lajoswinkler

Such batteries aren't enough to be able to hold receivers on standby. Keeping internal clock and data, that's ok, but other stuff requires an actual power source to amplify the signal.

Because those things' sizes are obvious to anyone.

You can press the green triangle in its menu and turn it off. If you did that in real life, the probe can't respond anymore. Sending a signal "wake up" can't be processed because the probw no longer works. It's that simple and it was featured in older KSP versions. We need that because it adds a sense of reality and caution.

I have an error to report. Procedural heat shield in combination with DRE failed two times. The probe is on a cubic octagonal strut which is on the top of the shield. No clipping anywhere. The shield behaves as it's semitransparent to the heat.

Hopefully, this mod will work again. It's highly immersive and thus a must have.

433 points at the moment. I'm coming there.

You can also turn off the battery and later turn it back on. You couldn't do that before (realism), and now you can (fantasy).

Gravity plays a marginal role here. Electrical force (chemical reactions) is responsible for material hardness and properties. I am not surprised at all that at least some parts of the comet are harder than ice. Roughness is also typical and was predicted. This is a microgravitational environment which orbital period is 6.44 years which means its orbit isn't typical of comets. It has been under mild solar particle bombardment during the whole history of solar system. Uneven composition, uneven exposure, bunch of chaotic factors made this surface.

Forced meme is forced.

Of course. That's the probable explanation. 2 MPa is not a lot for icy-rocky composite. The hardness probably varies a lot on the surface. We only have one data point so we can't make a generalization.

There might be steps, yeah, but there's an abrupt change at 160 km for Kerbin. Below that we might have steps. I'm interested in zero rendering which maximizes the station part count I can use.

Nobody? I think it's 130 km for Eve.

For Kerbin, it's 160 km. If you go below, surface features start to render, dropping the framerate considerably on non-beefy computers. That's why it's good to place larger orbital stations above that height. What about other bodies? Also, are there only two modes for surface rendering? On and off, or more? If more, let's use the minimal height for total lack of surface rendering. Gather the data and I'll put it here. Kerbol Moho Eve 130 km Gilly Kerbin 160 km Mun Minmus Duna Ike Dres Jool Laythe 160 km Vall Tylo Bop Pol Eeloo

No. If you miss them, play 0.21.

Yes, very often, but you need to be very precise in order not to change the inclinations a lot.

I know what an Einstein-Rosen bridge is. It's basic scientific culture to know these things. Also, even a toddler can learn it just by googling. I'm interested in more. Is it fixed in space? What's it spatial relation to other objects? If it's fixed in space, that causes problems with the whole relativity of motion. In the movie, it was "near Saturn". What the hell does that mean? Is it orbiting Saturn? If it's fixed, it's fixed relative to what? Nobody is talking about these things.

Meerkats. They're the epithome of what a successful mammal is: creating a protected family unit in a society.

Stay strong.

You haven't put the crucial photos which explain this comic.

Is a wormhole an object with mass that orbits something? I've never heard people talking about those things. "It's a hole in space" - great. Positioned relative to what?

As others said it, ignore the little brat. "Cool story, bro" - that works on them. He'll get worse, but that's only temporary. Once he realizes you're not backing up from your stance, he'll get tired.

In the wacky world of theoretical physics, "theory" is a raped term. Theory is something which includes empirical data and an explanation. It's consistent. There are not many theories out there, and each of them is strong in its field of work. So you can't say "not a proven fact, just a theory". That is a meaningless statement. Lots of stuff from theoretical physics is simply not a theory, but a hypothesis. Why are those physicists insisting on calling their scribbling theories, I don't know. My suggestion - outside theoretical physics, consider the word "theory" to be for all intents and purposes a solid block of cast iron. Modern evolutionary theory, general & special relativity, germ theory, plate tectonic theory, ... Inside theoretical physics... expect this:

Why would it crash? It made a touchdown at less than 1 m/s into low density material. Even with its 100 kg, there should be no damage.

The lander is not pointing one of its legs upward. It's standing properly, but one leg is in the void. Maybe he's on a rim of something, or there's a lowered ground in a strong shadow beneath that leg.

Sideways panorama, Andersenman.