Technical Ben

I don't think you need legally binding contracts. It's just part of most countries "natural" laws applied. If you lie to a customer, impersonate another, etc. It could fall under quite a few. But like downloading a film, is rarely sorted outside of politely not doing it, or the other extreme of going to court. Please not this again. I get no more crashes in x64 than I did in 32. It might be for many that it's buggy. But I remember many more times in the past where KSP was more buggy and MORE users were effected and there were more forum posts on it. Though I'm not privy to the support the developers need to apply, so it may be that side has increased.

Current bombers and nuclear threats already suppose such things. This just notches it up a bit. :/

When you use RT-10s for stage separations... Yes, my rocket has got that big!

Best way to look at the situation is objectively if we are talking about objective things. A rocket engine is an object subject to physical laws. Looking at science and it's community, looking at human belief and looking at how people feel about a situation is all a distraction. If you really want to know if this thruster works, we need to look at it's physical results. Pure and simply they are in an atmosphere, so must be considered "untested", as it fails the basic requirement. All tests in an atmosphere will suffer from atmospheric interference (thermal heating of gas) let alone the other risks (magnetic forces triggering sensors instead of thrust/movement). It's no different than a mistake, or at worse a slight of hand under the counter change of the cards.

Hmmm that gives me an idea. The new discoveries of waveguide forming meta materials might allow you to project light through a small craft. As long as the interference/dimming etc is less than others observational ability, you could get an effective "cloak" for space. Heating/cooling is still a problem though. Currently I think they've only got up to infra red or other wavelengths...

I guess this is where it is. I've not read any of the discussions. But if someone asks you to rename something to avoid people mistaking your work for theirs or visa versa, you do it out of politeness and because it's the right thing to do. AFAIK open sourcing code in no way allows others to use a programs name just it's code.

But Einstein and every other "luck/chance/out of field" discovery has been backed by observations and predictions/explinations (which only serve to allow repeat experiments/verifications, as we don't need 100% explanations, just repeats). Here we don't have one. We have an electric device creating a field/force while powered in an atmosphere. That is 99% of all results of all tests. NOT getting a result would have been amazing. They need to back it up with a force generating "thrust" and/or a force we can see is different than others (thermal/magnetic etc) that already exist as current technology and propulsion systems. That would require a test in a vacuum. Until then, it's no different than a back of the napkin guess at what shape a fusion power core needs to be to allow fusion. Could be right, but currently has no math or test to show it's anything more than sci-fi or a complete guess. :/

Next update will allow manual tweaking via little arrows. So you can quickly place the part and/or then drag/nudge it into place (depending how they eventually add it in). With options like selecting different nodes, even after placing.

Only when launching big things... which is half the time!

Those kind of calculations and definitions are way above my pay grade and qualifications (peanuts, I have none!). But everything I can find on the subject talks about zero being zero. We pass it as a big nothing, though as has been said many times already, can pass it from multiple directions. (edit) EG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit#i_and_.E2.88.92i

That's all well and good. But calling a duck a goose, does not make a duck a goose. Your entirely correct, we could redefine a new system where -0 and 0 are different. But by definition, are we not no longer talking about 0 and -0 as defined by the OP? Else we would have to prove your version of the definitions can be mapped/translated into the normal definitions and the "meanings/principles etc" still apply. PS, as a good proof of this (for me, as I really only get visual proofs) is a number line. It only maps "zero" as "0". There is no -0 on the number line, though all other numbers can be represented as themselves and their inverse. Even if we add new dimensions etc to the number line, all will pass zero in the same place, and we never get -0. We can however get other forms of "zero" such as 0,2 or -5,0 etc: In your system, "handedness" (Right or Left) is not a concept of the number, but another defining feature of it. I could for instance have a "blue" zero, a "green" zero and a "red" zero. However, no amount of addition or subtraction of those colours results in one becoming "negative blue zero" or translating to "negative zero". Though I am no mathmatician, so may be wrong. A quick search (google, gah!) suggests -0 is purely a notation to show a number approaching zero, as said from previous calculations, as by definition, 0 and -0 are equal. So even if we do map the example of handedness, we only get two equal values of zero, but a "L" or "R" defining the direction of our calculations.

That is what I said. Mining on the Moon is easier than asteroids, but both still harder than on earth. Thus where is the proof it's "easier" to mine asteroids instead of on earth?

581: NASA spends decades making sure the most solid and robust 1950s computer gets launched so it never hits an error. We send the equivalent to a cheap Android phone knock off that crashes during launch due to having too many Angry Birds games installed.

There are more than 3 companies right now offering "unlimited power sources" if your (or I or anyone) is willing to invest in them. I'd not suggest anyone do so. A company offering a service, is no guarantee that service exists (see betting to loose on the stock market as a good example of why). Space is just as hard. You loose gravity, but gain a vacuum. You loose deep (relatively) drilling and gain massive distances and no gravity (yep, both a benefit and a draw back!) to anchor your drill/furnace to. Supply is not enough. There are materials on earth in massive supply, that are either not demanded, or too "cheap" to bother spending money on extraction. See bauxite and Titanium for wobbles in market pricing and how it can change demand/infrastructure etc. For example, Titanium is quiet a plentiful material. It's in large demand (we want to build cars out of it). But it costs a lot to process, so is a high price, despite being "abundant". So even a asteroid of gold or titanium, may be of no use, as even on the earth, materials already reach an economic limit and get left alone being "too expensive to mine/process". We would need proof of this. I've not seen any apart from Lunar excavation (very different than asteroids).

I think a better option would be an Alien going... "You had an entire planet? Wow, how many million years did it last you... oh what? You used it ALL up aready? But never bothered to check for water on any of the Moons... okay. Wow, um, no spare sugar here. Guess you'll have to ask next door!"

Charge £100 a bottle of water to an Astronaut and for £90 I'll send them a water recycler. Charge £10 a bottle, and I'll send them an email telling them how to recycle their water with their current equipment. In other words, it's not a captive market, there is competition. AFAIK ground based launchers win on the costs every time, until you scale up to 100s of stations or at least one massive Moon base.

Entropy always wins. It's just if you can slow it down enough. Technically, we are all hovering right now, microns above our chairs. As no 2 things physically touch, and as you say, magnetic forces repel. But even a massive supermagnet would eventually loose it's magnetism unless maintained some how (cooled or powered).

Oh, I did bring extra, it was the only thing that made it work (it allowed my to do partial stages, and thankfully my descent/landing rockets were not needed, so I could put fuel back into a stage I antecedently emptied in orbit). But every extra part adds extra weight, and a heavy craft seems to pancake on Eve, even without timewarp/moving. It just spontaneously explodes. Thanks Technion. I usually only try such things in Sandbox, career would be probes only. But I do try to avoid hyperedit, so it's save replays only.

I'll have to collate my images and videos... but let's just say I plan to never send another Kerbal to Eve ever again! No less than 3 completely failed attempts to rescue this poor kerbal. Possibly 100s of retries on save games. Countless glitches, including physics glitches and ladder failures (that actually caused me to hack gravity, as I'm not rebuilding a craft that works on Kerbin, but causes glitches on Eve with ladders :/ ). I was finally about to ragequit, when I noticed my ascent angle was too shallow. Going nearly "straight up" I just just enough DV, after some careful fuel rebalancing, to get into orbit. Eve, one hell (correct use of the word?) of a planet!

No it would not. To become tidally locked takes millions of years. The rotation imparted by a ballistic trajectory could be kept I guess, but as said, if you hit timewarp in KSP you loose any rotation.

I've just noticed the error of this thread. Now we have physicsless parts, such questionnaires are pointless. :/

Orbits in real life don't work that way. You do need some existing rotation, or as you said need to impart some with a force (your cables are about the same as a reaction wheel). It's just KSP does not save rotation (currently) when saving (to leave the game or enter/exit timewarp). If you leave the ship rotating and never go into timewarp you will get the correct rotation along with the correct orbit.

Yep. The only animals that "float" are those that "swim". You have to be light enough to float in air, or jump into the water. No easy way to do it.

Dan Nerd Cubbed on Youtube almost did this!

Same here in 0.24. Not tried 0.25, but may migrate my saves today to give it a go. The only bug I suffer from is the Unity no right click (unless I spam the button, gonna loose another mouse to that!) problem. I get the occasional crash on loading a new scene, but don't know if 32bit gets this as well? [edit to avoid double post] Also with the DX11 thing, I also only recently upgraded from a DX 10 card myself. I can understand people not wanting the game limited to DX 11.