vger

Aight, I registered. Looking at where to setup shop. Has everyone in the Alliance chosen a similar geographic location/government system/etc? If not, I'm moving into Northern Greenland (because I'm insane like that) and starting an autocracy (the same reason I have for starting in Greenland).

I'd also like an option to be able to sort/filter vessels by location.

I was thinking the same thing about the snow and ice. The wisps of snow flying around probably took particle effects to a new level. And the ice... refraction-ocalypse.

If you're evil enough to threaten someone with raining death in order to get them to buy your product, why bother pretending to be a business anymore? Just change your name to Ming the Merciless and enslave the planet.

How hard is it to get a pyrotechnics's license in the U.K. though? In the U.S. that's the easy part. The regulations for actually possessing any amount of explosive material is where they get you. It amounts to having to build a bunker to store it (and I'm even talking about just a few pounds of unprocessed powders), and the bunker needs to be a certain distance from all nearby residences. So, you pretty much need to own land in the middle of nowhere (in addition to your own house) before you can even think about it.

I wonder if the problem could be solved simply by not activating physics for each part all at the same time. I'm going to take a wild guess that this is currently how it happens, which would have the undesired effect of hitting the vessel with a lot more stress than it needs to, creating a nasty 'resonance' going through the whole thing. If you could do it a piece at a time, using the hierarchy tree (which I'm sure the game has), the effects should be much less destructive. Anyway though, this is going too far into speculative territory now.

Is that the same thing that happens on the launchpad? You have a stable vessel floating slightly above it, but you can't start the engines until it 'drops' and you can start seeing the physics acting on it. In the case of very poor designs, sometimes it will fall apart just from sitting there, but then during one of the reverts it will do fine. I'm guessing that's the kind of issues you're talking about. My example is with gravity though. In space I doubt anything particularly crazy would happen.

You just described practically any kerb'd landing, if all you care about is the science value. There's ways of making it more interesting though. You could effectively give 'biomes' to the material around the nucleus. And besides, comets are pretty.

Yeah, you wouldn't want the motion to look so dynamic though. And slowing that effect down probably would look like a mess. Plus, you'd be stretching that effect across countless kilometers, which would probably cause it to glitch out like crazy. I have to wonder if up close you'd even be able to see tiny chunks of ice or if it would just look like a haze. We'll find out soon though. Hopefully.

"Too much science" isn't really an issue. This is a sandbox game after all, so it makes sense that there be different routes to achieving your R&D goals. After the Mun and Minmus, my next objective was the sun of all things. And why would you want to blow up a comet? And a comet rendezvous would be quite a challenge, far more than an asteroid.

The composition of a comet is drastically different from an asteroid. And Rosetta would like a word with you.

In the case of stations, would it really be an issue to only have the physics kick in at the point of collision? A space station that isn't accelerating or experiencing drag, shouldn't really need any physics calculations anyhow. It's up there, it's stable. If another craft hits it, then do the calculations. But yeah, things may get a lot better. If the 'do not suggest' list is up to date, those of us with multi-core processors aren't even experiencing a performance boost from it.

And that's when lobbyists start jumping in, throwing around false propaganda about asteroid mining being too dangerous, unethical, etc. Similar to how cannabis has been kept illegal for so long.

I think fine-tuning trajectories is in the next patch. Or at least an improved UI. As for putting the node directly on the apoptosis, why would you actually want to? Once burn-time gets factored in, something is going to end up being slightly off anyhow.

How to achieve the tail effect (especially given their size) is something I have wondered about many times. It's hard to imagine how that could be done without volumetric, which I don't think the game currently supports. It's easy to fake an atmosphere because of its shape, but a comet tail? Also, would this be new science gear? Should we get points just for flying through the tail and collecting data? Or does it require taking samples?

Greed can only go so far though. Unlike Earth, where resources are limited, space is infinite. If the technology is there to propel us outward fast enough, using a reasonable amount of energy, "supply and demand" stands a chance at becoming an obsolete concept. Without that being a driving force in humanity, there won't be much point in being greedy. Everyone will be rich, and consequently, nobody will. As far as the hippie outlook, I dunno... I think every human needs to go into high orbit and look back at the Earth one time. That might help shift a few perspectives far more effectively than an LSD trip.

Wow, just saw this thread for the first time. Not entirely sure of what it's like, but I must give this game a look.

A rock is an asteroid until it hits the atmosphere, so this must be the phone being sandwiched between a planet and a space rock. And I don't think hitting the phone at 1m/s counts as an impact. ...unless you're the owner of the phone who is trying to sue the asteroid.

Actually he's probably a white guy because that's the only race you can make the bad guy these days if you want to have a solid international audience that includes the Asian countries. This is why the Manchurian in Iron Man 3 was a clueless pawn and the real troublemaker was an evil white guy. And... you just asked Bay to not screw something up. On one hand, he's not directing. On the other hand, trailer still looks exactly like Transformers.

What bugs me about this particular mission, and granted, it isn't my favorite among the things NASA is doing/wants to do currently. But its potential to bring space back into the forefront is greater than anything else. #1, With a good enough telescope, anyone might have a shot at actually looking towards the moon and finding the asteroid. The odds are even better if its orbit is programmed in, and I'm sure all telescope companies will put that into the software. To simply see that thing, and know that we put it there, will be incredible. Backyard astronomers can't even do that with the Apollo landings. #2, Speaking of the Apollo landings, humans would be going beyond low Earth orbit for the first time in over 40 years. Again, a huge boon for interest in NASA. No doubt such a thing would be heavily televised (in HD glory) and would stand a chance of NASA grabbing the spotlight in a way that it hasn't done since the moon landings. #3, Maybe just maybe, someone will think, "You know, since we're doing these missions to this asteroid, maybe we should go check out that big grey ball again too."

Governments could try, but it would be expensive as all heck. Even on this planet governments have trouble reeling their corporations in when they need to. Remember the BP oil spill?

Gosh, after reading this, the "buzz droid" missile concept in Star Wars Episode III (which I thought was almost the dumbest tech idea I had ever seen in the whole series), actually starts to make some sense.

Silly internet lingo for "serious business," typically used to describe something that is the exact opposite of serious business.

meteors are srs bsns Also: A Nokia phone is not Chuck Norris.

not sure if serious