Green Baron

What a question. 25kg can make considerable damage. So pilots of that should have a sharp eye (better 2). And anything above a certain mass and being able to fly higher than 500ft (150m) above ground shares the same airspace than manned flight (G) in the open field. Your model (or drone as it's called today) is safe as long as you stay below that cause planes (in this case small aircraft, gliders, hang gliders etc.) fly higher of they didn't just take of or are about to land. I've seen paragliders land with a model-glider between the lines .... so a little knowledge of what's going on in the air and an approved keen eye doesn't hurt, literally. :-) k

Yes, TMI was managed just barely, that was luck among bad luck, the margin was small, the supercritical state was close at hand (minutes) and chances were great that a metropolitan region could have become uninhabitable like Chernobyl. The problem is quite evident here: risks are taken too lightly and that's why i say nuclear desasters will happen again. Yep, that's the typical "calm down everything will be just fine" type of "information". There is other "information" which is probably as worthy/worthless as the above: http://naturalsociety.com/6000-increase-cancer-rates-fukushima-site/ http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2211716/fukushimas_cancer_epidemic_the_reality_revealed.html http://enenews.com/times-child-cancers-5000-after-fukushima-disaster A neutral information might be this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-cancer-idUSBRE91R0D420130228 or this: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/thyroid-cancer-rates-higher-kids-near-fukushima-nuke-plant-study-n440801 I don't have the time for a thorough research right now. It will probably take a few decades until we get a reasonable view on the impacts of Fukushima. See e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0959804994902968 Be it as it may, have a nice morning/day/evening, i quit this discussion :-) ps.: Just to make you guys and gals jealous: i live on an island where i can totally rely on the suns radiation for electricity and hot water. The next nuclear power plant is 1500km away. edit: this is not a political statement, the links do not reflect my personal opinion, they are examples of differing statements, well, except for the science link. My personal opinion is this: I see the risks of nuclear (fission) power outbalamce the benefits by far. Fullstop.

Even if that's true, a single accident will make an area uninhabitable for decades, spoil the whole foodchain and kill thousands. Up to now i know of three such accidents, i'm sure there are more to come and there were and are probably a whole lot of smaller leaks that don't get in the news.

I hope so. I'm absolutely with you. And: digging in does'nt t only not solve the problem, it worsens the problem. The germans put it in a saltdome in northern germany, that's a timebomb. Salt is highly mobile, tends to come up and crack under changing pressure, and of course dissolves in water. In 200 years they will curse their ancestors. Moreover, because noone wants the stuff any more, it's stacked in special containers besides the powerplants. And since nuclear weapons aren't needed any more in great numbers and people are aware of the dangers of transport, those nuclear processing plants have lost their appeal as well.

Yes, without a little glimpse on thesubjectthatshallnotbespokenabout it's difficult. So sue me :-) The Chernobyl-Desaster was the result of pure carelessness (letting the coolant run on it's own inertia), in conjunction with not enough respect to the dangers. Those were no idiots, they knew the design and possible dangers but just ignored them. What if Harrisburg (Three Mile Island) never happened (stuck valve) in conjunction with confused personnel, or Fukushima (wrong design for the geography) in conjunction with carelessness ? The latter keeps on happening by now and will do so for the next decade, probably longer. It's just out of the news. I'd say: If Chernobyl never happened we would be even more careless with fission energy. The human factor (fear, responsibility, *lowers voice* thesubjectthatshallnotbespokenabout) will be the main reasons. Nevertheless it will happen over again, a few hundreds or thousands will die more or less directly (within a year or so), uncounted later on (per accident). No exaggeration. That'll be in the news for month or so, clever people will stand up and claim something, everyone will be more or less shocked for a limited time. Ok, i go and blow up a few nervas on Kerbin :-)

Thanks !

Hello, got a little problem here: the waypoints of the anomalies on the Island Airfield are somewhat offset by roughly 400m horizontally. I'm not sure which mod caused it. I installed the latest versions of Contract Configurator, Anomaly Surveyor and Waypoint Manager. Any hints on how to correct this ? Many thanks ! Edit: i found the positions in the cfg file but somehow i doubt they are wrong cause it had worked before. Could be waypoint manager as well. A hiking Kerbal doesn't trigger the contract at the correct positon, but at the offset. Not the tower, which is up in the air ... 2nd Edit: Desert Pyramids have an offset as well, horizontally and vertically. Other mods that might influence this: Kopernicus, OPM, Scansat, Waypoint Manager

Yes, as far as i see it it's just fiction, each attempt would collapse. Only one point of the cable is stationary (the one 36.000km up), the rest (below) wants to go ahead, parts farther out stay behind. So you either keep it under tension with some sort of engines or with a heavy part farther out, but these would tend to stay behind and so come down rather quickly .... or the weight has to be accelerated all the time. Am not sure wether it's possible to bring that whole thing in some sort of equilibrium ... i see the same problems with these Dysonsphere thingies: as long as we can't trick gravity it's just not possible. Only one orbit is stable, the rest must be kept in it's place. Imagine the weight of the part of such a sphere over the poles of a sun. Naaa ... won't work. A ring world would theoretically be stable. But the slightest disturbance and things go wrong ... Would be happy to be corrected though. k Another thing: the cable/weight/platform/whatever would sweep through all orbits around the equator (except GSO). Thou shalt not have other satellites before me ....

Was glad to hear the rumour that rockets are eventually about to get an overhaul in some sort of 1.2, mods like KW in the past or now SpaceY (great work !) keep me coming back to KSP. Concerning spaceplanes i totally agree with Lord Aurelius; in order to "get things done" i mess with rockets. Only sometimes i do sort of a spaceplane, but my vote is among the rockets. I admit it's a beautiful sight to dock a spaceplane to a huge station, but lag ... f.r.a.m.e.r.a.t.e ...

Man, this mod is powerfull ! Especially the ISP-tweaking is maybe a little bit too cheap ... Nevertheless, nice idea and well done ! k

Hi, in order to stop by an interstellar body for refueling the ship had to decelerate from it's interstellar speed and accelerate again. I'd think that once accelerated to interstellar speed the ship should keep it until arrival ? It costs nothing ... p.s.: one of many approaches to evolution of language (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150113/ncomms7029/full/ncomms7029.html) (2015). Separation estimates http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html for Human / chimpanzee-separation (2012). Can't say a word about the future ...

So Alpha Centauri is in rendezvous distance regarding galactic measures. How about star systems 1500ly away ? Assumption: no wormholes, no warpdrive, max speed .999c. If the speed is high enough the ship would probably still travel in a quasi-straight line ? There'd be a correction angle for gravity and travel of destination object, right ? How about relativistic effects ? Time at destination is different from time on board, what kind of correction would apply ? I can imagine there is quite a difference in target position during travel time (3000yrs @ 0.5c as measured on earth). Galactic time ? That means the target moves faster when observed from board of the ship, correct ? Man, that's early 20th century stuff :-) Anyone firm in Relativity ?

Seeing homo sapiens as the sole representant of "human" is a creationists view. Which is ok for me, it's just not what i as a geoscientist and prehistorian have learnt. The other subspecies of homo sapiens is probably homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis and the genetic evidence is not that bad. Again, no offence meant. Your right, there is debate about anthropoligists. Lumpers and splitters create and delete species sometimes on fragments of bones. But, hey, let's get back into space :-) Does anyone know where AC is in it's orbit relative to our system ? Ahead/behind or above/below ? While AC is quite near it's also probably quite uninteresting, having seemingly no planets. How about traveling to a 1400ly distant systems (just because of the distance :-)) ? How would the gravitational field of the galaxy effect the course of a ship traveling 0.1c, 0.5c ? Not easy to get real figures on that or does anyone know about papers/info ...

Hello Bill Phil, i didn't say that. I said humans, which, when used by prehistorians, include all species and subspecies of genus homo. Which exists per definition since 2.6Ma, since the first stone tools because they define humans (which is just a convention). And i did so because further up in the thread someone mentioned that humans are a million years on earth. There are other views on the topic by creationists etc., but that's not "my style". No offence meant to anyone k

Yep, i was surprised that "just fly straight there" is theoretically possible. Reading that galactic escape velocity at our "height" is just about 550km/s (http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1787) would mean that a craft traveling at a speed of 150,000km/s travels practically on a straight line relative to the galactic center. p.s.: Humans are per definition (oldowan stone tools) here since roughly 2.6 million years.

Really ? That would be 300-500 more than going manually (1.0.5 KER atmospheric readout, if i remember right, haven't played for some time cause waiting for 1.1) ...

Using Mod-F12 or having to edit the persistent file is cheating, either the kraken or myself. We can discuss whether cheating the kraken is cheating, but cheating myself is cheating. That happens when i realize that i built an inappropriate apparatus for the planned journey or planned an inappropriate journey for the apparatus. I sometimes do cheat, especially when late in a career game and far out there. I must live with it. Which is well possible.

Oh dear, how i practiced gravity turns. All in vain ? Just fire red hot glowing through the air .... :-)

*lough* i give up trying to understand what's going on :-) I got NathanKells answer to my question totally wrong. No pasa nada. A wholehearted thanks to the modders. Sincerely.

Hope i got that right: the indicator is for the tutorial vessel flying to tutorial orbit and was constructed just for the tutorial from the experience of players, not from calculation. There is probably no such API ...

I see ! Thank you for clarification, sorry for missing out on the "tutorial only". Nope, wasn't asking for an autopilot or anything, just wondering how you did, which is clear now.

Heeding the call "back on topic" :-) I'm very much looking forward to the ascend-path-indicator thingy. Does it take into account things like staging, mass-reduction due to burnt fuel, throttle settings, mass inertia ? You were saying that it leaves us with a circularization burn of ca. 130m/s at an altitude of 80km, which can be done manually if you know the behaviour of your design ... well maybe not every time :-). The first 15km decide whether it's gone a be a 3300m/s burn to orbit or well ... more. Inertia is probably the biggest problem here and the reason why i only use 3 or 4 different launch vehicle designs ... k

I say spaceplanes have had enough since 0.23. All those wing parts block the view on the important things and they're still just flying doorleaves. Ok, i'm provoking a bit :-) Me too would like to see rockets evolve further and maybe a more meaningful contract system and more things to discover. Mods will keep me coming back to ksp every now and then ..., next version ... k

I tried MechJeb long ago and found out that MechJeb was not as efficient as manual piloting, plus it didn't add to my playing experience. I find that docking, landing close to a desired spot and trying to find a notthatbad ascent profile (yea, you get it, still chewing on that every time when i change my rocket's design) are the key things in KSP and i want do them myself. And, let's be honest, since the invention of the navball-markers these tasks eren't that scary any more ... with a little practice one can be much better than an autopilot in chosing when and where to dock (on the dayside of course, or ahead of another docking maneuver) and how efficient/fast that goes, or not ? So my vote is on manually, but everyone can do as he or she likes and can. And there is no need depreciate the "other side". If it was stock there should be a switch, like a pilot who opts to land vfr or electrically. :-) k

Yes, that's the way to keep the car from spinning around. I should be more precise: The Karibou is fun to drive (yes, it's a great mod :-)), it's just difficult to stop on a slope for the periodical F5 without sliding downhill (Kerbin and Mün, slope is not steep).