Terwin

Members
  • Content Count

    1,093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

723 Excellent

About Terwin

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I find that on a sufficiently level surface(minmus flats) you can have a long colony where you just add things on the end, but most other places, you want to have 2-4 main lines off your center point, usually with additional branches coming off of those main lines to keep things reasonably close together. ( I will often put the big spinning habitats on towers, some times several in a row, with hitchhikers for spacing) In space the big thing you want for it to 'look' like a space colony would be a number of the large, inflatable, spinning habitats
  2. Just think of it as a failed aerobreaking ... performed by a planetary body (or a Wackjob landing, as this is huge objects in the distant past)
  3. If I remember correctly, when kerbals are on kerbin or in a hab that provides 50+ years of hab-time for the current crew, they will not grow home-sick.
  4. 2 big sources of lag are part count and exposed docking ports. While each ship can have it's physics processed on a separate thread, docking them will put all the parts from the combined ship onto one thread. This may be the source of the lag when docking. Also, if I remember correctly, each exposed docking port checks it's distance from each other exposed docking port in the 2 km 'active simulation' area(to see if they are trying to dock)), so having a lot of exposed docking ports can have a disproportionate impact on performance. The maximum number of parts on a vessel before the lag becomes bothersome is highly dependent on the performance of your processor(and your tolerance for lag).
  5. From link: Summary: daily 6-10 hour no-fly zones from the 16th to the 19th (2pm-midnight on fri/sat, 6pm-midnight on Sun)
  6. Every time a photon hits one of the mirrors inside your bucket there is a reaction, it just gets cancelled out by the other reflections on the other mirrors(unless you open a hole, then there will be some uncanceled reactions when the light escapes instead of bouncing off the mirror where there is now a hole).
  7. Because water is so much denser than air, you need much smaller 'wings' to deflect sufficient material to maneuver. That is why sub have much smaller wings than an airplane. Also, neutral buoyancy is very condition specific. With a rigid shell, you need more and more weight as you go deeper(due to lack of compression), with a flexible shell, you need more and more buoyancy as you go deeper(due to compression). This is why subs(rigid) have ballast tanks that can be filled with sea-water or air as the need arises. For example: a plastic bag filled with 1 liter of air at sea-level will compress to 500ml at a depth of 10m and 333ml at a depth of 20m. (Every ~10m of water adds one atmosphere of pressure, so at 30m of depth, you have ~4 atmospheres of pressure, making your bag only take 1/4 of it's volume at sea-level). So the deeper you go, the more air you need to put into the bag to displace 1 kg of water. Water also gets denser as you go deeper, but very slowly(~4.5% denser at 4000m I think)
  8. Might this be the long awaited WOLF and domes release, or primarily a hot-fix for changes to other mods?
  9. You're not quitting are you? I'm here to learn things and have an intellectual debate about theories. That does not work so well unless you come back and show me the mistakes in my arguments.
  10. NASA air-ships: * Dirigibles of various sizes have and do exist on earth. They are easy enough to make that some exist primarily for advertising(ever seen the Goodyear blimp at a sporting event?) * if the 350 km/h winds at height have generally low turbulence, then the projected dirigibles should not care about the absolute wind-speed so long as they don't try to maintain a position relative to the ground(which would be impossible). * at human survivable temperatures and pressure, the acidity of the atmosphere is mostly at irritant levels and not hard to protect against 30 km tall pipe: * no vertical structure of even 1/30 this height has been constructed to date * these pipes would need to deal with the full energy of super-heated, acidic, super-dense 700km/h winds, something no structure on earth has even tried to deal with(even Cheyenne Mountain might not be able to handle those conditions) * at 90 atmospheres any atmospheric acid will be much more concentrated, and at 450 degrees c chemical reactions will be much more vigorous Comparison: NASA Dirigibles on Venus take something known to work and with which we have great practical experience and put them in a situation where they may or may not require additional assistance(a coating to resist the acid, and possibly something to deal with the turbulence, if any). Your 30km tall pipe is pure fantasy even on earth, so making it in the much harsher environment of Venus is a non-starter. Even so, The blimps seem only vaguely plausible, as I would expect turbulence in the 350 km/h winds which would quickly rip them to shreds.
  11. As the tallest man-made structure(Burj Khalifa) is all of 830m tall, a 30km tall pipe seems more like a fantasy than a hypothesis, especially when you add in the 700km/hr winds, acidic atmosphere, and high temperatures. Without that pipe, your habitat AC unit will need to pump away your excess heat over a 430 degree gradient, sort of like pumping water out of a 430' deep well, and just like pumping water out of a well, there is a minimum amount of power it will take to pump that heat/water out of your habitat/well.(using two pumps to pump the water out in a couple of easier stages does not reduce the amount of potential energy being added to the water, and thus does not reduce the minimum energy to pump it out of the well)
  12. I just do a lot of reading. Rapid jump-drives with large gravitational bodies used for velocity matching is a primary means of interstellar transport in the Curator series on the HFY sub-redit if I recall correctly.(might be a different series, but I think that is the one) Some possible limitations: portal diameter limitations(either an absolute limit, a limit based on exponential power requirements, a limit based on gravitational fields, or an easy to manufacture counter-measure that can disrupt jumps with a portal diameter beyond a certain size) Maximum portal transit mass is limited(any of the reasons for portal diameter could work for mass as well) Heat dissipation(opening/traversing a portal produces a lot of heat which must be dissipated, or power requirements for opening a portal means that you must vent a lot of waste heat for each jump)
  13. There should not be any conflicts between Roverdude's USI collection and Allista's Ground construction.
  14. There is a specific assembly line part in Global construction, RD saw no need to duplicate it when Allista has made a perfectly good model for this functionality.
  15. If you have a working jump-drive with high accuracy, then you match velocities by jumping close to a large gravitational body(like Jupiter) such that your in-fall accelerates you in the correct direction. If your drive has a large spool-up(like hours or days) you just start that much farther out(having calculated how far you need to fall to be at the correct speed when you are ready to jump again). Advance users of the jump drive might even use black-holes for velocity matching to cut the time from minutes/hours to seconds or less. A rapid-recharge jump drive gives you a constant acceleration drive with an acceleration equal to the largest gravity well you have available, so no need to invent one seperatly. Artificial wormholes make for a good theoretically possible approach to jump drives, particularly in harder forms of science fiction. (Warp drives are theoretically possible as well, but the you will be accused of ripping of star-trek)