razark

[quote name='prophet_01']What's the difference between now and 100 years at that time scale? And now think what humans where capable of 100 years ago.[/QUOTE] Uh... if 100 years doesn't make a difference, why should we consider the difference 100 years has made? But I get your point. 100 years on that scale is meaningless. So we're as well off to start now, rather than wait 100 years.

[quote name='Nibb31']You're only showing that you have no sense of scale. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans only appeared a few thousand years ago. Do you really expect humanity to still exist in a million years in any recognizable form, let alone 5 billion? At those time scales, 50, 500, or 5000 years don't make any difference.[/QUOTE] Doesn't change the fact that if we don't get out of this solar system, our descendants, who/whatever they may be, won't survive.

[quote name='magnemoe']Common use of suborbital maximum height above 100 km, yes some extend this downward towards 60 km or so as you can not use control surfaces efficiently that high. Grasshopper never went higher than some km. Yes it might have been able to go suborbital fully loaded but this was never done.[/QUOTE] So, as I said, Musk was technically correct while being an ass about it.

I five billion years, our sun goes out. If we don't go somewhere besides Earth, the species dies. Why not start learning how to do that now? Sometimes, it's not about the science, and there's some things a probe simply cannot do: [img]http://i.imgur.com/h0TTjIw.jpg[/img]

Yeah, that's pretty much reinforcing the fact that OV-106 was an administrative way to refer to a set of spare parts that were intended to replace those used to build OV-105, but were never actually completed.

[quote name='LordFerret']This is no more a political discussion than any previous discussion in these forums regarding RC planes/etc and model rockets. It's just an outline of pending regulations for drone owners/operators in the US.[/QUOTE] And other discussions about laws/regulations have gotten locked for "politics". (Note the quotation marks.)

[quote name='fredinno']OV-106 and OV-107 were actual things- they were originally proposed post-Challenger...[/QUOTE] Your link states: [quote name='Your Link']Rockwell called on NASA to buy an evolved OV-106 that would first fly in 1995 and an OV-107 that would fly in 2000.[/QUOTE] That's not NASA or any government source saying that. That's the contractor that built orbiters telling NASA they should buy more of what they sell. The only OV-106 I've ever seen referred to was to designate the replacement for the spare parts used to build OV-105.

[quote name='wumpus']I'm pretty sure that the inclination of the last Columbia flight wasn't anywhere near the ISS*.[/QUOTE] STS-107: Perigee: 270 km Apogee: 285 km Inclination: 39.0 degrees ISS: Perigee: 409 km Apogee: 416 km Inclination: 51.65 degrees

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']...the above is also where he claims Grasshopper was suborbital.[/QUOTE] Well, it was suborbital. It went up, it didn't go into orbit, it came down. Neither Bezos or Musk mentions space in their tweets, only used rockets. (However, what Musk was [i]implying[/i] is quite clear.)

[quote name='Kerbart']So, knowing that there was a more than minimal chance that the vessel was damaged but that there was nothing (with a reasonable chance of success) that could be done about it. NASA decided to not investigate the wing, as it wouldn't really change their options. It all came down to statistics; and the dice rolled the wrong way.[/QUOTE] Computer simulations that were run during the flight showed the risk of damage severe enough to cause loss of vehicle from a foam strike to be extremely low. The simulations were later shown to be faulty, but were the best information available at the time. There was also a lack of management knowledge of satellite imaging capabilities due to the classified nature of those programs. Some NASA managers later obtained security clearances for this reason. Rushing OV-104 through processing would have meant a lot of shortcuts would need to be taken, which would have been a huge amount of risk. Safety checks and taking the time to make sure everyone was doing everything correctly would have to be skipped. At the time, NASA knew the foam was shed by the ET. However, they did not understand what caused the foam to shed. If they had been able to determine that the foam had crippled OV-102, they would not have time to figure out what the issue was, or had time to verify and possibly repair an ET before they needed to launch a rescue mission. When STS-114, the Return To Flight mission, was launched, foam shedding occurred again and the fleet was grounded for another year. NASA would not have risked launching a vehicle under the same risk conditions as STS-107, and would not have undertaken a rescue flight that would have raised those risks even higher. [quote name='wumpus']Isn't the whole issue with heating tiles peculiar to the Columbia? My understanding was that was why it was "retired" in the first place. Columbia required reseating huge amounts of tiles every flight, while Challenger and later units had a solid heat shield.[/QUOTE] No, the heat shield of all shuttles was a system of tiles.

[quote name='Shpaget']Columbia crew could have been saved if NASA management accepted the help from DoD.[/QUOTE] What sort of DoD assistance do you see as changing anything? Even if NASA had known of the damage and its extent, a rescue would not have been feasible.

[quote name='FishInferno']What about those 20 dollar helicopters you can buy at walmart?[/QUOTE] Well: [QUOTE]An “aircraft” is defined as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air”... In 2012, Congress confirmed that UAS, including those used for recreation or hobby purposes, are aircraft consistent with the statutory definition set forth...[/QUOTE] So, yes. How long until this thread gets locked for "politics"?

[quote name='ThatGuyWithALongUsername']Hold on. Is that thread title a reference to something?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Livingstone[/url] [quote]David Livingstone was a Scottish Congregationalist pioneer medical missionary with the London Missionary Society and an explorer in Africa. His meeting with H. M. Stanley on 10 November 1871 gave rise to the popular quotation "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"[/quote]

[quote name='daniel l.']she just put them back on the shelf and escorted me out. its so darned annoying.[/QUOTE] Go to the library without her?

[quote name='Spartwo']Eee Ess Ay[/QUOTE] Yeah, that one is a pretty even split between people spelling it or saying it as a word.

Spelled: KSP Spoken: "Kerbal" [quote name='Kerdinand']How do you get the idea to pronounce an abbreviation like a word?? I say K S P obviously.[/QUOTE] [quote name='Moh1336']Technically though KSP is an initialism, therefore English Language dictates you say it the letters.[/QUOTE] Interesting. Please tell me how y'all say "NASA", "ESA", and "JAXA".

[quote name='Fwiffo']Any reports yet of 1.0.5 compatibility?[/QUOTE] Install it and try. If it doesn't, simply uninstall it. I haven't had any problems with it, though.

[quote name='fredinno']But the astronauts would survive at the end...[/QUOTE] But they didn't. Let them rest in peace. [quote name='fredinno']The difference is that seamonsters are implausible. A Columbia Resuce mission would have been plausible, if NASA had been more concered of the falling foam on the ET.[/QUOTE] A rescue mission would [i]never[/i] have happened. It's not plausible in the least. Yes. [i]IF[/i] they had known the foam had caused damage, [i]IF[/i] they had known the extent of the damage, [i]if if if if...[/i] They still didn't know what caused the foam shedding. They didn't know what would have happened on another launch. The risk to the rescue crew/vehicle would have outweighed the possibility of rescue. Aside from the foam issue, rushing an orbiter through processing would have opened up a lot of potential for someone doing something wrong, skipping critical checks, and so on. Add to that a crew that's not fully trained, a ground crew unprepared, and everyone under extreme pressure, etc. There was zero chance of launching a rescue. As my father said: "If it was the foam strike that caused the loss, the crew was dead on launch. It just took them 16 days to die."

Instead of just more predefined ones, the player should have the ability to create their own custom categories.

[quote name='sarbian']here is [URL="https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/CustomBarnKit/10/artifact/CustomBarnKit-1.1.3.0.zip"]1.1.3[/URL] with a fix. It was a simple parenthesis trouble in the code.[/QUOTE] That one is working for me. Thanks!

A Gemini-class capsule. Sounding rockets. Early aircraft parts. No more of the "it's from a junkyard" craptastic aesthetic.

[quote name='Geschosskopf']OK, in the stock game in career mode, action groups work as follows: [/QUOTE] I am aware of how the action groups work. The problem is that I edited the values, and the action groups are not available. If I upgrade the VAB once, I have all the action groups available. The SPH does have the action groups available as soon as I start career. [CODE] @CUSTOMBARNKIT { @EDITOR { @VABUpgrades = 5600, 22500, 84500 @SPHUpgrades = 5600, 22500, 84500 @actionGroupsCustomUnlockVAB = 1 @actionGroupsCustomUnlockSPH = 1 @actionGroupsStockUnlockVAB = 1 @actionGroupsStockUnlockSPH = 1 } } [/CODE] [spoiler=Images] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/agwHuGL.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NSiBepO.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/w8nRats.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dqqKcjb.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NxxlZjZ.png[/IMG] [/spoiler]

Please check your link. It seems to be missing a ":". http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108416

Thank you so very much. I installed this for the sole purpose of getting Action Groups working correctly, but I didn't see any difference. Time to try again. Edit: Hrm. Still not working. Edit Edit: If I upgrade the VAB, I get all the action groups. If I try the starting VAB, no action groups are available.

No, I'm just annoyed by blind patriotism and the jingoism that tends to hide behind it. I've spent the last fourteen years listening to too many bandwagon patriots screaming "my country, right or wrong". Your response does clarify things, though. Loving your country isn't about who waves the biggest flag and screams the loudest, but that's what "patriotism" has all too often been reduced to. By all means, be proud of what your country does, but be proud because your country has done something good, not simply because your country has done something. That doesn't mean that you can't be proud when another country does something worth admiring, nor does it mean that we can't look beyond national borders and work for the good of all humans. (And we shouldn't forget that your country is not the only one, and it's probably not any more unique and special than my county, either.)