p1t1o

Since when was that explicitly expressed as a rule? And?

Having a higher resolution monitor than me is cheating by a lot of these definitions... So is having a joystick or a faster CPU or more RAM. There are no cheats that, in a different context, are not cheats. Even the unlimited fuel cheat is not a cheat if you are investigating the simulation of a hypothetical torch drive. Context Context Context. "I challenge you to get a kerbal to duna with as little user input as possible, use any and all tools at your disposal." In that context literally everything is allowed, cheating is not possible. Ergo, all cheats are subjective, nothing is objectively cheating and a discussion of what constitutes cheating in general, becomes meaningless.

The question "can we stop a hurricane with nuclear weapons" is asked so often that the NOAA has a dedicated FAQ on it: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html One of the main reasons nukes wont work is because the amount of energy contained in a hurricane dwarfs the amount released even by numerous large bombs. Another reason is that the pressure wave generated does not have a lasting effect on the storm anyway, as once the wave has passed, pressure returns to normal. Ergo, sonic booms wont work either. *** Gieven "enough" aircraft? Like enough to pile them up into a heap physically larger than a hurricane? Probably still wont work.

The reaction proceeds in precisely the same way though. Lack of convection changes the concentration environment but I think that is where the border is with chemical engineering. I just need the number of molecules in a given space and how fast are they moving

Dunno, but find me a chemistry equation that includes the gravitational constant and Ill try and figure it out

Im a chemist by training so for me gravity doesnt exist.

Pessimism regarding scientific journalism aside, it probably will blow at some point, and we cant redirect it with nukes like we can an asteroid. If you ask me, these things are a socio-economic question more than a "How, exactly?" question. Exactly when does the general public become convinced its a good idea to spend billions averting a disaster that might not occur for many millenia? Its gotta be post-scarcity surely? (And on top of that, this specific solution requires thousands of years to be effective. That is a scope way out of human experience.)

Uninstalling it.

Seems like no new information to me.

hahahahaha strongly disagree! I did not get stupider as I aged, and neither will you. Thats not to say there arent clever kids and stupid adults. I would say they are less inhibited by experience, but that has some serious drawbacks.

dV is not equivalent between different vessels. Because in a large, heavy, rocket, 1m/s of dV equates to a large amount of kinetic energy, whereas in a small vessel, 1m/s dV requires a lot less. Take two rockets, one small, one large, with the same amount of dV. The larger carries a lot more energy with it, which makes sense since a large rocket at 100m/s has/requires a lot more kinetic energy than small rocket at 100 m/s. Probably the Saturn V lost a heck of a lot more kinetic energy than the sounding rocket, just to the sounding rocket that energy is worth more of its total dV. Throw a rock at 10m/s, and ball of paper at 10m/s and which one has more energy? And which one slows down quicker? The rock probably loses more energy in total, but will slow down only slightly because you had to pump more energy into it to get it up to speed.

On the contrary, IMO extrapolating a lot of (the more absurd) claims of what cheating is, to the logical conclusion, results in exactly that. In a lot of ways, piloting a vessel in KSP is harder, practically speaking, than real life, its just the stakes are a lot lower.

You had rules for playing with dumptrucks? *** I think its clear that cheating has no fixed definition in any context, other than what is agreed to be cheating at the time. Ergo, the question become meaningless, or at least rhetorical, like "What is art?" because the answer is "Whatever anyone says it is."

At first I was like "N...N......Newark?" Then I was like "Nope, Newcastle!" Yup, definitely Newcastle

Theres got to be at least an unspoken rule that eating cottage cheese out of it is a no-no. Is it modded?

Yesterday I witnessed a "regulatory emergency". For the uninitiated, that is similar in absurdity to an "Archeological emergency".

Thats easy. Art. Information (news, communications etc.) People (slaves, passengers, clones). Foodstuffs. Animals and other organisms (especially those non-native to the destination).

You know what I think is "cheating"? Asking people what is cheating. You're supposed to know instinctively, I do, asking people is cheating.

So I gave it a google, and boy do they make ALOT of pop tart flavours! I actually started thinking I'd find potato flavour. This was the best I could find though:

Its not quite that pronounced. Its not like DRM is ever more than a token resistance to piracy, unless it is extremely invasive, requiring expensive infrastructure (limited activations, that kind of thing), and even then its nothing more than an "effort barrier". So its a tradeoff, and DRM-free has its advantages. Its actually pretty common. The best thing I think, that KSP has going for it in terms of piracy resistance is the nature of its demographic, maybe because its sciency or nerdy, we want to contribute, we want to be a part of it - to join the forums and suggest mods, or just ask questions and advice - even if that just means owning it. Inevitably some people pirate it, but again, a tradeoff, enough people pay to make it lucrative. If this wasnt the case, we'd see effects. **edit** And another thing, constant improvement and updates hinder piracy more than any DRM, because pirates need to crack each update as well. And even if they do, its just a hassle to get hold of them, I imagine, and buying it seems cheaper and cheaper.

Well you have a lot of rules here like “I don’t want that really difficult thing that physics needs, how can I not need it?” If you can manipulate “crazy amounts of energy” without qualms about detail, then its difficult to know how much restriction you are happy to accept from real physics. You may have to make some sci-fi hand-wavy concessions to tailor your universe to your desires. This is ok, it is very difficult to write a “pure science” sci-fi novel and not have it be quite tough reading. Obviously, visit project rho for plenty of relevant detail. Here are some pertinent points though: Antimatter: Storing “pure electrons” or other similar-charge carriers is extremely problematic, the repulsion is immense. Relevant: https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/ (basically, if you put a colossal amount of antimatter [and matter] in one place, you get a titanic explosion, put a colossal amount of electrons [and nothing else] in one place and you might wipe the universe. Maybe. Most of physics breaks down if you use enough of them.) But if you hand-wave away the storage, you can squeeze a ludicrous amount of energy into it, and just by releasing the containment, the carriers will be ejected with extreme force. Equations for destructive force: well of course E=Mc2. To properly deal with the physical effects of such a weapon, of course the science get s very complex very quickly. Mainly because of the different types of energy released and the different effects they will have on the target. I think it is generally accepted that using E=Mc2 to get an energy figure, and converting that into a TNT-equivalent-yield (you know, megatons, kilotons etc.), gives you an illustrative, if not precise, idea of the forces released. But it gets a little more complex (a lot more complex) because the energy is released in many different forms. Depending on the reaction, much of the energy can be carried away by uncharged particles, EM radiation or neutrinos, which are very difficult to utilize for thrust, because you cannot direct them or because they do not carry very much momentum. Bussrd Ramjet: You get nothing for free with a ramjet, that “nudging” will consume energy which will equate to drag. The maintenance of a huge wirseframe nozzle whole light-minutes ahead of your ship via beamed power will consume energy which will equate to drag. Compressing hydrogen that is whizzing through your engine at relativistic velocity will be problematic. All in, you can hand-wave away some of the drag and justify (within your own universe) an improvement on the 0.2c, but getting it up to high relativistic speeds where time dilation is significant (lets say 0.7c and higher, as a minimum) is stretching the improvements quite far. Solar sails – IF you combine these with large, high power laser installations at departure and arrival, probably your best bet for realistic high-c travel. The Advantages of not carrying around your energy source and reaction mass are huge. Black Holes – Yes, but only if the black hole itself is moving at high relativistic speed. The speed increase you get is not proportional to the mass of the body, but to its speed relative to you. You cant, for example arrive in a black hole system and use it to stop. But you can use it to change direction. Or if the hole was passing through another system at high speed, you could use it to help brake into that system. HOWEVER, if the hole is spinning rapidly (VERY rapidly, this can happen apparently, accordin to theory) then it may be possible to extract momentum from the ergosphere, where space is “spun” or “twisted” by the hole. Less like a slingshot, more like jumping onto a record player. Depending on conditions, you could get a significant boost, yes. TL;DR – what you want, a constant 1g acceleration essentially for unlimited time, is a very, very tall ask. Even using antimatter as an energy storage medium will only get you so far with real physics. Bonus FunFactTM - if you could have such a drive, with unlimited fuel, you could explore the entire observable universe in just a few centuries of “ship-time” due to extreme time dilation. ProTip – write the story anyway, but do not go into detail about the “impossible/implausible” parts. Alastair Reynolds has some books out at the moment with almost your exact premise – a group of individuals who spend their time travelling the galaxy at high relativistic speeds, outliving multiple civilisations as a matter of course due to time dilation. He deosnt go into detail about the propulsion, but they are great stories none the less. **edit** Thought of something else - If there was a planet/body/mass orbiting a black hole, close enough to have a relativistically-relevant orbital velocity, you could slingshot around that, and get a goodly speed boost. However, I am not sure if any single body of mass can exist that close to a BH, maybe easier if it was a very, very large BH (which still [naturally] have very strong gravity near the event horizon, but the gradient can be very low, so it wont rip you apart. As long as it doesnt have an active accretion disc that is.)

People who loudly eat with their mouth open on public transport. WHAT ARE YOU?? FOUR YEARS OLD?? Seriously, eat your danged oatmeal, banana or other disgustingly sloppy food at home if you've got to gape like that. I dont need to see the back of your mouth dripping with mixed-berry yogurt at this time in the morning.

They dont, but can I interest you in a Birdseye Potato Waffle? You can even do them in the toaster!

You can PM the forum moderators and ask to have it removed or locked.

Dont need to read any more, Im calling BS straight away. Its not a serious claim, for so. many. reasons. It makes zero sense economically, technologically, logically, even militarily. May as well claim their next submarine will be able to go on land. Dont feel too bad, rumours like this are a constant. It'll be something twisted from a scrap of truth, like someone might have said operate "on the edge of" space, and some journalist turned it into a spacecraft. The ASAT angle is a good one as well.