Azivegu

What? ISA still works???

Sorry that it has taken so long to respond and my thanks to everybody for the insights! Guessing from the general reaction for my VID style, enthousiasm is low. But as a few pointed out, there is always room for improvement. As MAjir pointed out, there is no system for mod names. There is a little bit of a general consensus on how they do work. The system that is by far the most used is the 3-point system (1.2.3.) where the 3 is minor fixes to a previous update, 2 is a major update (new parts and abilities for example) and 1 is a total revision of the mod (say 2.2.3 is not compatable with 1.2.3). This is by far the best short system I see around. What would be nice is if modders also used mod names for folders instead of project names or whatever. It would also be nice if included in that name was also the version number. This would help your end users to quickly double check everything. I know that 99.99% of you have the changelog, but having to repeataly open several files to get to the changelog (which often have varying format) can get annoying. I know that it sounds like I am lazy (which really is true sadly xD) but it is more of a nuisence. This would make me happy. And as Stone Blue said, Spaceport has got to get rid of the uploads_-prefix. I would argue that putting in the version of KSP the mod was developed for is actually a good thing. It helps the user understand what has to be done with the mod to get it to work. But what frizzank said is a legitamit reason not to want to do something like that. Maybe as a solution you could put in the KSP version it was designed for and the last version it worked with. For example: FASA may have been built for 0.18 and it should work with 0.23, but for users from 0.18 to 0.23 is a big difference, while if you say [0.18-0.22] users understand that it can work with 0.23, because the gap between .22 and .23 is much smaller than .18 and .23. I am just brainstorming here. It is usefull if modders would do this. It may be a bit more work for you (and I do acknowledge that you guys are working hard) but for the thousands of users you have it would be nice. A .version tag for mods was proposed. This actually may be a good idea in the streamlining of automatic updaters that are currently being developed. I dont know to much about that system, but it might be worth it to look more into it. Lastly, (I promise this message is coming to an end) as most modders do, putting the date of the last update is a good idea. The arguments made was that people dont remember if they downloaded KAS 2 or 3 weeks ago, but the purpose of the dates is not 2 to 3 weeks in the past. Mostly I check to see the date a forum page was last updated. If it was only a few days ago or less, then I usually double check. This is a behaviour that is shared by many. It is a little bit like a warning light that something may have changed and you should go double check. I dont know if you can also find yourself in that arguement, but it feels really legitamit. Alright, I lied. There is one more thing. I would like to thank all of you (who are probably swamped with messages from everybody) for finding the time to comment here. It means a lot to me. Sadly my idea didnt go down as I had hoped, but at least you guys where open and honest about it. Thats what I love about this community, there isnt any hating. So thanks, you're the best!!! PS: sorry for grammatical errors. I am American and a english speaker, but for the past ten years I have been living abroad, only speaking english here, and I am very tired (its exams week again )': and am very busy) so I think I may have translated a few dutch sentences into english. It happens more often than I like to admit...

I think I would cry xD

is it possible to edit the orbit of the planets like with planet factory? Would love some of those planets for my Kerbol system!!!

I am not familiar with the Visual Studios ID form Taranis, but that is something that needs to be taken into account. I think that the build date for you would be more important then for your end users as you update your files more frequently than we do. So maybe there is a workaround that somebody knows of. The versionID (why not just call it VID) is supposed to give vary basic information. The letter isn't even a requirement, the only reason I kept it there is to make it easier to read. Maybe a short version from v.0.22.a.1.33.2 -> 22.1.33.2??? It says pretty much the same thing, but a much more compact version. But anyone any better ideas? I think that it is important to agree on a certain system (like that 1EC=1kW) as to streamline the process for everybody. @Kilmeister: The way I had it put together is for it to be very intuitive, if of course somebody takes the time to look at it, which knowing some people that might not work out. I would actually recommend that modders only add the the version number to the title of the forum as you want to make it as useful as possible. I would also recommend to all modders, can you include the VID into the name of your folders? That way nobody has to go snooping around to find something. Ow, Taranis, not meant to be mean or anything, but your mod was actually the one that pushed me over the edge (as in to do something about it) to standardize VIDs.

While doing some work on the KSP Mod List Redux and getting geared up to start my own LP, it was frustrating to query through all the different ways people give there products version numbers. I would think it might be a useful idea to have a standardized system to help players easily see whether or not they are up to date. I gave it some serious thought and came to the conclusion it should contain the following information: - lets you see what KSP version it was built for - lets you see what kind of part it is (more on that later) - lets you see what version the file is at - lets you see if there has been a bug fix since last update I came up with this design: v.0.22.a.1.33.2 It can be divided up into several sections to better understand the structure. v: Version. Acts as a control to identify the following as a version number. This could greatly help with automatic update programs. 0.22: KSP Version that the mod was built for. Why not the version it is compatible with? Because sometimes a mod isn't 100% compatible with a new KSP version. It also lets us see how well the mod has been maintained. Examples may be Bobcats rovers. Although they can work, you have to tweak the files a bit to get it to work. It also lets you know what you have to do to get it to work, like just add science node or also a PART{}. a: Package Type Indicator. It is used to help organize what the content of the file is. It can be categorized into -a: add-on (a package that is cored around parts (like KW and VNG), -p: plug-ins (packages that are cored around plug-ins like Kethane, Remotetech and MechJeb), -g: game play enhancement (packages that improve or alter game play like DR, VOID or Universe Replacer) and -f: bug fixes or patches (packages that are only intended to repair a file that was damaged on delivery or a minor update (like only replacing a .dll)) 1.33: Version of the package. Major updates change the first number while minor updates change the second 2-digit number 2: A number indicating that there has been a minor/major fix to the previous update. It is not adding any new content, but repairing possibly incurred damage. By default it should be 0. Only when a bug fix has been brought out after the version update should this be raised to 1 or more. The biggest trouble for me was the Package Type Indicator (PTI). How do you define something like Kethane and ScanSat that has both plug-ins and parts. First I thought to just leave it out, but I realized it would be easier to read if it was included. If you had to read v.0.22.1.33.2 you would have a harder time decoding it (not that hard, but this index is supposed to be used for glance-at situations) then if it was v.0.22.a.1.33.2. The a splits it up making it smaller bits that are easier to decode. It also helps users organize their content, but how? Like I said some packages aren't easy to categorize as plug-ins or parts. So I needed to think of a definition. I came to the conclusion that a plug-in is a package to support a plug-in whilst an add-on is a package to support a part. That may be a little bit cryptic, so here is my explanation: -A package that is a plug-in has the main goal to support a plug-in. Take Kethane for example. What it is all about is fuel. Everything around it is meant to get, use and expend Kethane. The same for ScanSat. Its main goal is to map, and the tools are scanners. The reason you download it isn't for the dishes, but to map bodies. -A package that is an add-on has the main goal to support a part. A good example is OrdanInd Telescopes. What it is all about is the telescope and it has a plug-in to help you use the telescope. One without the other and it doesn't work, but you download it so you have a telescope, not a telescope plug-in. Another example is VNG. VNG is built around parachuting with the outcome of it all the EVA parachute. The plug-in is only meant to support parachuting and nothing else (well, it does support other mods, but for the same reasons) So what do you think? With such an active modding community, it would be nice to standardize this and make it even more easy for everybody to use. If there is something that can be done better, I would love to here it. So love it, like it or hate it, post down below as I really believe this can help a lot, even if it is such a small thing. Some examples of mods: Kethane: v.0.22.p.0.08.1 ScanSat: v.0.22.p.0.04.0 MechJeb: v.0.22.p.2.01.0 KDex: v.0.22.a.1.00.0 RemoteTech2: v0.22.p.1.02.7 KW Rocketry: v.022.a.2.05.5 TAC Life Support: v0.22.p.0.05.0 Kerbal Joint Reinforcement: v0.22.g.1.04.2 Graphotron 2000: v.0.20.a.0.02.1 Visual Enhancement: v0.22.g.0.05.3 Deadly Re-entry: v.022.p.4.00.0 KAS: v.0.22.p.0.04.4 Real Solar System: v.022.g.0.05.2

al enige aanmeldingen?

Ive been looking around, but couldn't find an answer, so here it goes: What do the four little buttons on the bottom right hand corner do? I know one shows the path of connection, but the other three are a mystery.

Hey, is it possible to get the inverse equation for the solar panels without getting the whole mod? Loving the work, but it isnt just my piece of the pie. But I would like the normal equation for solar panels because it is kind of annoying that an OX-stat can power my probe beyond eeloo orbit...

heb jij al antwoord gehad van hem na jouw email?

Hey, er gaat een idee rond om samen met wat KSP fans naar de Utrechste Jaarbeurs te gaan voor de NASA expo A Human Adventure te bekijken en daarna ff een pilsje pakken in de stad. Het kost €12,50 maar als er minstens 20 man komt is het maar €10. De idee is hier:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/56178-%28H-U%29UKV-%28Hogechool-Universiteit%29-Utrecht-Kerbal-Vereniging Laat maar weten of jij ook mee zou willen gaan, is gezellig!

het is tot 31 januarie, dus waarschijnlijk moeten wij iets snel regelen. Het is ook €10 pp als we met een groep gaan (maar dan hebben wij minimaal 20 man nodig) anders is het €12,50. Dus wat mij betreft wel goed te doen. Let wel op, ik kom uit Brabant dus ik drink geen Heineken xD

misschien een keertje afspreken dan:P ergens naar de een kroeg of zoiets.

Is it possible to make the lights flash?

No, You need to set the dish of the probe heading to Duna torwards Kerbin. Then you need at least 1 satellite between Kerbin and you where the satellite can link up to the KSC. So really only 1 dish is needed.

You are correct, it is indeed 1/d2. I will fix that immediately. And if you are going to do that, would you be willing to make it as a separate plugin? I love the real solar system mod, but for my everyday gameplay I would rather keep the vanilla size. And I went to check it out and in the update list there is something that mentions what I am requesting in the Interstellar Mod, but I haven't found any follow up info for it nor have I noticed anything while playing with it. But I have only been using for a mere days so further testing is needed. I'll probably email the maker of interstellar.

Is there any plugin out there that changes the in game spline curve for solar panels into a realistic 1/d2 equation?

What I am about to say is going to get very technical and it has been a while since I last read up on this, but I will do my best. Uranium and Plutonium can create a self sustaining reaction. Water isn't really the moderator as it is the coolant. The problem is if the coolant is evicted from the vessel, it will cause a meltdown. (the graphite rods are only to control the speed of the reaction and keep it critical) Thorium works best when it is dissolved in salts. This is also true for Uranium, but it can react violently. The benefit of salts is that you can heat it up to a much higher temperature and therefore get more 'bang for your buck.' Benefit of dissolving the fuel instead of using rods is that if the temperature gets too high, the fluid expands and less fuel is then present. Thorium, unlike uranium or plutonium, cant sustain itself as its neutron emission=2 while U and Pu are >2. If neutron emission (how many neutrons it emits when the nucleus is hit) is<2 then it requires a constant feed of from an outside source to keep the reaction going and is thus not viable for energy production. if N<SUB>e</SUB> = 2 then the reaction will maintain itself (is critical) but needs a small little nudge every now and then to compensate for neutrons 'lost.' It is thus viable for energy production. If N<SUB>e</SUB> >2 you will constantly have to check it to see that it isn't going supercritical which could lead to heat buildup. So thorium is more inherently safe because if it is left to its own device, it will just shut down and there will not be a melt down. That sadly isn't the case for U or Pu. And when there is a meltdown you usually aren't to worried about the uranium as you are about things like Strontium or Polonium. Thats the really nasty stuff. But pretty much anything that emits alpha particles is worrisome. What they did at Oakridge when they were testing thorium, was make use of a so called 'cold-plug.' There would be, connected to the system running the molten salt thorium mixture (called a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)) a small pipe that was constantly cooled. This pipe would lead to a well sealed chamber where in case of a power outage the cooling of the plug would halt (as it requires energy) and all the material would drain away a solidify. They did this every Friday before they went home and when they came back Monday they would heat it up and pump it back in. It wasn't necessary, but they didn't want to come back in the weekend to check everything and this was cheaper. It worked really well. The benefit of it is that it is passively safe (doesn't requires energy to activate the safety mechanisms) instead of actively safe (requires energy to control situation) like it is for U and Pu. For U and Pu you must constantly pump the water, control the rods and have active backup systems that all require power. That was the major downfall in Fukushima. Once you knocked out the generators, the **** hit the fan. I personally think Uranium is a good source of power and that we should progress with thorium based reactors. Fussion is going to be a long ways away. Solar and wind are great as a backup energy, but I wouldnt recommend it seeing the vast quantities of REM's in them like Neodynium. A thorium reactor station about half the size of New Hampshire would be enough to power the entire US, whilst an area the size of west virginia is needed for windmills.

Zijn er hier mensen die naar de Universiteit Utrecht of Hogeschool Utrecht gaan die mogelijk samen willen afspreken om het over leuke dingen (zoals KSP) te hebben, samen bouwen of gewoon gezellig een biertje drinken?

is there a way to change the power curve to something more realistic? I would like to send probes to eeloo with more difficulty then it takes now. I've also found out that the lowest altitude froms one end of the powercurve (if you go lower it the e/s stays the same and the hihger altitude is the minimum.

I was just clarifying the seismic activity part. Sometimes when you say it is a very stable place, it means something else then what the general public thinks. They are indeed relativly safe storage sites and is indeed where I would put it. Ok, sorry. Misinterpetation. IT would be ultimate (and a nice way to keep our planet a little bit warmer xD) but for the same reasons I stated (and you probably already knew) it wouldnt be a good idea. But it is good to see we are on the same page now. The good news about that is that U235 and Pu239 are less likely to be needed. Recently (think it was 2008 or 2009) they developed a neutron emitter that is much easier and safer to use. I think it uses an isotope of strontium or something. I was looking around for it but couldnt find it (I think you understand that it isnt exactly a hot topic.) And what I was pointing at is that whilst a U235/Pu239 reactor must be constantly stabilized, a Th reactor must be constently unstabilized. It is inherently safe because it requires activation energy. If you ruptered a tank then everything could spew forth. Especially the xenon could be a problem. But this is where the LFTR comes in. If the vessel breaks it would drain out and then solidify. We then know where the problem is and a Fukushima like messup would be prevented. the proliferation concerns come when the Th is breed into U233. That is weapons grade material. The only thing that we should be thankfull for then is that it isnt easy to use because of the U232. Not really a strong plus point I will admit... I actually couldn't agree with you more. The bias with thorium is great and grand. I have the book Super Fuel by Richard Martin. It is like a Manifest Destiny of energy production. And ya, I did sum it up as the reason we have Uranium and not Thorium is because of the bombs, but in reality it came down to politics and how, sadly, the side supporting Uranium had more charisma and other things (like positions in the NAVY which forwarded the development of nuclear submarines.) And yes, it is said that we are still using GEN-I and GEN-II reactors when the designs are already at GEN-IV+ for uranium and several incredible designs for Thorium. And for that I do blame the eco movement (and in particular Greenpeace.) I would also like to say that if you are getting tired, I would stop responding. I get how it feels. I think I just misunderstood you wrong. There is a lot to read here so I guess I missed the comment you where commenting on. I would also like to say that dont view this (between you and me) as a discussion, but rather a conversation. This is a particularly friendly forum and I want to keep it that way. And no need for arguments when we support the same side:P On a finishing note: My aunt and uncle live in New York, and when I visited them on vacation my aunt said something very clever: "Ya, we live between two military training grounds and a nuclear power plant. So it's pretty quite here."

Calling TMI a meltdown would be giving it too much credit. It was a partial meltdown. They may seem like almost the same thing but there is a big difference between the two. And about that stability... I am studying geology and can tell you that practically no where is absent of seismic activity. Just because the rocks are old doesn't mean that there aren't fault lines. Cratons are indeed old (Precambrian rocks have been found) but it doesn't automatically mean it is stable. It is just more stable then average. And there are a lot of things to take into account with nuclear waste. You know you can recycle it? By doing that you remove the uranium that is still good and are left with a waste product that doesn't nearly have the half-life of U238. Also they are currently building a nuclear repository in Finland if I am correct. I wouldnt advise chucking barrels into a subduction zone. They aren't as 'disappearing' as one might think. The crust does subduct to a 100 or so km, but on top of that is a bunch of sediment that just sits there and it takes a long time for it to go down under with the rest. In the mean time the barrels could break for any number of reasons and releasing nuclear waste into an environment that we know little about and the consequences we know nothing about isn't a recipe for success. The strongest argument for nuclear energy is to talk 15 minutes out of your day to look up on Thorium and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's) They have a higher density of energy, is more readily available, is inherently safe (melt down is physically impossible if left to its own devices) and they can be made so small you could litterally run an airplane with one. (Dont believe me? check out this link.)

One of the big problems with nuclear energy is what people percieve as radioactive. When they say something is "highly radioactive" people think of "its going to be radioactive for millions of years!" In fact it is the complete opposite. Plutonium is highly radioactive because it has a short half life (something like 83 years) but U235 has a half life of something like 235 million years. People extracting uranium for fuel usually handle it without protective gear. In fact, if you see them with protective gear it is usually to protect the uranium from humans (oils, dust, you name it.) Its like burning coal to burning gas. They may have the same amount of energy, but gas burns immediatly while coal can talk a long time. But I'm not going around screaming "COAL WILL BLOW UP THE WORLD!!!"

U233 isnt usable for nuclear warheads. It gives off too much neutrons (I thought at least it was neutrons) which gives off a strong signal which is easily detectable. You could enrich it, but it would just be easier to get U235 and enrich it into U238. So that isnt a worry. Another thing about LFTR's is that it is very hard to extract the U233 from the salt. Thorium in a LFTR is the way to go. Only reason why it isnt being used today is because of politics in the 50's. They didnt only want energy, but a nice reserve of bomb making material. Thorium wouldnt provide that but U235 would.

Thats my main concern with the orion capsule. They said literally: We have a million lines of code to get to the moon, and when we are there we'll have a million lines more." I also like the comparison Neil DeGrasse Tyson made between the Soyuz and the Space Shuttle. The shuttle was described as the most complicated machine man ever has designed, so naturally many things can go wrong. The Soyuz is dead simple. Just short of point and fire actually. Its a good work horse that has redundancy. So it is no surprise that Soyuz 5 survived a disastrous fall from space while the shuttle lost some wing tiles and disintegrated (I know it isnt right to downplay it, but I am describing the complexity of the Space Shuttle right now) I would rather have a sturdy and reliable workhorse of a craft then something that has a million and one ways to fail. Don't get me wrong, I have full faith in the engineers working at and for NASA. There are SOOOOOOOO many success stories (lets not even get started on voyagers and Opportunity/Spirit,) but a complicated craft is not necessarily a good craft. If you don't have to deal with dangerous fuel lines IRL, then don't do it. Often times it is even more expensive and doesn't give you a net benefit (in costs and safety.) But it is good that somebody is trying it out IRL.