Robotengineer

Sintering.

But that is a long ways out, if it comes to be at all.

I thought Programmers Heaven was Stack Exchange. Anyway, I'd be willing to alpha test, depending on what sort of game it is.

Emphasis mine. How are we acting entitled? Until you elaborate and provide examples, you are just stating an opinion. Report those who are bullying you to the moderators, that's why they are here. If the mod's say they aren't breaking any rules, contact the user directly explaining how their post/posts made you feel and ask them to stop being rude, if that doesn't work, block them or put up with it. If I come across as disrespectful, I do not intend to. I am not scoring points, I am making points, which is what you do when you are debating an issue. Is this not a statement that older people are entitled to have the forum cater to their needs? I don't think anyone is disrespecting your (or others) right to free speech. I may tell you your wrong, that your idea is misguided, and that it would likely divide the community (as it already has in this thread), but I'm not disrespecting your right to free speech, I'm just exercising my right to free speech. If you're going to say something, expect people to disagree and state their disagreement. This is the crux of the issue. *Most of* you older people think you have the right to put us in our place, which you most certainly don't. There is no rule 1.6 which states: "If any older forum member believes a younger member(s) to be mouthing off or otherwise 'disrespecting' them, they have the right to put the younger member(s) in their place." It is derogatory and discriminatory to think you can put 'kids' (of which only some of us younger members are) in their place. Respect is not a requirement, but rudimentary civility is. Rule 2.3d (Forbidden content): "Insults and threats, stalking or any other behavior construed to be of a potentially rude or otherwise harassing nature to/of other users, members of the mod team or members of Squad;" If someone is being rude or disrespectful, report them. Yes it is. This is the internet, where you are (or should be) judged solely on the content you create and the merit of that content. I couldn't care less how old you (or anyone else on this forum) are. On the other hand, I welcome advice and life experience from people who are older than me. Older people can often share important lessons and stories that we may not hear elsewhere. Though a subsection for nostalgia and talk about meds and such is not the best way to share those lessons. Everyone is welcome. Please share specific incidents of people being unwelcoming. I know that there have been incidents with other groups, but I have not heard of age based discrimination until now. It really doesn't matter whether it is an old persons area exclusively or not, it's still a special accommodation for a certain group, and the only other group that gets similar accommodation are the non-english speakers (which I have no problem with). However, by creating an old-persons forum you are basically inviting trolls, while also opening the door for other special group based forums. TL;DR Old people shouldn't get de facto respect, they should earn it. One way for older people to earn respect is by sharing their life experiences and life lessons. Young people shouldn't bully older people, but this should go without saying. If older people are bullied, they should report it. By creating an old persons forum, exclusive or not, you are inviting trolls and opening the door to other group specific forums, further segmenting the forum.

My statement was no more personal against you than yours was against me. I qualified it, and provided a disclaimer allowing that I and others like me are probably in the minority. I only mentioned bad experiences with older internet users (which I made sure to not be an attack on all older people) as a counterexample to your attribution that modern education and changes in western culture are responsible for much of the detriment to debate and discussion. Though I do not wholly disagree with that statement, I feel it should be should be expanded upon, i.e. the 'everybody wins' mentality has only been dominant for a few decades, so why are there lots of older people that act like they grew up with a modern education system and 'everybody wins' mentality (unless you mean modern education to mean the educational system of most of the 20th century and extend the 'everybody wins' mentality back to the mid-20th century.) I would also add that your general statement about my generation is not particularly applicable to this discussion as most of the younger forum users here tend to be in the minority with me, and do not fall under your general statement. I'm going to stop now so as not to get my self in trouble over ideological/political debate, as this thread has derailed enough.

Young, independent thinker here. I must say that you paint us with too broad a brush. If anything, it is the older generation(s) (in general) that do not know how to discuss and debate. I have attempted to engage in civil discourse with many older people on news forums but only a small minority of those actually responded in kind, with most of them just getting ugly and sticking to their talking points. Then again, I, and others on this forum, may be an anomalies rather than the norm. The ability to discuss and debate civilly has more to do with a propensity toward learning and ideological moderation in the participants rather than their age, IMO. I have also spent time on other interest based forums (like this one) in which most, if not all, of the other people were at least twice my age. Even as someone who has consumed a lot of older media, (mostly music and films) it was an odd atmosphere where there were lots of inside jokes and such, which left me with a general feeling of being left out. So while I can appreciate the reasons for this idea, I think it would be best not to implement it.

Piano, guitar, and a little violin (no pun intended). Trying to get back into guitar right now by teaching myself Stairway to Heaven.

I've looked through your website and it is interesting, though I doubt we would colonize all the planets in such a short time span. I also found it a bit dystopian and dark. On the timescale issue, assuming Musk runs on Musk time, SpaceX will start landing humans on Mars in the late 2020's to early 2030's, with gradual buildup in population and technology, with an eventual Martian population of a million by the turn of the century. Simultaneously, asteroid resource development will accelerate, and we should be able to build free-floating colonies by the end of the century. Ceres, the Jovian's, and Martian terraforming would be the next century, with the latter taking many centuries. All of this is IMO of course.

IIRC, curvature doesn't grow linearly with diameter.

It has everything to do with it. Earth is much, much bigger than Kerbin, and thus Kerbin looks much more curved when compared to similar altitudes above Earth.

The camera angle in KSP is fixed.

I wonder if KSP and/or SpaceX and the commercial space companies will have a similar effect.

IDK, I'm not a trekkie, but after a quick look at the wiki page on it, yes.

In order for this water to be liquid, the primary energy source would have to be tidal heating from Charon, would it not?

Aren't all oceans liquid? Isn't it like saying that Pluto has a gaseous atmosphere? Or solid terrain?

The recent introduction of consumer virtual reality headsets has got me thinking about potential applications of VR to human space exploration, particularly the psychological issues related to being extremely far from Earth (or at least far enough to not be able to see features on the Earth). A sufficiently advanced VR headset could be used to 'transport' astronauts back to Earth, either with specially made VR experiences or what would amount to HD google street view. If you combined the headset with a treadmill, you could allow astronauts to take 'walks' on Earth. What do you guys think about this? What are some of your own ideas for applications of VR tech in the space sector?

This guy is an idiot. If you look at the other posts on his website, he attaches the word fake to use about everything. Him on the Falcon 9 booster landings. He also believes that atom bombs do not exist. So really, why are we giving him the attention he so obviously wants?

You still have velocity though, just not relative to the Earth.

I played this on the iPad a few years ago, it's one of my favorite games on the iPad. I would strongly recommend it.

I think the ease of giving it has also made it a bit less of a marker of how well known/liked you are. In threads with a very positive vibe (like the Hype train or the SpaceX reusability thread after a successful F9 landing) people tend to give lots of rep.

BFR - Big 'Falcon' Rocket (SpaceX's booster for the MCT) MCT - Mars Colonial Transporter RO - Realism Overhaul RF - Real Fuels Planet neutral orbit GO - Geosynchronous orbit LO - Low Orbit MO - Medium Orbit HO - High Orbit I ∆o. ∆v is really the real way of saying it, dv is just a contraction. Everything but FRT is easily understandable. All of those are used frequently, while people rarely talk about free return trajectories (at lest in the parts of the forum I frequent). Edit: also F9 (Falcon 9).

I only started really paying attention to commercial space development 2-3 years ago, around the time I started playing KSP. Before that I was younger and wasn't as interested in current events in the commercial space sector.

I haven't seen this before. It seems rather ridiculous. There is really no need to launch rockets from an airplane.

Shame on Blue Origin for using imperial units. Real rocket webcasts use metric.

The whole notion of playable is dependent on an actor outside the simulation controlling an actor inside the simulation. Also, NPC's don't 'know' they are being controlled either. In fact, the very idea of 'control' is dependent on the actor's own level of self awareness. It really depends on whether we are a simulation which has set starting conditions and is then run without further input, or whether we are continuously fed input from the 'outside.' The former seems to be the more likely given the evidence. Isn't that similar to Schrodinger's cat? It's also referring to the path of the atom, which is not in and of itself reality.