MBobrik

There are public domain implementations of numerical solvers that would allow n say 20 and still be capable of doing time warp 1 000 000 on low end hardware at reasonable framerate. . And because the gravity ultimately applies only to the CoM ( ships big enough to feel tidal forces can't be built in KSP anyway ), the slowdown would only add to part count caused slowdown, not multiply with it. . But the devs have already made up their minds, and, I suspect, that the n=1 approximation is just hardcoded at too many places through the entire code to be changeable, so this is not gonna happen. Someone with a LOT of free time can still write a mod that patches all the places with calls to the numerical approximator or something like that.

I lost the sshot, but I landed a returning rover once a few km from KSC running out of fuel just few dozen m above ground. All wheels broken, but I just repaired them and drove back to KSC.

Duna's atmosphere is thinner, but it has a lower gravity that partially cancels that out. I did the math and the result was quite shocking to me. You need only 50 % more chutes to land at the same speed at sea level as on Kerbin ! The major difference however is, that Duna has got far more highlands than Kerbin, and Duna's atmosphere thins ou much faster with height than Kerbin's. So, either find a nice deep crater to aerobrake into, and land with 1.5 x more chutes normally, or add 3 x chutes, or do a powered landing to reduce the last ~20-30 m/s excess speed the chutes left you with.

It is just gone. I am afraid, for good.

Uh, no. That's what ASAS does. SAS w/o ASAS attached will merely resist rotation.

And I could go on and on. Exposing your shameless propaganda and lies line by line. But given that the very first factual claims in your post turned out to be all falsehoods and baseless accusations, I don't think it is necessary to make a conclusion about your intellectual integrity being sub-zero.

. Just another your pathetic attempt at poisoning the well.

. Yeah, right, when your research shows we've got a problem, you must not start doing something about it. Because that would make you an activist with well-known biases and your research discredited.

EDIT: I've misread your post as saying that the paper was retracted. But anyway, you've declared something discredited to the extent that it should be retracted, w/o proof and even insinuated that the entire field is thus lacking integrity. Again, without a shred of evidence. Seems that you think that merely stating an accusation is enough proof of guilt.

Just another lie.

. So we can imagine an angry climatologist to do the same hatchet job on molecular simulations like the denialists do on climate simulations : . "Exact analytical solutions of the equations involved, are either not known or not possible at all. And the numerical solutions got all sorts of fudge factors in them to work, therefore we can dismiss the entire area as post-hoc shoehorning of hypotheses to data. So when our simulations show that the new drug will slowly clog up ion channels in the brain and kill the patient, let's ignore it and go straight on to selling it. After all, it would be too expensive to stop and redesign it now." . Would a sane doctor interested in the wellbeing of his patients accept such "reasoning" ?

Try to google some Mun landing tutorials, because from the sshot it seems you've just eyeballed the mun and thrusted away w/o even trying a proper Mun intercept.

2035 km/s over Mun ? How, WHY ?

. IMHO the purpose of returning back home is to return home.

. Problem is with materials that can be made thin and strong at temperatures ~750 K.

. Lots of irrelevant details, to cover the fact that it simply amounts to insinuating that the climatologists don't know how to handle parameter spaces of their models ( or do it wrong on purpose ), without providing a shred of evidence that this is in fact the case. All written by a guy, who again, did not show a single bit of evidence, that he in fact has deep enough understanding of the models used in climatology, to make such accusations.

Landing and surviving on venus would be hard but not completely impossible. Pressures are like on the bottom of deep ocean trenches, and temperatures can be solved by active cooling. You will have however, to build an external reactor that will operate at ambient pressures and because the cooler will be at ambient temperature, the reactor itself will have to work at @ 1900 k to maintain temperature gradient enough to power a monstruous refrigerator that keeps the rest of the ship at survivable temperatures. And of course the only thing that can get you back is nuclear powered jet. EVA however, would be a very short and painful one way trip.

. That happens when you hit an invisible imprecision in the surface collision mesh. Happens even at terrain detail high, just not so often. AFAIK It has nothing to do with the suspensions. And when your rover is not stable enough to handle this kind of bumps, you will get into tumble. Either add probe cores+SAS to your rover, or build it wider. Or both as I do.

sure . . . or probe cored . . or two rovers docked together, one wide one long, for extra stability when carrying colony parts. .

No can do. AFAIK not implemented. Maybe some mod does it. But with stock, you have to use 3 times 2x symmetry.

You have to be using a different TR-2L than me. My TR-2L stick to the surface like they were made from velcro. U-turns at full speed, driving downhill at 55 m/s, driving with physics warp 4x, no problem.

I just tried to deploy multiple modules at once. Worked well, but I will have to practice it a little. Here is the raw footage from it. Next come rovers to carry them the last km to their destination.

And the zombie shambles on. . . What do you mean none proven ? solar activity is measured every minute, and so is volcanism. How can that not be proven ? You mean something like "we are just watching the sun in real time, but should we really trust our lying eyes ?" . . Wrong. Validity of scientific theories is not a political question. . . Yeah, and collapse of the ecosystems we need for our agriculture is ultra super cheap. A few billions will starve, no big deal, humans are cheap... . . . Prediction, nothing of I wrote will stick, the zombie army will just keep going as usual.

It depends on its composition and temperature. Uranus has 14 earth masses and is pretty much all gas with a small rocky core. But hotter, and with far less volatiles, you could have a planet with the same mass, with solid surface, water, and a thick but breathable atmosphere ... and 2.4 gees on the surface = you could move only on a reinforced wheelchair there, but the local fauna would be adapted. . Very close to the sun, and formed from a very heavy element rich nebula, you could have something bigger, utterly uninhabitable, but nonetheless terrestrial with solid or molten rock surface. the upper limit is most probably size where its gravity well can contain volatiles all the way up to boiling point of carbon so it would either keep all volatiles and be a gas giant or be evaporated by the sun completely.

@ magnemoe Thank you for demonstrating the very zombie arguments, that simply won't die no matter how many thousand times they are refuted, the article was about. Despite the fact that the very article linked to their refutations, they have risen up from the dead once more and shambling on in your post.