Gargamel

Moved to Gameplay Questions.

It's always worked for me, but I've never tried it with OPM. That may be the issue. I see nothing wrong with this. Thread moved to Add-on Discussions.

BAHAHAHA! Nope! @Yerbs??

You have 60 minutes. Last person to click will their reputation increased by as much as I can as a moderator.

It’s on sale at Steam again! (This is starting to feel like the Don’t Click this thread)

I can't find it... but I'm pretty sure Mythbusters did an episode where an explosion slowed a skydiver or something to make a "survivable" landing. But in a sci-fi series... this would make for an interesting landing method for a troop carrying drop ship. Big boom clears out the immediate area around the ship, giving the troops an instant clear perimeter.

How big was the Lebanon explosion again? 2kt? Something like that. And that was an entire dockside warehouse. Getting non nuclear munitions up to the scale of nuclear explosions requires including the logistics of bulk freighters.

Yup, non nuclear Orion would just be a traditional rocket with really bad nozzle design.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58960575 edit It’s at the launch site, or at least complex

Added Artemis

Just steal the links from the stickied index at the top of the forum.

No need to be sorry! We didn’t have a general NASA thread that I was aware of. Glad you started one!

Have you installed the mod correctly? What method did you use?

Added LUCY and NASA (General)

The problem with coverall threads is that when a couple detailed discussions pop up, the discussion gets quite muddled. We keep starlink separate from SpaceX for just this reason. We try to keep discussions about specific missions in their own threads, with a link in the mission index stickied at the top of the page. I've split off the LUCY discussion into it's own thread. I'll also add this thread for general NASA discussion and the LUCY thread to the index.

Let's try to stay on the topic of the thread, which is what happened to you today, or at least recently.... not to discuss historical occurrences. Thanks!

We have done that in the past for a variety of reasons. If anybody feels the need to step away from the forums, and doesn't feel they have the will power to do so, drop one of us a PM, and we'd be happy to work with you to find a solution that fits your needs. We'd much rather see somebody willingly be prevented from accessing the forums for a short time, rather than let them get overwhelmed with real life issues and lose the means to ever come back.

Those are cool Moved over to KSP Fan Works.

I was thinking more like

I'm ignoring your fundamental question, of is my math right, but I want to investigate the idea behind this question more. I think we need to define Line of Sight here. Do we mean A human standing on the top of a tower can see another tower? Or do we mean a radio (EM) signal of some wavelength can reach another tower without interference? Or just the traditional LOS were there isn't another object in the way? I ask because placing towers on the seafloor vs as floating buoys would be a concern. Dropping a premade structure off a ship and having it land in place vs getting a floating structure to stay stable is a bit of a difference, each with their own difficulties. Or, perhaps, are we not covering the ocean surface? That will reduce the numbers in the math considerably. If we start off by plopping towers on the summits of mountains with large distances to horizon, such as lone volcanoes, we can probably reduce the number of required towers by a significant amount. Next, why only 50m? That's relatively short. As the height of the mast goes up, the distance to the horizon would also increase. I don't know the ratio, but there's probably a reason that building 500m+ tall radio towers are a thing, instead of a small network of shorter ones. Let's assume cost of materials is our biggest limiting factor, there's a function that has a minimum amount of materials used. That would dictate the optimum height of the towers. Assuming these towers would have some guide lines holding them up, (ie the taller a tower, the wider the base of the guide wires) the amount of airspace used up might be another variable to consider. Less airspace impinged on would be more desirable. That could be included in the function, giving us another optimum height. And then there's the topography. On a local scale, it's fairly easy to play around with potential layouts and find a near optimum layout. But on the scale of the whole planet, this is a really complicated problem. I would think plugging our various preferred features of the towers and applicable GIS data into the appropriate machine learning style program would be the best solution. Let it work through the many many different layouts it can come up with. I would posit that an AI designed layout would reduce the number of towers required, as the appropriate height of a tower would be calculated for each location. And final question would be, why would a series of towers be superior to a low orbit cloud of satellites (a la Starlink)? I don't know the intended use of the towers, so satellites might not be a good option.

AFAIK, there is no rebate program for console users, and vice versa. But KSP frequently goes on sale, we kind of keep a running tab on where it's on sale, but there's links in this thread to all sites that sell KSP: It can frequently be found for under $10. Just keep your eye out.

I have it for the desktop.... really really soothing.

Those are really cool cars. StratenBlitz, I believe, recently did some videos where he used a gimmick to get near infinite symmetry on VAB builds, and then offset those parts to make rings many km in diameter. Perhaps if you use a similar method on some of the more robust parts, you could take the 24x symmetry and make it much more for smoother wheels. I don't know enough details of the technique to offer more than that breadcrumb though.

After the past couple years, I’m not sure why the even bothered coding anything other than easy mode in Plague, Inc.