Lisias

No expert here, but…. To anything turn into a black hole, it must be compressed into its Schwarzschild radius. Since the moon weighs about 7.35 x 1022 kg, so if by some espetacular compression force it turns into a black hole, it's size would be… 0.00010916095764576308 meters. Python 3.6.5 (default, Mar 29 2018, 15:38:43) [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 8.1.0 (clang-802.0.42)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> M = 7.35 * 10**22 >>> G = 6.67408 * 10**-11 >>> c = 299792458 >>> rs = (2*G*M)/(c**2) >>> print (rs) 0.00010916095764576308 >>> So, yeah. It would vanish from the skies. But besides being "black" and sizing less than a millimetre, nothing else would change. The thing would still has mass, the same mass. So the gravitational forces would still be there. I don't think that any radiation would be emitted at all. It's plain impossible to the Moon to turn into a Black Hole without external mechanical help - the Moon's density is incommensurably smaller than the needed, the known process of a Star becoming a Black Hole doesn't apply. The mechanical power used to compress the Moon, on the other side, could inflict some colateral effects on us. Since the 3rd Newton's Law would still apply, such energy would irradiate towards us. I don't know how to measure and don't have the slightest clue about how to research the needed data for this. But I think it's reasonable to assume the at least the part of Earth facing the event would be scorched.

It depends of the License the original author choose for the works.

That. As long it's a grammatically valid sentence, and not "Ooooohhhhhh". "AAaaaaahhhhhh" or pieces of paper like that, I'm ok with minimalists posts. Of course, I'm just brainstoming and not proposing a final solution - I would need to carry on some statistics on the forum's data set in order to really propose something like this.

If you don't mind, delay it for some more time. @swjr-swis insights won me at least 10 m/s more!!! I'll update this post with the mk2 entry soon. EDIT: 10 m/s? I said TEN m/s? HA!!! NEW ENTRY: L's X1 Stock Mark 2 ("Wings are still overrated"). With the invaluable advices from @swjr-swis, I was able to reach 760 m/s !! So, here is my new entry: @swjr-swis, as I promised, here follows the screenshots with the Force Vectors: Any lifting surface adds drags, and I don't need more lift - I think that even the Basic Fin I added is not really needed for lift (just to provide pivotal axis for the control surfaces to act), as the aircraft manages to take off without it, she just don't keep flying the way I want without the Fins! The Canards adds a considerable amount of drag themselves - I would probably gain something by scratching either the canards or the elevators and then strapping some lifting surfaces. But I didn't managed to stabilize the craft by doing that - at least with this airframe. I will probably scratch her and start the L''s X-2 branch in order to pursue this.

Kerbal-X is nice because it lists the parts used on the aircraft. I think it should be standard procedure publishing the entry on Kerbal-X due that. Hummm… Nice catch. I was in the mistaken believing that I would get the best results flying on thinner atmosphere, but then I saw the good numbers happening the low as possible, and forgot to adjust. Good catch. I'm using canards and elevators. Sounds crazy, they also provides lift and less drag than wings. With two sets of control surfaces on both tail and nose, you have an incredible amount of control about the craft atitude - and the vectors end up acting as lifting too! I'll post a picture of the Force Vectors on my next entry. Again, I missed that. On my career, I don't have tech for retractable landing gears yet - and forgot to adapt when I move the vessel to the Sandbox. Thx!

It's working now. Still an issue with multi-kerballed pods, but on single seats it's perfect.

It's on my desktop's wallpaper. Sometimes we need to throw through the room's window any previously knowledge from RL and realize this is KSP. I finally solved the problem in the most classic Kerbal way. I'm screenshoting and posting the aircraft, I'll edit this post with the data. NEW ENTRY Well, suddenly I realized that I could not further increase my speed on the previous design without a overhaul. But after a lot of effort later, I just could not advance enough. Since we don't have a Wind Tunnel available on KSP, I had no choice but to fly, register, record and compare every modification trying to figure out what was compromising my 'score'. Well… I finally reached the conclusion that Wings Are Overrated. I ditched the new design, took the old and added MOAR JUNOS and replaced the wings with the lightest winglet I could - you need something to act as a rotational pivot, or que winglets with control surfaces would lead the vessel into a chaotic Unexpected Uncontrolled Landing. So this is it. My Mk1 entry reached 737.24 m/s - and, yeah, that 0.24 m/s is relevant - I wasted 2/3 of a fuel tank to reach that (and hit the ground exactly after, as I was flying low and on the current viewing angle, I didn't saw the ground popping out from nowhere! ). Craft on kerbal-x. p.s.: I don't have the slightest idea in how in hell I would land the thing… I' afraid the landing gears will not withhold the touch-down at the minimum speed this thing needs to keep on flight… p.s.2: I'm building a new rig for KSP, and the control issues I was having with automatic pilots are solved. The problem was the my previous rig was not fast enough to the autopilots be able to fine tune the control surfaces on the pace needed. p.s.3: Jebediah is insane.

I finally got tired of suffering on the Apple's hand, and into this increasingly painful experience of gaming on MacOS. So, once my Workstation I building with scrapped parts (if Jeb and Bill would TI Professionals, they would be proud of me!) is being finished, I realized that it would be also a tremendous gaming machine, so… Yeah. Created an account on it for playing. Then I realized I forgot to import some vessels from my MacPotato, hit the KVM's button and logged back into the rig using Remote Desktop and… Voila! I can play KSP using RDP over Windows 7! Of course, it's not really playable - some texturing is missing, the framerate is impaired (but better than running it on the MacPotato!) - it's still playable!! Now? I'm planning to install VNC on the Mac, so I can RemoteDesktop into the Win7 rig, and from there VNC back, and see what happens! ps: Yeah, I'm aware of RDP's support for D3D, but I was thinking this had been implemented only on Win10 under UWP.

Eventually, if I manage to avoid running out of runways.

I'm trying to update my design to reach Mach2 on my career. More specifically, 685 m/s (it's a GAP mission I think). Currently, i'm stuck at 675... As soon as I manage this stunt, I will rework it for stock and update my entry. This is being quite a challenge, every extra m/s is a fight for death!

You will need to use Extrusion.

The intro worths it's weight in gold.

From the OP:

Commands Seats are not pods. Technically, you are already on EVA.

I had solved part of the problem. By changing line 78 of TakeCommand.cs , things stop to explode/die/poof. TakeCommand works fine with Meadowlark if you put only one Kerbal on the pod. By putting two (or more, as it appears), something goes wrong and nobody boards the pod. But with this change, nobody dies neither so at least I detected what was causing the deaths. // Disable it for now until we need it escapeHatch.GetComponent<Collider>().enabled = false; My current guess is that by spawning the second Kerbal, the both of them are kicked out from the position and the boarding command fails. But with the collider disabled, nobody poofs. Again, things work fine when only one Kerbal is assigned to the pod. Single seat pods appears to be not affected by this change. POST-EDIT: This thing is smelling cheesy. I took a peek on the Log for this file, this was always being set to true since the first commit this appeared, despite the comment stating that it should be disabled.

Guide me to some of them so I can test them too. This is interesting, and highly educative - I learnt more today about KSP intrinsics than on the past month.

There's a thing called "Opportunity Costs" - the money you had lost by not using it on something else. So, yeah. You lost some money. Not sure if this is recoverable, but you should be really liquided with these guys.

If I understood correctly, the glitch happens because two Kerbals are being ejected at once (line 354 of the latest TakeCommand.cs): while (this.part.protoModuleCrew.Count() > 0) { kerbal = this.part.protoModuleCrew[0]; //ProtoCrewMember kerbal = this.part.protoModuleCrew.First(); print("[TakeCommand] ejecting " + kerbal.name + " from " + this.part.GetInstanceID()); // blah blah blah if (FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(kerbal, this.part, escapeHatch.transform)) { myKerbal = "kerbalEVA (" + kerbal.name + ")"; myFemaleKerbal = "kerbalEVAfemale (" + kerbal.name + ")"; boardKerbal = true; escapeHatch.GetComponent<Collider>().enabled = false; } else { print("[TakeCommand] error ejecting " + kerbal.name); // and more blah break; } } And since it's the same part, Take Command tries to use the very same hatch it created at line 61: if (escapeHatch == null) { escapeHatch = new GameObject("EscapeHatch"); escapeHatch.tag = "Airlock"; escapeHatch.layer = 21; escapeHatch.transform.parent = this.part.transform; escapeHatch.transform.localEulerAngles = new Vector3(0, 0, 0); escapeHatch.transform.localPosition = new Vector3(0, 0, 0); // blah blah blah } With the already known consequences. It's clear to me that the problem is not exactly the part, but TakeCommand that assumes that every part has only *one* command seat. Creating multiple EscapeHatches appears to be overkill to me. I think that a better solution would be delaying the following Kerbal ejection until the previous one boards. But to do so, some code refactoring would be needed, as the better implementation for this would be a FSM.

This is somewhat sad, the EAS-316 is gorgeous. Assuming that a proper fix is possible, would you accept it on Take Command? In time, I did my home work by giving a peek on the persistence.sfs and quicksave.sfs files. I'll publish the results here, since it's here where I found the need for it: (This is not for LGG, it's more than obvious that he knows about - I'm just documenting the status-quo in the hope of being of use to someone in the future). Kerbals on the SFS files are stored on their own entity called (surprisingly ) KERBAL: Ok, there's a "gender" atribute. But yeah, when a Kerbal goes EVA, he/she become a VESSEL, and vessels don't have genders. So, yeah. Once you need the gender by some reason, such information must be stored somewhere. In a first though, I would store it on the KerbalEVA module's data. But then I realized: no one needs the Kerbal gender for anything but rendering the "vessel". So… yeah. The PART section states that: this "vessel" uses a part called "kerbalEVAfemale". I don't know (yet) if the syntax <part_name> (<identifier>) is related to the vessel internal identifier, or if it's a kind of constructor for Crewed Vessels (a Kerbal doing EVA is a vessel crewed by the Kerbal! Metaconstructions, baby!), but in a way or another, that's the reason for the problem here: Take Command is instantiating "vessels", and in this specific case, it needs to correctly tell the KSP guts about the part to be used.

I will take another good look on KSP' sfs and quick save formats. I don't remember such a hack from there. (sometimes, KSP leaves me a taste of Javascript on the mouth while drinking my coffee.)

"kerbalEVAfemale (" + kerbal.name + ")" Seriously? It was that? I failed to understand the need of such change on KSP's code, but… I'm happy the problem is solved.

My reentry profiles and landings are so… "tight"… that diapers drop from the cabin ceiling instead of oxygen masks when I'm ferrying tourists.

How much memory? What video card? If you have 4Gb and a dedicated Video Card, it will run. Perhaps you will have to adjust down something, but it will run - but I would not install any mods. Making History is reported to run on this, but I heard some complains that sometimes KSP crashes by lack of memory with 4Gb RAM. If you have a embedded ("onboard") GPU, my advise is to have 6Gb of RAM at minimum, as the GPU will stole some memory from the CPU.

Guys... Besides some objections (here and in other threads), tonight I realized something new on the few months since I created my account here. There's way more non-EN posts popping up on the "All Activities" Stream. Since I started here, I remember one to two in Portuguese, perhaps half a dozen in Spanish and a few more in French. Tonight, I'm seeing a small avalanche of Russian posts. It's a change. And I think it's for good.

Neither do I. My coffee is so strong that I take it with a knife, fork and .38 in the case it tries to eat me.