78stonewobble

Right now, it's this for me as well and I still don't understand why the limit is there. I don't see the point in my waiting for a number to drop rather than doing mun landings. I don't need to get more science or faster science than I normally would, but the timewarp and micromanaging is a chore. So I say either raise the datalimit quite a big or give us some datastorage modules we can use to offset the low lab limit.

Sure, why not... But to be honest I think we could use a few more icons/categories... Atleast a new icon for probes and one for com satellites as well

I've dabbled in varying distributions of linux for years, but for gaming? Noooo, I have too many games for that. Windows slow and bloated? Possibly, but... my computer isn't the fastest one by far... An i5-4690k, 8gb ram, gtx 770, 500 gb ssd, 2 old 640 gb harddrives in raid 0 and 2 tb backup drive running windows 7 64 bit... It's plenty fast for me for now... Sure I could probably improve some load times here and gain some fps there, but it isn't worth the work for me.

Aren't you allways gonna get pagefile chugs, unless you run without it completely? Personally, I'd get a 2nd computer for the other stuff.

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll give both a try.

Literally only just found this mod and it looks absolutely amazing. Stunning even... and I can't wait to try it out. I do have one question tho and sorry if it's a stupid one. The principle "seems" to be like the stock service bays, which my newbness haven't had the best luck with in regards to the physics engine ... So are these more newbie friendly in that area?

I would separate the metals in orbit. Fashion an aerodynamic cone, like a capsule, of the cheapest materials, knowing they would ablate/melt to a certain degree and not care... Put the precious metals on the inside... And bolt on some standard automatic parachutes.

Eat less and/or exercise more. Though low carbs isn't a bad idea, there are more obvious way to cut the energy intake. Like soda, candy, cakes and fatty chips and meats. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but eating ALOT of fruit is equally bad, since some of these are also high in sugar content? My "food and nourishment classes" are way behind me... but I think the best tip is still to drink a little more water during the day, so you don't go snacking as much and at every meal... cram in some vegetables. They're the filler. EDIT: In any case, don't go overboard on your own. The body needs proteines, carbohydrates, sugars, salts and vitamins... Ask a doctor or a nutritional expert for help for some sort of food plan.

Yeah, I remember a clip talking about fukushima, while showing the tsunami destruction up to and including a dead body at the waters edge. O.o ... Way to paint a picture...

Hmm... Then there is also... what you actually got for the money. There's the often quoted thing about the apollo program giving work to 1 million(?) people over how many years? Interesting to compaire to the atleast the F-22 raptor program and eg. interstate highway system. And then comes spin off technologies and other benefits of the programs.

And persistent popular support and support from both houses over time. ... I actually don't mind. That it won't fly too often... But my faith in humanity, will fall to dangerous levels, if we just let heavy lift capability to space slide once again, so that the next time again... We have to start from scratch again. Hopefully international cooperation can help prevent that, even if the launch rate is low.

Based on relatively small scale projects and ignoring the needed ressources to build, deploy and maintain enough solarcells, windturbines and energy storage to replace to a high degree or all of global conventional powerproduction (taking in mind that solar power has to be dimensioned with eg. 14 percent efficient loss over 7 years). Not to mention that energy usage will increase by a great deal (double or triple global use) as more and more people get relatively richer and from changing eg. heating from central heating to electrical.

I don't really know, how I could have made, what I said any simpler. Here's what I said: "I don't believe anyone who says they fully understand how the earths climate works, so I do take the explanations about eg. global warming with a grain of salt. Not that I don't believe in global warming, but in the sense we don't completely understand how or why or the reasons yet... And it's on that basis I think it is dangerous to keep emitting as much co2 as we do, with our poor understanding of the ramifications." Fully understand/completely understand = Know ALL variables to a very high degree of precision and possibly a way to fully simulate it. I don't believe that we are there yet and thus all the models have more or less inaccuracy. While some experts might be able to distinguish between worse or better models, the average person (me) probably cannot and thus I take them with a grain of salt. Eg. allowing for the inaccuracy and our incomplete understanding of all variables, interpersonal scientist rivalry, book sales of scientists, politicians and what not. I also directly say, that I believe in global warming, there seems to be a rather wide concensus about that tendency and that it is dangerous to keep pumping out as much co2 as we do... without fully understanding the ramifications. So yeah, I guess the only difference is I want to cut co2 pollution, whereas you wanna pump out more via megaprojects.

I agree on the dumping, but what damage did the bombs do again? Supposedly and statistically 11.000 extra cancer deaths... Don't know if that's in the US alone or worldwide. For comparison the worldwide cancer deaths is around 8 million, 7 million from air pollution and 1.5 mio die in automobile accidents a year. In that comparison... terrible damage is much less than 1 percent of truely terrifying damage. Ah mister "solerpanels will drop in price so exponentially that people will get paid to buy them in the future"... We meet again. Now, did I write "basic understanding" or did I write "fully understand"? Want me to describe the difference using small words and anthropomorphized cartoon animals?

Haha, this is a great one... Alternatively our ego's are growing faster and faster and pushing / pulling the universe apart.

How did dumping nuclear waste in the mediterranean and pacific and explode 250 nuclear bombs (isn't it more like 2000 anyway?) increase co2? And while exploiting ressources in the wild certainly does release some co2, you have to calculate in, not just the mining, but the refinement, production and transport and lifecycle of whatever we produce from there. Personally I do believe that certain consumerism have reached too high levels. The whole new clothes, new phones, new computer every year is a bit much even for me. For comparison I upgrade my computer every 3-5 years, because that is important to me. I don't believe anyone who says they fully understand how the earths climate works, so I do take the explanations about eg. global warming with a grain of salt. Not that I don't believe in global warming, but in the sense we don't completely understand how or why or the reasons yet... And it's on that basis I think it is dangerous to keep emitting as much co2 as we do, with our poor understanding of the ramifications. Unlike dumping nuclear waste in oceans, which while a local problem, is a miniscule one compaired to global climate change. Unless godzilla offcourse...

So far atleast, they have not found areas of the universe where widespread matter/antimatter annihilation occurs. So yeah, no evidence - - - Updated - - - It means the distance that light has to travel is expanding as the light travels.

For purely subjective aesthetic reasons I find the "dark fluid theory" interesting. I like the idea of unifying gravity, dark matter and dark energy and the fluidity of spacetime. That doesn't make it true tho...

Well, I presume that depends on the Falcon 9 production rate... If that is high, you cannot "just" build a Falcon heavy, nor if it's low and you've had to scale back employees, but correct. However, on orbit assembly via smaller multiple launches, might make certain projects too expensive. Your project might need capabilities that only the sls have and so forth. Well... I can comfortably predict that the falcon heavy (trips to space) will not be found in the bubblegum machines either, nor will it exactly help that billionaires can pay allmost billions for going to space. That will happen, when we have some superlight super strong alloy/thingy for craft and engines, that can survive a hundred launches and reentry's with exceedingly little maintenance. So possibly never... Or get a space elevator. The only way for space use to boom, til then, so theres actually places to go and stuff to do, is regular scheduled access, heavily subsidised by government(s).

For comparison the Saturn V and it's heavy lift capability supposedly came at a price of 494 million US$ (inflation adjusted US$ 3.18 billion in 2015) per rocket including launch. The Falcon Heavy... Has the same basic problem. If noone is willing to pay for it or for payloads for it. Then it will not get used. Possibly it will be used to launch multiple satellites a few times, but if noone wants to pay for scientific payloads, then it will never fly with them.

Well, it will be whatever congress wants to pay for and wants to do in space. And I suspect that the budget will run out before we get anywhere near the technical limitations of how fast one can produce the rockets. I think, it's more interesting to ponder, what we could actually do, with around maksimum production of them. 3-4 launches a year. What kind of projects would be possible then?

My old apartment was a bit mystery spotish. ... The building had sunk quite a bit at one end and a relatively new apartment been built up inside to horizontal. Which meant at one end in the living room there were like 5 cm's from top of the window to the roof of the room and at the other end 20-30 cm's. Pretty much everyone who sat in the couch naturally slanted to the side from that. But to jump to antigravity? That's just stupid or as ts says intentionally ignorant.

Couldn't it possibly have been the worlds slooooowest impact of an object (nigh just lying down on the ground), which then slowly melted / collapsed under gravity into the coneshape?

Well, I for one, refuse to believe in singularities. *lol* Which is to say, I don't have a problem believing in black holes or densities large enough to cause an object to have a schwarzschild radius, but I do have a problem with infinite density. That I don't believe in... I think some unknown process must hold the collapse, before this happens. I also reserve a grain of salt for dark matter. It's probably there, but til we have a better explanation of what it is and how it works, I think it would be prudent to assume we might not know as much as we think we do. Personally I think, that if gravity, dark matter and dark energy were all variations of the same thing, it would be a far more elegant solution, but offcourse the universe listens very little to me.

Am I the only one who thought the title was a euphemism?