Leszek

The stock IVA's all have radar altimeters installed. Err, they did before I think they still do.

That KW engine isn't powerful enough. Until either Tantares or OMSK makes a Titan we don't really have a good rocket. I was using the OMSK Atlas II (Called Atlas Centaur in OMSK.) but it just doesn't have the performance anymore. It isn't hard to make a rocket that is either overpowered or underpowered for the Gemini, it is just hard to make an appropriate rocket. Doubly so if you want it to look the part.

A quick Google shows that they do in fact make USB to HDMI.

That is right a rainfly, basically a tent over the tent. Neither was really water proof so you had to make sure they didn't touch. And just to be sure you didn't leave your stuff against the side of the tent. Oh my, um it was late 80's when I was in Scouts.

Jebediah and Valentina learned to be BadS's by watching Scott Manley Tutorials.

I was in Cub Scouts for 3 years and made head of Tawny squad (Is that Firster? I can't remember the terminology.) I had about 20 badges or so. I then joined Boy Scouts for a year and I had perhaps 5 badges, I might still have my sash somewhere. That was lots of fun. We had those old fashioned tents that you had to put a tent over the tent or it wouldn't be water proof. Now'a'days you just take the thing out and it practically springs into the setup tent, you young whippersnappers!

I do believe I have found a bug. If you dock two ships in orbit, and both have engines it might be necessary to disable the engines on one ship because they oppose each other. However afterwards the predicted time and DV for maneuvers is wrong. I discovered the error when my ships built with Tantares mod parts kept running out of fuel early. A 900 m/s burn actually used ~1300 m/s of DV. I tried to replicate the issue with a stock ship. I was not able to produce such a huge difference in DV but the predicted time for one of the burns was 1:02.4 but the burn took over 3 minutes to complete instead. Other burns didn't match DV or times either. I don't know if it matters since I don't know how KER logic works, but one ship was not crewed and they had dissimilar engines with large differences in thrust. The stock ships both had a VAC ISP of 350, the Tantares probably had different ISP's. I have noticed this on more than one Tantares ship and my stock ship docked to two different drones with the same results so it doesn't seem to matter all that much what how the ship is made. (Hence I didn't bother with screen's but I can get them if you want.) Finally, I did switch control to the drone ship for all the maneuvers, it was the crewed ship that performed the docking and then shut down. I thought once that as I used monoprop for orientation my predicted DV of my ship didn't go up as it's mass went down, but I have been unable to replicate since then. I am only mentioning this for the sake of completeness.

Because it has electrolytes. It is what posters crave. (For those who think about Rep/Post Ratio, I get rep for posts like this almost as much as I do for well thought out serious posts. But this post isn't supposed to be serious so shhhh, ignore the point made.)

Secret NASA documents show the face on Mars is of Scott Manley. When aliens finally do land on earth, their first words will be: "Take us to Scott Manley."

Well, I now have crashes with error logs, it seems I am running out of memory after about a half hour of flying. Some sort of memory leak then would be my guess, but I am not sure where to go next to track down what is causing the leak. Contents of the error folder are linked below. https://www.dropbox.com/s/jzetp7314w4u2lk/Error.zip?dl=0

Reproduction steps: Build an aircraft using tier 4 tech level parts or lower, attempt to fly to Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn. The game will crash over the desert well before you get there. (Something like a half hour of flight.) There will be a windows message that the game crashed. There will not be a crash folder. Game Version: 1.0.2 I have lots of parts mods but this plane is mostly stock. The fuel tank is from KW Rocketry and one science instrument from DM orbital science. I don't think either has anything to do with it. I also have KJR, Transfer Window Planner, Docking Alignment Indicator, precise node. The remainder are all parts mods, whose parts are not on the plane. Spacecraft have no issues.

ATM is Active Texture Management, keyword is active. The plug in resizes the textures in memory as KSP is loading. It doesn't alter the source files. So if you remove ATM, the next time you start up KSP will just load from source files like normal. No fuss no muss.

I fly with no fins on my KSP rockets all the time. It isn't hard to keep near the center of your velocity vector. It is just a matter of getting your gravity turn right. I think people are still launching with 1.5 or 1.7 TWR. You would have to start your gravity turn right away almost to get that to work. I use 1.25 starting TWR and do my 5 degree kick at 70 meters per second. After that I just follow the center of the velocity vector. You can lag your VV to slow down your gravity turn, or lead to increase but I stay well within the circle the whole way. I use a 20km AP by 45 degrees as a milestone. (I want to have a 20km before I reach 45 degrees.) It isn't until I reach 30 kilometers in altitude that I leave the VV circle and when I do I leave it smoothly. When I first switched to NEAR (and later FAR but there was not a big difference) I had issues with my rockets flipping all the time. That is until I had experience doing it. With the new aero both V1 and V1.0.2 I have had almost no issues. It is very similar to how NEAR was and my launch profile is not much changed. Really I think the root cause was that the stock aero wasn't changed earlier and now everyone has to deal with the learning curve at release instead of before the bad habits got firmly intrenched. I made the switch to NEAR after only a month or so after I got the game so the vertical to 10k with a 45 degree turn never had a chance to become normalized. P.S. Just to be clear, you don't need fins, you don't need extra reaction wheels, you don't need to worry about your CG. It is just a matter of practice to get any reasonable rocket to orbit without flipping. I never worry about any of these things, and the fins, even the small ones makes it harder. Sure you don't flip, but you can't control your gravity turn easily.

I have the discs for all of them, I don't have all the CD-Keys though. Though if you want to go old school, I still have the original space Quest on a 3.5 inch floppy and also 5 1/4 inch floppies somewhere.

Steam has them as well as GOG.

There is a freerct.org but they haven't shown much progress in the last year. The free version of the original tycoon game that started the whole genre is still updated and functional: openttd.org

The last time I looked at the persistence file, they are all still there. All you have to do is change the status. You can look at an available kerbal who isn't on a mission to make sure you have the format right.

There is a Canadian one. I tried to find it on youtube but found some weird US one that had Canadian names in it. (It even talked about the president of Canada!) The Canadian one starts with a long "attention tone." Going by memory it is a very long tone that lasts for, hmm, I am going to say 30 seconds but it seems to last a minute and ha half. After that I have only every heard the standard message: This is a test, this is only a test, if this was a real emergency... you would get the heck out of here.

How much credit EagleWorks gets is irrelevant. It is a hazard in working in that regime. Now, if the device is scaled up to put out say a pound of force, then almost all those objections disappear, and what is left is easily accounted for. (And actually it could be a whole lot less than that.) That is why they are trying to scale up the device. And be sure that if they do and the device thrust doesn't disappear, about a 100 labs would have their own EmDrive being tested the next day. (Figuratively of course.)

Yes I am aware that they probably thought of everything I will and then some. Doesn't change the point.

Sorry about taking some time to reply to this. I had just spent several posts explaining why all this is dead wrong and useless. They haven't really measured anything. Nothing. Zilch. (Nothing that can be trusted anyway.) Understand that as long as you are near the limits of detection, all sorts of errors creep into the data and that makes it really hard to validate anything. For example. The Hubble mirror is famously out of whack. When they were making the mirror they had to account for the traffic in the parking lot. What finally got them is that some paint on the sensor was worn and not the proper thickness. With the EmDrive, it could be that turning the device on causes it to expand slightly due to normal thermal heating. This causes the device balance to change. This causes thrust to be measured when there in fact isn't any. It is not the scenarios that we can imagine that will get us, it is the scenarios we can't. You may have pictured in your minds eye a flat line measuring thrust that moves up when the device is turned on. That itself would be suspicious. Being near the limits of detection means that the line is going to be jittery and jumpy and the thrust of the device is going to have to be detectable in that noise. The electricity going to the device could be making an electric field that is acting on the walls. When you are near the limits of detection, there is NO WAY to know that you ruled all the sources of error out. You might think you have, but you can't know for sure. That is WHY it is dangerous to work with data near the limits of detection. That is why pseudoscience likes to stay there. It is easy to imagine data in the noise whether there is data or not. When they scale up the device so that it produces results of a larger magnitude, then and only then will they have something definitive.

We can use that to rule out some possibilities... But assuming for a moment the device works, we don't know how or why. That would mean that a proper negative control is almost impossible. We could play with various variables and try to figure more things out, but the device in its current is unfalsifiable. There are plans to scale up the device so that it has output that isn't near the limits of what is detectable. That is when tests will be definitive.

There is also the fact Roger Showyer's original theory and math doesn't pan out, so that means he built a perfectly functioning drive effectively accidentally.

So as I said, I am not angry or even upset. My use of absolutes are carefully chosen. I never said EmDrive doesn't work for example. Where I use absolutes I mean them. Because they can't be ignored or more accurately if you do you are drifting into pseudoscience territory. In fact as I read your post, I find that in general I agree with it. I am left to wonder if we talked past each other or something. So I am going to be explicit about what I disagree with... I disagree with just one thing here. People insist on making statements beyond the reasonable limits they can. For example statements like "It is doing something" are totally false as point of fact. We don't know, we can't know, until we have results that are outside of the margins. Until that point, we have nothing concrete. I can answer any result claimed by anyone here with "It doesn't matter until it is outside the margins." That is not the same as claiming the device doesn't work. That is not the same as claiming the results are fallacious. As long as people are counting their chickens not just before they have hatched, but before the eggs have been laid, I am going to have issue. Any model that claims to explain the results that may or may not actually be there are nice. But if you can't even be sure you are modeling a real phenomenon they don't really help. Sure you can use them to inform what experiments to do next. But imagined results can follow any theory or model produced. Even the theory that faeries are how EmDrive works. You don't know whether you have imagined results until you are outside the margins. It is a failing of human perception, and it has hurt us before. That is why we are sceptical now. And yes I can get a bit passionate with my speech. Sorry, I am human. - - - Updated - - - Hmm. Perhaps I came off too far to one side. I have dealt with lots of pseudoscience topics before. In those cases, there are lots of claims by "paranormal investigators" and "UFOlogists" (Where did they go to school for that?) along lines that sound much the same as the claim they were tested in vacuum. I have learned long ago to be sceptical of such claims until the data is shown in peer reviewed journals. That is not because the people in question are telling falsehoods. It is not because the people in question are not scientists. (There are people with doctorates in pseudoscience.) It is because until you have someone really double checking your work under scrutiny it is very easy for very human scientists to fool themselves. Having said that, I have real hard time with the idea that those involved were unable to tell if they had a vacuum or not. But as a point of principal, and perhaps too generally applied, I am loath to accept any claim until the data is shown. The trust that comes with that is abused so much so often by so many both deliberately and accidentally. - - - Updated - - - Sean Mirrsen As I read your post I am sure you misunderstood the situation. "So it was. So was Wood's change to the N-Ray experiments. The obvious difference being that Wood was running his experiments separately from the N-Ray experimenters, and the hypothesis he was testing, was that the N-Ray experimenters' experiment was hogwash." Is wrong. Blondlot, was running the experiment as a demonstration to other scientists. Wood removed the prism and the source from Blondlot's experiment without tell them. Blondlot and his assistant then proceeded to run the experiment with successful results anyway. The fact that the wood he put in as a source was the same kind of wood Blondlot already said didn't produce N-Rays, or that without the prism there was no way to focus said N-Rays onto the detector didn't stop the prism from focusing the N-Rays on to the detector and producing the required results. So if I had gone to Eagleworks, and removed various required parts of the EmDrive without telling anyone, and the drive continued to work, that would demonstrate the results are imaginary.

I don't follow you. The experiment with the removed slits was a deliberate change to test a hypothesis. An analog to what Wood did would be to disconnect the power to the EmDrive and not tell anyone. If they then run the experiment and still detect thrust and space warping, that would be a definitive test of a different sort. I actually find your post really interesting in that there were many problems with the N-Ray experiments. The whole thing would get you a failing grade in 1st year university if you tried it today. But as the saying goes, experience isn't something you get until right after you needed it. But even after all it's flaws, you managed to pick the one thing that was right and criticized it while talking about what a proper scientist would do. I hope you just skimmed the article quickly. Anyway, I have to go now so I will not be responding to the other posts right away. But it is hard to miss the first line of the next post so I will just say that I am not angry. Not even a little. Exasperated a bit perhaps...but that is my fault.