ModZero

You... you do realise that Catholic Europe was quite a bit of a side-show, especially science-wise, in the middle ages? Catholic Church didn't control science because it literally couldn't. Looks at the site... ...oh... well, this is a waste of time.

That's... not an argument. Like, at all. That's because doing things involving sentient beings always involves politics. "We need to be good stewards" is a political statement. There was, like, in the early 20th century, that's how far we are since the last time it was still a sensible dispute. Since then it was entirely about "how much" and "how long before we've doomed ourselves" and, ultimately, "we're doomed." Not really, just tell them to stop spreading nonsense and confusion. Even petrochem is giving up on propping your ideas up, and they've spend real money since the eighties suppressing the idea of AGW. Not at all, in that RCC didn't control science in the middle ages.

It's all one thing, a very specific question about CO2, not AGW, and yes, there are other gases that are very significant factor, like methane, from cows. I guess you could count that as bovine climate change, but that will still come back to humans. And it doesn't really take a long to find this out, and you're moving the goalposts, and oh god this thread got terrible. Also stop reading Forbes and Politifact, I mean, seriously, they put "winner of the pulitzer prize" in their subtitle.

You just made everyone here very, very tired. Also, that's a lie. Read this, this, this and sin no more. EDIT: and, as I said before: haha, politics-free discussion of science. Lol, not gonna happen.

Nah, we displayed we can unintentionally alter an atmosphere as a side effect. It doesn't mean we can do it differently, without doing all the other things that the original change was a side effect of. Organisational and infrastructure requirements are important, if you ignore them then we can do everything.

There is a world (hue hue) of difference between doing something as an unwanted side-effect of mass-scale activity, and doing something in a controlled manner as a condition to enable similar scale of activity. I mean, for a very distant comparison: I can, technically, defeat a squad of fully trained marines. Just put me in a car. I can't drive, so that's how I'd "defeat" them. That doesn't mean I'm able to defeat a squad of fully trained marines on purpose. Frankly, a malnourished kitten is a challenge. (OTOH, never underestimate a malnourished kitten, here's an example of a kitten using psychological warfare against a soldier). EDIT: in b4 "so we just have to try very hard to not terraform Mars"

Right now we're having trouble keeping terra terraformed, so I'll remain skeptical.

Congratulations on owning yourself, Japan's population has been declining for ages. Yes, you already mentioned Japan. Only if you're a neocolonialist, but I'd hope we wouldn't have such people in these parts, so surely you aren't. You can have an economy that collapses when the growth isn't high enough, but frankly, you can also have economy that collapses when people don't buy enough things they don't need or want, I'd blame the particular brand of economy for that. (edit: I'm having a bit of fun bending the rules, b/c I kinda think that outlawing "political discussion" is a bit on the funny side, especially on a science/tech subforum, but I think it's best if we stop before the mods kick us out of the forest).

They are a classic bad example of how exponential growth works. By now we have plenty of examples of how populations react to stimuli in regards to how much children they have. Especially if you give all the useful tools to the part of the population that has to go through one of the most dangerous activities people can go through, just to push a baby out and then be stuck with the rascal for 18 years. So yeah, birth control is both viable, more realistic, and more sustainable than converting a solar system into a parking lot. Note that even the Culture books don't convert planets to building material - because that's just boring. And "zero in long term" isn't good enough. Imaginary permanent few percents of growth would be a good example of exponential growth, in that we'd rather quickly run out of the energy output of the entire universe full of stars. So, with infinite money, we could finally figure out the male birth control pill. Now that's a scenario to get excited about. I guess we could send some people to explore the Jovian system, that should work as birth control too

Pretty sure that would violate planetary protection guidelines. I'm going to propose birth control as a low-tech alternative solution to the living space problem.

I'm saying "who cares about Mars?" It's a silly planet. HTH, HaND.

Blocked & reported. A really nasty case of global warming, if we were to go with the "omg progress" route. In a more optimistic scenario, we could finally put robots everywhere. Except Venus, because Venus is terrible. Balloons, I guess. This is where money blocks us the most right now — we have the tech to send a robot pretty much anywhere in the solar system, but we can't really do them all the time, and often have to compromise against cost. Gib more monies, get more and fancier robots. While putting meatbags in space is kinda silly, we could probably do crewed missions and long-term stays on the moon and high orbit, and move on to Titan (skip Mars,who cares about Mars anyway?) a bit later on.

Well, there are ways to manage it. Freezing the entire lot until you build up the tunnel, keeping the seal between the drill and the tunnel edge, lots and lots of pump everywhere. It's not really easier than going through rock, though. But San Francisco could absolutely have a proper subway, just like Amsterdam has one :-P

Hahaha no. Hell no. Modern TBMs for soft soils often have to freeze the ground around them so that it's possible to tunnel the thing properly. Anyhow, oh dear, Musk had an idea again :[

So I noticed that the Bluedog patch is incomplete, in particular the geiger counter experiment is inconsistent with the Kerbalism one, and some of the probes that should have antennas don't. I made a very basic hackfix here. Note that it only pokes a few of the probes, and it has the issue with having both "extend antenna" and "deploy antenna" show up - but Explorer I and Mercury work now, the geiger counter uses the right experiment ID, and the geiger counter has a sensor, yay.

Disappearing and displacing (!) shrouds are a stock bug, it should be somewhere in the bug tracker. It's... unpleasant. NecroBones' mods seem to attract the bug quite reliably for me, but it's been confirmed (in the bug reports) on pure stock installs.

Anyone tried doing a 3.2 body size/6.4 orbit resize for Sigma Dimensions + OPM? I've been playing with that (I even asked on the other subforum), but my solutions are probably rather naive (i.e. they don't go beyond the obvious, and a massive upscale to top level tracking station and antennas). I'm particularly interested in bodies that should be exceptions, and other people's approach to antenna range scaling.

I've been trying to set myself up with a game that uses Outer Planets Mod and rescales bodies 3.2x, and orbits 6.4x (as I remember reading people had good experiences with that setup, ages ago). I actually started on a config (here, for reference, note that OPM already does its own rescaling of antenna power, and it is very basic), but was wondering if anyone has something more developed than this. I do already find getting to Kerbin orbit a nice sweet spot between challenging and annoying, but I have a nagging suspicion I'd end up tweaking the config in all directions later on.

It's similar to the disappearing shrouds thing in that it happened after a scene change. Probably a fault of a conflict, but I'm kinda hoping others hit it, as it's not 100% reproducible and thus a real pain to track down, and this mod introduces A Lot Of Shrouds that seem to trigger it. EDIT: ah, nevermind. It's a stock bug: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/12329.

So, uh, I know about the disappearing end-caps bug, but this is something I've seen for the first time: Not sure if it's the mods fault (if it's anything like the old end caps bug, it's not), just wondering if it's known/anyone else has seen it.

I'm pretty sure (but not entirely sure) I remember @RoverDude mentioning on Reddit that there was an intent to make it possible for the communication net thing to be extended by RemoteTech. If that's the case, then maybe it's actually possible to hack extra restrictions on controls based on the snacks situation. Replacing ModuleCommand seems like a recipe for trouble, there's plenty of MM configs out there that look for it.

Whew. I couldn't repeat it because I wasn't very bright and forgot to upgrade the astronaut centre. So, here's the image: http://imgur.com/a/YFjdg Here's the save: https://gist.github.com/aleander/9ba1018e088c02d60663f6135f39995f and here's the log: https://gist.github.com/aleander/c69350101d7d4b9d79c99e0bf9dfb598

For me the space station issue went away, but I also just got a hungry Kerbal (with 10k penalty) in my game. Right now my save is probably a bit too much of a mess, I'll see if I can get a basic version with just Snacks. EDIT: Ugh, having trouble to actually cheat myself into a rescue contract on a clean save :[

Okay, so, here's a log: https://gist.github.com/aleander/62f9814e1417381dca7236c2c7cc81b5 And, I see that the Kerbals waiting for Rescue don't actually cost me anything: http://imgur.com/a/RCn9b. They just complain.

1.4.5, that's latest AFAIK? (I do use MiniAVC, too, so I should be getting warnings if it's not the latest, right? I can't spot it in logs, and the messages blink out a bit too quickly, but I'll try to poke at it a bit more. Also, I have quite a bit of mods in this install (including most of yours), so I might have to try isolating (gah).