LordFerret

Just now looking through the new forums, I see what you mean by this. The 'Like this' reminds me of Facebook. That of course brings up an age-old Facebook issue about a 'Dislike this' button. lol

We had our dinner, nice. Small bird this year, small gathering. I've already put the leftovers in the fridge to cool... I plan on having a cold turkey sandwich before the day is done. YUM! :) Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[quote name='Just Jim']... Seven on Kerbin that I know of, not counting the old island airfield.[/QUOTE] Are anomalies Easter-eggs? I think they're different things ... maybe someone should clarify that for me/us. For example, the smiley face in the ocean would be an Easter-egg, as would the toilet. The old island airfield, old base, UFO, etc, are anomalies (and indicated as such in SCANsat, where 'Easter-eggs' are not). ???

I don't know what's worse - the movie, the robot comments, or the live Youtube user comments. :rolleyes:

I've put this rover up on Mun & Minmus, and currently have a similar version of it on the way to Eeloo. No fairing, launched as seen below. It's a long slow ride up, keeping velocity just under 300m/s. Once it's 30+km up however, throttle up and out. It's unmanned, crew follows it. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/CM2QzPr.png[/IMG]

[quote name='Waxing_Kibbous']Because there is no one way to play KSP, I started thinking about doing a science mode game but wasn't sure what to actually do in it- what kind of goals did I want to achieve? Today I came up with my Space Program goals- To find every easter egg in game, and take a picture next to it with 3 Kerbals- a pilot, a scientist, and an engineer, with flag, next to it. Basically it's like going sightseeing, My Summer Space Vacation. I have yet to find a single easter egg so this will be a good new challenge for me. The other goal to round out in case a body lacks easter eggs is to land on every body, again with a trio. *SSSHH don't tell me about easter eggs!** Also a bonus to build a colony with a view next to any goodies I find to be cool. Mods to add to the fun, and why I'll use them: No orange suits- USI life support antennarange- probe cores only for satellites and small wheel rovers. DERP - No F5, no revert launch, no zombie Kerbals Plus various other utility mods, KIS, KAS, MKS Lite, Karbonite, Alcubierre Warp Drive, KER, ScanSat etc. This should be quite the fun time- I imagine there are a lot of other cool agendas out there, what is yours?[/QUOTE] I play a Science game and that's pretty much [I]exactly[/I] what I've done. Thanks to game updates, this last time around (v1.0) has been my 3rd time doing so. Aside from gathering science from all Kerbin biomes, finding all the anomalies was fun (and a task). Half of the anomalies I visited via jet, and the rest by dropping a capsule from orbit, except for one right by KSC which was accomplished via rover. Then I started venturing off-world... SCANsat probes first, then manned. Mods I use: FreeEVA, HullCameraVDS (a must!), KAC, SCANsat, StockBugFix (thanks Claw!), and x-Science. I do not use Quicksave, although I will revert a launch or two especially when I realize at the last second I've forgotten something (like chutes & ladders ... say, that's a game, isn't it? lol).

[quote name='Wolfos31']@LordFerret What version is that screenshot from? I forget when but I want to say when 1.0 was released they changed parachutes so that they stay open until your velocity is down to less than 1 m/s. So I would have expected that to land and then slide down the slope with the parachutes keeping it's velocity below crash tolerance until you reached the river. This was from v0.90.0. I had posted about this a while back in the fails thread. At the last second, I had both Kerbals bail. The Kerbals tumbled down the cliff and went poof! (died), while the capsule slid down and safely came to rest on a little ledge lol. [quote name='CliftonM']The parachutes cut when they hit the ground, though. Yep.

Well Musk needs to pull something off 100%, he's running out of money according to business news... his big solar thingie (Solar City) went bust the other day, among other things. Word I've gotten is that he's now putting everything into his new battery. Might be the only thing that saves him.

[quote name='r4pt0r']I [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEMlp0aDGAg"]build my own RC planes out of pink fanfold insulation[/URL]. They usually last a dozen or so flights before pilot error gets the best of them. Then I tear out the electronics and slap together another plane. You saying I would need to register each plane I build, even when their average lifespan is a week?[/QUOTE] I think RC 'planes' follow different guidelines... and it all depends on where you live I would think. But, based on what you're describing, 'no', I think it's more a case of [I]you[/I] being registered as an 'operator of' (or maybe perhaps your radio equipment??) and not so much the plane itself. Oh, and I saw mention of the Task Force findings/recommendations on the news for the first time tonight. The emphasis of course was regarding the timely release of these new rules and the up-coming holiday season.

[quote name='silversliver']A book by Stanislaw Lem, quite famous. It talks about a scientist that goes to make studies on a planet believed to be sentient.[/QUOTE] Also a movie. [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/"]1972 version[/URL] [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/"]2002 version[/URL] I've only seen the 2002 version. Guess I'll have to check my library and see if I can get my hands on the 1972 version.

I can feel a lock coming. Merry Christmas.

I have my Mun/Minmus rover, which has gone through subtle modifications throughout the game upgrades. It works very well. Soon it will get its trials on Eeloo.

Did. Not. End. Well.

It's got nothing to do with frying the computers, and everything to do with creating an explosion hazard from vapors in the fuel tank. Read the article I posted already.

Funny stuff.

[quote name='Astronut']Seems to me that you are caught up with the media induced paranoia Robotengineer. While there will always be a few that will not fly in a considerate manner, the vast majority of recreational drone owners are very conscientious and not at all interested in invading anyone's privacy. A greater threat to privacy is the fact that we now live in a world where everyone carries a good quality camera in their pocket all of the time, usually with an internet connection that allows instant posting. Nobody seems to freak out about that though. Here are a few of shots taken with my Phantom 3. [URL]http://i.imgur.com/iVeQIy9.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/wONCyk1.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/tHVfl6w.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/ZL0y3oo.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/w1PQAKk.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/rNdX3Fs.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/pOhlz8a.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/GjD5pyC.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] That's a really good point! Those are great pictures, way cool. :cool: While I had an RC glider, and was into model rockets, we didn't have such technology 'back then'... I wish I had, there's so many awesome places that I'd been that I used to wish there was such a thing. My friends and I used to discuss building a large glider/plane and mounting my friend's video camera (VHS camcorder) on it - the thing weighed several pounds lol. The closest I ever got to aerial photography was my [URL="http://www.poweredmodelairplanes.com/fmr/camroc.html"]Camroc model rocket[/URL], mounted on a home-made 2-stage "D" class engine lifter. That was the most powerful engine I could get a hold of at the time, as I only had a Class C firearms permit for purchase of such things. I had several good launches with it, got some nice pictures of Bloomfield NJ from around 1800+ft up ... until the authorities told me I wasn't allowed to launch from their park anymore. That was and still is a big problem around here with launching model rockets and flying RC planes - there's no place left where you're allowed do it (without belonging to a 'club'). :huh:

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']The F-35, if it's bought, will replace the A-10, which is something it shouldn't do. Because it's a stealth aircraft, it needs to carry its weapons internally, which seriously limits its capability to provide Close Air Support (CAS). The A-10, on the other hand, it perfectly suited for CAS with its 37mm cannon and high payload capacity, as well as its reputation for being able to take a lot of damage. The F-35, on the other hand, can be completely and utterly ruined if lightning strikes nearby (according to my cousin, who is an Air Force mechanic). It's stealth ability is inadequate as well, I remember hearing about a radar that can detect the F-35. So basically, it's a fragile, detectable aircraft that underperforms in its intended role, so no, we should not buy it. The A-10 is tougher, cheaper, and more capable.[/QUOTE] [quote name='Dfthu']Does the lighting take out the computers or something like that because that sounds horrible.[/QUOTE] No, not ruined ... it's merely a maintenance issue. [quote]The F-35B did not maintain "residual inerting after flight for the required interval of 12 hours, which is a lightning protection requirement." In other words, the plane would be vulnerable to lightning strike if it were forced to fly twice in a 12-hour span, unless the fuel tanks were frequently "purged" with "external nitrogen." That's apparently an unacceptable additional layer of maintenance. If a solution is not found, F-35Bs will require the development of alternate lightning protection methods. [/quote] [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3[/URL]

[quote name='FishInferno']But what are the minimum qualifications? What about those 20 dollar helicopters you can buy at walmart?[/QUOTE] That's defined in the publication... read it. ;) [quote name='RainDreamer']This would probably screw the business of commercial drones companies that sells those automated drones that follows the owner and recording them doing video worthy things.[/QUOTE] I don't think so, considering some of the biggest names in the industry were in the Task Force evaluating this. [quote name='razark']How long until this thread gets locked for "politics"?[/QUOTE] This is no more a political discussion than any previous discussion in these forums regarding RC planes/etc and model rockets. It's just an outline of pending regulations for drone owners/operators in the US. [quote name='Kerbart']Actually not correct. US Citizens outside the US are not required to register (at least not as far as the FAA is concerned as it's outside their jurisdiction), and non-US Citizens who reside in the US are. More correct would be “if you’re a US [I]resident[/I]...”[/QUOTE] I stand corrected; Yes, it will apply to current 'residents' and 'visitors'. [quote name='Flymetothemun']Exactly. I'm a licensed Amateur Radio operator and I see this as sort of the same thing. ...[/QUOTE] Exactly. The obvious drone 'toys', made for kids, fly around in the house or yard, aren't the issue here. It's the bigger ticket items, those with speed and range and duration, capable of carrying 'payloads', with more powerful/sophisticated radio equipment, that are of concern. RC plane owners (gas powered) should be able to relate to this, and model rocketeers as well... there's all kinds of varying rules and regulations (depending on where you live), registrations/licensing, the need for carrying insurance, etc, involved - mostly involving safety (liability) concerns.

[quote name='FishInferno']... and why is this tagged "spaceflight"?[/QUOTE] Umm... because drones are up there? Airspace! lol ;)

Do you own a drone? Even just one of those little RC models? If you're a US citizen, expect in the near future to be required to register/license yourself for it. [URL]http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf[/URL]

Nobody has mentioned rovers yet, so I will. Locked mode is great, providing you've got a Kerbal pilot/driver... with a probe core piloting, it tends to flip the view upside-down. Locked mode with the rover can suck badly however if you flip the rover, the resulting tumbling view is very disorienting and makes it hard to get a grasp on 'countermeasures' (if you've got them installed lol).

[quote name='Just Jim']I actually agree in that I'm not a fan of Kerbal weapon or combat mods. I prefer peaceful exploration. But for the sake of argument, I look at this from a self-defense aspect. If all else fails, what's the biggest, nastiest weapon I can have to defend myself without blowing the ship apart?[/QUOTE] Keep your suit and helmet on and your hand close to the 'blow hatch' button. ;)

I saw an article not too long ago about a 3D-printed home (entire house, inside and out, snap-together modular components).

Huh? Moho has no atmosphere. Been there. Was the fairing clipping the rover wheels? [I]Edit:[/I] Bah... nevermind, you meant Kerbin's atmosphere lol.

Ah yes. The community which promotes peaceful space exploration, no politics or religion, equality, we all get along, discusses personal firearms. The irony.