PB666

The distances to be covered and time to recover a reward is far far smaller for LEO. Anything for L1, L2, lunar, HEO, LEO is on a different scale (particularly with regard to time). The shortest distance between C67 and earth is not that great, but it to the Rosetta space craft 10 years to get there. The space budgets, of course, are a magnitude too small, but a magnitude more budget does not mean we can travel to jupiter and explore its moons. It means you might be able to do some more work on the moon, more planet hunters in L2, or a couple of trips to mars moon, or a bunch of unmanned missions.

Oh boy so plasma is generated and directed with majical dark energy from hyper-hyperspace (waving hands in the air madly) 1. You've based your conclusion on in-silico science (or as I call it - rejection fodder), with essentially no experimental basis. 2. Containing the effects of high energy gamma is not trivial, the energy once absorbed is one of the most destructive energy that exists, it literally can create matter. I base my conclusions on the basic function of propulsion as applied to the problem, you have to accelerate a payload toward a target and decelerate. The more you talk about magnetic nozzel (all but payload not fuel, what generates the plasma?, what directs the plasma?), lead shielding (all but payload not fuel), antimatter containment fields (all but payload) the more you convince me that you don't believe what you are saying given the unwillingness to consider payload or deceleration. Nothing of what you or K2 has said has made ANY attempt what-so-ever to factor in the payload or deceleration. All you are talking about is what if antimatter could be used to accelerate itself, how fast might it go. Pigs also might fly, but we don't talk about flying pig propulsion system. What I am talking about is accelerating moving and decelerating a payload that includes humans. Lets get the stories strait, if you want to bounce anti-matter into matter and create momentum, you don't need to include space in the argument or interstellar travel. This conversation, more or less, is the same conversation we had previously regarding warp fields and the basic problem with both conversations is that if you _believe_ warp fields are possible then you support them, irregardless of whether or not the basic underlying principles of field energetics or propogation are plausible under any realistic/practical scenario. In fact the most realistic propulsion system using antimatter is an antimatter triggered fission/fusion reaction the claimed maximum speed is around 0.01c - 0.025c. NASA does not mention antimatter at all as a potential propulsion source, it briefly mentions the unfeasibility of creating and storing antimatter for science. Come back to the topic of manned interstellar travel when there is a speck of experimental science that suggests its technologically approachable. You would have better luck shrinking humans to the size of a pocket mouse than getting a matter/antimatter propulsion system to 0.8c. nough said.

ISP does care about the nozzle, and if the nozzle is degrading because its a soft material in which the lead can undervaporization due to the demands of acceleration. In other words you are basically arguing that it is possible to reach 0.4c with M/AM device when you ignore the weight of lead (one of the most dense materials known to man) and the containment devices, and the AM/M injection devices. Lets put it like this, the lead absorbs high energy gamma, that therefore results in heat and the occasional particle production. The higher the g-forces needed, the more heat 1-g worth of acceleration for a huge object is a tremendous amount of energy. That level of energy production will lead to degradation of the blast plate. So 0.4C or 0.25c hardly matters if you are limited to 0.01g acceleration 50 to 80 years spend in acceleration cycles and 100 years spent in transit means payloads become very large. Lets put a faux bet on this, in 20 years lets re-address the issue with updated science and see who is more correct. I would be willing to bet that in 20 years times future estimates for maximum acceleration and maximum velocity are closer to my estimates. And as time goes on future estimates of maximum velocity will fall. Im going to go even one step further, in 100 years the highest speed humans will be able to obtain with an unmanned vessel will be under 300,000 m/s (0.001c) and in 1000 years 0.01c and that will just about be the maximum speed humans unmanned strategies ever obtain relative to the sun's velocity in space. Sending a human into space at either speed would be a suicide mission. I suspect these missions will be conducted on channeled solar EM conduits and some sort of EM/ion drive conversion. This prediction is based on the fact that an easier technology (fusion power) is well behind schedule and not likely to be implimented in space in the next 100 years, maybe 1000 years and is heavy technology. The anti-matter/matter devices will prove to have a size limitation (probably on the order of milligrams per containment unit) and require a magnitude more development time. At 0.01c going to a goldilocks planet would likely take 1000 to 10000 years, and therefore manned missions are not going to be possible. Its amazing that people who are dead set against the cannae drive can be so convinced by the musings of anti-matter fantasizers.

Simulated is the key word. If lead is the blast plate, what happens to the lead over time. 0.6c/g and 0.99c/g is fiction, pure and simple, its a hype train used to keep supercollider and space research funding going.

The lead plate is not your payload, the 0.25 scenario is unrealistic considering that humans need space and food, and they don't do particularly well with high energy gamma rays plunging through their bodies. When you are using 10 fold or 100 fold more A/AM. The higher fuel to PL weight the better final velocity, but the more initial starting weight in matter antimatter which one cannot contain. I stand by my previous, even in the fantasy (that is what it is, nothing more than a fantasy) matter/antimatter never gets higher than about 0.2c. The type of energy production on a lead plate (low melting point) is going to do what at the beginning of the burn when you have alot of fuel to accelerate at 1g? OK since this maybe to much we slow accleration to 0.1g, which means reaching 0.2C takes two years and slowing down takes a year. and the trip to AC takes 20. Yeah and so, matter/antimatter doesn't really get you to the next star at warp 1.

I like nuclear if used in the right hands. Course you don't put a nuclear reactor on the San Andreas fault line or in Tsunami or Stormsurge prone area. Nuclear has fewer overall deaths associated with it relative to any other form of power (excepting the chernobyl accident which was the result of really bad design and bad management). The problem with waste is more of a psychological problem that it is a real problem. We have several good storage sites, the problem is that people blow the risk out of proportion. What does this have to do with space?

Matter/antimatter drive? Lets think about this. Assuming you have the technology to store antimatter (nope) using relativistic theory you would need approximately 10 times your payload to reach 0.1-0.2C to have enough energy to both accelerate and decelerate on arrival. 4 LY to AC means 20.5 years at 0.2C assuming you acceleration is no greater than 1g. And BTW that is something like 10 exajoules of power magnitudes and more power than humans have ever produced. Its not realistically possible. And this power is going to be utilized in an ion drive, one of the slowest accelerating devices we have at our disposal. Warp drive, worm holes and matter/anti-matter drives are something that Hollywood comes up because the reality of space flight is about 6 magnitudes to weak to have Shattner or Lorne Green zipping from planet to planet between tea servings. If we improved modern technology 100 fold, it would still take the entire time the human species has been on this planet to reach another potentially habitable world that would need to undergo eons of terraforming before humans could settle. You want to get to the next star, make a long range probe, fill it with stable lyophilized microbes, put in some of the best engineered electronics and a really durable photocell and find a suitable target, 1,000,000 years later it arrives and does its job. You could do this for every goldilocks planet discovered. If the cannae drive works you can use the photocell to open solar panels and help guide the probe to its destination.

I'm making a stretching speculation that Squad did not want it to have life. (actually all its life is just under the surface of the planet waiting for some kerbin-folk to try to mine it, but you have to find the spot, and mine like crazy to find it. I hear that when they escape they plan to use their death ray to incinerate KSC).-tales heard from around a Kerbinscout campfire.

Then 1.01 . . . . Then 1.02 . . . . . .Then a whole bunch of people started whining about aero because their box shaped rockets turned over passing MACH 1 at 10k meters.

Really? Did the internet run out of .... this morning or something?

You seem to answer your own question. A mars push is a romantic notion, but until you have Ph.D. boots on martian soil, it will naer amount to much. The private ventures are packaging suicide missions and selling them as huts on tropical islands. Good science is often built on little tiny steps. We have a lot to learn about surviving in low vacuum environments, add to this extended survival without physical support from earth and top this off with living in a climate in which photosynthetic EM is 1/10th that of Earth. It would take the resources, I estimate, of 20 LEO missions to retreive on neo-martian and bring them back to earth. There are better places to learn how to deal with these problems than Mars (e.g.Phobos or an asteroid).

Im tired of people complaining, I went through career mode hard up to level 4 and had none of the problems people complain about early game career. Everyone seems to think the game is broken if they cant push their rocket to Mach 1 before 10,000 m and have never read spit about MACH 1, or maintaining control during flight, some drag needs to be at the back to feather if you put all the drag at the front and all the mass at the back, you can be certain that when near MACH dynamic density isoquants begin pushing the nose of the craft it will tip over. We've known for 5 months that aero was coming, plenty enough time to start playing with new parts or making new parts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule If you want to surpass .85 Mach at high atmospheric pressures you need to design for it. You can't argue the games a failure because a previous version converted mass into drag and you could launch any blinking profile that you wanted. And lets end the complaints about early game part shortages when there is 200 sci available with 5 km of KSC. Just gather some Sci, tech up and stop barking about a little more work in career mode to get parts so that you can speed through the lower atmosphere at a wasteful MACH 3. Im glad to see the new aero, I hope we will see a revolution of new more realistic part designs (not squad retextures but de-novo parts) designed to deal with many atmospheric flight scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height 5000M up decrease by e = 2.718 fold

I don't actually see what your problems are. I actually tried to make rockets fail today, I placed a 1150L tank + PL on top of the super long booster and it remained stable until it hit 310 M/S (which is approximately the speed of sound at the altitude). All I had to do to make it stable was turn the thrust down on the booster in the VAB. (the winglets did make it wobble but I just moved them from the bottom of the booster to 3/4ths the way up and it tuned down the oversteer and stopped the wobble. I actually created 10 different rockets to see if I could get a failure, and only the longest booster with an extremely top heavy payload caused a failure. Maybe all the stuff I make is super stable, I don't think so, I think the problem is that some folks here have gotten used to MACH 2 launch velocities that they fail to realized that there is a reason that most commerical AC cannot go more than 0.90 MACH, because it takes alot of recrafted aero to cross the speed of sound and maintain flight control. Just slow down your lift-offs maintain 5000 @ 160, 10000 @ 220, 15000 @ 260, 20000 @ 320 and pitch changes of 1' per 1000 feet to 15000 feet and 2' per 1000 feet to 36,000 feet.

I saw problems but not like you are seeing. This may help you: These are what I try to control speed (by grading I mean speed increases constantly with altitude no Oh gee im at 10001 meter let me push this thing up to 260 m/s. 1 to 1000 meters = 100 m/s 1000 to 5000 meters = 100 to 160 m/s respectively and graded (85') 5000 to 10000 meters = 160 to 220 m/s respectively and graded (80') 10000 to 15000 meters = 220 to 260 m/s .........(75') After 15000 usually at maximum throttle, and 2' per 1000 feet. SFRBs The SFRBs have changed markedly. Some may be too powerful and tip the rocket over as they loose fuel. The output thrust of the SFRBs can be reduced and burn times increased in the VAB. To prevent over throttling use a combination of SFRBs and LfOX engines and down throttle the LfOX engines and SFRBs reach the end of their fuel. Tall SFRBs need winglets My experience. I built a simple 600L (aerodynamic) rocket tank last night in Blender and unified it into the game. put a LV909 on it and a tuned down half-height SFRB with no fins an put it into space on its maiden flight. (didn't even tamper with the drag parameters in the cfg). So basically the game is not hideous. When 1 if first came out and I did not realize they have changed RT-10 and BACC I ran into tipover problems, but quite honestly I had bigger tip-over problem with 0.18 to 0.22 so . . . . . . I built a BACC with very low drag and it always tipped over. The reason is that as it runs out of fuel all the drag and weight are at the top of the vehicle, this stuff all wants to be close to the ground. So now if you have a booster, it has only drag from its side (minimal) and from the flange around the nozzle. The drag is all at the front of the rocket, and yes this is a problem in RL two, watch some of the german ro Oh and I don't use FAR or NEAR, Mech Jeb is my only vice, other than a few tank mods and my own creations.

And the modders here are genuinely unsympathetic (ahem CK) about the time it takes to fix your config files largely because of poorly written mods. My problem with the mods is that every upgrade I spend a week upgradeing or weeding the mods. [Patting self on back] my own mods required very few changes. The worst mods have the code MODEL { Texture = Model = } This took out a whole bunch of fuel tanks, large-scale RTG, As Squad has a radar (:^) ) that detects when folks are modifying their model and then changes the directory of the part or deletes the model in the new game or change the modes name in an existing directory. So many modders used to do this and so many parts are now useless. Better to make your own parts or borrow someone blend files and create files in your own part directory that doesn't change.

Kraken There is a list of Kraken on the Wiki. I have a few of my own (e.g. KSP fall throughs and other Jeb killers). A kraken is any unexpected or unrealistic scenario where craft of kind is lost do to an inadequacy or bug in the game. For example approaching Kerbol in past versions of the game resulted in speeds were adjacent parts would collide at damaging speeds due to the position updating processes in the game engine. Another kraken was ship would spontaneously disintegrate or explode at 6500 meters (a major transition altitude in the game). There are warp kraken (e.g. KSP jeb killer), but also you could pass through Kerbin at the highest warp without getting killed or be thrown from the kerbol system (or more commonly fail to jump out of warp at 70K altitude and pass through kerbins atmosphere without loosing any orbital energy). Mech Jeb had its own kraken, for example if you set autointercept for a planet at a certain orbit, it might try to pass through the planet to achieve the orbit (at a warp you would not survive). Part number kraken in which ships under low acceleration or coming out of warp would suddenly oscillate violently and self-destruct. For 0.5M rockets if you place winglets on a part and then turn it using the SAS you could get it to fly through the atmosphere and reach space again. Physicsless parts like manuevering thrusters stacked and given infinite fuel could reach the speed of light (this one was demoed on You-tube).

A1. Tech tree needed to be stretched out from the previous versions, you could essentially fill the entire tech-tree without ever having to leave the Kerbin system. A2. Not incoherant IMHO, but parts need to be shifted around. For example an electric power generator is easily prerocket period. You can generate power from a thermocouple, inefficiently. Batteries showed up in the 18th century. And how can you have a generator on a rocket and not have one for the capsule. Wheels are 2000 years old so some rudimentary wheel should exist at start. In additions the propellar existed in the time of gallileo, used on steam ships of the 19th century. So .. . . . . . At start the game needs a piston engine, propellar and wheels, something say of capability of DC3. There is a Mod in curse that converts LF or MP to electric power. The MP in the capsule is never used early game, why have it unless it can be used. A3. Agreed A4. But they are doable as soon as you get a docking port. A5. Agreed. Action groups need to be early game. At least 1 action group should be available at start, the number available should increase as one moves up the tech-tree. However I have found this to be more of an annoyance.

OK so this is what I have found. I previously created "mk4", "mk6", "mk8" bulkhead profiles along with "size01" (size 0.75), "size1p5" and size4. Each of these showed up as a new tab in each has its uniquely named mouseover label meaning the game CAN PICK UP NEW profile names and USE THOSE NAMES TO CREATE NEW TABS, each with its own unique mouseover identifyer. So you can without adding icons recognize your parts tab. In addition those names fall into alphabetical order IOW mk4 follows mk3 (mk 3). HOWEVER . . . . . . . . . The stock names (e.g. "size1") has a mouseover name of "size 1" but the added names have mouseover names exactly as written into the variable Each added tab gets a [dotted ?] So for instance in the model: liquidenginePoodle.cfg "bulkheadProfiles = size2" but is found under a tab with a mouseover name of "Size 2 [2.5 meter]" Mysize4 mod in the same folder: grizzly.cfg "bulkheadProfiles = size4" and is found under a tab with a mouseover name of "size4" So we can conclude that for stock profiles the game recognizes the profile and assigns them to a tab by attaching it to an class defined object that contains both an icon and a tab name. So where do the icons come from? The are found under \PartList here is what the readme for the folder says Looking into the squad/PartList/SimpleIcons folder you will find the Icons in PNG format listed. (I had previously explored this directory so that I knew these icon files existed, although had not compared icon file names with profile variable names) The icons have names like cs_mk2 where as the mouseover is "mk 2" and the variable name is "mk2" So somewhere in the game script or a config file there must be some sort of loading and conversion table for stock profiles. For me the mouseover names and ordering suffices, they should suffice for any modder. - - - Updated - - - You cannot use their naming conventions because their naming conventions use cs_size1 and this is what it says in the readme OK so you cant use their conventions, what conventions can you use. Suppose your profile name is "size4" then you should have two files one named "size4.png" (what the unselected Icon looks like) and "size4_selected.png" They belong in a folder you have to create (called "Icons") And they have to be loaded by a script 'PartCategorizer.Instance.GetIcon("size4") for the stock variables they also have scripts assigning them to the size toolbar and also assigning mouseover names. I say that because of this script and because there was no cfg visible that does this assignment. IOW your icons have to have a painted background and foreground, and selected is specified by two pngs icons. Their icons have an invisible background and are specified by a single file in simpleicons.

OK so the stuff I added with "size4" were sorted under the [dotted ?]. That is an observation. Other icons for the VAB part sorter are defined, so they should be defined somewhere. Which means now I quess you want me to look? hmmm.

Really people here complain when im sincere. The design is nice, I will give it credit if firefly doesn't work, it prolly will work with a little tinkering. The problem is that the game comes with a rather complete ability to launch small things into space. The bigger problem now is a launch system for really big (Wide) things (particularly since they reworked the jet engines). A couple of issues, methane currently is not in the game, there are no current liquified gas or compressed gas fuels and I am assuming the oxidant is liquified oxygen. To be true to their design you would need to add two new resources to the game. BTW, I design for myself, what I see as a need; the rules for submitting to curse have become two draconian. All the mods I have downloaded previously the game has made obsolete, and many where never revised or patched on curse they simply disappeared. I thing we should be teaching folks how to mod, and sharing meshes and textures rather than building parts they might enjoy more making themselves.

There has to be a cfg that assigns icons to labels. If the label has no icon then it just adds a dotted questionmark. - - - Updated - - - Its not required as long as you have the part assigned to an existing function group (e.g. engine, construction, utility). The sorting maps to the profile option for part sorting.

Hydrogen, because it made the universe, and when the universe runs low of the stuff we are all doomed.

So you reply to what you think is whack with equal dose of whack? The basic and fundamental problem in all of human discovery can be summarized to the layman with the following....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory Examples: Coelecanth, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14447.html, the 2008 financial system collapse, relativistic physics. All of these things are examples in which past trends predicted could not occur that occur. There are two essential phases to future predictions human conception follows that past trends will in the future will almost always be true, therefor we tend to discount or denigrate that which does not follow the past trend. However, true innovation follows the discovery of new trends. As a consequence, even in the beloved world of quantum mechanics, there are still unknowns and still things that can be discovered. The question is are you one who calls the black swan a unicorn out of profound insight, or are you painting black swans white out of a lack of imagination. - - - Updated - - - As has been stated oh so many times, you test the device by putting a couple of panels on it and place it into an orbit, if it can gain altitude then it works. MY suspicion is that it will work, but it will not produce as much force as it does in the laboratory.

We should ask the designer of the toyota hilux to design the next space shuttle?

I hope you get a reply to this I cannot help you much. I set my target GameData directory as as a file on my desktop. Im not even sure if that is a smart thing to do, but it avoids the problem of having files misdirected, and I move them were I want them to be. I also had to uninstall and reinstall unity. I install part tools 2.0 into Unity's Standard Package directory, and then pull the 2.0 files from the project\assets\parttools directory and replace them with part tools 2.3 (3 files). It works. I don't know why people are doing this, its a bit of voodoo that goes unexplained, but thats the song and dance (IOW i hope someone comes in and explains why 2.0 needs to be in Unities Standard package directory but then pulled and replaced).