ChainiaC

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChainiaC

  1. Nope :( Bloody hamsters stole all the taters... We had to divert dinner plans to pasta...
  2. Apply a measured amount of force and then measure the object's acceleration?
  3. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but, disregarding kinetic energy for a moment, is this not also simply a matter of... time? So say you're entering a gravity well with a discrete SOI boundary (for the sake of argument). You fall in, you experience acceleration, you fall back out, you experience the same deceleration. Now the time spent falling in is the same as the time spent falling out, so the change in velocity from acceleration is the same as the change in velocity from deceleration, so you come out going as fast as you went in. If you fire your engine before going in, well, then you still come out as fast as you came in. Now if you fire your engine while at the lowest point in the dive (periapsis), this would mean that, you go out faster than you came in. So you reach the far side of the SOI boundary in less time than it took you to reach periapsis from the SOI entry point. So you spend more time experiencing acceleration than you spend experiencing deceleration. So the net change in velocity from accelerating down the well is greater then the net change in velocity you get from decelerating on the way out. So you end up with more speed then just the speed boost you get from firing your engine. Does it work that way?
  4. I thoroughly enjoyed your post, Matter beam. I find it very well thought out and soundly grounded in science and facts and I learned a lot if interesting information and novel concepts from it. For me this post was informative and enjoyable and far from useless. Please Don't stop!
  5. Not in close proximity of a star it isn't Well space itself is about 4K IIRC, but that is not too relevant when you're being baked in solar radiation.
  6. Isn't the asteroid 16 Psyche supposed to be a fragment of a shattered body's inner core? Maybe that would be the best place to look for Uranium and Thorium?
  7. Well I actually had an ant colony inside a large houseplant pot inside my house at one time. The colony just grew there. Apparently a sneaky queen must have decided to nest there without me noticing. Well not until there where dozens of ants running around the kitchen and piles of dirt next to the houseplant.
  8. Well I ain't no rocket scientist nor a chemist, but I recon you'll get some pretty lousy ISP using that as a bipropellant
  9. I reported the same issue with the patch earlier. SuicidalInsantiy confirmed the patch for NFE integration is outdated. He even provided a working patch. His reply with the patch replacement is from July 2nd I believe, one page back in this thread.
  10. I noticed that myself. However the problem is now gone. I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly what I did, but I was messing around with patch files and reinstalling the latest versions of a bunch of mods.
  11. Thank you! The patch works like a charm! Love the nuclear engines by the way. And the electrical Banshee... and the ramrockets, and.... uhm... the fishead. And, well, the whole mod basically
  12. When using this mod in combination with Near Future Electrical, the nuclear engines (Pluto and röntgen) don't provide any thrust. Also an empty NFE interface window appears. I suspect the compatibility patch no longer works with the latest NFE. The patches bundled with Kerbal Atomics also seem to be completely rewritten by Nertea. I have experimented with the patch a bit, but as of yet without success. The engines work when I remove the NFE patch ( but without NFE mechanics naturally). Just FYI. It's not a very urgent issue.
  13. Hey, I noticed the Eel NTR was not getting any associated reactor controls when using the patches for NFE integration. I stared at the patch files for a while comparing the ntr-sc-0625-1.cfg patch with the others, and I noticed at the top of the file the @ was missing. It read: PART[ntr-sc-0625-1]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical] I changed it to @PART[ntr-sc-0625-1]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical] And then it worked. Just a heads up!
  14. I'm liking it already. I'm currently struggling with procedural interstages and ullage, heh ... and now there's a new version of RP-0, just when I got the old one working. Oh well
  15. I personally think LoSBoL's screenshots alone totally justify the existence of this thread. The total eclipse of the heart is just icing on the cake
  16. Alright, this thread just pushed me over the edge. I just started a RP-0 career. That was good advice since sandbox RO was indeed too overwhelming. My first two sounding rockets crashed horribly, but the third one flew and the fourth one *almost* hit the Karman line
  17. ...I get a little bit lonely...?
  18. Actually, it's a laSer. This stands for Light Amplified by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Sorry for being pedantic
  19. While I can totally see the merit in using Titan's hydrocarbons as the basis for organic chemistry, I simply fail to see the logic in using it as either fuel or propellant. Let me elaborate: - Fuel: You would need oxidizer. Yes you can get oxygen from splitting water ice, which is quite abundant, but then you would instantly get free hydrogen too in eactly the right fuel/oxidiser ratio, in short, instant HydroLox. So why use the hydrocarbons at all? - Propellant: Methane causes nasty sooting and gives mediocre ISP. Yes, Ammonia is better, but to synthesize that, you need nitrogen from Titan's atmosphere plus hydrogen, which... well... you could get from splitting ice as well. So no need for the hydrocarobons. And besides, if it's readily available high denisty, non reactive and easily storable propellant you need, just use plain old water. No need to descend into Titans gravity well and souposphere at all. I think the irony here is that hydrocaron lakes would be a highly valuable fuel source here on earth (if you disregard the issues the CO2 emissions from burning the stuff would cause), but rather useless as fuel on Titan.
  20. But how do you *use* said methane fuel? Oxidize it? With what? Heat it? With what power source?
  21. Theoretically, maybe, but personally I consider fusion power to be science fiction until proven otherwise. Fission power is a proven technology with the highest currently available power density. Hmm... maybe there's some fissionables on Io, or in rocky chunks of Callisto... or maybe one of the gas giants captured a rich metallic asteroid we don't yet know about...
  22. Uranium and Thorium (unless we get fancy fusion power). Which, annoyingly, is mostly found in the inner solar system (because rock), but needed most in the outer solar system (because of the lack of solar power).
  23. Actually... when I graduated art school, there was this special prize for the best work from the final graduation exhibit, and it went to a student who made a piece of, uhm... 'art' and put it on top of a column where no one could see it. So, yea. Art. *shrugs*
  24. Soviet Topaz II reactor is about four meters in length and weighs just over one metric ton. Thats a lot smaller then a building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor