wumpus

There exists an exploit to read out every byte of kernel code mapped to user space [but restricted to "root"] in Intel processors. This is called "meltdown" and an obviously critical issue. Try finding a similar exploit that works with AMD processors, it might be vulnerable in theory but nobody has found a real weakness to exploit. The bugfixes added to the Linux kernel are Intel specific and they aren't concerned with AMD at all (AMD uses steps in hardware to avoid this issue, and even have patents on it (which Intel can use thanks to cross-licensing)). Speculative execution is absolutely necessary on modern machines, but it isn't remotely clear that such bugs will be dangerous. Expecting a CPU to be free of all theoretical bugs is pretty much impossible, speculative or not: you can build a Turing-complete computer out of the Intel-architecture MMU (so presumably everything since the 386 is affected), but nobody has taken any steps to prevent an attack by that method. Intel is simply claiming "everybody does it" when clearly only Intel made the huge mistake. [edit: include link to KSP's source of all scientific and gameplay knowledge:] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ILCoU9d4k

As far as I can tell, it is literally impossible to get into orbit one the first launch (without decouplers). The theoretical power of all the engines you can spam on the rocket (thanks to mass limits) + the power of the Kerbals RCS thrusters (assuming they are willing to wait for a rescue) isn't enough to get to orbital velocity (this might include accent delta-v). [edit: I don't think you have mass limits in science mode, but I still can't recommend trying to get to orbit without decouplers]. "Weight too much to return": you want to return just the capsule (and possibly a heatshield) + parachute. Nothing else. You need a decoupler just below the capsule and just take that. I've never tried a "science career" (other than way back when that was just "career mode", probably before beta) but shouldn't that have all the buildings fully upgraded? As far as I know, you should be able to spacewalk and retrieve "the science" from any science parts added to the rocket [save game before leaving the capsule, it is a good way for kerbals to be lost in space]. Once you have retrieved "the science" you can leave the rest behind you. Hint: try to build any "science parts" near the capsule so you can simply reach them, but make sure the rocket is still as symmetric as possible. Returning with a science jr is possible, but it takes some trickiness to keep the rocket from trying to land capsule side down and burning up. Start with just returning the capsule.

My experience is that running Linux basically reduces GPU power (typically pixel rendering) by a half, maybe more. Of course, if you can deal with a launch with your GPU the main issue is the CPU when you try to dock large crafts together. I'd be more concerned with the OP's "everyday" (non-KSP) windows experience. I'd be more inclined to recommend dabbling with Linux for that (especially browsing and social media: all that gunk is getting into the machine somehow) if it can be installed into the laptop (anyone who can repartition a hard drive and install a clean windows install should be able to install Linux, perhaps there are particularly incompatible parts in that laptop. It normally isn't all that hard.)

From what I understand (from a call made on Dec 26 with previously embargoed information) is that the Linux kernel will not include the fixes on AMD as they don't think it is vulnerable. https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2 (this may assume the user/sysadmin patched the chip via microcode, that isn't clear). There is supposed to be an ARM chip as vulnerable as current Intel chips, but I don't think it is shipping yet.

There are two separate issues here: named meltdown and spectre. Meltdown is Intel only, spectre seems to hit Intel much harder. The ARMs (used in tablets and phones, not compatible with Intel) vary with the weakest units not vulnerable as they don't speculate enough to hit this (everything is run in order). My poor AMD [bulldozer: the old wimpy one], can't afford to lose any performance. No idea if AMD's better system was invented when they designed it.

A few comments: I think that would have needed struts in beta and before. If you aren't strutting manually, make sure autostrut is on. I'm pretty sure that is coming back capsule down. Expect to put a decoupler at the capsule (you won't need the side parachutes). For low kerbin orbit returns, the heatshield is optional. I'm not convinced the SAS system is enough to control the rockets and I'd expect needing the main rocket to maintain flight. SSTOs aren't a good idea (unless jet powered or similar). Consider putting a terrier in between the two fuel tanks (putting fuel tanks on top of the SSBs is an old trick, and now doesn't even require fuel lines [although kerbal engineer needs them to calculate things]). But I think your two biggest issues are needing struts on the way up and needing to keep the capsule right way up coming down (perhaps the SAS module can do it, but I'd bring solar panels and make sure I can down on the day side). Come to think of it, you need to add solar panels anyway (the simple panels would be fine). And fins. Definitely fins.

Other than Take 2 getting paid instead of Squad, I can't argue about that. I'm just hoping they just stick to straight DLC and not try to glom more microtransactions into the DLC (Take 2's CEO has insisted that all new software allow microtransactions). But we can't buy it until Squad/Take 2 releases it. It was announced when? 2012? (The cutoff for "free DLC" is the date. As far as I can tell, it is about a month before I bought the thing. No complaints, I think there was a decent sale).

That's fine for the airplane, but how about the pilot? Isn't the license a pilot needs for a single engine easier to obtain than one for n-1 engines? You would think it would be the other way around (considering the difficulty of performing a deadstick landing on arbitrary landscape), perhaps there are enough nations where such rules work that way.

Theoretically the chance of an engine failure in a two engine plane is twice that of a single engine plane. If the plane isn't stable on a single engine (kerbloid had a couple, and I'm pretty sure that was true of the U2 as well), then two engines are twice as bad for safety. My understanding was that Rutan's Boomerang was built to be stable using either (or both) engines, thus its weird shape. Of course, I'm still wondering why you couldn't just use a pushme-pullyou (propellers at front and rear) configuration to get the same thing in a configuration far easier to sell. I'm guessing Rutan's engineering ego got in the way. There's also the issue of FAA licensing. I'm pretty sure that it takes significantly more flight time to qualify to fly a plane with more than one engine than one with a single engine. Things might get more interesting if various hybrid schemes (gas generators and electric motors) are used in planes (can a battery get you to a sufficiently better place to land?).

I'm having trouble even processing the idea behind this. But some ideas: Laser blast: inefficient to produce, "scales at 1/d**2 but can be focused to essentially zero out scaling for ranges under consideration. Electric shock: scales roughly linearly, but with a voltage drop in the hundreds of volts per cm. Near field transfer: wildly more efficient than laser blast, effectively transfers power where the wavelength of the signal>>distance traveled (and falls of by a cubic factor). This is used for "charging at a distance" and presumably much more efficient than zapping via spark. Forget about a laser (or even a maser) and assume appropriate RF wavelengths. Assuming that you wanted to be far away from whatever you are attacking, I'd recommend the laser (don't expect to focus at interplanetary distances, but it should work well at Fallout game distances). Unfortunately for Buck Rogers, standard guns will make more sense for any realistic laser or target (the US Navy might disagree for seriously *large* guns), this came up in the Traveller role playing game and an explanation as to why it came with some many 20th (and slightly advanced) century guns.

Can't be good. You are only protecting ~5 square meters of a ~20 square meter pod and presumably deflecting a significant amount of heat from the protected area to the unprotected area (I have no idea if KSP models this or not). If mass is a problem (when *isn't* mass a problem), the first thing to do is stop using a Mk1-2 pod and switch to a Mk1 pod + Mk1 crew cabin. You'll save over 2 tons of mass and can now use the 1.25 heat shield. Another option is moving the slider *way* down on the amount of ablator on the heat shield. It's presumably built for Eve aerobraking and overkill for nearly any Kerbin reentry. Check out how much ablator is left on a working orbiter (presumably while slowly dangling from the parachutes) and notice that it barely uses 10%. Of course, you might need a certain amount of ablator to make sure the CoM is low enough to have the whole contraption to reenter ablator-down. For the OP, if you can spacewalk (in career mode this isn't unlocked until a couple buildings are upgraded: I think it is the astronaut complex and science center) there is no reason to attempt to return the science jr with a capsule. Just take the data out and put it in the capsule and just bring the capsule home. If you must bring it back, I would try mounting it on top of the capsule (expect explosions) and use side-mounted parachute as I wouldn't be at all confident that the science jr will survive (try putting center-mount parachute on top just for the aero), but I'm pretty sure this often works, just be careful about a good reentry (note I don't think I've used this method for anything beyond returning from Low Kerbin Orbit: you mileage may vary if attempting a Minmus or Duna return). If you don't have a kerbal on board, make the whole thing as light as possible, yet still with a CoM low enough to keep the ablator pointing down (try using a full ablator for maximum ballast) and letting the low mass make rentry easier (don't bother with any aero reduction, just the ablator, science jr, probe core, and parachutes). One final note about the Mk1 crew cabin. Since it is the lightest way to bring kerbals to space (.5T/kerbal), I tend to abuse them a lot. One nasty issue they have is that they have no external exits (not necessarily true if an end is exposed, but that is a pretty weird design). You have to transfer crew between another exit (like a mk1 capsule) to perform any sort of spacewalk.

I doubt it would work in Ferram, let along stock KSP. Rutan level design probably works in X-plane, if you want to go there.

Most of your arguments are pretty good, but this one misses the point entirely. A rocket has to obey the rocket equation (and all the tyranny that implies) while an elevator/climber does not. Unless your rocket has an em-drive (or equally absurd high-Isp engine), it won't get close to the elevator's efficiency thanks to the need to accelerate/lift its own fuel along with the payload. The "railgun to orbit" is obviously trying to do this as well, but there are so many issues with this that to pick apart a single problem (like evacuating the air) is to miss all the other reasons it wouldn't work. Don't forget that SpaceX justifies the cost of a BFR over 1000 launches: expect orbital launch R&D to come to a sudden halt at spacex after building one of these beasts as they need to recoup the costs over so many launches. Even so, I expect that this type of handwaving is optimizing against costs that won't be long pole in the next century (or whenever this is supposed to happen). * My preferred "railgun to orbit" would accelerate a ramjet (preferably scramjet) on a rail until it could power itself. The ramjet stage would then accelerate to "maximum velocity" (probably mach 4 for the ramjet, mach 6-8 for the scramjet) and then switch to a hydrolox rocket. This whole very silly rocket would presumably be simplified to an air-augmented recoverable first stage and standard second stage (presumably much like a falcon/BFR/New Glen, only with air augmentation). It might be possible to justify the R&D for the air augmentation (especially for something like the BFR where the fuel eventually creeps into the visible costs), but I can't see the "railgun" method ever justifying the costs.

The elephant in the room is monoprollant vs. air breathers. KSP gives kerolox rockets and Isp of 250 while using the same fuels with free air and jet engines have an Isp of 6k-12k. I also suspect that such a system would be "early" on the tech tree and that later kerbals would be using fuel cells (or nukes) and electric motors for non-oxidizing atmospheric flight.

That was also the recommend repair if the launch system of the LEM failed (bang on the motor until it worked).

I strongly suspect that the engine will deliver heat to the heatsink/radiator via some fluid, and then the radiator will effectively be some sort of ultra-thin film of blackened magnesium/gold foil/blackened mylar. I'm also deeply suspicious of the constant need to maximize temperature. This is often done to maximize the efficiency of the energy source, but in the case of sunlight it is irrelevant (mirrors are cheap). It is by no means clear that high temperatures are optimal for the radiator nor the mass of the engine. Sacrificing max temperature for less mass (perhaps more Al or Be in the alloy) is likely to make more sense. This was less obvious in part one where increasing the efficiency of a solar panel was unlikely to alter the mass (most of the mass is a support structure for a tiny layer of active silicon). Don't underestimate the scale needed to make this thing work. My understanding is that the radiators of the ISS have about 1/5 the surface area of the solar panels (and you would need plenty more radiators/W for a turbine), so you would be needing a vastly more powerful beast where radiators are essentially trivial (thin films with heat delivered via fluid). This seems decades away.

There are two things you could use lasers for in mining. As mentioned, using a laser to smelt the rocks would be pretty extreme. I'd recommend a solar oven for any high power melting. All the "solar oven" would be is a huge array of sheet of mylar reflecting solar light into an asteroid-sized focal area. You might have to spin the asteroid before heating: smelting typically relies on the buoyancy of slag vs. metal (which won't exist in zero-g). The second is to remove the ore from non-ore. I'd assume any near-future space mining would involve asteroids that would simply process the entire asteroid at once (assume all the asteroid is ore, and expose it to the solar oven).

Assuming an ISS-like orbit of 90 minutes, a capacitor would need to hold 15 minutes of energy. Extremely expensive, but probably not compared to a hypothetical fusion power plant. A larger issue would be the Van Allan belts. Current solar panels are likely to be degraded each time they pass through the Van Allan belt. To be honest, I'm not even sure crewed flight would work using these assumptions. Perhaps some sort of flow-battery might work. As far as I know, they aren't sufficiently efficient in the lab but the market is more than willing to justify the R&D for commercial uses. I'd assume that spiral patterns are done because you simply don't have the time for Perapsis kicking. Current ion drives are closer to a year than week to burn to escape to Mars (assuming they could survive the Van Allan belts, NASA launches them at escape velocity to avoid this issue), and multiplying that time by 100 simply isn't reasonable (it makes more sense to pack more Xenon, or perhaps switch to Argon if you need unreasonable amounts of fuel). One final thing: assuming you are on the "year to Mars" plan (presumably bringing probes or cargo) and are worried about efficiency, you would probably head out to LM-2 and find a gravity trick to launch you toward Mars (probably not a strict Hohamm transfer, you probably want to do a more spiralish [burning fuel] transfer for ballistic capture at Mars).

As far as hull armor goes, have you stopped to think what all that dry mass does to the rocket equation? For .1c you could presumably have a dry/wet ratio near unity with an Isp of 30,000. At this point you probably need to be using Argon (if delivered from space elevator) as a reaction mass or preferably something commonly available in space. While I'm a big fan of Orion, I doubt that anyone could afford to supply enough H-bombs to get a near-unity wet/dry mass ratio, let alone get the Isp up to 30,000.

One of the SR-71 fatalities was due to launching a drone/missile, and the whole (launching) project was canceled immediately afterwards by Johnson. Presumably such launches are inherently dangerous. 25g of payload screams "as many stages as you want". Also that last stage can be both small and use just a few grams of carbon fiber to contain the solid motor. I'd also recommend launching off a mountain (the Chinese might have an advantage at their high altitude launch facility) to cut down the aero losses.

They need to handwave a quick line about "solid mercury". Even that wouldn't make an iron man suit possible, but it would be a nice shout out.

Isn't that the pendulum fallacy? Also since the brain is wired to balance via the feet, I'd expect the wetware to work best balancing on the feet.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16850/this-russian-flanker-buzzing-another-at-high-altitude-is-coolest-thing-youll-see-today Hotshot pilot on a recon mission?

I think the Japanese have launched a rocket to orbit with 5 solid stages. It might have a chance if the last two stages have carbon casings for the solid (they can be extremely small given a 25g payload). The 25g payload is what makes it all possible, you wind up with an infinite mass ratio, you shouldn't have any issues after getting above aero losses. I wonder if they are considering air/mountain/balloon launching?

Aren't the flags on the Moon all white thanks to solar bleaching?