p1t1o

At first I thought it was just going to be a photo of a big pile of loose bricks, but this is so much more satisfying!

There is a song by a band called Kap Bambino, they are french and one song is about rotting flesh or something and it goes "Flesh after flesh, burning like the sun!". Its not as weird as it sounds, just a bit "foreign" (at one point the word "fooding" is used...?...). If you like a sort of post-industrial electro-noise kind of thing, check them out, they are excellent. On first hearing this song I heard "Flash after flash, burning like the sun!" and I assumed it was about a nuclear war. So there you go

Is that the "Bus"?

If it was CGI then all bets are off, they probably chose a "nice looking" colour. Anyhoo, H2/LOX rockets can give a nice light blue plume, check out any picture of the shuttle taking off. It can be hard to see sometimes as blue flames are usually quite faint and can be washed out by daylight (or in the case of the shuttle, the glare from the solids). In space the plume will be practically invisible, unless it impinges on something. As far as I know, minuteman is solid propellant in all stages and most solid rockets (such as shuttle solid boosters, also below) give a smoky bright yellow plume. Liquid-fuelled ICBMs are currently obsolete (long fueling times, cannot stand fueled for long, more unstable/dangerous).

No need to jump down the OPs throat (although perhaps "falling apart" was a tad too strong). It *is* worrying, especially to someone who, say, *doesn't* have much experience in business, when the project that you are very excited about and have been following for a long time goes through some quite significant changes, when there hadn't been any major changes of the ilk for quite some time. As normal as it may be, several team members being replaced *is* quite significant for the project. Normally I'd say "Would be nice to hear a word of reassurance from the Devs" or somesuch. BUT, in this case, (Well firstly Im sure they HAVE offered such reassurance multiple times in the dev notes) I wouldn't blame a company from saying that even if there *was* something to worry about. So sit tight, the updates are still coming in and high quality content is still visibly heading our way. Test it empirically - the KSP team will be "falling apart" once their output starts to fall away. Has it? No. (No snarky comments about bugs or update lead-times, those issues are a constant).

Added link to bug tracker homepage on the OP

If you have its quantity in Joules, then you use E=mc^2, as in Krytens answer. Or, if you know that the "breakdown" was 100% loss-free, then its just the same mass as the matter you started with. Mass of 1 joule: m = 1 / 300000000*300000000 1J = 1.11e-17kg

No, that doesn't make any objective sense. What is it you imagine being created when light is produced as a byproduct? Its pretty hard to define "pure energy", I think there is a semantic error occuring somewhere. If I punch someone, is that kinetic energy somehow "impure"? There is no "base" form of energy, "energy" is just a word we give to a category of related phenomena. But if you could somehow define a pure form of it, I cant imagine any answer being different to what Kryten said.

@M4ssler Good to hear, thanks!

Even in low (<100km) orbits? Planets AND moons?

@M4ssler Yes, it is still unclear as to whether or not this will be fixed 100%, or even if it *can* be fixed 100% in the current build. Any staff care to weigh in? Is there hope for the orbit bug? What is it like in 1.2?

Soil/permafrost + heat = free liquid water might not be the most efficient or elegant of solutions but it is almost fool-proof and could be jury-rigged out of a great variety of things. Dont need motors or drills or geographical surveys, you might not even need electricity or moving parts at all. Reliability, ease of use/repair and equipment lifetime whilst many, many, many miles away from support is more important than most other concerns, IMO.

You know how climate change deniers will have automatic responses like "Yeah, thats such a liberal source of data" or "Consensus isn't proof!" etc. Im curious, what do flat-earthers say to the fact that anyone can prove the earth is a sphere with some simple observations and geometry? Pythagoras was a left-wing conspirator for big oil? Foucault's pendulum is only a single datapoint and cannot be extrapolated from? Or am I giving them too much credit? I would donate to a kickstarter to send one selected Flat-Earther into space. You could probably make your money back from the royalties of the video showing his reactions.

Well I mean, its pretty hard to come by... I think its a "wait and see" kind of thing, every time I read about possible futures it is always stated thus: "And if protons decay...etc."

You're welcome? Its probably the best answer you are likely to get, its a recent study and its not like nuclear winters have a huge research topic behind them. Not all nuclear winters are the same, how many weapons? What yield? Globally dispersed or more localised? Are they detonating in urban areas or over more remote targets? Which atmospheric model are you using to predict airflow? Which conflagration model are you using to predict smoke/soot particle size and distribution? Which weather model are you using to predict effects on agriculture? And FYI, if you ever do find a model that can accurately give you an answer to your question given certain atmospheric properties, you will probably be a billionaire. Its a hard question, its why you are asking it here.

Get a planet mod that adds another star at either a realistic distance (not recommended) or a more kerbalised distance (still extremely far) and try your hand at interstellar travel! Its what my current playthrough is heading towards, Im imagining quite a complex expedition, requiring significant Kerbol-system infrastructure - I intend to launch (eventually) from the outer system.

You dont need heavier RVs, most SLBMs can be used as-is for depressed trajectories. Loss in accuracy is partially offset by shorter travel distance. However, the main proposed use for depressed trajectory was for a first-strike. This first strike would be a steady stream of warheads detonated over ICBM silos in order to disrupt or destroy ICBMs in-flight or even just postpone their launch, giving your side a much better chance to get their ICBMs off first, and a greater chance to kill enemy ICBMs before they leave the ground. Pinpoint accuracy is not required. The greatest disadvantage is the reduced range, hence it is mostly discussed with reference to SLBMs, which can be snuck up to an enemy coast and launched from there.

The nuclear winter hypothesis has waxed and waned in its credibility over the years, and effects on agriculture can be hard to predict, but this passage from the wiki about a 2014 study is quite recent and apt: In 2014, Michael J. Mills (at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR), Owen B. Toon (of the original TTAPS team), Julia Lee-Taylor, and Alan Robock published "Multi-decadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict" in the journal Earth's Future.[130] The authors used computational models developed by NCAR to simulate the climatic effects of a regional nuclear war in which 100 "small" (15 kt) weapons are detonated over cities. They concluded, in part, that

Honestly, I think that we do pretty well today, with statistical treatments of atomic-scale systems, no need to simulate them down to the atomic scale. Ineed, the anomalies that you would see constantly at such a small scale are ironed out at the statistical level, which does enhance certain qualities of the data. I have no doubt though, that atomic-scale simulations of systems like cells are on the horizon, it is only a question of complexity. But I think interpretting the results would be the bigger challenge, the data output from such a simulation would be mind bogglingly large and as complex as life itself.

Did anyone else read the thread title like "How to land-rovers?....How to land-rovers what?"

Im not sure that we actually know enough about the fine-grained inner-workings of a living cell to even program it properly, let alone have the processing power to run it in real-time. Even the folding of a single protein molecule has been a frustrating challenge.

I was going for "stand-up guy" but either way

Reminds me of a question I was asked in some team-building at a job once. It was "Which 3 items would you take if you were going to be marooned on a desert island?" I was like "A knife, a large sheet of plastic and a mirror". However, I was the only R&D staff member in a room full of marketeers. Every. Single. Other. Answer. Was something along the lines of "I would take my ipod, my cat and my hair straighteners." One girl did say "A satellite phone" though, which had me kicking myself... Anyhoo, I saw this a while back: http://www.cultofmac.com/441175/guy-turns-plastic-bottles-into-hydro-electric-iphone-charger/ If you are absolutely stellar at electrochemistry (and possibly botany?), you might be able to create a battery, or battery charger, by making some electrolyte solutions (think lemon battery), but you'd need the appropriate metallic electrodes...

There are indeed examples of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_pitch_fan One example I saw stated that it increased fuel efficiency by up to 14%.

At least your monitor gets 40% more miles-per-gallon now!