Seret

Or else what? The Chinese will develop a capability the Soviets had decades ago? Supercavitating torpedoes are a bit unusual, but not new.

Er, yeah. Alt-tab surely? Personally I find myself checking the wiki a lot more than the forum. Tons of data on there. Besides, a lot of the other tools you need (transfer window calculators, etc) are hosted on other sites, so you're always going to be switching back and forth between KSP and the browser.

Screwgrab. Amazing stuff. Between that and an impact driver if required you should be able to get any knackered old screw. Having a screwdriver that you can get a spanner onto can help as well.

For that kind of thing what's most relevant isn't the peak g force, but the rate of change in g. This is known as jolt force. 5g applied in 0.01s is a lot more severe than 5g over 1s, for example. Things like ejection seats and parachutes are limited more by jolt force considerations than peak g. You can pile on a lot of g for a short period as long as you don't pile it on too quickly.

I'm a tabletop wargamer so I've got hundreds of the little buggers. Probably not painted to anywhere near collector standard though...

Speaking as a parent I absolutely 100% want to protect my kids from unpleasant diseases, being ill sucks for them and for me. Avoiding vaccination may stem from a protective instinct, but it's also based on a completely wrong assessment of the risks. There's no excusing it IMO, they're just plain wrong.

Lol, probably true then. I'm reminded of joke #5 on this page: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/billykangas/2014/03/20-jokes-for-nerds.html

Dunno about that,I think most engineers like to keep it simple, which is why we work in radians for rotation. You'll see pi used a lot. Nobody calculates anything by hand, and calculators have a pi button. I get your point though, engineers have to get comfortable with approximation and learn how and when use it. The most common approximation I think you'll see is rough values of gravity, 9.8 being perfectly good enough for many purposes.

The main distinction between the two is going to be whether you want to stay in academia or not. There are physicists in the private sector and engineers in universities, but generally your career is more likely to be the other way around.

Looks like young Hermann's Tortoise gpisic.

Actually, no. An important quality of a good scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable.

Assuming the board recognises them it will run them both at the lower frequency.

The person you were speaking to may have some philosophical or religious reason that compels them to ignore important scientific principles like the theory of evolution, but what they don't have is solid proof. If such proof existed several fields of science would be in major upheaval, as it would mean throwing out most of the theoretical basis for their work. In short, ask a scientist how the Theory of Evolution is doing, not someone with a vested interest in ignoring the science.

True, KSP doesn't model anything like buckling, which is quite a low energy failure mode.

Batteries are unlikely to have the required power density, and supercaps won't have the energy density.

I'm not familiar with the exact story of that case either, but it would be interesting to find out. Like you say it could just be a single wrong assumption.

I've just had visions of folks in a water mill arguing over Lean and 6-sigma.

We'd definitely progress quicker. It took them quite a while to implement important innovations like standardised parts during the actual industrial revolution. We'd not only know that we should be doing it from day one, we'd already have the standards to use.

This x1000. DNFTT, folks. The OP isn't interested in the slightest in your rebuttals of his/her points.

Having said that Camacha, models aren't foolproof. This is quite recent:

LOX would certainly be frisky in a hydrocarbon rich atmosphere.

You're a "glass is half empty" kind of person, aren't you? 😉

Dampers for what purpose? A well-designed rocket won't have any oscillations that need big heavy dampers.

Go to speedtest.net and it'll test your bandwidth.

Depends what you mean by absolutely minimise. Define a limit and design down to it. Generally the idea is to try and be a bit more clever than simply throwing more metal it. You can play around with geometry. You're normally trying to minimize the amount of materials used to stay within your specs.