ModZero

By "idiots" you mean engineers? Because they're overrepresented in right-wing extremist groups. Perhaps luckily (unless you're trying to build a new nuclear power plant or something) nuclear engineers are rather uncommon amongst engineers to begin with, though.

I'm pretty sure flying actual museum exhibits would raise objections beyond the technical and financial ;-)

Historical interest? The motivations of hobbyists with too much money don't have to make sense, I mean, just look at Hyperloop. Also, I just spent a few hours playing Car Mechanic Simulator 2018, and my friends just bought a Fiat Panda from, as far as I can tell, 1812. I can definitely see the appeal of trying to rebuild a historical capsule, even if I think people pursuing it aren't taxed highly enough. It couldn't be an exact replica - I doubt it would be even vaguely legal to fly it in 2017 - but matching it visually?

Why do you hate art?

It's their land and their culturally significant landmark, and the telescope is an intrusion by what amounts is an occupying force; they don't have to "earn" our respect. You don't have to share a faith with them to be respectful towards it. And, uh, such colonial demands towards people are really a bad look in the 21st century.

No it doesn't, because the only customer willing to pay for the service is the army. EDIT: Well, it was a high-point of the presentation from the humorous perspective. I think you can put the barge in the Zurich lake?

Look. The *people* here consider it of a high cultural value for them. That's enough for any decent person. And this has nothing to do with archeology. Oh no you didn't.

This is known as "happy like Daily Mail after finding an immigrant who hates black people." Look, they're not some weird odd people. I mean, I don't know about the US, but in Europe there is plenty of places where you will not be let to build stuff, and culture is going to be one large reason. And yes, some of those are going to be nature. Every time you try to do logging in what little forest we have, or digging for shale gas under historic towns, you get huge protests. But when non-white people do the same, you all start dismissing it as "religion." Much of the protected buildings in Europe are churches. I'm not sure the idea of converting the Notre Dame into lofts would go down very well.

*PowerPoint animation* *Applause* I feel a sudden urge to start linking Star Citizen spaceship presentations in this section.

Well, London is viable, for certain values of "viable" — you'd have to fly over populated areas in both directions, and the trip to the barge would be a bit on the long side compared to the hopeful things. Oh, and find people willing to spend hilarious amount of money to regularly commute from NYC to London in less than 2h. I'm sure any noise regulations won't be much of a problem. I mean, Concorde was such a roaring success.

Ahahaha the fast changing city names included Zurich. Yeah, Zurich will totally allow low-flying ICBMs full of people.

Well, if it's anything like Scandinavia, at least now we know the economic value of Mars: depressing crime novels, metal, ambient and vodka.

Well, that's too bad, because I would expect that biologists would be acquainted with ideas such as "non sequitur," and "not guesstimating nonsense about things that aren't really biology on public forums." But maybe math schools are just better at this, though I'd note other biologists I read seem to get it. If you said that _first_ then I might even believe that biology thing, though tbh, next to claims that colonizing the solar system would substantially change that number makes me doubt it anyway. Not that it matters at all I have access to the Internet, a degree in claiming I have degrees, knowledge of the difference between biology, ecology and economics, a short temper and a button to shut out the replies. EDIT: this reminds me of the time when several geologists from the Polish PAN decided to make a public statement that "they're geologists and they know about earth and there's no global warming."

Just because something is "law of nature" doesn't mean it's an ethical guideline, or a true "law". It's easy to figure out if you use evolution as an example — evolution is a "law of nature" (however imperfect that expression is), but if someone told you they want to "help the evolution", you'd probably back away slowly, and start running as soon as you turned the corner.

It should be taken literally. I consider what people like Elon Musk and the entire silicon valley venture capital crowd "enterpreneurs", in quotes. It's a pyramid scheme. ...when pigs fly. My knowledge of biology leads me to a guestimate of your knowledge of biology to be about nil. That's fine, this is a "science, spaceflight, and pretending it's not politics" subforum on a vidya game forum, but, uh, you know that we're actually unlikely to "hit the cap"? We're going to slow down our breeding before that. Also, sending a few people to Mars helps nothing. Why would we want to increase the population further? This is not a game with a score depending on how much you BREEEEEEEED. Even if it _was_ (which is isn't) the capability of the solar system outside of earth to sustain human life is minuscule (you need fertile soil, you know? And a bunch of other things, but fertile soil. That means volcanoes, btw. No, really, you literally need volcanoes for sustainable fertile soil). But, that's irrelevant, because no, we don't need to increase human population into infinity. We don't even need to "preserve the species" at all cost. There is no high authority that somehow forces us to do that, and sacrifice the happiness of the actually living to do that. In fact, both those ideas — the "species preservation" and "increasing the population" are repulsive, and elevating them above all others is what's at the very core of some of the worst things that happened in the 20th century. Let's not do that again, shall we?

The graveyard orbit is pretty big, though, even compared to the oceans, and unlike GEO you usually don't particularly care about your neighbors and their EM emissions. Also, last time I checked in space there were no cute purple octopuses that would get sick because of the trash.

No recycling until we have a propulsion system that's at once cheap, high dV, and has a decent thrust. Right now that's a bit of a "pick one" situation. VASIMR people tried to "advertise" their thingie as a potential "space junk cleaner" engine (totally worth watching for music that somehow makes me feel like I'm watching a truck advertising. That might be intentional. Also, extremely KSP-ey spacecraft), but, uh, they don't really have anything to show for it, and considering the power needs, I don't think they'd get past "pick two" if they somehow succeed.

That's utterly untrue. Most of the time people actually do have some evidence the thing they're trying will be useful — and the bigger the thing is, the more reason they need before they try. While things people do "for fun" may seem an exception, they're not — fun is a benefit, and yes, sometimes the evidence turns out wrong. There's so much evidence for wide-ranging benefits of socializing with others that I think you must be kidding. Aaaaah, I get it. You don't know what evidence or "proven" means outside of some relatively narrow parts of mathematics. No, in all those cases people have strong evidence that what they are going to attempt has a good chance of delivering good results. That it sometimes doesn't isn't enough to invalidate the proof, because we're not talking the Pythagoras theorem. No. Too few people, for example, the friends thing you mention is actually the reason why it wouldn't work on small scale. On large scale, we know how much an individual impact outstrips their land use on Earth in countries with great soils. So a Mars colony has zero chance of being big and not a famine. It already does that in the best way it can: robots. We should send more robots there, by the way. You first. Those are fantasies, and comparing health services to monorails is insulting. We actually know why those are useful. Meanwhile you're here apparently counting science in kilograms. Actually they seem mostly focused on white supremacy, but that's a detail. Sorry, but what are people supposed to look for? Honorable death from radiation sickness? Whenever people decided they need something "more" than that, a continent underwent a genocide. There is nothing good in that colonial attitude. Also, "enterpreneurs" should be illegal. I guess after the rest of your post it doesn't seem particularly surprising you'd expect Earth to just sit there and eat popcorn while Mars starves.

Sorry, but what? There's little proven benefit to going to Mars, outside of prestige stuff. Meanwhile there a ton of opportunity lost by not spending the resources - materials, people's time, money - on pretty much anything else. Opportunity cost is what Mars mission advocates routinely miss. Going to Mars misses other opportunities, like hiring your presumably highly qualified colonists in some actually productive jobs, like, say, teaching. Or manufacturing faucets. Still more productive. Huh? That doesn't matter. There's little benefit of this for us here, there's no global crisis this is going to prevent, if anything you're missing out on 2 years of sending rescue missions. From the colony perspective, it doesn't matter at all, because its development *starts* when the thing happens. It's an isolated economy anyway. We can have great famines here on Earth, we don't need to go to Mars for that.

Other. US is becoming increasingly unstable, and SpaceX is practically limited by it. I also think that upstart countries like China and India have more motivation to do silly, prestige things like Mars missions. PR requirements of US can be satisfactorily met by launching empty cans on high suborbital trajectories once every five years. 2030 or later. Mostly when it becomes easy enough that sending a basic, return mission becomes more of a question of "why not" ("because it's expensive", but maybe you want show off how much you can afford) than "why." Hopefully neither. Or, "domes", because that's least permanent. Frankly, if we survive the next few decades in a shape allowing for flying something heavier than a kite, we'll probably grow up to the point where "terraforming" is considered an atrocity. Because it is one, it's a planetary equivalent of turning everything into a McDonalds and a parking lot. And "bioforming"? Hah, lol, nope, that's fantasy land. EDIT: also, use the term "crewed," "manned" is anachronistic.

To quote the master, once it goes up, who cares where it comes down. You may laugh now.

Awesome, that helped and looks perfect, thanks.

Here you go: https://github.com/valerian/ksp-planetshine/blob/master/LICENSE

So, I'm experiencing a similar issue to @terminalmonky, except I don't have Seti configs, or in fact anything that would change the CBK config in a way mentioning the observatory. I'm not a C# programmer, but I took a look at both ResearchBodies and CustomBarnKit, and what I see is that there's an enum which amounts to a hardcoded facility list, and a foreach that enumerates all SpaceCenterFacility's, then using System.Enum.Parse to figure out which one in the enum it is. Unfortunately, CBK adds its own here, with the name not in the enum, so the entire thing crashes. I'd try submitting a patch, but I don't really do C# (it's just similar enough), and I don't even know how to set up a dev environment for modding this. Sorry if I get things terribly wrong, I've seen the last commit message and don't want to make things worse ;-)

If they even were from Europe at all, my entire point was that Europe wasn't all that important. Insert obvious Monty Python reference here.