Jump to content

intelliCom

Members
  • Posts

    446
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

517 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    10x in a row winner of the Annual "Darwin Awards"

Recent Profile Visitors

1,902 profile views
  1. Interesting problem; how would these things factor into futuristic technologies like Daedalus fusion? Does boil-off affect Deuterium and Helium-3? Would such an engine have limited ignitions? Given the control over the fuel pellet fire rate, would there be a limited throttle depth?
  2. That would require a creative naming scheme. With a name like "Space Launch System" for the rocket, I wouldn't expect NASA to think creatively about names any time soon.
  3. Getting Artemis I's problems ironed out means Artemis II will likely (with no certainty) be more reliable at launching.
  4. No point doing a manned mission if the damn rocket is so broken. Artemis at least does the moon landing in three missions instead of the 11 that Apollo did; but given the cost and amount of time between launches for SLS, that doesn't really mean anything. Still, they must do the unmanned demonstration before.
  5. I'd say this could be implemented by holding space to determine jumping height, which can be toggled in settings of course in exchange for the original "max jump height at all times"
  6. That comment about alien life was sarcastic. "All one can need to know about space is on KSP forums." is, quite frankly, a really silly idea, so I went with a question that had no certain answer; "Does alien life exist?". I could easily have looked for discussion of alien life myself if I wanted to. That being said, I appreciate the effort you put in, and I'm sorry for the confusion.
  7. Damn, so much for "knowing everything you could ever want to know".
  8. Well, I would like to know about the presence of alien life on exoplanets.
  9. Update to this; turns out even NASA depicts asteroids as solid rocks with craters. DART (jhuapl.edu) Also, I would like to append what I said earlier; technically all rocky celestial bodies (in a vacuum) are round, coalesced mounds of gravel (Yes, even the Moon), but the larger the body is, the less obvious the gravel is. It seems like for any rocky body about the size of Bennu or Dimorphos (Average is between 100m - 500m), the gravelly appearance should be far more obvious. For a body like Arrokoth (10,000m on shortest dimension), the body appears smooth. Should I start up a thread on "The Dimensions of a Gravelly Body vs a Smooth One"? Would be useful to predict the appearance of an asteroid with a combination of dimensions and composition.
  10. Replace stone with endstone and you've got the image I had in my head
  11. Double Asteroid Redirection Test - Wikipedia According to Wikipedia, an electric ion thruster.
  12. I mean a timelapse where the images don't appear as though you're trying to run KSP on a computer from the 90s; a 'fast' timelapse, if you will.
  13. You know, it's funny. As far as I remember, most depictions of asteroids were individual solid masses with big, noticable craters on them. While such a thing is true for moons like Phobos, Deimos, Amalthea, Hyperion, etc., it seems as though a lot of asteroids are truly just round masses of sand, with many large rocks scattered within.
  14. Could someone send me a ping (i.e., say "@intelliCom") when there's a timelapse of DART moving toward impact?
×
×
  • Create New...