rpayne88

This is a bit off topic, but you're not exactly right. In instrument meteorological conditions (IMC, AKA bad weather,) pilots are told to rely on their instruments. They also need an instrument rating to do that. Otherwise, (with the exception of flying in class A airspace) flying consists of avoiding IMC and flying under visual flight rules (VFR) using the horizon as a reference. The only time a VFR pilot relies solely on his/her instruments is in the case of inadvertent flight into IMC, in which the procedure is to maintain altitude, make a 180 degree turn, and fly straight and level until they can see the horizon again. That is the only reason student pilots occasional fly "under the hood."

Currently, the brakes in KSP seem to only be able to lock. If I press B, even if I release it, the brakes will remain on. This has led to numerous flips and spins on the runway. Maybe you could make it so they don't lock up all the time.

Which means that point is valid. Intelligent life, though, is a different story.

Didn't they find living bacteria on Mars, or did I just mishear the news story a few years back?

The Northrop YB-49 wasn't stable without fly by wire either (it hadn't been invented yet,) but people still managed to fly it in test flights. I'm sure a highly trained pilot can take over and land the thing if computer systems failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gemini This had potential but was canceled before it could mature.

If you ever study human geography you will find that a population will eventually reach a point where the death rate (from natural causes) equals the birth rate. The Earth's population is still increasing, up to the estimated 10 billion person carrying capacity of the planet. Most of these people are in developing nations where the crude birth rate greatly exceeds the crude death rate, leading to a population increase. When we reach carrying capacity, those people will no longer be able to sustain themselves, and will (how do I put this softly) die off. This increases the crude death rate to meet the crude birth rate, thereby stabilizing the population. We (you, I, and most of the people on the forums) are lucky. We live in developed nations with more than enough money to import crops from elsewhere, despite the increased food cost. As cruel as it sounds, our nations may just sit back, accept the temporary increase in food costs, and ride the famine out. Once enough people (unfortunately) die, the population will have dropped significantly below the planet's carrying capacity. This in turn will cause a decrease in food prices and the population will begin to rise again. The cycle will continue to repeat itself until it reaches an equilibrium. And it is possible to reach equilibrium. Look at Japan, in which the crude death rate exceeds the crude birth rate. Their population is decreasing due solely to the fact that people are willingly reproducing only once, or not at all. As far as water is concerned, we have absolutely NO shortage of it. The planet is 75% water. Developed countries can afford massive desalination plants on the cost to supply them with water. Maybe the can even afford to "donate" money to less developed nations to finance the construction of desalination plants. Land locked nations are a different story, though. Unfortunately, given the time frame of 41 years, I fear it is too late to avert such as disaster. But if we get started NOW, and find a way to do so cheaply, we may be able to minimize the number of fatalities (I don't know how many cycles it would take to reach equilibrium.)

They are going to have to add crew when they decide to take people up. If they make it anything like the airlines, you're going to have flight attendants and cabin crew. As for the actual piloting of the spacecraft, they will also need to add crew. Although it is more than capable of flying a mission itself, what happens when it's guidance systems fail (and given enough flights, they will) and its carrying people. If there are no pilots, you may as well start signing the passenger's death certificates. If that happens, they WILL lose contracts for manned flights until they add in an alternative (i.e. human pilot) guidance system. Look at airliners, IIRC they can handle everything from takeoff roll to touchdown. The pilots on those only need to taxi the thing and take over in an emergency. Edit: Ninja'd

You know there is a very kerbal way to fix that, right? Send up a ship with an I-beam on it and ram the RCS port hard enough that it explodes. Just don't take out the capsule at the same time.

Slamming an 80lbs bar into my knee working out today. Oh, in KSP Getting to Jool and forgetting a heatshield (I play with DRE.)

Sorry if someone already asked this. I noticed that each EVA'd kerbal and command pod has a radiation exposure tab. I've also noticed you have included background radiation in space. Can this radiation harm my kerbals?

Maybe we can convince NASA to launch a mission back there to retire said flag (I've been told that if a flag touches the ground it should be ceremoniously destroyed) and replace it.

That's the reason I use ADDS over T.V. weather (glad I'm working on a pilot's license.) I can see the wind, its direction, temperature and dew point (I just need to get used to using Celsius for this. Yes I know 100 is boiling and 0 is freezing.)

Maybe A. If we have the capability to return to Earth, but the mission is to set up a permanent settlement, I would go (kind of like how the Pilgrims could've gotten back on the Mayflower and returned to England.) But if it was a one way, you are guaranteed to die there sort of mission, then no. B. No. Technical and ethical reasons, the fact humanity may have died out by the time you wake up, and the fact you would likely be out of contact with Earth would stop me there. And its pretty much the same thing as A. C. So you are sending a sperm cell and an egg to be fertilized by robots and developed to be dropped onto an alien world with no parental supervision? Lets see what is wrong with that. First, the child would have to be living to consume milk, or what ever substitute you decided to use. Next, the child would need to spend about 24 years being educated (and fed.) During those 24 years, s/he is living in TOTAL isolation from every other human being, being raised by machines that look nothing like him/her. Humans are intelligent enough to tell the difference between themselves and something else. What happens when the child becomes aware of his/her origins and isolation? What happens when s/he becomes aware that with every passing second, s/he is becoming only more isolated from the rest of humanity? I can see this driving an individual to madness (this is a person, not a physiologically conditioned astronaut), possibly resulting in suicide and the failure of a multi-billion (which may be an understatement) dollar space mission? Assuming that s/he gets to his/her intended destination alive, why would s/he obey commands from Earth? At this point, s/he has likely discovered the reason s/he was sent. I would not be surprised if s/he wound up P----ed off at humanity for his/her creation and decided to rebel by not preforming his/her mission and shutting down the comms link. Now send a group of eggs and sperm, and you now get several children that must be raised by machines and may become aware that, other than each other, they are alone. Breeding a child in a test tube with no family or parental guidance for a scientific pursuit is, IMO, wrong. How can we still call ourselves humans knowing we sent the building blocks of an unknowing child out to the stars, and eternal isolation? IMO, this is one example where science conflicts with humanity. If the study of science is a human endeavor, made to better humanity, how can we justify an extreme lack of to one or more of our offspring by sending them on such a mission?

What about colonizing a few asteroids in the asteroid belt, and launching them out of the solar system? You would have the structure of your ship already made for you. All you would have to do is bore out living space (one of the few things war has given us is explosives, which would help with this) and add life support and propulsion. You may not even need that much propulsion (slingshot around a neutron star that is going to destroy Earth, anyone?) Never mind the fact that we would be able to get much more people, if not all of us, and possibly wildlife and plants off as well. Granted, I am typing this as it comes to my head, so I more than likely made a mistake or gross overstatement of our capabilities somewhere.

IIRC, 7:00PM (or 19:00 for those in the military or do not use the AM/ PM system) UTC. Edit: Could've sworn I saw an article on MSN saying it would get here at 3PM ET. I can't find it now.

There are microbes that eat rock. Maybe those could be used to provide nourishment for more advanced life.

I can't download it. I'm getting a message saying the page is not available.

Well, it is possible to get from the surface of Gilly to Kerbin with just an RCS pack. Probably landed on his head an bounced upon impacting Kerbin.

IIRC, someone, or some agency, calculated how many czar bomba- like explosions would be needed to alter the Earth's orbit. I forget the number, but the number was so large that there wouldn't be enough room on the side of the planet.

download a mod that will let you up the max size of your ships to something like 100km and build a city in orbit, around Eello, in a single launch.

Does it simulate recoil. I personally have never been one for weapons in KSP, but I would like to try to build an ornothopter. IIRC, that used the recoil from machine guns to provide lift.

In stock: If they land before you are 2.5km away, they will stay as they are. If they are still in the air, they will despawn. Try a mod such as TT never unload to make them land safely.

Damn it. I've got a blizzard over my house right now.

This has to do with the forum. Maybe its just my system, but I seem to be getting a Verizon Fios popup every time I click on a thread now. And I use Comcast.