cpast

Why would this be needed? I'd rather see them make it so anything that can be done in an action group can also be done via tweakables in the VAB.

King Abdullah meaning KAUST, or something else?

Also, Kerbals can resurrect themselves. Can Grox?

As well as other systems (it's not tied to Windows, that's just probably its best-known use). In fact, it was invented as part of MIT's project to develop a campus distributed computing system, and... ...it's called Kerberos (instead of the better-known Roman name Cerberus) because the project in question was called Project Athena. (on names: the Romans and Greeks worshipped essentially the same gods, sharing mythology, but under different names; for instance, Pluto was the same god as the Greek Hades, and Jupiter the same as the Greek Zeus. Kerberos/Cerberus is actually not a big difference in comparison).

Older ejection seats had similar levels of acceleration. When the alternative is essentially certain death, the risk of severe injury becomes much more acceptable.

So is Kennedy, yet NASA uses range safety systems to protect things on the ground against malfunctioning rockets.

I was under the impression this was almost always the case for tested treatments, as well, with a few exceptions (children [for which you need parental consent in most cases, but not necessarily all], court-ordered psychiatric treatment, and emergency lifesaving treatment for a patient who is incapable of consent and hasn't taken steps [like a DNR order] to indicate lack of consent; the last one isn't actually a case of "can treat without consent", it's a case of "consent is implied unless they specifically refused consent at a time when they were physically capable of doing so"). Basically, I'm not aware of any case except court-ordered treatment of a person who is legally insane in which it is permissible for anyone to give medical care to an adult when the adult explicitly refuses said medical care. While not so relevant for most vaccinations (which are given to children, and where you have the conflict between a parent's right to make decisions on behalf of the child and the child's right to life), it is relevant for a few, including any vaccines designed to confront an epidemic (in which case adults wouldn't have been vaccinated as children).

Making a website prettier counts as a tangible improvement all by itself in my book.

Why not ask Microsoft?

And in the process, it killed over 3 times as many people as died in the entirety of WWI (Spanish flu: 50-100 million deaths, 3-5% of the total world population killed in one year; WWI: 16 million deaths over 4 years). In general, the flu is far, far, far more deadly than you'd think if you think of any bad cold as "the flu".

In some scenarios, it might be worth firing even if it would mean a loss of crew: a rocket hitting an area with people in it will kill more people than are riding on that rocket (yes, I know this is why rockets are launched such that downrange is away from humans; even so, the reason for range safety systems is, ultimately, to prevent the rocket from leaving that downrange area and hitting somewhere with people).

Why would high energy density be an inherent problem? It's not that planes would have more total energy; higher energy density can be offset with less weight devoted to power.

IIRC, they also keep stocks of vaccine on hand in case of escape from containment, and one reason they keep it around at all in 2 places is to know more about it in case it's not quite as eradicated as is generally believed. Also, apparently, until May this year, all US military personnel deploying to the Middle East were required by policy to be vaccinated. It's still apparently required for those in Korea over 15 days, as well as certain emergency-essential units and personnel. It's not just a rare few, then.

In capitalist countries, sure; however, in communist countries (e.g. USSR), aren't the producers of rockets also employed by the government and directed by the space agency?

Would go very well with the general spaceplane overhaul.

That's because he's not a forum moderator - he has moderation powers, but that's not really his job, and that list reflects the official structure of the moderation team rather than usergroups and permissions. The VB list (under "View Site Leaders" on the index) *is* based on usergroups, and is a good way to find Squad staff's profiles (as they show up there due to their usergroup). Or, for Ted in particular, click here.

IIRC, flying boats (not floatplanes; floatplanes have normal-looking fuselages and sit on separate floats that provide buoyancy, while flying boats have a boat-hulled fuselage to provide buoyancy; in a floatplane, the fuselage isn't normally in water, while the fuselage of a flying boat enters the water at landing speeds and has to be able to survive it) have weight and drag penalties for the boat hull. That's really not good with a spacecraft where every pound counts and where it must be designed to survive re-entry. Furthermore, the thermal protection system would probably then have to be entirely replaced each flight. I don't think it's likely that you could have a design that a) has decent aerodynamic characteristics so it can perform a controlled landing, is suited for hypersonic flight (at re-entry) and can be controlled during that, c) has a thermal protection system that can handle the heat of re-entry, d) can simultaneously have descent rate and airspeed such that it doesn't immediately break apart on entering water, e) is able to handle the stresses of deceleration in open ocean (i.e. not calm water) *without* breaking up, f) is buoyant enough in water to stay afloat until it can be picked up (say, by one of those ships that can pick up other ships), and g) is able to do this without excessive corrosion. There are just too many compromises involved; the Shuttle already had poor glide characteristics due to the compromises involved with making a craft that can handle atmospheric re-entry and where saving weight is critical, and one result was that it had a very, very high landing speed (over 180 kts [i.e. 210 mph, 93 m/s]), far higher than just about any other aircraft (keep in mind that it needed a very long runway to land even with a drag chute). The mass and landing speed is probably the biggest issue to deal with with trying to get it on a carrier: Atlantis, the lightest shuttle, weighed 170,000 lbs, which is some 15,000 pounds heavier than the MTOW of the C-130 (unless I'm mistaken, the heaviest kind of plane ever landed on a carrier); the C-130 landed on a carrier only landed at up to 130,000 lbs. And the C-130 didn't rely on the carrier's arresting gear, instead relying on its own (pretty incredible) short-field performance. A shuttle would rely heavily on the carrier to stop it, traveling at higher speeds than any carrier aircraft land at, weighing more than anything that's ever landed on a carrier.

Maxmaps's post used the word "buying"; if Squad is paying whoever they're getting the mod from, I suspect that they'd have an easier time overcoming objections they would have. Again, seems unlikely -- Maxmaps used the word "buying", and that implies they're getting permission (no real reason to pay someone if you're not asking for permission). There are also plenty of mods where they *can't* integrate them without permission; in addition to anything under a CC license with NC terms, they also couldn't use anything under GPL or LGPL, or under a CC with SA terms (the licenses that work are MIT, BSD, public domain or similar like WTFPL, and other permissive licenses, which many mods don't have). I don't think an NDA would ever make you actively deny something; I think the most it'd do would be to not let you talk about it (so if he were under NDA, ferram would be perfectly allowed to ignore this thread).

If that's your definition, I'm pretty sure no such mods exist -- even a UI improvement like Editor Extensions or SelectRoot probably has people who actively don't want it.

Alternatively, from a physics point of view (not sure if electrical engineers use it), Coulombs are equivalent to A*h (as 1 C=1 A*s).

It's irrelevant whether selection committee members' names are public knowledge; there can be no direct consequences to their career (that's pretty much the point of the civil service system), but on the other hand, a cut in NASA funding is something NASA doesn't want and generally tries to avoid. Keeping the people who give NASA money happy is something which NASA generally has to do; federal agencies generally have a hard time completely ignoring Congressional preferences (for instance: although NASA wants to fund two projects, Congress can respond by forcing them to pick a single contract; NASA doesn't want that to happen, so doesn't generally want to annoy Congress). I'm not saying they'll certainly pick CST-100; I'm saying that it's not irrelevant what Congress prefers, because, although the decision is made by civil service employees at NASA, they're still subject to Congressional pressure.

On the other hand, those in Congress do decide NASA's budget in future years (and can always do things like cut funding for this program if they so choose). Congressional pressure can influence NASA, even when Congress isn't directly deciding the winner.

Couldn't it also be c) there are bugs in the Unity player (which I'm assuming has substantial native code components [such as PhysX], and isn't entirely written in .NET)? I thought that was most of what the crashes were.

Going big never colonized a planet either. Large projects have failed both because they tried to overeconomize and failed to set large enough objectives, and because they shot too high and failed to ever get enough funding to be completed.

First-class screenshots meaning "uploaded to Kerbal Stuff"?