Terwin

Members
  • Content Count

    986
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

655 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

    Science or Cool

    I specifically argued that the money for the space station was primarily a way for elected members of the US legislature to send money to their districts/states. This was not 'money for a space station' this was 'money for buying reelection' which had something to do with space as an excuse, that NASA managed to turn it into a functioning space station is an irrelevant foot-note to the people who had the authority to allocate the funds. No part of that is an argument that the space station is an efficient way to spend money on science, but rather that the ISS is a way to squeeze science out of money that was going to be spent anyway. In any case, this is at least the second time the goal-posts have been moved. The original question was if there was any utility in having the space station, and that was later changed to ask if there was any utility for those of middle-class and lower that has come out of the space station. Yes, it is the second link in the second post on this thread, repeated here for convenience: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth
  2. Terwin

    Science or Cool

    Sure, any billionaire who knew 30+ years ahead of time that he would be needing brain surgery for an otherwise inoperable tumor, AND that the robotic arm would actually work for that purpose. Just like Velcro could easily have been invented without space-flight, except it never was... There was a request for for the benefits provided by the ISS project and I listed some of them. If you want to move the goal-posts to exclude technologies that could potentially have been backed/invented by a billionaire who has highly accurate information about the success, failure, utility, and need for a technology multiple decades into the future, then sure, compared to a billionaire with a time-machine, the ISS is a commercial failure. But in the real-world, most of those technologies would not have been invented for decades, if ever. In any case, the ISS is both a political tool(international cooperation), and an investment in the future. In hind-sight it is entirely possible that we could have made better investments, but once again, the reality is that those investments would never have been made. Probably 90%+ of the NASA budget is just an excuse for elected officials to throw money and jobs at their districts. Without NASA the same money would have been thrown at the same districts but without the science benefits that NASA has been able to provide even with all the directives and conditions put onto their funding.
  3. Terwin

    Science or Cool

    Just because no one is willing to buy a worn-out used car does not mean it was worthless when new. Also, most corporations don't look much further than next quarter, so it would not be surprising for them to forego anything that could be viewed as a long-term investment, even if it is very worth-while.
  4. Terwin

    Science or Cool

    Cheap micro-sats deployed from the ISS as well as water quality and disaster monitoring would be harder to manage on earth. The eye-tracking software that makes Lasic so much safer was developed to support the ISS. Preventing bone-loss is relevant for osteoporosis patients(common in older men and women). The robotic arm that was developed by Canada paved the way for surgical arms that can operate on previously inoperable tumors. I also think many people here on earth benefit from the improved vaccines and breast cancer detection/treatment developed on the ISS.
  5. Terwin

    Science or Cool

    This may be a good place to look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station This one may more directly answer your question however: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth
  6. Terwin

    How do kerbals reproduce?

    New Kerbals come from RoverDude's 3.5m MKS Tundra Colonization Module of course. ( https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Parts-(Tundra-Series)#mks-tundra-colonization-module ) While they can also be spontaneously generated by cosmic rays hitting derelict pods, the 3.5m TCM is the only known controlled environment able to reliably produce them.
  7. When you rotate your command module, you are distributing the heating over a larger surface and giving the previously heated portions a chance to cool off before getting heated again. I would be surprised if this is not used in real life when applicable, at least to the point of a slow rotation of the capsule to ensure heating is even over the entire heat-shield.
  8. Terwin

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Ah, the English translation uses 'mulch' instead of 'soil' for that resource. Nom-o-matics take 10 soil/mulch and 1 fertilizer to produce 11 supplies, so that is what I generally use for converting it back into supplies, just start with a bit of supplies and a lot of fertilizer and that will last you a long time, especially with some recyclers(a MPL-LG-2 and enough RT-500s to keep everyone at 79% is the way I usually go). Even though I generally put in fertilizer production 'just in case' just a 2.5m can of fertilizer is plenty for a crew of 2-5 for a round trip to Duna for example(Usually with a fair bit left when I get back to Kerbin) Just make sure you have enough production(1 kerbal uses 10.8 supplies/day(6 hrs), reduced by recyclers, so a 25000 which produces 14 supplies/day can easily supply 6 kerbals at 79% recycling, using less than 1.3 fertilizer/day, which gives ~3500 days with a 2.5m fertilizer can, which is > 8 yrs)
  9. Terwin

    KSP Loading... Our New Dev Diary!

    Really? Try that with ore tanks. Last time I checked, clipping ore causes explosions(the tanks can be clipped, but put ore in both tanks and boom!)
  10. Terwin

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Why not just use the part intended to turn dirt into raw resources: https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Parts-(Tundra-Series)#mks-tundra-industrial-regolith-sifter Not nearly as efficient as mining and refining each resource separately, but it will give you everything present on the body that you have a container for(at rates controlled by the resource ratios for that body, but any resources you can't store, will be dumped). Note: this is a little bit like having a tiny drill for each resource, you still need refineries to get refined resources. There are already lots of options to make USI-LS and MKS easier. Using the USI settings, I often put per-seat habitation back at 1 month for example. I think you may still need to edit the configs to change how much supplies a Kerbal will consume in a day, but this has not really been much of an issue for me, as a small drill+small MPU can keep your nom-o-matics running as long as you like for a small crew.
  11. Terwin

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    Recyclables are intended to be things like worn-out machinery, broken tools, flat tires, worn-out catalysts, and other finished products that just need a bit of work to get useable again. Converting soil/dirt directly into recyclables is bypassing a lot of the refining and processing steps, and is akin to claiming that you always have a fully-stocked junk-yard next to each of your bases which you can endlessly mine for spare parts and easily used materials. (if you are converting mulch(life support waste) into recyclables then that says very interesting things about how your kerbals digest things). I believe that a module manager script can allow you to set the overflow to false for recycleables for the various converters, just remember that if you do this, you will have things like life-support shut-downs rather than discard a broken wrench when the recyclables bin is full. Also, only the most experienced engineer on a given vessel contributes to the conversion rates for USI-LS and MKS, so multiple engineers will not speed things up directly(but multiple kerbals can increase the rate of increase for the colonization bonuses, and those in turn affect production).
  12. Terwin

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    It is not unexpected for two mods that offer similar functionality(Such as configurable containers and Fuel switch) to be incompatible. If you install both, you may find them interacting in odd ways.
  13. Terwin

    Finding max separation of planets

    Already part of the apoapsis. apoapsis(Planet 1)+apoapsis(Planet 2) gives you the max possible distance between Planet 1 and Planet 2. As you are looking at communications, that should be a reasonable estimate. If you want the max distance for some moons, you just add that in: apoapsis(Planet 1)+apoapsis(Moon 1)+apoapsis(Planet 2)+apoapsis(Moon 2) This gives you the distance should the moons, their planets, and the sun all be in a straight-line with each of them being as far as possible form each of the others. Orbital inclination can only make that distance shorter(Imagine a you have two short lines and one long line. The short lines both touch the origin with one end, and the long line extends to touch the other ends of both short lines. The longest you can possibly make the long line is short1+short2 by having both short lines pointing directly away form each other. Any other angle, will allow the long line to get shorter than short1+short2)
  14. Terwin

    Finding max separation of planets

    Seems like the max possible separation would be Orbital Radius(P1)+Orbital Radius(P2). This would give the distance between the two planets when they are on opposite sides of the sun. For elliptic orbits, use AP(P1)+AP(P2), this gives a maximum as it is the furthest each planet gets form the sun, even if their orbits make it impossible for them both to be at their furthest from the sun and on opposite sides of the sun at the same time.
  15. Terwin

    Ideal Local Mining Operation?

    How about a combination tanker/tug? On occasion I have put a lot of engine on an ore tanker with a converter, and then used that for a big chunk of the escape burn, leaving the ship in transit with mostly full tanks. A lot less time-sensitive than gravity-assists, although a fair bit of over-kill for the Kerbin system unless you are heading to Jool or Eeloo(in which case it is only moderately over-kill). Can be tricky making sure you have enough fuel left for it to get back to Minimus however...