HebaruSan

Luckily, there's no need to guess! Three reasons were given: The exponential cost line Limits of construction technology (this isn't very well supported in the video; no specific example is given of something that current construction tech can't do that would need to be done for a larger telescope, aside from marvelling at how huge and powerful ELT is) Someday, we'll probably figure out visible light interferometry, and at that point you'd just build several smaller telescopes instead and link them up ... but I shared that link because it featured someone working on the site discussing the actual relationship between cost and radius, not for the more speculative conclusions from the creator of the video.

Indeed, as the OP should already be very well aware:

Hi, does this have something to do with the thread you're replying to?

Scatterer's compatibility got updated to 1.12.5 about 2 days ago (on SpaceDock, propagating through to CKAN): https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-meta/compare/a695faba34...9119055f78 And even before that, there's no reason for it ever to have been a nightmare, you can just tell CKAN to treat all 1.12.x versions as compatible: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/User-guide#Choosing-compatible-game-versions

Surprisingly, an on-site expert appears to comment directly on this question: https://youtu.be/QqRREz0iBes?si=apLpIMl-yd5wETX3&t=1456 I realize that "square of" is not the same as "linear", but it's not "exponential" either. Perhaps there are some costs in addition to simply grinding the mirrors. (And 0.7m is not the same as "a couple of meters", but exponential is still exponential.)

Thanks for the ideas, everyone! Can we check any of these hypotheses? Are there measurements that allow the ambient lighting or temperature to be deduced?

That article didn't answer my main question, so maybe someone here can: How are such small, distant, isolated objects bright enough to be seen, even with JWST? No fusion, no reflected sunlight, tiny angular size... what's making those photons?

Hi @Dakota, it never made sense to limit time warp in a safe orbit (periapsis outside of atmosphere, not exiting the SOI), since you're guaranteed to still be on that same ellipse no matter how far ahead you warp. Can you please draw some developer attention this way? Removing this limitation should be a very easy change (just taking out the 'if' statements that enforce the limits), and many people will be much happier with your product (scroll up for a small representative sample). If there's any controversy internally among the team, I'd suggest removing it temporarily for a few releases and seeing if anybody complains. (Nobody will!)

Sad that the most egregious design fail in the first game has been carried forward. This needs to be brought up with the devs; they're not going to notice us just venting here. Would it make sense to report this as a bug? If not, are there any other options?

This is the usual name for this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

That's not a source. In the context of the response you were replying to, a source would have been a link to an article or interview discussing project reprioritization and staffing changes at Intercept, not just more of your own interpretation and speculation.

If this is still planned to ever be a cross-platform title, trying to store anything at all to the Windows registry should probably cause a post-build automated test to fail. Mono has a registry emulation capability (CKAN used to use it), but why go that route if you don't have to?

It's also not a mod, just a standalone EXE that you have to run yourself. Are we in a race to release any old thing that can be claimed as a "fix" for this now?

"buck" - $1.00 "mile" - 1.609 km "cup" - 236.6 mL "gallon" - 3.89 L "favorite" - favourite "soccer" - football "foodball" - hand-egg

1:05:25: As for reconciling this with our intuition, I guess the question is: Which way way of getting from 20000 ft to 5000 ft is faster: Falling at a more gradual angle without a parachute, or falling at a steeper angle with a parachute? There are enough unknowns in that to make me personally hesitate to make a confident forecast. I suppose it could also be that the cause was less the parachute and more the higher-than-expected acceleration that caused the parachute to deploy. I'd guess that could be caused either by a denser patch of air in the flight path or a difference in the mass of the sample.

"Very charred" shielding being inspected and cleaned at the clean room facility, prior to entry to the mobile clean room proper: I'm not sure what impresses me more, NASA's thoroughness in how carefully 15+ people are going through this procedure, or NASA's transparency in letting me watch the whole thing. ... now in the even cleaner room:

In the meantime, they talked about it again just now: "It deployed high. And this is a smart spacecraft, that sample return capsule detected the acceleration rate and it decided that it was important to get that parachute out to slow it down and make this beautiful and safe landing." Trying to piece together the info, the deceleration at 20000 ft was higher than expected, more like what was expected at 5000 ft. Maybe some atmospheric temperature or density variations? Sample capsule has been bagged and is being loaded onto the helicopter. Apparently it's been attached to the helicopter via a line and will be suspended below in flight. ... it's up!

I'll get a timestamp and exact quote once the stream wraps up.

I didn't catch the exact name of the source and don't want to rewind and miss the present, but it was from one of the teams communicating with the live stream commentators. Possibly the ones that were going to study the re-entry trajectory. Harmless operational surprises have been the rule on this mission. The rubble being looser than expected, the sample container overflowing. First helicoper now on site. Well, the live stream announcer just repeated it. I'm not sure how to get further confirmation; hard to imagine a news article covering it after this. Presumably 20000 ft was significantly earlier in the trajectory, so maybe we lost 5 minutes of coasting and gained 2 minutes of chute (for example)? On scene commander and one other walking over for safety check.

20 ft from a road. They almost didn't need the helicopters!

3 minutes early because main parachute deployed at 20000 ft instead of 5000 ft.

The on-scene air force commander said it's planned to land in a weapons testing area that might have hazards like unexploded ordinance. I'm sure it'll be fine, but it sounded surprisingly dangerous for an object whose integrity they want to ensure. It must be hard to find an uninhabited area with plenty of helicopters.

A CKAN user suggested there is a command line option for this, but I haven't verified it: KSP_x64.exe -monitor 2 That might be worth trying out. The same user also contributed a PowerShell script to control the layout on Windows: https://gist.github.com/d-faure/543e8f74a1a7573dd5b7cab872ea56ba

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/what-is-an-exoplanet/planet-types/super-earth/

Your example to prove it can be done "fairly fast" is... a game that isn't released yet, promised for two months from now? Which, depending which sources you believe, may originally have been planned to release in July? And for which you do not state when development began for comparison, perhaps because no such date is publicly known? Am I getting that right?