Jump to content

FleshJeb

Members
  • Posts

    1,582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,619 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Conducting comedic FONOPS on fellow Absurdists.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Let me summarize: It’s a character study of the lead flight director. My assessment is that if Artemis fails, it definitely won’t be Rick LaBrode’s fault. Also, the newscasters back in the studio were offensively vapid. The forum filter prevents me from giving a proper take on the contrast.
  2. I’ve used a single claw with landing legs arranged radially around it to brace. It’s been a few years, so I’m not sure if that’s still viable.
  3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_(Clarke_short_story)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_interferometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry
  5. Jet engines work as normal in atmosphere. They need an air intake to work. Yes it's unrealistic. Breaking Ground props were explicitly coded not to work underwater. Yes, I think that's a stupid decision. Normal wing/control surface pieces WILL work as props when attached to Breaking Ground rotors. I's pretty fiddly, so most people avoid it. (I've never done it, and I LIKE fiddling with details.) Tips: A submarine is just an airplane in a much denser medium, so minimizing drag should be your primary design constraint if you want any speed at all. A jet sub that can do 20m/s seems to be a good average target, although I've gotten up to 40m/s on more optimized (but not outlandish) designs. Very few parts are natively denser than water, so making a sub sink is hard. The most commonly used one is LOTS of full ore tanks. I've ended up building a few subs in the 600-1000 ton range. I've not been able to maintain approximate neutral buoyancy with more than about an hour's worth of fuel. Once that gets burnt, you're headed to the surface without active control. There are design tricks/exploits you can do to have variable buoyancy. The primary one is clipping a lot of the smallest ore containers into a cargo bay. It works in reverse of normal physics, since the mass stays the same, but when you open the bay, suddenly the volume of all those ore containers is in the water and you float. I recommend using the Vessel Mover mod to get to the water from the runway, although trying to get there with wheels is a fun challenge.
  6. A scene where they actually do gold mass correctly:
  7. The mechanism is exactly as you describe it in World Out of Time, and he uses it twice, but the setting is different. I have the book and re-read the relevant parts this morning. We might be conflating two (or more) different stories. "Falling into a hole and discovering magic" is older than Merlin. My ex wife let me keep a big chunk of her extensive science fiction collection. I should call her and go bum some more.
  8. In the not-too-distant future these kinds of torturous odysseys of failed remembrance will be trivial to resolve. It will be a loss. Thus far I've dug into The Closet Of Dooooom to retrieve my two Saberhagen books, and speed-flipped through them to see if I can find any references. I've slowed down to devour a few choice chapters, then moved on to wikipedia to see if I can get a sense of which author would have written such a thing, or if any titles ring a bell. Thus far I suspect it was written somewhere in the 50s to the 70s, by one of the New Wave-or-adjacent authors. However, I recall the story being more prosaic than something that Delaney or Bester would have written. Somebody functioning in the space between New Wave and Golden Age SF. I've re-familiarized my self with quite a few authors who I now KNOW didn't write it. Taking a journey and chasing down rabbit holes and dead ends is fun and enriching. I hope people always find ways to continue to be driven mad by their own obsessive curiosity. In any case, if there's any two other people here who I think might know the answer, it's @Gargamel and @NovaSilisko. (Sorry for the ping fellas, there's a literary conundrum afoot--You know how it is.)
  9. I know I've read this, but it's such a common trope, I can't remember. My gut is saying Saberhagen, but I've never read the Empire of the East. Perhaps this event was referenced in the later Swords books, which I HAVE read. Otherwise, possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_Out_of_Time https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LongevityTreatment https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FountainOfYouth
  10. You Fool! RIP to one of the dirtiest, nicest men in Hollywood. (This is probably a SFW video.)
  11. I didn't read the news item, but I'm assuming they're intended to be at least partially sacrificial and rapidly replaceable. In which case we have our old friend, Elastic Failure. Band name, calling dibs!
  12. Hey FLAP YOU, buddy! Hey, I'm glad it worked. (I bet it would have taken off without the flaps ;P ) They've definitely changed some stuff since I last played (1.9ish)-The turboprops didn't have alternators, and the optimal AoA for all blades was the same. Did you have the aero debug options on? The PAWs will show lift AND drag from the blades. I still have never gotten dihedral main wings with incidence to contribute to roll stability in any configuration. I HAVE gotten a zero incidence T-tail to work with 5 deg ANhedral, because Surface Prograde tends to hold my planes a fraction of a degree nose-down. I set my abort button to undeploy the props. Magic airbrake.
  13. Your COL is still way too far back. Put it right on top of the COM and let SAS handle the stability. I think those engines decrease in mass if you set the max torque lower on the part (the electric ones do). Drop them to about 10-15%, they have PLENTY of torque. That should push your COM back to a reasonable spot. Don't bother with flaps in KSP, they just push your nose into the ground. If you have to, put some control surfaces on the leading edge that deploy upward. I think one of those icons is RCS Build Aid--Check your center of thrust by putting a tiny rocket engine on the axis of the motor. You can also get a better handle on the aerodynamics by temporarily taking the blades off and looking at the plane with CorrectCOL. Incidence + dihedral on wings is generally counterproductive in KSP. Anhedral vertical stabilizers is good to help the counter-roll issue from rudders. With props, max RPM always. Vary the torque to just barely keep the RPS maxxed. For blade angle, I build them as a flat disk, and deploy from 0 to about 65 deg. I keep a KAL linked to my throttle and do a linear torque from 0-100, and blade-pitch is 0-10% @ 0 deg, 10%-67% is 25-55deg with a slight curve. 67%-100% is 55deg-65deg, although most low-power builds can't get to 65 and it's actually counterproductive to go that high. So throttle ends up being about picking what's best for the speed regime, rather than just MORE POWER.
×
×
  • Create New...