Lukaszenko
-
Posts
365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Lukaszenko
-
-
Ferrfluid seals are pretty cool. I've seen demonstrations of them at work. Basically a magnetic oily substance that's held in place with magnets. Doesn't wear because it's oil, doesn't leak because it's liquid and hence no gaps, doesn't have friction because it's oil. Problem solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQj0C44H3ys
-
As everyone is saying, if you throw a rock faster straight up, it goes higher up. At the top, it's velocity is the lowest (zero, in fact, if you throw it straight up).
Ok, so a satellite goes faster sideways, not up. Imagine a swing then. In order to higher, you push yourself harder at the bottom, sideways. The swing rope then curves your sideways path and converts it into height. So sideways speed and height are interconnected, and affect each other. In the case of a satellite, gravity acts like the swing rope to curve your path.
It's still not a perfect analogy because the path of a swing is usually fixed, so the faster you go the harder the rope pulls on you to curve your path. Gravity doesn't fix the path, but the force is fixed. The point is that sideways and up/ down are still interconnected.
I recommend playing around with some gravity simulators online, such as:
http://waowen.screaming.net/revision/force&motion/ncananim.htm
-
AND on top of everything, what do you get back with the 2nd stage? 1 engine, as opposed to the first stage's 9 engines.
-
12 minutes ago, Warzouz said:
Please don't start about "cheat" again !
Why not considering this type of mod can be a big help for :
- New players, as it shows what should be done to go to orbit efficiently.
- Players which have a dozen of similar rockets to launch (as I did in 0.9 Beta)
- Players that prefer to focus on navigation and landing rather than flying to LKO (which they already did hundreds of times).
....or players who would rather focus on design. I don't consider SpaceX, ULA, or whoever else to be "cheating".
-
16 hours ago, AngelLestat said:
You really think that a constant change of 10 degree in your landing pad is fine?
https://youtu.be/ivdKRJzl6y0?t=29m40sI don't know. But I'm saying that, judging from the landing video, this was not a (or the) problem.
-
Gyros, thrusters, a bigger, more stable ship might all work or not, but they would be solving a problem that apparently, judging from the video, doesn't exist.
-
The landing leg didn't lock? Really?
Out of all the things that could go wrong with launching things into space, a lock on a damn leg failed? My mind is blown.
-
As AngelLestat was saying, a lot of human and any living being behaviour is hard wired due to evolution. That is a HUGE difference between us and an AI. A human has instincts, needs, desires, feelings, all of which push it into a direction which will help it succeed at spreading its genes, in any long-winded way possible. Probably the biggest one, is survival. Even if an AI was 100000000000x times more intelligent than a human, why should it even care if it survives or not? It's just a machine that processes information....but it doesn't even care about the result, unless a human programs it to care. This is why I think the Terminator and such scenarios will never play out (unless specifically set up by humans).
-
I know rocket engines operate in quite extreme environments, but, are they really more extreme than, say, jet engine components? Specifically, the turbine blades?
Those are often cited as about as extreme of an environment to operate in that exists. And, jet engines are considered EXTREMELY reliable.
-
On 12/23/2015 at 2:38 PM, Albert VDS said:
The graphic says "This requires about four times as much total energy as New Shepard's 100.5km hop into space."
Isn't it something more along the lines of 40x more total energy (for the same payload)?
Depending on what exactly they're counting, even the lowest I can come up with is like 13x more energy. But definitely not four.
-
17 hours ago, Pecan said:
If first stage is sub-orbital and blue origin is sub-orbital then arguments about landing from orbit are moot - what the payload or later stage(s) might do after separation is their own affair. I do think people have been a bit too sniffy about the first vertical landing, even if SpaceX's vehicle is more useful.
Calling it moot is not seeing the forest for the trees. First stage of Falcon 9 might be suborbital, but it is part of a complete system, one that delivers substantial payloads into ORBIT. It is quite useless by itself except for a joyride, which is exactly what Blue Origin is designed for. Calling Falcon 9 suborbital and comparing it to Blue Origin is therefore akin to comparing an AK-47 assault rifle to a rock. Both are just about as effective by themselves. But, when you add that second part (the cartridge, in the AK-47's case), you get a total which is orders of magnitude greater than the sum of its parts.
That aside, while suborbital is impressive, the difference between skipping rope and going "suborbital" is rather arbitrary, and they both put you back where you started. "Suborbital" is just....more. The difference between suborbital and orbital however is, quite literally, astronomical. Ignoring the enormous amounts of energy and exponential increase in difficulty, going into a stable orbit doesn’t just put you in a circle around the Earth. It crosses a threshold that opens the door to everything and everywhere. As the famous quote states, “Once you're in low Earth orbit you're halfway to anywhere”.
-
As much as a Musk fanboy I am, that's beyond cool that not one, but at least two people are going full-in into reusable rockets. It makes me really believe that somebody WILL succeed, and there are great things on the horizon.
-
[quote name='Right']If you're saying that one in fact doesn't save on fuel going from one hill to another by accelerating at the troughs versus the peaks, then I'll have to take issue.
By power you mean?
If the Oberth effect is as you described in you're linked post, then I see no reason why it would be limited to reaction engines. It is merely a side effect of kinetic energy having a quadratic growth with speed. I can't see the source of the velocity change impacting this.[/QUOTE]
In a car you have to burn more fuel to accelerate at the bottom of the hill, than you do to accelerate the same amount at the top of the hill. So in the end, you don't actually gain anything. In fact, you lost some energy because you put kinetic energy into your fuel...and then you just threw that kinetic energy away. A car engine only harnesses the fuel's chemical energy.
In a rocket, you will burn the same amount of fuel in both situations. So, you DO gain something. A rocket harnesses the chemical AND kinetic energy of its fuel. -
[quote name='Aethon']Ok. If you are in a car stopped at a stop sign and you press down the accelerator 2 cm, it has very little effect on your speed, but if you are on the highway going 120 and press the accelerator 2 cm it will have a much greater effect on your velocity.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's related... -
* Contract Decline Penalty: A small reputation penalty is incurred when a contract is declined, to prevent Mission Control from being abused as a slot machine.
I really don't care much for this one. I absolutely hate "ferrying tourists". I'm a SCIENCE MAN, man! I ain't got no time to spit Kawaiian be-shirted, camera toting unscientific nobodies (that believe storms on Duna could actually be violent enough to cause a mission abort) into space, only to risk uber rep if I end up roasting them on a Rockomax spit!
Or likewise, having a ton of part testing contracts. It eats up space for real contracts, like station and base and satellite stuff. NASA ain't lost no real reputation for turning down tourists. Since when has any organization been obligated to accept a contract they don't want any part of?
I could see canceling a contract that's been taken resulting in stiffer penalties, but to actually lose rep cause you don't see any contracts that are fun to you? That's the LITERAL definition of a game adding a thing that kills fun. I literally do not want to be punished for clearing out a list of not fun things, in the hopes of getting fun things.
I haven't played it yet, but is it not that you lose reputation for declining a contract, but not necessarily for simply ignoring it and letting it disappear on its own?
-
I think they expanded or at least made the physics bubble variable depending on situations, in one of the last few updates.
-
The problem with a space elevator is not that it's not strong enough to lift anything, it's not strong enough to lift ITSELF.
But more to the point, instead of putting a nuclear power plant 36,000 km away in space and dealing with the countless problems and billions of dollars that this entails, why not just...put it on earth?
-
Hydrogen has a very high specific heat capacity, which is useful for obvious reasons when you're using it as a cryogenic coolant. In a launch vehicle.
-
How's it coming along?
-
Driving my car uphill fast reduces gravitational d/V (fuel) losses! Even if it means flooring it to get up to the speed limit at the base of the hill LOL
I don't think the Oberth Effect applies to cars
-
For [any deity of choice]'s sake, it's a well known thought experiment, and yes, it states that there's some sort of a control system which speeds up the conveyor belt if needed, matching airplane's speed in the opposite direction. In terms of control theory, it's a perfect negative feedback loop. It won't work against airplane because airplane doesn't push against the conveyor, it pushes against air which isn't controlled by the feedback. It will work against the car because any torque the car applies will speed up its wheels -> conveyor goes faster -> car stays on the spot. And if we're talking about zero internal friction, both for the car and conveyor, and perfect wheel grip on conveyor belt - there's no need in any control system. Any torque that engine applies will speed up the wheels and conveyor anyway - and the car will STILL stay at the same spot. End of story.
Ok so let's go with that requirement. Does it really make sense to take the car's speed relative to the conveyor, and the conveyor's speed relative to some other spot? They are both variables in the problem, they should both be measured against something else, and not to themselves. If we did that, we would find that both the car/plane and conveyor MUST move to satisfy your conditions. This artificial requirement of the belt existing soley to stop the car/plane is neither stated in this thread's nor in your own requirement above.
It just kind of materializes on its own, I imagine from the niche function that treadmills have found at gyms.
-
The conveyor spins back to match the speed of anything on it, trying to keep it at the same spot. In case of a car, conveyor doesn't have to do anything, it just has to spin freely, yes. In case of an airplane, conveyor actively tries to stop the airplane and fails.
This part. The bolded part. Where does it say it in the thought experiment? Is that somehow the function of every conveyor?
Even if we DID say it matches the car's speed, that doesn't mean it will stay in the same spot because then for the conveyor to move back, the car has to move forward. Car moves forward, belt moves back = speeds are matched. Car stays still, belt moves back = speeds are NOT matched.
-
As others have mentioned, try raising your AP (and making sure it's directly above the orbital plane intersection) so that you are moving much slower. I'm not sure how high and at what inclination, but there's a point where it is worth it to raise the AP, change the inclination, and then lower it again.
-
If you install the Field Experience mod your Kerbals will likely instantly have the experience required to change the tires. It lets your guys level up without having to go home first.
I did this. Wheel's fixed
Legs, too.
Edit: After doing this, I realized what the seemingly non-nonsensical reason is for having to return Kerbals home before they gain experience: without this, there almost no point to having experience in the first place. I mean, I just sent an inexperienced Kerbal to Jool, and by default he got leveled up to almost maximum. So really, what is the point?
Can someone remind me the title of this film (it was a film about amateur rocket constructs)
in The Lounge
Posted
October Sky?