Technical Ben

This one is rather resistant. That's if you don't destroy all it's wheels in landing. But all in all it can survive loosing quite a few wheels, has room for Kerbals and is roll proof.

Why? Why does something have to be done? If you max out points, you max out potential. Or you can play it a different way. Say theoretically, if you spend 10 hours planning your flight, you can max it out in 1 hour of flying. Or you can fly 10 flights 1 hour each. That's rather balanced to peoples preferred play style IMO. If you think it's a problem, go check some speed runs of other games (FPSs, RPG, strategies). People do crazy stuff, but most new and casual players could not copy it. I doubt I'd be able to copy Scott, and I could fly and dock with my eyes closed. For new players, it's an introduction system and learning tool. For pros/hardcore players, it's a points/scoring/goal system. Even if you do unlock it in 3 flights. The next challenge is to do it in 2!

While true, I can get electric model aircraft. The trade off for electric can be on par with liquid fuel. So there is not much if any gain in fuel density AFAIK. PPPS, An electric "fuel cell" can be, and is a combustion* engine at times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell It's just a very efficient low torque combustion engine. *using the term very lightly there.

No. Quantum entanglement means the two particles will give a distribution of results between them that matches (opposite "spins", though they do not spin). You cannot use this to transmit information, as all you ever get is a distribution of spins. Only after bringing both sets of data together can you then see that, yes, you got a distribution of opposites. As you can never choose to get an "up" or "down", you can never send a message. You can influence the results in other ways, which strongly suggests the results are chosen at the point of detection. But as we cannot choose which result, we still cannot send a message. It's in effect like the two particles arrange a result together at the point of detection, no matter how far away they are, but only they can communicate, and the only communication is "don't do what I do, do the opposite". As we can never know what the other particle does (it's far away) or effect our particle, we can never send a message. The shadow is not faster than light for another reasons. The "shadow" never moves. You just cast a new shadow close to it or further away at a similar time. If we measure the two ends of the shadow (the far and the near) as if they are one thing, then we would think it moved faster than light. Where as really we measured one end of a shadow, and another end of a different shadow. A bit like measuring the birth of two different people on opposite sides of the earth and mistaking them for twins would make us think the mother must be traveling very fast! I am also not sure how the light cone is causality. Or why we cannot consider multiple orders of a replay of an event that was causally ordered. It might take some time for me to understand why an observer "seeing/detecting" the order of events in the wrong order is the same as a break in causality. :/

Theories come and go. Observations and mathematical truths last forever.

As long as it's not Papyrus...

Do you mean the Theory of the Laws of motion or the Laws of relativity? Your mixing terms there, and I'm not sure if you mean they are both the same, or each is different. Either both are a law, or both are a theory. Or are both laws and theories the same thing? Both comment on observations that continue to be observed true (laws) and calculations for predicting them (theories). The calculations can be erroneous and imperfect, as we do not have perfect information. The laws (observations) are perfect, assuming the universe/reality has the information in the first place. So, observations always outweigh theories. Or is there something lacking in an observation that a theory can correct for?

You already have this. Use an engine that generates electric. Use that electric to turn the wheels. Thus KSP already uses rocket fuel to turn the wheels. If you turn the Ant engine into an electric generating engine with little to zero thrus, it will become an exhaust and engine block. It also will not run without oxygen, so you avoid the worry of modding to get it to run in atmosphere only. Or mod it to run like a jet engine, and it needs an air-intake to work. Rage097, fuel is not heavier than electronics. Both a battery and a petrol tank are "fuel" or "stored energy". Both have weight. All in all, the highest density of energy storage of the two usually is petrol. Some batteries might push close to it. Why do you think there are no electric jet planes yet?

Eve. It takes kerbals and does not wish to return them. I must figure out a return method! Bop and Gilly are also fun.

Hmmm. If it is a significant anomaly, requiring an additional consideration for calculations, would it change redshift conclusions?

Top trumps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law Emphasis mine. Laws always apply, theories do not. Laws do not change, theories do. Thus, laws outweigh theories in all instances. I'll be happy to consider any error in that statement if you can find one. Thanks.

We can check if it orbits. If it does not orbit, there is not even an "invisible" sun. It's practically a brown dwarf, which is practically a sun.

Kerbal never die. They just go home.

Possibly. Launching from Moho is hard because it has a lot of gravity. So careful you don't burn it all up on approach, else you'll be sending the main section of the craft to rescue the kerbals, as I did!

Yeah, I'm going to have fuel depots ready. Just got to get the new science systems there.

This. I've cataloged the escapade on the forums with pictures. Took 3 iterations of the vessel to return to Kerbin, and I left them in orbit as punishment for failing to follow orders. Most recent is sending 4 rovers to Eve... without parachutes. Because the air resistance is enough to slow them down right? I added some fuel for a powered decent. But did not realize the air friction takes so much extra DV for a landing. one made it in one piece, though tumbled (strange physics on Eve!). So all in all, they are a crumbled mess on Eve now. But they are transmitting, so SUCCESS!

This I have to see!

Please tell me this is not true. I almost died when the Enterprise "fell" from luna orbit in the latest film (not to mention the numerous visuals not matching the spoken lines).

Is it scientifically accurate? If so then yes. If not, then the re-enactment should be of the DVD being sent to the sun for crimes against physics.

First we need to ask what you mean by "seen the process"? We can conclude "I can wood with water" is true, as we can consider water pressure high enough to cut stainless steel. We can also consider "we can fly to the moon by flapping our arms" is false, because we know flapping arms has no effect in a vacuum and the required speed cannot be reached while in the atmosphere through human power. So the above examples show us how we can consider what is correct and what is incorrect even without seeing the specific end result. We see other results, and can calculate in between and combined options. There are many methods to increase pressure, such as heat, explosions or magnets. There are many methods to "remove" energy from systems, such as radiators, chemical reactions or mechanical motion. If none are proposed in a system for fusion and not observed, then it cannot be a system of fusion. If we observe cold fusion, then we can say "it exists". If we only observe a hot box, we conclude "the box is hot". Most cold fusion claims have been "hot boxes" that could be radiological, chemical or mechanical in their actual source of energy. I'm not certain any have been seen to display any reason to consider fusion as their source of energy. Theoretically, anything is possible (wait an infinite time, it may possibly happen), but practically very few things are probable to happen.

There are mods that will give higher accuracy read outs. Though there are both limits to what you can make practical in a rocket, and what the game engine/software can deliver.

If it's too unbalanced for 1, send 2. I'm sure a rocket of around ~160 parst (so and extra 30?) could send 2 rovers (the other ~130 parts) to minmus. Or less. PS, I can see at least 2 struts that are redundant, so you could shave some partcount from the rover too.

Yeah, this could make a nice interplanetary craft. (PS, what each of us finds cool, others may not. I do like the design though!)

It would also reduce part count by having parts that can include batteries or RTGs internally. It would remove 3-4 parts even on a small craft, possibly more on a larger one. Then you can still get "damage" from collisions, or make those with internal parts more delicate.

2k in parts! Gulp!