Search the Community

purging all space ponies and talk of space ponies and bronies. For space ponies and bronies are heresy (there probably demons too).

"What did you said, people are observing us?" (maybe endless no-sense talk about ponies is why the brony thead was obliterated)

*realizes there are probably people watching us talk about ponies* "uh, whatever :P" (I think most bronies became bronies out of curiosity anyways )

Like some of you mentioned, it depends on time to launch the mission, asteroid mass, composition and time to impact. What I mean? If we found an asteroid that comes back every 20 years, but the next time that will pass near sun it would be in 10 years, but it would not hit, only the next time after 30 years will hit earth. Then if it has a mass of gilly "maybe" we can have a little chance to save us. And I am being very optimist, taking a really good plan with all world economic put in there for the first encouter and a high technologie progress for the next encounter. But if we need to stop it just in the first encounter. Then we are doom, even if we had the technologie advances of 70 years ahead from now. The amount of mass that we are talking about is huge.. The kinetic energy that carrys is incredible. The amount of energy in a nuke is nothing in comparison, and the efficiency of thrust in the right direction that you can get from the nuke is 0,1 to 10%. To increase efficiency you need to do a previus explotion to make a crater, then the crater would serve like nozzle for the next nuclear devices. Some of you said nuclear pulse, that maybe would be a better solution, but still is not enought. You have limit nuclear fuel, how many energy you need to move (gilly) 1.2420512×10^17 kg, lets said that you need 1 x 10^-10m/s of delta V to avoid the next encounter in 30 years, then with 10 tons of nuclear fuel over the asteroid with a nuclear pulse engine that has an ISP of 10000, you can get roughly approximate 1 x 10^-14 m/s in dV? correct me if I am wrong.. I am not totally sure about the dV requisites to avoid earth in a timelapse of 30 years. So any fuel that you can carry to the asteroid it would not help much. You need to use the same mass of the asteroid like reaction mass. For that reason know the asteroid composition is also very important. I always remember a book of arthur C clarke "light of other days", one of the aspects of the book talk about a huge asteroid that would hit the earth in 500 years from that time with not previous pass. In the book the people knew than even estimating techonologies advances in 500 years it would not be possible to divert it. That novel really open my eyes about the energy levels that huge objects can carry. I guess if we were in the same problem, maybe a solution would be try to move the earth instead in those 500 years.

Ok, lets see here.. 135 "Manned" flights for shuttle, and what was it????? oh,yes.. ONE unmanned flight... While the Buran might have "talked the talk", the shuttles "Walked the walk".

You don't have to clear anything, I know you claim to be a material engineer since the very first time you presented this idea. But you have Tunnel Vision and the things we are talking about cannot be turned into "fact" without several teams of multidisciplinary engineers. I know I'm not writing several page of carefully worded argument for a 16 years old religious kid with delusion of grandeur. I'm doing that for a overly optimistic engineer with delusion of grandeur. If you want my pedigree I'm a Aeronautic/aerospace engineer specialized in electronic and informatics. But it barely make any difference in a discussion like this. Common sense do and in my opinion you are failing big time. I don't believe to be making much assumptions, but I think you are. You are the one claiming to know more about the feasibility of something than a world of engineer just because you read a paper you liked. Don't waste your time demonstrating me how you fairly analyze them and just check how you did it until now. You meeting a leader of the Icarus project don't change anything. Zubrin, Musk, I've heard engineer say the darnest things because they know perfectly it is just a cool guideline unrepresentative of what they are actually trying to achieve. You might want to check out the Dunning–Kruger effect As for me. I'm just pointing out how little you encompass the scale of what you talk about. I do have some "belief" but I'm not acting like mine matter more than yours. Now I'll try to avoid some Kessler QUOTING syndrome. And once again, like everything else we ever discussed you refuse to accept that there's more to account for actual feasibility than what you saw. There's more to an A/M thruster than just putting two particle in contact. If you want to talk prerequesite, reality is demonstrating right now that VASIMR came out before "mastered Nuclear Fusion", and nothing say it make matter/antimatter thruster feasible before. "When all you have is a hammer, everything start looking like a nail" (if you see what I mean), knowing what graphene do don't nullify all other field's problem or make 0.5C Beam-sail probes less than science-fiction (over a 50y timeframe). Just like Fusion-spaceship is still SF regardless of what graphene could do to help it come true. You are not using facts, you are claiming the facts you found make your own made-up facts truer. But you are asking for more blackbox. The majority of what you ask for isn't comparable or compatible with KSP's basic gameplay. And more importantly not manageable humanely without help. To give you another example of things you'll need to put in your suggestion : Would the throttling of a Beam sail-ship be based on the efficiency of its sail, or the power beamed by the laser ? How to deal with several laser at different location ? How to control the gliding ?...etc You seem to be acting like blackbox is bad, but it's a fondamental building block for video game (and it take time to program) To be clear, the simulated chemical reaction is a game-mechanic, not a blackbox. A blackbox would be Maneuver Node and orbit prediction. It have everything to do with it, why do you think the warp system put everything on rail ? I'll be using false number here (to explain) but you cannot calculate simultaneously the position of several objects 100 000 000 km away and position them to the millimeter, which mean numbers high up to "100 000 000 000 000" if not just the computer but also the engine can't deal with number that high. And that was mostly for performance, there's more problem with game-mechanic : Around 15 years ago video game had little to no physics engines, just compare Half-Life 1 and 2. Meaning that if a game engine DON'T allow something, you have to make concession, play pretend, simplify water as frictionless gelo. So please don't answer me "my proposal don't ask for anything impossible" (dodging the point again) because the point is you just don't realize how much you ask. Anyway, If you are going to make a thread later then let's wait and let this thread fade away. No, weaving the cable only change the cable theoretical limit we already talked about. It doesn't solves all of the many other problem I mentioned. Didn't you read what I wrote ? [sarcasm]Oh yes you are right ! Why would I use other metal than CNT or graphene, oh silly me ![/sarcasm] -> you are being stupid. On airplane we count each gram needed to attach/wield two piece together and the material its made of. This is not because "airplane are made of aluminum/carbon fiber" that they are only made of it. Here we are talking of 32 000 km of any other stuff. Yes the "payload" weight will be insignificant but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking of the weight of the Non-stress-bearing equipments all along the tether in comparison of the weight of the stress-bearing CNT. If you need 80% of CNT to support safely the 20% of equipments, and said equipment have a high minimal weight then it can change the feasibility from "nowhere soon" to "impossible with this technology" I did searched how debris and radiation can be mitigated, and also if those solutions are reasonable, so far they aren't and create more problem than they solves. You realize how far we are in this discussion ? I just said the concept of space elevator was far less feasible that people (like you) make it out to be and you keep trying to convince me that its "not impossible". I agreed it was possible ! When are you going to admit you can't think of everything ? That's one of the rare thing you said actually 100% right since the start of our discussion. Yet a bridge don't get built when we know they have single-point catastrophic failure, like most concept of space elevator.

Well, I finally crossed over from rockets and decided to work on an airplane. I'm not trying to get to orbit or anything, I just want to get off the ground. I read several tutorials, but all they really seem to talk about is CG and center of lift placement, or MOAR INTAKES!!!11!. I'm just trying to get something basic off the ground. So far I can't even get off the runway. My plane gets up to about 80 m/s and just veers right and crashes. I thought it was something placed asymmetrically, so I pulled it all off and reattached. Same problem. Reworked my twin tails into a single tail design, and didn't change much else, but now it won't move forward more than about 1 m/s. Again, this is on a small 2-seater plane. Fuel is flowing, brakes are off, it's not using up all its intake air, but it just sits there. I thought it could be the type of intake I used, but it doesn't work with either style attached to the front of the engines (or with the scoops on top). So, I took a couple pictures to see if anyone could point out if there's anything obvious where I'm going wrong on what should in theory be a simple, low part count, stock aircraft for 2 Kerbals. Here it is at full thrust, engines roaring, but not moving (note the large plume behind): Here are a couple shots from the SPH showing my control surfaces, CG, COL, and COT:

Yeah, that will not happen. We don't like to talk about KSP multiplayer. I'd kinda like more planets, even though my piloting is terrible.

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say But nothing comes out when they move their ships Just a bunch of kerbalish And motherf*****s act like they forgot about Dres

Thanks, that part makes sense. The thing that doesn't make sense is when people talk about engine parts as having high or low delta-v. Like, the ion engine. Very low thrust, but I've heard repeatedly that it has a high delta-v. I know it has a very high specific impulse, but I would have thought that it had a very low delta-v, given the low thrust. But then, I keep thinking in terms of thrust. If an engine has high thrust, I assume it has high delta-v since it can increase velocity more quickly. Somewhere in here I'm sure my assumptions are incorrect...

That's great news, thanks! When the installation instructions talk about removing all previous versions of Mapsat I got nervous! I'll back up my save dir and give it a try!

It seems that I need to clear something up in case you have not noticed yet. I know the things that I'm talking about! I am not a kid who saw a documentary and then start to talk making some asumptions of that. I am engineer and I love science, technologie and physics. I am susbcribe to 2 science news that I read "every day". Also when something call my attention I keep searching about that until I am totally sure that I am not missing nothing. I dont take any source for granted, If my common sense tells me that there is something wrong in some note that I read, then I keep searching. I hate to be wrong about something, or claim something that is not. I guess I share the science phylosofy in that. One year back I start to get interested a lot more in interstellar travel (I really knew many things by then), so I start search about that and keep note of some information, formules and links. I read like hundreds of papers of beamed propulsion, also some books. I also read a lot about other kinds of propulsions. One of the leaders from the Icarus project was very kind to spend some time with me discussing the feasibility of the Avatar ship, he also guide me with many studies and papers and help me to understand some things that was complicated for me in that time. Like what is the difference of a photon rocket with beamed propulsion. Why if you absorb gama radiation like heat and you redirect in a collimated way you get almost the 100% of that energy in thrust, but if you emit photons and this bounce in a sail you only get 2/c of the thrust. Well he help me to understand those things and many others. And if I found a problem like laser efficiency, accuracy, sail materials...Then I keep searching about breakthrough in those fields (optics, materials, etc) to see if something could solve those problems. One example, 2 days back some scientists found a way to make a perfect mirror. You know what this is mean? That you can scale up lasers without loose any efficiency. (between many other things). So now if you wanna do a claim or said that I am do not know what I am talking about, please make your own reasearch before and try to be sure. And I know the time that it takes for some technologies find practical uses in the real world. How I tell you guys many times, 5 years to graphene touchscreens and less than 10 years to graphene composite materials to airplanes and other kind of vehicles. We can take a bet in this if you want.. I would bet millons if I had. That is how sure I am. Becouse I know and I understand the real state of those technologies right now and the cost and manufacture time changes that require. I can answer you, but not every time that you are too lazy to check the thing that you are talking about. You know that we never actually testing in space a fullly functional artificial gravity device?? What it does mean?? It means NOTHING! We can build it werever we want. Is physics and we understand the principles the same way that we understand magnetic fields. And it would be pointless build one becouse we dont have ANTIMATTER. But like you said they will test a vasimr (kinda device) in the space station. And this device come with a "magnetic nozzle" the same main component of an antimatter thruster! And we need to wait until this magnetic nozzle (between many others) is test it to see what would happen or we can predict what it would happen taking like evidence all the thing that we know about magnetic fields and the millons experiments already made like the fusion Tokamak prototipe in europe, or the CERN that keeps and move hundreds of particless with incredible accuracy and then trap and move some of the antiparticles by manetic pipes to store them in a container all with magnetic fields. To get energy from antimatter you only need to put together matter with antimatter. There is nothing special about that. One more thing, antimatter reaction is not a Nuclear reaction. I am just answer you the bad asumptions or claims that you do. Like the ones that I dont know what I am talking about. But we can talk about gameplay wherever you want. But I am not talking about novel SF, that is the main difference. I am using facts and thing that we already know. And about CNT and graphene, maybe you know more than me that I check all the advances in that field almost every week. I am not asking for more blackbox that the game already use. The rocket engines calculates the chemical reactions between the oxidizer and fuel to calculate the thrust? Not. Is just a number set up that emule the reality. You need to point manually you solar panels to the sun? What would be the fun to keep track of the laser beam 4 years until you reach the star? But yes I plain allow movement of the sail near a star. But all this will be clear when I post the suggestion. But first I need to do some graphics to help in the understanding. I will post it next week. Calculation limit it does not have much to do with "gameplay rules" limits. If you understand what I mean. I hear Elon Musk talk about the airplane stage Idea, his team made some calculations and they conclude that is not worth it, but is a good method too. Why not? it changes everything. Why you would need heavy metal? You are creating imaginary problems. And if at certain heights you need some kind of covering to protect the cable, it would be only a covering. It would weight a lot less than the cable. Also all the payload weight is insignificant in comparison with the cable weight. Is like a huge suspension bridge bridge in comparison with the cars that needs to carry. About radiation and space debris why you dont search how this problems can be mitigated. And once more, the trade center fall becouse all the floor was on FIRE for 1 hour! SO all the pillar were weak for the heat. But if is economically viable is a very different thing that if is possible. We are talking if is possible. The first thing that I said was that I dont believe they built it taking into account the new materials weight in conjunction with skylon. We lost a bridge, but that chance never prevented to us to start build it in first place. We made our calculates and we considerer the risk. If we need it.. and the risk are aceptables. We build it.. That is with all the thing that we do. We would not had any advances otherwise. But a hell less usefull too. And when I talk about space elevator, or when companies talk about space elevator, they talk to start the construction in 2040. That is totally feasible at least from the physics point of view.

Yeah that does, okay so basically even if i upgrade the ram it's not going to help sense the game can't talk to more the 4gb of it.

KSP is a 32 bit game... Meaning it can't really talk about numbers that are out of the range of 0 thru 4,294,967,295 So now imagine the game is storing information, and it stores a bit at 4,294,967,294, and then the next bit at 4,294,967,295, now it needs to store another bit... However even though you have another 4 billion memory addresses available, the game has now way to be able to talk about them to remember where it stored things. Make sense?

Sound slike a very cool project. All I talk about KSP ask for aMultiplayer. How will it handle Mods? (If...)

Yes war happens, however you don't go to war to take resources. Last time it happened was then Iraq invaded Kuwait however they claim its an contested area. No resources in Vietnam, Chechnya or Tibet at least nothing who came close to the cost of the war. Oil in the middle east but none of the wars except the two Saddam started was done to capture resources. yes golf war one was done to secure the supply of oil, this was also an supporting factor in golf war 2 and the war against Libya but not the main reasons. Resources had no importance in all the wars against Israel, the civil war in Yemen and now Syria. In short resources has been use to explain the reasons for most wars and its not the reason. Ideology, national pride (or other groups pride), revenge and to provide security are the driving motivation. Take the Falkland isles as an example, lots of talk about resources, yes its some fishing, it might be oil but nobody has bothered looking 30 years later the island cost England money. Previously resources was more important, it might be the primary reason for Japan move southward during WW2, however this was also security as Japan was boycotted. Was an primary driver for the early colonization, the later one was mostly to take the area before the others.

I think MOST things would be universal knowledge. Considering that the majority of people would probably have memories in the range of yottabytes due to brain upgrades, and would likely have encyclopedias in their head, their knowledge would likely be the vast majority of useful non-duplicate publicly available information. If they really needed to, they could connect to the internet or talk with someone else in the room via radio (which they would do on a continuous basis from within their brain, possibly even semi-voluntarily and subconsciously) In other words, knowledge would cease to be valuable except for private knowledge, this is already happening today in that anything can be Googled certainly within a few minutes of a question being asked, people simply aren't stuck wondering why the moon orbits the Earth or why whatever else happens anymore. Then there is processing and bandwidth improvements, we can perceive and focus on a small amount of information in a given period, whereas beings from an advanced civilization, the ones born post-singularity anyway, would have instant mental access to gigabytes or terabytes or more every second, they would be able to process it all in real time, the result of this is that they would learn, more-or-less download the methodology and reasoning for all mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, programming etc. They wouldn't necessarily be any SMARTER than us, but having total access to information would definitely make it seem like they were, they could, in general, when offline, solve any variant of any problem we as a society have solved to this point using the standard methods of doing, remember most of their culture(s), etc. When online, they would be able to more-or-less perform any function anyone in their society could mentally perform, including so-called muscle memory for a similarly sized being. Basically, they would be nigh-omniscient ninjas who DID read your last Blog post even though your a random nobody they've never talked to before. And they also know everything about their environment, tricks of perception would always fail, they would remember everything crystal-clear. So they would basically know everyone from their and every other world they communicate with's life story and ideas. Which would also eliminate the worse ideas by having literally millions of people yelling that the idea is incorrect. More-or-less, they'd be Borg-like collective consciousness, every relevant bit would be given by news agencies, They would likely be able to host secluded networks as well, limiting access to a small group of nearby individuals while simultaneously talking on the internet. The spread of common knowledge would be instantaneous, the speed of light being the only limiting factor for the spread of the latest discoveries. Either way, It would most likely segregate crackpots away simply by accident, due to the fact that people will tend to choose the explanation that works, over the one that doesn't, and since they have an entire planet to test and memory to show it, they would basically show examples once to disprove it and it would be ingrained in their memory for the rest of time. Again, omniscient robotic super-ninjas with highly cooperative tendencies.

Good thing i Use HW Monitor and not the AMD Tools. The Power consumption depending on your area and factors as such is barely a factor in MOST situations, at best it as a facetious talking point, This is not the place for such talk. I think more of his concern is those Cards pilling tons of power, That would really be the killer. Look at your options before jumping on a cooling solution, The NZXT Kraken Series have been getting good reviews maybe look at them. Maybe look into a Heatsink/Fan. I honestly do not think the 9590 is worth its salt, But to each their own.

I enjoyed the talk. Thanks to both of you! Harvester, there was an item you skipped over near the end that I thought was interesting. You had a slide reading something like "repeat until indoctrination: mods are not competition". I wondered if you could elaborate on that (or just say what you'd planned to originally). Have there been times when mods felt like competition? Getting more broad, how have mods influenced your development methodology or even specific points in the game's development history? Cheers, Majiir

By dev blog do you mean the KSP weekly or something else that was posted? I noticed in the KSP weekly for this week it mentions "There is enough to talk about there for a full dev blog entry, so stay tuned for something later. " I'm wondering if I missed something or not lol. I'm very much looking forward to all of these additions and a way to actually map out the planets would be amazing. Since they're procedural it'd be nice to be able to get a complete view of the planet before trying to pick out a landing zone and all of that.

Sounds a little cheap and nasty, don't you think? I'm sure squad could do better than that. I think it's time we let this discussion die down. Most views have been aired, and points have been argued. As we can see from the poll, options are quite close. A small majority would like to see the feminine side of kerbality in game. Many others don't care, or treat them as asexual. A few seem worried it will detract from the game for some reason. I was reminded of this discussion when skim-watching HarvesteR's talk in that video, the other night: Interesting how they didn't have much idea what the kerbals would look, or be like when they started. He talked about how a whole universe of kerbals that began to develop. I hope the idea can be extended a little more. I'm sure, if they do add a female kerbal sometime in the future, it would be a good thing for the game.

Well, my only comment is that I'm very close to releasing my own version of the same thing, only 100% stock... Part count, so I can compare? Did you manage to recreate the CSM attachment method (not to the top of the lander, but to the fairing)? Oh, and that maybe mine is for advanced players only (I landed with empty tanks on the descent stage, and it was an efficient-ish landing from 10k circular), but then again, if you talk about setting Munar Pe's from kerbin orbit with a precision of kms... then probably yours is, too. Rune. Most recreated mission in KSP ever, that's for sure.

I would suggest something like a part that has like 16 Kerbits of data (magnetic coil memory?). And can only talk to the part it is connected to, and any parts connected to the parent. So, you could, say, give an order to the decoupler on your fuel tank to fire after the fuel is out, and to automatically fire drogue/main chute at the altitude you want (would need tweaking of persistence of game debris outside of the physics area). The size limit on the code it's carrying could increase over upgrades you research. And the language used could be the same C code used everywhere. There is no reason to make up some obscure programming code for it. The main problem with adding something like this; is limiting it early game, so you don't end up with fully automated everything.

Far more than that, back in 1950 it was tribes in central New Guinea who we had never contacted, they did not know how to make iron but still had metal tools as they had bought them from other tribes who had contact with the coast. Two reasons to not contact them, first contact with primitive societies are usually very disruptive to them even if totally peaceful. Second and more egoistic, is that it destroy the study project. However this is people who are doing pretty well, had they been dying we would interfered. --- Fun story about the first contact at New Guinea, they flew in with an floatplane and to impress an chieftain they took him on an flight to see the land from above. Next day the chieftain came back to the pilot with two pigs, he wanted to rent the plane to drop rocks on another village they was fighting. Pretty smart to invent strategic bombing after one day, no the pilot did not talk about airplane bombs so it was his invention.

Gday Mate! I too met and shook hands with Buzz Aldrin about 7 years ago. I hope to show off the picture some time. I am a boat captain and of a large yacht at the time. He was aboard with other celebs, and I let him into the pilot house, just he and I for about 10 minutes and I let him drive for longer than that as others started to gather round. Then he got a little iffy when I had to take the helm to shove through some ice at a glacier view here in Alaska. He had been drinking a little scotch I had noticed. Nice enough guy, but he did not want to talk about the moon, I could tell. And his now recently estranged wife was annoying both of us.