pincushionman

An electric motor works by the interaction of two magnetic fields: a static field (from the "stator") and a rotating field (oddly enough, from the "rotor"). In order to turn in one direction continuously, one or the other fields must be able to change polarity twice per revolution. Therefore one (or both) of the fields must be provided by an electromagnet. Which one doesn't matter. The non-switching field may be provided by a permanent magnet because it doesn't have to do anything but make a magnetic field, so using a permanent type results in s simpler (cheaper) motor. But you could use an electromagnet if you wish. It's more complex, but you'd have no net magnetic field when the device is switched off. Some applications might call for such behavior, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. So…no. You can build a motor with two electromagnets, or one electro- and one permanent, but not with two permanents. The only way to reverse polarity is with an electromagnet.

Pretty self-explanitory. There is no reason I should need to figure out a whole new control scheme for jetpack vs. a real ship. At least if you don't make it default the same, let us map roll/pitch/yaw to keys so I can do it myself. The LMB+drag paradigm makes no dang sense to me. (plus for some reason my Kerbals aren't turning even when I mapped a joystick axis to their rotations. That's probably an issue with my install, but it doesn't excuse not being able to use keys at all! I've de-selected the option to automatically re-orient to the camera)

Did you use Q/E instead of A/S in this case?

I think it's less "is #1" and more "the first one we decided to list." The reviewer also admitted to never being able to reach space (not orbit, mind you, space, which can be reached by flying straight up with two Hammers and a BACC), so I question any claim of having played long enough to review.

I always have to question this idea that live could evolve floating in clouds in a hydrogen atmosphere, beyond even the "how would it float" part. I mean, we have life floating in water here, but life is not water. It's made of stuff that floats in water. And lots of stuff floats in water. You need a mechanism that transports sufficient quantities of "other stuff" for life to be formed and sustaned. And the whole "dead stuff falls down out if the environment" results in a net loss of already-scarce material. Without a solid surface or relatively dense solvent to collect the basic building blocks in an energy-rich environment…I've gotta say I'm extremely skeptical.

There are settings for the editor contols in the main settings menu. Is the pan camera up-down among them?

I prefer the format of the series. He talks about interesting things, but between the tedious maneuver node setups, waiting for things to happen, and the somewhat haphazard, stream-of-conciousness manner of the chat and discussion, the streams are difficult for me to watch, while the series videos are nicely packaged. That said, I generally prefer the content in the streams. The "okay, let's do this kind of thing today" attitude and process is fun to see.

Are the categories actually populated by the folder contents, or is it a database instead where it's based off tags in the part .cfg? That is, if "rocket engine" and "jet engine" categories were made, could the RAPIER potentially show up in both lists? Or if the 1x2 booster could be shown as both a tank and a rocket?

Grab the root part and start rotating it in small increments. It still won't tell the whole story, but I bet the CoL indicator will start to shoot upards when you do that and the editor starts to show some of the body lift being applied.

Yes, but some aircraft and reverser types are better-suited to it than others. You'll note all three aircraft noted earlier in this thread are high-engine, low-wing models where the wing will interfere with the circulation back to the intake. You're not actually so concerned about ingesting exhaust as you are about blowing up grit and debris from the ramp and ingesting that. @Xyphos' comment is valid, but it's more of a "bad habits" kind of problem for ramp damage, not an issue with being bad for the engine itself. Fine for commercial concerns, but in a general aviation environment you may be in a situation where there is no tractor and still must back up. In those situations you may have no choice.

Not exactly an "upgrade," even if they were to work right. The issue is that the old wheel systems wouldn't work at all, and had to be completely reworked to the new U5 systems, which…are lacking. It's not just KSP suffering from this. So wheels that don't work vs…wheels that don't work. The devs are in a really tough spot here.

Not off-topic at all. When you design an experiment, you need to prepare for both confirming and disproving results. But it's awful hard to design an experiment to expressly disprove an a theory without a competing theory that makes a different prediction - there's no indication that a particular result should be different. Remember how I said if the predictions are the same the theories aren't different? GR experiment results don't really say "GR is proved right" so much as "GR is better than Newtonian by this much." Thing is, there already are experiments that disprove GR. It's just that they're all on the quantum scale, and GR fails them badly. So everyone knows GR is incomplete because of that. We just don't have any theories that can reconcile that and are predictive.

On earth, you don't exactly fly a great circle directly either. You break it up into a series of shorter segments you can hold a heading for. Unless you have more advanced navigation instruments than your compass. Which you need to know how to use anyway if things go wrong.

Here's the thing about axial tilt – it doesn't have to be implemented all at once, or even fully. Step one: Free the planets axes from Planetarium.Up, but keep everything else the same, as a beta. The modders will go crazy. Step two: Once we know that works and the bugs have been worked through, add a new body or two that takes advantage of the axial tilt to get players used to it. If "add a new body" by itself causes bugs, I'll eat my hat. Step three: Change the axial tilts of the existing bodies. Or just some of them. Or none, and leave it to the modders.

Yes. See: Newtonian and all preceding theories vs. GR. Space is flat…space is not flat. The former is such a basic assumption that it's pretty much overlooked when describing non-GR physics, up until GR came about and pointed it out. And why we're forced to use bad anologies (i.e. The rubber sheet example) when we're describingthe GR assumptions..

A measurement is an estimate with well-established bounds. Even a direct measurement, like a beam balance, only works so long as the apparatus is well-defined and understood. In these cases, the "apparatus" used are better-established portions of the theory. This is conceptually no different than using an electronic scale (which measures force, so you have to do math) to determine a mass in a lab rather than a beam balance (which works only when the balance and reference masses are shown to be correct).

Math. Knowing the properties of the electomagnetic fields in the test chamber, you can derive particle masses by studying the paths those particles are observed to follow. Sort of like how if you can obseve the orbits of a planet and its moon, you can determine both their masses. And not faster than the speed of light. Close to it, though. But making it work is a serious engineering challenge.

Possible, yes, but very hard. There are mods that can help, though, like MechJeb to circularize your rocket while you fly the plane, or one that is essentially a time-control mod to let you fly one craft, then rewind time and deal with the other. The other option is to loft your rocket so high you can go hell-for-leather and land before you need to begin your circularization burn. This is no easy task.

There are longstanding bugs regarding symmetry and the relative stiffness of parts and joints. Which causes planes to slowly roll in the air and is partially responsible for the craft drifting to one side during the takeoff and landing rolls. I suspect your plane shows a very slight roll due to this, which is not apparent during manual flight because it is so small and your design self-stabilizes. This can be corrected (some) by increasing the stiffness (using KJR or strutting). Also, SAS is not very savvy when it comes to planes, and is not smart enough to know that yaw and roll are coupled. Since roll causes turning, the appropriate response to an apparent "yaw-like" deviation is to apply aileron, not rudder. Rudder can even make it worse. Sort of like how pitch deviations might be corrected by throttle adjustment rather than elevator. TL:DR: Planes are asymmetrically floppy, and this causes roll, which causes turning. Also, planes are complicated. Also, SAS is not a very good autopilot when it comes to planes.

It costs the cost of the rescue mission. Which may be very costly. It may be more or less costly than the cost of hiring a new Kerbal the traditional way. One, two, three, four, five…<_<… >_>…Cost.

A theory is only as good as its predictive power. So yes, it still has to be falsifiable in some way. If it doesn't make predictions that are different from the prevailing theory, it doesn't tell us anything new, does it? Now, some competing theories that make some predictions that can't be falsified (currently) aren't completely without merit, so long as they match the prevailing theory on the things that can, or the things we care about. Newtonian vs. relativity is kind of like this; in a vast majority of cases the differences are insignificant enough we just don't care; we use the simpler theory in those cases because it's good enough. We even assume Keplerian behavior in KSP, and that works all right for us? A scientist may care more, but us engineers absolutely live for "good enough," and celebrate it when it happens. Also, two theories could be equivalent. Quantum mechanics problems can be approached from calculus, or you can use matrix methods. Different math. Same answer. In this case everyone agrees it's the same theory however you slice it, even though you go about it in completely different ways.

You'll want to look into CKAN. Module Manager is a tool for modifying module entries in parts, and is itself a plugin mod, not a modification manager. But be careful and be ready to manage some of them by hand. Several mods, FAR chief among them, do not play nicely with CKAN.

The airplane one would be better served with *actual* aircraft AP modes (attitude hold, altitude hold, wing leveler, etc.). The other ones I can't argue with.

You looking in the main menu settings or the in-game pause settings menu? 'Cause it's certainly in the latter. Din't know what it says in the main settings.

Got it backwards, kinda. If you're going to the trouble of copying out to a new folder, go ahead and run it from that new location, especially if you use mods. It will than be "safe" from updates that might break mod compatibility. KSP doesn't take advantage of any Steam features; it is used strictly as a distribution platform.