Jump to content

KerikBalm

Members
  • Content Count

    5,827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,200 Excellent

7 Followers

About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You would need to trap a lot of monatomic H in there, considering the molecular weight of the fullerene. I guess the energy output should be enough to crack open the bucky balls though.
  2. Without going into detail, by adding a lot of energy to H2, and causing it to split. Heating H2 to 10,000K will do it. Cooling it down without it recombining is difficult though Sure, but you'd need to get the energy to do it first Definitely, keep in mind, you get energy out of monatomic H by having it recombine, both ways, you spit heated H2 out of the back. How can you do anything but lose efficiency by adding steps? Although you may be able to get a higher Isp, since stored monatomic H would be mixed with inert frozen H2 to keep it reacting, thus lowering Isp from 1500
  3. He said "any" There were no qualifiers or limiters for that. That implies that, for a given society (with no tech level specified), a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. The key term here is sufficiently advanced. I would argue for a sufficiently advanced society, no technology is indistinguishable from magic. Thus in that case, we'd have to conclude that sufficiently advanced technology is impossible, and hence something indistinguishable from magic is impossible. If we just assume that a sufficiently advanced technology is possible, then t
  4. A slightly less ridiculous alternative to metastable-metallic hydrogen, is monatomic hydrogen. Pure monatomic hydrogen is very reactive, and desperately wants to form H2. As a result, it can be a very energetic chemical reaction with a very low mass reaction product H + H> H2. This reaction can, in theory, produce an Isp > 1500s, which is comparable to that of decompression of metallic hydrogen. Like metallic hydrogen, the question becomes... how do you actually store the stuff. From what I've found, aside from very low density storage and low density complex storage using str
  5. I see craters, I see no way of establishing that they are impact craters. Many remind me of this: Which is most definitely not an impact crater.
  6. I have commented on this before, I hate that quote. It presupposes that there is, and will alsways be, a sufficiently large gap in knowledge for "magic tech" to remain a possibility. That basically presupposes that the laws of physics are essentially unknowable. Sure that quote holds true for primitives with almost no knoweldge of how things work. It holds true to a lesser extent for people of the 17th century. As knowledge expands, the tech that would appear to be magic retracts. 500 years from now, there may be no possibly tech that would appear to be magic... or maybe 50,000
  7. How long was it between vaccination and infection? When you say that you did a spike test, I assume that you mean a test for anti-spike antibodies/ spike-reactive antibodies? Did they sequence the variant to see if it had, for example, the E484K mutation? Ps, I also get neck pain-induced migranes, they suck, and my wife is always skeptical about it... She doesn't understand how neck pain can cause a headache
  8. Assume 10x radii and SMAs... then its not so bad Pretty sure that discovery predates principia by a lot Well, Io gets hot enough for lava lakes... So its not that bad... The polar ice caps make no sense though. Tylo, laythe, vall, are all proportionately huge compared to jool vs the galilean moons to jupiter. If Io were much larger, nearly earth size instead of more Moon sized... that would be an interesting destination (ditto for Ganymede, Callisto, Europa) Im not sure how the tidal heating and temperature would scale though if those moons became >mars b
  9. I'll grant rings being torus-like, but oceans are not, and are currently modelled as spheres. We can hope they allow for oblate spheroids in KSP2. Rings orbit a planet, oceans most certainly do not. fine Oceans apply one uniform physics effect (water simulation, with resistance, buoyancy, and pressure), whereas rings seem to cause the procedural generation of orbiting debris - likely similar to ground scatter (which already in KSP can be made collidable) To me, they are quite different
  10. I use sun and Kerbol interchangeably - but the system is the kerbal system. Any star is a sun to its planets. If there is a specific planet of reference (implicit or implicit), then that start is the sun of that planet. Even in KSP2, I may still refer to Kerbol as the sun given the privileged status of Kerbin, and all the other stars are suns of their planets.. but if describing operations only within one of those solar systems, then I may also call those suns the sun. Similar logic should apply for solarsystems... but ofr some reason I'm more hung up on the solar system only referr
  11. It is always good to read the thread before commenting. This question was answered on the first page. Certain other threads that often get locked here have a lot of commenters who do not read the thread before commenting. This behavior should be frowned upon. Anyway, your answer:
  12. @starcaptain I think that is a different discussion. There have already been discussions about undersea exploration in KSP2, so different phases of liquid to explore would fit those threads, but I don't think it fits so much about simly having water at different/differing elevations. Well, I'd argue that they are more explorable in KSP 1 than Jool's atmosphere. Going down to 0 meters on Jool and coming up again is.... rough to say the least, its been made easier with robotics (using electric rotors to ascend to lower pressures), but robotics have opened up all the oceans in the ga
  13. Honestly, aside from antimatter production, its pretty hard to imagine what you would need something better than a fission reactor for. Of course, it may be a matter of what fuel type is available, and a massive fusion reactor may not produce so much more power from a compact fission reactor. Consider the 400,000 ton ITER is supposed to generate 450 MW net thermal power, and the 13 m diameter/2750 ton reactor of an Ohio class ssbn produces 220 Mw thermal power. Of course, the ITER figure includes the building and such, and a lot of stuff that wouldn't be there in an actual power pl
×
×
  • Create New...