Gaarst

If your bridge can't carry a 2700t Crawler-transporter and the rocket on top of it, then it isn't worth anything !

When I say I don't know where you're going, I'm not talking about De Broglie's theories, I'm talking about the fact you're going completely off topic relative to the post you answered. I don't know that much about De Broglie's theories so you might be right, but that is not the point.

In the forums ? The Live from Mission Control section.

De Broglie's double solution theory, otherwise known as the pilot wave theory, is considered as a hidden variable theory. Though is is different from the De Broglie-Bohm thoery, it is still part of the hidden variables theory category. I'm sorry, but I still don't see where you are going, or what you are arguing. If this was meant to be an answer to my post, I can neither agree nor disagree with you as I don't see the link. I mentioned the De Broglie-Bohm theory only because one of your link mentioned it, and you interpreted it for what it isn't. This was not the main point of my previous comment.

I read it, and I still don't get the reason for the thread. Is it because of a doubt towards the conclusions of DeBroglie ? Because from what I understood, Bell does nothing but comment on DeBroglie's theory, and gives support for it. If I'm wrong, please explain me what you understood that I didn't. What do you mean by "mainstream physics" ? And why does it seem so bad/ignorant ? Who is "they" ? How do you support your statement that "This is incorrect." ? From my point of view, this is an extremely arrogant statement: you're right, while the others are wrong/stupid. Others which are people who probably know more about physics than any of us ever will. And I don't know what you exactly thought/meant, but it is commonly accepted that WP duality means that a particle is a particle and a wave. A particle has both wave and "solid" particle behaviour, at the same time. A particle is a wave as much as it is a "solid" particle. One aspects prevails depending on the type of measurement or experience, but that's all. And again, no, you cannot say that a particle travels through a single slit, neither can anyone. You can only describe the path of the particle by probabilites, this is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and if you're disagreeing with this, you're disagreeing with the whole quantum theory. Nice try, but the De Broglie-Bohm theory has nothing to do with the double slit experiment here. The De Broglie-Bohm theory is essentially a hidden variables theory which tries to justify the probabilistic aspects of the quantum theory by arguing that it is incomplete. The discovery of a theory superseeding the quantum theory would get rid of its uncertainties and comfort the deterministic view of a part of the scientific community. Recent experiments tend to show that hidden variables theories in general are incorrect, hence the result of your graph; which, I say it again, has nothing to do with double slit experiment.

32/64bit here refers to KSP, not your OS. Having a 64bit OS on your computer doesn't change anything here. On Windows, only the 32bit version of KSP is officially available, the 64bit being stable only on Linux. The best solution would be to remove mods, but is you want to keep them, I see two options: Lower graphical settings and use the "aggressive" release of ATM if you don't yet, to reduce memory usage and be able to play onger without crashing; Wait for 1.1 and Unity 5 which should hopefully get rid of these memory issues. For your personal record, know that the mods using the most RAM are the visual mods, followed by parts pack mods.

Wave-particle duality is a well known concept, discovered in the early XXth century and serves as base for most of the quantum theory: it is unanimously accepted, hence my question: What is the point of such a theard ? It discusses a concept accepted by everyone, explained, proven empirically, and doesn't directly open on any form of discussion. There is barely any analysis at all, just a collection of articles and quotes. Even at high-school level physics, you at least get to hear about WP duality, and if not in school chances are you already looked it up by yourself if you're interested in physics at least a little. So, I don't think such a thread was absolutely necessary here, in a forum in which most of users have gone beyond college in scientific subjects, and where those who didn't still have a strong interest in physics, and thus know the basics. Also, though I don't think I got where you where going with your thinking, I saw you mentionned "aether" several times. It is commonly accepted by most of the scientific community that aether theories are not correct, and a mis-interpretation of phenomenons we didn't understand at the time they were created (eg: relativity, cf Michelson-Morley experiment). Even though remnants of aether theories exist in modern physics, what they describe is often similar to the "vacuum state" in quantum physics (or quantum fluctuations if you prefer). From what I understood, in your post aether is still referred to as the old conception we had of it, as a "background" for all interactions (WP duality in your post). Also, I don't think you got the concept of WP duality correctly, especially when describing the double slit experiment. A particle is always defined as a wave, with given DeBroglie wavelength depending on its momentum, an it can in no way be separated from it in a slit experiment. The concept of a particle going through one slit and the the wave though the other one is just false, nothing more. In a double slit experiment, you can't predict the position of a particle, neither can you tell through which slit it went or which trajectory it took. This is because such an experiment uses diffraction and therefore the wave properties of the particle. From then, due to basic wave physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you just cannot treat the particle as a defined point in space and time; you can only make assumptions using probabilities, which is the root of quantum physics. So really, this post is just quoting, doesn't bring debate by its structure, and if it does by content, it's just because you draw false conclusions from spare pieces of an established and proven theory which you try to transform into something else. I'm sorry if my post appeared rude in any way, it's just that there have been a lot of similar threads started with just a title, a link, and no opening to debate, analysis or whatsoever (not going to cite any name because that's not my point). While I don't usually react to those, you misunderstanding of WP duality made me write this post, hoping to be able to correct you and try to bring a discussion. I am open to questions or criticism, as long as it is justified. TL;DR: this post is both pointless and full of mistakes.

I really like the new engine bells for the Ratite, keep up the awesome work ! Ratite engine has always been my favorite, and it seems like it's not going to change ^^

I guess you could go and download the 0.90 version still available on the KSP website, and copy-paste old configs into your 1.0.4 folder. Though as general engine behaviour was completely changed in 1.0 I doubt that will work. On the other hand, I think I found the lines in the config responsible for the loss of thrust with speed and atmosphere: // Jet params atmChangeFlow = True useVelCurve = True useAtmCurve = True machLimit = 2.5 machHeatMult = 6.0 velCurve { key = 0 1 0 0 key = 0.2 0.98 0 0 key = 0.72 1.716 2.433527 2.433527 key = 1.36 3.2 1.986082 1.986082 key = 2.15 4.9 1.452677 1.452677 key = 3 5.8 0.0005786046 0.0005786046 key = 4.5 3 -4.279616 -4.279616 key = 5.5 0 -0.02420209 0 } atmCurve { // definite 'kink' to the curve at high altitude, compared to flatter BJE curve key = 0 0 0 0 key = 0.045 0.166 4.304647 4.304647 key = 0.16 0.5 0.5779132 0.5779132 key = 0.5 0.6 0.4809403 0.4809403 key = 1 1 1.013946 0 } Taken from: KSP_win\GameData\Squad\Parts\Engine\jetEngineTurbo\jetEngineTurbo.cfg (for the Whiplash Ramjet). There should be similar blocks in jetEngineBasic (Wheelsey) and rapierEngine (Rapier); though I suspect Rapier to be a bit more difficult to edit due to the dual mode (at least the config file looks more complex), but you can still find a similar code in there. Then you'd have to edit these values. I haven't tried and am not sure but I think that the lines means this: atmChangeFlow: should allow the engine to use different amounts of fuel depending on thrust (unlike rocket engines) useVelCurve: should allow to modify the thrust depending on velocity useAtmCurve: should should allow to modify the thrust depending on altitude and air density machLimit: should define the max speed of the engine before its thurst drops machHeatMult: no idea what this does atmCurve and velCurve should define how thrust varies with height or velocity respectively, supposing useVelCurve and useAtmCurve are enabled. I don't know what all 4 values mean though, neither in what units they would be expressed (m/s, Mach, kN, % of max thrust, m...) To completely delete thrust changes with speed and height, setting useVelCurve and useAtmCurve to false should be enough; but completely delete any thrust variation is maybe not what you're looking for. Then you'd have to try editing the other lines, or the numbers in the Curve functions.

Redesigned my RSS lunar rocket for the 8-th time before launching it. Probably going to redesign it again because I find the upper stages too weak. Technically called "CX Alba 9 CReU Ice 2", but I just call it "Alba Ice 2". 2250t at launch and 122m tall (somehow taller than a Saturn V but I don't trust KSP's size indications). Kudos to NecroBones' SpaceY mods for 90% of the rocket and Ven's Revamp for the 10% left under the fairing.

The current design for Vulcan involves burning CH4/LOX (Methane) in the first stage, so anyway, the engines would need to be able to burn this particular fuel, not RP-1. I don't know if it is possible to adapt an engine such that it is able burns another fuel or if you have to redesign a brand new one.

I kinda do the same as you. I build dummy payloads (5t, 10t, 20t...) and build a launcher under them. The aim is that the launchers are able to bring the payload to LKO/LEO, everything beyond that is custom built for every mission. I then save the launchers are subassemblies, build my thing, and strap the adequate launcher under it. In my RSS save, my launchers are currently labeled from C0 (500kg to LEO) to C6 (40t to LEO); only my lunar rocket is not classified as the others.

18 ? Never realised there were so much !

Poodle, extremely ugly but the most useful engine IMO. Edit: maybe add a poll ? There are few enough stock engines to fit in a poll I think.

You shouldn't go straight up and turn at 7-12km as you said. Bad habit, and it won't help new players.

I'd appreciate real interstage shrouds that fit the stage size and not only the engine size. For example, using a Terrier (LV-909) on a 2.5m tank currently looks really bad as the shroud is only 1.25m, also it is structurally very weak. An alternative is to put a fairing below it, but inline fairings are not attached at the top, so the rocket would still be unstable. Still very much agree with OP though.

No, nothing bad, just a random asteroid that spawned in orbit around Kerbin. Sometimes, asteroids spawn in closed orbit instead of just having a Kerbin intercept, that orbit is often very elliptical though.

You have to download CKAN, put the ckan.exe in your KSP folder, run it, and activate the "Realism Overhaul" mod in CKAN. Installation is automatic, just follow the indicated steps.

Please read this. - - - Updated - - - It may be similar to this bug. But it doesn't seem solved yet though.

Sorry for asking, but considering the incredible amount of information you gave in your OP, I couldn't know that wasn't the issue. Good luck with your bug anyway.

Are you sure you're not running out of electric charge ?

Sorry, you're right: I misread the article and somehow changed SpaceX being a competitor for launchers to it being in competiton for the Vulcan's engine. Correcting my post.

Not a planet, and probably not my "favorite" but Miranda (one of Uranus' moons) is pretty cool: looks like someone picked up random chunks of rock, put them together, and then messed up the textures

Updated bug 4 description accounting for recent report of similar issues (and bumping the thread also ).

A mod list would be helpful there (as it may have something to do with Distant Object Enhancement, not sure). You can show a screenshot of your GameData folder, or upload the folder with DropBox, MediaFire or any other similar file hosts; but the best would be to manually write your modlist and include the mod versions. If possible, please include past mods that you removed.