Jump to content

Nathair

Members
  • Posts

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nathair

  1. 7 hours ago, ExtremeSquared said:

    Unlike other parts of language, pedantry is actually acceptable for scientific terminology.

    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.

     

    On 2017-03-03 at 3:07 AM, KerikBalm said:

    An atmosphere that isn't in chemical equilibrium (ie O2 rich) is on of the things we'd look for when hunting for life. Laythe has that. Now small amounts of O2 can be formed from high energy rays disassociating water, but one wouldn't expect it to build up to the levels seen on Laythe. I consider it highly likely that laythe has some form of life.

    Likewise, Duna is an excellent candidate. While Mars has many issues, Duna's atmosphere is over 6x thicker, and atmospheric pressure is well above the triple point of water. There is abundant ice (much more so than Mars has currently).

    KSP doesn't have any experiments that can really answer if there is microscopic life or not, so I consider it open for individual RP as to whether or not Laythe and Duna have life.

    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. :rolleyes:

  2. 1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

    your stance is that the issue should be taken seriously and that references to "biomes" should be replaced with "regions," my position is more in the "it's not a big deal" category.

    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.

  3. On 2017-02-27 at 5:28 PM, Greenfire32 said:

    Yeah without getting too far off topic, I'd say Squad's misuse of "Biome" is simply the result of that word gaining sudden popularity thanks to other indie games such as Minecraft.

    It's pretty clear that "Biome" does not reflect it's dictionary definition 100% in this case and is simply being misused.

    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.

  4. On 2017-02-13 at 10:18 PM, ExtremeSquared said:

    R&D Building

    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?

  5. On 2017-02-13 at 4:23 PM, Snark said:

    Spears aren't a good example, because they're generally not spin-stabilized, and even if they were thrown with a spin around the longitudinal axis, it wouldn't be much.

    Did you not see the links I posted about exactly this?

     

    On 2017-02-13 at 4:23 PM, Snark said:

    I suspect that footballs also aren't a super great example-- I don't know what the ratio of maximum to minimum moment of inertia is, but I'd guess it's not that far removed from a sphere.  The long pointy ends of a football are relatively narrow-- I'd guess that the moment of a football wouldn't deviate all that much from that of a soccer ball of equivalent mass.

    No need to guess, really.

  6. 5 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    I'm not suggesting it - I'm stating it as what it is, a fact.  (Also see this.)  The ratio of axes matters, as does the distribution of mass (almost all of a football's mass in it's "rim"), the nature of the structure, and the time-of-flight (that is, it takes time for the the processes to happen).

    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.

  7. 10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    You'll find, if you scroll back up, I posed the question in the form it's usually posed in - dollars.  I specifically did so in order to prevent the mode switching dodge that allows people to talk in dollars when it's convenient and swap to handwaving about intangible benefits when dollars aren't convenient.

     

    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.

    10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    You admit they lie, yet you also want us to take their statements as unalloyed truth and thus as proof of your claims.  You can't have it both ways.

    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.

  8. Just now, DerekL1963 said:

    A football isn't long and thin

     

    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.

     

    5 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    a spear isn't spin stabilized.

    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.

  9. 46 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:


    IRL it's hard to spin stabilize thing that are longer on the spin axis than across the spin axis, especially if they're low density.  Almost always they swap from spinning around the axis with the least inertial momentum (the long axis) to the axis with the most (the short axis).

    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.

  10. 5 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    Nice change from apples to oranges - from discussing the finances to handwaving about the 'truly remarkable achievements'.

    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.

     

    9 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    Then you link to articles that don't actually support your claim of economic benefits, they discuss "studies" (all of the ones I've seen have emanated from NASA) and give people's opinions (that are echoes of those sponsored 'studies').

    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.

     

    10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

    And yes, NASA is dishonest.  Why wouldn't they be? 

    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.

  11.  

    5 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

    gollygeegoshwow!  Lookit what NASA has done!.

    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.

     

    5 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

    So when you have an actual link showing the existence of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of industries that exist because of NASA money spent since 1980 - get back to me. 

    OK.

  12. 10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    Zoology requires a zoo (usually it's called vivarium).

    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.

     

    18 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    Can you predict what will happen if pour much water onto Mars ground?

    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.

     

    21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    Because Mars co;onization is not about launching a hi-tech rocket, but about delivering or producing mountains of cement.

    How much does cement cost on Martian market?

    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.

     

  13. 4 hours ago, ExtremeSquared said:

    Meh. If it's in the game, I consider it canon.

    Thus spake the KSP 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.

    So, life? Not so much.

×
×
  • Create New...