Technical Ben

Wow. I just... This is "ThunderBirds" Territory right there. Amazing.

You could spin the device so strongly it disintegrates, then push that rubbish out of an exhaust port... a bit like a sander/grinding wheel. But that's "cheating" as it's using true fuel.

Great idea.... no wait. I've got a better one. It will take careful planning, and SCIENCE! (Runs off laughing and mumbling)

Thanks. Still not on my lists, but your link worked. I'd skipped 1 or 2 sections, so want to catch up on them.

Hi, it was in my subs list, but I cannot find it. Did Scott take the video down?

Stupid long wobbly worm like interplanetary craft.

I think I have like 15-20 debris at the moment. Most I leave in a degrading orbit only. Those I manually delete are debris on Kerbin (as Kerbals can get to it to clean) and multiple debris crash sites, where I leave 1 section for realism, but remove the rest to avoid clutter. I tend to try not to leave stuff in orbit though, so that helps. Mind you, 1 crash and it's all gone to pot...

Yeah, AFAIK many single programmers have added customer physics to Unity. It's all a risk/reward or time/costs and benefit/costs balance though. For KSP it may or may not be worth it, it's the Devs who know.

Wobbling trajectories dues to gfx/rounding errors makes that too awkward for me. That and the zoom in not being close enough, so trimming constantly can get annoying. Mechjeb readouts (or other mods) allow for a bit more precision earlier on or a bit better view later.

I had my usual reoccurring dreams (lots of them last night, blimey, I just have to try and forget them all). Trust me, sometimes it's more a curse than fun. Highlights include redesigning a museum in a shopping centre, windows shopping in said shopping centre and having a flip phone that had like 40 different sections that flipped out and 17 screens. :dizzy:

I tend to have to fine tune (trim) by hand on some journeys too. Depends on how/when I approach. Use the rendezvous planner and the closest approach reading and manually adjust your heading (via nodes or little spurts of rocket propulsion). Depending on your distance, you could even use some RCS to trim the final approach. Hence I use MechJeb partly for automation, partly for info. I tend not to over do it on both.

Thanks for the original post. I use to have vivid and sometimes scary dreams as a kid. No, this is not because I was a wimp (I'll explain in a second). So I had to develop a mechanism to cope. I found I could "lucid" dream to some extent, along with at the same time or later, figuring out I was dreaming. As far as I can tell, the main reason I get such vivid dreams is half the time my senses don't turn "off" properly. It seemed to start with just balance. I dreamed I was falling or lying on the floor constantly. Now looking back, that makes sense, I was in my bed, and my brain was telling me I was lying down, but my dreams were of different places. Later on, I can probably recall just about every sense at some point in some of my dreams. Visual ones are the worse, but thankfully very rare. Usually just brightness from the morning sun, but if I ever (supposedly I have not tested with recording/someone observing) open my eyes, wow that is scary as I cannot move or actually comprehend the information while asleep. But back to the lucid dreaming, I now just go "oh, I'm dreaming, cool" due to a few obvious clues/ques to the fact it's not a real experience. From there if I have a strange dream or some strange sensation (pins and needles etc while asleep is not nice!) I just sit it out. If I'm lucid enough, I'll do what ever I feel like. I've often re-written or "reversed time" to redo/undo a dream if I did not like it's events or ending. Other times I'm not lucid enough and I fail (like the "face plant" example you gave, my real balance/inner ear sensation takes over and tells me "no your in bed, flat on the floor, not in the air"). But when it works, there is only one limitation, and that's imagination. I actually cannot dream things I cannot imagine/recall/remember, for example flying higher than 20 feet. Which means flying is not as interesting as it could be, but can still be fun. The factor regarding "success" and "failure" I suppose is down to how lucid or conscious you are. The brain seems to loose it's proper memory, but also has it's "own" at times (I have specific "dream" memories that I don't during the day, and only occasionally do I get reminded of the reoccurring dreams, or my "dream house" or whatever). So things like inconsistencies and randomness can mean it just becomes a normal dream again quickly. It is both a blessing, as I can cope with problematic dreams or just have some "fun", and a curse, as it's very vivid/draining/emotional and somewhat undesirable (reality and less dreaming would be better than these constant annoying dreams). Hope you do well. I'd love to talk to a professional and help them record/learn/check how the brain works (especially in my case with my somewhat sensory ability while sleeping/half asleep) one day. PS, one difference is I sometimes do get consistency. A big problem is either regressive memories or new dream memories (as mentioned above), that kind of become a separate set of memories. Which I hope is a protection, as we normally do not remember dreams for good reason, we'd have trouble remembering what was real and what was not!

Yep. That feature is great. This one just naturally did the Scott Manley spin to keep it on track.

Successfully launched my new long distance Kerbal transport. Even though it lost one of it's 6 liquid boosters during the gravity turn... yes, it just kept flying. First non-explosive failure ever!

I'm currently using Steam Home Steaming Beta to stream KSP from my main pc to my laptop. The laptop was a kind donation, so it's not top of the range. In fact, it has trouble decoding HD video, and is currently stuttering just trying to decode the stream. My main pc has some load encoding it too, but seems to cope well. I'll let you know how it goes. I'm running the KSP.exe with Steam overlay and not the Steam native version of KSP. Everything seems to work except the camera needs keyboard input as it does not respond to the mouse clicks, but that might be my setup. Other than my laptop being too slow to decode the music, the game is playing nice and enjoyably. If Steam remove the restriction of this being local network only, I could see playing KSP on the go as even more viable. If you can test or use this option already, I'd be interested to know your opinions. [upate] Built and launched a ship with no bugs or problems. Now time to dock... um, I mean remove some solar panels with style. (PS, if there is a thread already, sorry)

The main idea is to think of where energy comes from. Any generation. Any, is always less than the power you put in. So take any function, matter, device in existence. Any. Then you "take out energy from it". You never do anything else. All devices that "generate" energy, do not generate anything. They take the energy from somewhere. So for you example, we have to ask "where are we taking the energy from?" A car takes it from the petrol. The petrol took it from the organic matter (trees etc). The organic matter and trees took it from the light from the sun. The sun took it's energy from hydrogen atoms (through fusion). The hydrogen atoms got their energy from the gravitation pull to cause fusion. The gravitation pull was started with the motion and pull of gravity from the beginning of the universe. So to find the solution to your example, we ask, where are you going to get energy from? The only place is "the electricity to power the magnet". We get the electricity from the wall socket, which comes form the power plant, which comes from organic burning (coal etc) or nuclear power etc. But here is the problem, we can take away your magnet, and still get power out of the wall socket. So does your magnet improve or reduce how much power we get? If we "increase" the magnetic power, we loss electricity too powering the magnet. We did worse. If we reduce the magnetic power we gain electricity to it, but the magnet eventually "runs out" of magnetic power and becomes just a bit of metal. So we never get "free" or "eternal" energy. It all comes from a place, and every place has a limited amount.

There is a "catch all" for most black hole problems. All the matter is spread across the event horizon. As from some perspectives it takes infinite time to fall in, then you can say it's all there, spread thinly just above the event Horizon. Else we could possibly consider it a warping of spacetime, instead of something sending gravitons, and I'm not sure if spacetime is limited, so it could do things that gravitons cannot. Not sure which one is preferred/works currently.

Yes. I agree. But spiraling inwards due to gravity with an orbit is different to "sucking" portrayed or described in fiction and generally. In that, we are talking billions of years for an orbit to decay in that way.

Black holes do not suck in matter. They are the same as any other gravitation body, except you cannot reach escape velocity if you get too close. But you could easily orbit one etc if you did not get too close.

Love it. Reminds me of my automated probes I first sent to Duna/Eve. Plus a much bigger, more elaborate version of the manned one I sent to Duna. Love it that others also like multi purpose designs.

Best one is that lightspeed is a true limit. They have watched decades of Star Trek, so it's near impossible to convince them that reality is different to fiction. Some countries exaggerate their accomplishments (we launched a station, checks radar, it's a small 5cm by 5cm satellite ), but "faking" an entire mission, no. I wonder if that was the problem with China's first EVA. They exaggerated all the accomplishments so much, people did not realize what was going on when they saw it for real. Such as, I think a lot if the "errors" in judgement over the video have to do with it being at such a low orbit it looks different to EVAs such as on the ISS. Or just the paint flaking off due to it's own out-gassing.

You just Won KSP. If this was the "end tech" the game would be a amazing.

Love the graph. They should teach that in schools!

Game seems a lot smoother. Even if it's down to just a few little tweaks, and not much real FPS/Performance boost, it really does play better. Well, except the random spontaneous disassemblies. But then again, this is KSP, and those designs were, problematic even in 0.22.

My 8l 16 cylinder Veyron is not doing any better mileage with that nice "economy" fuel.