cantab

I've done plenty of KSP launches where I burn all the way. It comes from having a sufficiently low TWR upper stage.

A little searching around turned up a slightly ... odd ... but nonetheless informative video on the subject: It focuses mainly on seals that hold liquids, but I expect the same principles will apply to holding a gas pressure difference.

So like Scribbleheli said, the CPU frequency equals some reference speed often called BCLK (or on older computers FSB) times some multiplier. Increasing either will overclock your CPU. Many processors have a "locked" multiplier that won't go above a certain maximum, meaning changing BCLK is the only way to overclock them. Changing BCLK affects other things than the processor, making it a bit more complicated. Now *what* those "other things" are is important, and it depends on the processor architecture. On the Intel side starting from Sandy Bridge in 2011 right up to Broadwell in 2015 it was basically everything - CPU, memory, PCI-E cards, even hard drives I think. That meant you could hardly touch BCLK at all before one of those other things messed up and crashed the system, and the only way to overclock was by paying the premium for an unlocked processor. It also meant even with an unlocked processor you didn't have a lot of fine control. That's not been the case for all processors historically, so some processor lines had good overclocking with locked multipliers. And it's not the case for Skylake, where the BCLK now only affects the processor and RAM (and RAM has its own multiplier). Now the thing is Intel didn't do this to let us overclock all their processors. They did it to let people paying for the unlocked processors have even more control, and my understanding is Intel tried to lock the BCLK on their locked processors. But motherboard makers managed to bypass that lock, and enable overclocking locked processors by a BIOS update to their existing boards. Now because that "bypass" isn't an official feature of the motherboard chipsets, it depends on each motherboard maker what models they release the appropriate BIOS updates to. So far it's going to a fair few Z170 boards, and I think a few non-Z boards, but it might never come to your one or mine.

If you want more CPU performance, some Z170 motherboards can overclock locked Skylake processors like the 6500 you already have. That may be worth considering. Since you were already considering a 2x8 GB RAM kit you could simultaneously move to DDR4 if you have the total budget. It's not common but a few tests do show a decent impact from fast-ish DDR4. If you do stick with the DDR3, know that Intel have stated use of regular 1.5V DDR3 at that voltage may damage the processor. Skylake is meant to use the reduced-voltage DDR3L variant (or the even lower voltage DDR4), so running the normal stuff is basically overvolting the CPU's memory controller. While I've heard no reports of actual CPU failure - and to be honest it's probably just Intel covering their behinds - I'd consider undervolting the RAM (down to 1.35 V if you can get that stable).

Loads of this quantum physics is way complicated ... But it sounds like from what K^2 is saying, the quantisation of charge is connected to these mathematical symmetries, which in turn come from the symmetrical nature of space? In other words charge is quantised because all directions and positions are equivalent? Elegant, if I'm understanding this right. And you say that SUSY might complete the picture by constraining this "weak hypercharge" element? I'll probably be better able to understand the other side of my question: How might we go about measuring the charge on the proton, without making the assumption it's the same elementary charge as on the electron? Has this measurement been done and how precise is it? So far the best I've turned up is that you might be able to measure the mass of a known quantity of hydrogen atoms, then take off the electron masses and binding energies to get the proton mass. Measuring the proton's mass-to-charge ratio very precisely is well-established. I've no idea of the details, or if this is even a practical method.

I went to Dres. Mind you I'm in the New Horizons modded system where it's not so lonely any more - it's moved to the closest moon of Jool.

I seem to recall astronauts sleep in the airlock, held at a reduced pressure, before a spacewalk because the spacesuits operate at a lower pressure than the station. It's like altitude acclimation on Earth. Is that still the case on the ISS or was it only on older craft?

I got to thinking about this just now. Why are the charges on the electron and proton the same? (Well, same magnitude, opposite sign). One is a fundamental particle, the other is a seemingly unrelated composite particle, so is there a strong theoretical ground for them being equal? For that matter, are they the same? It seems like all methods to measure the elementary charge are measuring it on electrons. Have their been any direct measurements of the proton charge? We know from chemistry that they have to be very close, but would chemists pick up say a one part per million difference in electron and proton charges?

You've got that wrong actually. If you consider the gravitational force experienced by a negative gravitational mass near the Earth, the force is away from the Earth. But a negative inertial mass accelerates in the opposite direction to the applied force, so it is still attracted to the Earth. The force exerted on the Earth by the negative gravitational mass is away from the negative mass, and Earth being plain old positive mass it therefore accelerates away. In terms of fields, the gravitational field of a positive mass accelerates all masses towards it, while the gravitational field of a negative mass accelerates all masses away from it. This is natural when you consider the general relativistic perspective of gravity as the deformation of spacetime. On a related note, it has occurred to me before that electromagnetism would misbehave with negative masses. Instead of like charges repelling, they would effectively attract, and unlike charges repel. If charged negative mass particles exist they would segregate themselves by charge, which would probably have dramatic effects. Indeed I suspect they'd form a sort of electromagnetic black hole - a sufficient charge in a small enough space that other charged particles either cannot escape or cannot enter. But then said hole would capture opposite-charged positive-mass particles, reducing both its overall mass and overall charge. I wonder if this couldn't account for the non-observability of negative mass? That a negative mass electron, say, would encounter a positive mass positron and then what? You've got zero mass, zero charge - isn't that just nothing? A kind of annihilation more complete than that between matter and antimatter. Perhaps leaving a photon if there is leftover net momentum.

I don't think conflict with a sci-fi show would be an issue. However Vulcan was the name for a theorised (and since disproven) planet closer to the Sun than Mercury, and the "vulcanoids" are hypothesised asteroids orbiting in the same reason. Cronus is even worse, because it's the Greek name for the planet Saturn already (the deities being seen as corresponding).

If it was to be vacated for a while, I suspect NASA and Roscosmos would put the solars edge-on all the time to minimise orbital decay, since it's likely less power would be needed.

Not exactly BadS level but I built a new system in November. Core i3-6100, 16 GB RAM, existing 750 Ti, existing 500 GB SSD, 3 TB hard drive, overkill motherboard, micro-ATX case. It's not an all-out gaming performance build, I had my eye on upgrade potential and on virtual machine use, nonetheless compared to my previous Phenom II system it's a vast improvement in KSP and also in Cities: Skylines, both CPU-punishing games. I'll have to see what KSP 1.1 brings, but I expect single-thread speed to still be king even if there are some multithreading improvements. If I overclock my Core i3 it will hang with the best of them for single-thread speed. (Yes, Skylake has brought back meaningful overclocking of multiplier-locked processors with the right motherboard.)

Good: Launch as normal at the right time, making a gravity turn, but keep burning to raise your apoapsis out to get a Mun encounter. Bad: Launch straight up to get a Mun encounter.

The Thud isn't a great engine, having low TWR and low Isp. It's a convenient form factor, but the VAB is flexible enough for other engines to work well. Sometimes use cases do turn up. I used Thuds for the first stages on some of my Serran landers. One Swivel would have made the already-tall landers even taller and two Swivels would have been massive overkill, but a pair of Thuds were just right. (Serran's an atmo body in the New Horizons planet mod, so Poodles and Terriers were out).

Yeah...it seems like this whole mod has suddenly got ridiculously complicated. It's unrecognisable from the USI-LS I used to know. And "hidden ReplacementParts ressource", seriously?

On the contrary, I would expect that on a military spacecraft you want the crew active and either fighting the enemy or doing damage control on the spacecraft. Not holed up helplessly in metal boxes while the ship burns.

Yeah. A negative mass object might react counter-intuitively to an applied force, but it's still perfectly possible for forces to control it.

I'd say you're right that MX Browns feel not dissimilar to rubber domes, but they act differently. An MX Brown actuates when it yields to pressure, but a rubber dome only actuates after that. Maybe this similarity does impede me from typing on my mechanical with less bottoming-out, compared to if I had something that felt very different. You could order a "switch sampler". They're usually one of each of the main Cherry MX switches mounted on a board with keycaps. No function but they mean you can get some idea how the different switches feel before committing to buy a keyboard. Cost about ten-15 dollars.

I think I'd only like the science minigame concept if it was somewhat based on reality. Silly goo stuff, no. Or give us a virtual petrographic microscope. Because a thin slice of rock viewed in a microscope with two polarising filters looks like THIS:

KSP does an excellent job of orbital mechanics, a very good job of rocket propulsion (glossing over real issues like limited ignitions and fuel boiloff), and a good job of aerodynamics now. But it does a poor job of structural mechanics, it's one step above treating the ship as a single solid lump but it's not realistic at all. That allows a lot of unlikely designs to behave in KSP.

I bought the game in 0.23 so I'll split my answer in two. Features that were in when I bought the game: 1) Linux support. Without it I would have been a lot less likely to ever play KSP. Indeed I might not have got back into PC gaming without it. 2) Orbital mechanics. Like, that's the core of KSP. 3) Having a demo. That's what I played first, that's what grabbed me and made me fall in love with this rocketry game. Features that arrived after I bought KSP: 1) "SuperSAS" - hold prograde, manouvre, etc. I know it's a bit jittery still, but it's really made my FAR launches lovely, and been a big boon to low-thrust ion ships which I now enjoy using. 2) 0.23.5's stiffened joints. No more strut spam! 3) Editor gizmos. So much more freedom. It can be a double-edged sword though, with the time I waste placing parts pixel-perfect now.

Multiple. But I learnt my lesson a few versions ago about overdoing it, when some missions took real-world *months* between launch and completion. Now from time to time I'll decide, right, I'm going to fly out missions X and Y, *then* I'll start mission Z. Remember, virtually every transfer window comes round every Kerbin year or so.

I use a Gigabyte Aivia Osmium with Cherry MX Brown switches. One of the cheapest mechanicals around but still a quality bit of kit, way better than membrane junk. Sadly I haven't really trained myself to type lightly like the brown switches should allow because I still have to use the junk at work. I have had compatibility issues and ongoing glitches with it in Linux though, though nothing show-stopper. A lot of the gaming-oriented mechanical keyboards don't fully comply with standard keyboard specs, they assume users will be on Windows and install the special software, but I would expect better of the Das Keyboard. Browns are by most accounts good all-rounders, they offer the tactile sensation for typing but have the single actuation/release point which can help for gaming. Unlike Camacha I *can* feel the exact point of actuation on mine, though it's not in-your-face obvious. I still bottom-out all the time when typing and that is I think what makes the noise more than clicky switches would (barring the IBM ones!) and others in the house have complained about it. You can fit damping o-rings to soften and quiet it, but some say that just encourages the bad habit. I've not been hands-on with Blues at all mind you, but I have looked at the Razer Greens which are supposed to be similar and I felt the click sounded "fake", a weak tinny noise that gave the impression it was artificially tacked-on and not an integral part of the mechanism. (Which is not entirely true, but that's how it felt.)