Would love to see your mod list!
Sure thing. I'll let Add-On Version Checker do the work for me, so this list will include version numbers. Not all of these are up to date for 1.6.x, but as best I can tell they all still work properly.
KSP: 1.6.1 (Win64) - Unity: 2017.1.3p1 - OS: Windows 10 (10.0.0) 64bit
ClickThroughBlocker - 0.1.7.1
KSP API Extensions /L - 220.127.116.11
Toolbar - 1.7.18
ToolbarControl - 0.1.6.20
AtmosphereAutopilot - 1.5.12
B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.50
Community Category Kit - 4.1
Community Resource Pack - 1.1
Community Trait Icons - 1.0.2
AGExt - 18.104.22.168 (Action Groups Extended)
Dynamic Deflection - 1.2.4
EVAEnhancementsContinued - 0.1.13.6
ExtraplanetaryLaunchpads - 6.4
Ferram Aerospace Research - 0.15.9.7
HullcamVDSContinued - 0.1.11
Interstellar Fuel Switch - 22.214.171.124
KAS - 1.1.6876.38030
Kerbal Engineer Redux - 126.96.36.199
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement /L - 188.8.131.52
Kerbal Inventory System - 1.16.6876.37464
KSP-AVC Plugin - 184.108.40.206 (Add-On Version Checker)
ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.2.6
Docking Port Alignment Indicator - 6.8.3
NRAP - 1.5.13
PatchManager - 0.0.16.4
Portrait Stats - 1.0.17
Precise Node - 220.127.116.11
Protractor Continued - 2.11
RCS Build Aid - 0.9.7.6
Ship Manifest - 5.2.1
StageRecovery - 1.9.1
Surface Mounted Lights - 1.12.7006.42726
TAC Fuel Balancer - 2.20
Trajectories - 2.2.1
Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.10
TweakScale - 18.104.22.168
USI Alcubierre Drive - 1.1
EVAParachutesAndEjectionSeats - 0.1.16
Waypoint Manager - 2.7.4
WildBlueTools - 1.72.1
Kerbal Actuators - 1.7.1
Buffalo - 2.6.13
Mark One Laboratory Extensions - 1.17.2
Pathfinder - 1.32.4
OSE Workshop - 1.3.1
In my screenshots from today, the Auk XVI is using B9 Procedural Wings, the Docking Port Alignment Indicator is being displayed and the mass driver and SAFER reactors come from Buffalo. I think that House Harkonnen's drydock comes from Mark One Lab Extensions (that one may possibly also be Buffalo), and she has an Alcubierre Drive installed.
The portable lab and Gemini parts docked up at Kerbinport in the first screenie are definitely from MOLE (Mark One Lab Extensions).
I re-installed KSP today. Fired it up to insure it worked. Went to CurseForge. Downloaded Mechjeb; watched a video to remind me how mods in this game work. Extracted the MJ archive and plopped into the folder. Fired up KSP. Got an error about MJ not being properly installed. Realized it was the dreaded double-packaged problem that so often happens with 7zip. Grabbed the inner directory and moved it outside the outer directory, deleted the outer and fired up KSP again to success. Then, my modaholism kicked in and I began to download every mod I recognized and loved (from my previous install on a version long, long ago, on a hard drive, far, far away) . . . I think I got about 3 pages deep before I realized I was creating an enormous backlog of installing for myself and restrained my urge to download still more mods. I closed the window and made a mental note to myself to install and debug those dozen or so mods I had downloaded "when I get the time."
For whom? Well, for me and people with tastes like mine, so perhaps several tens of millions of would-be consumers I suppose. Consider how many copies games like Civilization sell; that seems like a fair index of "for whom." How "much better?" Well, there is no accounting for tastes, but I think most developers would agree that selling 1 million copies > 100,000! And again: consider how many copies of games like Civilization sell. Rimworld is another point to consider; slightly different set of factors but also instructive. What stops ME from building a campaign generator? Well for one thing, I've got other things I need to work on which promise more for me personally. But for another, I don't have access to his source code nor permission to gain access to it or use it. I suppose if I did have access to his source code, and assuming it is a language I'm not unfamiliar with (I think it is C++ so that would fly for me!) . . . well, I suppose it would kinda fun to take a stab at building him a campaign generator, or at least to write up a framework for how economics and logistics would. I wouldn't even really want any recompense other than the recognition of any successful outcome, and of course constrained by a proper NDA. That said: in the little bit of time I spent on their forums, I didn't get the impression the fellow felt comfortable bringing in more helper developers and I cannot blame him. Share your source code with someone and you just might be giving away your livelihood.
Life itself is, in some sense, a defiance of "physics and chemistry." What happens to a dead body? It decays. So why are none of us decaying yet? Because we are alive. Senescence itself is an adaptation, and it does not reflect, as some of you seem to think a simple manifestation of 'wear-and-tear' or 'expenditure of supplies.' It does involve trade-offs in somatic versus reproductive effort and various other forms of life-history allocation, and to be sure all of those relations (as well as the very existence of life itself) adhere strictly to the natural constraints of reality which are so coarsely described in our "natural sciences." I believe it was in the Blind Watchmaker or else the Selfish Gene that Richard Dawkins planted these notions in my head.
I think your definition of "hard sci fi" differs from the norm Sounds very nice, but I think you've actually evaded the question. I asked why senescence rates in eukaryotes vary between very brief time intervals and relatively much longer ones. You can refer to physics all you want, and it is undoubtedly true that whatever ultimate explanation to such a question is reached will be explicable in terms of physics. But you are NOT going to be able to arrive at that explanation with pure physics. You need the more inclusive level of scientific inquiry, commonly called biology, to get to your explanation. Biology explains how organisms can--by degrees and temporarily--defy physics is my point. Frogs shouldn't be able to go dormant for a whole winter in the mud under a lake, with their entire body temperature dropping very close to the freezing point of water, and some of their peripheral limbs actually freezing and survive: but they do. You cannot tell me why senesecence rates vary because this is a big question in biology which has yet to be fully explored, and physicists are in no position to answer it either.
That is a good find, I appreciate it. It makes the point I was attempting to argue, i.e., that hibernation, stasis or something along those lines is a plausible means for humans to undertake interstellar travel. Not yet a proven technology, and perhaps never actually achievable, but plausible, unlike say FTL which is implausible. That in my opinion is the key distinction between hard and soft science fiction; your distinction apparently being 'if it doesn't already exist then it is soft science fiction, if it already exists, but only in very limited form then it counts as hard science fiction'.
Lotta "ifs" but I suppose there is some slim chance Proxima isn't a scorched, airless rock. I suppose the whole color scheme for flora would be totally different given Proxima is shifted more to the infrared end of the spectrum? Seem to recall someone saying that an analog of chlorphyll in that context would need to be more toward the black end of the spectrum in order to be optimized the way our green chlorphyll is optimized for Sol.
Why then do senescence rates in eukaryotes vary between mere weeks and literal centuries? The whole point of biology is to temporarily defy entropy. It may well be true that completely forgoing it is impossible, but no one has suggested that have they? Point is: sound biology doesn't defy physics or chemistry, but physics and chemistry cannot fully explain biology. The fact a bristlecone pine ages so much more slowly than a frog or a house cat can be reduced down to the level of chemistry and physics and what we would find at that level is: biological system "working around" the rules of the universe which are coarsely represented by human conceptions like "laws." It seems to me that very few of our "laws" are truly law like given the necessity of x-variables like dark matter and dark energy.
Well, apparently it MIGHT have that 3/2 orbital synchrony and if it had a very high saline content oceans, then that combined with the 3/2 (264 Earth-hour long "day" and same length "night" and no appreciable seasons . . . don't think an axial tilt is viable with the 3/2?) means that some modeling suggests it could be "tropical" along the equator! ADDIT: also! Gotta have a VERY good magnetosphere which has been functioning reliably for its whole ~4 billion year lifetime protecting the planet from Proxima's radioactive tantrums!
I've been studying the broad interdisciplinary area of human biopsychology since the late 1970s. I've been studying computer science since early 2016. In my opinion, we are CENTURIES from having even the most basic necessary understandings of human psyches to be able to "upload" people. We are in contrast, already placing people (routinely) into a variety of altered states of metabolism and consciousness, as well as restoring normal states to people who have for reasons of disease or trauma been plunged into degenerative states (e.g., "death"). The problems of regulating metabolic state so as to induce a kind of "stasis" are already being solved, though still in elementary degrees. These problems have immediate real world benefits with real economic value (e.g., saving people from disease and trauma) and short of ethical constraints, budgetary limitations are always going to be minimal. The central problems are ones with molecular biology which are readily approached through both in vitro studies and in vivo nonhuman studies and where there will always be populations of near-death humans with whom to gain "last-ditch" advances in knowledge. As such, we may only be decades from having sufficient technology to gain functional benefits from placing humans into prolonged metabolic stasis (aka, "cyro-stasis") for various purposes. Have I attacked YOU? Could you point out to me where I have engaged in an ad hominem against YOU? From my standpoint, I have reacted to your egregiously rude, dismissive, and frankly ill-informed and pedantic commentary, which, as I said, is perhaps a consequence of English not being your native language?
You should be respectful and restrained in your claims to only those you actually have reasonable knowledge basis to make, if you do not want the quality and veracity of your arguments to undergo attacks. You do not know what you are talking about and you are not okay with just admitting that and saying "Ah my bad. I didn't know about that."
If you are not looking for a fight then why did you start one? Perhaps the fact English is not your first language is what accounts for your rudeness and lack of comprehension? Same with every technology that has ever gone from imagined to real . . . your efforts to stand firm with whatever position you've taken have the appearance of diminishing good will and increasing defensiveness from my standpoint. . . . what does this even mean? Are you suggesting to me that you are fully versed in the sciences of senescence and caloric restriction, else that you read that entire article in the time lapse between my pointing it out to you and you responding? ADDIT: no need to read the whole thing, nor to spend 20 years of your life reading such things broadly, just read this: and now tell me again about how we understand "perfectly" that induced low-metabolic or "hibernation" states will have no effect on aging and subjects will suffer degeneration all the same.
You are aware of what happens to frogs, bats, etc. when they hibernate? Your level of knowledge of biology is sufficient for you to conclude that those processes cannot be modeled for application in humans? LOL, slowing aging is no problemo! The fact that you obviously have zero knowledge of this well-established empirical generalization (which has existed for decades) and yet seem to feel that you are sufficiently well-informed to dismiss science fiction which would leverage these sorts of natural phenomena is what I find remarkable. Like I said: I always thought you were a pretty cool, pretty knowledgeable and likeable person, but for some reason you are feeling particularly pedantic, argumentative and dismissive today
And I said "Yeah, 'freezing and thawing a human body alive is not hard scifi'. So what?" Like I said, try to understand There are now several posts since your first one including some by me where I provide more detail. I'll leave it at that, except to repeat what I already said several posts back. Not necessary to achieve functional benefits of cryo-stasis (which in truth should be called "Cryo-Chemo Stasis" because most legit models involve perfusion of specific drugs if not artificial blood into the organism to mediate non-destructive effects of the cooling). https://www.nursing.virginia.edu/news/alumnus-mark-adams/