Psycix

So when we don't get a new planet for christmas, we will all have to go: à ¼¼ 㤠◕_â—• à ¼½ã¤ GIVE GASPLANET 2 Squad you have been warned.

It is indeed very important that there are alternatives to KMP. Each will have its own benefits, and more importantly: problems. In the end they may learn from each other and/or combine to bring forth the best multiplayer experience.

Mechjeb isn't perfect. It usually gets the job done, but experienced pilots can do it better. Though in your situation I'd guess the phase angles were off and MJ took a less than economic trajectory. EDIT: The poster below me has a better point: Your numbers are not correct. There is no way you can make it to Moho, land, and back with <3K dv. Take a look at the delta-V map.

Experienced players can do most things better than Mechjeb can, but I used it for info (until I installed Engineer Redux), however I still like to use the autopilot to avoid grind.

More like a perpetual nuke. In februari 2013, the Chelyabinsk meteor, entered our atmosphere, broke up and exploded, causing a shockwave that shattered all windows in a wide area. Travelling at orbital speed through atmospheric pressure air requires insane amounts of energy, and the resulting heat due to shock compression will likely radiate enough heat to set everything the object passes by on fire from long distances.

I try to keep it above 300.

Technical Ben, I think I can give you some advice: - Use a lot more parachutes. If you dont want to carry the weight on ascent, make them decoupleable. - Use a significant bunch of drogue chutes to kill the spike when main chutes open. - Don't waste so much fuel on landing. A tiny engine burn right before main chutes open and one before touchdown will be enough. - Use a LOT more landing legs to support the weight in Eve's gravity. Use struts! Overkill means you can touch down harder.

What about the max caps count you try to keep your topic title under?

I agree. What is a sandbox if you are limited in your possibilities? EDIT: To the people opposing this "because it is pointless", why not let us have this instead of opposing something that does not bother you in any way?

The NERVA can not be realistic in KSP for gameplay reasons. It would be massively overpowered. You may say: Then isn't it overpowered in real life as well? Yes it is. Nuclear rockets are much much better (in terms of performance) than conventional rockets.

Perhaps the most important reason for using (and as a result, developing) nuclear energy, is because while there might be alternatives here on earth, these may not be viable in space. Going to Mars can be done with conventional engines, but having nuclear engines is going to make things so much easier. Do you ever want to set foot on another planet or moon? The chance is slim, but if anything is going to make that larger, it is nuclear propulsion (or nuclear-powered electric propulsion). Support nuclear energy -> go to Mars. Let's do it.

I agree, people should stop pointing out "sides". It is impossible to discuss things if people enter a conversation with a "us vs them" mindset. Radiation induced cancer is pure chance. Modeling with mathematical probability is the best approach, and relatively accurate. Sure it is not spot-on (by definition), but it does run it down to the order of magnitude. It is very important to know if something kills dozens or thousands and conclusions should be drawn accordingly. I dont think you should discard the numbers for being guesstimates while they are pretty meaningful. A fear is a natural impulse to preserve your own health or life. When this fear becomes excessive, it becomes a phobia. Most of the population is indeed radiophobic: Their fear is excessive and does more harm to them than the radiation itself. Being cautious about eating fish after a nuclear disaster is a good thing, but when radiotoxicity measurements prove the fish safe to eat*, I'd happily eat any fish out of the Fukushima sea, and so should everybody else! *I do not know if this is the case right now, but that is not the point.

But why? Without putting the fix in the first post it is pretty much guaranteed to have people miss out on the info, resulting in unneeded bug reports in this thread and general user inconvenience. You remind me of this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1172/

Both the major accidents each have a set of reasons why they happened and why they will never happen again, even if we were to construct dozens of new reactors. France, for example, has been running over 50 nuclear powerplants for years without any problems, but nobody knows because the media attention to nuclear power is one-sided. Chernobyl: Major design flaws + major flaws in safety protocol + major human error + absolute retardation = Nuclear disaster. Obviously, a modern reactor in a modern first world country is different, and a disaster like this could never happen. A small example is that Chernobyl did not even have a containment building! I could sum up everything that was or went wrong at Chernobyl, but I'll let those interested do that research yourself (it's a good read). So I wonder: why are people so determined to compare modern reactors to chernobyl? Modern reactors seem to be carrying the burden of something they are hardly related to. Fukushima: A plant built all the way back in 1971 gets hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake (the fifth most powerful ever recorded!) and a 14 meter high tsunami. The plant would have survived the earthquake without problems, weren't it for the fact the 10 meter high wall was not high enough and the backup generators flooded. Now, if we build a new state-of-the-art reactor with enhanced safety features in an area is not generally struck with earthquakes or tsunamis, how can this not be considered safe? Can someone tell me how Fukushima proves how dangerous nuclear energy is? When I look at the data we have available, having 100% of all reactors in Japan safely shutting down after one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded proves how incredibly safe these reactors are rather than unsafe! People living in the vincinity of the Fukushima plant have an estimated 7% increased chance of leukemia and a 70% increased chance of thyroid cancer. No, this is not an absolute percentage: This means "70% more than normal". Fukushima raised the risk of thyroid cancer for local resistents from 0,75% to 1,275%. Some other interesting numbers: total amount of deaths as a result of Fukushima: 130 (Estimation by Stanford University professor and anti-nuclear advocate Mark Z. Jacobson using the linear-no-threshold model) total amount of deaths due to the same earthquake and tsunami: 18500 Percentage of cancer-induced deaths (there were no direct radiation exposure deaths) due to Fukushima relative to the rest of the earthquake: ~0.7% Does anyone here agree that the term "nuclear disaster" should be redefined? Natural disasters are a hundred times more harmful. The last thing I would like to put out in this thread is radiophobia. If you do some googling, you will find out that the fear of radiation does orders of magnitude more damage to society than radiation itself. TLDR: Chernobyl and Fukushima are not relevant to modern nuclear power in safe locations and should not be compared. People's fears of radiation are more harmful than nuclear disasters themselves, which are not as bad as many people believe.

Why not present a hotfix instead of having to answer dozens of people that ask the same question?

At the plus side, it provides a constant and predictable amount of power, while wind and solar may not provide enough power when you need it (for example, solar does not work at night) Generation 4 nuclear reactors will be able to burn the waste. Yes. This is because everyone gets to hear about it when something bad happens, but when things go well, you don't hear a thing. France has been running about 50 nuclear reactors for decades with no significant incidents - a major success overall. When people hear "Nuclear reactor" they think of Chernobyl or Fukushima. But: -Chernobyl was a long, long time ago in Russia. Safety standards were nonexistent compared to modern nuclear technology. -Fukushima first survived a 9.0 earthquake (the fifth most powerful ever measured) and then got hit by a 14m high tsunami, flooding the place. I think we can assume a modern reactor in a mild environment is extremely safe.

Just wait until we have generation 4 fast reactors that: -Use thorium and nuclear waste for fuel. Yes, they can put nuclear waste to an use. -Effectively "burn" all waste, causing the eventual waste to have a much much shorter lifespan. -Get up to 300 times more energy out of the same fuel. Yes, three hundred, that is not a typo. -Enhanced safety overall.

I suggest taking the two batteries out, putting the probe core directly on the body, and attaching a pair of Z-400 batteries to the side instead. This will further lower CoM which will help with stability.

Perhaps people should stop trying to weld certain specialized or interactive parts together, like command pods or cargo bays.

People are afraid of nuclear energy is because they do not understand how it works. The general population knows absolutely -nothing- about radiation, what it is, how it works, and what effects it has. All they know is that it can kill you without being able to do anything about it. This makes them terrified, it is untouchable yet as far as they know it is going to kill all of them with nowhere to hide. If they knew how it worked, and nuclear power was not complete magic to them, they would not be so scared. Some studies even pointed out, that after a nuclear disaster, the fear of radiation did more harm to people (stress, depression, increased suicide rates) than the fallout itself!

That's just the top layer Sofus, they begin to work a few km under the surface. I would show you but the kraken keeps eating my planes. I would love to see a mod or such that periodically shows tentacles flinging about in the depths of Jool.

I demand an equivalent in KSP for maximum challenge. Shishkerbab anyone?

Very nice hypothesis, I like it! Perhaps the kraken is what consumes the oxygen in the center. Which is exactly what attacks you through the green mist once you get too close to it. It all makes sense. Jool, the home of the kraken, surrounded by a layer of photosynthesising plants on which it feasts.

Question, does this have an effect on docking ports? I hate how wobbly docking ports are and would love to have them be more rigid.

But can it burn through this?