Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,385 Excellent


About Pds314

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hmmm... Does it need to be orbiting a spherical planet with sane rotation rates, in hydrostatic equilibrium, with a sane escape velocity? Admittedly the math for orbits around anything other than that gets a lot messier.
  2. Also the best way we currently know to make negative energy is having huge amounts of positive energy and IIRC you can't really end up with gravitational fields (negative energy) that outweighs the positive. You can reduce mass from the POV of an external observer arbitrarily much as the thing gets very close to its own event horizon, so for example a neutron star could theoretically have really large mass up close compared to what would be felt far away, but IIRC there's no known way to make self-contained structures with a negative overall mass. And furthermore, I don't think GR
  3. IMO Magitech is when some advanced technology clearly breaks existing physics. That is, it relies heavily on science going in a spectacularly unlikely direction for it's operating principles to be sound. Clarketech is equally advanced technology that relies heavily on science going in a relatively plausible, if arbitrary and convenient, direction. It does not go out of its way to retcon out existing physical laws but develops on existing science in a way that is at least sort of realistic. Hard sci fi tech relies on neither. It doesn't make many easy to challenge assump
  4. Wow that's a really fast time considering that the pure ballistic "cannonball" time to go 1200 km is what? Like 10 minutes and you need to gather science and apparently go to space first, and spend minutes accelerating and decelerating, And you even did Launchpad upgrade strats?! Maybe I will try a run with reverts...
  5. Unspliced run, 41:58. Unfortunately OBS crashed 4 seconds into recording so I don't have the actual flag plant screened. I was intenting to do it on video not screens but that didn't work out. I plan to do a redo of the run and get sub-30 hopefully. For one thing I had a failed launch and ended up killing Val in an ill-advised attempt to put it down safely several minutes into the launch, when I should have just terminated the launch, for another I had to walk pointlessly far after landing, and for another there is a small timesave I can do using the roller as I got about 28 more sci
  6. It's so frustrating to kill runs when the plane is over the mountains by 30 minutes but doesn't have the fuel and glide performance. I had to actually kill a run because I skimped on the Junos and when the thing ran out of fuel it went from potentual sub-35 to more like over an hour and a half run because Val would need to walk 3 vertical kilometers. It's too late today to actually do another run. I do sort of have my opening somewhat more refined by now. The question I'm not really too sure of is whether barometer strats are good.
  7. Okay so from a rocket stage standpoint the Odyssey 2 seems to be kinda like "super-SLS but with an alternate starship on it" 6-sided korolev cross indicates six SRBS and it looks to me like the engines on the lower stage are SSME-derived but not 100% sure. The lower stage has a very unusual configuration of really being three separate structures which I'm not sure why they did. At least to me there's a lot of stuff I can't really tell about the design from that video.
  8. Finally someone on a space mission who will be even more reckless than Jeb, terrified than Bill, and probably somehow more hyper-competent than Val lol. Oof. Having someone on your lap during a space launch sounds incredibly painful. 3 or 5 G acceleration is bad but tolerably 3 or 5 G weight on top of you during that acceleration is much, much worse. Plus if they fall off the impact speed is multiplied. Falling off his lap would make her get similar injuries to a fall from 2-3 meters I think.
  9. Ok. I've tried 4 times and abandonned all of the runs so far. I'll try more tomorrow. My most recent run had a total party kill with not enough money to hire new kerbals from wierd landing gear wobble and aero strangeness 25 minutes into the run. 20 of which were rolling around getting science which in retrospect might be too long. Maybe the thing to do is launch everything vertically to avoid landing gear issues.
  10. Ooh. Nice. One thing I will say is that going to orbit at the start is pretty costly from a time standpoint. I've finally got KSP installed again so I will be trying this tonight. Edit: no I haven't. It's still downloading??! Apartment is downloading at 200 B/s... Will be ready sometime in mid 2022. I have no idea why. My internet works fine mostly. Edit: ok my internet is not fine. Plan B: see if I have a backup somewhere or download gigabytes and gigabytes on a metered phone connection... Aha. I have an ancient backup. Also internet again. Some
  11. Someone wanna do the run in a supersonic airliner and see if (in KSP) the economics compete with those? Both in terms of fuel cost per trip and time and capital investment in the vehicles?
  12. Have you considered alternate-historical missions? Missions that were considered, planned or even launched but never completed? N1 moonlanding has been done quite a few times. Phobos 1, Phobos 2, and Fobos-Grunt were all fairly ambitious Russian and Soviet probes to Phobos. 2 of them didn't make orbit and 1 of them had a computer bug in Mars orbit. There's also the American Apollo Applications Program. Almost none of which was done to any extent but all likely could have and serious plans existed to do these missions.
  13. I will but it might not be today. I'm currently trying to figure out room on my machine to fit KSP. It went from being a terabyte to much less due to a drive failure so I lost KSP and don't have 8 gigs free yet. I will do it once I offload some things.
  14. It's the biggest X on the map, center upper right.
  • Create New...