Search the Community

Ok, so it says: "About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal." Is the negative trend on coal an observable inevitability or a fluctuation? Somehow I don't think it will change fast, we'll see. By all means, I agree everything should be included, and I'm quite sure the cost in money and energy is way higher for solar panels than for coal. It's an energy intensive process, uses heavy metals, blah blah, we all know the story (I hope), and its energy density is ridiculous. No, but I wouldn't ask from anyone to read a report full of tables. I'd point out a think in the report, though. That would be decent to ask. I don't come here to analyze reports of anyone. Please cite where I said "zero pollution". I'm eager to find out. I haven't used Google, but Wikipedia, and looked for references which linked to EIA. Those diagrams are visual representations of EIA's data tables. You're correct - it's not a valid argument that USA is dependent on oil just as Ireland or Spain or Hungary. In fact it's wholly irrelevant what Ireland or Spain or Hungary are dependent on. What matters to the US economy is what the US is dependent on, and we can only improve our standing by decoupling ourselves as much as possible from the international oil market. Ireland, Spain, and Hungary can benefit in their own ways through their own actions. You can claim whatever you want, I don't have to believe you and I certainly won't share my private information on a gaming forum. I must admit that I find funny to see how many mechanical engineers and engineers in general fail to understand the science behind energetics. It's always an engineer, rarely a scientist. I guess that's because they're taught to think "how to?" and not "why is?". It seems like I'm defending fossil fuel energy industry here, which I'm totally not. I'm just saying that it's a painfully obvious fact that if your country's main electricity sources are fossil fuels (68% in USA - your source), going all electrical on roads would produce more pollution simply because that's adding an extra energy transformation link. It's painfully simple and no greenwashed propaganda will convince me otherwise. Once the country is powered by low carbon footprint source like nuclear (France), we can talk about electric cars. Until then, living in Fossilville and using electric cars made by high polluting industrial centers in China is a way to delude yourself you're making a difference. BTW you don't have to sign your every post. This is a forum, there's your nickname above your avatar, all neatly packed in a post border. Oh, keep dreaming. 30 years of sun, rain, wind, snow, sun rain, wind, snow. That is not going to happen. And those lead batteries, they're awesome. Very green.

In chemistry, when we talk about sodium, and don't explicitly say "elemental sodium" or "metallic sodium", we're talking about the element, not elemental matter. That's why we can talk about daily sodium intake. Nobody will ever think there are chunks of alkali metal in our diet. In fact, that would be highly unpleasant as it would corrode our digestive system. The same thing goes for radiological detection. Only few radioisotopes appear in their elemental form. Noble gases like krypton-85 are an excellent example. Most of them appear as ions. The chemistry is the same. Unstable nuclei have nothing to do with chemical bonding, that's electron's business. Cs-137 appears as Cs+. I think I-131 appears mostly as I-, maybe there's some IO3-, too. Some of it might escape in elemental form (I2), but I'm not sure. Iodine is highly reactive and will react with most metals at elevated temperatures, but the chemistry of meltdown is severely complex, so I can't claim such details. Immediate victims of Chernobyl were describing smell and taste similar to elemental iodine, but that might as well be because of the intense radioactivity of the dust floating around. True, you can't track such small amounts, but you can work it out on paper and get wild stuff.

Calling Huntsville, Alabama. By Peter Madsen, October 30, 2013 Dear readers, Tonight the subject is not technology but rather real live people as part of history. In my dorm in Albertslund I once set fire to a piece of gun powder. The piece was recovered by divers from the sea bed close to the Norweigan port of Horten. It had been part of the ammunition of the very large 38 cm Bismarck canon position from 1944. Together with a similar position at Hanstholm, Denmark, they controlled the access to Skagerrak. In such heavy artillery the propellant charge is of the shape and size of the panels of the striking surface on a household matchbox. When the cordite smoke rose to the ceiling of room 241 I realized that the smell burning in my nostrils was the smell of World War II. That was the smell of the terrible battle between Bismarch and the battlecruiser Hood in Denmark Strait. Picture text: The battle cruiser Bismarch discharges it’s 38 cm canon against the weakly shielded HMS Hood and sinks the ship. A few days later Bismarch meets similar fate. This made me stop and think. The history suddenly became very present right there in my room. Ouch. The same thing happened tonight, though due to a friendly voice rather than cordite smoke from a fateful sea battle. I’m really touched and literally moved to tears. Let me share with you what just happened. I had located one of my favorite documentaries, the magnificent first part of the Moon Machines series. You can find it on YouTube. The first part is about the moon rocket launcher Saturn V. http://youtu.be/DqQmoJafQlg The documentary relates in a very sober and beautiful way the story about the Apollo project and all the engineers and technicians who helped create it. Those people have always been special to me, maybe even more so than the astronauts who are much better known to the wider public. One of the more colorful figures of the Saturn project is Mr. Robert Schwinghamer. In the documentary he tells about his work on the Saturn booster stage S1-C and about the huge test stands in Huntsville, Alabama. He tells about the relationship with von Braun – “He was very charismatic. You know, he could sell a refrigerator to an Eskimoâ€Â. The old rocket engineer has plenty of charisma himself as he sits there on the lip of the flame deflector of the world’s largest rocket engine test stand. Picture text: The model for VTC3 – MSFC’s Saturn V test stand fronted by Mr. Schwinghamer. If anything, Huntsville is the birth place of the moon rocket. This is where the incredible machines were built which made the hitherto most ambitious expedition possible. It was in Huntsville at the Marshall Space Flight Center that von Braun and his German engineers designed and built the constructions that the American airplane industry later would extract from the earth. Though the majority of the work constructing and testing the very large rocket engines were carried out by American technicians and civil engineers. One of these was Mr. Schwinghamer. He’s 85 years today and his health is deteriorating. During the space race he was one of the engineers responsible for the construction of and testing in the giant test stands. While I was watching the documentary I had a crazy idea. Would it be possible to call up the Apollo program? Could you actually discuss with Mr. Robert Schwinghamer how to build rocket tanks and construct test stands? Google Google … Bingo! Mr. Schwinghamer still lives in Huntsville, Alabama with his daughter Elizabeth. I punch in the number … A friendly female voice answers in a very southern accent. “Schwinghamers speaking…†For a moment I’m paralyzed… hey… What have I done? I’ve called Huntsville… and they pick up the phone! The conversation that ensues is wonderful. This evening – tonight – the health of Mr. Schwinghamer is not too good, but his daughter would very much like to hear what I have to say. I told her about the time at the age of 7 when I showed my mom a drawing of a Saturn V and told her that this was a moon rocket. "So you see, it strikes me... that when I was a little boy I made a drawing of your dad's rocket for my mother..." I told her that in Copenhagen in the year 2013 deeply influenced and inspired by the space race and the rocket from Huntsville we once again weld large tanks from thin sheets of light metal. I mentioned the dimensions of VTC3 and HEAT 1600. Actually, the nice lady from the southern states of America wasn’t all that young… but did she know of propellant tanks, turbo pump fed rocket engines and rocket engine test stands? Indeed she did! She was incredibly knowledgeable. She said that this was their whole life in their family. She told about the violent static tests that cracked the window panes in their house in downtown Huntsville. She told about Mr. Schwinghamer and a family that though they missed their busy dad, they were very proud too to be a small part of one of the proudest chapters in the history of USA. "We loved it. We were all engulfed in the space program. We all felt so lucky to live in a time of exploration and shaken windows were not a problem. We were proud of every crack." Elizabeth asked me to tell her about our rocket in details. She noted everything down and asked about height and weight of VTC3, the dimensions of HEAT 1600 and everything. "I wanna tell Bob all the details. He will be so excited that you do this today - that you carry on and that you are inspired by the Saturn rocket." "How tall is the test stand?" "Did you say one hundred sixty tons of steel and concrete?" "Sir, are you really calling from Denmark...? I didn't even know that you develop space boosters in Scandinavia." "What kind of program is it? It sounds so unbelievable." "Bob will be so excited when I tell him this." "And it will be manned... and you use an American designed spacesuit...oh my..." I felt that I could discuss very intrinsic technical details of rocket science with Elizabeth. It was a very special feeling to me. She asked me to send her a mail containing photos… and call back soon. Bob is struggling with his health and some days are better than others. We said heartfelt goodbyes and talk to you soon. I’m left with a very, very special warm feeling in the stomach; Moon Machines is not only about machines, but also about real passionate people who many years after the last Saturn V F1 engine reached its MECO still feel the rush and the roar from the exceptional part of history. I really want to meet just one of these people before it’s too late. I actually think I will. After this conversation I will never again be able to watch the Moon Machine documentary without experiencing that warm and friendly feeling in my stomach. Only people really matters; the machines we create are secondary. It’s the driving force, the passion and the pride that are the true values and sources of happiness for the people creating things in the world. Peter Madsen

Still no one answered why do we need to bury it. I'm still waiting. Pulling almost all control rods from a RBMK is legal? Really? That's something new to me. A dry reactor made out of moderator with removed safety systems... That must be legal. Wow, I just hope you'll never work in any power plant, because I wouldn't allow you to operate even an apartment boiler room. What you said is incredibly ignorant and there really is no use discussing nuclear technology with you. Sorry, but saying such things disqualifies you from further discussions. No, only people expressing utter ignorance have been kind of mocked. I too have concerns about nuclear technology and by all means I don't see it as a panacea to the energy crisis, but I'd never say stupid things like we see in this thread. We can't really talk about risk management if people don't know what a RBMK is, what a cross section is, what's criticality, etc. First you learn the basics, then you go forward. That's how things are done properly. And how will we know if someone is a physicist? This is a forum. You have to believe what people say, and the only filter you have is your own knowledge about the subject matter. If you don't know anything about nuclear technology and physics, you can't make an informed choice, can you? It boils down to that. Chernobyl will happen again if someone builds a big RBMK without containment and pulls out the safety systems. I think we can be safe that nobody will build it, unless the society goes backwards for some reason. Contrary to the nuclear power plants, airplanes have killed enormous amounts of people. Should we abandon air traffic? If death toll per capita is important, some people go by the logic we should. That would throw this civilization to its knees. I am concerned about some things about uranium fission reactors. It's the economic aspect. If something goes totally wrong in a modern power plant with containment, you've got lots of work to do. It costs money. If someone wanted to destroy such plant, he should target the powerlines and the backup electrical systems. No need for targeting the reactor. It would be difficult for the plant operators to regain external power supply if you cut the plant off grid, and without diesel, there's only few hours before structural integrity of zirconium is compromised. Partial meltdown is inevitable and that is enough to ruin the power plant. There is almost no contamination except few vented gases through the stack (namely iodine-131 and tritium), but the cost of cleanup is very high. TMI still stands there. Not much has been done.

I've been trying to play for hours now with no luck  I can connect to servers just fine. All the building and launching and flight works just fine. However, when I actually try to interact with players (not just docking) I get two problems. First is that, after a time, the list of users on the server will go blank except for myself and my status. This does not seem to be a disconnect, because I can still talk to other players through the chat window just fine. The last times this happened it occurred around when I passed 40km, but this time it happened while I was in orbit, already far from KSC. Second, and most gamebreaking for me, is that once I launch and get 40km away from KSC my status never changes from "Preparing to launch from KSC". Nobody can see my ships, and even when I brake into Mun orbit the problem persists.

Oi, Don you talk about my mother that way, mate. Il have you know i can get your knickers in a twist!

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!