Racescort666

Ok, I was still having problems with discovering bodies so I created a new install, installed Kopernicus, GPP, Stock Visual Enhancement, and Research Bodies. All the planets for GPP showed up fine, I screwed up the planet textures so I installed SVE and that fixed the planet textures. Procedure for problem: I used the cheat menu to edit a telescope into orbit, set Niven (the closest planet) as the target, set SAS to track target, opened the research bodies UI, clicked away, and no bodies were researched and only negative flavor text was displayed. output log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WvukZy_YqaLUlJOTVxWFRGTTQ/view?usp=sharing Research bodies log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WvukZy_YqaLXA4VFBGek9iWEU/view?usp=sharing I had forgot about this until setting a new game up again but GPP has it's own database.cfg file. It looks like it just populates the flavor texts, planet names, and which planets are already discovered at what difficulty levels. This is going to be standard for all planet pack mods right? It shouldn't affect whether the telescope discovers something at all right?

Bummer! I was going to suggest this because binary stars sounds awesome. Good thing I read the entire thread before suggesting that. Regarding ethanol, I wouldn't call the ethanol concentration in alcoholic drinks small. Beer and mixed drinks are usually in the 5% ABV range which could be considered small but spirits (which are often drunk without dilution) range in alcohol percentage from 40%-80% ABV. You're right though, alcohol is pretty bad for you and I laugh at health nut people who drink their "organic" alcohol as I sip on my neat scotch. I looked up the LD50 of ethanol and it's 7060 mg/kg in rats while caffeine is 192 mg/kg in rats and glyphosate is 5600 mg/kg in rats. Kinda weird to think that Roundup and alcohol are both less toxic than caffeine however, according to this handy chart, it would take a 75 kg person 13 1.5 oz (45 ml) shots to receive a lethal dosage of alcohol while it would take 118 cups of coffee to receive a lethal dosage of caffeine. Anyway, that was way down the rabbit hole, I got distracted with looking up median lethal dosages. Circling back, it would be cool to have a high gravity body with no atmosphere and a relatively flat spot on the equator for high velocity reverse spaceplane landing.

My 2 cents: I have a nickel allergy that was bad enough to where I stopped wearing a watch (also, I worked in a factory that didn't allow jewelry so I got used to checking my phone for the time). I also have had several piercings and I've found that "surgical stainless steel" to be friendly to body contact. I've had no rashes like when I was wearing a watch with a stainless steel back. "Surgical stainless steel" is actually AISI 316L steel which has a high biocompatibility and is commonly used in medical implants as well as surgical tools. As for Tungsten Carbide, it is also used in metal fabrication tools like drill bits, end mills, and other cutter inserts. It looks like they crack tungsten rings with pliers for emergency removal. I haven't personally experienced this but I've broken plenty of tungsten end mills and can say that they don't like vibration.

I saw Passengers with my gf and her parents. Overall, not too bad. Spoiler 1: Spoiler 2, regarding technical problems:

I was looking at the calendar that Spaceflight101 has and I should point out that there are 135 flights scheduled for this year not including those listed as on-hold or ??. Despite the flight count of 2017, 2018 looks cooler with Dragon V2 crewed, Red Dragon, CST-100 uncrewed test/Atlas V 422, CST-100 crewed (also on Atlas V 422), Orion EM-1/SLS Block 1. Pretty awesome year for new vehicles.

The Shuttle RSS is still there. I took this picture 2 days ago. The strong back is there but it's hard to see with the fence in the way. I was super pumped about going to Kennedy Space Center, it was amazing.

This is where mine was at. Thanks. If anyone comes across this thread, I want to note that my AppData folder wasn't visible but it showed up when I searched for the output_log.

I got my output_log situation figured out. Ninja edit: Output_log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WvukZy_YqaenYwelRkeEVja00/view?usp=sharing Research Bodies Log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WvukZy_YqaSlJZTHV4bWd5ekk/view?usp=sharing

my bad. Try it again. Otherwise, I've had better luck with OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AlzBuA7rB-R0n0X_o_UjYSINqzmk

Verbose logging is enabled and still no output_log. Previously it had been disabled but before the OP I enabled it to see if it would change anything. I don't run KSP through Steam and I launch it either straight from the KSP folder or from CKAN so I don't think I did anything with the parameters.

No, I'm running it out of the "My Documents" folder. It seems weird to me that Windows would have a problem with writing the log files now when I haven't had any problems in the past. ETA: I found this problem when I was submitting a log for Research Bodies which generates its own log without issue. Also, the KSP.log generates fine every time. ETA2: I tried dropping an old copy of the output_lot in the folder to see if it would overwrite it. It did not.

I am not finding the output_log.txt file in the KSP_win64\KSP_x64_Data folder. I searched the whole KSP directory for files with today's date and there was no output log. I even searched the parent directory for output logs and the last one I had was from the last version of KSP that I had been playing (1.1.3). My assumption has been that the log is generated automatically and there isn't any option that I check to have it generate or not generate. Please advise. I had been playing completely vanilla before doing a bunch of mods this week so I was expecting to have a log file from that session but there is none to be found.

I'm having the same problem where the telescope is saying that it doesn't see anything when you're trying to track a body; exactly the same as Scott's video. Here is the Research Bodies output log: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WvukZy_YqaanVBaHpkX3JreG8 For some reason my game isn't generating the game output log. It isn't in the prescribed directory: KSP_win64\KSP_x64_Data. I searched the KSP folder by date and didn't see an output log. I also searched my parent folder and the last log I have is from my 1.1.3 build. I don't know if this is another problem but I'm going to poke around the Add-on tech support forum about this problem. Info: KSP: 1.2.2 (Win64) - Unity: 5.4.0p4 - OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601) 64bit Toolbar - 1.7.13 USI Tools - 0.8.7 B9 Animation Modules - 1.0.5 B9 Part Switch - 1.5.3 B9 Aerospace HX Parts - 6.2.1 Community Category Kit - 1.2.1 Community Resource Pack - 0.6.4 CommunityTechTree - 3.0.2 Contract Configurator - 1.22.2 DistantObjectEnhancement - 1.8.1 Firespitter - 7.5 GalileosPlanetPack - 1.0.2 Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.1.2.8 KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.6.2 ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.2.3 Docking Port Alignment Indicator - 6.5.1 PlanetShine - 0.2.5.2 RCS Build Aid - 0.9.1 ReentryParticleEffect - 1.2.0.1 ResearchBodies - 1.8.1 *The launcher says I'm running 1.8.1 but the log says 1.9.0 SCANsat - 1.1.6.11 SETI-ProbeParts - 1.2.2 SpaceY Expanded - 1.3.1 SpaceY Lifters - 1.15 Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.8.3 Transfer Window Planner - 1.6 USI Core - 0.3.5 Asteroid Recycling Tech - 0.9.5 USI Exploration Pack - 0.7 Freight Transport Tech - 0.6.4 Konstruction - 0.1.8 USI-LS - 0.5.14 UKS - 0.50.8 Unmanned before Manned - 1.2.2 EVAParachutesAndEjectionSeats - 0.1.10.1 Most of these were installed via CKAN except: Docking Port Alignment Indicator, ResearchBodies, GalileosPlanetPack, StockVisualEnhancement, CommunityTechTree

I read into it too much and the wire crossed with another article I had been reading. My mistake. Which plants are patented that are non-GMO? There are plants that have been patented that are not "GMO" in the traditional sense, i.e. hybrids. Cross breeding is only GMO by the strictest definition and unfortunately we've wandered down the path of the equivocation logical fallacy. That being said, cross breeding requires a lot of work to develop the traits that are desired and have been protected since the 70s with little debate. I assume this is not what we are debating but I figured I'd broach the issue since it's at hand. In regard to what is even eligible for a patent, it's far more complicated and nuanced than is being described in this thread. Although it's mind numbingly dry, the US Patent Office has very detailed information regarding what can and can't be patented: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2103.html Granted, this doesn't apply places outside the US but other countries have similar requirements regarding patent application. In general, you can't just claim something is yours without proof that you invented it and proof that it's not something that's widely available to the common public. Also extremely dry but worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser (if you don't want to read the whole thing, just read the first paragraph, then skip down to the "Judgement" section which explains why the court ruled in favor of Monsanto). The link in my other post talks about a few other cases as well.

This has been a very interesting discussion and I'm glad that it hasn't been shut down. Whether you are pro-GMO or anti-GMO, this article makes several very good points on the matter and I suggest everyone read it: http://fafdl.org/gmobb/answering-the-3-most-common-internet-objections-to-gmos/ I'm not going to do a tl;dr version but I think I'm going to relate some of the highlights: Most people are concerned about crops that have been engineered rather than selectively bread. Yes, you're still modifying the genome, but direct manipulation of DNA is what scares people. The article goes into much more detail about the mechanisms that make crops more resistant to pests and pesticides/herbicides, which is a specific topic of the anti-GMO crowd, but it basically comes down to biology and chemistry. For example, theobromine is a chemical that is very toxic to certain pets (cats and dogs) but is widely consumed by humans. It's found in high concentrations in chocolate. I like to use it as an example because it's relatable that there are chemicals out there that are more toxic to animals than humans and as long as the safe dosage isn't exceeded, all is fine and good. Regarding patenting of seeds/plants. My first question to this is always: do you think that people should be paid for the work that they do? Patents/copyrights to plant strains are actually quite old. The article I linked does a good job explaining some of the history behind patenting breeds and whatnot, please read it. My question is geared more toward the "you can't patent life" argument. I personally feel that people should be paid for the work they do so I suppose if I run into someone who doesn't, I won't have a good basis for my argument. Lastly, regarding COI. It's kind of not surprising that there COIs found in studies regarding GMOs. RIC posted some quotes from the OP article that states that they didn't find grounds of COIs for anti-GMO groups. I disagree. Organic growers have been slamming GMO relentlessly and they don't have a conflict of interest? What would you buy instead of GMO? Organic.

I totally dig el capo. "Sulfur" is more common in the US in technical publications while "sulphur" is used interchangeably but the preferred spelling for the rest of English speaking countries.

Do you call the engine cover of your car the hood or the bonnet?

How do you insert albums from imgur? Did they get rid of that feature on the forums? Anyway, the last base that I did was assembled in orbit and brought down as one big unit. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to mount each of the components so it could be easily assembled in orbit. To be fair, this base was on Bop so TWR wasn't really a huge concern but I was a bit worried about balance so there was some balancing that happened in the VAB. The finished product: Lots of assembly: The whole album for those that are interested: http://imgur.com/a/8Gpny

I almost suggested changing 400-1200 to Dark Ages too but decided against it since it basically refers specifically to Europe. In that vein, "The Renaissance" also refers to Europe but there was a lot of technological change at the time especially when it comes to warfare. I like the abbreviation PGK.

I would like to take this time to point out that a siege was usually a several month affair while the invading army attempted to starve out the fortress. This could be something that many people are willing to give a pass on because who wants to watch an army surround a city and just sit there? I agree with @tater, there is literally no reason to have something wrong that I can find out in 5 minutes by searching google or wikipedia. Those kinds of mistakes are unacceptable if a movie is being marketed as even remotely historically accurate. Also, with deference to the OP, how does everyone feel about calling 1200 AD - 1800 AD the Renaissance? That would be kind of taking some liberties with the timing though.

I literally just finished writing a report with this equation in it. It's also worth noting that many rockets use pressure stabilized tanks and I'm not sure how that effects the buckling equation.

They're probably still playing with Tier 1 facilities. I bet they don't even have patched conics visible in map mode.

This in particular was just inspired by the Jool 500 challenge. I haven't committed to Jool 500 yet but I think it would be neat to try sending this to Laythe and see if it would actually make it.

I was reading the Jool 500 thread and thought it might be cool to create a floating outpost on Laythe that was kind of like an offshore oil platform where you could land craft on it and it would have resource centers, a landing pad, housing (for 115). It turned out to be such a PITA just getting it slightly east of KSC that launching it into space, transferring it to Laythe, and attempting any kind of atmospheric entry would be disastrous. It could be hilarious to attempt but it is gigantic and heavy and 462 parts as it sits. It's worth noting that I had to move some fuel from the Orange tanks to the flotation tanks to get it to sit upright. Also, CoM is well below the surface and there is a huge counterweight of ore tanks under the surface. Just thought I'd share. Has anyone else tried this?

No stick shift? No want. #savethemanuals