Hotel26
-
Posts
2,282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Hotel26
-
-
1 hour ago, RKunze said:
If you want to use the most expensive way to generate the needed electrical energy, go ahead.
Certainly true in the West for non-scientific reasons.
"China plans to build as many as thirty nuclear power reactors in countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative by 2030."
"Advanced pressurized water reactors such as the Hualong One are the mainstream technology in the near future, and the Hualong One is also planned to be exported." And, no doubt, financed.
Consider any country that is a) developing with determination, b) low on population, c) stable geologically, and d) has plentiful water (e.g. large lakes). Start a candidate search with e.g. the Stans...
Don't be surprised if other countries begin making the scientific and economic determination that nuclear power is both safe and economic. YMMV.
-
1 hour ago, RKunze said:
If you can power a computing center from solar cells in orbit
Split the difference then: keep it on Earth and power it with nuke. That would be the scientific solution.
-
I always find Map View image posts, such as this below, rather inscrutable to read, so I'll simply point out the salient points, after a narrative.
JB14a Jool Beep is a small pod of 3x RA-2 relays that has arrived in the Jolian system in an unfortunate 174-degree inclination. I played a little with gravity assists but playing chicken running at high-speed in reverse is pretty scary (and futile).
After adjusting inclination to a bold 180 degrees, I lucked into a low perijo with an apojo matching the lugubrious Pol. Moving backward so slowly at Pol's alittude that it's inclination in the Pol SoI would be 'easterly'. Yay.
What the orbital speed will be at peripol will be announced by Mission Control whenever we get there. (And, of course, my mathematical intuition is warning me that I may be interpreting the "polarity" of the Focus View schematic wrongly.) OK, so actually, you can skip the details in the image!
With my luck holding up, an Atlas III miner showed up shortly after and this vehicle just happened to have a perijo close to Pol's altitude and that got me thinking about establishing a mining station at Pol to assist with a) rescue of distressed orphan flights and b) Minmus-style departures(? almost certainly a very bad idea). Call it an outpost then rather than a station.
And this has all stimulated some review of my harmonic GEO (Gilly-Eve Orbit) plan to have successive fuel depots periodically visit the vicinity of Gilly for fuel transfer/distribution to LEO.
But it has now dawned on me that direct transfer to Gilly from LEO has very much the same (easy) solution equivalent to MKO: the Minmus-Kerbin loop for rendez-vous. A number of rows of my mental Tetris puzzle thus just collapsed in on themselves. Nice.
-
2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
Every second before they boost back makes it harder to return to landing, and the whole premise of the booster is that it must return to landing.
That's true with Super Heavy, isn't it, as I can't conceive of that object ever touching down on a barge at sea, even nearly empty.
Spoiler(Of course, I am entertaining geographical solutions now.)
If Super Heavy just coasted and fired retro only to decelerate to touch-down, how far downrange could it go, from its current apogee? Just needs an unused, privately-owned island (with a clear path to avoid overflight of any populated areas).
-
A Pol refinery/rescue outpost -- for distressed ships entering the Jolian system?
AP: 210Mm
PE: 149Mm
INC: 4.25d
PER: 42dThe only disadvantage I see is that rendez-vous times might tend extreme.
I know that the right answer is to "just get it right[tm]", but: what to do with all those miss-putts...?
SpoilerThe way this occurred is by happenstance. An ancient relay pod in a 174-degree incline. (ouch). And then an Atlas III super-refiner (still with +3 km/s dV) but in a perfect orbit to just cop-out and intercept Pol... OK, then. All right. Let's just do it...
What is illuminating is that I had never contemplated any use at all for Pol and Bop. (Lower on the scale than Dres, if that's possible!)
-
From a KSP point of view (knowing nothing and caring little about real life), I think delaying the flip until Starship has gained some decent separation (exhaust-wise) and then performing a much slower flip before full burn-back thrust is applied, ought to be considered. So I can see some motivation to go faster (including being 'flashy'). If it meant beefing up some RCS control on the booster. I can also imagine the usage of small, 'reserve' tanks that are kept full until the flip to avoid ullage problems.
The first two interesting issues might be a) how quickly the turbines slow down, b) how fast a flip could they actually withstand, c) what the atmospheric density is at flip altitude and what is required to prevent going 'unstable' during a slower flip.
In any case, responding to AckSed above, way, way, too early to think about giving up, especially as the hot-staging concept itself has now been demonstrated.
35 minutes ago, AckSed said:How expensive will it be to fly an expendable SuperHeavy and a reusable StarShip? Say they don't crack hot-staging, the refurbishment turns out to be uneconomic or whatever. This is an inverse of the usual paradigm, but I'm throwing ideas around.
5 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:Come to think of that, what is the price of a fully expended vehicle? I assume it's cheaper than a typical rocket of this size but probably not economical to have without it being reusable, especially with all the engines
Mmm, nope. You'd (both) be completely throwing out the whole economic model of SpaceX, the sine qua non.
-
18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Not less accurate than any cosmological modelling ever.
I'm in. I'll take the blue pill, please.
-
3) Earth is in the Goldilocks[1] zone.
Spoiler[1] not the Greta zone
-
28 minutes ago, GluttonyReaper said:
I haven't got access to this transcript obviously - is there any mention within it of the insulative effects of clouds, i.e. are they claiming that the energy input blocked by cloud cover is greater than the effect of heat being trapped in the atmosphere by the same clouds?
Only the obvious implication that this too is NOT modeled.
It does seem that, during the average 12 hours a day of sunlight, albedo cutting 50% of incoming solar energy would be far more significant an effect comparatively than that of terrestrial radiation, even over a 24 hour period. Otherwise, we'd have a constantly-warming earth, with constant cloud cover, and runaway temperatures. Yes?
I do remember in the video some views from space of the planet, showing great patches of cloud cover somewhere over the vast expanse of our oceans (very bright, very white).
-
2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:
Unfortunately, he
He was the grandson of TH Huxley, a protege of Charles Darwin (known as "Darwin's bulldog") and an active supporter of Malthusian ideas on population control.
Another grandson of TH Huxley, Aldous Huxley, is most famous for his 1932 novel, Brave New World. [Not a topic for this forum.]
-
Nobel Laureate John Clauser: Climate Models Miss One Key Variable (also on Apple Podcasts) (both audio only) (original video episode at American Thought Leaders, but behind a pay-wall.)
I saw this on American Thought Leaders when this interview first came out in early September(?) but the video was behind a paywall and I couldn't share it easily.
The summary is that Clauser claims that the IPCC has a collection of ~40 models that all work only part of the time and generally do not agree with each other much of the time. NONE of them work with cloud cover: that is to say that they all omit cloud cover as a variable, and assume clear skies.
Clauser, a physicist (quantum entanglement) and a sailor who has crossed the Atlantic, noticed that cloud cover cuts energy input to the surface by 50% (out in the Atlantic on the open ocean). Noting also that more than 60% of the Earth's surface is ocean, he thinks of the global weather system with cloud formation as a gigantic planetary thermostat (paraphrase). Greater temperature causes increased evaporation and humidity and cloud cover, reducing retained energy input from the Sun, causing coolling as positive feedback. His conclusion has been that miniscule anthropogenic inputs to our global system are well within the ability of nature to compensate.
The above is by far the best interview with Clauser after he made his recent public statements. (As I recall, he received his Nobel Prize in 2022, and was then safe to state his mind in 2023.)
SpoilerI have access to a Full Transcript, but cannot publish that here (anywhere) in its entirety. I think it would not violate copyright if I published key excerpts, if requested.
QuoteOne of the most remarkable traits of quantum mechanics is that it allows two or more particles to exist in what is called an entangled state. What happens to one of the particles in an entangled pair determines what happens to the other particle, even if they are far apart. In 1972, John Clauser conducted groundbreaking experiments using entangled light particles, photons. This and other experiments confirm that quantum mechanics is correct and pave the way for quantum computers, quantum networks and quantum encrypted communication.
-
6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:
(same turn angle at the same same speed)
the acceleration on all 3 (car, warship and person) is identical. The force applied is greater for the warship than the vehicle (proportional to mass of each) -- and, in each case, a small component of the force applied to/by the car and vehicle is transmitted to the person, in proportion to the mass of the person.
1 hour ago, Shiki404 said:Thanks for the answer. Does that also mean the higher the vehicle's mass, the higher the stress inflicted upon the vehicle, the higher the G-force is?
Actually, no, and one has to understand now the term "G-force". [The first two terms (mass, 'stress') are related, but not the third, when acceleration is the same: "same turn, same speed".]
So assuming that the "same turn, same speed" is constant, but we are increasing the mass of the vehicle -- and considering F = m . a -- same turn/speed requires the same acceleration, so F (force) will have to increase linearly with m (mass). The force applied to the person will be the same, because the person's mass is still the same.
Because it is hard for a person to think in terms of the acceleration applied, and because they feel this as heaviness or weight, especially in the common case of fighter pilots or F1 drivers, the standard, useful comparison is by weight and this is not only related to your mass but also the Earth's gravitational field. It's only a comparison and the G-force you mention is not in this case nor usually due to gravitational force. Gravitational force is the pull of the Earth or any body with significant mass, but G-force is expressed as an acceleration, e.g. 9.8 meters per second per second, which has the mass factored out and is just a standard acceleration.
Maybe this will help. A conventional airplane flying level at constand speed in a 30-degree bank will execute a standard Rate-1 turn (180 degrees in 1 minute). "G force" will feel slightly higher than in straight & level flight. In a 60-degree bank, G-force will be 2 G's and be very noticeable. This is a Rate 2 turn (360 degrees per minute). You will find this very noticeable! And this does not depend upon your weight on the bathroom scales or the type of equipment.
There is technically a gravitational force, but whenever you usually hear the term G-force, it will be referring to the acceleration applied -- not only by gravity -- but very often any kind of acceleration being measured by this useful yardstick. it is often abbreviated to "G's", which is maybe less confusing.
-
I can't remember the last time I lost BOTH stages... Uh, RSS, OK...
-
39 minutes ago, RevanX_LSR said:
here was a less chaotic one about 5 seconds from start.
Uh, this is crazy stuff. I have to Endorse this... +10
-
Just a bit too aggressive with the aero-braking, descending from GKO (Geosynchronous Kerbin Orbit, for a (missed) return to KSC, after depositing a geosync spy cubesat...
-
6 hours ago, TwoCalories said:
How'd you flatten the terrain around the base like that?
4 hours ago, Kerb24 said:Probably a Kerbal Konstructs terrain decal.
Quite so.
I recommend this great article: Getting Started with Kerbal Konstructs by @Caerfinon
-
I was able to land my X-37B impression on the Mun at Armstrong Base.
The attempt to relaunch it:
was madly successful:
Spoiler
-
On 11/9/2023 at 6:39 AM, insert_name said:
SpaceX got another X-37b launch, this time on falcon heavy, wonder why they are using it instead of regular falcon
https://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-to-launch-on-a-spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket/
Thank you indeed for your post.
I got all inspired and did an impressionist (not replica!) version, OTV-37, and have been having a lot of fun with it.
It has a small equipment bay and I'm thinking I might be able to jimmy some SCANsat instrumentation in there (but probably not); and I'm about to send one to the Mun and attempt a landing and return from there.
For no obvious logical reason.
It is fun, anyway, to have up in a 60-degree orbit and then pick an airport to attempt to bring it back to.
[I now return you to your SpaceX live feed.]
-
I'm not a nitpicker, nor a nitpicker's son, yet I'll be a nit-picking simulacrum until a nitpicker comes.
There! I used the word simulacrum in a meaningful sentence...
SpoilerWas I faking it, though?
And yeah, an electronic rendition of the board game might be trivially a simulacrum of the board game, but chess, the game, is not a simulacrum. It's an original idea.
A game defines rules. An electronic game implements those rules. If the game permits you to clip in the VAB, then that clipping is permissible according to the rules of the game and that clipping is therefore NOT "cheating".
There is NO rule that states that games must be realistic. (This is hogwash.)
All that matters is whether or not you have fun. If the game is fun but you claim you are not having fun, then you are not bloody doing it right!
Because the first rule of all games is that you must have fun!!
(If you complain, you are cheating.)
-
9 hours ago, Vulcano53 said:
processing unit on a station on kerbal orbit
(Welcome to the forum!)
You are 'on topic' in that your proposal is about mining ore on Minmus. And I suppose that if you were playing Science or Contract, 'earning' the ore on Minmus is free (except for your time), but this would not be a good solution in Sandbox in which you are orbiting (in LKO) very close to the source of free fuel. You just need a way to get it into LKO or -- preferably -- two ways. I give to you:
-
On 11/3/2023 at 7:54 AM, Lisias said:
Every game, by itself, is a simulacrum.
Monopoly, for instance, yes. Chess, Go, Poker, lots of puzzles: no. (Predictably someone will seize upon the notion that chess has 'knights' and 'bishops'. No, it has fanciful mnemonic names .)
What is common about all games is that they have rules. Those rules are set by the creator. They can be entirely abstract, imaginary, creative.
Or restricted, in certain genres, to some simulacrum. This is a useful term ( @Lisias ) because it does somewhat differentiate 'simulator' which commonly connotes some rule subset from reality (for a hopefully fun activity at home).
As Jack Handy once mused: "Space is not only 'hard'. It is also not 'fun'. Get an aerospace job. See what I mean."
-
On 11/3/2023 at 10:29 PM, leroidangleterre said:
shorter sections of runway
Not ideal, but you can use the scale factor in the static pop-up. You will see it default as 1.0, but you can reduce that to e.g. 0.5 (type it in). It scales the width, too, of course; the size of any markings, etc.
The result is plausible on approach, so, hey...
-
3 hours ago, Jacke said:
I think Kerbals...
You know... about a day after I built the airport on this strange little island... I had a Simplicity booster return for ASR recovery, that thundered overhead just a couple thousand meters above...
Who knew building real estate downrange from KSC was not a good idea! I would have posted screenshots, but it was a night-time return.
Anyway, I named it Kobe Island because the Kobe airport in Japan is built offshore on an artificial island. Which I think is totally cool -- because 'aerospace'.
-
I've had an inkling for some time that this was about to occur. An island has been thrust up suddenly from the seabed... Volcanic action? Kraken activity...?
[click + arrow => slideshow]
I call it Kobe Island. It is located at 0N 70W about 50 klicks downrange from the Kerbal Space Command.
The island is only 1 m ASL but it's still going to need a boat ramp to allow aquatic traffic in and out. Probably a high-speed ferry in its future.
It's a nice place to pack a Sunday picnic lunch and take a Gopher for a joy ride.
What did you do in KSP1 today?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted · Edited by Hotel26
Hearty congratulations!!
And don't kick yourself. It took me 7 years to get KK to work. And I never would have, either, if it hadn't been for @Caerfinon's great documentation.
But that is not why I am here today... I am here today to announce:
Our very first landing on Pol!
We had over 3 km/s dV remaining after Jool capture, but there was Pol, orbiting right there mighty purty and, being oil men, we looked at each other in Mission Control, exclaimed "Let's Do It!" and high-fived.
And Here We Be!!! Dang. ...14.08% Brent crude... Light & sweet! (628,000 kallons to be refined before lift-off!) Champagne time!
(This is nearly 9 years after I was introduced to KSP: Dec 2014...)