AngelLestat

Ok I see. So you can change dll with module manager? One question, what unit use squad for this? I would love to have kw/h, also is the only way to balance how much energy you get from a X area of PV. About the decreasing efficiency due heat, I guess this is only noticeable at distances closer than mojo, beyond that the power collected stop increase to the square, and starts to increase more linear until certain point were it will start to decrease again. But I guess is a bit pointless to include this effect. In fact, there are PV cells that are made for higher concentrated flux working at +500c

Ok @NonWonderDog I understand you. I am not sure yet how masses and scales would fit, but I will love helping in testing if this mod reach alpha. You said that the rocket scales are the same that stock? This mean that all mods will be compatible? In your first post you said that even at 6.4 scale we wouldn't notice textures degradation, how's that?

I guess that KSP tech size limiter is silly. In real life we are not limited by size in any structure we do. Only by cost and the type of material that we use. Tech can give us new materials which increase our strength over the same mass, then our budget will be the one that limits the things we can build.

How do you do it? You take 1Au at kerbin-kerbol distance and then you apply E = 1366w/m2 • (1/Distance)^2 to calculate the radiation incidence, then you take the ~35% of that for PVcells and apply another equation to mimic efficiency losses due heat?

One question that I did before and nobody answer me. This mod will have configs only for 6.4x version? Also, what does it mean in scale? Kerbin scale and solar system scales? Why RSS is 64x? I thought that RSS was 10x Now.. about balance.. I guess you will make a mistake that many mod developers do; try to match real physsics and numbers with low KSP scales. Squad implement low kerbin system scales to avoid wait 10 mins for each test or attempt to reach orbit. But they wanted to had (even at low scales) similar rocket looks and masses (with fuel consumptions in %), with similar deltav losses in % due atmosphere drag. For example, FAR improves all the aerodynamics system with real values and equations, but it does not match deltav % losses due drag in low scale kerbin. Another example: If you want to make real solar panels for low kerbol system scale, then you take 1 au as kerbin-kerbol distance, then you match 1366w/m2 at that distance and apply this equation using AU as distance unit: E = 1366 • (1/Distance)2 to find how radiation incidences decrease or increase due distance. With RSS is easy, you just match real equations and numbers and thats it. But you need to work a bit more. You need to find the right parameters on engine mass, or fuel consumption equations to match similar rocket aspects at 6.4x Then you decrease your time to orbit, but it will still looks like real in all the other aspects.

Hi, I install only 3 parts of this mod. One is the double engine named Maverick-1D with 350 thrust. But I have one problem, even with active memory reduction, when I use this engine (I mean 12 engines like this in 3 first stage bossters "spacex style") my frame rate drops to 4 or 6. If I use normal ksp engines (2 for each Maverick-1D that I remplace) I have less frame rate problems. So I guess the problem is with the FX particle exhaust. How can I tune it to improve performance? PREFAB_PARTICLE { name = smoke1 prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light transformName = OldFXTransform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 0 } PREFAB_PARTICLE { name = smoke2 prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light transformName = OldFX2Transform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 0 } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/ks1_Exhaust transformName = FX2Transform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.055 0.15 emission = 0.6 0.8 speed = 0.0 0.5 speed = 1.0 1.2 } Any idea?

not sure about the time scale, I read all climate change articles and I detect certain tendency.. every time they discover that it would happen faster than their previous thought. In fact if we stop to burn oil now, the earth temperature will continue to rise over the next 50 to 100 years. But we are in the unknown, the only thing that all scientist agree, is that temperature will rise and it will be bad. Our current models are not so accurate to measure so many different factors all working toghether over the next year. About the difference in temperature over earth and venus due sun distance, the differece is very small, but may be enoght. Even 5 degress here in earth seems pretty devastating.

The problem with temperature may be more related to change in currents due climate change, of course that other causes may be more related to certain coral areas. About invasive species, I guess the most dangerous is the Human, but as we can not kill our self, we kill the other invasive species. I dint understand the dynamite example.. that was a joke? XD We know that Venus does not have more carbonate rocks anymore, so they decomposes before.. How? well something sure is that venus had similar amount of water than earth.. That could be trigger the first greenhouse effect with higher temperatures than now. There is a note in this page: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p25s02-stss.html "Venus may very well have had carbonate rocks in the past, but as things started to heat up, the rocks got baked. As carbonate rocks heat up, their carbon dioxide gets baked out. When that temperature threshold was passed, perhaps billions of years ago, the rocks began to exhale carbon dioxide." Also may be that earth has some effects which help to counter (until certain point) this chain of events that venus dint have. - - - Updated - - - Maybe you will find some aliens doing the same mistake we do.

Is not like that, we are saying that a little increase in co2, can increase the greenhouse effect which would trap more heat from the sun, which would melt more ice (so less solar light reflected), then methane is release due melting permafrost, which rise the greenhouse effect, which bring more temperature so more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increase the greenhouse effect and so go on, until you become Venus.. That is the global warming doom. But we are not sure if burning all the trees can trigger that. The true is that we dont know for sure, as I said it can be enoght to trigger a chain of events. Climate is too complicate, for that reason we need to go to venus and find out what happen there with certain and test our climate models in venus, any deviation would help us to correct climate models here. Then we can know for sure how bad is our current path, also can give us clues in what is the best way to stop it. Read my other responces.. Here is info about coral reef: However, coral reefs are fragile ecosystems, partly because they are very sensitive to water temperature. They are under threat from climate change, oceanic acidification, blast fishing, cyanide fishing for aquarium fish, sunscreen use,[7] overuse of reef resources, and harmful land-use practices, including urban and agricultural runoff and water pollution, which can harm reefs by encouraging excess algal growth This effect may or may not be enoght to trigger a venus process. But is very probably that would cause a mass extintion. ok nfun, but what is the % of carbon in this?

you can get temperatures higher than venus here on earth, because you have a full ocean that can become into vapor which will increase the greenhouse effect by a lot plus +200 atm on pressure. So yes, the temperatures may be high enoght to melt almost anything.

Yeah trees help to increase the rain due to evapo-transpiration. They capture dew in the morning at night (condensation), water from rivers, and rain (before reach deep aquifers). Then they release all that water into the atmosphere again. So if we burn trees, all that extra co2, plus all the co2 that it would not absorbed for these tress, plus all the animals and plants and bacterya that would also die in this burn, plus all that biggers particles or co that you also release to the atmosphere that would block sun light for some weeks (not sure the effect of that). A small change in the ocean temperature would kill all coral reef, then all that ecosystem fails which cause a chain reaction in different ecosystems. The true is, I am not sure what would happen, but earth had previous mass extintion before due similar cases, for example huge volcanic activity who burn a big carbon reservoir in siberia (if I dont bad remember)

I know.. but if the temperature rise just a little, you can end with a chain reaction, and if that happen, all that buried co2 would burn too with the time. Someone has right numbers to see of what percentage we are talking about?

I read in some place that venus and earth had similar amount of carbon, so if all that carbon is release into the atmosphere, we would have the same 90 atm of atmosphere that venus has with its 98% of co2. Plus: all the ocean water will become in vapor which would end in a super green house effect worst than Venus.. With a atmosphere pressure of 200 atm or more.. Not sure if there is a natural process that can avoid this by some way of equilibrium.

co2 dint help to prevent h2 escape on venus. With mars gravity this effect would be even faster. I guess the main venus issue who remove all the water of venus was due high amount of radioactive materials in its core. These mean that the core never get cold enoght to become solid, so never had a magnetic field to avoid the H2 escape. Also the low rotation speed of venus is also a mistery.

Besides the 3 links that I show you in the first post, the wiki link that somebody else post and all the notes on internet? You are a big boy, google does not bite.. Just search "breathing liquid" or "perfluorocarbon" or "navy seal", or any doubt that you must have. nonsense buzzwords??? I explain almost all details, I write as 30 lines for you. What else you want? You wanna a note with studies confirming human test over a lifetime?? yeah I dont have those.. it may be health problems with long exposure or it may not.. I dont have any evidence pointing in any of those ways. This is the same to ask: "show me evidence that you can cross interstellar distances without hit any rock." This lack of knowledge forbids us to talk about the posibility of interstellar travel? not really.. About to find it in naturally, is just carbon with flour, but as I said many times, they use this because is one of the best substances that can carry oxygen and co2, you have also silicato oils, etc. But you can also use hydrogen peroxide or who knows how much combinations, if you filter your co2 from your veins. And I never said that you will find that in enceladus, I was just picking the best scenary that I imagine. Just as an example that we need to be open to any possibility. true or not sure... In venus you might fine metals rain at 10 km height. 1)We can not be sure about that, and we dont know yet of how many compunds are good carrying oxygen. You have layers of other compunds in the oceans and caverns that looks like the water surface inside the water. 2) why not, just one vein as it show here: http://www.independent.co.uk/migration_catalog/article5262850.ece/binary/original/DiverSuit.jpeg Also if you dont like the enceladus special example, just choose other. yesterday I read about a earth related discovery who help scientist to realized that a mars cavern could have liquid water and prosperous life due normal pressure -temperature levels plus radiation protection. So as I said.. we need to think in 3D. Why the pressure needs to be so high? If you breath liquid, the pressure may be from aprox 0.5 to 100 atm or maybe more. What I mean to said when I speak of high pressure with liquid breathing, is that it may be liquids that become good carrying oxygen at certain pressure. Which would increase the amount of compounds that may fulfill this scenary. 0.2 to 15 atm, higher than that is just for the liquid breathing case. And mars has 0,006 atm Yeah both had reason in these points. What I wanted to change, is that global vision of "oh.. it has land.. it must be a good place". We have that response because when we see mars, we are seeing just a picture of mars.. in other words, only our sense of sight. But we have many other senses, the experience of all combined is what it guide us to said: "yeah.. this feels like home"

I guees the first step it would be set all the planet conditions, and then you can think in a story for the star system formation (or planet capture) to validate those conditions that the planet has. I find something better The confirmation of this theory: http://www.exoclimes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Hu_Yongyun_exoclimes3.pdf It seems that tidal locked cases would have a lot of sense orbiting dwarf stars, I was reading about them and there is many things that can be used to an story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems The first 1billion years from a dwarf star formation are very intense in variability on the energy flux. If the planets form at the same time, it may be difficult to keep its atmosphere due erosion. There are many way to avoid this, but if we wanna keep it simple, the planet could be in at higher orbit at first, and then capture into a lower orbit. First you dont need a 100 atm atmosphere. It can have 2 or 5 or 10 atm. If we keep the dwarf case, then the world can be far enoght from the star, but due how dense the atmosphere is, it will trap enoght heat to have human temperature at the surface. Also less energy receive from the star, the super rotation winds (in case you dont have much water) would be weaker. A thicker atmosphere helps against radiation (in case the flux variability of the star is not completely finished), and it will not have strong magnetic fields with low rotation speeds. So playing with the amount of water, gravity (influences the pressure and thick of the atmosphere), distance to the dwarf star and how thick is the atmosphere; you can find any scenery you want for an story. I made in other topic a set of parameters-conditions (just as a guide, I do not pretend to be super accurate) on pressure, gravity, temperature, radioactivity, etc. where humans can survive and reproduce. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108772-Living-at-other-worlds-A-paradigm-shift

Yes I did.. Thanks for the clarification. But to be fair, is not their complete fault, they had not enoght funds or political incentives. Of course not, they just lack of talent and vision as I said. You may find some exceptions of course, but we are talking of the general branche. Something that work in the 60th, it will keep working in the new century. Forget about new faster and light computers, forget about new materials, forget about new manufacture techniques, forget about testing new ways of propulsion. yeah.. that is the aerospace industry right now. They was in the edge of technology before. Now they have afraid to change a single screw from their old designs. That is not the way to accomplish breakthrough. What are you talking about? We are talking about an economic study! Not the feasibility of the whole project in all areas. You take as base that the skylon works and it can carry a payload of 15Tons with certain sizes. It does not matter if it is possible or not.. is an economic study about profits. So you need to know all the cost involves, the skylon project already comes with some details of how all the procedures of the operation will be carry around. You can interview some engineers to fill the gaps on the operations, but this does not mean that he has something to said about cost. This economic team knows what markets may or not arise with these new launch cost. They know how to manage loans, tax deductions, investments, how much to charge, etc.. Because that is what they do all the time. What knows an engineer about that? he may said.. oh I hear that the ground operations for delta4 is about 10 millons.. But he does not know if that exclude cost derivatives of investors, or retrospective payments, or if worth compare the same value with very different ground operation, etc. Try to find an economist in the teams who work in this last venus concept mission. is the same, in this case they study if it was possible, not how much it would cost. Lol you are telling me? I dint remember you when I come back to the forum this last month, but since I did I receive full negative comments from you, in fact it seems that you was so focus in this task that you dint think at all the points you made. Then I remember that we discuss before in the global warming technologies thread. It does not matter for me, I love to discuss with you.. I find that there is not point to discuss with somebody who think the same that you. This helps for learn new things and to find mistakes in our own ideas. True, because they are cancelled in the design step.. They need to design missions taking into account what launcher they had avariable.

Yeah, in 1950 to 1970 we had awesome engineers and people with vision who give us great technological leaps. in the next 45 years, the space industry get full of people without talent or vision. Now we have the oportunity to read some of their thought here. Meanwhile in the same time lapse, we experience huge breakthroughs in all the others technological branches. Lol, are you joking? You need enginneers for an economic study? Following your logic then we can call an economist to tell us if is possible to land in mars under certain DeltaV.. yeah.. I guess is all said.. About Nibb, heh, I can make a compilation of his best quotes and answers. I accept that Nasa does not need to believe if can or cannot be done to fund this project. maybe because that is the most important part?? the key of the whole system.. First, knowing the lack of logic and economics sense from you two, I would choose always the official cost estimations. But even if ends being 5 times more, what is the issue?? Development cost always exceed the preliminary estimation.. nothing would be develope if you take always as limit the preliminaty estimation. You mean as going to the moon when TV was our biggest breakthrough of that time? Is because of that kind of mindsets we were trap these last 45 years! You are part of that problem. ????? So you can not launch 2 or 3 sattellites at the same time? You can not provide new explorations missions which were cancelled for the lack of heavy launchers? It can not be a new type of craft now that the payload design requiments change? Also why the falcon heavy expendable version would take MORE TIME to develope or enter in use than the reusable? lol, they had lower prizes even if they drop all stages to the trash by a big margin against other competitors.. so why it would be a trouble? ?? why it matters if they needed or not? that is your explanation of why it would not be falcon heavy launches this year? Those clients already signed the contract. Not me, I have not memories of being wrong when I bet for certain technology. Not sure, I guess it will be much safe not only due the multiple engines, also due the materials involve, they achieve a 40% (something about structural limits) against 20% from all other launchers. Yeah, those things is when I talk about know why other launchers fail to compare with spacex.The merlin engine provides 150 thrust/weight ratio against 40 of other common used engines. Extra ISP, lower aerodynamic drag (thin tank structure), lightweight materials, etc. When you compare the size of falcon heavy against similar payload launchers (not delta4 because it uses hydrogen), then you notice a big increase in performance.

I dont see the point on manned fly-by, in fact, I feel bad for the astronauts which they need to be 2 years in orbit, without radiative protection (maybe not artificial gravity) just to see mars or venus one day.

Our lungs can do the job. It all depends on how much oxygen the special liquid can carry. For example water can not carry enoght oxygen to allow us to breath.Also this was done before in navy seals practice, with babies and adults under certain circustances, so is tested and it works. Now about pressure, Solids and liquids are almost incompressible, gasses by other hand, are very compressible. The only part of your body that will be affected by pressure if you breath air are lungs and ears. The ears problem is easy to solve, simple, you can not avoid water to enter inside your ears, so that air chamber is gone.. Second problem are the lungs. at 300mts the lungs had a size of 10% You can still breath (if you are a pro), but that is the limit. If you have liquid rich in oxygen inside your lungs you can breath and the lungs will be at full size at any pressure. Many of the big misconceptions on physsics comes when scientist try to call the viewer attentions using big numbers and wrong examples. Like here with my estimated Michio Kaku. http://youtu.be/nf_mxmrDTV8?t=2m10s The true is that he can not use the car example. Because you get equal pressure from each direcction over each molecule of your body. Very different than had a truck over your chest when your molecules can move far from the wheel. So is like try to crush a paper making pressure from both sides. well, that is not entirely true. Scientist believe that winds on venus are controling the planet rotation. Venus is the only planet that rotates counter-clockwise at very low speed, is measure that the force that winds produce over the surface (92 atm constant 4m/s wind) is enoght to produce changes on the planet rotation over longer periods of time. Maybe venus rotation was as any other planet (maybe slower) but it change due winds. Returning to the subject, winds depends on planet rotation and in thermal conditions. Of course if you take the rotation planet speed as patron speed, then the difference is what we call "winds". Some of the misconceptions comes with the wrong use of the word winds, I maybe help in that. We always had relative speeds from one object of study to the other. Yeah that is a strong factor, but I cant estimate in what conditions this may happen.

Why you said so? I know they always late in their dates, but from the 3 launch expected to zero.. seems very unlikely. Well, I am one of those naive then. I understand what are they doing, I understand why others fail.. So I maintain my position. I had similar discussions with graphene back then in 2007, now many of the apps and uses which I commented that will rise first, some already are in sale, others are almost ready to come out. I said that venus had a lot benefics for a manned mission and as permanent outpost, 1 year back: nasa concept mission video. I said that the prototype of aeroscraft had a lot of sense as comercial airship transport, 1 year back: they had 20 in production many times bigger than the prototype. I was almost alone in all those discussions too. So I will take my chances. Yeah I remember, but as you can see nothing change. Ahh yes.. one thing change.. the ESA study about the economic feasibility of skylon was finish and confirm previous estimations, the feasibility study about the sabre engine was finish, they approve the funds and they started with the developments. Now we just need to way for the feasibility study of skylon. But I wonder.. how a group with economic professionals conclude after several months of study, that skylon would had a lot of sense when nibb31 and you was trying to convince me from the otherwise? The same for all the people working in spacex, why they think (including their investors "nasa") that it has economic sense? No, because the second stage engine has more ISP for Vaccum. Also you need to keep that modularity (only 2 parts that work for any rocket, falcon9 or falcon heavy LO and GTO) But I have my doubts if the center core stage can be recover in cases of +35Tons of payload at LEO. For GTO payloads has more sense. I can read the answers that you give me in this post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108756-SpaceX-Falcon-Heavy?p=1700298&viewfull=1#post1700298 Until that point the discussion was productive. But if you start to negate everything making excuses as "Because that's the vast majority of the market, current and projected, and always has been." then what is the point? You are saying that can not be a new market because today projections using today launch cost does not predict any new market.. They can estimate some tends in the general launch cost drop, but they can not predict or estimate what would happen if spacex achieve full reusable program. So all your estimations comes from the box.

The center core does not go back, decouple from the second stage before this one reach orbit, and then burn in prograde to complete the turn to go back from orbit. The second stage push the payload to low orbit.. In case of GTO, the center core completes the orbit and then you have the full second stage to reach GTO and go back. Yeah, I one of them.. And you should go back to school because you dont know to read. I give you many examples that you complete negate, sorry, I can not help you anymore. It will reach the day where you would see it with your own eyes. Is the first year from a launch vehicle who never was tested. What you expected?

The atmospheres at different levels had different components which you can process. I am agree that these gas giants may not be the best candidates for colonization due how hard is to leave the gravity well and how hard is to float in an atmosphere that already has a lot of hellium and hydrogen. So even if you use hot hydrogen, you would not get much lift of it. But not sure what is the composition on lower layers. We practice with perlurocarbons... but is not the only substance that can carry oxygen.Another substance that works is silicone oil. But they choose these because they are good for transport oxygen as co2. But if you search for only Oxygen rich liquids and you filter the co2 directly from one of your veins, then you have many candidates to choose. Maybe hydrogen peroxide. You are right about a gas atmosphere of 100 ATM, it will be very hot. But it can be a liquid, as they are not compressive, they temperature does not rise with the pressure. Also you dont need 100 atm to use this, you can use it at 1atm, or 10atm, or 100 or more. What you might find that certain liquid can only capture oxygen at certain pressure. That is where your liquid possibilities rise a lot. Also remember that these studies never get many founds, because there is not a clear commercial use yet. So the fact that we know few breathing liquids it does not mean there are few. As you can see in all my values, I took the ones that had sense in long term exposure. But I never check Duna pressure. I had only an idea that was much dense than mars. The idea to this post is to look in all places, in this solar system or in hypothetical star systems. Just to see if there is places where we can survive that we never thought about it. No, from Argentina, here is called Cachalote. From the english wiki I had 2 names to choose.. Sperm whale and cachalot. So I made the obvious choose for me But is breathing gases without problems on decompression sickness. And goes down to 2000 mts! Many think that the pressure would crush you literally. This is a prove that what it kills you is not the pressure. Are the gasses inside you. Yeah I draw a similar rollercoaster before, here you go: http://s20.postimg.org/jdf1f7a7x/Moon_Artificial_Gravity.jpg In enceladus case, the gravity is so low, that it can be just a cylinder. With a extra envelope layer so you dont get friction with the water. If you live and breath inside the water without envelope, then you dont need to have artificial gravity. In fact gravity inside a liquid it feels as a pressure in all your body from all directions. That is why you can live in worlds with 20G if you are swimming. You feel like fire because you never done that kind of effort with your lungs, is like you go out to run for first time when you never do any exercise. You feel your muscles burn. And the lungs are muscles. They just need to get used to. But is true that perflurocarbons are not the best because they are almost 2 times more viscous than water. But this does not mean that you can not find better liquids to do the job. Or you can have two ducts to your lungs moving that liquid for you. The problem is that you need to be brave enoght to resist the drowning effects of the first seconds.

You can not transmit usefull information using Entanglement particles. In case of black holes, well... I dont understand the requirements to avoid the information paradox to see if this type of "data" is enoght.. Scientist are jumping between theories without much care just to get rid of this paradox.

Hi Nibb, how are you doing? heh, my falcon9, and falcon heavy from ksp are made in Stock size kerbin, I said that when I post the images here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108756-SpaceX-Falcon-Heavy?p=1699114&viewfull=1#post1699114 I said:"This was not Real solar system mod, so it was a terrible comparison, but even with that I had the hunch that longer booster as we can see in the page had no sense." The thing that you are answer me was a recomendation to @Frozen_Heart after I read its estimations. Because everybody thinks that you burn up a lot of fuel to return the stage, but there are not taking into account that you do it with only the dry mass of the single tank. The speed component and distant that you need to counter is not much, and the earth still rotates, so the launch site comes to you (is not much, but it helps). My experiment with the stock version help me to understand the maneuvers involve, some rought aproximation to the fuel ratio and the fact that was not point in make the booster biggers as Elon musk commented before. And I was right about the boosters. It does not have point from the trajectory point of view, and it does not have a point from the economic and manufacture point of view. Keep saying that, you drop an airplane to the trash in each fly and you just reduce a 20% the cost of the tickets? As I said, your developing cost is wrong, that comes from the investments, it does not have any effect in the launch cost and you ignore complety the testing cost with many other cost reductions that you get doing many launchs. In fact Elon Musk said that it is very important to reuse all stages, because if you drop always one, your launch rate does not increase, this increase your cost a lot by many reasons that I explain already. If you launch many rockets, it seems that ground systems are working fine. So there is not need to make weeks of test over and over. I already explain the cost of satellites and all the new market that will arise. Because they still can not launch rockets so often Duuh! The test involves for each launch take a lot of time and they have limit number of employees. If they can launch craft more often, then they can steal clients to the other agencies, doing more launch they have a certain profit assure so they can reduce the cost, plus testing cost cut, etc.. You can reach the theoretical 1/100 reduction, it would take at least 15 years, but they would do it. Since a year that I read you to make critics about spacex and skylon economical benefics, which you stand that are pointless. It must be frustrating for you to see how these project are still going without understand the reasons behind. There is no way to show you light inside that box. You should understand that this is not the only use for space. There are huge markets waiting for a little extra cost reduction, some other for a big cost reduction...