Jump to content

Ben 9072

Members
  • Posts

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4 Neutral

Profile Information

  • About me
    KSC Custodial Sciences
  1. Mission: SpaceTruck 3 Development Mission Objective: Develop a reusable spaceplane capable of orbiting station parts to IKOS Mk5 after the loss of the previous SpaceTruck generation. Launch Vehicle: SpaceTruck Mk3 Payload: IKOS Mk5 Habitation Extension Mission Outcome: Success. The habitation module was docked to the asteroid attached to the space station, and the vehicle was landed back at KSC with a small amount of fuel left over. Gallery:
  2. So it's been quite some time since I've played KSP, and unfortunately, not all of the mods I was originally using survived the multiple updates. I remade a lot of my previous save file from scratch using only stock parts, but eventually gave into temptation and installed B9 and procedural wings. I think I'll try only using those from now on.
  3. So you might be misunderstanding the problem - if you have no vertical acceleration whatsoever and only balance for gravity, you'll simply fly like a plane right above the ground until you run out of fuel. How far you go would simply depend upon the amount of fuel you put in, your specific impulse, dry mass, wet mass, etc, so it will never get out of the atmosphere. If you really wanted to know this, you'd have to solve for a function that instantaneously gives your acceleration at any given moment and then doubly integrate it from your starting time to your ending time. So it would take the form sort of like: \int_{0}^{t_{\infty}}\int_{0}^{t_{\infty}}\frac{F(t)\cos(\theta(t))-\frac{1}{2}\rho v^{2}C_{D}A}{m(t)}dt dt (You can use http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php to see the LaTeX code in math format.) Where F(t) is your instantaneous force applied by the rocket, theta(t) is your angle function, which will vary over time, approaching 0 as the mass of the rocket goes to zero, C_d is your drag coefficient, rho is the density of the air, A is your cross sectional area, and m(t) is your instantaneous mass (and t_infinity is the time when you run out of fuel). This should give you your total displacement, approximating Kerbin while close to the ground as a flat plane. Feel free to reply or pm me if you have any other questions! Ben
  4. This is definitely a very interesting idea. However, the biggest issue I see with it is that it breaks T-symmetry by having time as interactable "particles", since it adds an uncertainty to time, so actions are not the same when reversed. Also, if you consider such things as time and space as being particles, it must mean that they can have a definitive position (plus/minus some uncertainty). You can't really define space as having a position without referring back to space, so it kind of recursively breaks down there. Also, having time as particles does not explain relativity or Lorentz contractions like having space and time be linked in spacetime. Anyway, I guess my reaction would be that it's an interesting idea that sounds plausible, but breaks down when you look closely. However, don't stop thinking of ideas - some of the most valuable contributions to science have been made from people with little scientific background.
  5. Mission: KPS I Mission Objective: Launch three Kerbostationary communications satellites around Kerbin. Launch Vehicle: KPS Launcher Payload: KPS Communications Satellite Mission Outcome: Success. The satellites were launched into almost completely noneccentric Kerbostationary orbits. Future commsat missions are planned to have at least two satellites in line of sight from any point on Kerbin at any given point in time. Mission Highlights: Initial Launch: Circularizing: Current state: Head on view:
  6. That's nice - I like your design aesthetic. I see you have the B9 pack installed - I would suggest using the Sabre S engines in there - they're quite useful for spaceplanes and actually scientifically realistic (they're being currently built by Reaction Engines Limited). Anyway, good job!
  7. That's really a pretty neat way to calculate the systems' size - I might try and think up some other way to go about doing that. I'd be interested in seeing your calculations.
  8. That's not actually true in real life - the fuel optimal ascent would vary greatly depending on several factors - the drag coefficient of the ship, the thrust-to-weight ratio, changes in specific impulse of the engine from altitude. To my knowledge about KSP, though, which you should take with a grain of salt, the game calculates drag under terminal velocity as relatively constant, then sharply increases the drag above terminal velocity. I believe, based on purely qualitative observations of how fast ships decelerate on reentry, that the drag increases quadratically after terminal velocity, which is accurate at subsonic speeds, though I can't back that up with quantitative data from the game.
  9. The easiest way I could think to do it would be to take the energy released by an atomic bomb (around 90 TJ, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield) and set it equal to the energy dissipation by flying at a constant velocity above the city at a very low altitude for the distance equaling the diameter of the city. This could be found by integrating the force of air resistance over the distance traveled: 90TJ=integral(1/2*rho*v^2*Cd*A)*dS, where rho is fluid density, v is velocity, Cd is your drag coefficient (which would be for a sphere), A is your area (10000pi m^2), and dS is your path differential that you fly along. (I really wish KSP forums had LATEX support.) However, this would be virtually impossible to achieve, as the drag coefficient sharply decreases at supersonic speeds, as shown: Theortically, you could reach a high enough velocity where the v^2 would exceed the decreasing Cd, but I would wager that it would be at relativistic speeds. I'm pretty sure KSP doesn't include the decreasing drag coefficient (not sure though), so it could be obtained in KSP, but realistically, you could never obtain this, as engines that powerful aren't in the game.
  10. Hey everyone, I'm looking for some scientifically testable questions I can run a mission to answer in KSP. They can be anything - for example, the last one I did was figuring out an estimate of the density of Kerbin's oceans. I will assume realistic physics in all calculations I do, and post the mission, along with all calculations, in my mission thread, along with credit for suggesting the question to your username, and, if you would like, a link to check out a thread of yours. The questions can be anything, but they have to follow these guidelines: Must be scientifically testable without unreasonable levels of speculation. (Not: "What is Minmus made out of?") Can't use known glitches in the game as "physics". (Not: "Why do planets disappear if you collide with them fast enough?" - Note that you can still question strange physics that is conceivably realistic, such as metal blocks floating on water, but not things that are obviously glitches.) The question can't require having a certain mod. (It's fine if you noticed something that caught your attention while using a mod, but it can't obviously be dependent on that mod. For example, don't ask: "Whydoes the Griffon XX in KW rocketry overheat so faster than the mainsail engine?") Nothing that relies on calculations that are obviously too complex to be reliably analyzed. (Not: "In this *500 part ship*, why does Part A always fall off before Part B?") If I find one that piques my interest or one that I can think up a good method for solving, I'll use it! Thanks!
  11. Yourself is correct. It's the differing rates of acceleration that causes damage to the materials. In a slightly more detailed explanation, when the stress exerted in a local area due to the force differential from the acceleration causes a deformation (or strain) exceeding the material's yield strength, it will cause a permanent deformation. Prior to hitting the yield strength, the material can always return to its original shape. Exceeding that stress level, it will reach its ultimate strength and its rupture point, at which it will break/snap/etc, depending on the material. This diagram might be of help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stress_v_strain_A36_2.svg Point 2 is the yield strength, point 1 is the ultimate strength, and point 3 is the rupture point.
  12. Okay, that is a more valid comparison, I was misunderstanding your analogy. And the Casimir effect is when you have two conductive plates with no net EM field between them in a vacuum that can generate a positive or negative pressure by being in close proximity to each other.
  13. Semi-metaphysical musings aside, you would probably be interested in doing some reading about the Casimir effect. It has a rather... interesting... derivation revolving around evaluating the zeta function outside the limits of where it should be evaluated, and would probably be a better analogy to mathematical paradoxes impacting physics than your idea about the lightbulb and quantum states. (Which is slightly flawed, as a superpositioned state doesn't really "oscillate" like a lightbulb turning on and off. It's literally the vector sum of the two wavefunctions existing at once. Your observation on the system forces the wavefunction to collapse to a stable state, but while undisturbed, a superpositioned state will behave as both states simultaneously.) Anyway, you've got some interesting ideas. You would probably enjoy calculus and linear algebra a lot. MIT has very good opencourseware resources, if you're interested. (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm)
  14. Can you clarify your statement? I'm assuming you're talking about massive matter, in which case I would love to see your sources.
×
×
  • Create New...