Kerbart

Trains and lego sets are too tempting...

It goes a bit deeper than that: The nuclear industry chose to ignore the fact that properly understanding risk assessment is really hard for the masses The nuclear industry also chose to advertise itself with terms as “perfectly safe” while cutting corners on design and execution. From a statistical point of view, the track record is great; see point one. They're focusing on the wrong metric. It's like complaining you didn't win the 100m sprint. "But I took the least amount of steps!” Yeah, but that's not what it's about... As @DDE mentioned, radiation is invisible, so the public has to trust experts on what they're saying. Trust that got breached continuously If your teenage child has a history of throwing multiple wild parties in your house while you're out, would you leave him unsupervised for another weekend when you need a break? “Trust me dad, I've learned my lesson. I won't do it again. I don't need supervision.” Hey, we want to fly a nuclear reactor over your head in space. But trust us, nothing can happen. It's easy to blame the nimbies and treehuggers, but let's not forget that in the late 1950s and early 1960s the vast majority of the population had no problem with nuclear power. It's not that the nuclear industry had a problem gaining the trust of the people; they lost it. That's a lot harder to get back. The public resistance against launching nuclear reactors in space is irrational. It's also understandable. And the same industry that blames them for standing in the way of progress is the one that got themselves there in the first place.

Is this a challenge? m = 10000 def isprime(n): return all(n % i for i in range(2, n)) primes = [i for i in range(2, m + 1) if isprime(i)] gaps = [j - i for i, j in zip(primes, primes[1:])] print(max(gaps)) Anyway, 947

I can feel your grief, but right from its introduction the complaint about the Wolfhound was that it was ridiculously overpowered, and many had the suspicion that it was a case of mixed up engine stats. I didn't use the wolfhound at all for that particular reason; it just felt wrong to use it. While it's not nice to see an engine with such wonderful stats being nerfed, chances that it gets undone are slim; and it's likely that you're in a small minority. The good news is that someone (you?) can make a MM mod to fix the problem.

There's a grey area that is not applicable to the vast majority of players here. It's not cheating if you just use it to play the game the way you like it. Maybe you're tired of putting a rocket in orbit for the 500th time. Maybe you get frustrated with not being able to rendez-vous or dock despite your countless attempts. Maybe landing always results in a Kerbal-spacecraft-shaped crater on the surface of Minmus and you're tired of that. Mechjeb allows you to enjoy the game and that's what it's most about. It's cheating when you start to take credit for things Mechjeb is doing. Calling yourself "master docker" and posting videos on youtube where you make it look like you are doing the docking instead of Mechjeb. Aside from getting caught in a trivially easy way, that would be cheating. But I doubt anyone here does that. All in all, Mechjeb isn't cheating. At least not in my opinion.

821. No gap to fame.

467 Back to small gaps

And I bet 401 is next!

So... 389?

That is, indeed, a prime. So is 283, I hope.

113 I almost did 111... but 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

107 I wonder at which point I'll have to resort to a script to generate them for me.

3

For fun or to improve your job prospectives? It's always good to know multiple languages. It shields you better from automatically picking one solution, so consider that as well. If your interest is purely academic there's no better language than C. Nothing will teach you better how computers are programmed and how they work. The downside is that it's impossible to program in C without it getting very technical, you're constantly dealing with memory, pointer arithmetic and what not. If you like tinkering, that's a fun challenge. If you only want results, it can be frustrating. If your interest is "I have a couple of real world problems that I want to fix myself" or "I'm looking to automate small parts of my job," Python should probably be your first choice (disclosure: I am a Python programmer. But I'm also trying to be unbiased here...). Python is very easy to learn and remarkably productive; if your goal is "I receive a text file every day and need to turn it into a formatted Excel file," Python is your friend as you'll have that coded in a matter of hours. It's also great as a first language as you can focus on programming concepts like branching and looping without having to struggle to make that work on a machine. Personally I think that learning Python first will pay off learning C because you'll pick up things a lot quicker in C after that. Finally, don't underestimate Python's performance; 3/4 of the internet runs on Python these days (Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Dropbox, to name but a few). For job searchng though, keep in mind that "Python" itself is pretty useless; you need to demonstrate skills in a certain field like web development (Django), data science (numpy and Pandas), and so on. C# is a great language but I'd only pick it if you're interested in a specific domain that C# is suitable for - generic applications in Windows, KSP mods (of course), etc. From a job market perspective you're probably better off with Java, that despite all the bashing is still the 800-pound gorilla in the job market. The two languages have a lot of shared concepts and switching between the two shouldn't be too hard. As @Nuke pointed out, learning multiple languages is very useful. It gives you a better perspective, and helps to think outside the box when confronted with a problem. Many books on general programming use examples written in C, Java or C++ so it doesn't hurt to at least be able to read those (and reading code is usually harder than writing it). My personal advice: start with Python, you'll get quick results. Even if you stick with Python, at least work your way through Kernighan & Ritchie's The C Programming Language; it's a classic, and it will give you a much better feel for how computers operate which is never a waste. From a job market perspective, learn Java, or specialize in some kind of Python framework like Django or Pandas. In all cases, showcase your work through projects on Github; it's easier to convince prospective employers of your skill with actual projects you finished. Finally if you're in an office job right now and want "just some programming skills to improve my position," seriously consider Visual Basic for Applications if you're in a Microsoft Office environment. Don't start with it (I still recommend the Python/C trajectory for that). It's outdated and ugly, and I feel like I need to wash my hand every time I've touched code in it. But it tends to work in the most restrictive environments, runs on a platform that is nearly always available (at least in corporate office environments) and it can catapult your position from a mere desk-jock to a nearly untouchable status (I work in an industry that has laid off or off-shored 75% of its workforce, and through half a dozen reorganizations I've never felt insecure about my job position). It doesn't get a lot of respect inside the programming world, and the ROI is low (VB is easy to learn, but mastering the object models of the various platforms like Excel and Access takes effort and is key to your skill set) if you pursue a job as a coder, but high if you're a business analyst who wants to advance their skills.

It's under people's property so they have no control over it. Given the haste with which the project is executed, I wonder what happens when the ground above the tunnel starts sinking.

I think it's better to add a few mods at a time, and see if they do what you want to achieve. And to keep things manageable, less is usually easier You had for instance both MechJeb and Engineer. Either one of them should suffice, I think.

It seems there are multiple tunnel projects in the LA area. Musk tried to bypass an environmental review by cutting this project up in smaller pieces all below the threshold for environmental review and got sued over that. Apparently there's a second tunnel project going on near the Dodger's stadium. I can see how, at this stage, he wants to prove the concept first, instead of spending endless amounts of money and time on litigation.

Magnetic boots working on the hull, The Expanse-style is something I'm all in favor of. For asteroids and moons... First, the inability to stick to the surface is what makes it a challenge (look how much problems we have in real life with landers on asteroids). And second, while realism is not a prime driver with KSP (and we need to be careful about "realism for the sake of realism"), it'd just feel wrong to me. If it's implemented, I'd like to see it somewhere in the Alt+F12 menu.

And the real RSS installed. Those two might be in conflict with each other. From the ARSS release page: “The default setting is about 2.5x stock scale, while the atmospheric height and rotational period are the same“ 6378×2.5=15,945 which is awfully close to the quoted number...

Perhaps you're in career mode? I have the command seat available. The reason that Take Command is missing is, I assume, because the functionality is now natively supported by KSP.

I think that the issue is that the “safety culture” in Russia is not a point of discussion for NASA, despite a non-stop stream of rather bothersome news (the head of quality control arrested for corruption, holes being drilles, boosters going Kerbal, etc). One can question if the review of SpaceX/Boeing is warranted based on the incident. But... if you are going to do such a deep dive into them based on a single video stream and not on the actual track record of launches, then I would certainly consider reviewing the Russian space program as well, given the history of what's been happening over there. On second thought... maybe not because that means most likely you're cancelling American astronauts on Soyuz.

Where AVC gets really annoying is that a mod generates a warning that it is INCOMPATIBLE with your current version. And the mod author responds happily with “I tested it, it works fine, no worries. I’ll recompile when I have the time.” I’m not complaining about the mod author not dropped everything to recompile. It’s a hobby and they don’t owe me anything. What is annoying is that there’s no “don’t show this again” checkbox. Perhaps it’s helpful for the bug reports, but “the boy who cried wolf” is resulting in me deleting .version files and that cannot be the intention either.

Keep the big ship in orbit. Have a small lander descend, mine ore, and shuttle it back. You can either refine ore on the surface or in orbit, but in either case I would not ferry it back and forth into orbit all the time; that's a lot of "dead mass" you'd be dragging with you.

Are those 5m tank sections? At least three of them? With on top an entire 2.5m stack with engines and the works? I’m not sure how many landing legs you are using (the picture doesn’t allow to see particular details) but unless it’s an insane amount it might simply not be sufficient to carry all that weight, especially when you’re impacting landing at higher speeds. The wiki mentions ~12m/s as the maximum they can absorb, but I’m sure that drops significantly when you’re putting a gigantic load on them; “gigantic” being anything taller than a fully loaded jumbo 64 tank.

That looks like it's inside a mission, not a regular saved game? Keep in mind that what is crystal clear for you is not so clear for us; we have to work with the very limited information that is provided.