RAJ JAR
-
Posts
54 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by RAJ JAR
-
-
1,001 people have signed the petition. We only need 499 more signatures to reach the next goal of 1,500 signatures. The petition is free to sign.
-
991 people have signed the petition. We only need 9 more signatures to reach 1,000. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers
-
962 supporters have signed the petition. We only need 38 more signatures to reach 1,000. Lets do this Star Trek fans. Lets show them we want Star Trek: Enterprise back. There is another petition available with more details on why the petition is there, https://www.change.org/p/bring-back-star-trek-enterprise-7a2836de-73e4-4b6c-a3b0-f3669ce5a68c . #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers
-
942 people have signed the petition. We only need 58 more signatures to reach 1,000. Tomorrow is Star Trek Day. Lets show them we want Star Trek: Enterprise back. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers
-
On 8/18/2020 at 9:16 PM, Nuke said:
so a season and a half into my enterprise binge and i am calling it, enterprise > voyager. while voyager was a lot better than i remember, enterprise had better scripts, effects, characters, etc. it might even have the best first season of any star trek spin off.
so two episodes into season 3 and im really starting to wonder if the whole xindi conflict ruined the show.
I agree that season 1 is one if the best compared to other Star Trek series. Season 3 and 4 helped the series.
930 people have signed the petition. We only need 70 more signatures to reach 1,000. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers -
On 8/14/2020 at 9:36 PM, Jacke said:
Star Trek has always been of variable quality, some very good, some bad.
But things started going bad overall when Star Trek: Enterprise was broadcast in 2001.
People focused on trivial differences like the opening credits music when the real rot was deeper and widespread.
I and others have gone over above where Enterprise started going wrong. It was a prequel that fiddled too much. Warped the Vulcans. Way too much stupid time travel plot lines.
And then the break was spread with the film "Star Trek: Nemesis" in 2002.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Nemesis
As a friend of mine said, it was 90% a good Star Trek film. But that bad 10% was damning.
Blow up Romulus. Silly Picard clone. Kill off Data with a lame out to perhaps bring him back.
And then the damn "Star Trek" (2009) doubled down on this. Stupid red matter to make instant black holes. Destroy Vulcan (damn Vulcans can't catch a break) in a way that can't happen. And more stupid time travel stuff.
And every time we hope there's going to be an improvement, new Star Trek just doubles-down on the wrong.
This is a franchise that has had 2 decades of trashing. It's going to take something amazing to recover. It's still possible, as the Orville has shown. Maybe some day....
In my opinion, they should have had a break for at least a year or 2 before starting Star Trek: Enterprise.
As for Star Trek: Nemesis, they should have also had a break for at least a year or 2 before starting and let Jonathan Frakes or someone else who knows the official Star Trek direct.
921 supporters have signed the petition. We are very close to 1,000 signatures. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers.
-
9 hours ago, Nuke said:
just finished my voyager binge and it seemed less bad than i remember. might do s1 of for all mankind before doing an enterprise binge. it will be shorter fortunately.
Funny thing is people who watched ST: Enterprise the 1st time had a long break from it then rewatched all of it again realise it is actually good and wish they helped out during the Save Star Trek: Enterprise campaign.
-
914 people have signed the petition. We only need 86 more signatures to reach 1,000. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers.
-
886 people have signed the petition. We only need 114 more signatures to reach 1,000. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StrengthInNumbers.
-
23 minutes ago, Nuke said:
yea i kind of expected a lower tech star trek than what we ended up getting. it didn't really have that many memorable episodes either. i think we should let enterprise rest.
the only memorable characters either had a couple redeeming attributes or was a dog. currently in the middle of a voyager binge and its better than i remember it, though still not as good as deep space nine due to a lot of weak, poorly developed characters. bad characters has been an issue with star trek ever since then. we need to gather all the writers and actors into a theater and make them watch babylon 5, deep space nine, firefly, and several others all clockwork orange style. maybe that would inspire them to write/portray better characters. pike trek might fix that though, as everyone seems to like pike and number one, and spock. provided they have a semi descent secondary cast it will work.
with 2 animated series, and pike trek in the pipe, in addition to picard and discovery, i think they might be overdoing it. right now star trek is just something i watch while i wait for the next season of the expanse.
if i was going to do another prequel series, i think i would want to do a series immediately following first contact. something involving long duration voyages, with lots of tequila and rock'n'roll involved. a ragtag crew brought up in the aftermath of ww3, perhaps zephrim cochrane's first voyage to another star while earth undergoes a period of reconstruction. take away most of the space magic, no transporters, phase cannons, polarized hull plating or inertial dampeners. crudely built ships limited to warp 1 or 2, weapons possibly limited to nukes, slug throwers or lasers. maybe stick some pilfered borg or federation tech in there to make things interesting.
Have you watched all the seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise?
It is lower tech compared to the other series but it is still the technology is still more advanced than what is around in today's modern era.
Star Trek is, mostly, about a positive future for Humanity. It is not supposed to be a series about living in a dystopian era. Sure, they may sure that for a short time or for a season or 2 but it always circles back to the positivity.
881 people have signed the petition. Come on Star Trek fans, lets see we can reach 900 signatures and then 1,000+. Star Trek: Picard has shown it is possible to bring back legacy actors and characters for more stories and more character development. Why not with Star Trek: Enterprise? #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise.
Here is an article on Trek Movie. It is an interview with Anthony Montgomery (Travis Mayweather) about Star Trek: Enterprise, https://trekmovie.com/2020/07/31/in...pnJcV5X_cEF2FooUlYAkm2lyEZnog2b8JsQodMW6_ngOQ . -
56 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:
Enterprise was the worst of the Trek series. They promised us novelty because the timeline was being reset, and then they proceeded to bring back every same old race all the other Trek series had encountered, even though it made ZERO sense geographically. Also, take any Enterprise script, replace the character names, and substitute the words "deflector shields" for "polarized hull plating," and you have a script that could be used for every other Trek series.
Then there's that ep where they encounter Ferengi (200+ years before they should have been anywhere near each other) who take over the Enterprise, and after he gets control again, Archer lets them go in the interests of interstellar relations, or some such. A military officer loses his command to pirates, and frees them to prey on other unsuspecting travelers? The idiot should have been court martialed for incompetence, and that's when I stopped watching the show.
But worst of all? The thing that made me REALLY hate Enterprise? Was the way they took the Vulcans, that most dignified and honorable of all races, and turned them into petulant liars and schemers. That is just unforgivable.
So. Um. Yeah. I vote no.
How was it the worst Star Trek series?
Who promised? There has been no information about resetting the timeline, as far as I know.
They have not brought back every same race from previous Star Trek series. That is an exaggeration.
You do realise in the series shielding technology has not been invented by Starfleet-pre Federation. There is no canon information on when they were invented so no problem there.
Humans meeting Ferengi early. So what. Not alot of information was given about them in that episode.
You do realise they was Humanity's first warp 5 ship. Captain Archer and some of the crew has not had a lot of experience going out into the unknown. That was the whole point of the series. Sure, they were going to make mistakes.
As for the Vulcans of the 22nd Century, they just lost there way and Captain Archer helped find there way to becoming the Vulcans we already are familiar with in the 23rd and 24th Centuries. That is 100-200 years difference. Plenty of time for them to change.
I think, you are taking this too far with the negetivity. All the other series had problems too from the beginning, then from season 3-4 got better.
-
Hello everyone,
It has been over 15 years since Star Trek: Enterprise ended. There is still a lot of stories to show and character development. If they cannot continue it as a live action series the other option, I think would be best would be an animation series. Also, maybe include a movie or 2 and possibly a sequel-prequel series, which tells the story of the early years of the Federation. I think, this series should be called Star Trek: Federation or Star Trek: Rise of the Federation or Star Trek: The Rise of the Federation or Star Trek: Beginnings or Star Trek: Beginning of the Federation. They can also introduce an anthology series.
Star Trek: Enterprise was cancelled early. Season 4 showed the series was getting better and season 5 was already planned and had many amazing stories and changes to show. Hopefully, there would be more seasons after season 5. Streaming services would be a great place to bring back this show, which has great potential to become one of the best science-fiction shows. If they do decide to bring back Star Trek: Enterprise as a series, it should continue after the episode Terra Prime. They could do the seasons with a smaller number of episodes for example 10-15 episodes per season and only extend the number of episodes if it is relevant to the story.
Star Trek: Picard has shown it is possible to bring back legacy actors and characters for more stories and character development in the Star Trek universe.
If people seriously want Star Trek: Enterprise back, this petition is one way to show ViacomCBS, TV and movie streaming services that we want it to continue and have a proper ending. It is free to sign. Let's show them. Strength in numbers. Also, please share this petition and tell others.Here is the website: https://www.change.org/p/cbs-bring-star-trek-enterprise-back-with-season-5-on-netflix?fbclid=IwAR3NM728djTxGH-A0BJ0QhSJYo8_8TsjtwB7gJT1Ekv6qi76k-UtzBfKvC4
Thank you. -
3 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:
There was a module with a centrifuge planned for the ISS, but it got cancelled because of cost overruns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module
I want to know how efficient it would have been compared to the other type of rotating structure? The Nautilus-X rotating centrifuge.
-
2 hours ago, PB666 said:
The power output of 20 of these reactors would not suffice to run a ship and 1 VASIMR. The system is designed to run on the ground not in space.
Technically isn't a space reactor, its' a surface mounted colony support reactor.
Abandon in place.
To quote Lee Mason, STMD’s principal technologist for Power and Energy Storage at NASA Headquarters, 'This new technology could provide kilowatts and can eventually be evolved to provide hundreds of kilowatts, or even megawatts of power.' So this could potentially be used as a space reactor to power space electric propulsions such as VASIMR, X3 Hall Effect Thruster and others.
-
11 hours ago, PB666 said:
I was being lazy, I did not want to have to give the math involved. VASIMR has not changed all that much in 6 years, its still heavy, it still cannot outperform lighter technology that is older than it is.
My personal reason, even looking at the most recent specs, VASIMR still underperforms HiPEP with regard to Thrust to weight ratio, with regard to efficiency. HiPEP is scalable from as low as you want (for example using capacitors). IN FACT if you wanted the most stable system have twice as many HiPEP as you can power and alternate their use so that they run cooler and run them at the highest possible ISP, that achieves the best efficiency, per weight.
Reason #1 Its not about how much KW you can use, its about how much acceleration you can produce per amount of fuel and per kilowatt. The 39 days to mars justifies VASIMR for the sole reason that if you have the power to burn from LEO to Escape velocity (3212 m/s) you only need 400 more dV to reach Mars, but in 100 to 150 days. So VASIMR is something you add to the craft to make it get there in 39 days once you have burned to or almost to escape velocity. The problem is that you could almost do the same with conventional power given the extra added weight of VASIMR and the power supply. But the craft is already going to have solar panels, so just plop a few lightweight HiPEP on the backside and maybe a few more panels and use waste electricity to shorten the trip time. We are talking about the difference between 20kg of thruster versus a couple of tons. Its a no brainer, go with HiPEP.
Reason #2 I could not care less if humans went to Mars, if you want to send some joker there to die on Mars, thats fine 100 day trip aint going to kill him half as fast as living on Mars will. VASIMR will not get them back home. My only thing is get a sample return mission going, and that sample return mission is probably going to come on a conventional ION drive system that can shuttle materials back and forth from Earth.
Reason #3 is that it will not pay off, as already stated you have a technology that is a fraction of the weight, you can have multiple redundancies and in the end if one breaks you flip on the next one for the cost of one VASIMR. There is no scenario were VASIMR can pay off because you have this already
Thrust = 2 * 0.8 * KW / 95000 or Thrust = 2 * 0.72 * KW /54000 This equation is tyrannical and VASIMR does not change or alter the equation, it never can, that's that. The best VASIMR can do is get efficiency in the 80 to 90 range. The most you can ever get is 100% efficiency. Power comes at the expense of something, and that something we do not have. We do not have a nuclear reactor and as far as I know, NASA is not planning one. Second there is no situation were radiative cooling and the reactor is going to produce 200kw of power unless the nuclear reactor exceeds 1 Megawatt, in which case the ship needs to be able to cool 800 MW of radiative heat, this involves mass also. For HiPEP we can have a system, light weight, essentially flat, small enough to run on solar power small enough and light enough to cool itself.
Another example of this is the Cannae drive, everyone talked about how it was going to change the world being 10 time more efficient than a photon drive.
TPhoton drive = 2 * Power /3E8 = 0.000007 N/kw versus Tcannae = 2 * Power/3E7 = 0.00007N/KW <----- not changing fundementally the thrust issue with electric propulsion systems.
Reason #4, Build to the power, and not power that needs to add mass just to cool itself. If it is not self cooling, leave it near a cooling tower on earth. The future is better solar panels, they can be lightened and they can produce more power, but they can be cooled simply by changing their angle to the sun. VASIMR is doing the exact opposite, it is building to the power we do not have in space. IF we go by current specs at 34 kw per 14tons to get a ship with 200 kw would require 100t just for solar panels, not intelligent. The only reason ever to use nuclear power in space is to travel beyond the asteroid belt, for missions to Jupiter this may be neccesary. That justifies nuclear power, but it does not justify VASIMR.
SLS can get beat when Space X proves itself with the heavy project, but they have to prove themselves.
NASA is working on a nuclear reactor:
- https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/feature/Powering_Up_NASA_Human_Reach_for_the_Red_Planet
I have mixed thoughts about this.
What I want to know is what are they going to do what the nuclear waste produced?
-
On 19/12/2017 at 2:19 AM, PB666 said:
Vasmir has never been tested in any circumstance that it was required to accomplish something other than showing it can blast ions and consume lots and lots and lots of power.
They are working on that. The important thing here is that it is real, it is still being tested and it is getting closer to being tested in space someday. It is similar to how other space electric propulsions are tested before they are tested in space.
Back on topic: Is there an option to expand the DSG if there is a desire and need for it? Will the DSG be a modular design?
-
On 15/12/2017 at 7:09 PM, _Augustus_ said:
Yeah. The fact that it's still "proposed" and no contracts beyond studies are being initiated means it's about as real as VASIMR for the time being.
No, it is not as real as VASIMR. VASIMR has been built, tested and continues to be tested. There are few versions of VASIMR. Here is a website of videos on VASIMR: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/video. VASIMR has been contracted with NASA. Currently they are doing a 10 hour steady state test, which they have completed 2 out of 3 year test sussessfully. Here is the latest information on VASIMR, http://adastrarocket.com/pressReleases/AdAstraRelease080917-final.pdf.
-
Would be great if Squad added the linear aerospike into the stock parts. Similar or same to the one that was going to be used for the X-33 and Venturestar.
Also add parts to build the X-33 and Venturestar.
More station parts would be great. That are also light on mass.
-
32 minutes ago, Canopus said:
Since this is about the Propulsion module i can see why they weren‘t considered. For a Habitat module though, that would be more in their area of expertise.
For habitats, I hope Bigelow will be mentioned. I was meant to say, for propulsion I am surprised Ad Astra is not mentioned. They are working on plasma electric propulsion, V.A.S.I.M.R. Also NASA's X3 hall effect thruster is not shown.
-
5 hours ago, Canopus said:
I am surprised Ad Astra and NASA is not on the list.
-
2 hours ago, NSEP said:
Yeah thats what i meant.
Well, thats amazing! Looking forward to the results of the mission?
Magnets are used in fusion reactor so the plasma does not touch the interior walls and melt it.
A Lab here in the UK and other places are researching in using magnets for magnetic shielding spacecraft.
http://www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk/
-
2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:
The design hasn't changed lately. It's silver now.
Here is a list of what we know has changed from Orion EFT-1 to Orion EM-1
1) The pressure vessel will be made from 7 welded parts instead of 18 welded parts.
2) The pressure vessel is lighter in Orion EM-1 than Orion EFT-1, 1497 kg (3300 lb) to 1225 kg (2700 lb).
3) The heat shield has changed from a monolithic ablative heat shield to a block ablative heat shield.
4) A metallic-based thermal control coating will be bonded to the crew module’s thermal protection system back shell tiles, which will reduce heat loss during phases when Orion is pointed to space and therefore experiencing cold temperatures, as well as limit the high temperatures the crew module will be subjected to when the spacecraft faces the sun. The coating will also help Orion’s back shell maintain a temperature range from approximately -101 degrees C to 288 degrees C (-150 to 550 degrees Fahrenheit) prior to entry and also will protect against electrical surface charges in space and during re-entry.
More details on Orion EFT-1 and Orion EM-1 here:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/07/orion-processing-em-1-planning-missions/
More details on metallic-based thermal control coating here:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/engineers-refine-thermal-protection-system-for-orion-s-next-mission
Anything else to add to the list?
-
Anyone have the latest images of the C.M? I have looked around but can not find anything more recent.
-
On 21/10/2017 at 10:02 PM, [insert_name_here] said:
Well, 1.4 is confirmed and I really hope it will include actual parts. Also, the making history expansion will include plenty of new parts.
What parts do I want?
One more nuclear and one more ion engine. Both are fun concepts of engines but we need more variety. For the nuclear engine - a 2.5m large nuclear engine that overheats a lot faster than the Nerv and has slightly less Isp (500-700 instead of 800) but is at least 5 times more powerful.
Bigger fuel tanks and bigger engines to go with them. They don't have to be crazy insanely big - I would be fine if they just added 5m tanks, engines and other parts as a direct size upgrade to the 3.75m ones. Also, to go with the new 5m sized parts, we'll need Mk 4 aeroplane parts.
Do you know what Squad will put in 1.4 patch? I agree more nuclear engines would be great plus i electric propulsion such as ion drives, plasma propulsion such as VASIMR and Hall effect thrusters.
I agree bigger fuel tanks with engines. Also I want and need cryogenic fuel tanks which can be used with any engines or add specific engines. As they are more fuel efficient and hopefully lighter. Plus, add metallic hydrogen fuel tanks which can be used any engine or introduce specific engines.
Add more mark 2 and 3 parts.
Bring back Star Trek: Enterprise
in The Lounge
Posted
1,953 supporters have signed the petition. We need more signatures to reach the next goal. Do you want Star Trek: Enterprise to return? Do you want a sequel series too? If yes, please sign and share the petition. Also, send messages to ViacomCBS, actors and people who worked on the series still work in the Star Trek franchise. #BringBackStarTrekEnterprise #StarTrekEnterprise #StarTrek
2nd petition: https://www.change.org/BringBackStarTrekEnterprise - 246 supporters have signed the petition.