Wjolcz

So I see I'm not the only one thinking about this kind of stuff. I wouldn't experiment with some new language, that's for sure. Just a key for encoding the rest of the message: 1=I, 2=II, ... ,10=IIIIIIIIII, 11=IIIIIIIIIII, 21=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII and so on. Then speed (with m/s because the lenght of the day wouldn't change) by writing some sort of equation involving speed and distance. Then from distance I could show them how much is 1 kg (1 litre of water is 1 kilogram) and that would give them the symbol of mass (m). Then eventually I would go for the E=mc^2 or some other recent discovery. Either that or memorize the whole content of the Voyager plate and leave that instead. Edit: Also, I would try to tell as many stories of my timeline as possible, like WW2, nuclear bomb, Moon landing and other important stuff. So yeah, pretty much a Rosetta stone +pictures.

You could probably do it digitally just fine.

We kind of are though. And so were the first photosyntesising organisms that "polluted" the air with oxygen. Many species died because of that. That's what life simply does. The difference here is we have brains so we should know better. I know this whole ecotalk of mine is just that but IMO there are long term benefits of keeping biodiversity, climate and ecosystem as unchanged as possible. Whether it's our own planet or some other world. If there's something we can learn and things to research then we should keep our stuff away from it. That being said I believe life is like a pot of unstirred soup. It needs to be shaken, heated, cooled and mixed from time to time to get that biodiversity (Cell Lab: Evolution Sandbox is a great example of that). So maybe nudging some organisms and pushing their evolution isn't that bad. If we ever have the ability to introduce some bacteria/virus/chemical to an ecosystem to boost evolution of complex life on that world we probably should do it. Evolution takes so much time that it won't matter for us because we (as a species) will either be long dead, have some crazy technology or live in another part of the universe so it won't affect us that much. If we ever get to that stage we should seed life IMO. As much as possible. A silent universe is a sad one.

Not only that but the meaning of "ethical" differs from culture to culture. Sacrificing children to gods was totally fine and acceptable in some. It's just a useless buzzword.

Ethical? The univrse doesn't care about what's ethical and what's not. Something being ethical is just a way of saying that the majority agrees about it being OK. That's why I really don't like this word. Everyone's ethics are never lined up in 100%. Now, IMO we should be thinking of consequences. Is polluting messing with something on that planet or moon? Can that planet/moon/asteroid tell us something about our Solar System or some other part of the universe? Have we just seeded life that will screw with the one that already exists there? If so then is it worth it? Does that life have some genetical information we can use to make some useful stuff/educate ourselves? Will the pollution change the chemical/biological composition of the planet to a point it won't be able to recover? Robert Zubrin thinks that even if we find life on Mars we should terraform it killing the organisms in the process. I don't really agree. IMO if there's any life on Mars (I doubt there is though) then we should somehow make sure we preserve it in its entirety because it might have something useful for us. Be it the answer to the origin of life or a gene that allows organisms survive harsh conditions of Mars and space.

The first time I saw it I thought of that too. What trouble?

JAXA has/will have/is working on that kind of engine?

Here's a pic of Callisto from that article on the previous page: The bottom part looks kind of odd. I'm guessing it's a single engine in some sort of heat shield.

I'm talking before the release. But then I didn't really search for any info and opinions on it.

@mikegarrison from Wikipedia: In 2004, aircraft designer Burt Rutandemonstrated the feasibility of a shape-changing airfoil for reentry with the suborbital SpaceShipOne. The wings on this craft rotate upward into the feather configuration that provides a shuttlecock effect. Thus SpaceShipOne achieves much more aerodynamic drag on reentry while not experiencing significant thermal loads. The configuration increases drag, as the craft is now less streamlined and results in more atmospheric gas particles hitting the spacecraft at higher altitudes than otherwise. The aircraft thus slows down more in higher atmospheric layers which is the key to efficient reentry. Secondly, the aircraft will automatically orient itself in this state to a high drag attitude. So it's not at all like X-15. X-15 would have to not only have protective heat shielding but probably a completely different ascent profile too. If X-15 followed the same ascent profile as SpaceShip Two it would stall. If VG did it X-15 style the aircraft would be heavier (because of the shielding) and the flight would not only be more dangerous (speed, heat, stall) but also last longer as bleeding off the speed would take longer.

Nah. If they were all astronauts with all the piloting skills from the beginning and they would be able to learn the KIS/KAS/welding abilites would be better. Not like what SQUAD did, which was basically nerfing the kerbals and dividing them into classes for the sake of "feeling the progress". It's not progress. It's just annoyance. This would be great. You could put a kerbal on board, "show" him how to fly the rocket by flying it yourself and now that kerbal can follow the same exact ascent profile every time (maybe even in the background?).

So I guess the answer to the question "What makes something look CGI?" is simple: stabilization. Shame I'm out of likes for today. They wouldn't bother with it if they didn't have a reason. IIRC X-15 and this are different. One was supposed to go very fast and sideways-ish (and heat up like crazy) and this one is supposed to quickly go up and then slow down while going down. AFAIK the feather wing design makes the flight time simply shorter. Scott Manley made a video explaining this.

Magic. I really want to derail this thread and get it locked.

I agree KIS/KAS should be stock. It actually makes kerbals useful. SQUAD should've made that stock instead introducing kerbal experience. I don't know about wing suits. We have parachutes and I'm pretty happy with that. A jetpack would be pretty fun. A bit outlandish for a semi realistic game like KSP but then GTA V has some wild stuff (Me 163, VTOL PBYs and rocket cars) in it and it doesn't seem game breaking so why not short burst jet packs in KSP?

I ain't reading all 17 pages of this nonsense. Wings need airspeed to generate lift. If the conveyor belt makes the plane stand still relative to the air then it's not going to fly. That's it. Can we now let this thread sink to the bottom and be forgotten forever?

I don't like Reddit. r/prequelmemes and r/dankmemes are funny but the rest of the community reposts and overhypes stuff all the time. Yeah, I've noticed the same. Made an account about 3 months ago but it's nothing there. Only well known people hating on other well known people. I only really browse it for Zubrin. He has a couple of interesting ideas.

What the hell is Carter hypothesis? If anyone could be that kind to ELI5 it to me because I'm either too dumb to understand the Wikipedia article on it or it's just a bunch of philosophical what ifs with equations in between.

Why have classes, experience and skills AND RPG elements at all? This is why I have such a problem with the whole kerbal experience. You get to put that useless creature into the capsule to have it fly and become a little bit less useless. Instead of KIS/KAS and welding parts we got nerfed meat bags that can do a little bit more than a standard probe can. Why make the experience even more painful by adding RPG sillines on top of that. You guys better start thinking how to make space exploration more fun and engaging instead of coming up with useless ideas that can make the game only more tedious and more boring.

I liked the movie. Don't know the main actor and never seen any of his movies but he did really good IMO. I think Rogue One and Solo are better than the sequels. Feels like in the sequels they are trying to play on nostalgia (like the "reskinned" Hoth battle in TLJ) and these independent SW Stories feel like something new and original. Edit: Here's a Reddit rant, I guess: I really hate how that site overhypes things that end up mediocre (Bitcoin, The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi) and hate on things that aren't actually bad, like Solo. It's a shame that this kind of mob mentality has such impact on things (I still hope Solo isn't a flop though). I also see the love for Ewan McGregor in r/prequelmemes (though it's become more of a meme but I really like the guy and think he was a good Obi) and I bet they will be very unhappy once the movie arrives. Or maybe not. Who knows? Anyway, I saw Reddit comments about Solo, didn't listen, went to the cinema, came out very happy, uninstalled the Reddit app.

No Venus? It's really bright this time of the year and it's getting closer and closer so I would expect somebody is taking pictures of it. I'm planning to in about a month or so.

Oh wow how much has changed since the last comments in June 2015.

Wikipedia (not the best source, I know) says LauncherOne will have 200kg of LEO capability. Also, shouldn't solid boosters theoretically cost less since they are less complicated (they are, right?).

That's what it looks like. They seem to make sure everything is in place before announcing their projects. That's pretty much what BO's motto means. So kind of like ACES but likely bigger? Makes sense for lunar operations. But then you have to bring payload to it AND refuel it from time to time (assuming the plan is to use it more than once). It's going to be interesting seeing two different approaches for beyond LEO transportation. On one hand there's BFR's high dry mass but capability to land pretty much anywhere and on the other a tug that does most of the work but needs a lander that will land on its own to deliver cargo/crew. I'd imagine the BO lander (Blue Lander?) would have modular design to easily attach heat shield (if there ever is need for it) or switch/add engines for atmospheric landing. I'm talking Mars here but I doubt they have plans for that as it seems they are focused on the Moon for now.