MeticulousMitch

Members
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About MeticulousMitch

  • Rank
    Space Architect

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. MeticulousMitch

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I tried simulating this mount in BeamNG.drive to the best of my ability - it seems for a modern 2-door car a static load of around 10g should be achievable without any severe deformation. Of course, if the load is fluctuating wildly or if it goes into the 20+ g range, nasty stuff starts happening. Also probably worth considering that an average convertible would have somewhat lower overall rigidity than a coupe, due to lacking a roof.
  2. MeticulousMitch

    Black Holes, what we thought 40 years ago

    I was curious to see how much power a black hole of 1600 tons would output through Hawking radiation, and according to this site the figure is 33 gigatons per second. I immediately thought of the What If? scenario where an indestructible hair dryer of absurd (although still around 10 000 times less than the black hole) power is accelerated past escape velocity simply by the reaction force of the superheated plasma around it. But would this happen to a black hole? I get the feeling that with so much energy being emitted nearby, the black hole would be explosively ejected into space, but then again I am not sure whether basic action/reaction momentum transfer is valid at an event horizon...
  3. MeticulousMitch

    Designing a Galaxy

    Go to en.spaceengine.org immediately and download Space Engine for free. This program will give you an idea of the scale of a galaxy, along with practically unlimited examples of realistic and interesting planetary systems.
  4. MeticulousMitch

    What is your biggest science pet peeve in movies?

    May have been mentioned already but sound delay is almost never depicted properly, even in serious movies. You'll always hear an explosion immediately no matter how far away it is viewed from. Even worse is when a shockwave is depicted racing towards the camera and the explosion sound has already been heard!
  5. If we're only considering overpressure from the blast, then it would certainly be survivable, though perhaps with ruptured eardrums. In an uncontrolled rocket failure the combustion is fairly slow, more like a fire than an explosion. This much can be seen from the intact engine cluster: at 150 feet even a 1-ton charge of TNT produces insufficient overpressure to cause lung damage, and that kind of blast would obliterate the engine cluster. (adapted from http://dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA286212) radiant heat is probably not a grave concern as the fireball is confined to the centre of the barge and only lasts a couple seconds. I would be far more concerned about flying debris at that range, so while you may be OK at the edge of the barge, diving underwater would be a safer option.
  6. MeticulousMitch

    FTL communication

    That Cracked article is appalling. Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information at faster-than-light speeds. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php
  7. What you need to do is head right on over to http://en.spaceengine.org/, and download SpaceEngine for free. After a couple hours of exploring the universe you should have a grasp on what's plausible, and a whole bunch of new ideas for exoplanets too. Most of what you've described, I've seen somewhere in SpaceEngine.
  8. MeticulousMitch

    when have you over done it with the part count?

    Assuming the ship is made entirely of FL-T400 fuel tanks, my framerate drops below 60FPS if the part count is over 465. I could probably get away with a higher part count if I also used massless parts. If this was in orbit and you stuck an LV-N on it, you would get a delta V of over 17000m/s, which is just about the theoretical maximum for a single stage rocket in KSP.
  9. Overview: The Isosceles spaceplane is a 3-man, science equipped craft which doubles as an interplanetary engine stage. Ideal for missions to Duna, Laythe and the smaller moons, this craft features the original [thread=34917]STABOJET[/thread] configuration which gives unprecedented stability during trans-atmospheric flight, as well as an LV-N thruster for space operation. The Isosceles is the first in a line of spaceplanes incorporating [thread=34917]STABOJET[/thread] technology. The winged configuration allows for more precise landings in the atmospheres of bodies such as Kerbin, Laythe and Duna. For interplanetary missions, the Isosceles CT Variant is docked to a Science Station with a large fuel tank. The ER Variant replaces the two crew pods with additional fuel tanks for extended range science missions. In a Laythe mission the Science station acts as an orbital fuel depot with enough capacity for 4 full refuels, followed by a return to Kerbin orbit. It is possible to plant flags and take samples on all of Laythe's equatorial islands in a single mission. How to reach orbit: 1.) Press 1 to engage turbojets. Take off and climb at 45 degrees. 2.) At an altitude of 10,000m, reduce pitch to 30 degrees 3.) at an altitude of 15,000m, press 2 to engage LV-N engine 4.) when the turbojets are no longer producing thrust, press 3 to shut them off. Circularize the orbit using the LV-N. Throttle should be 100% throughout. The craft will remain controllable during asymmetric flameout. Key commands: 1: Turbojets only. 2: Turbojets and LV-N. 3: LV-N only. Download: Isosceles CT Isosceles ER Science Station
  10. I think you've just one-upped Boston Dynamics and created the freakiest-looking robot ever. And that music... D:
  11. 100 Kerbin days was the best I could manage. The SOI boundary seems to be quite unstable if you approach it very slowly.
  12. Returning from a Duna/Ike double landing with thousands of science points, only to find that Kerbin's surface has disappeared and you just explode when trying to land on it. 0.23.5, no mods. This has happened both times I've tried returning from Duna in career mode.
  13. MeticulousMitch

    [Landing Plane] FSX vs KSP

    Landing (and takeoff) is too difficult in KSP solely because of the landing gear wheels, which have zero tolerance for side slip. You will flip over if even the slightest amount of drift occurs, because the wheels' lateral coefficient of friction is infinite. Offsetting this slightly is the fact that the wheels are also too strong, so hard landings are a bit more forgiving.
  14. MeticulousMitch

    Pet peeves

    Rover wheels, definitely. They don't have proper physics in the way that everything else in the game does, and they are essentially on rails - turning hard enough will flip any rover, no matter how low to the ground it is. Infiniglide is another major one. Crashing your plane and seeing wings and control surfaces just floating slowly through the air. Landing gear that can't support the weight of your heavy lander.
  15. Good luck getting to Moho and back.