Arran

Your are not challenging me at all, nor even make me remotely think critically, worse even in matter of fact, you bored me, since you havent done anything to make it into a discussion, but an attempt to derail my point of view with nonestatements, unfounded and with nonsense, what you allready admit that i was right from the beginning. But you tried to lure me into an position that i have to prove my point without even a slight attempt to prove yours, while you are attacking my points of view without a sound foundation of beeing critical towards my point of view. So you in a way now point your own failure to make it into a real discussion what by founded arguements in an onesided conversation on my part, in wich i counter any of your points with a founded explanation in wich why i think in such manner, that even without references to any sources can allready be seen as pretty much as believable and logical, in wich you lack to provide to counter in any real agrumentation, just with oneliners, what in general can be seen as trolling. Now that you know you cannot put a needle between my agrumentation, you pull the insulted victim role out of the hat. Again making me believe even more and more that it was an poor attempt to troll a very valid points that i made upon immoratality. So to put you to an critical test to see where you coming from.. Explain me this in a argumental manner, and not an noconsencual oneliner * Why is nature an Entity or Concept in your of view, what is you're reasoning behind this statement, since i dont even remotely can grasp why someone would call nature and concept, since nature is the foundation of everything. * why would the phyche of an human change over reproduction when we artificial archieve immoratlity, and not by evolution, since reproduction is the foundation of life. * As human life is part of evolution of nature, why do we human beeings at times think and act we arent part of nature. * Why doesn't in your view apply evolutional and historical facts that can be projected easely into the future not as acceptable feats in terms of this discussion, simple said, why you think that humans will behave any differently in the past as mortal beeings as in an theoretical future as artificial immortal beeings. Past and present allready prove we still basicly are still the same, only we are more advanced. but in our core of our existance we havent changed in the 100.000 years much. In al in all, what you just said, is applying more to you as to me, i asked you to back up your statements and i explained in more as enough detail my points of view, in wich you lacked in any aspect to do, and you obviosly dont like to be challenged at all, since you didnt even remotely tried to to beargument me, and with my arumentations i wrote here, i proved i DO like to be challenged and i do can explain my argumentation, what you lacked to do. But i have to thank you in a way, you made me smile now a bit.. I know now i was right on all points, even the trolling

Do you really believe with immorality the human (or blunt said Life's) phyche would change on the need for reproduction, reproduction is the foundation of life itself, you can say its allmost hardcoded into the genes that makes up every living beeing, everything alife around us is an product of reproduction, from mircroscopic bacteria to yourself. Create an system that regenerate Cell degridation, will not change the simple fact in how life itself works, again that believe human life has placed itself above nature. Only thing that could prevent reproduction is like now as well, that some people just dont want to have kids, or by some flaw in the genecode of that beeing that prevents reproducal organs to function properly, but those are the execption, not the rule You can call Nature whatever you like, this is more an phylosophical topic as an science point of view, to call nature an concept is imho even in insult. Nature is everything, not just flowers in your garden, its really EVERYTHING to the point nature even provides to a point technoligy, as simple put all the elements we as human use to enhance our modern life, from plastics to superconductors are made of resources coming from nature itself. Our technoligy so advanced that we human can manipulate nature to a certain point, but we cannot control it, nor we ever will be able to control it. thus so far, i only see you ask questions that are obvious, but i dont see any real founded answers why you think i'm wrong, only assumptions that border trolling, and some vague answers of your part, that holds no ground or logic or arent scientific but of phylosophical orgin. Hence i have more the feel you do your utmost best to troll, thus my pretty bored attitude. EDIT : There has been several SciFi movies allready (since we are in the realm of SciFi on immortality) that takes my statement Immoratlity == Extinction into consideration. Top of my mind coms the Asgard from Stargate, that race faces extinction due their immoratlity and lack of reproduction. Once reproduction stops, even though your immortal you on the fasttrack to extinction, since every life lost cannot be replaced. Thus proves my statement Immoratility == Extinction Life needs to replenisch itself, or it fades into oblivion. Reproduction is foundation of life and evolution. Create immortal life with Reproduction, and you have a grandscale Tumor like organiscm, that will destroy its natural habitat.

You clearly forget again the simple fact, with immoratlity the population never inclines, current caculations and predictions are done with the simple fact in mind, people DIE remove the factor that peope die, and thus only grows and keeps growing till the end of days, and keeps growth indefently and you just ansered you own question, with even having to parry my rethoric, in time, the planet has just to many people, to sustain life, just like Cells in an Tumor. to a point the tumor drains so much of the body, the body shuts down.. It also clearly makes a good analogy on how nature works, and i had this discussion so many times over and over with people that refuse to see the simple basic fact humans are part of nature But I still want an explanation of this entity your refer to as Nature. I dont understand the idear of Nature as entity, and tbh you shouldn't even ask this question, nature isnt an entity, so the question is void, thus imho an attempt to troll, Nature aint a god, visa versa even, God IS nature.. Maybe you arent really directing it as person to me, but the whole way you questioning the obvious in imho a poor attempt to troll, and i have really not much patience with trolls

If you cannot comprehent the growth of mortal humans its population just by looking back in history and are not capable to project this growth into the future, and then take into consideration that no-one dies anymore, then i doubt i never can make you grasp this concept since you lack the capability to grasp such a thing Simple put, imagine that since the dawn of Homo-Sapiens, noone ever had died by old age, really NO-ONE ever have died, so you still had your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents around that are now about 30.000 years old.. Well granded even my brain is having troubles to insame amount of humans around today, and i have to explain it even to you since you cannot grasp it at all. So i dont need an source, i just need a good working brain that can comprehent expensional growth without any limitation, in Medical terms such a phenomonon is called an Tumor, humans with just a immortal lifespan, can be considered a Tumor.. It grows exponetional without limitations, till the point its natural habitat cannot sustain it anymore, just like a Tumor grows inside your body, to a point your body dies due the tumor. IE we would go extinct. Immoratlity is course to extincion. Kinda lost here, some attempt to throw in an insult, or are you trying to tell that dispite inmoratity people still can die, and hence this would keep the numbers in check.. Well clearly you missed alot on History lessons i guess on school, even mayor cathostropic events like WW1/2 or desease outbreaks where millions of people lost their lives, on global scale those millions hardly even made a dent in the human population. So unless you are planning for mass executions to keep the population in check, i doubt with inmortal human life, depending of illnessenes is historically seen hardly will even be of any consuquence. This answer borders to trollism (if that is an word) or makes clear you really have to pay more attention to the teachers instead of that blonde girl in your class, i just cannot add more to this, or you indead are victim of poor education and in that case i appologize. But clearly shows you lack of understanding in the world we life in, and proves my point that some humans really think they are Above nature and arent part of nature, and are creationistal raised and do not believe in evolution nor grasp the concept of evolution and how life and death are related to each other, and how renewal works.. For me, without turning this into a converance it shoud suffice as answer, and if you cannot grasp it why i do believe immoratilty is a thing unwanted thing that neglected in many scifi topics, and are countered with hardly any founded comments as Need Source, and other oneliners without really backing your own view and thinking up.. i think i dont need to continue..

main() { print "Hello World"; } look i wote bugfree code, but i am afraid as soon i add more functionallity to it, it start also to add more changes of bugs.. Ow it didnt compile for you.. Damn even these few lines can have bugs allready.. No piece of software is clear from bugs.. only some are so trivial you can consider them as just that trivial, noone will notice. Some maybe be trivial but can lead to big unexpected results, and sometimes so hard to solve, the more complex code becomes the harder it gets. Only those who have no clue what coding means, will keep saying its easy to solve why havent they.. Now i do see an distinct difference in Bugs, and bad programming, the first is hard to solve, the latter is shortage of several factors. I know many Developers who releases alot of games riddled stiff with both, and are overhyped games in the Media get high scores etc, and even sold for the full price, and never get fixed.. And the masses flock to the stores to buy those games horrible broken games. Of wich somee of them where even for 5 or more years in development, a few even more as 10 years, and still are release as buggy piles of crap. I seriously doubt that KSP even have such issues at all, in fact i find it one of the better developed games in where some major compagnies could take example in.

I loving Hardcore, No Saving, No Revert Flights, Permadeath, FFAR and DE. First few days it all went fine, the first couple of contracts where pretty easy and hardly noticed the "hardcore" now i am reaching day 15 in this hardcore savegame, and i starting to feel the difference, in my "normal" save, i'm allready notice thefund difference of 1.7million funding on the same day, compared to in Hardcore i just barely scratched 200k at the same point in the carreer few flights went horrible wrong, mostly on rentry's that destroyed the rockets due design flaws, wrong angles and such and thus also killed a few brave Kerbal vict.... Kerbalnauts severly hitting my Rep, and funds now as well. Its hard, and i LOVE it.. now i really start to feel i have to plan carefully my design, put them through a rigorous test and make good use of probecores to keep flights as long as possible unmannded till the Rocket gets its AFK label (Approved For Kerbals). Now the game is finnally catering all kinds of players, from newbies to vets.. and makes the game now really enjoyable

Build an manned flight, add an probe part to it, and remove the kerbal crew, launch see how it functions, on failure let it crash, or add a good Abort sequence to it so you crew can surive. Problem #3 solved you have you're test rocket.. I allways say Revert flight as the "simulation" but now i started an Hardcore carreer, no Saves, Permadeath and NoReverting flights, FARR and Deadly Reentry, and makes me play with a complete new mindset and approach to flights.. Unmanned flights are now so all important, also is the Abort Sequence, each flight can be an gamestopper now.. So i have to approach each flight now with extreme caution, on only in this "game mode" i do feel an Test facility warrented. On the other hand, i wanted an challenge, allways felt KSP was too much facilitated towards the New Player in mind, now i got one..

Each and every time when this comes up, the most obvious reason not wanting to have any form of immortallity is somehow beeing ignored, or even adressed. Even in our current "short" lifespan, the number of total humans is growing, but its kept to a certain degree in check by that humans die as well, allthough the rate of humans be born is bigger as the rate of humans dying (unless we start a other WW where millions die).. When all the offpring of the humans also going to be immortal, well overpopulation will become a serious problem quicker as when we stay Mortal.. Thus if we really want too pursue inmortallity we have to consider space kolonisation, since Earth can only sustain for an XX amount of humans life. Now you can theorize that with Technoligy and science we could extend food production to keep people fed, but with immorality the number of humans on earth will grow exponentionally so fast, that within a few centuries there are to many humans on earth there is no ground left to support us.. IE we need to clear allmost any forrest to keep it for agriculture for food production, and towns. Fast forward a millenia and we prolly reached a point that earth cannot sustain the numbers of humans, and the demand for food is so great, we have litterly emptied the oceans, drained all fertile soils and thinned the animal kingdom to a point only lifestock animals havent gone extinct. So we have to push ourselfs when immortal into space and kolonize other planets like we are some acient virus that is spreading itself, without any possibility to stop that virus. So i think nature has the answer in this, that is inmorality is unarchievable, how hard we will try, dispite i too would like to live forever, i'm just too curious how the world would look in 100, 500 even 1000 years or more from now.. Even kinda curious to see our sun turn into an Red Dwarf, and curious to see if The universe expands so far that everything fades into oblivion, or that the big crunch in gonna happen.. Still i know my mortality is there for an reason, everything HAS to come to an end, its nature way to renew and replenish itself.. Only humans are so egoistical to think themself above Nature..

Here an older picture on how i place big heavy rovers onto a rocket.. Here it extended Made for this one use of infernal Robotis to make the wheels independently raise and lower, since its really top heavy, and thus on slopes it would tip over, this it had to be able to stay level even on 45% degree slopes. Second part is the storage unit that flew between the Kethane field and the Refuel Space station that i allways have near Minmus.. TBH lately i havent been really doing alot with rovers, since i mastered pinpoint landings now, and had no real need of them anymore

10.5 Million at day 40, Jeb suggested that my program is now going to pave the runway with shiny reflecting Daimonds for better visibility at night, and golden rails to the Launchpad, and Bob is asking for Kaviar and champagn as standard issue on all manned flights, and Bill demands new Spacesuits made of Silk and full 3D sound system in his helmet for his tunes..

Ow some mods dont work, and you going rage mode... What part of "Game is under Heavy Development" you didnt understand.. And mods dont work... ermm. Rage to the modders... Want a smooth none buggy gameplay, play stock, or wait a couple of weeks so modders have time to change their mods to the new update.. Raging here... well just makes you look kinda riduculous.

Testing the LV45 at 11500 too 16000 at 100 to 250 m/s.. It sounded easy enough, but it turned out one nightmarisch test.. Somehow i wanted trying to do this in a kinda hybrid-like plane, the test itself never as the issue, getting within the parameters wasnt that all to hard, but after the test the place became so unstable due the inbalances, it became pretty hard to land it (acutally it really DIDNT wanted to land at all ).. But after several attemps, pumping fuel around, sticking wings on the plane is all kind of angles, finnaly i had a design that could carry the weight all back and was stable enough to land.. And it also remined me why i never really bothered with Hybrid/space planes before I would prolly had an easier time just to launch it as a rocket and just tested it...

From here on, it only gets easier, prolly takes still a few attemps, but it WILL get easier, in this Practice makes Perfect really applies.. Congratz on your first Rendezvous!

I havent killed Jeb, nor any kerbal in a long time, my expierence level surpassed that level Now if you ask me how many times Jeb laughed in the face of death and walked away, those are countless, so good there is an thing as Abort Action Group Jeb rides with me with one hand on the Controls and one hand on the Abort Lever And yeah, i have launched several resque missions to get that poor stranded kerbal back home, so its not all going smooth.. But the killing days are in the past

Believe me when i say, before you can do it, its borderline impossible hard, once you figure out how to do it, its becomes so easy, you wonder yourself how the hell you had such a hard time with it.. (well at least that how I felt when i finally mastered it) In short its basicly, (this it NOT the most efficient way, but the easiest one to comprehent for a new player) Orbit about 100-150 above or below the Target, at Ap, and keep Pe at the orbit of the target, you get then an Orbit of about (for example 150pe and 300 ap) while the Kerbal orbits at 150km. You select the Kerbal as target, then plan a manouvre node to intercept the Kerbal. This ofc means some dragging and tweaking the node, and maybe even it will take several orbits before you getting close (-10km distance) when you are having an node planned that brings you as close you can possible can, after executing it, the you start to make an retro burn (your orbit speed is prolly now stating Target speed) thus you need to or switch to Orbital mode, or visually turn into Retroburn position (latest is preferable) and retro burn till the target speed is 0 or very close to 0.. Then you aim your rocket towards the kerbal(or whatever you want to rendesvouv with) and burn towards it, and again turn to the Retro marker when your closing in more to stop when you getting very close, or start to move away again from the target, remember this has to be done on the TargetSpeed mode of the navball. Rince and repeat till you really close (less at 100 meters) and final part you get close by using RCS.. It is possible to get really close to the object without RCS but this will need alot of quick burns turning forward and parrallel turns to the target. Again this IS not the most efficient way, but its the way i basicly did it the first time, and went on from this procedure to alot more efficient and quicker rendezvous to a point i nowerdays can rendezvous directly from launch into the point i catch up dock and all right from launch. But you have to master the basics first, and i think the way i described it, for a new player its the easiest way to learn the basics.

TBH it is possible to lauch and have the launchclamp still attached to the vehicle, true without some weird silly insanse tricks its bordering indead impossible, but i happen to have had on a few crazy failing occasions the clamp kept attached to the vehicle on launch.. Having that said, needless to say the flight ofc never made it into orbin, and just left a nice crater into the surface. Bringing it into Orbit or even to the mun well, yeah, i doubt its possible without any cheating, or you need a very weird design i TBH cannot think of how it could even be done. Allthough i getting a feel of a challenge here...

Yes, allthough my perfectionism is also going hand in hand with estetics, it has to A : preform perfectly B : As simple as possible C : looks smooth / Real as possible This high standard does mean alot of my designs even though perfectly good working, end up in the scrapbin. And thus means my program is progressing very slowly

Yup, i loved this one, at first i was like of, WTF, then i thought about it, and yes, makes sence in a Kerbal kinda way, without a good test they never will know for sure it woudnt work Some contracts are borderline insanity that make you really think out of the box, what i really can appriciate

ECLSS also may cause some severe FPS drops.. i like the mod itself more as TAC, but after playing a while with it, the FPS drop became unbearable

Dammit, now i am thinking of my previous dog that sadly passed away in his prime of his life by drowning, not bursting out in tears, but i have allready that chunck upon my throat. Good thing my current dogs allready sitting next to me cheerfully cheering me up, eager to go on the next walk while they still catching their breath of the walk we just came back from.. (dogs will be dogs) like some said "Dogs are too good for the world, which is why we only get them for a little while. "

I love KSP, playing it with alot of joy, but its not the only game i play, otherwise i would get bored and burned out on it pretty fast, i have tendencies to play it a few weeks in a row, and then put it aside a while, then often at night KSP then pops into my mind and start to envision some project in KSP.. Worst part when this happens, my sleep is over and i just have to play the fri.... game again for weeks, till i burn up again, and play something else for a while.. Change of spice makes hungry (or something in those lines )

I lost track of how many i acummulated in time, got 3 carreer saves with all research unlocked, one Vanilla, one Heavy Modded one, and a "fiddling" save.. Granted, atm i lost a tat interrest in KSP, so taking a tat of a break, and patiently wait for the next update, and start all over again from scratch, going again for a full Techtree in several scenario's fully funded by a budget :-)

Great, so many people whined that KSP needed to be more polished, the Devs finally gave into it, and we getting Gold Polished Kerbals...

I have the issue that the F key, thats used to temporairy disable the SAS also brings up FF screen, what is really frustrating, beeing in the middle of some a landing, then suddenly that screen pops up, while you ment to disable for a sec the SAS, and cant seem to find how to disable this, only to reassign the F key to interrupt the SAS to a other key as default leaving F to final frontier, or do i miss something.

Technically overcomplicated rockets