*Aqua*

It could work if you use the same development of Standard German. In fact it's a constructed language made of approximately 50 German dialects which were the most important ones about 150 years ago.There are still states in Germany where pupils have to learn Standard German like a foreign language even if they know most of the words and grammar. And it works. At home they speak in their dialect and to other Germans they speak in Standard German. And the most important fact: People know that this kind of system is necessary. If you don't want to give up your local language but still want be able to communicate to others you'll have to learn additional languages. I think that depends on where the pupil comes from. Asians have huge problems with English because its structure (lots of consonants, over 1000 possible different syllables, letter alphabet, a lot of tenses) is completely foreign to them (usually almost no consonants, fixed number of syllables [around 40-50], syllables alphabet, small number of times [often only present and past tenses]). The cultural differences don't make it easier. Did you know that the Japanese language has over 50 words for "I"? They pick one of them depending on their gender, age, rank, if they want to be formal or informal, nice or rude, if they speak to a superior or a minor, family member or foreigner, etc. I still remember that the last pages of my English learning book always had a few pages of irregular verbs. By the end of the year every pupil must have memorized them. As mentioned before in this post, in Germany it works at least since WW2.

It's a bit similiar to how it works in Germany. There are three layers: Federal, state and county. The schools are run and financed by the states and make sure everybody gets a basic education as stated in a federal law. The counties don't have any saying but usually work together with the local schools.The last time I read about our education system there were some discomfort with that. Maybe there will be some classes which will be the same in every state by a federal order. So far the states one agreed to use the same set of school books in the most important subjects (math, German and maybe some others). English can still be the lingua franca, that's no problem. You can strip it down to something like the Basic English I mentioned. It consists of a few thousand common words and the most important grammar rules without all that fancy stuff which is specific to a country. Like I wrote to Newt, strip English down to the essentials needed for international and business communication. Do another one which is only used by the people of a country (e. g. UK). Both are still varieties of English and speakers of one of the varieties will still be able to communicate to the other one. There are about 375 - 400 native English speakers and about 1.5 billion which use it as a second language. The later ones will appreciate a simpler version while the first ones finally get their a modern written language. As for the quirks what should I say? I still don't why you speak the "i" in "I" differently compared to the "i" in "still". And I don't know why the "I" is usually capitalized while almost all other words aren't. If you're allowed to modify the language as much as you like as long as someone still understand it, it will lead to chaos. Because what can be done, will be done. I repeat: The English speaking countries already have different dialects or varieties (not sure which word a language scientists would use). The pronounciation are completely different. Indian English is unintelligible for me while British English often is easy to understand. American English is in between (sounds like a lot of mumbling to me). You as native English speakers may not know about this but in other non-English speaking countries there are some efforts for a standarized business English. It's impossible to teach them the English because there is none.

They don't need to agree. As you said each one already have their own kind of English. I guess Candians speaking English also mix in some French. US Americans will probably mix in some Spanish. And the UK? I think they already have a unique kind of English. As a foreigner I can easily tell guys from the UK and the USA apart. As for the German spelling reform: Switzerland only picked a few part and ignored the rest. They already have a variety of German (e. g. they don't have the ß). The US goverment has no control of all the schools? That's surprising. I wonder how they make sure everybody gets basic education. It's a bit different. You may not know about this. The Duden is the dictionary of the German language. If someone is in doubt about a word or a rule, a look in it will clear things up. When compared to other dictionaries the Duden is always considered to be right! But at the same time the dictionary is not the official standard of the language, it's somekind of de facto standard. This poses a problem. If a lot of people around you speak something different to what's in the Duden they are both right and wrong. Because a language changes over time people will come up new words and grammar. At the same time the new words and grammar is considered to be wrong by the dictionary and therefore other people will say "What you are writing is wrong! Use the Duden!" This lead to two kinds of German: A German you speak and a German you write. They solved that problem by adjusting the written language. Scientists pointed out what's difficult, obsolete or not logical. Examples: "ph" is spoken like an "f" or sometimes people have difficulty to write a specific word because it's borrowed from a foreign language or some rules are too complicated, etc. And then they reworked that. "Photographie" can now be spelled "Fotografie", the insane number of comma rules, which nobody could remember, are greatly reduced to an amount you can remember and difficult words like "Portemonaies" (French for purse, wallet) can now be written like a German speaks it, "Portmonee". In my opinion the English language needs the same kind of threatment because it has the same kind of problems German had. There doesn't have to be an international agreement of what and how to change. It would already help if one country like the UK implements a reform. The other countries will introduce a change eventually. And no, I don't expect for every country to change the language in the same way because they all already speak a different English. In my country in the schools they already point out some differences between American and British English (AE & BE). They try to get around this by teaching "Basic English", a subset of English which is similiar to AE and BE in most cases. Unfortunately even with that there are problems, e. g. the word color/colour.

> there is no body that can make a law for English You can change what language pupils have to learn in school and what language authorities have to use. And that's the only thing what the German goverment did. Of course you can't bind people by law to write "updated" English at home. That's entirely up to them. > the language is what people use, not what we decide it is I described it in an earlier post. Scientist analyzed how people spoke and wrote German and changed the old grammar rules to fit that. The only "new" thing was that the new rules were used to change some words to provide consistence. That's all. There was no decision, it was just an update for outdated rules. In another 50 years or so they'll probably do a reform again because the language changed in the mean time.

In the German speaking countries it worked the other way around. Scientists (including dictionary makers like Duden) worked out the new rules and then went to the goverments, telling them they need to make a new law.

- introduction in 1996, also start of transitional period (new spelling is now taught in school, old spelling is still allowed but a mix of old and new isn't) - second version published in 2004 - obligation in 2005 for officials, public authorities and schools (old spelling was considered wrong from that moment on) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg - third version published in 2006 What do you mean with "es sets"? Do you mean the "ß" (Eszett) aka sharp-s? The ß after short vowels is replaced by "ss" and unchanged after long vowels and diphthongs, e. g. "Schloßstraße" became "Schlossstraße" (engl. castle street). "Schloß" has a short vowel, "Straße" has a long one. Proper nouns are excluded from the change of rules. They still look like what they used to be. Would it? In Germany it worked somehow. A lot of words (and I mean really a lot of words!) were changed. The Duden (dictionary, de facto standard of German spelling) printed marked the new spelling: There was a lot of marking I can tell you. I found a list with all changed words somewhere, it lists about 9000 words. One of the main points of the reform was to "update" the rules and words according to how German is used today. So all the changes are in fact a representation of the current use of the German language by the public. I know there can be somekind of confusion. For example in the past they abandoned the long-s ("ſ"). From that point on some words can't be distinguished by the spelling, e. g. "Wachstube" (tube of wax) and "Wachſtube" (guard post). Both became "Wachstube". So it's time to update the language? Like we did in Germany? It makes no sense to continue writing in 16th century English while speaking 21st century English.

If the moon doesn't interfere, the upper stage will burn up in the atmosphere eventually. With an inclination of 37° I don't think the moon can do much. Also I don't believe it will enter a solar orbit. If there's an apogee it will come back to Earth. For example the ISS orbits in 400 km above ground and loses 50 to 150 meters per day. The lifetime of an object in 400 km is about one year.

@Mr....y Thanks for your reply! "sward" You do pronounce the "w"? Ok, then I must be too unused to spoken English to hear that. When I hear someone speaking the word "sword" I always think about "zord" (of the series Power Rangers). Sorry I can't get around that. ^^ "which" Here's the same. I don't hear an "h". But the German language also knows an unvoiced "h", e. g. "zehn" (means ten in English). It's spoken like "zen" with a long vowel (don't confuse it with the zen buddism, that has a short vowel!). It's a left-over from the middle ages. The last spelling reform (1996) removed a lot of these unvoiced consonants. I guess the next one will remove all of them. Is there none who tries to reform that? In Germany we had a spelling reform where not only a lot of word changed, the grammar rules were changed too. This led to a lot of confusion, that's why a part of the reform was canceled which increased the confusion even more. And then they decided to re-enacted some of it however... so nobody is sure what's allowed and what's not. Fortunately only officals have to write in the new spelling, the rest can do as they like. Which means that the older Germans still write in the old spelling and the younger ones in the new spelling because they learnt it in school. Some newspapers even invented their own spelling mixing new and old spelling. But now the German grammar is easier and a lot of exceptions were removed, e. g. in the old spelling there were 57(!) rules about where to place a comma, the new spelling only have 9 which people can merge into 3. That's what I call progress!

Interesting PDF! In the diagram on page 6 it says "Items/min". What items? Do they mean words with that? Korean works very differently to English. I'm not sure if you can compare them. I believe a Japanese would find it easier to learn Korean than English. As a native German speaker I'm often confused of how to pronounciate some words. It often makes no sense to me. A few examples: sword - Why is the "w" not pronounced? which - Why is the "h" not pronounced? know - Why is the "k" not pronounced but in "knock" it is? Edit: In "knock" you don't speak the "k" either. *sigh* In German pronounciation is easier to find out. There are some letters which are pronounced differently depending on the word which doesn't seem to follow any rules (e. g. "y" can sound like "i", "j" or "ü"). But overall "you speak like it's spelled" (rule of thumb). When I was in primary school I had to learn three alphabets: A-Z, a-z and the third alphabet is the pronounciation of each letter ("a", "be", "ce",... German pronounciation). I think the English people do the same? Or don't they?

@AngelLestat Now I understand what you are up to. That station is used as a reusable "hotel" or "taxi" so that you don't need that much life support on the transfer vessels from and to the station. Using this principle you don't need a fully featured space cruiser everytime you send people over interplanetary distances which then will be abandoned at the end of the mission. I'm not sure if that makes a transfer cheaper over time. The station has to be resupplied and it's not really in an easy to reach orbit. The course correction is also pretty difficult (large mass, change in mass on docking, precision needed, etc.) Also machines wear down. How long can a space station survive like that? Afaik the radiation is a big problem.

There are multiple ModuleScienceExperiment part modules. That's the reason. Change the line @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment] to @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment],* Then MM will apply the patch to all modules of that type in a part.

Are you sure you are modifying the right parameter? IIRC the science experiments also have some parameters which could be tweaked. But I don't know if they are the cause of your problem.

So there are parts which contains a ModuleEnviroSensor but no ModuleScienceExperiment? Ok, I learned something new. Or it didn't work because of the missing :FINAL parameter. I'm not sure...

Check if your code runs in the editor. E. g.: if (HighLogic.LoadedSceneIsEditor) ... Then cycle through the parts list to find all fuel lines. E. g.: EditorLogic.fetch.ship.parts.FindAll(IsAFuelLine); ... private bool IsAFuelLine(Part part) { return part.GetType().Equals(typeof(FuelLine)) == true; } Then check if the fuel line is connected to your part. E. g.: EditorLogic.fetch.ship.parts.FindAll(IsAFuelLine).ForEach(DisableCrossFeedIfAttachedToYourPart); ... private void DisableCrossFeedIfAttachedToYourPart(Part part) { FuelLine fuelLine = part as FuelLine; ... } I don't know how to get the attached parts. I couldn't find a property or method in the object which immediately sounds like it'll return the attached parts. That's your work. Also I found several methods and property which sound like they could be used to disable fuel flow. But it has to be tested which one is the correct one. Or look in the source code of other mods. Edit: I'm also not sure if the editor saves the disabled crossfeed to the save file. It could be that you'll also have to disable crossfeed when the flight scene starts up.

No. There is no don't-attach-to-these-parts list in the editor. But you can check to which part a fuel line is attached to and disable crossfeed on it. But I'm not sure if that'll work out. The fuel line is a special kind of part.

When the game starts it automatically applies all patches it can process (e. g. all cfgs that start with PART instead of <operator>PART). Only after that ModuleManager (MM) kicks in. MM has several passes in which it applies the patches. Order of execution in MM is defined by the parameter you (not) append to a line: :FIRST Lines with this paramater indicate that they will be applied before all other patches. :LEGACY It's an interal reference to all patches which don't specify when they should be applied. Like yours. :BEFORE[mod]* Patches applied immediately before the patches of that mod are applied. :FOR[mod]* Patches of a mod :AFTER[mod]* Executed after a mod is done. :FINAL Final patches after all the mod-related ones are done. *Those three are done in a row for every mod. So the order is BEFORE[mod1] -> FOR[mod1] -> AFTER[mod1] -> BEFORE[mod2] -> etc. I'm not sure in which order the mod-related patches are applied. Either read the MM code or assume a random order (e. g. mod2, then mod1, then mod3, etc.). Edit: It looks like alphabetic ordering. If B9 adds science modules per MM script they will apply after your script is executed. Therefore you want to change your script to be executed after these science modules are added. I suggest you pick :FINAL. Also you don't need a FOR parameter. It's used to identify which mod the patches belong to. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnviroSensor],MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment] { @xmitDataScalar = 1 } } Another note for you: Your patch will be only applied to parts which contain both the part modules ModuleEnviroSensor and ModuleScienceExperiment. As far as I checked only the four little sensors fit to that filter. It also seems that the these sensors are the only ones which contain ModuleEnviroSensor. You can reduce MM's workload by only filtering for the sensor module. The results won't be noticeable (it still only affects 4 parts) but why not do it? ^^

Thanks for your reply. I thought as much. Then I'll just include a readme how to configurate the settings.

I belive that too. Especially the dish can suck the batteries dry very fast if you don't have enough solar panels or RTGs.

If you use FAR you can change spoiler deflection to a negative value -> the spoiler will point down on activation. In stock KSP you can't do that afaik.

I wrote a small mod which adds Kerbal masses to the pods which are crewed: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109790-0-90-KerbalMass-0-9-Alpha I want to add a cfg with a modified mass for a Kerbal in case the user has RSS installed. How much should a Kerbal weight in RSS? The stock mass is 93.75 kg.

There are no more more bug reports or feature requests. I think I can declare KerbalMass stable in the next version. For the next version I only plan to add CKAN support. Can someone help me with that? So far I wrote that: KerbalMass-1.0.netkan { "spec_version" : 1, "identifier" : "KerbalMass", "name" : "Kerbal Mass", "abstract" : "Boarded Kerbals now have mass." "$kref" : "#/ckan/kerbalstuff/567", "license": "BSD-3-clause", "release_status": "stable", "depends": [ { "name": "ModuleManager" } ] } I'm not sure if that's how you should do it. Also I have to remove ModuleManager from the zip, right?

Awesome! I can't wait to see this released! What's the status of this project? Are some parts finished?

What is the number of debris flying around? Each debris object acts like a vessel until it gets deleted. I saw people on YouTube which build a Kessler syndrome and it didn't look like they had a problem with the performance. But we can assume they have a pretty powerful computer which may able to run a higher amount of vessels without slowdowns. For example: Yeah, his time display is yellow meaning the simulation starts to slow down. But look at the number of debris! I can't read it for sure but it appears to be >3000. Also his computer had to record a video at the same time so the slow down could be caused by that. I don't know for sure.

I'm not sure if that's the real problem. "Way behind" could mean, the CoL is one meter behind the CoM (-> agile plane). Or 20 meters (-> lawn dart). Also he didn't ask a question so I still don't know what The Engineer's problem is. That's why I asked.

Physics for a vessel are unloaded when it get's outside of a range of about 2.5 km around the active vessel (the one you are controlling at the moment). It will go 'on-rails'. That means only its orbit is calculated, nothing else (just like when you activate timewarp in space). When the periapsis is at <30 km above ground it will get deleted because the devs said, that one can assume a burn-up or crash. Above 30 km the vessel will be perfectly fine as the atmosphere doesn't have any effect on the craft without loaded physics. That 'on-rails' mode costs almost no computing power. Some people say they feel a performance hit when they have a lot of vessels on-rail. I never experienced that (even with 20+ vessels).