Technical Ben

Where is the control group. Where? That's not how science is done properly. You need a control group. We need specific testing parameters. We need to rule out external mistakes (putting the rat cage near the heater as thats where the plug socket is) etc. There are many things that are dangerous (lead in petrol), and many things that are safe (magnets). There is also a lot in between. By all means be cautious, but don't pass it off as evidence until it is.

Is this so? Emphases on this. I've seen things "fly across the room" from "spontaneous failure", and let me tell you, I needed not invoke quantum vacuum as the source of the forces... though it would be helpful to blame for the failure over my own incompetence.

I've been able to build all my sci-fi designed ships in it (with exception to the mechanical/moving parts, as while it is in the game, it is more limited than my imagination). For the game to allow that, is amazing. This is the largest ship I built: Based on this design: Lets just say I'm never going to have the time to finish the decks and crew quarters on that thing. It has about 6 frigate bays, countless cargo space, and 2 "cities" of crew cabins with the central command centre in the middle there. It's about 1km wide (or tall depending on orientation). Oh, but so far I do have the control rooms, the med bay, the landing pad, the service centre, the manufacturing/repair yard, the observation deck, and 2 nightclubs...

They could double as eva cables too!

Well, I never use MJ for docking. I mix single launches and constructions in orbit. Never do SSTO as I fail at atmosphere hugging and either dive/flip/run out of fuel. Perhaps with atmos 1.0 I will have a go at spaceplanes again.

I can land very well. Specific locations to some degree, though not really with an atmosphere unless diving straight down! Everything else though, done and done in other versions and occasionally the latest. But automate as much as I can. When you can land AND make a cup of tea, then I'll agree it's just a crutch for us...

To help learn Interstellar, and so that I have a craft that can go anywhere, from anywhere, I needed something that can refuel. Would this make an interesting challenge? Possibly, as refuelling in Interstellar, is very different from the Kethane type mods. So the goal is simple, make a rocket/spaceship that can refuel almost anywhere and fly anywhere in the Kerbin system. With some rules to make it a challenge, and some points for special designs. Mods allowed are Interstellar (any current version) and any flight or building assist (mechjeb or engineer etc). First rule: Under 150 parts. We do not want something too big or computer intensive. Bonus points for under 100 parts. Second rule: Must be able to refuel and fly to another planet/moon. There must be no restriction on what planet the craft can get to. So if you pack only Alumina rockets... bring enough fuel for a Jool trip and return to the mun! But a better option is to run off multiple fuel types for in situ refuelling. Third rule: The craft must launch from Kerbin as a SSTO... ah, did I forget to mention this bit?! Forth rule: Vacuum mode in the plasma thrusters does not count for this challenge (but the part can be used with other fuels). Fifth rule: No beamed microwave power. Unless the transmitter is taken with you and docked/undocked in orbit. It must also be taken with you to the next destination if used (so no parking it in solar orbit! ). Other than that, Interstellar as a mod does allow for some interesting options. Points are mainly just for fun, and to set some interesting goals for designs. Point scoring as follows: STTO from Kerbin and return, for refuelling at KSC: Your doing it wrong = 1 point All 3 types of docking port: Adaptable = 3 points Unmanned: HAL = 7 points Manned: Along for the ride = 10 points 0.05 TWR is all that is available for transfers: Asleep = -15 points Above 0.05 TWR for transfer: No time to wait = 15 points No Control Surfaces: Plane Stupid = 25 points Use Thermal Rockets: Hot Stuff = 35 points Use 4 or more resource sensor parts: Spider Sense = 44 points Spaceplane (must take off/land horizontal): Plane and Simple = 50 points Use 5 types of rocket fuel: Over engineered = 55 points Crew space of 4 or more: Room for a View = 75 points 100 parts or less: Lightweight = 100 points Bring a rover with you: Sight Seeing Tour = 125 points Push off the Atmosphere with Magnetic Nozzles: IronMan = 150 points Only use chemical rockets (no thermal/magnetic/ion etc): Classical = 175 points Can land in water: Voyage Home: = 180 points Cool looking craft: Rule of Cool = 200 points, give yourself this one! Only 2 types of engine: Keep it Simple Sunshine = 202 points Use only ion/plasma drives: Greased Lightning = 225 points Do not use Antimatter: Does not Matter = 250 points Refuel anywhere (that has resources): Resourceful = 275 points Have lander/launch craft and orbital dock/fuel/transfer stage as separable craft (Apollo style), but still SSTO!: Engineering Miracle = 300 points Special bonus points: Use only nuclear fuels: Radical Design = 1260 points Over 9k DV: It's Over 9000! = 9001 points Use quantum vacuum for fuel: Forgot the Rules = negative value of all your points! Needs no "fuel" (no idea if possible): Flying on Hopes and Dreams = Infinite points! My entry is called "David", and racks up 9738 points. It has 3 main engines, one thermal, 2 alumina/oxygen and 2 plasma. Antimatter catalysed generator (with backup fission and fusion reactors). All 3 types of docking port: Adaptable = 3 points Manned: Along for the ride = 10 points Above 0.05 TWR for transfer: No time to wait = 15 points Use Thermal Rockets: Hot Stuff = 35 points Use 4 or more resource sensor parts: Spider Sense = 44 points Use 5 types of rocket fuel: Over engineered = 55 points 100 parts or less: Lightweight = 100 points Cool looking craft: Rule of Cool = 200 points, give yourself this one! Refuel anywhere (that has resources): Resourceful = 275 points Over 9k DV: It's Over 9000! = 9001 points Recommendations for additional points and goals accepted. If you can think of anything to add to that list, I'll add it in if you can hit it. Like "do not use X" or similar, if it sounds good enough I'll score it.

Sorry, but there are levels of imagination at what people are saying way above a mistake there. No one has suggested what you propose. The comments have been that costs prohibit a space test. No comments on human testing. The comments have been that the data against this drive is massive, thus it requires likewise to prove it works. It then requires another massive amount of data to know how it works. Your quote of Einstein is not fitting for the subject, logical argument, structure of your sentence or the purpose you are using it for. As chance or "dice" have no impact on the requirements of virtual particles meeting other observed laws (conservation of energy etc).

It is a bit silly to argue over the integration and KW/GW of power. In all instances, a technological increase is exponential it seems. It's never suppose to be "balanced", it's suppose to be a replacement/upgrade. Or would you consider it reasonable to balance carrier pigeon to meed the bandwidth of fibre internet? No. So why worry about balancing the NF and IS engines to match each other? They are suppose to be Steam to Petrol, or Gas to Nuclear in a gap of performance.

Defining an all knowing AI is orders of magnitude much simpler than making an AI that meets that definition. In fact, it's so much more different than reality, I'll not bother arguing the point further.

Someone beat me to the alternative theory... I'll never get my paper published or taken seriously in Unicorn University now. Sadly, it seems 99% of people have mistaken the direction of scientific discovery. It goes: Make observation -> Make theory -> make new observation to see if it fits the theory. If it does, then your theory is more than likely correct. (ok I skipped some steps, but am simplifying it) Sadly, many just "Make theory" -> "Does this theory match our theoretical results we just imagined?" with zero observations, they always hit their imaginary observations every time. "It's got to be virtual particles, because that's all we can imagine it to be". PS Interestingly, that's how I'd do an alternate universe story for Sci-Fi with FTL and/or antigrav etc. One tiny measurement always there that they suddenly find was staring them in the face. However, in the real world, we get perfect results every time, Note, as mentioned above with observations Einstein had to have an observation of mercury's orbit to get an inclination of the "problem", and had to get an observation to confirm his predictions of relativity (during an eclipse IIRC). Here we only have the first observation. Without additional ones, we have zero chance/probability/knowledge of what underlying theory/mechanism is at work.

Hi. I've extracted this and the KopernicusTech into the gamedata folder, but get no new planets. Do I have to activate or change something else?

As long as your wings are not at 90 degrees, which turns them into useless planks of wood (see latest Scott Manley video)!

Whole solar system? Even the Ooort cloud?

All launches hit the atmosphere first. Fixing Aero will fix launches. While some think it will make it too "easy", things like fuel flow fixes and new mission contracts will increase the hardness/rebalance before the last part rebalancing later.

The plan is easy. Travel in your own custom built eternally (*life time warranty provided) lasting space ship. It's large enough for any colony requirements... It's called "Earth"! That is, our own earth will travel with it's companion star across our galaxy, and in time Andromida will meet the Milky Way. At the timescales for most interstellar travel, we'd be better off sitting in our nice armchairs and watching the world(s) go by our window.

I actually contemplated "blowing" a ship home today. There is no reason why you could not use an oxygen supply as a propellent in an emergency. However, the astronaut may wish to breath first, so we'd end up with CO2 as the propellent. Blown, as compressing it and moving it from the cabin to the engine nozzel (in this case a drinking straw ) would give some propulsion. A tiny fraction of one, but one none the less!

If it's a background working app (usually shows in notifications). If it's an app that "sleeps" when you go to the home page, it saves battery to leave it "open" (actually "suspended") as it will stay in the part of the memory on the phone that uses less power but is quicker to load when you go back (and Android manages this automatically). If you go to "battery use" in settings it will tell you which programs are using a lot of power, and you can change their settings, close or uninstall these if you don't want them (don't uninstall the needed apps! ).

As said, I scale up and ditch Nukes with fuel tanks to keep a twr of around 0.20 to 0.10 or at least 0.05 when wanting a LOT of DV. I'll have to run through my current biggest ships, but they have around 20k dv... ok, I might be building them too big!

A book is different from a car. But that does not mean a book can kill on it's own can it? A computer program is a very long list of instructions. How to make that somehow more like a "person" or a "thinking mind" or an "intelligence" is a really really hard problem. In theory, an AI would be no different to a human mind. The fastest and simplest and most dangerous type of mind in a physical form? The human brain. Most other solutions are less optimal (too big, too energy dependent, too easy to "rust" and break). So I'm not worried about the AI, just as I'm not worried about guns... I'm worried about the people behind them calling the shots!

Anything a computer may be able to do, we have already tried in squishy human brain form. In the same sense there is no "car singularity" that means the fastest car will take over the world, there is no "AI singularity". In the same sense there is no "jeckhammmer singularity" that means the strongest jackhammer will take over the world, there is no "AI singularity". In the same sense there is no "calculator singularity" that means the most intelligent calculator will take over the world, there is no "AI singularity". A computer is a very precise mechanism. It has very precise limitations (energy/heat/speed/size/latency etc). Just as we cannot make a bigger car, boat or plane to break lightspeed, we cannot just make a bigger computer to beat "intelligence". Not to mention, programming "intelligence" is a hard problem, and using it is a specialist, not general benefit (a computer AI could be the best trader, but worse politician, or best politician but worst financial advisor, it could not be "best at everything"). So I don't worry about such things.

Currently testing a 2 hour burn with 15k (at an estimate) DV for a trial interplanetary craft using 10 nukes. Trial, as the game is crashing if I try to use a solar system mod... so hope I can get it working one day.

With a HD texture pack (not necessary) and a atmosphere + water pass on the shaders and this game is brilliant for it's scope and design. What other fancies do we need, we already got re-entry heat!

Not sure which one your talking about. The in built one for Android is good enough for me. I select low screen use when I'm inside and it's easy to see, and low CPU use when I'm not doing anything taxing with it. It can give a good extra hour or two or more throughout the day like that. I of cause turn it back to normal when gaming or playing video etc.

There is also the effect of wheels. These do not expel reaction mass, but do drive along a road. Is it possible to use a similar effect with the "fields" in the likes of gravity or the virtual particle field? I'd doubt so, but am not able to explain why that would be.