MaverickSawyer

Aaay, second time that my thread has won this. Perhaps I need to start keeping track in my signature?

I can't speak for media outside the US, so maybe your country actually has journalistic integrity? God knows we've lost ours years ago in pursuit of profits. And they don't lie... They simply don't tell the full truth if a partial truth can be spun into a fearmongering headline.

^THIS. SO. MANY. LESSONS. have been paid for in blood. Just this week in my Airframe Systems class, we were talking about fuel tank inerting and how the TWA 800 accident led to the requirements for it. (AC 120-98A, if you're interested in reading the actual regs involved.) The week before that, we looked at the crash of ValuJet 592 as we studied chemical oxygen generators. Air travel is as safe as it is because of the lessons paid for in blood. And sometimes, those lessons pay off by saving lives. Look at Aloha Airlines Flight 243, or United Airlines Flight 811. Both of those aircraft were able to land due to lessons learned from the DeHavilland Comet crashes. I won't stop anyone from being armchair accident investigators. I will, however, remind you that if your only source is mainstream media, they will ounce on any and every last little detail that makes a mountain out of a molehill, because they want to scare the everloving c**p out of you to keep you watching them. (That's actually good advice for everything they do, but that's not the point of this thread...) They have ZERO interest in telling the full, unbiased story. Yep. Actual experts will sit tight and not say anything to the media that can be misconstrued, for reasons I detailed above. The "experts" you see on talk shows and news reports, however, are being paid to provide their opinions to the media outlets. I certainly acknowledge their experience and wisdom, but I don't trust their assessments much unless backed by hard evidence.

I'll restate my recommendation to sit back and quit being armchair accident investigators. We do NOT have anywhere close to enough facts publicly released from reputable sources to begin forming a hypothesis on our own, and we may not get that level of detail for months, if not longer.

I, for one, am waiting for more detail than mindless and inexpert rambling by media "experts". I also have a classmate who actually works on the 737MAX assembly line, and he has promised to keep the class in the loop on anything he hears. Right now, that's not much, as the investigation is still very early, and the FDRs and CVRs haven't been fully analyzed.

Ooof. Throw http://www.sluggy.com into the mix. Webcomic started August 25, 1997, and has regularly updated ever since. Originally spoofed heavily on sci-fi tropes, now has a really detailed and intricate story that's been building for a looooong time just now coming to a possible conclusion. Site has been overhauled several times over the years, though. Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com) also started in 1997, and stylistically hasn't changed much (if at all) in that entire time. Hmm. I suspect that we could have a whole thread dedicated to old (but still running) webcomics.

Ah. So, reacting deuterium and antideuterium would be possible. Sweet. So, side discussion time. I remember reading in one of John Ringo's books about trapping antimatter ions inside of a C60 buckyball. They'd never touch the buckyball because of the repulsion from the electrons in the buckyball creating a stable spot in the center of the ball. The trick was actually cracking open the buckyball at the right time to release the antimatter. In the story, it's used to make a cluster nuke that fit inside of an artillery shell. I'm curious about it being used as a high-yield filler material for a small artillery shell, say, 57mm or 75mm, to give it the punch of a 1-ton bomb. I've done the math, and it would take 46.55 nanograms of antimatter to actually equal that energy release. I'm... not entirely sure that the correlation is accurate, though, as there's not really much more than theoretical research into the subject.

Okay, that's a fair point... but that's also mixing matter and antimatter. A quick search has revealed that there is apparently an antineutron, but I'm not sure what reaction they have with regular neutrons...

I know I'm going to date myself here, buuuuuut... "DID YOU KNOW THAT??!?" *insert science fact* "NOW YOU KNOW!"

Had a bit of a crazy idea last night while driving home from class... We're all pretty familiar with the energetic nature of antimatter, correct? It's hard to find something with more bang per unit of mass. This, however, raises some interesting questions... -I am familiar with the anti-hydrogen atom (one antiproton, one positron), and that would react violently with, well, anything. Does anti-deuterium have a regular neutron, or an antineutron? -If it's an antineutron, does it also mutually annihilate when it contacts a "regular" neutron? -If the answer to the above is "yes", then does that make antideuterium a better choice for use as a reactant in antimatter reactions, density wise?

Agree with bcink. If I want ISRU capability, I have multiple options outside the mod to do so.

So, Ore, LFO, and monoprop only. Got it.

And, historically, KAS has allowed you to directly attach parts to a winch. The present version doesn't allow that, true, but iirc, that's a feature being added soon. Besides, what's a little radiation? I mean, if you're that afraid of death or cancer, might as well stay on Kerbin.

Yeah, I may just have to lay down ad be a good slave to Microsoft... this time. And I still want the ability to upgrade, especially on the graphics card, because those change pretty quickly as far as I can tell.

Cool. Need to tinker with some things on a design, and then I'll have a contender for the medium regional jet category... once my other designs get close to being reviewed. I'm not going to add to the backlog just yet.

Tether? Pffft. KAS has you covered, bro. You don't even really need to add any parts for it: the "stock" parts that come with KAS can handle it just fine.

Would you rather they launch it and have it fail to make orbit?

Okay, going to dip my toes into this... My current computer is a nearly 6-year-old HP Pavillion g6 laptop. It's been pretty good for me... but it's starting to show its age, and not just when running my mod-heavy install of KSP. It's having increasing trouble with things like YouTube, image-heavy Powerpoint presentations, Chrome in general, stuff like that. I've decided that, as nice as a laptop is for school and stuff... it's not exactly good at being upgraded down the line as technology and/or budget permits. So I definitely want to get a desktop. The problem is, I have basically zero experience with this kind of stuff. I know I spec'd out a conceptual build about, oh, two years ago? But, I've since tossed the papers I was using for keeping track of parts, and prices have no doubt changed drastically. My basic requirements for what I'm looking for are as follows: -First and foremost, low cost. My finances right now are... limited, at best. I'm trying to keep things under US$600 if possible, but if it's not, the hard cap is US$800. I cannot afford to spend any more than that with a pair of major FAA exams in my near future that will set me back $500+. -Upgrade capacity. Because of the above point, I know I can't get even middle-of-the-road components. Also, as technology advances, system requirements go up as well. The ability to upgrade my computer down the line would be a tremendous benefit financially, as I don't have to buy a whole new computer as parts age and/or can no longer keep up. And the fact that I cannot upgrade my current laptop is a major annoyance for me. I'd love nothing more than to be able to keep the current computer and simply update it to keep up with the times, but... It's a laptop. You kinda can't. -Dedicated graphics card. This is a must. The integrated graphics of my laptop are... lackluster. I can barely play most low-end games at minimum settings, and KSP, although not a slideshow, is certainly not easy on my computer, and it's not going to get any easier. Under the "nice to have, but not mandatory" field: -More memory. I've found that the 2x4GB RAM I have installed is usually pretty adequate, but KSP has certainly pressed that very hard the last year or so. And Chrome being the RAM-devouring monster that it is... Yeah. More RAM would be good, or at least the ability to upgrade down the line with more. -Win 7. I am quite happy with Windows 7, and would love nothing more than to continue using it for now. I have a deep dislike and distrust of Microsoft and Windows 10 right now, and they're really not doing anything to make me feel better about the situation with their ongoing issues with said OS. If I have to use a different OS, I'm seriously eyeing Linux right now, but I'm not sure how well things will transfer across from my lifelong experiences with Windows. So, yeah. I don't want a fancy case, or a top-end rig for running modern blockbusters at ultra quality ad high framerate. I just want a step up from the outdated bargain laptop I'm currently running. And and all advice, suggestions, or recommendations are welcome, and if you've found a prebuilt machine somewhere online that meets my needs, PLEASE let me know.

Hmm... I think my computer is just dying. I tried pruning out the heavy stuff, and it still takes FOREVER to load, far longer than it used to.

Huh. THAT might explain the sudden spike in load times and RAM usage I'd noticed. Might have to backport to the previous version and see if the problem persists.

Yep. Works great.

Whoa. Didn't spot that before. That's... wow.

Hmmm. Is there any possibility of adding a custom startup sound for the engines? Like, for the stock 1.875m booster engine (LR-87 clone), adding that classic "Vwooop!" of the starter cartridge and start turbine.

Okay, quick question for @CrazyJebGuy Now that Airplanes Plus has introduced parts in the 1.875m size, how many seats do the size 1.5 passenger cabins count for in this competition? Given their intermediate size between the size 1 and size 2... perhaps 16?

That is a BRILLIANT idea for the Atlas. Please make it happen?