JebidiahsBigSister

That's the difficult part. Maybe the astronaut would have raised edible insects in a container and instead of space food, they would've packed insect food. Or even better they could have raised edible bacteria because bacteria are even teenier and they eat even less right? Alternatively we can choose to not break the second law of thermodynamics.

So how hard is it to build a 10c warp drive? Hard enough so that no civilization in MW galaxy has managed it until less than a million years ago, which on the scale of the age of the galaxy is equivalent to saying that nobody has built one yet. You don't have to do FTL to colonize the galaxy. If a civilization expands outwards at only .005c average (1 light year every 500 years ) - say it can reach 10% light speed - colonizes a planet then a few hundred years to build up a .1c starship capability again - all pretty modest assumptions to say the least. Well at .005c you colonize the entire galaxy (100,000Ly wide) in an average of "only" 50 million years (actually it's half that but let's keep thinks conservative) . 50 million years maximum for a civilization to colonize the entire galaxy and you don't need FTL. Our Galaxy is 13.2 billion years old. That's roughly 260time slots for any civilization to conquer the entire galaxy if it choose to. Yet we hear nothing via radio. That's the Fermi paradox.

Pretty much I built both craft after I watched 2001 again a couple of days ago. Then I found this great camera mod (hull cam) and created a teeny satellite with cameras in all directions, boosted it up on the spaceplane and used it to get the shot.

You don't have to go to the center of the Galaxy to get higher star densities. Globular clusters are scattered all around the galaxy just outside of the galactic plane. The closest one, M4 ,is "just" 7200 light years away (a quarter of the distance to the galactic center) and contains 10,000 stars in just a 75 light year diameter Issac Azimov wrote a classic science fiction piece, titled NightFall, about a civilization living in such a cluster.

There are no such things as "programming paradoxes" I've been a professional Developer since the 80's so I know something about Computer Science . There are however some concepts which are extremely hard to prove or disprove such as the n=p problem (google it) which rely on an advanced university level understanding of information theory and is out of context to really discuss here. What you are talking about , The Singularity, is science fiction (look up Vernor Vinge) , not science - all too often the two are confused.

The Oort cloud is not a nebula - it is a collection of debris from the formation of the solar system and it is as real and proven as the asteroid belt. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here - it would be like saying that you disbelieve in Mars. I strongly agree with the poster who referred you to Google. The first step in gaining knowledge is research (looking something up in a reliable source) rather than posting an opinion of something. Here is some information about it from NASA

This

Personally, I'm feeling a little flushed

Of course Mars One is a scam. Care to bet that the guy running it isn't drawing a nice (as in hefty) salary for his "efforts" . And he won't actually launch the colony for another decade. Nice work if you can get it. Sending a bunch of untrained people to another planet without the proven technology, infrastructure or cash reserves: What could possibly go wrong? Look up Moller Aircraft: that guy has been successfully marketing a non-existent flying car for over thirty years now , all the while drawing a nice salary as CEO of the company while rubes give him money waiting for their flying car fortunes to materialize.

stupid_chris: That is very strange isn't it? Chris, perhaps you could tell me what things you would be looking for in a craft file that consists of three parts in order to determine where it's going wrong as you put it. I've duplicated the behavior and I see at least four other posts here and in another thread with the same behavior. What specifically should we be looking for in the craft file in order to determine why a 3 part craft unbalances and collapses one of the landing legs? I would be very curious to look in the craft file on my end to look for what you are attempting to find.

stupid_chris : Yes exactly! Which is why I chose the natural log. I mean it's not like I was trying to imply that someone has way overthought the reputation system or anything.

I think that you have a miscalculation somewhere in the reputation formula. If you think about it, one's reputation should actually be the square of the reputation given (i.e. that you give) plus the days since your registration divided by 100 (not 90 - this is an obvious error) subtracting the natural log of your Reddit karma on the KSP forums. I htink that once you think about it the reasons are pretty obvious. Should I log this as a bug or just report it to the mods?

The clipping issue resolves itself once your ship topples over on the new landing legs.

Yes-that's exactly what I am seeing. It's annoying

With regard to the people who claim that it works the same as it did in .21 : - I recall pretty much the same claims back in .21 - just before they patch fixed it - it can't possibly "work the same" because the release notes say that they've changed it - fwiw I, and several other posters are definitely noticing a change here. My heavier launches definitely wibble about but only after I use SAS to make a minor correction (pressing F does not stop the wibbling btw) . I notice this MUCH more on heavier launches and I also notice that the effect diminishes if I add more (moar) reaction wheels. But for the same number of reaction wheel strength there is definitely a difference. I suppose I could always just add more SAS than I used to do but he same (heavy) rockets are definitely behaving less stable on launches if I start using SAS

stupis_chris: in the post above yours , Brotoro recreates the issue using only 4 parts which I replicated and verified as well (using only 3 parts because I skipped the battery). I'm not sure what good having the O.P. upload a craft file would do. The Devs can replicate this in about a minute's time with just 3 parts.

I've been keeping a watchful eye on The Goo. I expect it to mutate at any moment and then leap out of an exploded Jeb's tummy requiring me to hunt it down and create a mechanized loader in order to throw it out of my ship.

Is anyone else a bit miffed about the way SAS works now? I really liked the way SAS worked after the .21 patch but now I find that it behaves erratically in .22. My biggest gripe is during launches where the rocket is generally stable unless I add a small bit of correction at which point it will no longer "lock" onto an attitude but continues to wibble requiring constant correction from me to keep it at the correct attitude. I find this happens almost always near the vertical attitude (during launch)more so than any other.

FYI - there is no "real physics warp drive" nor is NASA "trying to make" one (despite what you may read in New Scientist "kind of like the Weekly World News for "science"). Even the Alcubierre drive is merely a theory requiring an amount of energy unobtainable in any real known physics.

FWIW - my bug reports above were with the "stronger" legacy version of the landing legs. I predict this will be fixed in a soon to be released patch. As it stands now - the legs are pretty much unusable/unreliable for medium to heavy weight landers.

This is bad news for Fedora wearers everywhere.

I also have the landing leg issue. Several issues actually : 1 - the "g" key now has to be pressed twice in order to extend the gear. 2 - The gear now "break" - and break imho way too easily so that they will not retract if broken - and that happens a lot There is no easy way to tell a broken gear from a very compressed gear so at present you are forced to have your kerbal EVA and check each gear prior to liftoff. You're just SOL with unmanned ships. 3 - The suspension is WAY too soft as the OP stated - ships end up at weird angles. On slopes the downhill side tends to compress and the uphill side tends to extend (exactly the OPPOSITE of what you want) so that ships tend to topple more on slopes. 4 - On minimus I had a kerbal topple the ship just by running into the gear a couple times 5 - Because they are extra springy the gear no longer protect the engines like they used to do. heavier ships are much more prone to getting their landing engines smushed. 6. The ends of the landing gear now seem to sink below the planet surface texture. I've experienced this on Kerbin, Mun Minimus and Eve. (no I'm not using any mods) This is not a "feature" of new gear. It's a bug that needs to be fixed - especially if you have to resort to girders instead of gear . Adding "spring" to landing gear is a feature - having the "spring" always work to your disadvantage is a bug.

Add 24-48 hours to that for the patch which makes the release actually work ALso - Whoever is making those trailers is doing an absolutely awesome (!) job.

I did the same thing with a slightly different craft here: