• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MBobrik

  1. Just tried the nuclear version on Moho.Drove downhill, jumped over ridges, landed, jumped, landed, jumped... all the way to 60m/s downhill, at which point the rover landed after the next jump so hard that the kerbals fell off. But the rover still didn't flip and stopped after a few hundred meters safely. .
  2. Behold, my newest, craziest, smallest ( only 4 parts), and surprisingly stable creation ( you have to operate rover fwd/back and rot controls separately to keep it under control, but it is surprisingly easy to learn and to do, and the rover can turn itself back straight from any position), so, if you want to make a really really small rover, you can use this and you never have to worry about capsizing : .
  3. Small stable rovers ? simple. avoid useless stuff like RoveMate or RoveMax 1 2 wheels and build your rover with TR-2L around a single SAS like this . or nuclear . . You will actually save weight because SAS weights a lot less than RoveMate and improves stability to the point where you can safely intentionally drive on two wheels over long distance if you want. .
  4. Minmus is MUCH easier. In the low gravity, the entire landing happens like in slow motion. Plenty time to adjust velocity. You will even have to time warp to speed things up.
  5. Just managed to build my first spaceplane... 2 turbojets and 18 (!) ram intakes and 1 LV-T45. Jets took me all the way to 1600 m/s (surface) then I ignited LV-T45 w/o stopping the jets and suddenly I was at 250 KM apoapsis, and all I needed to do was just to circularize. It was over-engineered a lot, but I think I got the basics. Just intake-spam enough and the rest will take care of itself. With sufficient ram intake/jet ratio you will have air supply at say 0.09 even when you are leaving the atmosphere altogether, so you can run the jets at near half-throttle alongside with the rocket all he way until you got out of the atmosphere and then add the last 300m/s with the rocket only to circularize.
  6. . As I just found out, there are different compounds that act as surfactants for ionic liquids. So ionic liquids would be definitely a way to go.
  7. Blowing bubbles in space would require only minimum amount of gas, and in zero gravity and with nothing sharp around they could be pretty durable. But water evaporates quickly in vacuum so the bubble would not last a fraction of a second. . Now the question. Is there any way to prevent it ? Perhaps a different surfactant/liquid combination that has effectively zero vapor pressure, or perhaps some additive, something like saturating it with deliquescent salts that would keep the water inside. . Any ideas ?
  8. I would also replace all the RCS stuff with one SAS. far more efficient at keeping the rover straight than anything else.
  9. The real venus in visible spectrum is just a near-featureless white-gray orb from above. Then just milky fog of the H2SO4 clouds, and on the bottom, perpetual reddish hazy twilight that limits the visibility to a few km. you would have to land very near a volcanic vent to actually see anything. . EDIT: and venus volcanoes look rather dull too. Just large and flat shield volcanoes calmly pouring out lava.
  10. because, I guess, a realistic venus analog would be just too dull for KSP.
  11. Wonder how you're gonna to to prevent, with your horses and chariots, all the rogue starving engineers from building small nuclear reactors in their backyards.
  12. . I don't think that we will burn all the thorium and uranium and deuterium from seawater that fast... Unless of course it is going to be spent on an huge armada of spaceships. In that case the 10000 years row will look like 10000 years from now: Fossil fuels 0%, Organic renewables 0%, Non-organic renewables 100%, Nuclear 0% where there is just one non-organic renewable - solar energy collected on low orbits around the star and converted to antimatter as the most efficient storage.
  13. Yeah, I know. but there just aren't any scientific alternatives. A plenty of un-scientific, though.
  14. . Convergent evolution works only on things under strong selection pressures. It doesn't make things like junk DNA or vestigial features, which aren't under any reasonable selection pressure, converge.
  15. or one botched alien abduction attempt
  16. If we had no fossils, because, for example, we've just found an interstellar ark containing all the extant species of another world, we would still be able to compare their DNA ( or equivalent ) working out the familiar branching pattern of relationship that arises from divergence trough continuous small changes. If we even hadn't any DNA because for example, our interstellar probe can't take samples, just high-res pictures from orbit, we could do the same with anatomical features. create standard sets of them and compare them obtaining the same ( though slightly less exact ) result as with DNA. . But here on earth we DO have a lot of fossils, so what is the point ?
  17. If it has been programmed correctly, the first thing it will do, is to invent a way how to upgrade humans to its level. If not, we will have to do it on our own.
  18. . I've first read the text w/o reading who has posted it. And, I thought to myself, that this kind of hyperpessimistic hyperbole looks like it was written by Nibb31. And look, it was ! . First, lots of electrical components are inside the pressurized areas. and virtually all that are outside are passively cooled and likely don't work on the edge of thermal failure as the most critical systems have to have a huge safety margin. So most would do just fine conducting the heat to the frame of the airplane. . Second, 747 has service ceiling of 13000 m which means only 20 KPa pressure. So if rubber and plastic don't rupture going from 100 KPa to 20 KPa, then they won't suddenly explode when going the shorter distance from 20 KPa to 0 KPa. The same with the cabin. It as a lot of safety margin, and at 13000m it already experiences 70 % of vacuum forces. . Hydraulic fluids are sealed hermetically at MUCH higher pressures than atmospheric pressure so the hydraulic system won't even notice that the pressure difference between the inside and the outside rose from 25 MPa to 25.1 MPa . Escaping gases will diffuse out of the plane slowly from all directions, if one manages to close the damn air bleed valve, and an airplane has a LOT of inertia, so the rotation would not pick up any swiftly. ( ultimately it would, but the plane runs out of air faster than that ) . One more thing. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that 747 in space is a good idea at all, it just won't fail as swiftly as your hyper-pessimistic post suggests..
  19. Using helium, each m3 of volume will produce 57 kg of lift, so you can float with a very small balloon or floater ( not sure whether something built from something like titanium sheets can be described as a balloon )
  20. . I checked it, and you are right. the pressure is not 93 MPa but only 9.2 MPa. That makes EVA at least theoretically possible at ambient pressure. you would, however still need to wear pretty thick and heavy thermal protection. But at least we are moving from utterly impossible to possible with difficulties.
  21. . Molten plutonium can be handled in a refractory ceramic crucible just like any molten metal. Even the plutonium oxide is a good refractory material on its own, so plutonium can be held in a outer shell of its own oxide ! . And generally, all other materials you need, beryllium oxide moderator, boron carbide, are refractory compounds. And the best is yet to come. Because the supercritical CO2 flowing through the reactor does a large part of the moderation, the reactor will be passively stable ( capable of maintaining a stable state w/o any control rod adjustments ) because of the negative feedback from decreasing moderator density with temperature.
  22. . EDIT : I've been corrected, the pressure is only 9.2 MPa. so my conclusions are most likely wrong, but the idea of adding arms and legs to your lander making it in effect a gigantic walking robot is cool anyway . I don't think that EVA is possible. Because water chemistry changes slightly with pressure, you can't stand 93 MPa, chemical reactions inside your cells would go haywire and you would just die long before that pressure. . So your EVA suit would have to keep both the pressure and temperature outside making its surface dozens of cm thick. It would look like an enormous boiler with short and thick arm and leg stubs. No chance of anything resembling normal human movement with this. You might as well as attach huge robotic legs and arms to your lander and declare it to be your spacesuit .
  23. I use the linear thrusters when I want just that. Linear movement w/o rotation. I place as many as necessary around the CoM to have increased translation w/o increasing rotation.