Search the Community

I'm guessing you don't have inline reaction wheel yet. But u should have the 200 thrust liquid engines. As one guy has said they have a gimball, which basically means it can move the engine so u can steer it. Early on it is great for making stable rocket designs. number of things that allow u to turn ships. Ill list them. Sas of the command pod. Gimball of an engine while it is active. Winglets, these can move to provide turning motion in atmosphere. don't work in space. Reaction wheels, like the inline reaction wheel that u may or may not have yet in career mode. RCS u may not have this yet in career mode. One other thing, this was a mistake I made when I first played. I don't mean it to be offending or insulting, when u turned your ship, did u turn S.A.S off while u turned it? then turn it back on when u finish turning. If it is still on, then it will fight you while u try to turn. Something I didn't really notice at first myself. Many people here seem to work for N.A.S.A or something and talk in rocket language and miss the simple things.

Landing on Eve you don't even need legs, nor on Kerbin to be honest. If you design your craft in a way that other things take the impact you can land safely just by parachutes, which you won't need all that many extra on Eve because of the thick atmosphere. Same for Kerbin. Because the new landing legs have barely been around, most people who complain about them haven't tested them properly and as I said have the wrong expectations and seem unable to adapt to new things. 18 ton lander only needs 2 legs on Mün to land without compression, tell me how that's unbalanced. I'm not saying this is how it's going to be, I'm saying this is how it is, instead of complaining about it straight off at least learn how they work. Yes a lot of things will change, and you can think things should change all you want, what I'm against is the WHY things should be changed. It's the very first iteration of the compression system so learn it before saying it's no good. Figure out the limitations of the legs before saying they're too weak. Land on a few different locations after testing the legs on Kerbin and figuring out how many to bring for different gravities, THEN we can talk about it. I've yet to see a single picture from a different planet/moon where legs are sagging, only pictures from the launchpad. And my own testing shows that 2 legs would be enough for a 18 ton lander on Mün. So, pretty please, at least test things or bring something sensible to the discussion rather than your kneejerk reaction of how they compare to stuff you're used to. THAT is my point. Legit? It's your game, you play as you like. If you don't like the compression on the legs you can alter them any way you like. Challenges however generally go with "stock" or "specific mods" rules, in which case altering config files isn't allright. But if you personally for your own enjoyment play a career or sandbox game and feel the legs are too weak, then by all means alter them to suit your tastes. Bottom line, the legs were introduced after being designed, tested and approved by developers. The legs work as far as compression goes (as far as I know) and have specific limitations, chosen by the developers. As such it was intended. If you disagree you can change them yourselves but at least test them properly and try to figure out why or how the developers intended for them to be used. And I say again, two heavy legs holding a 18 ton lander on Mün without compression, is that somehow unbalanced? 4 legs for a 36 ton (orange tank equivalent) lander, too many? Discuss your views by all means, but it would be nice if more people brought actual information to the discussion rather than their gut feeling in a one line post, compared to actual tests, numbers, pictures and most of all different locations than just the launchpad.

And why is it so important to have one right now? Why do we so desperately need to bury it? Please explain it to me because I have no idea. The problem is created by the "green" movement lobbying and trying to do whatever they can to ensure their the survival of their agenda, and believe me, it is not about the environment. Environmentalism started with the scientists realizing you can't dump crap forever during the late 19th century. Then after WW2, with the rise of new directions in society (mostly beneficial, though), the actual green movement was born but it was soon really messed up when science dropped out of it and hippie-like folk came onboard. Ignorant, scaremongering folk that not only enjoys, but is sometimes even paid by various interest groups to make a mess. Fun fact - they never offer solutions. All they do is nag. I'll say again - my country stores all of its high level waste (decades worth!) in the spent fuel pool and the only people concerned about it are the scaremongers and occasionally politicians, when they need an excuse to stir some sh*t to win the affection of stupid citizens. Meanwhile the fuel bundles are under purified, boriated water and pose no problems. No dry cask storage is used. One day they will be buried or reprocessed. We do have stable geological layers, but as soon as someone mentions it, the press goes wild. So you see, idiots don't want the waste in the pool, idiots don't want the waste in the ground. They offer no solutions. They just nag and collect political points because the waste is not the issue, it's an excuse. And again with the thorium myths. There is no fission process which doesn't yield high level waste. Thorium technology is pretty much the same thing as uranium. There are benefits, there are bad sides of it. At this moment, uranium is much better to use. I don't understand this thing with activation energy. You do realize that fuel bundles inside a typical PWR require water to start the fission? Water serves as a moderator. If there is no water, and you pull out control rods, nothing fancy happens. So if the water boils away in uranium PWRs, its fission stops immediately. What causes meltdowns is not uncontrolled fission, but decaying fission products heating up in the reactor devoid of coolant. Thorium also produces fission products. Their composition is different, but they are there, and they will increase the temperature if not cooled down. I'm pretty sure problems can arise. The only difference I see here is the fact that when uranium reactors start melting, they create a kind of lava which can melt through the thick steel vessel, and the initial lava has too much uranium dioxide close together, so hotspots of criticality can be created, but the material spreads and gets contaminated by steel and molten concrete below, so any fears of new criticality soon stop. That essentially happened in Chernobyl when the lava started dripping down. Its melting point is high so it's like spreading warm peanutbutter over cold bread. It sticks. It solidifies, too. It does not accumulate in a neat little critical pond. Thorium would be different because such drastic meltdowns could not happen, but to say any type of meltdown is impossible? No, that's just wrong. There are insanely radioactive fission products inside and they release heat, not to mention volatile isotopes which can escape (hence the need for containment dome, something Chernobyl lacked entirely). I will not discuss this with trolls. Nuclear technology showed its bright face in the case of Fukushima. Electrical engineering and industrial architecture are the ones to blame. Only idiots would build a wall too low and put electrical equipment unshielded on the shore. Zirconium is unavoidable. It is the best metal when it comes to corrosion resistance and low nucleus cross section, meaning it is a poor absorber of neutrons i.e. highly transparent to neutron flux. Most metals react with water at high temperatures. It's how chemistry works. Metal is oxidized, hydrogen from the water is reduced to elemental state. Yes, Chernobyl was a total comedy done on a crappy power plant design. The reactor itself is not that bad (it's not great) and no accidents would happen if they had respected well known protocols. Also if there was a containment dome, much less contamination would occur in the case of accident. But there was only steel roof above it. Like a shopping mall. It was to impress the Party. It was an illegal experiment. For god sake, they've removed almost every control rod from the graphite pile. Graphite is a moderator. It was an insane, stupid, illegal test that should never ever have been conducted. If you want to talk about nuclear safety, these things are basics. You can not have a meaningful conversation about it if you lump everything together and say nuclear power plants are bad because some twats did everything they could to make a huge mess.

I believe I tone myself down a little on the forums. In real life I talk about stranger things than stuff like KSP.

Good question and I don't think I could answer it really. My dad was a chemist and he'd occasionally talk to us about some aspect of chemistry or explain a reaction if we asked about rust or whatever but I think I first started being really interested when I found about atoms, evolution, electron energy levels and the animal cell. Those things really started me thinking about how much I had absolutely no clue about. After I finished my formal education, I graduated in a biological science, I started to get more interested in the big questions like what is time? Where did this universe come from? And why are we all here anyway? I had decided from a very young age that the concept of the Christian God was laughable, (no problems if you don't agree, it's just like, my opinion man), so I wanted to find out more to explain things to me. I started with some Richard Dawkins as I felt understanding evolution would be the first step in understanding a whole lot more. 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' opened my eyes and really fired home the concepts of evolution for me. Then I read Brian Greene's book called 'The Elegant Universe' which is basically a history of the development of Superstring theory. Mind was blown. He manages to explain relativity pretty well in it as well as the concepts behind string theory and why it's just so damn elegant. From there I've done my best to absorb science documentaries, magazines, articles and whatever else I could find because to me, science is my religion. I have faith that science will eventually answer practically all of our questions and provide near immortality in the form of regeneration tech or simple mind-downloading-into-computer tech. Yeah, I said simple, one day it will be.

I'm not concerned. They essentially had "Modding Tuesdays" and never seemed to run out of mods to talk about. In fact, my favorite mods seem to continually get overlooked for other mods. This daily thing seems to just be the weekly split into 5 parts. So much this.

I am just about to talk with my friend, who is running server on his own 24/7 for other games in Middle Europe Maybe if he will give me permission, I will be able to host server 24/7 with 100/100 Mbit connection, able to manage it via teamviewer. This is because all stable server are running in US, we need something in EU too:) stay tunned

Ok, lets said that "we can" launch most of the rockets without a big problem in performance. But that is becouse ksp has no graphic quality or extra terrain models! Try to install universe remplacer with a 8x texture for kerbin, then launch the same rocket and tell me what happen... What about someone who has an old computer? If we can get a performance boost, lower the loading time and increase the part count all at the same time, the question is.. "Why not do it???" Really, I dont understand why someone can be against this. Is like be against multi core support... But that is our choice! Is the liberty that the game gives us. Some people likes to make big things. This post yours just dodge all the things that me JohnFX already answer you in our previus post and you ignore. What about the space station example that I show you just below mine, that you can reduce the part count in a 1000%. You are forgeting that you reduce your game loading time, you had more free memory at disposal and even if you can not cut many parts with some design, some parts you will cut anyway. This traslate into better CPU and GPU performance. And your crafts looks nicely at the same time. How is that? I give you an example so you can explain step by step why it would be different and you didn´t. I will copy paste again: if you had a craft with 4 small tanks (pair stack), 1 middle tank and 2 big tanks stack. (3 cfg files, 3 models and 3 textures) 7 parts Now lets said that you can make the same craft using procedural (1 part menu) with only: 2 small tanks, 1 middle and 1 big. (1 cfg file, 1 model, 1 texture) 4 parts. Why instance would help in one case and no in the other? Reduce to half the part count in a common big rocket is something minor to you? Can you post the source? Physics merging? what does it mean? That if you have a fuel tank over an rocket engine would have the same physics than other tank in any other place of the craft? Until now is the idea that can be done and the one that brings more benefic to performance you like it or not. If you are against try to prove it with LOGIC. No ignoring all the comments that you can not answer. We can talk all day about other methods to improve performance.. the final question is: Squad can do it? we can do it? If the answer is not.. Why spend more time in that?

In this game, you guide the path of Stanley (or not) as the Narrator from "The Stanley Parable". Rules: (1) No spamming/flaming/trolling (2) Direct all speech toward Stanley. You can describe if Stanley listens to you or not, and what he does. You can, of course, talk to Stanley. (3) I (and maybe another person) will determine Game Restarts. (4) Have fun! ------------------------- Stanley got up from his desk and walked out the door to his office. He looked to the left, and when he saw that the facsimile machine was working, he walked over to the machine and pushed the "Receive Fax" button.

For those of you who have been following my work here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/47861-Working-Multiplayer-Proof-of-Concept-with-video-proof I recently decided to stop working on it for various reasons. I was going to make this big writeup (well, halfway typed it out already actually) to try and garner some motivation by other programmers to take on the task... well it seems like someone else other than myself, or Markus at the LOG project, has done just that: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55835-Kmp-0-22-wip-alpha/ (seriously, if you haven't checked this out yet, go do it now!) So, I have decided to not do my big writeup and just release the code for everyone to look at and laugh at (It's not very good). That said, I will go over my ideas a little bit: Basically, my goal was to synchronize the rotation and position of multiple vessels being controlled on different clients over a network. Rotation was easy. Position, as I later discovered was also pretty easy. I realized that all I needed was orbital data. KSP does all the calculations for me, position wise. Because of this, the kraken shouldn't be an issue... My theory is: The way I understand how KSP renders a vessel is that it will take it's orbital data and plop it where it needs to be around a body. Doesn't matter where in world space it is. If the vessel is within loading distance from the active vessel (your vessel) then KSP will automatically calculate the relative position for you based on the orbit it's in. Since KSP is constantly shifting the reference frame automatically, the position of the other vessels within viewing distance should also shift accordingly without notice. So, using that idea, only updating the orbital data to get the position, the Kraken shouldn't be a problem. In theory of course. I was not able to test it fully but I was able to fly around another client without issues: Anyway, enough talk... Bellow you will find the source code. A few things to note: this is all test code. It was never meant to be production quality. The plugin requires a very specific environment in order to run. You cannot compile this and expect it to work out of the box. This code is meant purely for reference and discussion. I am also not a programmer by trade. I do this stuff in my free time as a hobby. That said, my source is not clean and I'm probably doing a lot of bad things some of you seasoned programmers might cringe at. At best, I hope someone might find what I've done useful. If not, then oh well Go check out the actual working plugin and have a blast! Download Source License: GPLv3 - Please read ReadMe.txt for more information. One last bit: I want to extend a big thanks to those who visited my thread, sent me messages, and watched the videos I released over the past few months. You guys are passionate about this idea and I was glad I was able to spark your interest and hopes. I am sorry I wasn't able to give you all something that was fully playable but I am really stoked to see TheGimp's project and looking forward to what he and Markus' LOG project can come up with. These are very exciting times

I'm really getting tired of this thread. No matter how much you explain things, and I've wrote a ton of text here, there will always come someone with the same stuff, so if you ignore it, it looks like you're backing out from a discussion. So I'll be short. So what if there is no place absent of seismic activity? Please explain to me why we should bother about dumping vitrified waste (locked in a glassy matrix, not a glass bottle) encased in concrete plugs into concrete cases filled with concrete and then flodding it with concrete in a place that will not experience anything more than few weak tremors in the next 50,000 years or more? This is the third time I'm asking this. Why should we care? I'm still looking for an answer. Yes, I know we can recycle it and I'm a strong proponent of it, as I stated numerous times in this thread. We should dump only the stuff we really don't need, and freshly spent fuel is not something we should be throwing away. The waste product after removal of useful fuel is furiously radioactive, but that only means its halflife time is low. I'm aware of the subduction problems, I've just mentioned it because the user I was replying to was thinking it would be horrible if the stuff was put into Earth. If we had easy access to mantle, all our problems would be solved. It's the ultimate trash destroyer. Thorium reactors are not inherently safe. They don't operate at high pressures, but they still produce furiously radioactive daughter products that can reach the environment just like they can with uranium. The chances of such event are very small, but the point is that it's not true they don't exist for thorium. They require U-235 or Pu-239 as boosters. Thorium alone can't sustain fission. They are still not commercially viable. Their technology is not nearly as tested as uranium technology that we've perfected greatly and have lots of experience with. Proliferation of weapon grade material is not stopped with thorium because it requires purification of those two mentioned isotopes. It's very hard to find rational critique of thorium based reactors. If you search for thorium myths, you'll end up on greenwashed stupid pages lobbying for 100% replacement of every power source with solar panels and hating everything nuclear. Yeah, those poopie heads. And when you search for proponents, you'll find weird preachers that talk crap about uranium and glorify thorium because they're conspiracy theorists and "it's all about how USA wanted bombs". It isn't. The reality is that thorium might one day be a great source. It is not today and will not be for a long time. We already have uranium and decades of research and confidence and excellent technology. The fact USA is stuck with old reactors... you can thank that to the "green" movement.

Calling TMI a meltdown would be giving it too much credit. It was a partial meltdown. They may seem like almost the same thing but there is a big difference between the two. And about that stability... I am studying geology and can tell you that practically no where is absent of seismic activity. Just because the rocks are old doesn't mean that there aren't fault lines. Cratons are indeed old (Precambrian rocks have been found) but it doesn't automatically mean it is stable. It is just more stable then average. And there are a lot of things to take into account with nuclear waste. You know you can recycle it? By doing that you remove the uranium that is still good and are left with a waste product that doesn't nearly have the half-life of U238. Also they are currently building a nuclear repository in Finland if I am correct. I wouldnt advise chucking barrels into a subduction zone. They aren't as 'disappearing' as one might think. The crust does subduct to a 100 or so km, but on top of that is a bunch of sediment that just sits there and it takes a long time for it to go down under with the rest. In the mean time the barrels could break for any number of reasons and releasing nuclear waste into an environment that we know little about and the consequences we know nothing about isn't a recipe for success. The strongest argument for nuclear energy is to talk 15 minutes out of your day to look up on Thorium and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's) They have a higher density of energy, is more readily available, is inherently safe (melt down is physically impossible if left to its own devices) and they can be made so small you could litterally run an airplane with one. (Dont believe me? check out this link.)

No, there actually is a problem. There is no long-term facility for storage of high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world. It just sits around in short-term storage such as cooling ponds waiting for the day when some sucker agrees to take it away. Every year there's a little more, and every year we get less certain about where it all is, how much there is, and what we're going to do with it. There has been talk of geological storage facilities, but no one has actually bitten the bullet and built one. Nobody really wants the stuff on their patch, which you can't really blame them for. It's a hassle to look after, and doing so brings no benefits. I'm not anti-nuclear at all, but high-level waste is an unsolved problem at the moment.

Wow, Krev, that was a comprehensive response. Much appreciated! Yeah, after I posted I went and started googling nozzle design and couldn't find any mention of a relation of thrust to size. All they seem to talk about is shape as it relates to efficiency. A thought occurs to me though. If we have EM containment on fuel storage, could we not have containment on the reactor core? I'm kindof envisioning a toroidal core envisioned by some fusion reactor designs. Or would that just get unworkably big?

One of the big problems with nuclear energy is what people percieve as radioactive. When they say something is "highly radioactive" people think of "its going to be radioactive for millions of years!" In fact it is the complete opposite. Plutonium is highly radioactive because it has a short half life (something like 83 years) but U235 has a half life of something like 235 million years. People extracting uranium for fuel usually handle it without protective gear. In fact, if you see them with protective gear it is usually to protect the uranium from humans (oils, dust, you name it.) Its like burning coal to burning gas. They may have the same amount of energy, but gas burns immediatly while coal can talk a long time. But I'm not going around screaming "COAL WILL BLOW UP THE WORLD!!!"

Do not talk about mission creep, I tend to launch missions to add more features to interplanetary ships before they leave. Like adding four probe rovers to my Duna mission to explore the poles on Duna and Ike, Duna has high mountains at the poles Ike does not. my last mission in the 0.22 career mode is the Eve mission. I needed an Eve lander, lets add an rover to it for exploring, add two probe rovers for exploring the poles, add an probe to explore the atmosphere as its hard to do wile landing the main lander. You save fuel by sending the Gilly lander from low Eve orbit to Gilly instead of using the mothership but you need an larger lander.

I've tried JetLifter as first stage up to the ~25km (add more air intake). Had about 50 Jet engines plus 2-3 x 100t fuel tanks (depending on load). From simple gamer perspective I just don't see this as stable enough lifter. It is hard to control, at all - it requires additional attention during launch. And it is limited when we talk about bigger rockets (as good your PC are you are still limited on parts count when it comes to thousands). As for realism - it would be practical to use jet lifters if you would reuse them.

I dont care if you have or not, I'm a bit amazed by the fact some people take these ETA questions as an insult. People love this thing by just looking at the screenshots and want to play with it, rather now then tomorrow. That SHOULD be a great compliment but to you guys it's not somehow. Second, the guys here dont like to get ETA questions and are way too busy for anything KSP realted it seems, but do talk about this mod in other topics, what do you expect my friends? Feeling rushed/pushed by those comments is a choice, you can choose to ignore it and not let it get to ya, which I think is the more adult thing to do. I mean look at this topic, the last 2 pages I see only complaints and sneers at eachother.. How sad.\ Also, I gave you guys a possible solution: put the damn ETA in the OP allready!

Hi again, Tank. Now you know the math. Let's talk design. m0/m1 = (M0/M1)^(V/v) for equal delta-v. Quiz: Figure out which of these scenarios is preferable: Which produces enough delta-v for ship 2? A) m0/m1 < (M0/M1)^(V/v) m0/m1 > (M0/M1)^(V/v) Let's assume now that you have designed ship 1, and are happy its delta-v, but want a version with at least as much delta-v, changing only the engines and the amount of fuel. In KSP, most liquid fuel tanks have a full to dry mass ratio of 9. In the real world, the ratios depend on a lot of things, such as fuel type and cryogenic needs. I'm going to use 9 below like KSP, but you could use a variable or a different constant for a different tank mass ratio. m0 = rocket mass with full fuel m1 = rocket mass with no fuel Let's define a few more variables: mP = mass of the payload (minus the tanks): everything on the rocket that is not a fuel tank, fuel, or an engine mT = mass of the empty fuel tanks mE = mass of the engines empty rocket: m1 = mP + mT + mE full rocket: m0 = mP + 9*mT + mE Presumably, mP = MP: the payload is the same on ship 1 and ship 2. mE and ME are not the same: mE = 48-7S mass. ME = LV-909 mass, for example. mT and MT are also not the same: ship 2 will need a different number of fuel tanks I'm leaving the final bit of algebra to you: Solve for mT, the mass of the empty tanks, (or 9*mT, the full fuel tank mass), (or 8*mT, the fuel mass). Good luck!

I wonder if there's a video of this? http://life.time.com/culture/hubert-alyea-the-science-teacher-you-wish-you-had/#1 Princeton Professor Hubert Alyea apparently gave some very entertaining presentations in the 1950's on how nuclear reactions work. "Breeder" reactors that make more nuclear fuel than they consume (by transmuting Uranium into different radioactive elements) were well started on the R&D path, until the "greens" got that whole field of inquiry stopped off in the USA. Instead of recycling "spent" fuel we waste it by pulling it out and holding it in big pools of water and have a criminally wasteful on-again off-again plan to permanently discard it under Yucca Mountain (or not). It doesn't matter to the "greens" that there's no water for thousands of feet beneath that mountain, and the tunnels have been carved into a layer of solid rock. The material might somehow, possibly escape, sometime, maybe in a few thousand years. I'd like to think that long before then (if the facility ever gets used) that sanity would return to this and the nuclear material would be recovered for use. There already is a perfectly safe, non-explodable, type of nuclear reactor. The "pebble bed". The "pebbles" are about the size of softballs and have many small spheres of enriched uranium embedded in a graphite sphere. Around that sphere is a layer of ceramic and another layer of graphite - repeated to seven layers. There's not enough uranium in one sphere to be able to reach melting temperature and the shells are thick enough so that no matter how many are packed together, melting temperature cannot be reached. The heat transfer medium is Helium gas. If there should be a leak, it goes *up*. "But what about cracks?!" "There's no such thing as a nuclear pebble without cracks!". Yup. There's not. That's why the seven alternating layers. The odds of even one pebble getting a crack straight through all its layers to the center is very tiny. That's why pebble bed reactors have a system that pulls pebbles from the bottom, tests them for radiation leaks and if none is found the pebble goes back into the top of the reactor. If one is found to be leaking radiation (has one ever?) it's shunted to a shielded storage area. One of these reactors in Europe did have a problem with that system. IIRC a pebble got stuck but instead of calling in the people who knew what to do, the people on site decided they could fix it but instead damaged the pebble extraction system. Big stupid anti-nuke, media fueled broughaha followed and the reactor was shut down instead of being repaired. There was no radiation leak, nobody was in danger. The only people who should've had any problems with it were the ones who didn't follow the procedures they were told to. "This is your job. If something happens with anything not your job, you call in the people whose job it is." As for Fukushima, if you've seen some of the pre-tsunami file footage of the control room, you may have noted that it looks like it's technology from 40 years ago. That's because it *is* technology from 40 years ago. These plants were built then the anti-nukes have beset them ever since with lawsuits and regulations that have blocked any progress and technology updates. The damage caused by the tsunami and the results must've been like a ******* ****** to some of the "greens" so they could say "See? I told you it was a disaster in waiting!". They care more about being "right" in their wrongheadedness than actually improving people's lives. Some have wised up over the years, look up what the two guys who founded Greenpeace got into after they quit their own organization. Part of the problem Three Mile Island had was due to the even then aging technology. The control room had walls encrusted with controls, gauges and indicators. The lamp indicating the stuck open vent valve was on a different wall from where everyone was clustered, trying to figure out why stuffing more and more water into the thing wasn't working. When someone noticed the light and hit the manual override to force the valve closed, problem over but the reactor core was trashed. Only a small amount of radioactive steam escaped the buildings. The radioactive water was all contained. Historically, nuclear plants have taken so long to wend their way through the process of being allowed to be built that they're technically obsolete the day they first start generating electricity. The designs had to be "locked in" years before construction could start. Looking at San Onofre and its premature steam generator tube wear, I'd bet it was an issue some engineers were concerned about before the first shovel turned dirt on the site - but nothing could be done to change the design without delaying it for years. A modern system, as seen in many newer power plants and factories, puts everything in view of the operators on computer screens. If there's an alert, it doesn't depend on a tech making a circuit of a huge spread of gauges, the alert comes to the tech on his or her monitor. If TMI had had even the (what would now be primitive) best technology available at the time, someone sitting in front of a screen of green or amber text would've been flashed an alert about the stuck valve and there would have been no incident at all. Great idea but just try and get it added to an old nuclear power plant. Humans still have walk around and observe lots of separate and disparate things and make lots of notes. The 1977 TV series "Battlestar Galactica" likely had more advanced technology on its Galactica bridge set than TMI had in its control room. As an analogy, compare the original flight deck of the first Boeing 747 with the flight deck of a Boeing 787. The old nuclear plants are still at first 747 level when they should have received complete control upgrades at least once a decade or even closer together. Big airliners get upgrades, ships get upgrades, the Space Shuttles got upgrades. But not nuclear power plants. This "can't change a thing" craziness doesn't just affect nuclear power plants. In the 80's a company with a furnace they used to burn their waste to generate electricity for their plant needed to replace the refractory burner grates. The furnace manufacturer was long out of business. New more efficient burners could have been retrofitted but nope, wasn't allowed. either the system had to be restored to the same condition as it was when installed or the entire thing had to be replaced with an all new system. I don't how they came to talk to my father about their problem but he was able to take one of the old grates, made some forms from sheet metal and cast some new burner grates that passed muster with the regulators. Same shape, same or similar material, good to go. Here's some real big booms... Nice, safe, non-nuclear chemicals... I think somewhere there my be a video of the test where 25,000 tons of TNT were exploded - to see if the blast effects would be like those of an atomic bomb calculated to be equivalent.

I sit here on my overpriced Alienware, listening to people talk about their computers which are of equal quality, for a third of the cost.

The way I hear engineers talk (and I do work with a few), it's less twice as big and more that there MUST be a better way to do it.

Why do they oppose it? Because they're uneducated and stupid. I honestly don't know anyone knowledgeable of nuclear power technology that is against uranium fission. It's the safest, cleanest and most plentiful source we have which could become almost renewable with heavy employment of MOX and breeder technology one day. I cringe when people talk about burying nuclear waste. It's not waste, it's precious. How bad are we talking about? If it's total disaster like Chernobyl, that's impossible even with, for today's standards, old power plants because they have containment domes. Fukushima was not "really, really, really bad". It was very serious, and don't forget it was the tsunami, and don't forget thousands died because of the sea, nobody died because of the power plants. PR lies are a large problem, I agree, but remember that the worst disasters (Chernobyl, Mayak) happened in USSR which was a highly corrupt country. Fukushima happened in Japan, which is a traditionally fu*ked up society when it comes to being open about facts and exposing corruption. Whistleblowing and sincerity is just not a part of Japanese society as it is in the West. I'm sure that there would be much, much less PR problems if Fukushima had happened in France or USA. Granted, the PR problems with Fukushima were nothing compared to USSR in 1986. Remember TMI? The population was unharmed, yet the media and the society went all hawkeye on them, and it was in the 70s. The situation today is that when an ant farts in the vicinity of a Western nuclear power plant, the media goes crazy.

KMP is no longer in active development You can grab the latest dev version (which features many updates vs the 0.1.5.1 release) here. DMP is a successor project that offers full 0.23.5 support. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ v0.1.5.1 EXPERIMENTAL PRE-ALPHA Read the FAQ before using KMP! You have been warned... Download KMP client (v0.1.5.1) Download KMP server (v0.1.5.1) FAQ Known Issues Unofficial Server List Please note: This is an EXPERIMENTAL PRE-ALPHA release. KMP can and will do Bad Thingsâ„¢ including: Crashing Locking up Affecting non-KMP KSP sessions in some way Kraken attacks Assorted general weirdness Installation tutorial by RockyTV Changelog ###v0.1.5.1 TehGimp * Shrunk default safety-cylinder radius to 2000m * Tweaked rendezvous smoothing behaviour for better in-game performance * Optimized database performance during cleanup operations, which should address recent server slowdown/lag issues * Optimized server object serialization to increase overall performance * Fixed some bugs affecting the reliability of career-mode data (more fixes by trafalg & xterm91) * Fixed possible NREs when changing part opacity affecting game performance * Fixed server crash in some situations where a client doesn't disconnect cleanly * Fixed EVAs near KSC being sent to the server even when in safety bubble godarklight * Simplified KMP client<->plugin messaging Dazoe * Added option for alternative GUI skin * Ship control is now blocked while entering a chat message * Updated compilation scrips * Fixed server can crash with a poorly formed "/set" command Yilmas * Added "/lockship" server admin command for manually changing vessel privacy trafalg * Fixed various bugs causing loss of science points and career progress xterm91 * Fixed another bug causing loss of science points and career progress Need mods on your server? Read the included README and check out this tool. (Mildly outdated) FAQ What is KMP? KMP is a mod for v0.22 of Kerbal Space Program that adds a multiplayer game option. In a KMP game you can freely interact with other players and do all the Kerbally things you'd normally do in KSP, but with friends (or strangers) playing in the same universe, at the same time. Oh, and you can use (normal, on-rails) warp as much as you want. Surely you jest! Who's responsible for this hoax? No joke. It's a real multiplayer plugin and it even actually works (er... mostly). KMP builds on the already-amazing KerbalLiveFeed mod created by Alfred Lam/SodiumEyes, and KMP itself was created by me: Shaun Esau/TehGimp. KMP would not have been possible without the help of testers like Simon C. (CaptainCarpenter), nor without the numerous discoveries made and shared by KSP's incredibly smart & helpful modding community. Gameplay So I can race my friends to the Mun? Yes! Build space stations together? Totally! High-five during an EVA in orbit? Highly recommended! Build an outpost on Duna? Most definitely. Deorbit satellites with kinetic kill vehicles? I don't know why you'd want to, but yeah you can do that too... Have a drag-race on Eve? That one can be a little janky, but yeah you can! Trick my friend who's actually good at this game into doing all the hard stuff for me? I suppose... Build, fly, dream... together? That's a good way to put it--I should make that into a slogan or something. And I can use warp as much as I want, anytime I want? Yep--normal "on rails" warp is always available, though "physics warp" isn't. But... how? The big problem that immediately comes up when allowing players to use warp whenever they want to is that forcing everyone to go into warp is unpractical, and otherwise your local copy of the solar system wouldn't be synchronized with other players (so the planets and moons would be in very different positions relative to each other for different players). KMP gets around this by allowing players to play in multiple timeframes (or "subspaces") simultaneously. You can sync with any player that's "in the future" relative to you whenever it's convenient. That sounds complicated. Is it complicated? For gameplay purposes, at least, it's actually really simple! Need to go to warp for a few years to position that shiny new Jool probe? Go ahead! Want to build a new space station with your buddy afterward? Just sync up and you're good to go. That's it. What happens when I'm not in sync with someone else? You'll still be able to see those players and what they're doing in-game--you can chat, send screenshots, share designs, etc, but you won't be able to interact with any in-game vessels that those players control. Vessels from the past or future turn translucent so that you know that you won't be able to affect them. If the other player is in the past, KMP tries to predict where they'll be in the future and shows their ship at that location. Keep in mind, though, that since the ship is still being manipulated in the past, the predicted future location can rapidly change. If another ship has been manipulated in the future, you're effectively just watching a recording of events that have "already happened" play out. Won't everyone just be out of sync all the time? It depends on what people on a particular server are doing, but yes it's totally possible that everyone on a server might split into their own subspace, and that's A-OK! When you first connect to the game you're always placed in the "latest" subspace currently on the server, and if you ever want to directly interact with another player the most you'll have to do is click a button. Vessels that aren't under active control by another player and that haven't been touched in the "future" (relative to you) are all available. What happens when I disconnect? Will my vessels disappear? No! Your vessels are saved to the server's "universe" and will continue to be simulated whenever at least one player is connected to the server. Be sure to leave your ship in a stable orbit, or it may not be there when you come back! Your vessels cannot be controlled by other players unless you "unlock" them for public access, but keep in mind that other players can still crash into your vessels physically while you're absent. Can anyone just hop into my ship when I'm offline!? No! Your vessels are marked as "private" by default, which prevents other players from taking control of them or from docking with them. If you want to allow another player to dock with one of your vessels or to be able to take control of your vessel, just set your vessel to "public" status. Keep in mind, though, that whoever is in control of a vessel can set it as "private" to claim it for themselves!! Only mark ships "public" with players you trust. Is KMP massively multiplayer? Can I look forward to a solar system teeming with hundreds of players? No. KMP is solely intended to be used with relatively small servers hosting just a few players. The bandwidth and performance requirements that come with having more than a handful of other players are too high for most computers. Playing KMP How do I get started? Just download KMP and install it like any other mod. Then find a server (or create your own) and add it your connection list. For more details, see the README.txt included with the KMP download. I want more details or I still don't understand how this all works--can I see it in motion? I'm working on a video demo and will make it available as soon as possible, unless someone beats me to the punch. So what's the catch? There are quite a few. The most obvious ones are: KMP is currently held together by thumbtacks and Elmer's glue. As this is the first public version and it's in an EXPERIMENTAL PRE-ALPHA state, some features are missing or incomplete and there are bugs. Lots and lots of bugs. Big bugs, small bugs, minor bugs, and horrible bugs. Enough bugs that you (yes you) will get a chance to experience several first-hand. Check out the Known Issues list if you want to know what to expect. The space kraken has been awakened by the multiplayer hordes and may strike unexpectedly! There's no support for career-mode yet, only sandbox. Other mods are not "officially" supported in this first release. For now you (usually) must use stock parts only. Physics warp isn't available, and probably won't ever be. You can't pause of course, and you can't quick-load either (but you can quick-save and then copy the KMP save file to play a downloaded universe in single-player mode). In this first version only one player can control a single vessel at a time, but a future update will allow multiple players to share a ship. KMP can be demanding on your hardware. If your machine already struggles to run KSP, KMP will only make things worse. Kerbals in newly docked vessels tend to suffer from a temporary non-fatal bout of Double Head Syndrome. Some features are partially broken for Linux users. (Sorry! I'm an Ubuntu user myself, but I can't do much about bugs that are in Unity or KSP code...) And more! See the Known Issues list for details. What stuff doesn't work? See the Known Issues list for details. What new features are you already working on? KMP is a work in progress, and there are several features that I hope to add in the relatively near future, including: Bugfixes for Known Issues Career-mode support, possibly including a co-op career option Support for multiple players flying in a single vessel, either with one designated "pilot" player or shared controls Improved support for mods Visible custom flags from other players without having a custom flag pre-installed A server browser Server passwords Common Issues I was playing KMP and [insert calamity here] happened! What do I do? As a first step, always try fully restarting KSP and reconnecting to the KMP server--many bugs can be resolved by these quick steps. I can't get connected to a server. What's wrong? Contact the server's administrator for assistance. In this experimental release, exceptionally stubborn connection problems may require the server to be restarted. While building a Mun base I noticed that my friend's ships sometimes move a bit when they initially touch down. Is that normal? Yes. When a vessel touches down, KMP will update its exact position, which will correct any accumulated errors from near-surface flight. Additionally, incoming position/velocity updates from another active player can cause a landed vessel to appear to "dance" in place slightly. My friend was flying a space-plane in atmosphere when her ship seemed to disappear from my game. What happened? When a vessel is flying in an atmosphere outside the range that KSP simulates physics for it is immediately removed from the game (because KSP assumes the ship is going to crash anyway). Loading a vessel repeatedly causes major performance issues, so KMP will only add an in-atmo vessel to your game if it is within normal physics range. The other player's vessel is still tracked by the server and will always reappear in your game once it lands, breaks atmo, or comes back into physics range. You can also still view the other player's location from the Map View. When approaching or retreating from another active player, sometimes our relative velocity changes and/or our positions shift as the other vessel comes within about 2.5km range or so. Why does this happen? When other vessels that are controlled by active players are outside of visible range, KMP uses a positioning technique based on orbital data which is efficient in terms of performance, but which does not offer adequate accuracy for two players to successfully rendezvous and dock. To handle this, KMP switches to a relative positioning mode when two players enter rendezvous/docking range that provides sufficient accuracy for docking, but which also accumulates small positioning errors relative to the normal orbital positioning technique. As a result, when switching between normal orbital positioning and docking-mode positioning, vessels may shift position & velocity in order to account for these accumulated errors. Why does it look like I'm stuck in an Alfred Hitchcock movie sometimes when I initially approach another player in orbit? These odd position shifts are caused by KMP switching from "best guess positioning" orbital mode to rendezvous-mode "negotiated relative positioning". The time needed for the actual negotiation process varies with altitude over the current dominant body--the process happens very quickly in LKO, for example, but can take nearly a minute in an outer-Jool orbit. If two players get badly out of sync due to lag while in docking range, the negotiation process may take place more than once. I was trying to dock with another player but their position never seemed to settle down. What gives? Docking-mode positioning requires all players involved to be in very tight synchronization. If the total amount of lag between you and another player exceeds a certain threshold, KMP is forced to use alternate & far less accurate positioning methods. If your connection to the server is poor (e.g. if your ping exceeds 500ms), you may not be able to rendezvous with other active players (though docking with a ship that isn't controlled by another player should work fine). If you can't seem to get into range and you know your connection to the server normally works well, try returning to the space center and back to your vessel (which will force KMP to re-synchronize with the server). Unoccupied vessels generally behave more like normal single-player KSP, so if you still can't get into range, consider having one player wait in another ship or at the Tracking Station. Sometimes when I'm near another player in orbit I seem to lose significant amounts of thrust. What's causing that? Some thrust can be lost during docking-mode positioning, especially if you have a laggy connection to the server or a slow-running game. Note that this only occurs when other active players are in the region. This is a side-effect of the techniques used to ensure that both players see the same situation on screen with the accuracy needed for successful rendezvous and docking. I was rotating my vessel when I suddenly lost all rotational momentum. What happened? This most commonly happens when your game is commanded by the server to fast-forward in time slightly, in order to keep you in sync with other players. Why isn't KMP perfect? Kerbal Space Program is well designed to provide a smooth single-player game experience, but it is not (yet?) well adapted to the demands of multiplayer gaming. The way the universe is shifted around the player, the differing methods needed to accurately calculate ship position/velocity/rotation in different in-game circumstances, the need to accurately account for lag in the network connection, the various complications that result from timewarp, and many other obstacles all add to the challenge of creating a viable multiplayer experience. While I will endeavour to improve KMP further, it is very likely that many of the issues that exist now will not be easily solved. The Known Issues list outlines the bugs I am currently aware of that will likely be fixed (eventually). Servers How can I find a server? There's no server browser for now, though this may be an option eventually. For the moment the only way to find a server is to ask around (or start your own). If you don't know anyone who is willing to run a server, good places to ask around are Reddit and the KSP Forum. How do I set up my own server? See the README.txt file included with the KMP server download. Technical How performance-intensive is KMP? Will my machine that already barely runs KSP be able to keep up? While KMP does all it can to lessen the load, including doing as much work as possible outside the main KSP thread in order to take advantage of multicore processors, the demands of receiving physics information from other players and keeping your local game in sync are significant. You can expect a substantial FPS drop and even severe physics lag in some circumstances while playing KMP. If your machine struggles to run KSP, KMP probably won't work well for you. I've discovered a terrible bug! How do I report it? You can report bugs on GitHub. How does KMP work? I thought multiplayer was impossible! It's... complicated. If you have a specific development-oriented question and have watched this video, then please feel free to ask me questions about KMP's innards on Reddit (TehGimp666) or Twitter (@TehGimp). In a nutshell, KMP relies on your local game to do most of the heavy-lifting when it comes to simulating the universe, and updates information like a vessel's position & velocity based on what is happening in other players' games using a variety of situation-dependent methods. Why did you handle [problem X] with [dumb solution Y]? Given that I don't have much prior experience with multiplayer game programming, it's hard to say whether any particular clumsy element of KMP can be blamed on working around KSP's various idiosyncracies or just my own stupidity. Why can't I launch a vessel that includes mod parts? Is there any way around this? Vessels that include non-stock parts are prevented from launching because any other players that don't have those mod parts installed wouldn't be able to see your vessel (on top of other potential errors)! However, the restriction on mod parts was built with the knowledge that a later version of KMP will probably allow servers to specify a list of mandatory mods so that players would have optional access to their most-prized non-stock parts. If the players on a server can agree on a set of mods that they will all have installed, it is currently possible to override the mod part restriction when necessary using steps available in the README.txt file included with the KMP server. Can I use a mod that doesn't require using any non-stock parts? Generally you can, but this is not "officially" supported and mods may interact with KMP in unexpected ways including (potentially) crashing, having unexpected effects on gameplay, causing errors for other players, or even causing damage to a server's "universe". Unless you're eager to experiment, ask other players for information about whether a particular mod works well or not. Is the server "universe" simulated when there are no players connected? No! A future update may make this an optional feature, but in this release the universe is "paused" whenever all players are disconnected. Aren't you the guy that made the "Build Fly Dream" trailer? Yep How long did it take to develop KMP? I began work on KMP shortly after releasing the (now defunct) G_LockFlight mod, so about 5-6 months all told, though not all of this time was spent actively working on the project. There were many multi-week breaks in that period where I just didn't have enough spare time to work on KMP--for example, I didn't touch the project at all during July as I was busy getting married at the time. What's your next KSP project? Assuming I'm not stuck spending all my available free time supporting KMP at least, I do have some other KSP-related projects in the works that unfortunately I'm not willing to talk about just yet! ;-) Does KMP have anything to do with the L.O.G. multiplayer project? No--Since I rarely browse the KSP forums, I only became aware of the L.O.G. project myself in late September at a point where KMP was nearly ready for initial release. I wish the L.O.G. developers the best of luck with their project, and hope that my work with KMP will (if anything) ease some of their own efforts to some degree. By the same token, I welcome any input from the L.O.G. team that might improve KMP's gameplay and would be happy to collaborate with them if the opportunity arises. Source: Github License: GPL

What is this "outside" you talk about? I'm going to fetch my telescope. Or is it a new planet?