mielgato

Ah ! a glimpse of what I was expecting Well, bear in mind his work is mostly pop-science / sci-fi mixed together, I am not taking it all seriously, but it raised some questions I felt like asking to the community here, as it's the best forum I know for this kind of stuff ! I just kame back from work, and did a quick wikipedia search, here what I found (i'll leave links to sources) : In 1974, Hawking predicted that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation;[39] this effect has become known as Hawking radiation. By applying quantum field theory to a static black hole background, he determined that a black hole should emit particles that display a perfect black body spectrum. Since Hawking's publication, many others have verified the result through various approaches.[96] If Hawking's theory of black hole radiation is correct, then black holes are expected to shrink and evaporate over time as they lose mass by the emission of photons and other particles.[39] The temperature of this thermal spectrum (Hawking temperature) is proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole, which, for a Schwarzschild black hole, is inversely proportional to the mass. Hence, large black holes emit less radiation than small black holes.[97] A stellar black hole of 1 M☉ has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink.[citation needed] To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole would need a mass less than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter.[98] If a black hole is very small, the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole with the mass of a car would have a diameter of about 10−24 m and take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity of more than 200 times that of the Sun. Lower-mass black holes are expected to evaporate even faster; for example, a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10−88 seconds to evaporate completely. For such a small black hole, quantum gravitation effects are expected to play an important role and could hypothetically make such a small black hole stable, although current developments in quantum gravity do not indicate so.[99][100] From what I read I understand the following : For a black hole to evaporate through hawking radiation, it need to be hotter than the cosmic microwave background (2.7 Kelvin ?), and If a black hole has the mass of the moon, it'll have a diameter of (less than) 1/10mm (becuz BH are supa dense), and is expected to evaporate (in fact, it seem that Moon black hole is the biggest BH that can evaporate, anything bigger would be colder, thus getting more material than their evaporation rate. The smaller the black hole is, the faster it evaporate. (kind of been answered by multiples peeps, but it was almost chinese to me I need simplicity, I just spent a day servicing a catamaran, and where I live, temp tend to skyrocket in boats, above the 40°c, maybe my brain has melted ) Now i'm pondering about another question, can we, humans, make a stellar black hole hotter in the future ? Would it be useful for anything ? (right now I can't think of something) ps : If i'm not wrong, D=m/v

I will do that, if I happens to find it online Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the schwarzschild radius also called the event horizon ? (i've miss-used the term barrier, it's something i've saw in the book as "Barrière de Schwarzschild, aussi appelée Horizon des évènements" and it landed here, my bad) Of course it's not what's tearing apart the ship, it was an attempt at translating what was written and I might have been confused, sorry 'bout that ! Yes it's indeed metric tonnes I was talking about, I was unaware that tons and tonnes were different. stupid meh! About the 1600 tonnes thing, it was more a question about, at which point a black hole can become self-sustainable, what mass does it need to survive hawking radiation long enough so it can "swallow" enough material to grow ? (well that's not technically correct but I can't find a better word) Still very interesting calculus, but I can't be judge on this, if your GR knowledge is lacking, mine is close to jeb-existent !!

Greeting Kerbals Reading stuff about space is kinda a passion for me, be it actual science discoveries, or sci-fi. A little while ago, I was tidying my house, and stumbled upon a 38 year old book, called "GREAT MYSTERIES: Mysteries of the Universe" By Stemman, Roy, Published by Aldus Books in 1978. Mind you, the book is 12 years older than me (it was a gift from my grand-ma) and while I strongly suspect it to be mostly "popular science" with some sci-fi toward the end, rather than actual science publication, it is still a great read. In this book, they relate theories about black holes, and one in particular caught my attention, be ready : "Scientist could possibly create tiny black holes within a terrestrial laboratory. However, If they happens to succeed, the result would be catastrophic; According to the British professor, John Taylor : "A black hole with a mass of 1600tonnes, if left alone, would quickly sink toward the center of our planet, eating it rather swiftly, and us with it. And for good measure, Taylor added :" Even if there is a single black hole in our galaxy, then our futur is really dark, as it'll end up devouring us all." (Please excuse me if it's not the exact same text, as mine is translated in french, so I had to re-translate in english for the forum ) (We of course know this is partly wrong, as we had unknowingly a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy for billions of years, and by today's knowledge, it IS a fact, probably he meant on the long run, but we also do know that our sun will die out waaay before the milky way's black hole swallow us, sooo not really a problem, we also know that there is millions of smaller black holes everywhere in the galaxy, remnant of collapsed giant stars if I'm not wrong) They also suggest that if a spaceship could go through the Schwarzschild radius of a Black Hole without being reduced to space dust from the tidal forces, the spaceship would end up in a different universe. If the spaceship went through the same black hole he came from, it would end up in yet another universe, and another, and another, without being able to ever come back to it's origin. Keep in mind the following : "Our readers will understand that 'Black Holes' are purely the result of mathematical speculation, and is not based on any sort of evidence." which was probably true when the book was published. Given today's standard and knowledge about these mythical beasts, do you think a black hole weighting less than a Frigate class warship, could survive hawking radiation and eat through the earth ? (hmm, let me rephrase : What if a proton suddenly weighted 1600tonnes, would it become a self sustainable black hole ?) How about black holes being wormholes toward another universe ? (no this isn't another OMAGAD LHC IS GONNA DOOM US ALLL!!!1111)

+blorgon It's not as awesome as your video but I got lucky and saw a Mün eclipse today

I rarely participate over the forum, but i'm playing KSP since 0.18 I must say that it was surprising to have 60fps and green MET on the launch pad with a 30parts rocket, when I was used to 25fps with yellow MET during 1.0.5. The 64bit version is awesome, it does crash from time to time, but way less than the version before if you were not using openGL. I wish we had more gameplay addition, but it's being picky, the under the hood upgrade is so awesome that I enjoy playing KSP again, when it was just a PITA to do launch anything over 100parts.

Greetings everyone, I'm not really sure where I should post this as i'm running a (very lightly) modded installation, but it's something that is also happening on stock installation. So i'm going Jebediah and post this over modded section It has been adressed already, but I'd like a fresh point of view with data that may have been distilled over multiples threads. To put it bluntly, the MET timer is ALWAYS yellow and will turn red when going over the mach1 bar with a 150parts aircraft. Which mean there is time dilation for calculation, that I understand. What I don't, is why i'm having the MET flickering fast green/yellow with a 19parts aircraft sitting on the runway ? This is also happening in kerbin's orbit, regardless the craft size (well, with smaller craft >20parts the MET flicker from green to yellow, any bigger will make it stop flickering for a steady yellow, anything over 100parts, is almost unplayable) I tried to set KSP's afinity on only one core, then two core, to see if there is a difference, but definitly no. (probably my CPU is too weak to allow the game to run without time dilation ?) I tried fiddling with the max physic delta-time per frame option, but while I can get me the green MET again by doing so, I get a performance hit (getting under the 25fps bar, which is what I get with default settings of 0.04, half res). If I was playing on a laptop, I could have understood, but that's totally not the case for me as i'm using a custom desktop rig with a decent CPU (looks, it's an amd fx8350 black ed, I said decent, not awesome, yeah ok, its single core performances barely compare to an I5 4690K, but still, is that the cause ?) dxdiag : https://www.dropbox.com/s/mn5mb5m04zspxxl/DxDiag.txt?dl=0 Mod list : Toolbar, DistantObject, Haystack, KAS, KIS, KER, KJR, PlanetShine, CriticalTempGauge, ScienceAlert, StageRecovery, TACFuelBalancer, KerbalAlarmClock, WindowTransferPlanner Basically the question is : Is there a community made fix ? Or should I wait for 1.1 (soon™) and pray that Unity5 will fix KSP's performances issues ? edit: Ok, I played a bit with CPU overclocking, went from 4ghz up to 4.2ghz + went from 1.325vcore up to 1.4vcore, to see if there is a difference, and there is one slight, i'm getting a few more fps on the runway (3 exactly... I'm running on stock cooling, so I'm not overclocking more anyway), but time dilation code yellow is still there. edit2 : I gave another try with a fresh stock installation, yup, 100parts craft sitting on the runway, steady yellow. 19parts craft sitting on the runway, flickering yellow. No change, it's definitly not coming from the mods I had

So yeah, it was my game installation at fault, too many errors popping and slowing the game due to conflicts it caused. oddly enough, the game was running "fine" when using dx11. (definitly, more than 150% performance improvement with dx11 than dx9/opengl, when i'm having 25fps with dx9/opengl in the vab, I get 90fps with dx11! But sadly on the launchpad, performances are the same)

Hmm, in fact it was me being overly oblivious, it seem that the mod is not the cause. Even without, I still get really bad performances in the VAB when using Dx9 (not always the case, that is weird) and OpenGL (windows 10 user?) I still link those logs as you may have more insight than me on the subject KSP.log : DX9 without DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ni8rk8nxy75x7f/KSPdx9.log?dl=0 DX9 with DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/bj3dsppzbjzypw8/KSPdx9DTL.log?dl=0 DX11 without DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/rk911ge3d7chx1y/KSPdx11.log?dl=0 DX11 with DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqm0t9zjmq5opsm/KSPdx11DTL.log?dl=0 output_log.txt DX9 without DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/pzc0vxpj89mll9b/output_log_dx9.txt?dl=0 DX9 with DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/a28z3u4ejambnyh/output_log_dx9_DTL.txt?dl=0 DX11 without DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3fl1p8tkj3k85r/output_log_dx11.txt?dl=0 DX11 with DTL https://www.dropbox.com/s/4n209hu3pt108b8/output_log_dx11_DTL.txt?dl=0 after browsing through the logs, it seem that I have a lot of errors/missing stuff, I'll do a fresh install and compare. definitly not your mod's fault, my bad

Today I gave it a try, hoping to play again with full res textures, but encountered a performance issue while in the VAB. Without DTL (dx9), the game is fluid, I get above 80fps in the VAB With DTL (dx9), the game stutter (debug say it's around 30-35fps stable, but stutter as if it was running below the 24fps mark) which make it really hard to select anything in the part selection screen, let alone move it around. same is happening with OpenGL BUT When I'm using DTL with DX11, I get to the 80+fps mark again. (Probably a Windows 10 thing doing better with DX11 than with DX9/OpenGL?) I'm playing the game minimally modded : Toolbar, DistantObject, Haystack, KAS, KIS, KER, KJR, PlanetShine, CriticalTempGauge, ScienceAlert, StageRecovery, TACFuelBalancer, KerbalAlarmClock, WindowTransferPlanner Sorry if the issue has been adressed already, I went two page back, but was too lazy to browse through the whole thing my latest dxdiag https://www.dropbox.com/s/mn5mb5m04zspxxl/DxDiag.txt?dl=0

Hi, I've noticed that when using airbreathing engines, VOID (and Kerbal Engineer Redux for that matter) does not show TWR and D/V either in editor and flight. Even after correcting hudString.Append("Bottom Stage Delta-V") IDK what's the trouble, I verified KSP's cache but nope, it don't want to show. And I wont put my nose in the code, this is chinese to me edit : NVM, I just downloaded KER for 1.0.5 (was using 1.0.4 one) and the latest shows twr and d/v for jet engines, it's only a VOID thing ?... any hint ? (pretty sure VOID is up to date)

Yah I realised this too late, the post was already made :blush: I tried editing to match the initial reasoning but I couldn't do so without completly changing the post's content, thus I left my initial post practically unchanged. I try to think twice before posting, but sometime I just don't. Said like this I can only agree and have nothing more to say that could add to the conversation.

I think the OP did a great job and it is really appreciated to see peoples going to such extent about balancing. (To be honest I suck at advanced maths so i'm not really in a position to criticize the job done here) Still, i'm playing KSP for a long time now too (since 0.18 if I remember right), and right now in 1.0.5, i'm using all engines. In a stock career save, even if I have unlocked twin boar overpowered engine, I might not use it for a simple munar satellite launch, but instead use a mix of LV-T30/LV-T45/LV-909 (or even smaller engines like the tiny rockomax or ant -like engines) I definitly think it all depend on what type of launch you are going to have, if it's for a 50tons space station chunk, then yeah i'll probably be using twin boar or 3.75m engine. I even sometime had to use clusters of 9xLV-T30 engines on a 2.5m fuel tank as first stage, not as efficient in term of isp, but I was getting a better twr than with one mainsail (9xLV-T30 give slightly the same thrust, slighly less twr, and is cheaper than a KR-2L+ Rhino without the need for 3.75m parts) So, lower tier engines are less powerfull in term of twr/isp compared to latest tier ones, I can only agree, but that don't mean they are always useless, they are cheaper and can still be used for a lot of missions involving light final stage. Why would I launch a 150 000f munar orbiter made out of 3.75 and 2.5m parts when I can do the same for less than 50 000f with 1.25parts ? Then of course, there are some "must have" engines depending on where you are going, even with all what i'm saying I can't go against this point either, and my way of thinking can only apply to early and mid career, if you are doing a fundless save (sandbox/science mode) or get to late career then some engines become useless and have no points in being used at all as you are not restricted by funds anymore, so you just pick the best suited for the task. That said, I recognize the fact that engines need balancing and thanks [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/39284-spikeyhat09"][B]spikeyhat09[/B][/URL] for such a great thread.

i'm doing the "banana peel staging" as well, most cost/fuel/mass efficient technique you'll find.

If you are forcing Opengl without an updated driver, that might be the cause. I had the exact same trouble, KSP wouldn't launch through Steam, so I tried to use the .exe which worked fine, then I removed -force-opengl and it launched through Steam, then updated my driver to the latest for W10, and it worked again. (i'm going with the assumption you're forcing opengl)

I did some fairly basic stuff today, progressing steadily on my 1.03 career and will soon be able to leave Kerbin SOI ! 3 pod reentry at once was the beautyshot of the day