Piscator

Members
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About Piscator

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. Sounds essentially like a Falcon 9 whose first stage lands horizontally instead of vertically (albeit for a lighter range of payloads). I wonder which concept proves more practical in the long run.
  2. I was about to suggest calling it "Puff (the Magic Dragon)", but then I read that's where the name originally came from. Doesn't seem very surprising in retrospect.
  3. This might not be the most scientific way to put it, but wouldn't the remaining nucleus (or even the nucleons) just be blown apart? The energy released by the annihilating proton/anti-proton pair should exceed the binding energy oft the Tritium nucleus considerably.
  4. Because chanting "EU, EU, EU" would sound too much like a police siren. Quite excited about the upcoming launch by the way.
  5. Well, that's kind of my point. As ten years ship time wouldn't make much sense, it seems rather obvious that ten years earth time or in other words a quarter of the journey was meant. And for the question how much apparent time on the target world would have passed at this point, it doesn't really matter, whether you're still moving at near lightspeed or made your observation from a standstill. I agree, that the question is not all that complicated, but at the time of my first post noone seemed to have given an explicit answer to it anyway.
  6. Maybe the original poster can elaborate on what exactly he meant, but as far as I understand the question, relativity doesn't even come into it. At least not in the parts that are concerned with the apparent age of the planet when the hypothetical traveler arrives. (And it seems pretty obvious that the parts concerned with the voyage itself use earth time and not ship time.)
  7. To answer the actual question: The planet would look 80 years older when you arrive. The planet would be 40 years older and stop looking 40 years younger due to distance giving you a total of 80 years.
  8. I like this bit of mythology. However, assuming that the small, furry creatures of Alpha Centauri have a similar range of vision as humans, Proxima would likely be too unconspicous an object to attract this kind of attention. Even at the projected periastron it would only reach about second magnitude, which would be dimmer than the Sun seen from the same vantage point. (Even during flare activity, which seems to correspond to about one magnitude, as far as I can find out.) In the infrared, it would be considerably brighter though.
  9. As I said, I was playing with 1 snack per meal, day and Kerbal and thus expected to last 50 days with 50 snacks in a one-seater. Switching to other values changed the consumption rates accordingly, but actual consumption still seems to be roughly half of what I and the estimation window calculate for a given setting. I turned random snacking off when I noticed the deviation as I suspected this might be the cause of the trouble, but this doesn't seem to have had a noticeable effect. Am I right to assume, that no-one else experiences the same problem and this is likely a local issue? So far I'm only using KAC, OPM and the necessary dependencies, but this might still be a case of mod incompability, I guess.
  10. I'm not quite sure if I'm missing some vital detail, but actual snack consumption seems to be only 40% of the expected value. A 50 day stay (1 snack per meal and day, no active recyclers) in a Mk.I Lander Can still leaves me with 30 snacks and an estimation of 30 more days before supplies run out.
  11. By the time we're able to move around asteroids routinely, probably not all that much. I think, it's save to assume that engineering will have progressed to a point by then, at which there will be little noticeable difference between living in artificial habitats and living under the open sky. It would probably be easier, cheaper and faster to cover Moon or Mars with bubble domes from pole to pole than terraforming Venus in the described manner. (Assuming that blasting away parts of the atmosphere is a feasible strategy in the first place.) But since this is supposed to be fun; why not avoid the destabilizing effect on Earth's orbit of moving Venus outwards, by putting both bodies in orbit around each other directly? At the right distance, the tidal effects shouldn't be worse than the moon's (which would have been smacked into Venus at high speeds earlier to change its orbit and speed up its rotation to convenient levels ^^).
  12. Just for curiosity's sake, could someone please double-check the original claim? My own calculations arrive at little under a week of perceived flight time for the given speed and distance (you would have to fly at about 0.9999999999c to make it in 5 hours). Am I doing it wrong or aren't the figures in the OP supposed to be a 100% accurate?
  13. Actually, it is quite literally an atmosphere, even though a very thin and non-permanent one. But that's just semantic nitpicking. I agree with what you wrote. Comets seem like quite an obvious thing to add, since a large part of the necessary mechanics already seems to be in place and the benefits would be considerable (new challenges; re-enacting real-life missions; gathering science in new, interesting ways; long-term playability due to randomness). It seems too good to miss.