lovell.

Which, as I pointed out way up there (and will repeat here) is exactly what it says in the wiki : "In Kerbal Space Program a biome is a geographic area on the surface of a celestial body typically corresponding with types of geology like mountains or craters. This is in contrast to the real meaning of the term in which biomes are biotic communities in contiguous areas with similar climatic conditions and organism populations. " Demanding, against all evidence, that they actually meant BIOme in the strict technical sense of the word and not just "region" and that therefore there axiomatically is life on Eeloo is more than a little bit silly. It's rather a shame that there isn't more science to the science that would distinguish between "biomes" and the types of experiments you can do in them. It might help alleviate the "grindy" aspect of running exactly the same set of experiments whether we're floating in the warm ocean water a couple of hundred meters from the KSC or parked among the Southern Glaciers of Eeloo. It would be great if biology (and exobiology), so significant in real space exploration, could be a part of KSP.

Are you being deliberately difficult? Where in the R&D building does the game explicitly say that there is life on all the planets? I can't seem to find it, it makes absolutely no logical sense, has no game impact and the wiki directly contradicts it so... help me out here?

Did you not see the links I posted about exactly this? No need to guess, really.

I understand now. The problem is your example is an examination of how, eventually over a period of many days, a system with no active attitude control or spin maintenance can lose stability. That doesn't really apply here or to any of the examples given.

It is not "a dodge". I have been discussing all of the benefits all along. And for the record, I don't consider, say, the invention of the CMOS sensor or nanofiber water filtration or long-life radial tires to be "intangible". But if all you want to look at is dollars, then go right ahead. Estimates of $7-$14 dollars returned per dollar invested seem a pretty decent dollars-only ROI to me. You misunderstand. I was repeating you, not agreeing with you. If I thought NASA was lying about its discoveries and their applications we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Are you suggesting that this effect only applies at a certain ratio of axes? Because a football is certainly long and thin compared to a soccer ball. No? You sure about that? This seems an odd suggestion because it seems to me that, if it were true, "spin stabilization" would not be a thing.

I'm hard pressed to think of an example of that. A spiral thrown football doesn't suddenly change axes of rotation nor do arrows or spears turn into pinwheels half-way to the target.

I think you'll find I have, all along, been discussing both the financial returns and the technological returns. That has not changed. Indeed, why would we decide to ignore significant technological or quality of life accomplishments and only pay attention to dollars? Personally, I would be perfectly happy to do the opposite. I have no qualms about spending dollars to gain knowledge, advance technology and improve our general quality of life. Fortunately, when it comes to this kind of research there is no need to. You asked for a link, you got a link. If you can refute the studies, examples or opinions presented therein, go right ahead. If you just want to wave them away like they didn't happen you can still go right ahead but don't expect me to address such a response. That's a convincing argument? Of course they lie, we know this because why wouldn't they? It's certainly convenient, now any evidence or opinion presented can be waved away on the evidence of liar-liar-pants-on-fire.

Low? As in closer to the fins? How does that work?

Again, I must have missed that. Where did you see that?

Did you? Look, I mean? I ask because I don't hear you refuting any of the truly remarkable advancements listed, just waving your hands around suggesting that because NASA itself keeps track of this stuff it is somehow dishonest or... something. OK.

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

No, it really doesn't. All it really requires is something alive like bacteria, people, fruit flies, yeast, whatever... And with some real luck zoologists would get something new and exciting to play with on Mars. Not knowing is the reason to do research, not to a reason to avoid it. That said, the leap from establishing a permanent base to terraforming the planet is a huge one. I think the former is inevitable and the latter quite probably impossible. That's actually an excellent example. Hauling tons of cement to Mars would be a ridiculous undertaking and so with a bit of research we find out that we won't need to. Likewise, we don't want to haul tons and tons of water to Mars so water purification and reclamation research becomes very important. Earth-side applications are obvious, right? How about for extremely efficient, high density food production in a hostile environment or new energy storage solutions or radiation shielding or... This stuff has always shown an excellent ROI. I see no reason to expect that to suddenly change and plenty of reasons to expect it to continue. It's a good bet.