bendeezer

I've enjoyed this game for so many hours that I may actually reach 2000 hours of play before 1.0. That said, there are a few tiny things I wish were added to this game. Glimmers / Lens-flares. Easter eggs in the game are so small, and the planets so massive, that a little help from spotting them from a distance (before the models have actually loaded) would be nice. I think these lighting effects could be a meaningful way to translate that a specific area requires closer examination. (Yes, I'm aware certain sat-mapping and telescopic/camera mods can pinpoint these Easter eggs from great distances, I'm talking about a stock method of detection from low orbits and/or 10k to 15k away from the objects.) Loaded physics for longer ranges on active probes. I like dropping science probes on various parts of kerbin like bombs, and trying to orbit them the whole time it takes them to fall to the ground within the 2 or so k that allows the object to still exist is a bit bothersome. I don't mind loitering until it's grounded, but the current loading distance is a bit restrictive. I also think greater loading ranges would help with RDV's of large objects because the frame rate drop is likely to come and go before a breaking burn. I really hate it when I pass a station because of frame drop, or I was just "this close" to having a science probe or rover landed on a mountain before I lost it (despite all my best efforts to stay in range.) I think everything else I want for the game before it's 1.0 is pretty much already on the drawing board. something like it) becoming stock would be a great add too.

Thanks for the replies. I think I may have been confusing myself. Speed of light is constant (in vacuum), so the gravity illusions I was describing wouldn't be apparent regardless of time differentials, even though they do become apparent whenever a large gravity source is between you and the objects you are observing. (Gravitational lensing.) Anyway, thinks for your help but it will probably be a few more decades before I'm actually not so confused by it.

The primary issue with using parachutes and splash landings on rocket boosters is that the cost of retrieval goes up as well as the time intervals for recovery, because you would have an uncontrolled landing, in a wide target area on to a surface that moves. The secondary issue with this kind of landing for reusable aircraft is that the forces involved on "landing" usually warp the airframe considerably, and a lot of time is spent on inspection and refurbishment on damaged and warped parts. The cost of fuel for a controlled safe return is actually reduces costs, and decreases the intervals between luanch-dates for a reusable craft significantly. So, it actually (profitability wise) what you definitely want to shoot for. The hurdle is wheter or not can do it safely.

[Physics] A question on the relativity of time effecting perception operating in two radically different gravity environments in our Universe. Hey everyone, I've been reading a copy of Eisenstein's Theory of Relativity off and on for a while now. I'm at best a layman with no traditional education in physics who just enjoys the subject. (At my own peril, I've been learning whatever I can, at my own pace from reading books and watching you-tube videos on the subject. Who knew it could be used for more than watching kittens play keyboards!) Anyway, everyone talks about the relativity of time, and I've been having a hard time (in my head) of picturing the universe as it is operating in different pockets of time which seems to basically be generated by the motions and densities of matter. As the motion and/or density of matter increases relative to the speed of light, time slows down; and currently in a high motion high mass (deep gravity) environment represented by the “singularity†of black holes at least some physicists currently believe time just stops, and others just say our understanding of physics just completely breaks down at the point of “singularity.†Whenever this topic is talked about, this is always what they focus on, because apparently everyone who works with the concept wants to try to figure out how to go faster than light someday. (Given the vastness of space, I can't say I blame them.) But, what I can't find anyone at all talking about is what happens at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. At what speed does time travel for a really small object that has little or no frame of reference to measure its motion except for photons zipping past it in every direction--and object basically moving at low speed relative to light in very (shallow gravity) Say for instance a single hydrogen atom floating in intergalactic space? If you could shrink yourself down to that size, and still retain your ability to perceive the rest of the universe (let's also say even though you retain sentience, you're not biological, so rapid onset aging won't instantly kill you), what exactly would the rest of the universe look like? I guess that time would be going very fast for you, and very slow for everything else. But, I don't know what that would look like. In fact, if I imagine myself in a deep gravity situation looking outward at the universe, and then I put myself in a shallow gravity situation and look outward at the universe, it seems like time would always be perceived as moving at a constant (weather it is zipping by, or allegedly stopped) no matter what, but what I end up actually observing in the rest of universe becomes radically different based on these reference frames. In deep gravity I think my field of view would be much greater, allowing me to see further afield and at higher resolutions than in shallow gravity. In deep gravity everything would be crisp and clear, maybe things would even appear closer than they actually are. But, accounting for the actual position of objects would become harder because of the extreme curves light would take to reach me in such situations would make them harder to trace back to the point of origin. Usually, whenever people talk about black hole situations they are focused on the effects of going ever deeper into them, they don't usually go into detail about what it would be like to turn around and look out from one. OR---It might be that since light from different periods of time begin to hit you at the same time, maybe without dissipation. A black-hole might actually be brighter than anything else in the universe, on the inside looking out. So, bright that you couldn't expect to see anything but light. And in shallow gravity everything would be skewed and blurry, perhaps not even recognizable as a universe full of galactic structuresâ€â€just fuzz, static, or fleshing lights; things in this environment might appear much further away than they really are, and being able to measure for distance I imagine would be near impossible, because you would not be able to identify anything with any clarity, especially with everything expanding away at faster and faster rates. In an intergalactic medium, I imagine that light would be experienced in flashes with ever increasing intervals of darkness in between. The darkness might actually be enveloping without much or any significant lensing effect caused by gravity. Seems like an cosmic irony... you would think that putting yourself into a position of shallow gravity in intergalactic space would allow you to see more, rather than less, because there would be less things immediately around you blocking your field of view. And in or near black-holes you'd intuitively be expecting to see less, because of how everything gets all jammed up, your field of view would be blocked. But, it's actually just the opposite. Black holes are getting information overloads from all over the universe, and intergalactic space is likely not getting very much information at all about whatever is beyond it. Anyway, I'm hoping someone with greater familiarity with relativity can tell me if I'm understanding/imagining these things correctly in my head. I don't nearly have a good enough grasp on all the physics equations involved in this situation, or inputing realistic values into the variables to hope for any accuracy. I struggle with newton and Einstein level physics, and don't even know any equations that deal with quantum mechanics. I mostly just want to know if I'm conceptualizing the effects of relativistic time in an accurate way on a intergalactic or universal scale. I'm pretty sure, my perception about the black hole situation is accurate, because lots of physicists talk about it... but no one ever seems to talk in much detail about how relativity works in the near nothingness in intergalactic space... and I would like to know more about that. Also if anyone would like to walk me through the relevant equations to this topic, or post links to videos properly explaining the equations involved for understanding time relativity, that would be great.

With unlimited funds you could get several ghostbuster-like positron packs mount them to your space craft, extend out a thethered a protoplasmic trap, put the nuetron star in your target reticle, and then CROSS THE STREAMS! The only potential hazard is that you might obliterate the universe. A risk well worth taking if you ask me!