Jump to content

Terwin

Members
  • Posts

    1,562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Terwin

  1. I would not be surprised if they were obeying the same law....
  2. This is the thread where you could read back and find out all about it(just search each page for 'WOLF' and you should find out lots about it) Summary: WOLF is an approach to add infrastructure outside of the part-based simulation of the game. (ie no more kraken-bait bases that need to be visited every few days for catch-up processing so it can supply your main base) Functionalities include: mining manufacturing inter-base transportation of both resources and kerbals Pulling resources or manufactured goods out of WOLF and into the active simulation using hoppers note: once something is added to WOLF it cannot be pulled back out. This includes Kerbals(which are converted to points based on the number of stars they have(engineer points, kolonist points, mechanic points, etc)) Most WOLF parts are near the end of the stock and community tech trees.
  3. Unfortunately, MKS does not implement 'just in time' manufacturing, so each material will need a storage/staging area or else it can not be either produced or consumed.
  4. I am not on the latest version, but on an earlier version and from what I have heard from RD, refueling should allow reducing the TC cost to zero for single stage vessels. I suspect the loss of transport capacity due to docking to refuel would be a bug, but I am not an authority on this.
  5. If you are able to restore your vessel to 100+% of it's Launch Mass(1) then your transport-credit cost will be zero I generally do this with fuel depots in orbit(but be sure not to set your departure depot when docked or else your costs will be based on the total docked mass), or ISRU when landed. Note: I am not on the development version, but RD said that this is a desired behavior if you have the infrastructure in place to handle refueling at your destination. This also supports solar powered rovers between landed biomes. (1) The vessel mass when you set your departure depot. I believe that there is a very small margin (0.1 or 0.01 tons) below which differences are ignored.
  6. If an object is moving away from earth, then it has a red-shift, if it is moving towards earth, it has blue-shift. Higher velocities relative to earth have larger shifts. *Only* the total velocity matters, for example, a rotating galaxy that is moving away from us a 100kps with a max rotational velocity of 40 kps at the edges will have some bits with a 60kps red-shift on the 'towards us' side, grading up to 100kps of red-shift in the middle, then up to 140kps of red-shift on the 'away from us' side.
  7. SSTO+Orbital refueling depot. I over-use ISRU, so I usually drop off plenty of fuel/ore at my orbital depot, making topping off a SSTO transport a trivial matter, thus giving me a nice discount on WOLF launch costs.
  8. That is what happens when you shave off every excess ounce of mass instead of using battleship armor plates to make your fuel tanks.
  9. Between the ocean and the water table, that tunnel will take a lot of effort to keep dry. I wonder if a 2-lane tunnel or 2 1-lane tunnels would be easier. How long would the tunnel need to be to allow unrestricted usage during flight operations?
  10. That is one option, but you can also just have a large mass that gets extended a shorter distance upwards, this makes the 'up' part of the elevator much less expensive, as you only need to keep the center of mass the same, not mirror everything 100%
  11. This may even be a boon for SpaceX, as now the dead-lines are pushed-back by 9 months, giving them more lee-way for unexpected delays. As payments are based on performance, and not schedules, only payments for mile-posts passed during the actual review would be delayed. So, as long as SpaceX still has the contract in the end, they may well end up better off than if there was no challenge.
  12. When the stated and contractually obligated goal is to dock with the ISS and your can't even get into a high enough orbit to do so, it is hard to call that a success, especially when you spend huge amounts of money on each launch. When launching a new rocket that is already out of date with a publicly stated goal of 'clearing the launch tower', then the entire stack exploding at MECO is a success by the stated objective of the launch. Just like if the CEO of Ford says they will make $1.2B in profit this year, then they only manage to make $900M, then that is a failure, even if they only made $800M last year. and Tesla saying they will make $10M in profit this year, then just squeaking by at $10.2M would be a success. When an appropriate authority figure publicly states the goal of a launch and that goal is achieved, then that is clearly a success, even if said goals are not what we might wish them to be. Unless you want to call Apollo 8 a failure for not landing on the moon when their mission objective was just to enter lunar orbit and return safely? SpaceX can have such low goals because they repeatedly state that they are taking a 'fail-fast' approach with rapid iterations, and it is easy to see that they are pumping out new rockets and engines at a break-neck speed(even faster than they can get permissions to launch them, such that unneeded rockets need to be scrapped so that they don't take up too much space)
  13. The stock KSP solar system *requires* less dV than the real solar system. As a result, various components have been adjusted to provide a more reasonable challenge to players. One of the methods chosen is to make fuel tanks much heavier so that the fuel fraction is lower and you can't accidentally make a SSTO with a huge cargo margin as one of your first rockets. Real vs KSP system Examples: LKO is ~2km/s LEO is ~10km/s Pe of Eeloo is 66,687,927 km while the Ap of Mercury is 69,816,900 km, putting part of the orbit of the most distant KSP planet inside part of the orbit of mercury The Moon orbits around 360-400 Mm(5.1% inclined), while The Mun orbits at 12Mm(0% inclined) with Minmus at 47Mm(6% inclined)
  14. Electrons are in shells, sub-shells, and orbitals. When an atom gains an electron, that electron wants to be as close as possible to the nucleus, just like two magnets want to be close together. But, even with very tiny things, you can only hold so many of them in a given area, so the more electrons an atom has, the further away the new electron will be stuck(because all of the closer spots already have an electron). The largest level of this is shells, which is basically how much energy is tying the electron to the atom, which can be measured by how much energy it takes to knock it loose. If an electron is in the inner-most shell, it has the tightest binding and takes the most energy to knock loose, and if it is in the 3rd or 4th shell, it is considered further away and takes less energy to knock loose(sort of like how a low orbit takes more energy to reach escape velocity than a high orbit). While at one point Atoms were considered the smallest discrete element of matter(and thus the name 'Atom' = undividable), we now have seen deeper to the point where we can now detect discrete levels of energy. Both in nature and in the lab, we see these discrete levels of energy and cannot seem to find or manufacture energy levels between these levels, making us believe that they may be the smallest possible quantity of energy, 'quanta' for short(and thus 'Quantum mechanics'). Because electron energy levels relative to an atom are small enough to be a counted number of quanta, you cannot have an arbitrary number of 'orbits' like you could with a planet, just ones that exactly match a whole number of quanta. From what I can see, shells are more or less the energy level/number of quanta, and sub-shells and orbitals are classifications of electrons within those shells based on how similar they are, with electrons in the same orbital being the most similar, differing only in their 'spin'. (and because there are only two types of 'spin', an orbital can hold at most 2 electrons) Just like with planets, larger 'orbits' can hold more electrons, with the smallest 'orbit' consisting of just a single orbital with it's pair of electrons. Source material/further reading: https://pediaa.com/difference-between-shell-subshell-and-orbital/ https://socratic.org/questions/difference-between-shell-and-subshell note: in most cases, when looking at an atom, scientists look at the mass, charge and chemical properties to determine how many neutrons, protons, and electrons are present, as looking at the nucleus directly requires something like an electron microscope(sort of like a tiny radar throwing individual electrons and watching how they curve or bounce). Obviously this method does not work with individual electrons, but those have enough of a charge that they just compare the current charge to the expected charge with zero electrons and calculate the number of electrons from there. It is much easier to use the periodic table of elements(to match chemical behavior to a given column) combined with the approximate mass of the atom(to identify the row) to determine the number of protons, then just looking at the charge to calculate the number of electrons. I think I did see one news article that claimed IBM was able to image a single electron, but to me the 'image' just looked like a single peak on an otherwise flat 3-d graph.
  15. Only if you manually edit the save file. (not hard to do. I did the same to 'import' my previously established resource harvesting after the last upgrade) Only the 'current state' is saved, so no way to tell what parts were used to bring your depot to the current state and thus no way to 'reverse it' in game.
  16. Just use an earlier version to build up your infrastructure(I plan to upgrade after my currently duan-bound fuel-drone, fuel-station, and mks-transport arrive and set up a transit. (I'm planning to copy over the bases and transit routes after I get the depots established in a 1.12 game)
  17. If you are interested in using stored energy to propel perhaps a couple hundred pounds tens or even hundreds of meters horizontally, you might want a lower density medium. Elastic cords come to mind, probably something between the foot-long 'bungee' tie-down cords with hooks on each end you might find in Walmart and the kinds that people use to jump off of bridges. If you want a more rocket-like high acceleration/short distance acceleration approach, use a 'horizontal sling-shot' type of set-up, or for a more manageable acceleration, you can tie one end to something fixed(like a tree or lamp-post) and walk it back to your launch spot. In either case, using elastically stored muscle power tends to have fewer accidental catastrophic effects over using high-pressure gasses generated by rapidly converted chemical energy. Should also be less expensive and more re-useable too...
  18. Did you fill the greenhouse with machinery? Zero machinery will also cause that result, and if it is inflatable, you probably did not have any on there at launch. Also, I am not sure that the greenhouse will affect the listed efficiency as opposed to the actual production. Take a look at the production rate(in the resource panel) both with and without the greenhouse, and that may better display the change.
  19. But the primary capability of SLS has nothing to do with space, it's primary capability is in securing jobs in 'key districts'. As such, Starship cannot replace the primary capability of SLS. Once Starship is human rated to be *safer* than SLS, and has *all* other capabilities(including horizontal integration should SLS offer that option), I expect SLS to be re-designed(and possibly renamed) to provide some purported capability that would be counterproductive to add to SS. SLS will only truly die when those 'key districts' are no longer 'key districts'. Even as a tax-payer I can't say that I mind too much. SLS is a trivial part of the budget and part of what it(and it's predecessors) does is to keep some space related specialist knowledge active and available. (I would be surprised if SpaceX and other 'new space' companies did not benefit in some way from the knowledge and experience kept alive in these post-shuttle projects)
  20. If cost competitiveness was a real concern it would not have been designed or built as it was. For good or ill, so long as it has sufficient backing in the halls of government, SLS need not worry about any sort of cost-based competition.
  21. I have difficulty thinking of a single sci-fi trope that is not at least 50% nonsense, and the vast majority of them are 100% nonsense. So, yes, that specific trope is also nonsense. (most of the sci-fi tropes that are less than 75% nonsense have already been made into reality in some form or fashion, such as flip-phones being a real-live alternative to Start Trek TOS flip-open communicators, or submarines and the Nautilus; and thus not really a sci-fi trope anymore)
  22. Sorry, my google-fu failed me. (if only I had some common-sense to back it up) ISS orbital velocity: 27,600 kilometers per hour -> 7 2/3 km/s (ref: https://planetseducation.com/international-space-station-orbit/ ) So it only takes ~24 2/3 km/s of delta-v to follow the specified trajectory(assuming little or no atmospheric drag for take-off) As we have seen in Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and other science-fantasy; this is clearly not an issue, and vehicles the size of a large van or small bus can repeatedly make such trips with a cargo fraction of 80%+ In the real world, Falcon 9FT is 549t and can loft 15.6t (22.8t expended) for a cargo fraction of ~2.8%(~4.2% expended) Stage 1 dry-mass: 22.2t - 1 falcon9 engine no longer needed on 2nd stage: 0.47t =21.7t cargo capacity without staging: -6.1t (1.1t expended or 0.2% ) Giving the STSO ~4.8% of the efficiency of the tsto using this rocket(the most updated version of one of the most recently developed rockets that currently exists) Also note that this is fully expended, so actually being able to land again would greatly reduce this. Even if we assumed that the first-stage tanks are massless after their normal separation point and we only need to carry 8 additional engines to orbit(engines are only ~19% of the first stage dry-mass btw), that puts us at 11.8t or ~75% of the tsto performance in this scenario(and this requires either staging 21.7t of empty tanks or a ~80% dry-mass reduction only applied to the SSTO) So yes, a fantasy-tech ssto can indeed beat out a real-tech tsto, but if they both have access to the same technology, then the TSTO will trounce the SSTO every time.(Martians and Lunites can have useful SSTO with current tech, but even there TSTO will be more efficient)
  23. I would suggest that your meaning is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is, thus the questions/suggestions. Earth orbital velocity: just under 30km/s Time to orbit: 8.5 min(for the shuttle) 8.5*60*9.8=~5000m/s (used as gravity loss estimate) means we need at least 70km/s without aero-breaking (or accounting for air friction during launch) So just calculate the fuel fraction for the isp of the engine you want to use and see if it is feasible(and no, anti-mater + pusher-plate is never feasible under the laws of physics as we currently understand them, so use something else)
  24. Isn't that just a miniature lab? So if you want the bigger version, just use the stock lab(2 scientists, and lots more science storage, but not inflatable)
  25. In fiction, the author defines the laws of the universe to suit the story. In historic fiction or hard sci-fi, most of the changes are social rather than playing around with physical laws. On the other hand, if the author wants giant transforming humanoid mecha spamming missiles, then they add some sort of change that makes such things practical(reflex technology in the case of Robotech/Macross for example). If the Author wants fireball spells, dragons, and magic swords, then they add Magic to the mix. In short, you identify what you want for your story, then choose if you want to just hand-wave it into existence with no explanation, create a cultural or technobabble reason for what you want, or use existing period-appropriate technologies(does not work beyond technologies currently in-use). Anything else is pretending expertise and foreknowledge that you do not have and which will be transparently stupid to those who know better. For examples look at the science fiction hall of shame thread.
×
×
  • Create New...