Terwin

Members
  • Content count

    908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

590 Excellent

About Terwin

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Terwin

    KSP Weekly: The Ghost Particle

    Always interesting to hear about bug fixes. Were any of them particularly difficult to track down or caused by particularly interesting scenarios?
  2. Terwin

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    I believe the part you want is the nuclear fuel plant: https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Parts-(Tundra-Series)#mks-tundra-nuclear-fuel-plant This will both reprocess spent fuel and process urinite ore.
  3. To start with, a diffraction grating will polarize the light going through it, and absorb any light that is polarized perpendicular to the direction it polarizes. This means if you have two of them you can rotate them so that either most of the light passes through, or none of the light passes through. And if you put them at the 'nothing passes through' orientation, adding a third in the middle that is 45 degrees between them, will mean light gets through again. As far as I understand Bells theorem, they basically entangled some particles and sent them through diffraction gratings. On one side they would have them turned to block all light, and on the other side they would have the one at 45%, letting some light through. If the 45% grating was present in beam B, then beam A would get through the 'block all light' gratings, but if it was not in beam B, all of beam A would get blocked. This proved that it could not be a hidden variable, because they were both still interacting in some way. (I think I have the exact details of the experiment wrong because this approach would allow communicating at faster than light speeds if it worked, but something like that)
  4. Terwin

    [1.4.3] Ground Construction 2

    I believe the current functionality only has 2 GC parts and a few USI-MKS parts with the GC Workshop attribute. I believe the USI-MKS workshop parts are at 300% and can fit 2-4 engineers, while the GC parts are 100% and the mobile workshop vehicle part can hold 12 engineers(have not looked at the GC parts since the second workshop part was added though). While vessels can be made into mobile workshops by incorporating one or more of those parts, other parts can only be made into workshop parts with a MM script or by manually adding the tag to the part file.
  5. Terwin

    [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    Do you have community tech tree installed? That is what gives all those other nodes for the LS parts to go into.
  6. Terwin

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Lack of Machinery could also be providing some limits(especially if the hab-ring did not have any).
  7. You forgot the parts where several congressmen refuse to vote for the bill unless a certain minimum amount of the $$ gets spent in each of their districts, often in very specific ways(keep these SRB related factories working!) And how this is probably a necessary component for any plans being proposed to congress that they actually want to get funded.
  8. Terwin

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    The thing is Co2 is only 0.041% of the atmosphere on earth (partial pressure: 0.2mmhg) but 96% of the atmosphere on mars(4.3mmhg), so even with the much lower atmospheric pressure on mars(0.6% of earth), there is still more than 10 times as much Co2 per unit of atmospheric volume on mars than there is on earth. As an added bonus, we do not even need to filter out all of those other gasses to get a useful concentration, because they are only a small percentage of the total. Edit: this video is talking about collecting methane (.00017%), ISRU will be collecting Co2 and basically 'un-burning' it into methane and O2 by using (presumably)solar power. Think of it as a giant chemical battery that stores power as methane so that it can be released by the rocket when needed.
  9. Terwin

    How much do you use drop tanks?

    Unless you crank down the funds severely, funds are not much of a constraint and play-time is the big thing that needs to be optimized. So getting 2/3 as much done for 1/4 of the funds cost in the same amount of play-time is often a net loss for most players, especially if the tasks being done are high pay-out contracts where completing that extra 1/3 usually brings in more than the 3/4 of the costs that were used to get things done with less play-time. But then again, that assumes that you enjoy completing tasks/reaching objectives, if you derive greater enjoyment from squeezing every last bit of efficiency from your missions, you probably get more enjoyment from getting 2/3 as much done in the same play-time so long as you can do that 2/3 in the most <X>-way possible.
  10. Unless something has changed that I am not aware of, I would expect this to be mostly a paperwork issue. Presumably the 'space force' would include all orbital activities that are currently engaged in by the other branches of the military(satellites and that experimental vessel that they send up for months at a time). Might include GPS and even NASA might fall under that umbrella. Come to think of it, clumping NASA in with the military might do good things for NASA's budget. Hmmm, 1) change the name of NASA to 'Space Force' 2) Tell a general you need $X billion to build and operate the biggest gun on mars 3) Build a mars rover with a compressed air 'cannon' to blow dust off of the solar panels and thus have a new science rover paid for from the budget of the military 4) go to step 2, but slightly increase the diameter of the 'air cannon' barrel every time you want a new Mars rover...
  11. Curie was a Doctoral student in the lab where it was discovered, she discovered that it was only caused by certain elements and gave it a name. So before, sure. Long before? Not really. Was probably even the same piece of radium.
  12. Ok, let's go back to your earlier number of 1/3 of the sphere being covered by the cap(obviously it would be much less as if the explosion was that close, the cap would probably have been vaporized, but for now I'll assume 1/3) If 1/3 of the energy of the 0.3kt explosion came out of the opening of the test shaft(where it knocked off the cap), where did the other 0.2kt of the explosion go? All of that expanding plasma/super-heated air had to go somewhere, and I strongly doubt that it was all somehow perfectly absorbed by the walls of the shaft.
  13. Except the walls of the chamber containing the nuke test blocked all avenues of escape *EXCEPT* the opening covered by the cap, therefore the cap should have been accelerated by ~100% of the kinetic energy for the blast. Just like the bullet in a rifle only covers a small portion of the surface-area of the gunpowder but still gets nearly 100% of the energy from the charge. If I recall correctly, a sonic boom does not travel backwards, only forwards along the path of the super-sonic entity. As such, there is no reason for anyone on the ground, only aircraft that happened to be flying in the restricted air-space very close to a nuclear test, and those would all have been shot down before being allowed to get that close. As such, only the over-pressure from the actual explosion would make an obvious boom for ground observers. Also, remember that the sound of the explosion is also traveling at the speed of sound(in fact the over-pressure wave that pushed the cap off the hole could reasonably be called the 'sound' of the explosion), as such, even if there was a sonic boom, it would be caused along the surface of, and travel along with, the wave-front of the explosion sound, making them indistinguishable without precise digital analysis comparing two identical explosions, one with the additional 'sonic boom' and one without. If the cap flew up into space, or even if it melted on the way there, there is no compelling reason for it to have been obvious or to have left any obvious evidence behind that would be particularly distinct from the forming mushroom cloud, especially for the relatively primitive recording instruments of the day.
  14. The entire explosion(nuclear+conventional) was constrained by the surrounding rock. Remember, this was an underground test that took place in a very deep pit, and the only vent for all of that energy was covered by the cap. Just like the difference between putting a small piece of lead on top of a small pile of gunpowder and shooting a bullet out of a gun. I don't know where the 'extra' 0.17 kt came from, but there is no need for multiple kt to explain it. Meteoroids only burst if they have pockets of volitiles inside of them(like ice or gas) and those expand form the heat, causing the rock to burst. Usually they just disintegrate as parts ablate or get torn off by the atmosphere. Also very few are as dense, even, or tough as a one ton chunk of armor plating, so it is entirely possible that it managed to leave the dense part of the atmosphere before it had warmed enough for any obvious effect. I would expect that any 'sonic boom' would have been close enough to be hard to distinguish from the over-pressure wave of the initial explosion. If the cap did not heat up enough to glow while still in the atmosphere, there would have been no visible 'fire arrow'(even if it did, it probably would not have started glowing until much higher, and with a high speed and a dim glow, there would have been very little to see) Unless the cap vaporized, there would be no source of smoke, so no smoke trace.
  15. In addition to the projected nuclear energy, there are often conventional explosives used as part of the trigger mechanism. As the entire thing was enclosed in a tube with a plug at one end(basically like a giant pop-gun), all of the explosive force(both conventional and nuclear) could easily have worked together to throw the 'cork' There is also the possibility that 0.3kt is the expected useful yield, and that other components of the reaction that are not generally considered part of the useful yield could have contributed due to the nature of the set-up(vaporization of the container walls due to types of radiation that are not generally considered useful for example) Think more meteor and less ICBM. As the plate ablates due to friction with the atmosphere, both the encountered air and the ablated particulates would carry away some of that energy. Even compressing the air above the plate due to the plate moving faster than the air can get out of the way would take a lot of energy and that would mostly result in just reorganizing the air a bit(and probably some sort of sonic boom).