Reflector

So you prefer a crippled smartphone OS that does not have integrated remote desktop, SSH or any other useful features? Lovely, I will keep using my Thinkpads then. Righto, futurist mentality right there. 'This is obviously very shiny when I use it so it must be infinitely superior to that vile, worthless *nix box hosting those websites! We should run everything on smartphone clouds, whatever a cloud is, it obviously is pure magic!' Instead, I will leave this beautiful comment I snapped off Engadget here for you: http://i.imgur.com/pkbHn.png Also this page from Maddox demonstrating what can be done with smartphone OSes that\'d brick if you toyed around with them in the wrong way: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone (NSFW) Ah, capitalism! Right, obviously China is not doing very well at all! We should eradicate those Chinese savages and then go into the streets like the French socialists and flip cars over in bloody protests! Yes, let us DESTROY those non socialists! Glory to destroying the Americans for having social security! Red glory my friend! Red glory. Obviously computers are next with smartphones since they\'re products of BLOODY CAPITALISM EXPLOITING THE WORKERS! DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY! Let us live in 1940s Russia! Oh right, socioeconomic systems are all equal if they were on computers and not imperfect beings like humans. Keep on using those silly arguments my friend. I also love how you can compare blade clusters, servers and workstations to a smartphone acting very proud in the process. Stop using your pointless nationalistic and obviously intolerant views. This is the stuff that gets World Wars star--- Ah.

I see, so you use 'moderate' in the format of the more conservative 'V-1s are raining around us and things are just moderately fine!' I love the Orwellian remix! http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm Yes, yes. I assume moderate injuries all over the body does not cumulatively add up to this 'massive total body injuries.' Nope, not at all! Keep on rolling my Comissiarat, soon we can change the very way people think with the power of Newspeak! OK. I will let you fly the anti-plane, seeing that it inspires pain and gag reflexes in others including those who fly the Cessna 172. Also I\'m pretty sure powered gliders have a much, much lower stall airspeed than the Colt there... That and something about 'not sucking.' You comprehend that even if someone were to zero out midair at 2km up in their air, they are going to die from the fall, yes? Or even at 100m they\'re most likely not going to survive the fall. That is ASSUMING (Since you act as if that 40g jump was possible) they jump out of the plane. Oh wait, you\'re still falling. Right, just got rid of that nasty horizontal component. 500ms is not a short, 'instanteous,' period compared to, oh, say, 100ms. Half a second of sustained 40g will screw you up. A 100ms spike, not so much. That\'d be closer to something you\'d experience in an automobile accident at peak. Oh right, this... Peak thing. Apparently that is ignored too.

I used SI with millimeters because it was stated on the sheet, I would assume that my fellow lab mates would of understood that but it seems not. It also didn\'t help that their egos were enormous enough they would argue over this while not comprehending what I said to them. It has been years since then but I doubt those people have had any improvements with that important piece of paper they have. Backwards country you say? I guess those dirty, useless Americans are just as useful as stereotypes of Middle Eastern or African people murdering each other. After all, they obviously didn\'t land on the moon. Nor do they encompass the harddrive industry. Or take over the computing industry in the past two decades. Or how about having the largest aerospace sector thanks to absorbing many German aerospace engineers? Oh wait, by your extension those Germans must be useless too! As said: Get over your system fanboyism and stop blaming another country for silly discourse reasons. It only makes you come off as extremely close minded and regionalism. I will throw one last thing out: Computers are a beautiful combination of imperial and metric units and all of you rely on them to post on this topic. I hope you enjoy your 5.25' bays, 3.5', 2.5' and 1.8' harddrives (Specifically the platters) with their metric heights, especially the Z' height on harddrives. Oh wait, but we should DESTROY computers, obviously they\'re backwards pieces of vile technology created by those ignorant Americans, yes? Just like those Saturn Vs.

If we use '50%' as moderate (Since it is in the MIDDLE of the extremes) and then treat '100%' as 'pretty sure you\'re going to die' and '0%' as 'you just walk off like nothing happened' I think that implies it does something like, oh, you know... Moderate injuries. Moderate wounding. However, I enjoy this Sovietesque revisionism, it goes in form with how many rockets just detonate on the launch pad. That was not a 'failure.' That was a 'moderate failure' because it 'got off the launch pad by a metre and detonated, taking out the crew capsule and the 4th prototype in the series.' Yes, 'minor' failure there. Just like a 'moderate leak' of RP-1 spewing out from the side is a 'minor' leak even as it ignites and detonates the rocket. Could we have some more Newspeak in here? It really fits well with the atmosphere. No longer will we have 'cessation of life,' we will just have 'a moderate interruption of life functions.' Just like the world economy is 'moderately annoyed' by the financial troubles, ergo we should carry on as if nothing is happening since it is, after all, a MINOR problem.

Then somehow I must be experiencing the rejects of the metric system because they can\'t do any milimeter to meter as well as deca/deci conversions for a damn. I also must somehow experience the most competent dual system users on Earth or something. Ditto for association of mililiters to cubic centimeters. I guess we should destroy the Americans for having such competent dual system users because they are a backwards people that are have individuals willing to use both systems? Since they are a backwards people like random middle eastern or African countries. Nothing about that implies regionalism or racism at all, nope, not at all. Or maybe I am just seeing some intense system fanboyism here. No idea why people absolutely must push their system onto everyone screaming that it has historical superiority as well as even greater 'scientific accuracy.' Such are the chants of the people that go into an immediate rage about one system that is not their 'favored' system. I\'m sure that defining meter as a fraction of the distance from one location of the Earth to another without precision equipment was not the smartest idea. Nor was it trying to derive it from a pendulum swing... Of arbitrary lengths. Ah, right, better avoid using this scientific notation thing too since when I say '1E3 milimeters' I get people going 'you mean 10 meters?' 'no I think he ment 1.' 'Shut up, you obviously don\'t know your conversions, he want 100 mm of tape out.' Since that is part of SI which is a much, much more modern adaptation of the metric system. Something that is 'inferior' to 'purist metric.' Something about those 'vile' non SI units that are not base 10... Must be those damned radians! Or that vile non decimal time! And please understand, I\'m not joking about the people I meet and their 'one system' mentality and 'competence.' I\'m just merely saying that saying that one system is inferior and refusing to do any conversions only furthers ignorance.

I love your Sovietesque language there: 'Moderately Harmful.' I heard jumping off a building from the third story and aiming to land first is 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Also I heard being shot in the stomach can be 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Something about it being eventually followed by the termination of heartbeat and brain activity, my Commissariat. Double love how you immediately accuse me of 'wrongfulness' out of nowhere. Also I like how you redefine 500ms as 'instantaneous' when in relative reference here. I\'ll let you be the rocket sled rider hitting the nice firm barrier there my friend. ... Also I hope you realize that you\'d need like 730kW output for a half second just to pull that from Mach .6 to 0 jump there. Last time I checked human biology, I don\'t think people\'s legs could pull that sort of output. I hope you realize the Colt is a wooden biplane. You could treat that like a glider at that point. I also hope you also realize it is a comically sad aircraft that in this context, might as well imply you were very much joking about bringing it up because its existence is very much ignored by aerospace engineers. I guess the sarcasm tags in my first post broke or something. Seeing my sarcasm is wrong or something.

Apparently the United States is not home to harddrive companies or any tech companies. Oh well, we should eradicate them from the face of the Earth with those passive aggressive Canadians just like the backwards Iraqis yes? No idea why people need to bash on any country* really. It comes off with the same level of intolerance and ignorance as something like: Perhaps those communist Chinese should be suffering for their dirty capitalist economy or something. *Exceptions are made for North Korea due to their comic value. I do not consider humans as being created equal. Humans are very inequal and they furthermore become more inequal in life. What makes the difference is that there a select people that start with inferior mind and physical assets then push themselves in life to surpass others. Unless you imply that humans are biologically communist and we all 'suck just as hard.' If so I will assume that everyone is unable to do math and that just says both systems are just as bad then. Bonus: I see just as many people screw up on imperial liquid volume measurements as I see in metric length measurements. No idea why those Americans and Canadians (Oddly enough, for a metric country...) can tell me how many feet are in a mile while I have someone tell me there are '100,000' millimeters in a meter... I never argued about inherent superiority. I just said both systems are systems that have values for numbers. They both lack any magical science fiction level of using natural phenomena to calibrate their values from. Additionally from many observations I have made, it seems that the metric side arguments of'ah ha, our system is fundamentally superior for humans as it only moves decimals' cannot show present to me a system free of people fudging conversions up WITHOUT tables. Say, you wouldn\'t know how much 45 degrees is in radians, would you? What with these evil, non theoretically superior measurements that do not obey the power of 10. To the dekameter gentleman: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decameters Dekameter is much more obsecure in usage, last time I checked with my Benelux friends they recognized deca and not deka.

I sadly know people that live in the Benelux area that cannot tell me how many millimeters there are in a meter but they can tell me about how many centimeters are in a meter unless they look it up on a table. I would assume the almighty, magical, inherently superior decimal move would automatically solve this problem but it seems this concept is beyond people of limited competence. As much as it is convenient to move a zero, perhaps we should be focusing on the COMPETENCE of the users? This was completely missed by many of the hardcore fanboy like posts screaming about the superiority of the metric system. And as for light, the original 'meter' was defined off two less accurate definitions. The current definition was back-redefined to light. So please, do not try to claim 'scientific importance' when it doesn\'t have as much (pain) as '1/1000th of the distance light travels per half life of Lithium 8.' I do not argue for either system. Get this point through: Both systems are systems. You can claim one system is inherently superior but when in REALITY you see things that say otherwise, then you have a problem. A human problem. I also don\'t see any discussions about the joys of hex or octal going on. Did you know that noises exceeding 5A dB can cause you to go deaf?

FUD.

Assuming you survive that would die from the fire afterwards. Also assuming you clear any parts of the plane there (Assuming it isn\'t a spiraling fireball disintegrating around you.) ... Also I hope you can enjoy the acceleration forces of 'zeroing' or accelerating away from the plane with your jump, given you accelerate from '200m/s' to '0' (Relatively: Mach .6 to 'zero'). What, we\'re talking about doing that in under a second? (Easy math time: Half second) You\'re talking about experiencing 40g for a half second, enjoy. The fall doesn\'t kill you, it\'s the sudden stop... Oh wait, small problem there. Or you can be real cool and try to stall the plane in such a manner where you impact the ground 'gently' enough so your fuel tanks don\'t rupture. Asking for lots of post stall control there too.

You don\'t like aerosolized HF raining all over the launchpad? Such a shame. And why not He-3 fusion? Hope you have some serious shielding on your reactor there.

Because oversimplification and fanboyism like belief of one system\'s superiority leads to close minded thought. Like said before: I still meet metric zealots that do not comprehend their OWN SYSTEM or lack enough competence to actually convert to decimeters without 'missing a few decimal places.' And to be honest, the meter has as much historical 'legitimacy' as the imperial foot: None. If you truly want a 'scientific' system it would be a horrible mess of things like 'distance that light travels per half life of some radioactive isotope.' Get over it, or should I start giving measures of everything everything in fractions of light-nanoseconds and light-microseconds? Now when do we get to get customized fuel mixes?

I think we can get over the measurement system issue because I have met very proud metric system users that can\'t tell me how many decameters are in a kilometer and how many decimeters are in a kilometer (Alternatively: How about how many decimeters are in a meter?) without looking it up on a table. On the other side I know people that will tell me 3/8ths of an inch is .375 inches, which is equal to 'approximately' 9.5mm and then they will give me the hundredths and thousandths after a few seconds of thinking. Bonus: Ask people how 'bels' and the relationship to 'deci.' Flies over the head of most people Extra bonus: Lets try to measure everything in light-microseconds or light-nanoseconds. (Super bonus: You know this without having to use a table, book or internet at all.) But I will personally never get over the imperial system and liquid measurements except for the most commonly used unit: Gallons (Screw you, cups, oz, etc.) It is all about the competence of the user. You can find some very good draftsmen that will give you imperial and metric units given only one set. Back on topic: What we really need hydrogen with fluoride in the fuel for 'extra fun.'

It happens to be a great 'difficulty' mod, but it definitely IS NOT a realism mod in the values it gives. Additionally the parameters of the parts in KSP right now don't really give you enough information to make it 'realistic.' I'm merely trying to convince Charles Broughton to reconsider renaming the mod or do some serious research and tweak his later versions so they can have a resemblance of 'realism.' Perhaps my criticism is a bit abrasive for some but I'm genuinely trying to give useful information out.

Sorry, mindfart on the fluids/liquids, my bad, I'll correct that. Last time I checked I don't have an aerospike up my ass but wouldn't that be a blast? In reference to water, fuel would generally not be happy if you compressed it (Especially if it was a monopropellent like hydrazine). Here we go, on compressing water into ice: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html And to steal a post from another forum: 'You can make ices VI, VII, X and XI at room temperature. It takes a lot of pressure though.'

Couldn't you throw up something like 'what year was the Beijing Olympics in' as a question? It should defeat most simple spambots from registering and works better than a Catchpa.

Wolfius, could you make a few more versions of the multi-chute adapter? A 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 version would be nice, as with ones with two attachment points (One on the bottom, one on the top.) and possibly a 'fat' diameter one (1m) to fit between stages. I love being able to recover some of the heavy stages with the current one.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Converted_Russian_ICBM_Takes_German_Satellite_Into_Orbit_999.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV Simple relationship: If have a rocket platform that throws a certain amount of weight (Call it 400) into orbit at a certain altitude (Call it 75,000) and I were to reduce the weight, then I can throw it into orbit at a higher altitude. Inversely, if I increase the weight (Say I were to use it to throw a bunch of warheads) and I didn't care about throwing them into orbit then yes, that still works. If you want to throw something heavier then a more powerful rocket would be needed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZZV464z9g http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html I'm sure that Jeb would love to ride a Nike Sprint, that is if he doesn't splatter from the acceleration. Now find me a liquid setup with equal thrust relative the volume and mass of a Nike Sprint.

Gases are considered fluids. You can technically compress liquid water under extreme pressures into ice but theorectically speaking, you'd need to have a very large and thick walled cylinder with a very strong piston with very strong seals to achieve that. Said theorectical setup (And do not try to deride this by going 'but what if I use magical materials like carbon nanotubes.' You're still going to need 'a lot' of material to do this and it will not be light for the volume you're compressing) would weigh a lot and require a good amount of volume. Not something you'd use as fuel tanks. https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/z-ice.html If some of you still have your highschool or higher education books, please find the table that shows the relationship of pressure/temperature/state. You'll find specific states like 'supercritical fluids.' Those are so specific in the conditions they require I don't think you're going to attempt to store fuel that way. Also this knowledge should be around 8th-9th grade and up. It doesn't make your brain explode from thinking about it nor does it give you a headache where the pressures go to the point where your grey matter liquefies.

Common pieces of knowledge: Airliner fuel isn't stored under 'compression.' Automobile fuel isn't stored under 'compression.' They slosh in the tank. Not so common: If you spent 15 minutes on the internet, you'd find out that liquid rocket designs can suffer from sloshing in the tank. If the fuel was under 'compression' like supersoakers have a rubber bladder, then they wouldn't need baffles in the tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-propellant_rocket#Disadvantages_of_liquid_rockets 'Liquid propellants are subject to slosh, which has frequently led to loss of control of the vehicle. This can be controlled with slosh baffles in the tanks as well as judicious control laws in the guidance system.' Liquids are relatively INcompressible. Go try to compress water with steel for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolock (Before you argue this, I hope you realize if you want to put that fuel under compression you'll have to beef up the tanks, which in turn adds weight, which in turn adds more fuel needed to fly higher, which in turn adds more weight because you'll have to beef up the tanks. Suddenly your rocket doesn't fly anymore from being fat from an eating disorder.) Temperature? Not so important when the atoms and molecules hitting you are so rare you'd only encounter one or two every often. In the atmosphere (Hint hint, 'atmosphere.') you're encountering a whole lot (Ever wonder what drag is? Maybe it might be related to the collision of 'a lot of' particles...) Back to the problem of calling this realistic: Why did you say fuel was incompressible when you 'just assumed'/'didn't know any better.' This isn't about opinion or facts, this is about just making a claim on a half baked idea. I divide the masses of everything by 10 and call it 'realistic' because 'oh yeah no they're using foam sprayed on cardboard for their building materials.' 1: Maybe they are. 2: Maybe they aren't. 3: Maybe if I scale the thrust and claim that because everything is made of foam, they use really mild rockets. 4. Maybe they use some form of superfoam that has incredible properties It still happens to be a load of bullpuckey from me if I called it that. If I called it the 'foam rockets mod' then I don't think anyone would have a problem with my general vagueness there. Education/Age/Hobbies/Gender doesn't matter when you're just making up reasoning to justify a relatively silly claim.

'In the early days of high altitude sounding rockets with small motors, such as Goddard’s WAC Corporal, propellants were delivered to the motor by pressurized gas. But today’s giants burn such extraordinary amounts of propellant per second, only extremely high speed pumps can deliver the fuel and oxidizer in sufficient quantities fast enough. These pumps are driven by the same propellants burned in the engine.' I see nothing about fuel under compression here.

Double the numbers for parachute's open and semi open drag states and you'll fix the problem of not being able to land properly. You will risk tearing the capsule off the rocket and/or the chute being torn off the capsule if the capsule's weight is raised too much.

I'll have to agree with darrknox, it seems you dislike boosters but I'll throw this in: You don't like them because they're nice and easy to use for simple rockets. Perhaps you might want to look at the actual burn time of a solid rocket motor. Consider this, the existing solid rocket boosters are great for punting a very heavy rocket off the launch pad and to 3,000 feet up before you throw off the final solid stages to transfer to the liquid motors. Alternatively you could just make a giant cube made of solid boosters and punt yourself into orbit like some of the guys at the SA forums have. Or maybe that idea just makes your brain hurt when you imagine a large cube of SRBs launching a tiny little capsule into space? Before you say 'realistic' you might want to consider that you just said 'I don't know but, just makes sense to me.' It implies you don't know about rocketry very well but instead feel like you're entitled to express your opinions as fact. Have you ever analyzed the composition of the pod and fuel tanks? Maybe that pod might just be built out of cardboard with some coating, it seems to have the crash survivability of a capsule built like that (Able to withstand small impacts, crushes outright in contact with anything else). Oh wait, game pod, no 'fluff' or anything. No 'Titanium-A' shared by armor of supersoldiers and mecha. It happens to be a pod, weighing unknown units and made of unknown composition. Oh and that fuel? No idea if they're using something hilariously fun like hydrazine (That'd explain why Bill and Bob are freaked out all the time.) Bonus: Ever consider that tanks are not 'supersoaker' ('Compression') bladders and actually have, gasp, fuel pumps?! Or maybe you might want to read up on liquid rockets that have reignite capability in space and find out about the fun things like having to deal with sloshing in the fuel tank (... Odd, fuel under compression wouldn't slosh, would it?) On .73 I've made a 5 stage rocket that will launch off the pad, go into orbit, dive back into the atmosphere and then head back into orbit then deorbit. On .8 I've also made another 5 stage rocket that does exactly the same but with a much enlarged final stage and with less solid boosters. And on .83 I've made much more simple, 3 stage rockets that do exactly that with large payloads (3 of the stock liquid fuel tanks) Does it mean anything that I can build rockets that do this? Not really. Does it mean anything you can build rockets that something similar? Not really. It does mean we have very, very large rockets with very high thrust output. This seems more like an attempt to 'reimagine' the gameplay to your personal tastes more than 'realism.' (What realism, KSB has more in parallel with a hilarious version of the Soviet Space Program and every possible little explodey incident that potentially could of happened and has happened.) Oh and I don't mean this post as an attack towards you, it just seems you have some misguided ideas and you're honestly trying to change the gameplay. Perhaps you might want to call this a gameplay changing mod and not a 'realism' mod. It just seems very off for you to call it a 'realism' mod relative to what KSB provides right now ('Not a flight simulator.')

They're encountered a monolith!