FleshJeb

No.

Anyone who wants to look at this notion in detail should read The Uplift War by David Brin. Fiben Bolger is an uplifted chimp. He knows Uplift is a screwed up situation, but he's aware that humans do it more ethically and empathetically than everyone else. His motivations are complex and conflicting, and I think he's one of the best characters in science fiction. I'd have a banana and a beer with that guy.

I don't think this makes much difference in your case, but for the sake of accurate documentation: The atmosphere calcs happen in the Surface reference frame, so the Navball/SAS should be switched to Surface mode if you want to be retrograde relative to the air.

Nevermind then! Bah, I thought those were OPT engines. I think they're actually NFA Broadswords. I haven't used them, but I took a look at the thrust curves on github--All I can say is YES. Also: "The Broadsword is large and terrifying. So terrifying, in fact, that our engineers have postulated that it works by so deeply frightening the ground that the entire planet tries to run away."

I'm a big fan of sandbox and self-imposed restrictions. I will lightly suggest that your landing gear is a bit tall and narrow and may cause you headaches. Are those the schramjets? They're FUN.

The question being, "Is the kill cadence better?" A precision airdropped munition is very likely (90%) to hit and kill on the first try. A brief googling shows that the CEP for Iowa in the 1990s with consistent powder and radar-verified muzzle velocity was 150 yards at 19 miles range. ref: https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/shipshape/rise-and-fall-battleship-and-why-they-wont-be-coming-back/ You could fire that all day and not kill what you need to kill. Whereas, you can put this through a window at 69 miles, and hit a moving target at 45 miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B_StormBreaker Comparable weapon that will also do hardened targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon --- They also did guided rockets off a ship deck: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15410/himars-goes-to-sea-us-marines-now-fire-guided-artillery-rockets-from-ships

What would happen if you got that coolant so hot that it left your ship at a really high speed? Man, you could even put it through some kind of nozzle to direct the output!

It's a bit cheaty and not quite what you want, but maybe you could use AirPark? Have the functionality pinned on the mothership, focus on, and release the payload, then punch the Park button? Then you fly your payload mission, and come back to the mothership later. I'm not sure if you can just recover an airparked craft, but you could fly it home.

I know they messed with some of the nodes on the heatshield, so it might have something to do with that, but I think it's probably the trajectory. The more recent re-entry looks a lot shallower. The trick with heatshields is a steep, deep re-entry (see the link below). I'm a spaceplane guy, so I almost never play with the rocket parts--I think that pod could almost do the more recent re-entry without the shield.

What color is your game clock when this is happening? If it's yellow or red, that means KSP is struggling to do all the physics calculations in real-time. The KSP engine always does 50 physics updates per game-world second, to ensure the accuracy of the simulation, but that will often take more than one real-world second. See here: You probably want to try sliding the Max Physics Delta-Time per Frame to 0.12. You'll have to get to the settings in the main menu. It's under General, System. Side note: Until I read the above link, I always thought this affected the quality of the simulation. It does not.

I did at least THREE hours of research on this at the time, but I ran out of energy to actually respond. Apologies that this is all from memory. Pertinent facts: The methods they used have funny names and they're hard to google. The broad category is called a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer They took a grand total of ONE core sample of the sea bed. What they're looking at is the preserved concentrations of chemical/isotope compositions of various species of microbes, as well as the radiocarbon dates of the slices they take. The concentrations reflect how many of that microbe was alive at the time, and that number is reflective of the water temperature. My issues with their methodologies: The error bars for one of the methods is +/- 4deg C, but this requires extensive cross-correlation with multiple cores from the same geographic region, because it's species/environment dependent. A similar experiment in the South China Sea did something like 300 cores, another one well over 100. They DID cross-correlate with other temperature data, and other people's cores, but not nearly to that magnitude. IMO, large error bars on the derived temperature are better suited to looking at long-term (1000s of years) climactic trends, but they're applying it to a very short timespan (120). In addition they used fairly thick core slices (IIRC representing 5-10 years of sedimentation). This affects the time-resolution of the data. So with both these dimensions they're looking at some pretty broad error ellipses. The microbe species concentrations are very sensitive to freshwater inputs from nearby land, and they took that core fairly close to the coast. I measure the things outdoors for a living. The data I collect is fairly simple, and there's still a quite a bit of nuance with when, how, and how much I take that data: I would have taken at least THREE cores, spaced out by a few kilometers, and checked those against each other. I don't care how good their collection, lab, and analysis procedures might be, nature can always throw you a serious anomaly on one sample. Neutral note: The research institute that did this study is underwritten by a bank. I spent some time looking for obvious biases or conflicts of interest in the organizations, but I didn't find any. ----- So, while it WAS extremely interesting to learn about, I didn't find that the broad conclusion bolded above was well-supported at all. This is why your links royally liquid me off sometimes, Joe.

This is the line of argument I'm going to use the next time some STEM-lord whines to me about having to take Humanities classes. (My Calc 1A professor also had an art degree; the man was an absolute wizard on the chalk board.)

[All bolding mine] Ray's NBC source: Global sea levels will rise two to six feet by 2100 on the current trajectory, driven mainly by melting in Greenland and Antarctica, according to NASA satellite data. However, scientists have warned that projections underestimate the impact of climate change on sea level rise. From that link: If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 "This is almost certainly a conservative estimate," Nerem said. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely." Additionally: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level Along almost all U.S. coasts outside Alaska, the 2017 projections indicate that sea level rise is likely to be higher than the global average for the three highest sea level rise pathways, thanks to local factors like land subsidence, changes in ocean currents, and regional ocean warming. Regarding rates: The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015. From here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating-future-sea-levels That growing knowledge base is why scientific organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are publishing sea level rise projections with increasing levels of confidence. In its 2019 report, the IPCC projected (chart above) 0.6 to 1.1 meters (1 to 3 feet) [(sic) 0.6m = 2ft] of global sea level rise by 2100 (or about 15 millimeters per year) if greenhouse gas emissions remain at high rates (RCP8.5). I look at tidally-influenced hydrology and flood-resistant infrastructure fairly frequently. This is what the cross section looks like when you have to raise a 10-foot levee by 2 feet: Anyway, I'm tired of dealing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law for the night.

I've been in rural land development for most of my adult life, but this is off-topic so I'll spoiler it:

Here’s a work-in-progress Neutron for RSS/RO. He’s soliciting input on the specs.

Hey, Louis Wu boiled a sea using high-temperature superconductors and "sunflowers" in the Ringworld series. It only took Puppeteer-level technology to do it! /s

I can't remember which thread had the reforestation link in it, but here's one way the flaws are being addressed: https://www.1t.org/faq#question-6 I looked up those standards and they're very "big-picture", and don't contain technical best practices. But, the specifics are going to be local anyway, and will require study by people familiar with the situation on the ground. --------------- Second post --------------- This is fairly long and meandering, but at least it's on the actual topic of the thread. Goes into some minor detail on how sea-level rise is determined, and debunks common "denial" arguments:

I would put it between the engine and the adapter, clip it in, then attach the wings to it. Engines also radiate at 95% and should be heat negative when you're high and fast. The bonus is you're also getting rid of a whole 1.25m drag face. (Unless you're into the dorsal intake for aesthetic reasons.) EDIT: Are you also using a hemispherical nose on the rear of the Rapier? Worth it for the drag reduction (Also a 95% radiator). You should actually have enough thermal margin to just use a Mk1 Fuel tank and offset it into the front fairing.

Big-S parts transfer heat to other parts half as fast as structural wings. For my high-speed aero stuff, I use structural wing parts only, but you need them for fuel. The first thing I'd try is attaching them to the rear size adapters, because adapters tend to be much better radiators than straight-sided parts (check the cfg files). This will increase the rate at which heat fluxes through them. I'm not a big fan of using node-occlusion exploits, so my standard Mk3 nose is 1 or 2 precoolers and a hemispherical nose cone. Offset stuff back into the cockpit so the nose looks right. Landing gear on the front precooler. Approaching the upper thermal limits is also safer than you might think for a couple reasons: The hotter the part, the much more power you can radiate through it (proportional to T^4). I think there's a delay mechanism in the heat transfer code to save calculations. If you watch the parts in F11 overlay, a leading part will be glowing white hot and close to failure. In the next frame it will dump a boatload of heat into a cooler attached part (like an elevon on the trailing edge). I post this image a lot, but this prototype survived by transferring thermal energy:

I caught it just before the last stage cut off and separated. The stream ended shortly thereafter. Looks like they made it into orbit safely. The Russian mission control room is awesome. I haven’t seen it before.

If you're looking for power, you have to look at differing environmental conditions. The best one on gas giants is wind--They vary greatly with altitude. So, you take your hot air balloon, or even a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kytoon String a few kilometers of cable from the bottom, and attach a steerable parachute to the end. Like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_anchor (i.e. another kite) On your payload module, you put wind turbines, which power resistive heaters in your balloon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine Now you have a sailable persistent platform for whatever you want to do. Hmm... Kerballoons, Kerbal Weather Project, a modded KAS winch, and I know how to mod Breaking Ground rotors into generators...

объект object, facility, subject, objective, entity, operand Where we're familiar with it is: The "Ob'yekt" [Object] nomenclature was assigned to designs and prototypes of experimental Soviet and Russian tanks and other land combat systems. (globalsecurity.org) I believe "проект" [Project] is used for naval prototypes.

Ugh, I didn't even think of that (obvious) angle. Ah OK, then you're definitely going to have to do some product research. Consumer-grade printers should be the example they use in the dictionary under "caveat emptor". If her software allows it, she may want to switch the color space to CMYK instead of RGB. Then it will look more like it will print.