Technical Ben

Any rocket design would collapse under it's own weight, no?

How does MWI explain entanglement? Also, is it not that the calculations are fully deterministic, but the results never are? Just like a dice, I can say with absolute certainty it will roll between 1 and 6. But I cannot say what it will roll.

Presuming any physical mechanism can be a) simulated or replicated via another mechanism, then yes. That is to say, if you ran a computer running and exact simulation of the real world, it would contain "life" and be "non-biological". The other example is that you could copy such mechanisms and do it with robots. These are two theoretical options, but both would require a lot more resources than biology manages with just the atoms we are made of. The other question is if life can exist on a different type of biology. I would assume no, as if it could, we would see it here too (or nearby in our own solar system). PS, for example, the moon shows no silicon life, etc. PPS, Cmdr. Arn1e that tunnel would seem to fall into the definition of even more less likely than a Boltzmann brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain As with the example above of a computer simulation. If it's more complex than the least likely solution, it's less likely to happen...

This. It's quite easy to change such stats. Programmed in, hard code, or mechanical features are hard to change. The cost/tech position or usefulness of a fuel line is usually a stat in a .txt file (thanks to Squad looking forward at modding, hopefully it's benefited them as programmers too. ).

This should be stock. /thread.

Wow. Great one. You succeeded where many fail.

This should be stock. Though a very EXPENSIVE and power intensive device... it would make Kerbals look even more adorable!

Wow, never knew this... will use that in all future builds. That and I find massively heavy ships without sufficient SAS tend to spin anyhow (I'm guessing tiny wobbles are exacerbated with weight).

3 in a row (might not have the points, so remove knees if needed. ). PS, that's 3 legs, not 6.

Also double check under action groups. The number of times I've put a stray part under "Stage" in action groups.

Thanks. The idea is to just make it big. It's not got a use. The biggest refuellers I'm planning on using are about a quarter or less than this one, and still hard to use in orbit. My Jool ships are not even half the size, they are tiny in comparison.

It has no name. It is too large to take a single designation... it is: Problem is though, it's about 100 parts more than I planned. Which means lag prevents me from getting a nice dock, and solid structure. It should work, as some of the sections have docked perfectly. But the drive section keeps linking by only 1 dock, so will completely fly off if ever powered up. I might retry with a second, smaller tank, drive section, or reduce the part count (by making a second one! ). Actually, that sounds a good idea... will be launching a slightly smaller drive section to dock to it easier soon. Then it will fly! But where should I send it?

But why? If we wait, we will get there in time. If we rush, it will "hurt" more. Do we want that? For what? More risk so we get there quicker? I've been in cars with drivers with attitudes like that... it does not last long.

Oh, that's fine. But imagine how different it would have been. It's still interesting seeing the astronauts, and without them it is not the same. But if it was only selfies... lol.

Ok, this I can agree with. Making batteries + panels massless seems a problem. Making other parts massless is fine (say lights, antennas etc, possibly, though consideration is needed). But panels and batteries are as important as fuel tanks. Hope this gets sorted. PS, if it's too technical a challenge, it could be added to the likes of "first tree part connected". So if you connect to a command pod, it's mass goes up (but autobalances, or does not change, COM to the pod). If you add it to a fuel tank, likewise only the tank goes up in COM. You'd still need to "balance", but on a scale that can be done by hand. This also fits some reality. As tweakables are added, it's also about how parts are made "custom", and balancing is done separate from general part arrangement at times.

It could be a possibility one day. Currently it requires a lot of energy and time just to recycle on earth. Making "new" can be easier. Same applies for space. Though look at the shuttle, ISS and others, they recycles stuff "inside" the craft.

It would still require the same fuel to embark/disembark. Though it would lessen the DV needed if you can reduced the tonnage of your lander/transfer craft. By moving life support etc onto a permanent "station".

But the key is... the big important... it's not about self. We can take a photo of ourselves any time. Taking a photo of the earth or moon, or even someone else... that is amazing.

I wonder if their comment was on the photo, or the game. As you can do that in game.

You can be prepared to take all the risks you want. Sadly, that does not launch rockets though. That's even before you reach a destination. It's a reality, there needs to be something we can "guarantee" will work for there to be any progress. We cannot just scatter shot and hope for a result.

Waiting. I have one. I'm staring it down and deciding if it's good or evil. I'm building something giant to deal with it, or it's big brothers when they show up.

I also use stages/drop tanks up to and before 20km orbit (note I can be above 100km or so ap, but my pe is kept below 20km for drop tanks). Then after that I keep the tanks on until I get to the destination, or sometimes if it's a small Dv penalty, I drop my pe again, drop tanks, then circularise.

Until you plug in the wrong data, or it forgets the ground level height. SpaceX looks like a nice rocket.

AFAIK thrust did go through asteroids? It does not matter, the claw is for maintenance. This is not necessarily a rock mover. It's the craft to end all craft. I'll add a mid section that will have multiple points for docking anything needed. For rock moving I'll have a much larger possibly 6 or 7 spurred claw for the front. Oh, here is it docked with HALF the fuel (the other half is slightly stuck in orbit as it's tugs are too small, so I'm sending bigger/better designed tugs).

Had similar with an update. Other way to get the result, is to antecedently open 2 instances of KSP (forgot to close the old one, or hit the wrong button), and it will "part not found" as the files locked out by the first copy of the game running.