TheGatesofLogic

Okay... I think it might have something to do with KW rocketry actually, the engine thrust vectoring seems to be acting weird. My previous designs were not using the KW engines so this would explain a few odd bits.

sorry, i was referring to my rockets, i am absolutely lost as to why a perfectly radially symmetrical stick would be ROLL unstable...

my very large rocket lifters are always very roll unstable, and i don't understand why, they also seem to lack any semblance of control even though they have MASSIVE Control and Stabilizing fins on them (by massive i mean 6mx5m deltas) anyone had this issue before and know how to fix it?

I like this concept, partly because I'm very interested in the theory that inertia is a property of the quantum vacuum. I think the best way to do this would be to drain the mass of a ship on a percentage basis (slash the masses of all parts by a percentage technically) corresponding to an exponentially increasing power curve, so you end up with exponentially more power required for every bit of mass, would be done even better if it was asymptotic (would prevent a lot of bugs).

The map is misleading BECAUSE it only includes Cs-137.

First off, my uncle is just part of the source. I would rather not reveal my personal knowledge regarding of the matter since this is the internet, but I am quite familiar with the effects physiologically. But again, minimal physiological effects, and yes, that map is accurate, but what it doesn't do is describe the rate of decay and energies of the other products in comparison to their specific average distribution, since cesium is not very dangerous below ingested concentrations on the order of tens of ingested MBq per kilogram of body mass. In general the heavier aerosols, (typically shorter lasting, higher energy or longer lasting, higher energy) are dumped out of the atmosphere very quickly. The quantities of very high energy long lasting radioactive material that drifted outside the immediate area is very low, and the amount of short lasting low energy radioactive waste that drifted outside the immediate area was extremely high, thus the data looks more dangerous than it truly is, since short lived waste has very little time to interact with humans on a physiological level. (92.6% of the radioactive products by mass and 74% by energy of the chernobyl accident would be classified in the French Low Level Waste designation if it were reactor waste products, while almost all of the rest would be Intermiediate Level waste, leaving the truly dangerous stuff, the High Level and Very High Level stuff less than 1% of the total in either measurement basis) Edit for clarification: Cs-137 is a bad indicator in this sense as well, since it is one of the Low-level waste products i referred to and as such it leads to the map being very misleading

where did i get that crappy data? An uncle who led one of the response teams and worked at Oak-ridge national laboratory as the Non-destructive Assay Team Lead, but i also am very familiar with the data personally. To clarify my point before, when i said noticeable, i did not mean on a detection level basis, i meant on a physiological basis. The effects of the radiation outside of a 10 mile radius should have been miniscule physiologically. There certainly was a large amount of radioactive material released, however the percentage of which was aerosols was minor in comparison to what would ultimately be necessary to cause an effect on the body (for more regarding this look into hormesis and the ULLR laboratory). Also, the primary reason Belarus recieved such a comparatively high dose of contaminants was because the Soviets seeded rains in the area, forcing release of the aerosol particles, a move which arguable increased the rate of fallout so significantly that it should never have been done in the first place, as the concentrations would have been effectively lowered even if it had traveled to more populated regions.

Well, the Chernobyl reactor didn't actually release much aerosol radioactive material... Any study which claims it did is fabricating or misrepresenting data. In fact, there should have been no noticeable difference in the local radioactivity anywhere outside a 10 mile radius from the reactor. Chernobyl only had a noticeable effect on the health of about 3000 individuals, so unless you lived near to the reactor you didn't actually encounter any contamination at any marginal level.

The argument that viruses are not life because they require a host to replicate is foolish because by that very definition a large group of organisms we consider life without question would have to be excluded along the same premises. To explain: If you consider requiring a host for replication an exclusion for life then many parasites must now be considered non-lifeforms though they clearly demonstrate all other characteristics of life. Viruses, just like parasites, are a form of life that fill a niche. This niche may be so extremely parasitic that the lifeform does a marginal amount of the work in the process of its replication, but this replication would not be possible without the initial agent, and thus it acts in the same manner as all life.

if there is one thing that surprises me about chernobyl more than anything else, it is that it was constructed in the first place. The way it was constructed meant that it was built with two extremely stupid features, one: it had a positive temperature coefficient, which means that as the reactor got hotter it produced more thermal energy, which was very bad, and two: it was built without almost any shielding at all. Very poor design choices, even considering what they knew back then. The designers should have known far better.

boiling water reactors haven't been actively made since the early sixties... They are not very effective for nuclear energy actually, and they are very dangerous. The same applies to almost all power plants too, pressurized water reactors are orders of magnitude more efficient.

Not really... There's a reason we have symplectic integrators, and everything else is differentials that can be done easily with pen and paper. Really It would be pretty simple. All that's really necessary is a VERY long time. You'd be doing an interplanetary network path after all. Regardless you are right, everything is done beforehand, rather than on the fly

weird stuff with double post...

getting some issues with a freeze on game-loading, it always stops loading on this partload: PartLoader: Compiling Part 'UmbraSpaceIndustries/KarbonitePlus/Parts/KA_Drill_Radial_04/KA_Drill_Radial_04' at which point the loading freezes, although the game itself does not freeze...

ENTP, but I have little emotional capacity (psychopath, want evidence? Check my think/feel score) so many of my answers were choices rather than opinions, I used to be INTP though. E(11%)N(66%)T(92%)P(50%)

FAR. Although harder =/= better in all cases, consistency is quite important, and aerodynamics is a real life derivative which leads to certain expectations. When those expectations are not met to within some degree of leniency the process becomes non-intuitive. I choose FAR over NEAR because I tend to enjoy games that are challenging, and being able to plan out things is an important part of the challenge. I will occasionally play BTSM for this precise reason, however I am disappointed that FlowerChild is not in favor of balancing with respect to KIDS and FAR... NEAR also lacks the mach effects, which are beautiful

Wow, really interesting concept here, really ties together aspects of the game that I had hoped to see and includes a highly motivating "reward" for mining vs normal launches. Love the idea, will have to try it when you release it. Might i ask how soon a release will be? also, any plans for adding a custom exhaust animation for the fusion engine?

anyone know if tweakscale plays nice with FAR?

Actually, looking at the alterations to the mod right now, I'm not sure I would want it either

Anyone have an MM patch that changes the interstellar engines from requiring Liquid Fuel to requiring NFP liquid hydrogen that is properly balanced?

The general consensus is "We're not entirely sure if it works, needs more testing in more environments." and also "we're not sure how it would work if it does, needs more testing in more environments."

Huh, 35 degrees you say? That would not go well with any of my designs, i tend to start off with about a 1 .6 degree angle of attack going up to a 4 degree angle of attack by the time i'm reaching engine switch... Unless you are referring to static direction in which case i'm still rarely going more than 15-20 degrees above the horizontal... Edit: to clarify, this isn't by choice directly. I build my aircraft so they tend to be very forward stable, so a lot of effort is needed to shift the AoA without causing aerodynamic failure

First off, whales eat krill, not plankton. Very different things there. Second, life is not possible in vacuum. Like it was mentioned above, life can hibernate, however it does not have active processes. Thirdly, it is almost certainly contamination, no doubt about it.

Learned that very lesson actually as a result of choosing this username. Now, i think we can't reasonably make judgment regarding the device insofar as we lack all the required tests and data. We might, however, be able to compile a sequential list of the most likely scenarios firstly assuming that physics behaves as our current systems predict, and lastly assuming that physics behaves radically different in the immediate vicinity of the device. There is a non-zero chance for this to be a real reactionless thruster, but it would ultimately be expected to be a low end statistic. Ultimately we need more data and more tests to be certain.

Bring your socratic logic somewhere else, it causes people to become hostile and assume you are trying to act demeaning towards them, a rational discussion does not require a logical antithesis to every mistake, it requires merely cooperative parties on either side of the argument. You are not helping in that regard. In my opinion the torque measured is undoubtedly real, however the source of the torque ought to be the sole focus of further experiments. Theories that propose thrust as a result of the geomagnetic field are the most likely answer given the data thus far, however thisdoes not mean that they are the only answers available to us. Not until some model accurately describes every aspect of this machine's behavior and the experiments designed to verify these behaviors have the highest reliability will we know for certain.