impyre

Velocities are preserved, it just doesn't seem obvious due to change in reference. The cause for the "glitch" regarding erroneous paths is due to the fact that the projection is based on forces which have changed. Though your velocity remains unchanged when you change SoI's, your acceleration doesn't (this is because KSP uses two-body calculations for the sake of playability and projections). What this means is that at some point, the game must detect the change of SoI, remove the force due to gravity from the old parent and apply the force due to gravity from the new parent. This can take some time (more or less depending on warp, vehicle part count, the numbers involved, cpu use, and physics deltatime settings). This means there can be a gap when you are in a new SoI but the changes haven't yet been applied... (in extreme cases, the changes may not be applied at all, as you will enter and leave the SoI in the same physics time tick) This leads to things like skipping through atmospheres, missing SoI's, etc.

It sounds like your approach velocity is too high. If you follow the steps laid out by Alshain, while in map view, you will see your point of closest intercept (marked with the arrows) move further away. Just try to keep them from getting too close or too far. No more than a quarter orbit and no less than a couple minutes. Also, bear in mind that burning "pulls" the prograde marker in the direction you're pointing and "pushes" the retrograde marker away from the direction your pointing. By burning while pointing toward your retrograde relative velocity (to target) marker, you're decreasing relative speed. If you "push" the retrograde marker so that it lines up with target position retrograde marker (pink with three prongs) and continually adjust this, you are ensuring that you will approach at close distance. This is the advanced skill Alshain mentions, it takes a bit of practice... but if you master it, encounters (and landing) will be much easier. Try to think of this as being like landing... you slow down *before* you hit the ground.

mW is indeed milliwatts. Megawatt is MW (big m). And no, it doesn't take much power to simply radiate a signal. A lot of people think of radios as having some invisible line drawn where they can't reach any further than that (the range)... but in reality RF signals work in exactly the same fashion as regular old light. (they can even be reflected) Even tiny amounts of power can generate light, and how far away you can see it depends on color, power, whether it's focused (directional) or not, how the light is generated, etc. There are LED's, why not RFED's? Also, making the signals directional instead of omnidirectional makes a ton of sense (from a biological perspective), this way you can control who "hears" your signal. This also gives you the ability to focus on a distant point for extended range. More than likely there would be some type of organ that could change shape in real-time (like the muscles around a dog's ears) to allow you to change the shape/angle of the cone.

Constant power wouldn't be required any more than a constant stream of air is required for oral communication. You simply take breaths when it's convenient. Also, I imagine something like this would probably use very low frequencies (compared to what we use for RF communication) and simple amplitude modulation. Higher frequency means higher power. Lower frequencies can travel further on the same power. Although to be honest, our voices use a combination of amplitude and frequency modulation, mostly frequency though. (FM is easier to accomplish with sound)

That's my point. The OP was asking about requirements for civilization, and my point is that (even if you assume there's only one definition for civilization) it can be accomplished in any number of ways... even ways we cannot conceive of. The fact that we know so little about the rest of our universe suggests that the possibilities are endless... we shouldn't assume that any "civilization" that might arise elsewhere would "need" to develop the same way as ours... thus many of the other postings that mention the physical requirements (such as opposable thumbs, tools, etc) are operating on a pretty limited set of ideas that are pre-shaped by our own history. Nature does indeed suggest (repeatedly) that there is a "better" way of doing things... and that it favors the better way, but in a different place with different rules.... "better" may be different also. As a simple example, one person stated that writing would be required... another made a much better (and broader) statement that they would need some way to convey information from one being who is absent (the "writer") to one who is present (the "reader"). This could take any number of forms... memories stored in a quasi-organic medium, some type of creature or plant which can be trained/grown/modified to store the information, pure genetic memory, or any number of possibilities that I can't dream up right now. If you want to truly be able to answer the question, you must be more specific about how you define "civilization", and once you do... you'll find that all the specifics are tailored to represent how *we* developed... in which case the only logical answer is that the species in question has to be significantly similar to ourselves. So the answer is biased by a biased question, and the unbiased question cannot be answered satisfactorily. Aside from that it's merely theory and postulation... but in that neighborhood your imagination is really the limit.

Our understanding of our own universe is so limited that it's impossible to answer this question. Consider this: http://io9.com/12-real-parasites-that-control-the-lives-of-their-hosts-461313366 There are organisms here that can exercise a great degree of behavioral control over other creatures. It could be conceived of that such a creature may develop a superior intelligence in order to better make use of their hosts. Such a creature could also develop symbiotic or parasitic relationships, and use other (more physically suited) creatures to perform tasks for them. What if something developed in such a way that it could easily manipulate its environment extensively without using tools at all?

This could work... quite easily. Realistically speaking, in terms of how they carry information, sound and electromagnetic waves function identically. I've drawn up some ideas to assist in the evolution of synthetic lifeforms, and one of the ideas I included was giving them the ability to communicate with each other over broadband frequencies. The simplest receiver is simply an antenna and a diode... this can pick up and filter amplitude modulation, the simplest transmitter is really just an antenna with an AC signal applied. EM, AM, and FM are all the same thing. AM and FM are specific types of modulation of EM carrier waves. Also, the voltage required for a 1km range isn't much at all (it can be done on 12 volts, possibly less)... the real requirement is power (which can come from higher voltage or higher current... usually a bit of both) many handheld radios have a range much further... and CB radios even further still. For example, the Motorola MR350R has a nominal range of 35miles in a handheld package. In terms of modulation, AM can achieve much greater range, while FM can be filtered for clarity. Considering that voice is basically an AM sound wave, and AM is the simplest to construct/filter, it is the most likely candidate... though I wouldn't rule out FM entirely. As for how this might come about, the biggest odds lie in a situation where the lifeforms in question generate RF signatures as a byproduct of their normal functions... predators would evolve a sense to pick up on this (much like heat sensing vipers, exceptional vision or hearing, echolocation, etc), and then prey would like develop sensitivity to this as well (so as to better self-regulate and/or sense predators, thus negating their advantage). In time, some of them may begin to use these frequencies for communication. If this happened, audible speech might never develop though.

Thermocouples. I have a few designs that use them, but they are so stupidly expensive because it takes so many of them to do anything useful. Far more efficient is the stirling engine mentioned earlier, capture solar energy as thermal energy, run a generator with it directly. Not quite as efficient as solar panels, but way cheaper (you can dump a *lot* of heat into a well designed stirling engine, and it will take it... and the collectors are fairly cheap to build.) The real problem with solar/wind is that if those technologies are ever implemented on a global scale, we'll be changing weather patterns and such (since solar energy and wind basically drive weather systems)... huge damage could result. IMO, the best answer (aside from fusion) is space-based solar energy collection. Taking it from space means we aren't depriving any natural systems of their energy requirements, we just have to be careful to pump excess energy back out to space as radiation to maintain the proper balance for long term sustainability. - - - Updated - - - The OP wasn't even a complete sentence... how can you be sure that's what he's referring to? It sounded to me like he was suggesting we might use the earth as the driving force of a generator (which seems to be how most people interpreted it).

Really, it's a toss up no matter what you decide. You might buy it now, find out the price went up after 1.0 and realize that you made out well... or, you could buy it now and see it go on sale for 25% off not long after. If price is your major concern, the only way you'll make out solid for sure is to wait until a good sale comes along. If play is your major concern, I'd recommend waiting for 1.0... a lot will be changing, and it will take those of us who've played a while already some time to adjust to the new mechanics... if you wait until 1.0 is released, you won't have to unlearn any habits from previous versions (and you have the advantage that there won't be many sweeping changes afterward... you're basically getting a polished product). Of course, if you just can't wait then buy now, nothing wrong with that (you're gonna do it sooner or later right? might as well be this weekend).

I'm aware of the effect of axial tilt on day length, but thanks for pointing it out anyhow. I chose to address what may be a common misconception (that day/night times are affected by latitude due to rotational velocity being lower), that's all. EDIT: Perhaps I should've been more clear to reduce confusion.

...The surface darkness time will vary depending on altitude and the planet's sidereal rotational period. For most bodies altitude can usually be ignored, if behind a cliff or mountain, you might expect a few additional minutes of darkness, but it shouldn't be significant... for the Mun though (whose sidereal rotation period is a tad over 6 days) being near a mountain or other obstruction could increase darkness time significantly. For minmus this is 40,400 seconds (or just a little under 11 hours 15 minutes). This is applicable if you're at a relatively high altitude (or otherwise unobstructed view of the horizon). This means you could expect to spend 20,200 seconds in darkness (or about 5.6 hours... better call it 6 to be safe). - - - Updated - - - Latitude doesn't affect rotational period (total daytime + nighttime), as though you have less distance to travel your velocity will be proportionally less also. And just FYI, if you can get right on the pole, you could see the sun all the time (excepting eclipses of course). Edit: for clarity.

Maybe there should be a "proving ground" that you can construct or upgrade to resemble less-friendly lithospheres. Slopes and hilly areas, small craters, etc... you could test lander and rover layouts.

Right now I'm working on a mun base, but my ultimate goal is to have a karbonite/karborundum supply relay set up to transfer resources to just outside Kerbin's soi to a massive station. I'm hoping to be able to get it in a lagrange analog... but I've been having trouble with that part.

Rocket Man - Elton John. We all know it's a metaphor, but I choose to interpret it literally... and then wanna play KSP and go to Duna.

1) exchange mechjeb for KER 2) install ALL of Roverdude's mods (USI catalog) 3) turn down financial rewards (makes fincances a bit more important) 3.5) install other difficulty mods (TACLS, DRE, RT2, [and RSS if you're feeling brave])... DRE, RSS, and NEAR together can be a truly humbling experience. 3.5.1) TACLS *really* improves the experience with USI. 3.5.2) RT2 can be annoying, but the flight computer is helpful once you learn how to use it... and setting up a commsat network is fun. The flight computer is limited in what it can do (I doubt you can land something with it), but it can help complete maneuvers during comms blackouts. 4) master the system Establishing self-sufficient colonies is both extremely difficult and extremely rewarding. Highly recommend.

Some kind of ILS hud system that's toggleable when in a cockpit would be friggin awesome. It's capabilities could even scale with an upgraded runway. IE: unlocking more approach functions and greater ranges. - - - Updated - - - Also, what he said. (I upgraded mine once before ever using my first aircraft... which makes sense since you don't even get decent aircraft parts until later in the tech tree anyhow) - - - Updated - - - I agree with everything you said. Extra credits is awesome. Your suggestion for how to scale the runway is excellent... it makes the most sense in my opinion. Adding ILS support could also be an upgrade objective. But I also *really* like the length idea too.

Someone beat me to it. TWR *MUST* be greater than 1 ASL to even think about landing... otherwise you're fighting a losing battle with gravity (not a fight you want to lose) regardless of piloting. On a side note, if for whatever reason you find yourself in a similar situation again, you can always burn off some fuel to raise TWR (assuming you have fuel to spare).

I chalk it up to the runway being a "work in progress". If you've ever looked at construction areas, they are often quite uneven (due to machinery moving around and dirt being shuffled)... even moreso than surrounding terrain. Crop dusters often use a smooth grassy field for takeoffs and landings... it seems to me that if you're trying to launch/land a plane that cannot handle landing in a construction zone, you should probably taxi to the field before takeoff and land on the field when returning.

legos!

I've used jet engine launch stages. The issue I generally take with them is twofold: A) lack of thrust is irritating, having only 1.25m sizes exacerbates this and if you're going for maximum efficiency and using jets... it sounds like you may as well just call it a space plane and make it SSTO. Sure, it won't deliver huge amounts to orbit at once... but it's reusable, versatile, and efficient.

Yep. I wasn't sure how high you'd have to go to make the inclination change maneuver become cheaper than the extra cost associated with retrograde launch. In my test I went to apo of about 250km and still suffered heavy losses from launch inefficiency (and still didn't save hardly anything on the direction change)... so I'd definitely agree. Besides, using a retrograde gravity turn is just simpler anyhow. - - - Updated - - - I wasn't really mixed up, I was just wondering aloud whether the savings of executing inclination change at higher altitudes would be worth it in the context of this discussion.... which they aren't lol.

Yeah, you have to meet *all situational requirements at the same time*, which in this case means you have to be sitting on the ground when you stage the decoupler (as you found out). As a word of caution, pay careful attention to contracts requirements before accepting them. Some are absurdly difficult with compensation that may not even cover costs. Some of the more difficult ones I've tried take the form of (test X thing while flying between A and B altitudes and between C and D speeds... where A and B are close together and relatively low, and C and D are somewhat close together and relatively fast.) Others include landing heavy payloads on heavy planets for test purposes... sometimes loads you'd never land there by choice. Flying very fast at low altitudes with a large unwieldy test vehicle is difficult, dangerous, and potentially expensive lol.

I haven't checked the math yet, but it may be cheaper (than going immediately retrograde) to launch straight up, raise apoapse very high, then establish a retrograde direction with periapse at desired altitude once you reach peak height. Fighting momentum will be easier while higher up in the gravity well. Even if this does save any dV, in order to maintain that advantage when going for a lower retrograde orbit you'd need to use aerobraking to bleed off velocity until apoapse comes back down to desired height. Will investigate and post any interesting results.

No, my issue starts before I can begin pumping fuel. It's moving so wildly that I never have time to click on both fuel tanks.... it's utterly out of control. That having been said, cables require extra equipment... but it would solve my problem if you can indeed pump fuel through cables. You can right? - - - Updated - - - Also, why does the "pump here" never work? Is there a dependency I need?

I thought this image was a good illustration of the fact that how much fuel you burn and which way you're pointing aren't the only important things... where you are in your orbit is very important. This is from http://flyonbudget.one-giant-leap.info/index.html chapter 8 (which also discusses the issue of extended burns). This is why you either need high enough TWR or to perform the burn in "kicks" and probably does a better job showing it than I can do with words alone. The real question is: are you working *with* your momentum or against it?