Kerbface

I don't like or dislike furrys and I've explained several times why I'm here. .

Could you please not assume I hate you because I don't understand something? I am trying to get insight, just telling me to stop hating when it's not even what I'm doing isn't going to help.

Well technically it's our DNA and physical makeup I suppose. Though maybe you would only count it if the person had some sort of consciousness and the tiniest bit of sentience. But then again, that would mean people in a vegatative state and with perhaps some sort of severe mental disorder would not count but we still would count them, yeah I guess it's just the body.

I don't understand quantum physics that well but as far as I understand, that would just not be an orbit. As the object got closer to the speed of light it's mass would increase exponentially and it would be sucked in. Maybe?

I can think of loads of reasons people like those things, it's not just inherent, there are identifiable psychological aspects. I can't find a reason to like animals with human bodies, facial features and hair. I'm not trying to be rude, I'd just like to have some understanding of it. Is it some weird sort of "cuteness"? That's about all I can think of, I get the idea in movies that animals are cute and are sometimes given human facial features so you can identify with their emotions, but then I don't get why the human body features are there. As far as I've seen (Furry stuff is all over Deviantart) these things don't tend to be used for comedic juxtaposition. It's just "It's half animal half human. Why? It just is.".

I'm not hating on furries as a group but I always found these furry images to feel very creepy. I'm not entirely sure why, maybe it's some kind of uncanny valley thing. I guess I never really got what any of the appeal was, would someone mind explaining WHY they like drawing animals wearing clothes with humanistic features including body shape?

No aliens except possible rare, small, nonsentient life on maybe one planet. KSP is meant to be similar to our solar system and space technology and physics, it's not a high-scifi game. It's very much based on realism with certain breaks for practicality or gameplay purposes, but what it is not is Star Trek. It's also not and was never meant to be some kind of interplanetary economy simulator like Spore is (if I recall). People sometimes say "Well, it's not meant to be like our space programs because we can go to other planets and we never have before". Well, yes we haven't, but it's like if our space program had a much larger budget and didn't have to worry about politics. And wasn't part of the next update that the planets would be loaded only when needed to be more efficient?

I think this is just a case of people's tendency to liken space with airflight. Like if a ship is shot or blows up, the wreckage will fall, they might sometimes think of a reentry trajectory hitting a station as being like someone jumping and landing on a plane, the plane will still fly.

This would work in much the same way a bullet docks with a tin can on top of a fence.

I don't think it will ever be possible for any race to be able to rule more than an entire galaxy, even that seems like a huge stretch, but then again who am I to say? But really I can't see why you would even want to, what resources could there be that can't be found in an entire galaxy, and how could you hunger for more power when you have literally trillions of star systems under your control? You could never even hear the names of a billionth, let alone make any sort of governing decisions about them. I would think such a government, should it ever manage to form, would have to collapse under it's own weight very easily and it's laws would be nearly impossible to enforce in any organised or effective way. At any one time there'd probably be several million seccessions going on.

As interesting a hypothetical as having a core full of superdense material is, I don't see how it really makes sense anyway. How would such a system form that was roughly equally full of the stuff? Would it not have any effect on the formation of the planets, the shape of the gravitational field, etc., nor the internal workings of any of the planets? I think it's much easier to chalk it up to "it represents a realistically sized and composed system" but each to their own. And with communication, even if they were to require all ships to have communication dishes for you to keep track of them, what happens if you don't put one on? Your Kerbals all dissapear from your sight forever and you have to find them with another ship? Or what if they go out of range and then you change to another ship? Do you have to wait until they come back within range? Or do you allow the ship to still be accessed while out of range even though this essentially means the kerbals on the out of range ship would be able to have knowledge of the actions of the other ships?

The thing is it's a difference between something being put in place for gameplay purposes and it being actually how the developers intend it to realistically be. I guess I can't speak for them but I doubt in the generally physics following universe of KSP they're designing the planets based on the idea that they are made of superheavy elements. In this thread it's been explained that Laythe is designed to follow certain actual planetary principles like geothermal heating and volcanic activity caused by it's position in relation to a gas giant, you can see that they are attempting to design them based on some sort of reality. This is no different to how in the Elder Scrolls series you realise the provinces aren't actually that size in lore because most of them are about 6km^2 and none of them have the same scale despite supposedly existing in the same world. KSP is scaled down for gameplay's sake. It's a game, this isn't trying to alter reality. It's the same as how you can keep contact with all ships at once even if they don't have communication with each other. They're not actually supposed to be controlled by a mysterious being who is invisible but is capable of telling them the other crafts exact orbit to help them rendesvous or anything, it's like that because it's a game and it would suck if you could never retake control of your ships when they were out of communication and you had changed to following another ship.

Can we ignore the density thing? We all know that the Kerbal system is scaled down for gameplay purposes, we can probably imagine it is actually meant to be much bigger.

Well that all depends. If you wanted to go back to Earth at any point you'd want to have at least something like 0.8G so you didn't feel 3 times as heavy when you got there and be unable to support your own weight. That's only really a problem in the long term. Partial G is okay for missions or whatever when you're not going to be in space longer than 5 or so years, or if you're planning on returning to Mars. A martian station would want to rotate at martian gravity, which is between 0.3 and 0.4g (maybe that's why it was suggested). I also imagine if you wanted to go back to Earth after living in partial G like Mars , I expect you'd need to be made gradually used to higher gravity over a period of months or years so you don't collapse under your own weight from your weakened muscles. Going to Earth straight after living for ages on Mars would probably be like if you started walking around with someone piggy backing on you all the time.

Ah, but a few dozen metres under water and that goes away because water is so good at blocking radiation, yes?

How is this supposed to work? This wouldn't work in real life, right?

Discovery 1 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's just so cool. Such a sleek and mostly realistic design, that big sphere at the front with the slit where the command room windows are, those beautiful interiors and that centrifuge. It's just so awesome watching Frank run around it, beds, tables and monitors swirling past him. And the EVA pods. Watching as the camera pans the length of the ship.

Is there an actual causal link between country and suicide or is it coincidence?

Well, a 2km diameter station can give 1G at just under 1rpm, which is okay for basically anyone to adapt to fairly quickly but I don't know what effect it would have on fetal and child development. Maybe they would not be able to adapt to a static coriolis free environment. In any case I doubt that a permanent colony would ever exist with a station much smaller. Then there's like the serious colony ideas where you could have a ring or cylinder maybe 10km in diamter, which would allow 0.4rpm or 1 rotation per 2 min 30 seconds would give 0.9G, which would probably be barely noticeable except that things would move a bit funny when they fall.

Actually porting to consoles takes plenty of effort and the game is nowhere near complete anyway. Possibly when it's complete but it probably wouldn't work too well on consoles anyway.

I think it's a similar thing with me (though I don't know how to calculate orbital mechanics, dV etc. yet), math can be interesting but perhaps it just seems to abstract. Maybe you need to be able to see the practical effects for it to interest you, and they have to be interesting practical effects.

ah forget it

That's an interesting video but the suit does have a rather 50's B-movie feel to it (which is fair since it's made out of scrap material). I think I'm looking for something a bit more familiar than that, though I might use one or two of those techniques. The helmet looked a bit funny but I do like the idea of using bike helmets for the general shape, that could work. That plastic cover from an old TV sounds hard to come by, I've never seen a TV with something resembling that, and not really the best shape for me anyway. For what I want it to look like, I'm really not sure about details. I'm kind of just going with what I can find. Most space suits seem to have a lot of tubes going into parts on the front, what are they for? If it's what I think it is, delivering oxygen, why do they need to be on the front? I would have thought they could be more compact and just attatched at the back. Generally speaking I'd want to go for something generally form fitting but not skintight, like the gemini suit. I'll probably add some detailing, maybe some extra satchels for storage and a harness like thing for attatching to the whatever you hook onto if you need to be tethered, and a device on the wrist for general data monitoring and communications with a screen and a set of buttons. The helmet is currently the thing I'm most unsure about how to do. EDIT: And it's going to be orange because orange is a nice suit colour and I found a good cotton orange coverall.

Chris Hadfield is a pretty hoopy frood.

Well I still wonder about a probe sent out with gravity assists on a much larger rocket so it could accelerate afterwards as well (or before if that's more efficient) to explore in detail and for a very long time, what lies beyond the edge of the solar system.