Darnok

I see you don't get it... what is color of grass?

What property? Just because someone wrote equation doesn't mean that equation defines how universe works. Person who build model of universe based on his knowledge and his interpretations of experiments could think in wrong way. It wouldn't be first time where science "works" in very narrow range, but if you try to apply that in wider range, it doesn't work like hypothesis predicted Sadly science instead of going back and throw away wrong interpretation and equations make additions to them... and scientists say it is ok to make small "patch" to entirely wrong concept.

I doubt it that military would use trains to reach targets over ocean

here is more about "how" it is possible http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/chinese-reportedly-working-on-superfast-submarine-that-would-fly-in-an-air-bubble-20140826-108tfw.html

1. Life support - when all resources are consumed Kerbals can become uncontrollable. They can also disable all remote access turning off all probe cores on vehicle, so you would be forced to send more "food". You can rent NPC space agency to resupply your Kerbals, to make game less repetitive and it would be good late game feature. 2. Make mini games during experiments? 3. This one is interesting, but it is not all. Right now we have "science points" and you can develop news wings parts while making non-atmospheric mission that is main problem. We should have few types of science points, different type for Mun (no atmo) and different type for Duna/Eve/Laythe (atmo). During carrier mode we should be able to buy wings only for points gathered in atmospheric missions. Next types could be points for manned and unmanned missions, with those 4 types you can do many interesting things. Players wouldn't be able to grind science points on Kerbin or Mun and buy whatever they want to and possibly we wouldn't have to grind at all, because things could be cheaper, just would require us to go in many different locations. With probe core you wouldn't be able to improve your capsules or landers cans and opposite with manned mission you wouldn't improve probe cores 4. Yes please. 5. The more engines and parts the better for me Devs should add some low and high tech parts for carrier mode, I know in sandbox low tech parts probably wouldn't be used much, but in carrier mode people have to make path for better tech. Also would be nice to have few futuristic parts, since KSP is game where we should get much farther then Mun!

How? What is inside fairings?

It looks like black...

What is with gender question? There should be male and female only.

So they have found aether in micro scale and they are calling it quantum fluctuations... [face palm]

What? How? I can launch asteroids from Kerbin?

Yes this is nice idea. We should also have in editor mode where we can use fuel flow order, so we wouldn't need so many fuel lines.

Yes please, I would like some modular crafts in stock To show new players why do you need docking ports.

Yeah if F3 report says "crashed" we should get debris grouped under single craft name.

That is one possible solution other would be to rent flight from NPC agency and pay them to deliver one more boring subassembly to orbit? This NPC agency would give you their own price for this mission, of course their prices should be bit higher than your own mission price, so if you want to save time you spend more money, but if you need money you fly on your own. In late game it could solve "boring delivery and not only that missions" issue, since you should have lots of money and you would want to speed up things

I am not using Basic, but other interpreted language - Python. While my code is interpreted and slower than C, any call for system or math function is as fast as in C, because I can use CPython - interpreter with libraries written in C and compiled, so linux can run them in same way as your C code Again about Google, Python creator Guido van Rossum once said that Google would use only python, because of few features, but since Java has larger market share they want to lure as much devs as possible to their tools. Facebook is written in PHP, but they convert and compile their code to C++. You can do same thing with other interpreted languages. Of course for someone who is doing physics fortran is always the best. Also why do you even compare interpreted and complied langs? If you compare monkey and fish on how fast they can climb trees, monkey always wins, but it is very narrow minded since interpreted languages are not created to have same performance and same purpose as compiled langs.

In most cases what NASA and other scientist from US says its dead end, waste of time, resources and human life. I only hope that Russia and China are not going to race at direction pointed by NASA, I hope they will pick their own direction

You should look at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA 1960 3,222,000,000$ (2014 Constant Dollars) 0.5% of Fed Budget 1966 43,554,000,000$ 4.41% 2010 20,423,000,000$ 0.52% Sure they have half of money they had in 1966, but back then they had to invest a lot of money in new studies and new infrastructure. Today they can use this infrastructure they where building for last 50 years right? Of course they could develop new technologies like Orion, but they have data from Apollo program, they don't have to start from scratch. It looks like NASA is doing many things in very stupid way, first they made very expensive shuttles that were dead-end http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1694/1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program then they made expensive space station http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/nasa-admits-shuttle-iss-were-mistakes/

This guy is C dev from 2000 At that time Java garbage collector was bad and making your own memory management was better solution in some cases. Of course Java doesn't have function called free(), but you can force JVM to run garbage collector at time you need it, but you should be advanced dev if you want to do this. If you are someone who likes authorities... keep in mind that Google is using Java and JVM as their main development environment and they are not people who like to waste resources

Here are some tests, they are from 2009 http://reverseblade.blogspot.com/2009/02/c-versus-c-versus-java-performance.html but my point in here is not how much faster is "my fav lang over someone else fav lang" you have there nice chart showing in what algorithms one language is better than the other. I don't know what is your app main "logic", so you have to decide on your own, what kind of algorithms you are using most and pick best solution for that. Here is also nice benchmark for linux and many languages and many algorithms http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/ You can think about your app structure on many different layers. Multithreading is one way and it is good if you have multiple cores and multiple computers, but it won't save you from issues like: load large data chunk from disk (disk usage 100%, CPU usage 0%) run logic (disk 0%, CPU 100%) write data to disk (disk 100%, cpu 0%) You have to pick right size of chunk you read and write, so you wouldn't waste lots of time doing that part of your code. You can also try to make buffer for loaded chunks and load next portion of data while "run logic" step your CPU is used at 100%, but disk is free to load next part of file. It all depends what is your logic if and how it can be sliced... yes logic not only data can be sliced in some algorithms, for example standard logic: load input data -> process logic -> write output in some cases you can use mid-points, it all depends what are you doing: input data -> process 1st part of logic -> temp file -> 2nd part of logic -> output data now if you would want to repeat lots of time 2nd step of your logic you can safe some time just by reading input data from temporary files. You can even try alternative method and not using any programming language just put your data in database engine and create SQL query... databases are great if you need to find patterns, sort, count or aggregate your data and I am sure they are going to run very fast and you can split them on multiple computers There is no single "best scenario, best language or best algorithm" it depends what are you doing: - if you need to repeat execution of your app multiple time with same data, but you put different parameters in your logic - repeat execution of app every time with different data set and same parameters in logic - or else

Few questions: 1. Does your app have to process data in chain or you can split processing in multiple threads? 2. Do you have access to many computers? 3. Do you need multiplatform app? (all you computers are running linux or there are many different systems?) 4. Problem is CPU power or I/O of your hard drive (you mentioned 200GB of data)? If your app have to process many loops with exact same code you could use Java, I don't remember now how it is called, since I wasn't using Java for last few years, but there was some really great feature in that language. It could compile parts of your Java code into native code for your OS, so it was running as fast as C code Ohh and if someone is saying to you that you have to know C to write plugins for Java ask him in what language is written Java virtual machine (that is key for multiple platform app)... Spoiler alert it is C++

C# integration with C/C++ in what project? You have very narrow experience in Java then... Java is multiplatform, so you can use it under windows, linux or mac, while adding your C plugin would mean you have to write and maintain 3 different versions of this plugin. Of course not every software needs to be multiplatform software, but it is one of main Java features.

I can't see sense in learning C, C++ and C#. C and C++ is used for example to code linux kernel, while C# is Microsoft invention and it has nothing to do with those two. C# is more like Java and most of its features was invented to take market share of Java, so learning C# at same time as C and C++ is mistake IMO. If you are looking for language for your self it would be reasonable to pick most popular first http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

Sagan in his Cosmos series was talking about friend who came up with idea how to test "if there is life on Mars?", but his project did get funds... or it was bit too heavy to fit the craft... I don't remember what episode it was and what mission was he talking about. Mission was successful just without equipment to study samples and detect life. NASA probably is going to announce they know... why Moon is red only sometimes and Mars all the time!!! I wonder what other agencies discovered, last time when NASA was doing TV show about Kepler... one observatory discovered second (or rather 3rd) star at size of Sun with planet at size of Jupiter on nearly exact orbit as our Jupiter is. That was interesting discovery anyone heard about it in TV?

Yeah would be nice, it could be also used as landers testing ground, since planets are not perfectly flat also would be nice to use something more than just wheels, since we are going to explore different planets we could use more advanced configurations

For me most important thing in space exploration is human health and life. After few years on Mars you will have health issues, smaller than after few year on ISS, but still. On Venus you can spend 10 years and you almost won't feel the difference, so after you return to Earth you won't have to spend weeks or months(?) on things you don't want to waste your life. First bases on both Mars and Venus are going to be build on Earth and send to its destination, so you don't have to worry about metals for first 20-30+ years? Just look at ISS, how long its working and how much metals they needed to mine to repair main structure? Even if you mine metals you won't do anything with those metals on Mars, it is called heavy industry for a reason To build simple CPU you need more than 5 different metals, what do you think to mine "ksp ore"? You would need many mines to find those rare metals. And even after 30+ years living on Mars, your funny solar panels won't give you enough energy to power up ironworks. Because to manufacture metals you need insane amounts of heat, on Mars you can have solar panels, maybe few geothermal power plants... while on Venus you have unlimited amount of heat right there on the ground level! With Venusian ground level pressure we could make stronger structures from metals? Inside flying cities you could use wood as main building blocks, outside structure can be delivered from Earth. On Venus you won't need pressurized structures like on Mars, so living space will be much much larger. In first few years main goal of both Mars and Venus bases is going to be produce enough food to self sustain. I've seen picture of corn grown on ISS and grown on Earth, no idea if this was true, but if it was ISS corn had ~30% size of corn grown on Earth. If that is correct then on Mars you will get 50% food production efficiency compare to Earth? While on Venus you have ~95%, and you don't need pressurized space because you can have almost same pressure as on Earth. While on Mars pressurized space for plants if going to be problem, because you will need lots of it and pressurized space is not cheap and it is not lightweight.