Elthy

You said that quiting nuclear power was a bad decision for germany. But nearly everyone in germany agrees that it was a good idea, even the conservative parties. If everyone agrees it has to have advantages for everyone, even if its just that we dont have to pay that much to get rid of never produced waste... What do you think about a hydrogen/methane powered industry? Hydrogen can be produced by unused wind/solar energy an then react with atmospheric CO2 to methane (the same gas we currently use) and then power cars or powerplants and heat houses. Its easily storend in the gas grid, the germany gas grid has capacity for months. Also hydrogen can be used directly, but fuel cells are currently quite expensive. Im not sure which one is better, but they both are completly renewable (which no form of fission will be) it would have the advantage that we never have to switch it again...

Waste radioactive enough that you have to seal it of for thousands or millions of years, which is simply not possible (weve tried, but the "Asse" leaked radiation after some decades). Strangely the decision to shut down everything is now accepted by everyone in the politics, not just the parties currently elected. While there are lots of arguments in the aftermath i can hardly think of any decision in the last years where so many people agree. Perhaps because everyone sees the benefits...

Cant we just stick to NERVA? Im not that confortable with radiactive stuff on top of thousand tons of explosives, but fluorine is worse. Also i dont want to think about the pollution such a rocket leaves in our athmosphere...

The used fuel rods are not the main source of radioactive waste, its the stuff contaminated while running a reactor, including the reactor itself (at some day you have to scrap it). We have about 20 reactors in germany that have to be scraped in the next 20 years, and we dont know where to put all the waste we get just from the fuel rods. So this is a very big problem for the future... Also the deconstruction of the reactors and disposal of the waste is one point that doesnt get calculated in the energycosts, it gets paid by taxes. If you mind these nucelar power is the most expensive, by far (Sources vary from 50ct to 1€ per kW/h). Be carefull, such words can get a thread locked very fast (happened several times allready)... Also there are hints that a climatic change is just happening now. In the last 10 years we had so many hottest/coldest every recorded temperatures, strongest floods/storms etc. Something is definetly happening and saying its not the humans is like saying someone with a big bullethole in his had died of cancer...

I have an extreme modded KSP but i wont get over 1000mb VRAM usage, no matter what i do. I doubt that this is a problem... Can you post a screenshot of your VRAM usage?

Germanay decided to shutdown all nuclear powerplants until 2022, half of them are allready down. Now we have over 25% renewable energy (still rising), so its not impossible and nothing for the far future to switch completly. The limiting factors are energystorage and -distribution (since most powerplants where in the south and now most windenergy come from the north).

I would like it because everyone could learn how damn far away those stars are. Even with maximum warp () it would take ages...

There is no FX 8750, only an Phenom x3 8750. But this CPU is for the AM2+ Socket, but you bought a FX990 Mainboard, which is maybe the cause of your problems...

Nope. At least the german powerplant are NOT safe against anything larger than a small sportplane (some are only shielded by 50cm Beton), to stop something like an A380 on full throttle you are going to need much more. They considered reinforcement, but that was to expensive and the plants wont be profitable anymore...

Thats a fact as long as everything goes right. But what do you do when a plane crashes in a nuclear powerplant, by accident or by terrorists? The chances are very small, but the results are so devastating that no matter what its not worth the risk. One time bad luck and half of germany could be inhabitable (it would be way worse here than in the USA since everything is crowded) and you have millions of people homeless, workless and hungry (since the fields get contamiated, too). All that because something went wrong and the wind was in the wrong direction (Fukushima was very lucky, Japan is even more crowded)...

The problem with the rising CO2 is caused by something else: In europe we have a carbon-license system. It means that companys have to get licenses per produced ton of CO2, these licences are given out by the government which also controlles the amount of licences per year (and reduces them). When a company produces to much CO2 it has to buy licences from other companys (which lowered theriy CO2 production) or it has to pay a fee. This would work great if there werent two factors: 1. The goverment gives out to much licences, which results in low prices for polution 2. In germany is a massive boom of renewable energy, partly caused by a government guaranted price for renewable energy and other boni. Those new sources dont produce CO2. Now all those companys with renewable energy sources have licences spare, which they all want to sell what, in combination with way to much licences overall reduces in very low prices for CO2. So even the worst coal power plant can be run cheap, and it gets even cheaper the more other companys switch to renewable energy. This is a gigant flaw in the system, but our current governmet doest want to admit this since they are responsible for this and politicans never admit a mistake... Edit: And i forgot about some lands that want coal to stay an important energy source since they have the majority of the coal industry and want to keep their workplaces.

You all forgot 2 very important points: 1. Price Nuclear Power is by far the most expensive power source, its cheap for the big companys because the big price comes in the future. Here in germany we have an experimental long term storage for nuclear waste called "Asse" which was considered safe when they build it. But not even 40 years later its unsafe and radiation is leaking in the groundwater, opposed to the million years it was supposed to last. The current estimated costs to get the stuff out there are 10 billion Euros, if it can be done at all. Also after a shutdown of a nuclear powerplant you have to carefully disassemble it, since everything in there is somehow contaminated. Our electricity suppliers safed 30 billion Euros to disassemble our 16 reactors, but now they want our government to take over additional costs since that wont be enough by far. Another costfactor that gets ignored are insurances for the worst case. Each powerplant in germany is insured with 2.5 billon Euros, but in case of a meltdown that wont even be enough to repair the reactor. Just imagine the economical damage if a bigger town gets contaminated, it would be over a trillion Euros. Noone can insure that so the electricity suppliers dont have to pay for such an insurance, otherwise the price per kWh would be much, much higher (some sources say over one Euro per kWh). 2. Uranium is limited. Since Uranium contains way more energy per gramm than every other source this offten gets ignored, but there isnt enough Uranium to power humanity for eternity (or even this century). Maybe it will be the same like oil, the point where none is left will be allways "in 30 years" but the prices will rise and at some point it will be clear that it cant go on like this. Thats the main reason why it should be totaly clear that nuclear can and will never be an option. BTW: When germany decided in 2010 to extend the lifetime of nuclear powerplants (they decided to limit the lifetime in 2000) i began to research about that topic (especialy nuclear safety) and held a presentation about school. My final statement was "no matter what you do, there is allways a small risk left". Two weaks later, on a monday, i got my mark for the presentation, while we were watching the explosions of the reactor buildings in fukushima that happened in the last three days...

No, its the same here in Germany, too...

While a gliderplane can be very dangerous if it hits something i can understand why you can be younger to fly one than to drive a car. People who make a glider licence under 18 are enthusiasts who care way more about what they are doing than people who drive cars just to get somewhere...

I doubt that they would do something "smaller" than Apollo for political reasons, since everyone would just say "Wow, but the NASA did that 45 years ago"...

I thought about an ballon-assited rocket, too. But im not sure to orientate the rocket when the ballon is up there and not hold by anything...

It doesnt need to know it. The rocket just needs to execute preprogramed maneuvers, since the exact orbit is not important it wont matter if its a few kilometers of.

This whole idea of an amateur rocket to orbit set my brain on fire, now i cant stop thinking about it... Edit: With an much smaller satellite (about 10g) the rocket will be much smaller, too. The problem is that you cant build an attitude controll system for a last stage thats only about 3 kg. So i thought that the best choice for a last stage would be a solid state (i doubt someone ca build a liquid engine that small) rocket which is spin stabilized by its predecessor, which also carries the controll system.

The reason why i wont use FAR is that it makes getting to orbit even easier. I add fairings and nosecones which are simply dead weight but i still think getting to space ist to easy...

The dangers of fusion are not comparable to fission... First, a core-meltdown is impossible. There is only about 1g of plasma in you reactor, when it gets in contact with the hull it will cool instantly, so it cant melt through the hull since it doesnt have enough heat energy. Also the is not heatproduction after a shutdown, so you dont need complicated backupsystems for blackouts. Second, the radioactive waste is not (that) dangerous. While fission waste will be very radioavtive for millions of years the fusion waste will be dangerous for about 100 years, which is controllable.

The only thing that happens with me is that my eyes start to hurt and fill with tears after some time...

I want to increase the distance at which clouds are rendered "3D", but im not sure how. I assume its something in the cloudLayers.cfg, but there is so much stuff... Is there a way to hide the "old 2D" cloudlayer while im below a certain altitude?

I think KSPs scalling with CPU Power is better than in most other games. While most games just require a minimum to run without lags and noone benefits from more CPU Power KSP scales better since a better CPU means more Parts on a single craft. Im glad that due to my i5 3570k @4,2Ghz i dont have to worry that much about part count, but with a slower CPU i would be fine with less parts...

We rarely have power outages here in germany, perhaps every 5 years when someone cuts a cable with an excavator or a lightning strikes an important thing in the grid... Sadly im not able to see the stars since it either happens during daytime or a thunderstorm.

Since i moved from 23.0 to 23.5 i wanted to reuse my old Ships i created with tons of mods. I think i reinstalled all mods (and unlocked all the parts in the R&D) but i still cant load all crafts. Is there a way to see which parts are missing?