• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

278 Excellent


About Nikolai

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Indeed not. I doubt many people would feel any better about that now, even though our mathematical concepts are more refined. "Every number is rational." "What about this length?" "That length can't have a number assigned to it." "But I can see it!" ... et cetera, et cetera. Lay folk seem to have a concept that mathematics should be useful, not merely consistent, and as such have little patience for logical abstraction that remains solid even outside of things their senses and intuition tell them that math should be able to handle. (Witness those who insist that there's no point to so-called "imaginary" numbers.)
  2. Yup. And there's a reason "rational" (able-to-be-expressed-as-an-integer-ratio) and "reasonable" are synonymous in conversational speech. Back in ancient Greece, the Pythagorean cult held to some interesting ideas. They refrained from eating beans, for example, because they thought that humans were made of the same stuff. And they held that any number -- any number -- could be expressed as the ratio of two integers. It's fairly simple to prove that the square root of two cannot be. This could well have been scandalous. Imagine giving the impression that one could look forever and never find an "irrational" number, only to find that there was an irrational number with an extremely simple depiction -- the diagonal of a unit square. The reaction of the Pythagoreans was to attempt to keep the proof secret. This kind of behavior was -- well -- irrational.
  3. I disagree. The picture shows that he is clearly further away from the axis of rotation. When he decouples, he continues to move away in a tangent to the arc he was describing. Right. Because the centripetal acceleration offered by the parachute cords with both of them isn't enough to ping them both back. With Clooney's greater mass (from himself and his more massive backpack) and his greater radius of curvature (being further away from the axis of rotation), it makes sense that he'd be tensing those cords quite a lot more than Bullock by her lonesome. I'll have to re-check the movie on that one -- I don't think there's a shot that clearly shows them simply moving in opposite directions. All you can establish is that they're both in linear motion, which makes sense under the scenario you describe -- Clooney would keep going in a tangent to the arc he was describing, and Bullock would move back along some vector described by both her inertia before the decoupling and the tension of the parachute cords pinging her back. IIRC, there's just a shot of one moving linearly, then a shot of the other moving linearly, but not with both in the same shot after decoupling (so that you can see that they're moving directly away from one another).
  4. As mentioned before in this thread: Because they weren't stationary with respect to the space station. They were rotating. Here's are several frames overlaid on each other that clearly show that rotation.
  5. If you're seeing this when it's supposed to be really dark (and not at dusk or dawn), and you're using the default skybox, make sure that the "changeSkybox" variable is set to "False" in <KSP Installation Folder>/GameData/DistantObject/PhuginData/settings.cfg (you can open it with a text editor). Otherwise, you'll just get a blank, black skybox (because the computer will think you want to replace the skybox, but won't have anything to replace it with). The planets and distant spacecraft will still show up.
  6. Thanks. I'll try that once I get back to my home computer.
  7. I'm not getting anything when I hit Alt-N. Is there a context in which I need to use this key combination or something? I'm using notes 0.16, KSP 1.8.0.
  8. Thank you so much for updating this mod! You've single-handedly given us a reason (and a means) to create a presence on other bodies. This is nothing short of amazing.
  9. Nope. It has eight SRBs that help it to orbit. But we're getting substantially off-topic here. Feel free to send me a PM; I'll answer any questions related to the design or flight of this thing that you want.
  10. It's a massive rocket lifting a mining vessel to Minmus (which I've called a XLIX-R, or "49er"). It got there from the KSC launchpad.
  11. You'll have to be more specific. What is what?
  12. Let me see if I can successfully embed an image to show what I mean. There's "Show advanced options" checked, but no "Chatterer" tab to enter new chatter sets. EDITED TO ADD: Never mind, I'm an idiot. Apparently, you need to be running a manned mission for the "Chatterer" tab to show up.
  13. Yeah, thanks, I understand that. I'm having trouble getting to a place where I can enter the folder names of sound sets in the first place. No such place presents itself when I select "Show advanced options".
  14. I'm having trouble finding the extra content packages I installed (Chatterer+ 0.4, Chatterer Extended 0.6.2). I don't see the control where I should be able to add new content in (evidently, there's supposed to be a "Chatter" tab under "Show advanced options"). Where should I ask for help on this?