*Aqua*

My dad has a big library and almost all of the books contain sci fi storys (~400 books total). So I read through the library (several times over the years) starting with the age of ~10. Some years later my parents thought it might be a good idea to give me a telescope on christmas and a book about astronomy. That really got me interested about space especially after seeing Saturn with my own eyes. The telescope was really cheap: The magnification was low and the image a bit blurry but I could make out the rings! Hell yeah! Later my interests shifted to something different but I still have a passion about space. And I still own that telescope (should be almost 20 years old). ;-) From time to time I look up websites about amateur sky watchers (is that the right name?) to check out prices for a decent telescope and maybe a fitting camera. Confronted by reality I turn around saying to myself that I don't have time to sit all night staring at the sky and investing >750 € for hardware. Maybe I should check out some amateur associations to let me have a look through their telescopes - just to find out if observing the sky still fits me.

Is this question for me or K^2?If you ask me I would go along what Germany does. In a way it makes sense: If it is within your reach and you have the means to control it, you can claim it's yours. In the case of Germany the end of the state's airspace would be at about 30-40 km height (I think there are missles which can climb up there). In the case of the USA it will reach to the border of space. The USA is known to have missles which can shoot down satellites. That should be enough to prove that it (he? she?) has the means to control. This kind of definition has the advantage that you don't have to define space or at which height planes can't fly anymore. It should suffice for the next decades.

I think your definition is weak because orbits aren't indefinitely stable. They will decay in the near or far future. Which brings us back to the question where space begins/ends and when it will concern a state. I would like to keep the question about where space begins aside and concentrate the discussion on the end of (a state's) airspace. Both don't have to be the same (see my example about Germany).

Hello! I tried to find a definition where the upper end of airspace belonging to a country is. In Germany the upper end is defined as the atmospheric height where the state can't impose authority anymore. That means the border depends on the access of a state on devices capable of reaching that height (planes, missles, etc.). Because of that no exact height number is stated. There doesn't seem to exist an international law concerning that topic. Yes, there's the space treaty but that doesn't define at which height space begins. And it doesn't say anything about the airspace belonging to a country. Do you know something about that? At which height does you country set the upper limit (if it does)?

Unity currently uses several cores, one for each thread. There's one thread for graphics, one for physics (that's what limits KSP), one for networking, etc. Unity 5 will allow more threads for physic calculations, so an acceleration can be expected - if Squad ever decides to switch to Unity 5.

Changing an equatorial to a polar orbit is never a simple maneuver if you are in an equatorial near-circular orbit. Why? In the end it means you'll have to change your current prograde velocity to 0 m/s and your (anti) normal velocity to orbital speed. You'll usually can't do that when orbiting in a low orbit around a heavy planet/moon because you most likely don't have enough thrust to do that fast enough. In orbits around light planets or moons it is possible (i. e. Gilly). I don't see a way for a mod to help you with that. In my experience you'll always need at least two maneuvers (first: inclination change; second: inclination fine tuning & circularize again). In my opinion it is best to either launch directly into a polar orbit on Kerbin (if you need that kind of orbit there) or plan your transfer orbit so, that you'll end up in a polar orbit.

My god! No matter which picture I look at, I always see my computer lagging!

Wah, I mistook '+' as insert, not as copy. My bad! What does the log say? MM lists everything it does in there.

MM is for modifying ConfigNodes, not for adding parts to the game. Just read the part cfgs of the stock parts to figure out, how to write that. (It's basically MM minus the operators and []-brackets stuff.)

Mun I can't count how many landers I lost there. Even after a lot of time playing KSP I usually still crash into the surface. It seems I underestimate my speed most of the time leading to a too late breaking maneuver.

I don't watch the stream. - It is live at about 2-3 am in my time zone. - It's all in English. While I believe I'm pretty good at reading English, listening to it and translating it at the same time is difficult. - I somehow don't like Twitch for reasons I can't explain.

That's logical reasoning. An all-knowing AI knows everything by definition, even secrets and the future. So, can a society function where no secrets can be kept secret? The existence of white lies tells me, secrets are needed. The next point is the future: As long as we don't know what will happen, we decide freely what we are going to do. But if we know the future we can't escape that outcome, no matter what we do. That's what I meant with the AI killing our free will.

I found a very old thread about KSPField: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/10296-0-15-code-update-PartModule-KSPField-KSPEvent-ConfigNode-and-PartResource?p=168279&viewfull=1#post168279 If I understand that post right, KSPField can't handle complex data structures without some help. But again, it's a very old post. It could be different now.

@WestAir Why would that be funny? This AI would kill our free will (if there's such a thing). That's a direct consequence of that machine. Also our society, as we know it, will break down. People need to have secrets to be able to live in a community. With this AI there won't be secrets anymore.

I'm not sure about that, but I think adding the KSPField attribute doesn't imply, that the float curve is saved and loaded by KSP by default. You'll have to modify it: [KSPField(isPersistant = true)] Also make sure you test that on a newly launched vessel. Existing parts may not have that attribute if you launched them before you added it in your code.

What's that? A Trojan rabbit rover?

B9 has two very large legs. The Infernal Robots Model rework has a landing foot (not a leg, a foot!). Transparend pods has an ultra tiny landing leg.

There's another good site: http://ryohpops.github.io/kspRemoteTechPlanner/ It calculates night time and battery capacity needed.

ModuleManager adds a reload database function on Alt+F11.

Retrieving and storing air can be done in real life. Kraken drives obviously won't work. That's where I see the line between "legit" and "cheaty".

In theory you can "store" intake air, bring it to space to let the jets run for a fraction of a second. That could be enough to get the periapsis above the atmosphere. There are some other ways but I consider them cheaty (infinigliders, Kraken drives, etc.).

He thinks intelligence has a direct relation to entropy. His "intelligence formula" reflects this. He also said, an intelligent being must constrain itself in some way for a short period of time to reach a goal which grants more freedom of action in the long term. In my opinion this is a contradiction. According to his "formula" an intelligent being always has a goal: To maximize future freedom of action. To archieve that goal it is allowed to constrain its current freedom of action. The logical consequence is that an intelligent being will constrain itself more and more to gain more and more freedom of action in the future, eventually leading to a state where it can't act anymore due to the constraints. That also means it won't be able reach any goal anymore. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Acting to maximize future freedom of action will eventually lead to the loss of all freedom of action. That's like ....ing for virginity or fighting for peace. (That word filter is annoying. Making love is censored but killing people isn't.)

Exactly. I pretty sure there's somewhere a data structure which lists all the forces which are applied to a part. I know that because I found a way to add a force vector to a part. But there is no exposed method to query the added forces or the resulting force. It's not the fault of KSP, instead it's a limitation of Unity. Maybe it has something to do with PhysX licensing or the way the physics engine works (maybe it doesn't store forces to allow to query them).

It's possible. But that doesn't tell us how much stress there is and when the connection is about to break. That's calculated in the physics engine and stays in it. Calculating this stress or force by a plugin would mean to reverse engineer PhysX (I don't think that's legal) and/or implement a programm which imitates the calculation of the physics engine (too much work; computationally intensive). So far I don't see a way to get to know about forces.

The mouse events let you figure out which UI elements you hover when you press a mouse button. I guess that's how it was done.