Jump to content

Terwin

Members
  • Posts

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Terwin

  1. Falcon 9 usually lands inside the rings on the barge using a margin of error of less than a second to get the hover-slam correct(margin provided by the throttle range of the engines in use. I have not done the math, but I would not be surprised by a margin of 0.1 seconds or less). Super Heavy and Starship can both hover. This provides a margin of error in the range of multiple seconds, possibly even a minute or longer when testing and there is plenty of fuel available. I'm not sure about you, but if I can generally do a job in X time, and I am given 10x or 100x to do the same job, it gets a whole lot easier.
  2. You might have greater success with a water rocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_rocket That gives you non-instant thrust with no worries about reaction rates, hazardous materials, or fire-codes. It is also very easy to come-by disposable launch vehicles(aka soda-bottles) if you build a launch stand for them.
  3. CKAN will often have difficulty identifying manually installed mods. CKAN also will generally not be willing to replace/update manually installed mods, so as long as you keep an eye out for duplicate dependencies(like module manager), combining CKAN and manual installs are usually not more problematic than other CKAN installs.
  4. I know nothing about CPM, but MKS has Kolonists kerbals that are needed for some WOLF base functions, as well as providing all three types of colonization bonuses when in a normal/rendered base. There is also a reproduction function of one of the Kolonization modules that can (slowly) increase your population without shipping in new kerbals. In the newest versions of MKS, there are also large(20m?) dome components that can provide lots of production/living space/life support and are intended to be manufactured in-situ using MKS. WOLF also supports shipping kerbals around between established spaceports in the background(using established transportation routes similar to the ones used to ship materials between biomes or planets). Note: Wolf is the background/non-rendered portion of MKS that allows an inter-biome or inter-body support network that doe not need a lot of active maintenance.
  5. There is a stock replacement for KAS and KIS which is supported by MKS. MKS previously supported KIS, so I do not think that the configs have been removed. Note: Flexi-tubes are kraken bait! MKS supports disconnected bases as an alternative that will not launch your base into orbit every time it comes into rendering range.
  6. Last I heard they are compatible, but MKS also includes ship and base building, so EPL is not needed with MKS. (MKS is more feature-rich, with more resources, recipes, and with WOLF, you can even create 'background bases' which do not have any catch-up or rendering load.
  7. Did you try sending some of the oxygen back? (assuming you have available capacity) Even if it does not work, you can at least cancel the return shipment...
  8. A nuclear weapon is a very precise and delicate piece of machinery. The conventional explosives must detonate in a particular pattern/shape/timing to cause the bomb to become super-critical, his cannot happen by chance, and even minor damage could turn it into a very expensive IED that happens to throw around radioactive materials instead of a nuclear bomb. They also have lots of built-in safeties. If they 'push the button' then it has a good chance to explode(if not damaged). If the bomb has not been armed, no amount of external stimulation will cause it to detonate. A satellite should stay 'stable' until something causes its moment of inertia to change, even if it is out of fuel. A spin stabilized satellite might stay relatively 'stable' through multiple impacts. Water is an excellent radiation shield. The ocean has an estimated 4 bln tons of uranium, which is roughly 500 times the known mineable ore. https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514#:~:text=It's estimated that there is,extracting it from the oceans. If there is a looming environmental crisis, it seems more likely to be due to other materials on the boat(lead, gunpowder, etc.). Remember, the reactor was shielded well enough for people to stand right next to it and get less additional radiation than an airline flight, and that was before it got covered in water. Most engines use atmospheric oxygen, so it will not be traveling anywhere. Most ammunition includes its own oxidizer, so it should fire just fine. (I would not expect vacuum welding on mars, but lubricant might freeze or evaporate) Parachutes tend not to be sufficient on Mars however, so it may need a different form of delivery.
  9. I thought the videos showed a membrane covering the exit which is perforated by the rocket. No worries about timing, just use your reinforced rocket holder to poke a hole.
  10. Some of the municipalities can get pretty grumpy about it though. Unincorporated parts of the sate only get concerned if you start fires or blow up stuff that was not yours.
  11. This allows zero-cost transfers for routes that can be managed with a single stage vehicle. I don't think that Real Solar System will allow for a low cost to orbit option due to the amount of staging involved. Perhaps it would work better if the trip were broken into parts: least-staging you can manage from KSC to orbit(with in-orbit refueling to further reduce costs) From LKO to Mun orbit should be doable with 1 stage, so refueling in Mun orbit should allow a zero-cost transfer for this leg. A single stage from Mun orbit to the surface should also be possible, so refueling should also allow this stage to be free. Bon Voyage should allow using an electric rover to create zero-cost routes between surface biomes. With refueling infrastructure in-place, it should be fairly cheap to make any single-stage runs you can manage(as it would be in real life), but trying to land something on the Mun in RSS with no in-place fuel infrastructure will not be cheap.(in either funds or transport credits)
  12. The transport credit cost is based on the mass lost from the original vehicle(fuel, stages, etc). Refueling at the destination can reduce part of this cost, but staging will always be expensive.
  13. I would consider an assembly plant as being able to make a chair out of blocks of plastic or lumber, while a refinery needs to make ingots out of ore or chemicals out of rocks. Considering that an assembly plant might not need to be much more complex than a well equipped garage workshop, while any sort of refinery generally involves, high temperatures, noxious fumes, toxic reagents and/or catalysts, an assembly plant seems much less demanding than a refinery in my mind. You can always send up refined resources to be turned into parts on-site before you have the infrastructure in place to refine the resources locally. (like 3-d printer spools taking less space than all of the things you can print form them, even if you can't make more spools locally)
  14. Generally speaking, nuclear is 'heavy but efficient'. As such, nuclear does not make sense if your payload is light, as most of the dry-mass is engine. It also does not make sense if your dV needs are small, as you are pushing around a heavy engine that is not really needed. Nuclear really shines when moving heavy loads a long distance. If the load is large, then the additional mass of the engine is not a big deal and the higher efficiency engine saves large amounts of fuel for the large mass. Looking at existing missions, you will not find many that would benefit from a nuclear engine, because they were optimized for the trade-offs of a chemical engine.
  15. Agriponics takes 10 mulch+1 fertilizer to produce 11 supplies, so you will slowly accumulate more supplies/mulch as you convert your fertilizer, but only if you have kerbals in the loop.
  16. While this *should* be less of an issue now that we may have the final version o KSP 1, it has generally been considered unwise to install mods onto the steam install directory. KSP does not have any copy protection, so you can just copy your steam KSP directory to a different location and use that for your working directory(presumably leaving the steam version unmodded). My un-modded 1.12 KSP install only has 2 directories in the GameData folder: "Squad" and "SquadExpansion" You should be able to remove all installed mods by removing everything else from your GameData folder. (Note: I have both DLCs installed, so you may not have a SquadExpansion folder if you do not) But that will hopefully not be needed if you just remove and reinstall the mods giving you problems(usually by deleting one or more directories then copying a fresh version of the directory from the mod zip file) If installing USI mods individually, be aware that they are mostly installed under the GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries folder (like GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\MKS or GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\LifeSupport), so do not delete this parent directory when uninstalling one of these mods unless you intend to remove all currently installed USI mods.
  17. When handling mods, you want to be careful about removing all files for the old version of the mod before installing the new version, or else you will usually run into problems. If you are installing mods and you get *any* notifications of a file already existing(except Module Manager which is a common file to many mods), then you have messed up and will probably have issues until you go back and completely clean out and re-install the affected mods. If you frequently ran into 'file already exists' messages when installing mods in the past, you may need to start with a fresh KSP install to get rid of all of the problems. (save files are easy to copy over) Note: Even with module manager, you want to make sure you only have one instance of the file/mod, usually the latest version.
  18. When your livelihood depends on something being true, it is very difficult to find the opposite. While petroleum companies can expand into other areas(like wind and solar), it would still cause them serious financial harm to cease all petroleum operations. On the same token, if you want to make money studying the climate, you can either struggle for one of the few dozen jobs world wide helping to make the weather forecast more accurate, or you can support the climate change crisis which requires lots of climatologists to make sure we do not accidentally wipe all life from this planet. If you are either a mediocre climatologist, or want to be a hero, the choice is obvious. (we would not even have an IPCC if not for 'alarming' claims made by climatologists after all, so if the first report was 'nothing to worry about, all is good' would the IPCC receive any funding for the 30 years since that report?) When both sides have easy to understand reasons to lie(like $$$), that makes it much harder to believe either one. 'Do what we say, not what we do' from politicians trying to ride the band-wagon does not help much either. Personally, I'll find the climate change 'crisis' more believable when the activists are fast-tracking nuclear power plants so as to more quickly decommission coal fired power plants. (as opposed to shutting down nukes and replacing them with coal/natural gas)
  19. Oxygen was originally a toxin/waste-product: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere Nitrogen is not a relevant portion of the atmosphere for most organisms, it is just filler. ('nitrogen fixing' organisms help to enrich the soil by taking it out of the atmosphere, but I am not aware of any other direct uses). If anything, it helps provide more mass for radiation shielding, but anything could provide that.
  20. I don't know about you, but I could survive indefinitely with very little equipment over large swaths of this planet. If we found that somewhere that does not take a generation ship, we would already be colonizing it. If we could terraform any part of another planet to be as good as the least desirable parts of earth(like the Arctic or Antarctic), that would be amazingly good. Regardless of what anyone is saying about 'destroying the environment', Earth is still amazingly supportive and nurturing compared to anything else we have been able to verify.
  21. The *only* value of an Orion style drive is allowing the use of a super-dense energy medium(nuclear bonds) using the most primitive technology possible. The *only* reason to use a pusher-plate is if the minimum energy release of your fuel is too high to be able to contain it in a combustion chamber(like the need for a fission fuel to go super-critical). While nuclear would indeed provide much better isp than modern rocket engines, that is not the only option. For something currently under development that may provide a much higher ISP, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_detonation_engine Right now, we are heating up the exhaust and then letting it expand through a rocket nozzle to get thrust. Detonations allow expelling exhaust at super-sonic speeds which is not possible with normal expansion engines, and thus allow a higher theoretical maximum ISP per fuel(which may or may not even be a thing with detonations instead of conflagrations)
  22. If you have arbitrarily large amounts of power, just use photons for reaction mass, as those can be generated directly and you no longer need to carry reaction mass...
  23. As it is a LMG designed to fire over 500 rounds per minute, it would stand to reason that it is intended to be used in scenarios where firing several hundred rounds per minute would be useful. (if you only expect to need to fire a few dozen rounds, an assault rifle is a much lighter and more portable weapon than a liquid-cooled, belt-fed LMG) As the LMGs are belt-fed, it would make sense if they are used in scenarios where extended sustained fire is desirable(I believe that this is one of the primary benefits of using a belt-feed). Putting those together, and it would stand to reason that these weapons(liquid-cooled LMGs) would be deployed in positions/scenarios where it is expected that firing over a thousand rounds every couple of minutes could be desirable, making the need to stop and perform maintenance every thousand rounds something of a design flaw. It is from 2013, but this is a PDF with a lot of information about cased vs caseless ammunition(including a 'the good, the bad, and the ugly' section) https://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Caseless-Ammunition-Small-Arms.pdf including: * No expendable cartridge case No expendable cartridge case “heat sink heat sink” (@ 10%) to eject (@ 10%) to eject from the weapon from the weapon * 210 rounds 210 rounds – Maximum cook off rate from Maximum cook off rate from a single a single-chamber mechanism. Multiple chamber mechanism. Multiplechamber mechanism required for high chamber mechanism required for high sustained rate of fire employment (LMG sustained rate of fire employment (LMG’s, AR’s). (I would guess that '210 rounds per chamber' is closely related to the 'expendable cartridge' mentioned above. Looks like they made almost a 5x improvement over the last 8 years)
  24. No idea what weapon the picture was of, so after a search for a caseless belt-fed MG, I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun That weapon lists a firing rate of 650 rpm. Assuming the weapon you are talking about is reasonably similar in rate of fire, that means you get a highly reliable weapon(few moving parts) that you must stop firing every few minutes so that you can swap out the combustion chamber. I am hardly a gun expert, but that sounds like a very bad idea if you are in the middle of a fire-fight.
  25. One of the advantages of the brass is that it collects a lot of the heat from the charge, allowing you to eject that heat in a very dense package. That MG has attachments for water cooling, so that helps mitigate the accumulation of all that waste heat. I expect that a caseless MG requires a lot more cooling than one fed with cased ammo. The brass also helps seal the barrel, so to get the same oomph from caseless ammo as you get from cased ammo, you need much tighter tolerances in the weapon, tolerances that might get loosened from repeated firings, as the firing pin and other internals are now taking the full back-blast of the round, instead of letting the case handle that. There are good reasons the adoption of caseless ammo is so slow. There are enough reasons that caseless ammo might only be deployed for special cases in the long term.
×
×
  • Create New...