Technical Ben

Has anyone got Mechjeb autopilot landing working with thermal jets? It mightbe my craft is underpowered, but currently mechjeb fails to hit enough power with them, but lands traditional (non-heat/electric) powered craft.

The game can already decide to allow or disallow command control in the vab (though it might need to be overridden by an extra bit of code to do it just for the command seat). So should be doable without much change. Just set it to allowing "passengers" only from the VAB, but it defaults to a command/control seat after launch.

I was going to sell them some "Authentic Hubble tin foil"... you spoilt my plan.

So a mix of: and I get mildly blue and wet... I fire a tungsten rod at the next poster in retrograde orbit...

As said, I don't know fluid dynamics (or field dynamics even ), but do know a ship with a propeller can push against water. So not disagreeing with you, just saying I'd need much more simple a starting point to know why the fields in QM/GR (or whatever) cannot be used in the same way a fluid medium can be. I always thought the likes of Maxwell's Demon (as an example) is an illustration of why we cannot get "free energy" from such systems (a submarine using a prop in the sea cannot use the sea as "free energy" and a QM drive could not use the quantum foam for free energy either?). That's the level of simplicity my poor brain can cope with. But I guess as said a photon drive is the "best case efficiency" and as this is over that, it cannot be creating any force interaction with the quantum foam over what we'd expect from a photon drive (as causing an interaction, either as reaction mass, or as a type of "propeller" of some other interaction, would be the same cost in energy and same thrust etc.) Really the observation is the key. Just as with the "superliminal neutrinos". It was a measurement/apparatus/calculation error with those, and the solution was going back over new observations (again and again until found). The same here. No amount of head crunching will give a solution. Even Einstein needed his observations during a solar eclipse to prove his theory... it was not his theory that proves light is bent by gravity... So everyone here trying to use theory to prove the drive works.... um...

"Once they have been given that energy, they should not be able to simply vanish with it; " As said above. Certain requirements are applied by physics (that is, they are based on our current observations else where). So this might be an energy -> matter converter making it's own propellent out of energy. Though, a photon drive is the normal type of energy to propulsion direct conversion, I've no idea on the limits on making actual particles from that energy (if it's possible or if it's really low % efficient). There is a thing called observation. Observation is usually correct. "This device has a kick/thrust". The theory can take decades to understand. So any shots at the theory are likely wrong. It could be simple (ablation of copper as a new type of easy ion drive) or complex (it's pulling on quantum strings to climb to space! ). Until we make more observations, were blind and trying to see an elephant:

Reverse thrust from reverse current suggests other forces. Anything apart from a perfect vacuum and/or checks on ablating suggest it's magnetic/static/propellent based, just in this case, from the copper case!

It might be an ion drive using the copper plate it's made of as fuel (think ablating it off like you can do with heavy lead etc on some ion drive designs ). It might be a heating/gassing thrust from mistakes in the vacuum seal in testing. It might be magnetic propulsion (can and does happen and is used in some instances). By all means the "thrust" can be real. But it may not be an EM drive as such that it pushes off the quantum foam. Saying it is, is like saying there are rivers on mars because we can see the ravines and valleys through out hand held telescope...

The entire device stands on icy ground. It's about as solid as magnetic perpetual machines. Yes, in theory we can avoid some requirements on fuel and make a photon drive. Constructing a load of random devices together does not create one though. Many many many people have thought "if I just change the shape of" or "but what if I change the angle of" etc with microwave emitters. If they did cause an unexplained for when in a certain configuration, I would have thought we would know about it by now. Just as certain we are that different configurations of magnets will not make a "perpetual motion machine", but will allow for you to syphon off magnetic energy (reduce the magnetic force of the magnet and take out "work" from it), we are certain we can build photon drives, but not this particular breed of EM drive.

Antimatter infused fusion and/or nuclear fuel would explain this. Antimatter could be a very expensive resource, thus only used for the rangers. Nuclear fuel is of cause not desired to be used on earth, but with an average life span/dissipation is acceptable even with future possible colonisation at the destination. However, the black hole just makes the whole (see what I did there? ) idea of colonising those places as insane. Wormholes for one thing, time dialation effecting black holes are a big "no go" sign.

Really like this idea as a base to start from and refine. The "greenhouse" could also have a 2nd and 3rd form (same size, different texture/use) of "cryo pods" which draw a lot of power, but allow "infinite suspension" storage of kerbals (3-6 as balance requires). Then the third option would be a large "resource pod" for long distance missions or refuelling, something like "supports 3 kerbals for 3 years", again for Jool like missions (but as said for balance this would need multiple support ships, such as another supply at jool for return supplies sent first unmanned).

If only someone had done some science first.

When someone mentions furry black holes I always think of this: Though it's the wrong type of space fur!

All the hugs. You get all the internet hugs. Great to hear it's running ace now. Lesson learned, make sure it's running proper! (Your a lot better than all those running HD tvs on 4:3 aspect ration SD content! )

Is the expansion infinite though? If so, it's a matter of relative perspective. (relative comic, though we tend to be less linear and more circular as people...) http://xkcd.com/435/ That is a 2d robot existing in a 3d universe. What if the robot is 2d in a 2d universe. The possibility of 3 dimensions still exists (we know it does, not just as a possibility but an actuality) but can it physically detect the 3rd dimension? It could mathematically theorise the existence of one. I'm not sure it could "detect" it from within, it requires the 3rd dimension to intersect or interact with it. As in your example of a mountain, right? IIRC a 2d universe can exist (but there are some limitations, I fail to recall and need time to find the wiki page on it...), thus so can our 2d robot. If our robot is in a 3d universe (say computer simulated, or mechanically simulated with lego ) then can it say if a third dimension exists? Can it ever detect something "outside" it's universe? It's universe would exist entirely consistent and internally valid. However other universes could exist outside. A 3d robot/mechanism could interact with the 2d one, but I do not see a necessity of the 2d to be able to interact with the 3rd dimension. Interestingly, the 2d universe can be infinite, and then the 3rd dimension can be infinite also. There are of cause some infinities greater than others.

I would assume with the final game setup, wanting to balance them in tandem is desired. So doing the few things left at the same time. A bit like painting the inside of the house at the same time as the outside, then you can let the paint dry at the same time, and do it in half the time as each after the other.

For me it's the latest bug that crashes the game if a Kerbal is slightly out of roster/mission/active status and the game losses track of where/what/who is doing what. (dead/fired Kerbals crash the game)

Both, but more an engineer in this game. I do like flying/docking though. But not really the in atmosphere stuff just yet (waiting for helicopters ).

This is always fun. Though it is usually while using mechjeb. Done it a couple of times by hand, but they were "hard" landings.

A change to atmospheric only engine isp etc would work. It would allow for the reduction in the DV without changing things like interplanetary travel, DV in space etc. Would that not be the best idea? (As mentioned countless times before, the fuel flow instead of ISP scaling with atmosphere thing makes things off right now. So fixing that might also help?)

Returned half my Kerbals to KSC in the hopes it unbugs my save... probably will not.

I tried a 4 vernor engine station tender (offset with rotation control from SAS to half the number or thrusters needed). Lets just say, results were EXPLOSIVELY successful, for a fraction of a second. For anything small, you need RCS.

This would be how I would envision it. If not done via drilling/mining/processing but via "refuel". You would get a orbital station or landed station and if you successfully "fuel" it, a record is made of the time+cost and number of kerbals to fly, and the game deducts those funds and waits that time to refuel it each cycle. If you ever move the station/base you have to manually refuel it again to prove it's viable (and set the costs). The refuel mission would probably have to be a single play through, and no redocking etc. But it depends how they wish to do it. Kerbin/KSC already gets "magic refuels". Resources would just set a new destination to progress from a second/third/etc point. However mining etc would be more dynamic. Could require a lot of power (new larger generators) or a lot of Kerbals (engineers etc). This could also balance out, other than "lots of weight". Though if it's modular I do not mind. I just don't want a massive launch craft needed just to get it off the ground.

Heat management. That would make it less "answer to all problems". But remember, IRL it would be the interplanetary choice every time, except where size is a problem or when ion engines can do the job. It's one of the "suppose to be OP" situations along with the heavy lifter engines.

One is the fuel, one is the engine/control mechanism. "RCS" is generally any thruster which controls rotation/translation etc (are those terms correct?) and "monopropellant" is a fuel, mainly used for these engines, but also at times used for fixed rockets or other use.