p1t1o

There is something to be said for teaching efficiency of communication, I think its a useful exercise. If you cant transmit at least the bare bones of a point or concept in 900 words or less, you are going to have a hard life.

And because of that you are travelling into the future 0.0219seconds per year faster than people in deep space (Thats on top of the 0.15seconds or so that you gain per year due to Earths orbital motion around the sun.)

Wait, John Hurt was a Doctor? Never knew. Glad to see Im not the only who liked Christopher Ecclestone

DCS's new Hornet

Quite an ambitious mission since we havnt studied the whole of Earth yet ...and considering that a long-term station would mass around the same as several hundred curiosity rovers (ISS=450), I think they will/should rule Mars for a while yet.

But is speed relevant if it is a fraction of the price and infinitely safer? If you can send multiple probes to multiple places for a similar cost? Does it matter if data takes 6 months to arrive instead of 6 days? I know projects sometimes have hard deadlines, but balanced against the risk to human life? Also: Im all for going if there is sufficient reason, but its a huge hike in price to send a human and we can do a lot with that cash.

Writing wise, the prequels are inferior to the original trilogy, for sure. But after consuming the originals they are a great source of "more".

The Moon? 2020? What for? There something we need an astronaut to do that a probe cant?

I recently read "The Massacre of Mankind", an officially authorised sequel by Stephen Baxter, it quite faithfully recreates Wells' world, I'd recommend it.

Um, but doesnt the positive character of a "hole" depends entirely upon the presence of protons? I feel like a lot of the scientific meaning has been sucked out of the concept, it could easily be a paper idea great for discussing esoteric physics but with no basis in physical reality.

One thing I've noticed over the last year or two is "motion blurring" appearing in the video options for various things, and I think it almost universally makes things look like garbage.

Without wanting to risk getting into a discussion about conspiracy theory and the state of the current body of knowledge on the matter, would it please you better if it had said: "....victim of anthropogenic climate change"? However, I would point out that you are making the very common mistake of conflating "weather" and "climate". Weather fluctuates rapidly, day-to-day, year-to-year and can be unpredictable and chaotic. Climate stays stable over very long periods because it is not defined by the conditions on any given day or in any given place. And yes, climate does naturally change over time, but evidence points to the liklihood that human emissions are having a significant effect on it.

Quick google says that Bruce was likely quoting Fritz, although it is often misattributed as we just found, makes sense as he was big into philosophy. However I once said a good way of thinking is "Everything in moderation, including moderation itself." which turned out to be "Petronius' paradox" and also widely attributed to Oscar Wilde, so it can happen

Wait so do the asteroids only get re-seeded once? On upgrade? Initially I got the impression (Baselessly assumed?) that loading any savegame would re-shuffle the asteroids? If its just a one-time thing, then it wont affect a new career at all.

Bruce Lee was, amongst many things, a quoting machine, he was fricken' Yoda: “If you truly love life, don’t waste time because time is what life is made of.” “I’m not in this world to live up to your expectations and you’re not in this world to live up to mine.” “As you think, so shall you become” “Always be yourself, express yourself, have faith in yourself, do not go out and look for a successful personality and duplicate it.” “Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.” “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who had practiced one kick 10,000 times.” “Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own” “It is not a shame to be knocked down by other people. The important thing is to ask when you’re being knocked down, ‘Why am I being knocked down?’ If a person can reflect in this way, then there is hope for this person.” "Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend."

Haha noice, I've easily reaped over 1000hours so far though I'd like to reap a few without significant bugs, I have too many excellent bug-free games in my library. I've spent too many hours prepping for vast interplanetary missions only to have something bork in deep space or wherever and having to scrub the whole outing. Anyhoo, I didnt want to gripe about bugs. Im just sad its still an issue. I get that 5 years isnt an eternity in games development, but its a while, and NEW bugs? Not good. The whole point of having asteroids is to interact with them physically. How did that build make it out of the door? Am I overstating that? Glad to see everything is still in full-swing though! Im not going anywhere Without bugs, I would not hesitate to place KSP next to HalfLife2 as one of the best games of all-time.

Gotta say, I didt know about the asteroid thing and am disappointed to hear that such a major bug has been recently(ish) introduced. This is why I end up taking such extended breaks, and why I was asking about updates - every update seems to come with new bugs And I'll eat my hat if a new version of unity doesnt bring even more. KSP is, naturally, Great. With a capital "G" like in Alexander the Great or Peter the Great. Its that good. Im definitely Pro-KSP, Pro-Squad. But I feel like I've been waiting for 5 years for it to be fixed. Its looking like my break will be extended past the next update to a point after all the hotfixes have dropped, then I'll probably post this exact same thread again.

lol I think they were "coming soon" before I took a break! I'll delve into the weeklies, see what the hippy-hap is. Cheers for the response

Someone already mentioned Hellblade: Sensua's Sacrifice, this should also win awards for audio design. Skyrim with all the high-res updates and possibly some mods is pretty stunning. DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) has the best looking single objects (the flyable planes, natch, including the VR-ready 6DoF cockpits) I have ever seen, and the rest is pretty sharp. I love the graphic style of Endless Legend But honestly todays games are of a pretty high calibre (excepting those designed with retro graphics deliberately), it seems the limiting factor is no longer processing power or software features but the amount of effort they put into designing objects and drawing the textures. NB: Recently got "Prey" and whilst its pretty nice looking (and a well made game) the graphics are functional and nice but surprisingly unimpressive, about the same as Bioshock. Which is fine, but we're no longer seeing huge gains year-on-year in graphical complexity. On a more leftfield note, I humbly submit my suggestion for honourable mention, Command: modern Air/Naval Operations:

Ive been away from the forum for a little while, whats the current (PC version) update status? Is there a significant one on the way, or are we at a plateaux? Hows the mod list doing? No feels either way, jus'checkin'in Thanks!

arg, I thought peacekeep and poseidon were essentially the same, doh!

There is something called an "energy management manouver" and many ICBMs and ABMs utilise it. Essentially if the target is sufficiently closer than max range, the rocket will bleed off energy by spiralling. Pictured: A THAAD energy management manouvre Another way to manage energy in a solid rocket are special blow-off panels which can instantly "snuff out" a first-stage booster to give a precisely measured amount of impulse. On another note, when the MX/Posiedon/Peasekeeper ICBM was being developed, they invented a cutting edge inertial navigation platform (GPS cannot be relied upon in wartime for obvious reasons), which was/is considered to be the pinnacle of inertial navigation systems as its accumulated errors, or "drift" (especially over a short time as in an ICBM) are significantly smaller than other sources (such as wind or gravitational anomalies) so making it any more accurate would not have increased the accuracy of the missile. This is one of the reasons why the gravitational environment of the Earth (its not homogenous/perfectly spherical, differences in density and crustal unevenness etc) is studied so intensely - its good for geo-science but it also happens to be very important for targetting ICBMs. These 3 concepts - advanced intertial navigation, accurate gravity maps and energy management - are some of the most significant ways in which an ICBM is controlled.

*reads thread title* *laughs for a century* No. A most intense No. Warranting no discussion. This is a gullible-people detector. Makes about as much sense as a dirigible fighter jet. Actually since a dirigible fighter jet would resemble a SAM-site in the sky and as such still have some tactical utility, the dirigible fighter jet is a far superior idea. If you are thinking "Im a scientist/scientifically minded, I should give this idea a chance and look into it" Save yourself some time, give something else a chance instead. If you *must* have a reason, just calculate the mass of water that would need to move out of the way of a submarine of any size moving at 330m/s (Im ASSUMING [for sanity's sake] they werent talking about the speed of sound in water, ~1500m/s) and work out the kinetic energy expenditure required, then google the power output of nuclear reactors.) Ok fine I'll do a back-of-the-napkin. Lets assume a diameter of 10m So thats [Pi*5^2]*330 cubic metres of water accelerated to [near enough, dependant on submarine geometry, amongst other things] 330m/s, per second. Thats 25 thousand tons of water, accelerated to [near enough] 330m/s, per second. Do I need to continue? This calculation ignores many things, including drag and assumes 100% efficiency. Reality will be much, much worse. You wanna calculate the dynamic pressure on the nose of the submarine and see if any known materials can withstand it? Because the fastest known submarine topped out at around 45kts and surfaced with severe damage, and it was also a pretty deep-diving (ie: solidly-built) vessel too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-222 This is not a case of "one day we might have the technology to build this", this is a case of "an in-atmosphere aircraft that travels at 0.9c is a similarly good idea". Well, more accurately, its a case of "How do I get more clicks on my site?"

*citation needed

3 major things - size, lateral thrusters, solar panels. Solar panels dont make any sense for a kill vehicle. Molniya-1 is significantly larger and Im not seeing any lateral thrusters, or at least they are not very large, making it far less likely to have much in the way of high-divert capability. You couldnt say that one was *definitely* this or that, but the smaller one looks nothing like a comsat and Molniyas does. Its a bit moot though as the IS-A kill vehicle would maneuver directly towards its target, it would not loiter in orbit for a long time - it couldnt, without a long term power supply - so nobody is going to be staring at it with a telescope trying to figure out what it is. Put one inside a Moniya though... *** Better question, if you were not so familiar with the Hubble telescope, and were searching the sky for weapons...which one of these would stand out?