Chakat Firepaw

Another note if this is for a career game: Put a thermometer on it, it will pay for itself with the first "return science from space around Kerbin" contract to come up.

An important formula for velocity/altitude windows is: h = v2/20 That is, if you are going straight up and turn your engine off, you will continue to ascend for the square of your velocity divided by 20, (on Kerbin, neglecting air resistance). Do that calculation for the max speed of the contract requirements, add the width of your altitude window, (e.g. 5000 for your contract), and back-calculate your entry speed. With your numbers, you can safely enter the window at up to 350m/s and still slow down enough without thrust or aerodynamic braking. You can also calculate numbers for earlier benchmarks, (e.g. at 40km you want to be under 600m/s). Now, this does have serious problems for low altitudes and high velocities but with those it's more likely to be an issue of "how do I get that fast that soon?" (Disclaimer: This involves flight profiles that can be hazardous to the survival of any portion of your craft, as such you may want to avoid using a biological control system.)

Multiple pads would be relevant for people using Kerbal Construction Time: You can use Pad 2 while waiting for Pad 1 to be reconditioned from its launch,

The bit about having to recover the science implies that this is one of his missions that went bad rather than one generated by the contract system.

Are you trying to do something silly like recover the entire ship? Just send a small lander with a probe core and an empty crew cabin. Have your stranded Kerbals carry the science over to the rescue ship when they EVA and abandon the wreck.

One thing to remember about those is that the requirement "take a crew report from area XXXX at an altitude above ~20,000m" is not saying "in the atmosphere at an altitude above...." Those crew report ones can be done from orbit. Low-tech glider style return vehicles are also quite possible and can be deployed suborbitally if you don't want to take a long flight around the world.

I already pointed out that your pattern was bogus and your claim of eleven earlier warm periods patently false. I'm looking at a graph of Holocene temperatures _right now_ and to even get ten warm periods means you have to be really generous with a 'not quite as cool' period 8500 years ago and treat a double peak 4200-4800 years ago as two warm periods. Getting an eleventh Holocene warm period means adding a barely there peak about 2500 years ago which destroys your claims of a pattern even more. To get eleven peaks every thousand years means you have to go into the last glacial period. Both clauses in your sentence are false. My request for you to name the natural cause for the current warming still stands. Are you going to run away from it a third time? Your conclusion is invalid due to false premises.

Translation: You can't actually defend your position and have decided to run away with the classic pseudoscience believer's cry of "he said something mean to me!" I also find it rich that someone who make zero-citation posts is complaining about citations. And the question stands: Just what natural cause do you think is behind this unprecedented warming? (Here's a hint: It can't be the sun, which is in a 'cool' phase right now.) The solar emission peak is at wavelengths compounds like CO2 are transparent. The Earth's emission peak is pretty much bang on a CO2 absorption peak. This has been pointed out to you before and it's just as much of a falsehood now. Now, you might want to point to the Earth's albedo and how much of the light reaching Earth is reflected. The human emissions that significantly increase this are things like sulphur aerosols, (which are bad things for other reasons, mainly acid rain), CO2 doesn't increase it. You have left off the little detail that those forecasts in the 1970s were specifically for what was then considered "conventional oil". That doesn't include anything like deap-sea drilling, fracking, shale oil or tar sands. There's a reason we have been going after crude that's more expensive to extract.

Those "warm periods" involve a total temperature range smaller than the past fifty years of warming, (warming from a baseline that was already a match for all but the warmest of those earlier periods). You should also know that when one region is warm and the rest of the world maintains its earlier average, the overall average goes up. Irrelevant, there is much data available for the current warming period that was not available for those. Not that you're correct about the European/North African warming in the early 2nd millennium: It's actually known to have been a solar maximum combined with a volcanic minimum with some shifts in ocean currents that focused heat gains. This argument is basically "we don't know why a house burned down last year, so we cannot determine that the one yesterday was arson." As I already pointed out: That is based on a pattern which does not exist. Remember, 3000 years ago was a local _minimum_, not a local maximum. If you were to assume a pattern, you would get: c3500y - Minoan c2000y - Roman c800y - Medieval Placing the expected next maximum somewhere 400-700 years from now. It's actually quite simple. You measure the spectrum of the light reaching the Earth and the spectrum of the light leaving the Earth, (both reflected and emitted). It is easy to determine the spectrum of the light emitted by the ground, (it's reasonably close to a blackbody), which means that we can determine how much of what wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere. Given that we know what's being absorbed, we can tell what compounds are doing the absorbing. CO2 is a big contributor to that absorption. We also know how much human activity has increased CO2 levels, which means we can determine how much of the absorption is caused by that human caused increase. Nope, even comparing to the 1850s the natural forcings are tiny compared to the anthropogenic ones. Furthermore, those natural forcings had most of their impact about a century ago, when working from the mid-20th century or later they are utterly irrelevant. Just what natural cause do you think is behind this unprecedented warming? So why haven't you discarded your theory yet?

As mentioned, the new satellite contracts don't require that the satellite actually stay in that orbit so you can do the 'satellite tourist' thing and build one to clear all of the contracts you have. As of 1.0.5 there is finally a reason you might want to avoid doing this[1]: Satellite repositioning contracts. Since a minimal satellite is probably going to make its orbit with plenty of deltaV left, (especially if you've reached the point of building them with Oscar-B/Ant rather than FL-T100/Terrier), those contracts become "make two manoeuvres, get paid" until the fuel runs out. If you are going to do those contracts, make a point of giving satellites unique names and tag them once they run low on fuel. [1] Personally I consider it about as gamey as farming the KSC for science. Those are not my birds and I name them accordingly, (e.g. "Probodobodyne Satellite 3").

One important thing to watch for are 'free money' contracts, including planning to take advantage of them. Satellite contract? Make sure it has a thermometer so that it can do "transmit science" contracts. About to do your first rescue? Remember that a rescue involves doing a rendezvous, (for some reason many of the YouTubers doing career games miss this). You're about to land somewhere? Check to see if anyone wants you to look at something in particular. Before you take off to come home, does anyone want a flag planted? And who can forget the ever popular test contract conditions "on the launch pad" and "landed at Kerbin"? Another thing to remember is that you can often pay for Mission Control upgrades using advances on long/no deadline contracts. I'll take two more contract slots and mission planning for free any day of the week.

Some news for you: Airbursts push sideways and trigger firestorms. So people who are already poor are going to be able to afford to rebuild entire cities. Too bad that a warming world means less overall food production, not more. So you mean to say that you were lying about what the charts said. Because it you can't say "warmer is better" based on it having been better when it was cooler. You're lying again: 11kYa was in the last glacial and there isn't any kind of even vaguely clean pattern to the peaks. e.g. the c3000Ya peak is actually closer to 3500Ya, 3000Ya is a nadir. Or it could be because the recent warming isn't simple variation. So you really think that the statement "If X, then Y" is false when !X is the case? All forecasts based on an even happening have an inherent "well, what if this happens instead" clause: It's called "we have not made a prediction for this case." OK, you clearly didn't get what I meant by uninhabitable: I mean that humans DIE in fairly short order without mechanical support. It doesn't matter what they wear or how they act, spending any length of time outside means you become a corpse. Once the wet bulb temperature goes above 36C, it becomes impossible for the human body to lose heat and you will rapidly get heat stroke from simply sitting in the shade drinking water in a strong breeze. I wasn't referring to the simple expansion of deserts, but how most have been seeing _higher_ temperatures and _lower_ rainfall. Do you really not know how you would see different impacts in the scenarios "warmer in some places, cooler in others" and "warmer everywhere, some places more than others"? The natural explanations have all been eliminated as possible causes for the recent warming. In fact, the natural forcing factors are slightly cooling. Meanwhile, we can _observe_ the fact that human actions have caused a strong warming change in the planet's energy flux. Anthropogenic CO2 alone is causing ~1.6W/m^2 of warming.

I just stick the chip in between a couple parts in the stack so that you can't see it. Although I have oopsed a couple times and had it on the wrong side of a decoupler.

That sounds like you are making a common error: Remember that your rocket will pivot around its centre of mass. It's a weathervane, not a pendulum. So something tall, with weight at the top and something to generate a bit of drag at the bottom.

When the underlying basis for a forecast doesn't happen, the fact that the forecast doesn't match the outcome says nothing about the validity of the forecast. In this case, we even understand why we would expect a greater than linear impact from such fires: You need to saturate the nearby lower atmosphere before a large portion of the emissions start going into the upper atmosphere. Actually it would be a little more complicated than that. Human habitability already reaches as far north as the land goes and the only regions to gain in the south have the little problem of being on top of collapsing glaciers. Funny how the deserts of the world are doing exactly the _opposite_ of what you expect. The effects of global warming are different from those of regional warming. This is because regional warming doesn't cause the various nasty large scale effects. I'm looking at the charts, comparing to the mid-20th century average: Peak temperature c.3000 years ago: The same as mid-20th century. Peak temperature c.2000 years ago: ~0.2C _below_ the mid-20th century. So, are you lying about seeing the charts, lying about what they say, or did you get them from a liar like Tony Watt?

Nope, all that would do is determine the frame of reference where its velocity is 0. This frame always exists and is much easier to determine.

You are leaving off the little detail that those forecasts were based on the fires taking _years_ to finish putting them all out. Thankfully, the wild well control companies had some new techniques they were ready to try out that were much faster. With the currently locked in warming there are already regions of the Earth that are going to become uninhabitable by humans within a couple decades. Once the wet bulb temperature crosses 36C, heat stroke is unavoidable without active refrigeration. The only significant region that is going to gain farming productivity is Siberia, (in Canada we already farm as far north as the soil goes, Europe is similar, the southern hemisphere has no land to shift farming farther south). The so-called Medieval warm period was a regional warming, not global. Even the claims of global warming are for temperatures we passed _thirty years ago_. Again, no evidence of global warming and claimed temperatures for global optima are well below current. It means "high points", nothing more. The early Eocene is also described as an optimum but we sure wouldn't want to face those temperatures today. Other than the fact that you are being as honest about as David Barton is about US history.

Sort of like how "Chakat" is used in chakat names: Firepaw is the name of my fursona and shi is a chakat. Likewise, Val's name means "Valentina the Kerman."

The question is meaningless given our current knowledge of physics. There is no such thing as "standing completely still in space," as that would require there to be a single base reference frame for the entire universe. Now, if you were to take some inertial reference frame and propose a stationary object in that frame, (perhaps it's being pushed by some extra-universal force), you have something meaningful but not particularly interesting: You have a mass at the one point that generates gravity and makes a few equations relating to it a bit easier to solve.

As an expansion on this idea, you could have 'levels' for the autopilot that you unlock through the tech tree in career/science mode. A possible series might be: Level 0 you set a waypoint for it to move towards, it stops when it gets there or hits a slope greater than $safelimit. Level 1 has multiple waypoints, (say 3), but still tries to move in straight lines. Level 2 adds another waypoint or two and can climb/descend steeper slopes at a reduced speed. Level 3 again increases the number of waypoints and has actual pathfinding. Level 4 can be told to seek things, (e.g. "go to $biome", ore of $concentration or better, move to nearest lander, etc.).

You need to upgrade both the Tracking Station and Mission Control to use manoeuvre nodes in career.

One thing that has been missed is that you should keep an eye on Mission Control, as you can sometimes upgrade it 'for free'. Check the advances on long-duration contracts you want to do and any no deadline contracts: Trading a few contract slots for the upgrade is probably worth it.

Not really, when building a Dyson swarm, (which is what Dyson _actually proposed_, the Dyson shell is a misunderstanding), you don't have to match orbital altitudes exactly. It's also perfectly fine to have few/no stations on particular inclinations. As pointed out above, Dyson shells don't actually work due to the little problem of not being gravitationally linked to the star. It's still just an engineering and logistics problem. You don't need to actually figure out any new science or technology to do it. It's certainly a 'just' when compared to sending any significant physical object to another star system. All it takes is some paranoia or religious fanaticism. Remember that there really are people in the real world who _want_ to trigger a global nuclear war in order to bring about a divine return. Before you dismiss them as nothing more than fringe wackos may I point out that Vice Presidential candidate, (and half-term Governor), Sarah Palin was closely linked to one such group.

Dyson swarms just require the ability to make large solar-orbit stations, (they don't even actually need to be habs), once you can do that it's just a matter of scaling up production. Once thing that makes the Nicoll-Dyson laser the thing to worry about is that it doesn't require a solution to the interstellar travel problem. Another is the problem that you probably only find out that they even have one because a multi-terawatt laser is slamming into your planet.

That was part of his retcon after a bunch of physics students paraded around a con chanting "The Ringworld is unstable!" Now, as for Dyson spheres being dangerous: If you are living anywhere near one, (swarm or shell), you have reason to worry because of a little invention called the Nicoll-Dyson laser. Imagine a phased-array laser with an emitter 2AU across and access to a significant fraction of a star's energy output. Now imagine being 10 parsecs away from that system, where the beam would be only a couple metres wide.