MBobrik

Members
  • Content Count

    629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MBobrik

  1. Tested a proof of concept of my new Instant Town on KSC.
  2. No clue. On Duna, I can determine the landing spot by flying a few km above and triggering chutes, on Kerbin, I land on the KSP by repeating the same maneuver on the same from the same orbit that worked for me once. On Laythe or Eve I am just glad when I landed on the continent I intended to land on.
  3. . actually, more like 2.05 times better ... at the cost of miserable TWR, huge mass, and general unwieldiness. . I think they are quite balanced.
  4. methinks that the direction in the persistence file is in carthesian and not kerbin-centered spherical coordinates. so, the same direction, that is 'straight up' on KSC, will be sideways on KSC2.
  5. I usually land on Duna using exclusively chutes, and return only kerbals, so I usually don't need big things like LV-N. But I am considering using it in combination with parachutes to place heavy stuff on the surface for my base. Because, basically, only LV-N can give a skycrane hover time of several minutes on Duna.
  6. note the small + and - buttons at the margin of the staging column. You can add an empty stage bellow the one you are clicking on by + and add stuff to it, and remove the empty stage by -. . And also, you can still throttle the engine to zero before triggering even when chutes and the engine are on the same stage, and then when you need thrust just throttle up.
  7. Yes I do. And I made a lot of bitter enemies because of that. People generally don't take it well when someone does not immediately latch onto the same conspiratory crap like they do.
  8. good article about this with lots of links http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/11/climate_change_denial_zombies_ams_president_marshall_shepherd_talks_global.html
  9. Europa. One day I will get myself a big nuclear-powered shovel, and will dig my way down all the way to the ocean to scuba dive there
  10. Custom 1 is OK, Check whether they are not accidentally in one of the pre-defined action groups above Custom 1 - If they are, especially in the topmost group named 'staging' or 'stage', can't remember, ( one item can be in more action groups at once ), the source of your problem has been found.
  11. A1 : No, you will get fine iron powder, below certain grain size, your capability to further break up grains will decrease rapidly to zero as you will eventually press as many grains together as you crush apart. ( that is when you allow the heat of friction to escape, otherwise the powder will heat up to the melting point of iron, and then you will get you liquid, but not the way you probably intended ) . A2 : blast wave decreases with square of distance and energy per volume with cube of distance, so, I would say, that you will get cca 10^(1/3) = cca 2.1 x increase in diameter when you increase the amount of TNT 10 x.
  12. Maybe you accidentally deployed them, placed them in the wrong action group ( I accidentally placed stuff in the 'staging' group once, but, fortunately, I noticed it, otherwise I would be in for a nasty surprise after decoupling the first stage )
  13. Thrust, burn time, fuel weight, total delta-v in vacuum/atmosphere ? . Any idea from where I could get those numbers ?
  14. Hypothesis 2. maybe they multiply/divide each other's coef, but when Verity was quoting Lambert he was not multiplying. . but then, 60 / 2 would have to be equal V * L = 3 which is inconsistent too . Hypothesis 3 . They multiply/divide only things like cost or dimensions, and not other numbers, or when quoting each other. Then L would be 3 and V would be 10 literally like they said, and all would fit together.
  15. it is inconsistent. . say Lambert's underestimation coefficient is L and Verity's overestimation coefficient is V then Lambert would say that Verity overestimates V/L times and Verity would say that Lambert underestimates L*V times so V/L = 10 V*L = 3 V = sqrt(30) = 5.477 L = sqrt(0.3) = 0.5477 = Lambert actually OVERESTIMATES 1.8 x But in the video we hear Verity saying that when Lambert says 2 foot he means 60, but when Verity multiplies EVERYTHING by the same amount, then 2 and 60 would be the result of multiplication by the same constant, 2 = V*A 60 = V * B So the V would cancel itself out when trying to compute L from this statement L = B / A = (60/V)/(2/V) = 60 / 2 = 30 which is inconsistent with the above derived ratios from their previous utterances.
  16. You might as well try to lift yourself in the air by pulling yourself up by your own neck...
  17. . It is said, that it is not the fall that kills you, but the > 100 G lithobraking. . Maybe the stable state after 3 deg warming would be quite livable. But the ecosystems collapse because of too rapid change not so much...
  18. Also, if you want to use ASAS, then use RCS as well, and place your RCS nozzles against all good practice of docking ABOVE your COM. This way each time you use translation, your main engine's nozzle(s) automatically tilt in the direction that amplifies the RCS action and you will save a lot of RCS fuel that way.
  19. If you have something on the ground, you can first aim for it in the map view ( set the trajectory to slightly overshoot so that you will be exactly above at say 3 km ) when directly above, kill all horizontal velocity there, and then select the vehicle on the ground as the target then try to align target retrograde and your retrograde to the center. You can comfortably land within 100 meters from the target this way, but don't overdo it, because you might easily land on top of the target.
  20. another good description of Stochasty's tactic http://www.ntskeptics.org/1998/1998february/february1998.htm Copy-paste:
  21. . There is no model a skilled ideologue like you could not sweep under the rug under 30 seconds. You wanted models ? You got models. And what did you do ? posted link to an awful denialist site which basically just lobbed any excuse at the climate models it could come up with, regardless whether justified or not.
  22. There is one more thing I would like to share. the name of the game Stochasty is playing with us. . http://web.archive.org/web/20120829214008/http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/the-denialists-deck-of-cards/
  23. Funny how this guy summarily rejects all climate simulations as insufficient, yet he seems to know exactly, how the ecosystems and human societies, which are orders of magnitude more complicated and difficult to model, will react to drastically altered climate. Without need of any models at all ! . I think that a simulation of him would not be hard to write void main() { while(true) { mouth.insert(foot); } }
  24. . yeah right. no proven predictive power. Except a couple of fulfilled predictions, no predictive power. Nothing to see here, move along... no model could ever reach your goalposts with a strap-on transwarp drive, so why bother with models. Wonder whether you drive like that - driving straight forward until 100 % proven you are going to crash without swerving.
  25. . Temporary slowing down ( not stopping, as my link shows, the oceans are still taking up heat ) was due to exogenous factors like very sub-average solar activity and increased volcanism. No model of earth's climate is expected to model solar activity and a model of Earth's tectonic processes as well. Summarily dismissing models because of things they weren't supposed to take account of in first place is very unfair, and evidence of your ideological bias.