razark

My phone makes phone calls and text messages. I've just never felt the need for a smart phone. I also don't tend to watch a whole lot of anything on TV. I might try it for the experience, though. I've wired up a few minor circuits on a breadboard to try things out, and I'm reading up on Python. I didn't expect to get one, so I've never really put any thought into what I'd do with one. I have a co-worker that got one a while back with the idea of making a wearable system, but he's not gotten very far yet. I'm starting to lean towards trying my hand at some small robotics projects, and trying to remember my work with electrical components when I was a kid.

I just pointed out it could be used in a tactical role*. I never, in any way, said that it would be a good idea. *With the implication that the role, and not the weapon, defines whether it is strategic or tactical. After all, B-52 bombers were designed as a strategic weapon to strike cities. They were later used in the role of close air support, very much not what they were built for.

I got the conundrum of "What do I do with a Raspberry Pi?".

An ICBM could be employed in a tactical role. It's just another form of artillery. Granted, it's artillery with extreme range and power, but there's nothing that says you can't use it to take out a squad instead of a city. It just has a larger than normal amount of collateral damage.

Because the US got to the moon first, declared victory, and ended the race.

Because space is awesome. The space program was part of my life growing up and it's part of my life now, but KSP brings much different aspects into my hands.

Impressive. That can be very useful. Does this mean you will be stopping development?

"There's no way that could happen." and "There's no way that could happen twice."

John Cage's 4'33"

That's exactly what someone involved in the conspiracy would say! You must be in on it! A. Some people just really hate saying "I don't know", so they make up an answer. B. Some people suck at evaluating evidence. C. Some people like to feel special. As part of the group that "knows the truth about x", they get to feel like they're involved in something. D. Some people like to feel superior to the unbelieving sheeple that just can't understand what's so obvious. E. Some people are dumb.

99% of most space programs involves sitting in offices doing paperwork, having meetings, etc. Being an astronaut is completely different.

That sounds like something they would add in the spring, not winter.

Exactly. It's been almost two months. One member has made an effort to contact Kevin (and apparently reached him). Kevin has not made contact with the community in this thread, his blog, of github. If we continue to wait for him to make his plans known, we may be waiting a long time. Lack of communication with him should no longer be considered a roadblock to further development of a kOS fork.

Take a look at the pictures the world saw beamed back during Apollo 11, and compare them to the pictures that were on the film that was developed after Apollo 11 returned. Transmitting pictures is not always the best method, and can be very poor depending on what method is used to send them. (Yes, you did specify the current Mars rover. However, we are considering Kerbal technology, not our current technology.)

Bah! Humbug!

In regards to a boot script/autoexec, I like the idea of being able to specify one in the VAB description, and failing that, falling back to a boot.txt on Archive. I wouldn't mind seeing a way to preload programs at design time, so that you can automatically have that set of software on Volume 1 when you go to the pad.

He had a question about this particular mod, and this thread was a perfectly appropriate place to ask, and useful information was exchanged. Reviving an old thread harms no one.

I'm sad that it took 36 posts to get to that one.

The hatch/ladder angle has never bothered me. The only time it matters is if I have a Hitchhiker tank beneath it, and in that case I just rotate the tank to match the capsule.

Let's be honest here. When do KSP Legos come out so we can play with them?

COBOL? BASIC? Assembly? INTERCAL? If those are the other options, C based syntax would be fine. (Actually, kOS reminds me of my early days mucking with BASIC. Even if it still doesn't hava a GOTO statement.)

Of course they can't, and if you give me some time to get through my coffee, I'll come up with some silly reason to back that up. Ok, why transmitted reports provide data that cannot be gotten by returning it: Jeb lands on the Mun and finds an interesting rock. He reports back to Mission Control, explaining everything he sees about the rock and the area it was found in. The geologists in the back room are listening in, and are able to ask questions and provide suggestions of what else to examine, which will provide a fuller picture of the context of the rock that Jeb brought back. There you go. There's a situation where transmission provides data that _cannot_ be gotten in another way, and it's something that happened during Apollo. I'm not sure there is a way to make the science system work in a way that will make everyone happy. There's multiple ways the game can handle science, and Squad will need to pick one and we'll live with it, or they will need to give us some control over how science happens so we can each set things up in whatever way makes us happy.

You go to the Mun, and you find a rock. Taking it back to the lab will tell you about the rock. But describing where you found it, what else was nearby, other types of rocks in the area, etc. provides other information that you aren't going to get by examining the rock itself in the lab. Of course, that's what EVA reports are, so back to the question: What can you get only from transmitting? All I can think of is "artificial game balance". Perhaps that's enough of a reason for some people. Some information does makes sense to transmit, such as EVA/Crew reports, instrument readings and so on. Transmitting data from a surface sample just doesn't make much sense.

Please let us know if you try it. I took a look at the first page of the Orbital Manufacturing listed below, and it looks a bit more involved than what I'd like right now.

What is the currently working version of Orbital Construction? I haven't messed with it for a couple of versions, so I wanted to try it again.