p1t1o

Members
  • Content count

    1875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1408 Excellent

1 Follower

About p1t1o

  • Rank
    Just some guy, y'know?

Profile Information

  • Location In the walls.

Recent Profile Visitors

2719 profile views
  1. @Kryten - "Launch currently on hold due to weather - high clouds causing risk of triboelectrification. Updates to follow #ItsaTest" So what Im hearing is, it cant launch because there are too many electrons up there already? hehueheuhehue...SCIENCE JOKE. Im here all night folks.
  2. Ooooooh "c" hahahahaha! The capitalisation threw me, the only thing I could think of was he wanted to build boats, and go to "sea" lolol. Yeah, no, you cant really get to c in KSP. As far as I know, relativistic effects are not modelled. Which is moot because c is like, realllly fast, like super-ridiculous fast. Ludicrous even Mass ratio for a conventional ship to do this is just insane. If you want to go high relativistic with conventional reaction engines, ship sizes very quickly start reaching just stupid sizes, like solar-system sized, with 1kg of cargo (including the weight of the engines/structure/tankage etc!!!) and start taking millions of years to expend their fuel. But light speed is so fast guys I cant even... Of course, in reality, the ship would literally need to be of infinite size because relativity. But at least in that case, a large portion of your ship is at your destination already.
  3. @shynung @peadar1987 Agreed, I dont think that there would be much in the way of structural damage - as a plane travelling at supersonic speeds already must withstand some pretty impressive forces anyway, those forces arising from the wave some distance from the aircraft must be less. Though the aerodynamic effects could be considerable and loss of control at supersonic speeds can be catastrophic. All in all, I'd say that the mass and strength of an average supersonic airframe far outstrips the energy of a sonic boom from similar. Of course not all shockwaves are the same. The sonic boom from a 2km-wide meteor travelling at mach 25 is one heck of a lot stronger than the one that comes of a 5.56mmm rifle round. For reference, I cant remember if it was mythbusters or what, but I saw online somewhere some footage of a .50-caliber rifle firing between two closely spaced (maybe 6 inches?) rows of wine glasses. The shockwave of the projectile passing made a few of them them wobble slightly, but otherwise nothing at all happened.
  4. "The first Electron has arrived at the launch site" If they dont start shipping it in larger sections, it is going to take forever. huehuhehueheuhehue...SCIENCE JOKE.
  5. Not sure if this makes sense. For starters, if you are on a supersonic aircraft, there is no "boom" for you at all. What is the reverse of a sonic boom? Im not sure, something like a shaped charge? - emit a planar shockwave from the inner surface of a giant cone, shockwaves meet at the axis and propel an object to the speed of sound at the shock apex?
  6. @ZooNamedGames @TheEpicSquared Actually I was thinking, a long, horizontal beam, with connectors on both ends right? Join many of therm together, end to end, along the equator. Little bit of jiggery-pokery to squish a few extra beams in to increase the radius, give it a bit of a kick and put it into orbit around Kerbin. Double points if you spin it fast enough to generate a mild artificial gravity on its inner surface. Am I anywhere close? Is that even possible in KSP, whaddya reckon?
  7. Are you thinking what I think you're thinking?
  8. I think that rings true. Its not so depressing though, as instinctive competition and self-interest is a powerful survival mechanism, it sucks to a human mind but we may not have made it this far without it. I think that it may be possible to become civilized enough to overcome it one day, but I do not see that being a small thing.
  9. @tater Sure, sure. Wouldn't need to be any further away then Earth orbit though. Or if we are feeling particularly ambitious, even with infinite money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_Cassus
  10. His last tweet, and possible conclusions of suicide: http://gizmodo.com/chris-cornells-last-tweet-shows-just-how-surprising-his-1795324957 My favorite:
  11. A probably unpopular point: with infinite money, there would be significantly less need for space exploration. Want to make the human race survivable? All we need is a moon city. Resources? We can just dig deeper Overpopulation? Theres a million ways you can solve that with infinite money. So the only thing left would be exploration for fun and curiosity, though with infinite money there is no reason not to do both of those things to the MAX. We dont need a colony on Mars. We need a Martian Las Vegas. Or ten.
  12. To think about it another way...with "infinite" money, you can do a lot of things with quite low tech. Want to go to the stars? Build a large, slow generation ship and send 10,000 people. Could be propelled with present-day hydrolox, since we have infinite money, we can make the mass ratio ridiculous. Who cares if it is inefficient? We could straight-up build a full-size domed city on the moon and launch things from there, opening up the solar system. You dont need fancy nuclear engines, anti-gravity, relativistic speeds etc. If you have "infinite" money. Just do it stone-age style and use the extra money to make it comfortable. There certainly isnt any need to make it profitable. Though without a doubt, the best thing to do with infinite money (amongst other things) would be to spend it on research, so we can have star-trek style space travel, but that doesnt wuite seem to be within the spirit of the OP As for questions of speed, I dont think even infinite money could speed things up much, I suppose if you initiated some kind of country or world-wide industrial focus, you could get the components fabricated faster, and physical testing could be done a bit faster, but only by so much. And with infinite money comes larger and more complex projects, so Im still thinking years to decades to get any major space exploration off the ground, so to speak.
  13. There's a well-known method that has been popular for 100s of years, although its popularity is waning in recent years. Its called science. If you defined science as "explaining magic" you'd be pretty much exactly spot-on, without a hint of snarkiness. Obligatory Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." From which we can grammatically extrapolate: "With sufficiently advanced technology, magic is indistinguishable from science."