Technical Ben

Once we set the arbitrary definition, then it's scientifically testable. Do things fall down? We have to arbitrarily define a thing, say a ball, an atom or a planet, etc. But after that, we can get a non-arbitrary definition of gravity. So, if we define a colour, we can then test to see what matches the wavelength. That might just be stamp collecting, but it's still science. So, in answer to your question. A frozen frog is still a life form, right? The problem is, we have 2 questions and 2 definitions to test against. Living things and things that live. Or, a thing that is "alive/living" and a thing that can live, once provided the correct food/energy. We have dormant life, where it has everything required but the energy/food. It's suspended, but able to live given 1 addition. Or with have living things, that currently are metabolising, moving, etc. We could have a third group I suppose, those that can only live with both additional life and additional metabolism? Would that be true? Have we missed a small, but important step? A frozen bacterium has all the parts required for life, but is suspended in action/animation/metabolism. It only requires food/energy to continue. But a virus requires many more parts and metabolism. There may be more complex viruses that only require a metabolism. But most require not only the building blocks, not only the energy gradients, but the machinery and information they do not possessed themselves to "live" . However, they are very much a form of "life". Would you agree? I suppose we could say our DNA is "life", but it is not at all "alive" when isolated and on it's own. How much more functional is a Virus in this instance when compared to DNA/RNA?

"You also didn't address if something is alive when it is dormant, and how dormant it can be...." Sleep = alive. Frozen = not alive. By definition. But is the better biological definition: So we need to ask instead: "Is an animal frozen still classed as alive" or "is an animal dried out/while it's stopped it's metabolism classed as alive"? That is a better question that does not suppose our answer, one that we can test/decide scientifically. This will also help you find the answer to "is Mitochondria alive" (by our definition of alive).

Too far a distance to tell if those are dunes or mounds or whatever. But still, an amazing image! Never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. PS, there goes all the Mass Effect backstory. But then again, we knew it would get thrown out with a "reboot" to the franchise.

That's like saying some life is green, some rocks are green, thus a rock is alive. Just because a rock does one or two things, does not mean it does them all. For those stuck on a virus. I ask. If I cut off a branch to a tree. Is it alive? If I freeze some peas, are they alive?

Is a frozen man or kerbal "alive" while frozen? Answer? Yes or No. Likewise, is a Virus "alive" while dormant? Same answer as above. Is it "living" over it's entire lifespan? Both answer Yes. If we wish to be pedantic, we can define any sense and understanding away from every topic and conversation. The difference between my arm, and me is only in description. I am alive, so is my arm. If I kept my arm on life support in a box, it's still alive. If I froze it, it is no longer "alive", but has the ability to live (be thawed out and put back I hope!). Likewise, a Virus while dormant, is by definition dormant. Why try to say that 4 apples is anything other than 4 apples? Dormant being the opposite definition to "alive". Don't ask "is this thing I decided is dormant and not alive.... Alive?" well no, you said it's not already. Is it alive while infecting? Yes. It's now doing something. Is it doing those things we call "living"? We do learn something amazing from it though. If applying science, and observation. We can conclude, a thing we defined as living, then as dead, we then observed to be living again. Now that's something amazing!

Theoretically I could build a form of life out of robots. I could power those robots in any way. Though, most energy methods would be defined as "chemical". Point still stands. Life is more than just "chemicals". Much much more. Fire the process is copied. Fire the data is not. Is there any data within fire? Yes. Is there any information? Yes. Is there any data holding a record of specific mechanical operation for copying the previous action and "thing" we call life? No. Where as DNA does have this, and life as we know it, observe it and define it has DNA. A printing press copies data. It copies books. However, it does not have the ability to build it's self. A river grows, but does not "copy" it's self or it's data. Which does fire match? A printing press, a river or life? Why should my parents need to be the same? We do not. Fire follows the natural forces in physics. Life specifically can decide differently, and is neutral to the physical interactions, but instead applies logical or computational interaction. An example of this is your PC. The game KSP is specifically neutral to (does not care about) the chemical processes on you PC. It decides on your vessel velocity based on logical processes, and decides if you reach orbit. Make the HDD out of copper or plastic (DVD), magnetic or optical, it still functions. DNA likewise is a chemically neutral ordering, that gives a specific function. Fire is specific chemical interactions, life is the logical operation of a set of any mechanical interaction fitting the similarity with what we currently know to be life. Chemical or not. Life is not limited by it's chemicals, nor is it limited to any specific chemicals (as far as we know, it just performs best with the current set). Thanks KerikBalm. A Virus performs no function without a cell. Humans continue to live despite not being able to provide all the vitamins all the time. But we can if you wish define a person as only "living" when in the ecosystem. As in reality, we would quickly die anyhow without it. Thus "A person in space with no vitamins" is, as far as factually correct, sadly dead (mainly due to the lack of oxygen, not vitamins. ).

The set "mules" reproduces though. As in, they are born. They then stop reproducing. Perhaps "is part of a reproduction cycle" would be more fitting. As many organisms continue to live past their reproductive cycles.

Nope. Sorry. Look into the details. Life can exist with zero chemical processes. In fact, current life is not a chemical process, it's a mechanical one. Proteins do not fold via chemical interactions, but mechanical (atomic scale mind) ones. Mixing the chemicals, providing the chemicals and adding energy is not enough. We have to, or life has to, physically put the building blocks into the specific place/chain/order. Fire does not carry any information, or "multiply" (copy it's self). It spreads, but that is not a copy of it's self. Fire is like running water. Life is like a car or a house.

What is the definition of blue. Point to something blue, and point to something else the same. We have our requirement to match and communicate, without actually needing to provide a definition. If we find something like life somewhere else (in space), we can then check to see if it matches life. In the instance of a Virus, does it match a Cat or a bacteria? No it does not. So we can say it's not "alive", though it does match parts of a cat or bacteria, so we can say "it's a part of a living thing" (possibly bacteria or other cellular machinery as it's originator). Or we look at the whole system, a lone "virus" is not alive, but in it's environment is. Likewise a cell may only be able to reproduce in the body of a living creature, so we define the whole as alive, and the singular as a part. There is little to zero chance of finding a virus alone in space or on Mars. As it does not have everything it needs to be "alive". However, we could find a tree anywhere, of any type or construction, and know it's "alive" just by looking at it.

IR dot/s. It can follow them easily with a simple camera (drones are now for sale locally with cameras in built, a filter over the top possibly?). Blob detection of your t-shirt with a qr code/specific blob on it.

And it's about the size of a football (or a car, hard to tell without markers). So, I for one welcome our Martian ant/frog neighbours to the neighbourhood.

That is... that is amazing. I launched a similar payload for my interstellar stock craft, but of cause empty tanks. Launching filled I thought was impossible!

And trees, and little green men.

Very old video I did on docking... (when close but need to get closer in orbit. For rendezvous it's a different method) https://youtu.be/szJOoX7h77w

That may be a false positive Monstah. I get similar bugs and don't have FAR.

7/10 The fluid ships were a good idea, but sadly never realised in a good way. Looked cool, made no sense how they could even function in a vacuum though. ??? Now this is a proper organic ship! (Sorry if posed already here)

Lol. That reminds me of what happened when I tried to recreate 2001 a Space Odyssey, with the new large Argon/Xenon tanks. I thought they looks strong before the launch.

I did it! That is my "small" STTO and return launcher. Can send 3 large orange tanks up, or anything else that can fit really (within certain limitations). I say it's done, but I may need to put a tad more fuel in it, as it ran out 2cm off the ground.

It's a simulator. It's a flight game. What and who is doing what when? Are we really flying? Are we really controlling the craft? /metaphysical jokes. I totally get to decide where mechjeb goes and what it does. I tend to do flights myself once or twice. A lot of testing or flights require 5 or more launches/landings, 5 or more transfers etc. So after 25 or more, I'm happy Mechjeb works! (It currently is not burning my nodes right now, so I have to put the cup of tea down, and make sure I'm not reading the webpage and miss the burn. However, if I fly 100% manual, I get half the launches done)

I thought it was just a staring contest to see who blinks first.

There was some erroneous data sent from the Curiosity rover. It required a reboot. I suspect it may have been a message. "We're here on Mars, looking for the others riding on Opportunity..."

The Can Vending Maching. PS, with dyslexia, every day is a Mississippi day. (Yes, I read the thread title as "Mississippi the Username!")

No idea. My current workaround is to reload from a quicksave. Just tried the persistent, and it's not loading. Having to reload KSP over and over and it finally works. [edit] Nope. Nothing special showing there. :/

I seem to have the frozen space centre bug again. Reloading the save was working as a work around, but now it's stuck like it. As it always seems to happen into the save, I guess I'll have to keep testing to see if it's a one off, or a continuous thing. Very annoying as it seems to destroy the saves. Is it just me, or anyone else getting it?

I angle my sepratrons without clipping. The boosters go sideways and down then.