*Aqua*

You want to let a computer work out strategies? I think no army general would allow that. That's what I think, too. Want to destroy satellites orbiting Mars? Scan it's orbit, shoot a few lasers and within 20 minutes or so everything will be toasted. Defending against that isn't possible. The moment you detect the lasers shooting they already heat up everything which is flying there. And then it is too late. We all know the of the US Army in which they destroyed a drone within seconds with a laser. That's only the beginning.You may need missles to bombard the surface. But they will take a much longer time to reach the planet (weeks? months?). I don't expect them to reach their targets as I'm sure there are some ground based lasers (or something other) which can shoot them down in time. That means a stalemate after the first attack. Nothing will hit the Mars ground and lasers from Earth will probably dissipate in the Mars atmosphere doing no damage (if there will be no obscene overpowered laser).

It is easy to make a human like AI. The problem is just that we need dozens of supercomputers to let an AI think as fast as a human does. An artificial neuronal network works basically the same as a human brain. They already use them today for OCR and image analyzing because neuronal networks are very good at pattern recognition. Mix it with a semantic web (structured knowledge database) and an suitable ontology (for processing the knowledge database) and it will eben be able to draw conclusions out of data and gather new knowledge. Finally add a rule engine & rules or a Bayesian network or an evolutionary algorithm (or all of them) to lay out tactics and strategies. We already have what it takes to make an AI. Even human like. But do we really want a human like AI? A human has flaws. Computers and hardware can be hardened. Jamming and hacking won't be a problem.If it really is a serious problem a hacker would already launched a nuke by now.

AI can do that, too. There are quite a lot of intelligent algorithms (artificial neuronal networks, genetic programming, genetic algorithms, evolutionary programming, etc.). But up to now there is no hardware which allows for a similiar processing power like our brain. In the future this will be different. @topic If it's 'just' an interplanetary war laser orbit is more than enough to destroy all orbital defense within minutes or hours. Ground targets can be bombarded with missles (ground or orbit stationed). If it's an interstellar war there'll probably only send drones with lasers and missles or just missles.

What about something simpler? Before landing shoot a net at a big rock. The net then wraps around it and tigthens itself (maybe with help of a winch). Even if the lander weights only 3 grams on a comet, a whole boulder weights at least a few kilos serving as an anchor. Pros - easy mechanics - proven design - survives enviroment - allows integrated sensors if there's an application for them Cons - propably size and mass - needs a fairly complex aiming system (cameras, computers, actuators) - needs a decent sized and shaped rock

Hallo zusammen, ich bin im Spektrum auf einen interessanten Artikel gestoßen, wo über die etwa 750 Jahre alte Arbeit von Robert Grosseteste geschrieben wird. Das ist ein englischer Theologe, Philosoph etc. der in verschiedenen Arbeiten den Aufbau und die Physik erklärte. Man hält ihr für den größten Mathematiker seiner Zeit. Eine seiner Arbeiten heißt "De Luce" ("Über das Licht"). Darin beschreibt er mit einfacher Mathematik, dass z. B. Materie aus "unendlicher Multiplikation des Lichts" bestehe. Weiterhin beschreibt er, wie das Universum aufgebaut ist: Die Erde als Mittelpunkt, 9 Kristallsphären mit den Planeten, dem Mond und Gott drumherum sowie 4 Sphären für die 4 Elemente. Ich empfehle jedem, der sich für Kosmologie und den antiken Vorstellungen interessiert, den Artikel darüber mal zu lesen. Ich jedenfalls finde es sehr faszinierend, was man sich damals ausgedacht hat. Zudem ist "De Luce" wohl der erste Versuch, die Welt mathematisch zu beschreiben. Ein paar der Ideen, die man damals hatte, gibt es heute in anderer Form immer noch. So beschreibt Grosseteste, dass die Welt in einer Art Explosion ("lux") entstanden ist und dadurch erst das Licht ("lumen") in die Welt kam. So ähnlich würden wir heute die Urknalltheorie beschreiben. Viel Spaß beim Artikellesen!

Nein. Hast du vielleicht die Bremsen versehentlich aktiviert? (Per Action Group [staging] oder anders?) Es gibt afaik einen Bug, dass das Flugzeug/Raumschiff für einen Moment "hängen" bleibt, wenn man gerade die Bremsen aktiviert und dann deaktiviert hat. D. h., obwohl die Bremsen deaktiviert sind, tut er so, als wären sie weiterhin aktiviert. Das dauert dann ein paar Sekunden, ehe er es rafft und wieder losrollt. Falls du das selbe erlebst, dann mach für die paar Sekunden keinen Vollschub. ~5% oder so reichen, bis er anfängt zu rollen. Danach kannst du wieder volle Power geben.

The more I think about it, the more I believe it's just a hoax to test if people fall for it. I mean, look at that guy in the video. He's obviously talking nonsense and his acting is ridiculous. I bet they just want to test how much exaggeration people accept before they become suspicious. A social study of some sort.

The first part is something scientists are searching for about a hundred years and they hadn't success (the link between gravitation and electromagnetic forces). The second part is just a conspiracy theory.

There is no unlimited amount of anything in this universe. It's ......... The guy in the video just tries to sell something. Something that doesn't seem to exist. He's even talking about generating an artificial gravitational field. There is no such thing (yet).

I'm sorry but I still don't understand it. But I appreciate your effort. *thumbs-up*

I didn't understood the explanations. (English isn't my native tonge. I can be quite difficult to get the correct meaning of scientific terms, for example in the linked wiki article.) So the lag triggers the break of causality. Ok... I still don't know why it's a problem but at least I got to know where you say the problem is. When the hostile bomb reaches earth the information of the start of the counter-bombe (more or less) instantly reaches the hostile bomb. That's why I don't see a problem.

Please explain it to me, too. I still don't understand this causality problem. How can the bomb execute an evasive maneuver before the counter-bomb started? The bomb can only know of the existence of the counter-bomb when the later one pops out of warp near it. Or is the fact that the bomb reacts to the counter-bomb before it receives the information of the start of the counter-bomb a break of causality? I would just call it lag.

Please don't see my post as an insult. Why should one use an inferior device to present parts of information and control a game? The screen is very small allowing, the input method is essentially only touch. A PC can do so much more: Joystick, keyboard and mouse inputs, (can) have a huge screen displaying all necessary information at once, much more powerful, etc. I don't see a reason for a mobile app. What could it do better?

Actually the Alcubierre drive doesn't move the spaceship, it moves the space around it with FTL speeds. So far scientists say it is allowed within the current known laws of nature. If I understand the principle correctly there wouldn't be any backwards time travel. The time in and outside of the 'warp bubble' will still move forward. That also means there'll be no break of causality.

I want to know that, too. Virtual memory is the basic of the basics of every OS memory management. You misunderstood him. He meant KSP x64 which is unstable.

You are right. Unity scripts are running in a .Net 3.5 virtual machine. You can execute .Net 4 code except of everything .Net 3.5 doesn't have.

Hm, das könnte an der etwas kleinen Flügelfläche liegen. Wenn du die vielleicht etwas vergrößerst? Sagen wir mal um 10-15%?

I wonder if these 'rocks' are as hard as rocks on earth. I even wonder why they look like rocks. The theory says comets are the left-overs of the creations of the solar system. They are just ice and dust which clumped together. Because there is almost no gravity the stuff should still be like very fine powder. How could it have this shape when it should have collapsed on every impact of new stuff and every coma phase? In short: Why is it so rough? I expected a more smooth surface.

Prinzipiell problematisch finde ich die gewinkelten Heckfahrwerke und die fehlenden Seitenleitwerke. Erstere sorgen instabiles Verhalten beim Starten und Landen, letztere schränken die Manövrierfähigkeiten ein. Aber: Das Teil sieht echt scharf aus! Wo sind denn die Raketentriebwerke?

Falls du gerade nur mit Raketen rumfliegst, macht dir FAR oder NEAR das Leben sogar einfacher. Du brauchst da ca. 1/4 weniger delta v, um in den Orbit zu kommen. Das bedeutet kleinere und schnellere Raketen.

In der Wiki sind alle Teile beschrieben. Der deutsche Teil ist etwas veraltet. Die englische ist aber aktuell. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts/de

Moin Mi_kado! Nein. Die Atomsphäre ist in Sachen Landung dein bester Freund. Da kann man eigentlich nichts falsch machen. Nein.* Nein.** Nein.**** Mit den Mods FAR und NEAR ist das möglich. Die simulieren eine "realistischere" Atmossphere. Das führt dann oft auch dazu, dass Raketen und Flugzeuge gerne mal in der Luft auseinanderbrechen, weil die Belastung durch Machgeschwindigkeit und engen Kurven zu groß werden. ** Dazu brauchst du den Mod Deadly Reentry. Vergiss nicht die Hitzeschilde! *** Dafür gibt es auch ein oder zwei Mods. Ich weiß die Namen jetzt allerdings nicht. Einfach mal im Mod-Forum stöbern-

Setting up Visual Studio: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Setting_up_Visual_Studio Ultimate help for every modder for anykind of mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94638-New-Mod-Development-Links-Compilation (plugin related links at the end of the first post) Have fun modding

There is no vicinity? Are you sure?The shock wave of a nuclear explosion should be strong enough to simply knock the ship out of the sky, even at ranges beyond 1 km. Will automated defense Systems even target a missle which is "missing" its target a few kilometers to the left or right? IMO it depends on how the ship is constructed. If it has, say, 8 propellers or jet engines and you hit 2 of them on one side. The crew/flight computer will have to shut down 2 on the other side so it won't flip over. Out of 8 you'll now only have 4 engines left. Will these be enough to keep the ship in the air? At least plane will have to do an immediate emergency landing when losing 50% of their engines. How big do you think a flying aircraft carrier will? I guess about 200-300 meters. The smallest tactical nuke weights 0,3 kT. It will cook half of the ship and probably vaporizing a quarter of it. At least! True.I'm still not sure if it's a good idea to build such a thing. It will need a lot of maintenance, because it's a complex maschine. That makes it expensive, too. You'll need planes to supply it in a war (ground might be too unsafe, not flat enough to land on or not stable enough to bear the weight). All that for what gain? Ok, it's mobile but you can also turn highway strips into airbases. That's way cheaper and if it's bombed you'll move to the next highway strip. Like I said before, I don't think something like this would ever be cost effective. You can lead multiple wars in multiple countries for a fraction of a cost. But it is viable, in principle.

With waves of missles I meant waves consiting of 50-100 missles, which isn't much for non-third world countries. That amount should be enough to overwhelm defenses and guard crafts. Of course you can always drop an ICBM on it or in the vicinity. But nobody will do that as it can trigger WW3.