Nathair
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Nathair
-
-
45 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:
Is it possible that greenhouse gases could make surface temperature high enough? A RL example would be Venus at ~700k surface temperature which would radiate maybe 16x the energy it absorbs from the Sun if Venus were a black body.
I guess maybe Laythe's atmosphere is not thick enough even if all of it is greenhouse gases, but maybe at least it's theoretically possible?
Maybe a profoundly radioactive planet would get the job done. A youngish planet made entirely of the right radioactive elements with a heavy greenhouse atmosphere might do it?
-
1 hour ago, Papa_Joe said:
IRL, Leythe is NOT possible, as IRL, it does not exist.
I hate to quibble but... OK, I love to quibble but just because something does not exist or has not been found does not mean it's not possible.
-
4 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:
pursue just the world first milestones contracts you can get, which do logically proceed with difficulty. "escape the atmosphere", "orbit kerbin" "fly by the mun" "orbit the mun" etc....
2Eh, sort of. Rendezvous near Mun then dock two vessels near Mun then transfer crew near Mun then rendezvous near Minmus then dock two vessels near Minmus then transfer crew near Minmus...
There is a certain logic to them but it's painfully simplistic and rather grindy in spots.
-
26 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:
especially if doing science is something you enjoy doing but find yourself filling the tech tree out too quickly.
That's what I find.
I confess I do dream of a day when there's a proper career mode. Sadly, I don't think that Squad has any interest at all in redoing it and I don't think it's something mods can achieve.
-
On 2017-01-30 at 2:26 PM, SpacedInvader said:
Question about the math of the multiple antenna multiplier option: From the way it reads, it seems that if you set it to 0.5 and then only have 2 omnis on your craft, then the result is no bonus at all because (X*2)*0.5 = X. Am I correct in reading it this way, or is the math handled differently?
The range of the best antenna on the craft is unmodified by the multiple antenna multiplier. Take all the other antennae on that craft, add their ranges together and multiply that total by the multiplier you set. Add that result to the best antenna range and that's your total range.
With a multiplier of 0.5;
If you had 2 identical omnis with a range of 10, the total craft range would be 10 + (10 * 0.5) = 15
If you had 3 identical omnis with a range of 10, the total craft range would be 10 + ((10+10)*0.5) = 20
7 minutes ago, kcs123 said:If you just want some comm system that will give you need for launching comm sats/probes and don't want complex system that RT provide, then stick with stock game. However if you want some more chalange in game and don't mind learning a bit more of everything then give RT a try.
5I think of the new stock comm system as RT-Lite
-
5 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:
If your girlfriend doesn't think we've landed on the Moon, there may be more problems than just her thinking we didn't land on the Moon.
This. It'd be a deal breaker for me.
-
18 hours ago, WanderingKid said:
a mini-tug on the over-built Skycrane isn't a horrible idea, actually. Something like the Doodlebug...
Like a Doodlebug how?
-
4 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:
you wouldn't be able to carry enough patches / replacement tiles to last the full duration of the trip and you couldn't make it thick enough to not need patches without essentially making a solid block, it would just deteriorate too much over the years.
1It really depends on the density of the matter we'd need to plow through. Is interstellar space is as empty as it seems? There's one good way to find out!
-
39 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:
No, I didn't say equal gender representation... I said equality between men and women.
No, you said words to the effect that a recruitment policy which takes gender into account is a demonstration of widespread female privilege. I can't quote it directly because you have deleted the original remarks and substituted something entirely new above my response.
59 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:I believe in treating people equally. Sexism is sexism and I'll call it out where I see it.
Treating people equally is a nonsense goal. Working towards equality of opportunity in broader society is a much more rational approach but we are not talking about that here. NASA is working towards a particular outcome. What you are asking is that NASA implement a recruitment policy which pays attention to, and only to, the particular criteria which you think are important and has as its only goal the outcome which you prefer. Gender balance, quite obviously, not being one of those criteria in either methodology nor desired outcome. NASA, equally obviously, completely disagrees with your preferences. Either way, it is obvious that "No women would volunteer" is simply wrong.
1 hour ago, 78stonewobble said:Preferentially treating one gender over the other would be pretty offensive and that's what CSA and NASA numbers put together suggest.
How can the gender ratio of applicants to the CSA possibly represent preferential treatment for women? Regardless, the point is that a substantial number of women do, did and would volunteer.
52 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:If one group is then disproportionately represented according to the relevant demographics, they are then privileged. If there is a system in place to guarantee, that women are picked preferentially over men, solely due to gender, then it is systematic sexism.
I am not going to get into a full-on debate about entitlement vs desert here nor about the ethical status of inclusivity policies or the myths of meritocracy, the KSP forums are emphatically not the place for that. We have, I believe, quite clearly established that the idea that any component or aspect of space exploration or colonization would or should just naturally or statistically be one hundred percent male is flatly incorrect. If you need a more complete explanation of why it is also pernicious and offensive another venue would be more appropriate.
-
2 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:
I believe in treating people equally. Sexism is sexism and I'll call it out where I see it.
If you believe that equal gender representation in this arena is a demonstration of widespread female privilege then you are not calling out sexism, you are demonstrating it.
-
29 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:
is it actually impossible to add enough atmosphere to keep surface livable for eg. thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years?
Without a roof, yes. As I said the dense-enough atmosphere would expand into a huge "bubble" of rarefied gas pretty much instantly. It would then rapidly blow away, but the instant rarefaction makes it useless for our purposes immediately.
Since roofing the planet is an impractical notion (to say the least) we would just roof the areas in which we actually need to have an atmosphere. It's not like we'd colonize the Moon or Mars and instantly need to climate control every square centimetre of the surface, just enough of it to live and work in. There's really no escaping (escaping, get it?) the fact that it's gravity that holds the air down and Moon or Mun there just isn't enough G to do the job.
-
7 hours ago, Shpaget said:
Irrelevant to my point. Just because there were some women who wanted to go to space, it doesn't mean that general female population feels the same
I'm not sure how you have moved this into the past tense, there are women astronauts today who want to go into space today. But you are correct in one thing, the fact that there are women who want to go into space doesn't mean that the general female population feels the same. Of course, the fact that there are men who want to go into space doesn't mean that the general male population feels the same way either. If we were talking about grabbing random people off the street and shipping them as colonists then that might matter but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about volunteers and so the fact that there are both men and women who want to go is all that matters here.
We know this to be true. The Mars One project called for volunteers and received hundreds of thousands of application from men and women. Your speculations about an all-male volunteer cohort completely ignore the fact that as long as we've been doing this we have always had volunteers of both genders.
7 hours ago, Shpaget said:Is there a policy to maintain that ratio?
Probably, but the exact ratio isn't the issue here. NASA's current class is 50/50, CSA's most recent ratio was 70/30, Mars One's first round selection ratio was 55/45. Nowhere is there any justification whatsoever to even suggest that in the actual event of a colonization mission the gender ratio of volunteers would suddenly change to become 100% male.
34 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:That would actually suggest, all other things being equal, a lot of female privilege these days.
I'm sure you didn't intend to be quite as thoroughly offensive as you just were.
-
30 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:
Over hundreds of millions of years to billions of years? Yes...
But we could possibly settle for tens to hundreds of thousands of years of settlement.
Even if it would take about a thousand years to go from an Earth style atmosphere to the current Lunar exosphere, that's not the problem. Even though we would find the atmosphere useless to our purposes long before it reached current conditions, that's not the problem. (Half an atmosphere isn't going to help us much.) Even though the rate at which the atmosphere bled away would be highest at the start and so the breaking point for our purposes would be quite early in that curve rather than dozens or hundreds of years down the road, that is still not the problem. Even though the elements of the atmosphere would vanish at different rates, changing the composition as it went, that's still not the biggest problem. The problem is that if you installed, somehow, an Earth style atmosphere on the Moon it would take (without some sort of roof to hold it in) a matter of minutes (or seconds) for it to inflate to the point that the surface conditions were comparable to standing at the top of Everest. So although it might take a hundred years to blow off enough atmosphere to make it completely useless for our purposes the fairly rapid loss of atmosphere would not be as important as the almost instant rarefaction of the atmosphere.
-
4 minutes ago, Mikki said:
Finally, sexism is a shame.
It is but, in this case, I lament more about the wasted opportunities. What would things look like today if they had said "Hell, yes!" to Jerrie Cobb?
-
1 minute ago, Mikki said:
Still, very few women are inclined to torture themself mindlessly in certain critical situations, and public opinion about dead men is far more relaxed than acout dead women.
Did it just get very 1958 in here? There are plenty of women astronauts, sixty (60) of whom have been to space. As I mentioned above, women make up fully half of the NASA's current class. In the CSA's most recent recruiting effort the balance was not quite as equitable but was still a seventy/thirty split. The only way you can think that all the colonists would end up being male for statistical reasons is if you only plan on having a colony of two or three people. Or (and this is much more likely) if the people making the selections have some of the quaint ideas about gender that have popped up in this thread.
-
7 hours ago, Shpaget said:
Perhaps because men are more inclined to take on risky and dangerous activities, hence more men would volunteer for the mission.
You are joking, right? This is 2017 you must be joking, right?
The only, ONLY, reason there have not been women astronauts from day one is that the women were turned away from the program. Even when women went so far as to privately fund recruiting and testing procedures to parallel the male astronaut program the qualified women were still refused entry. They took the fight all the way to the U.S. House of Representatives and were again refused entry. The only inclination issue there was an inclination towards sexism and male privilege.
As it stands today NASA's current class of astronauts is fifty percent female and I can think of no reason to expect otherwise.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:
It technically does...
Technically the Moon has a surface boundary exosphere the molecules of which are basically each following their own free path around the moon as dictated by gravity. It's not an atmosphere in the sense we are discussing. An actual atmosphere would blow away in very short order leaving things very much as they are now.
-
I've got three in Munar orbit, does that count? Other than that Mun is just a quick, early career stop-off before doing real the work.
-
On 2017-01-14 at 4:42 PM, Mikki said:
First colonists might be mid-age male humans (maybe female too, nothing about, but unlikely)
Um? How exactly does gender enter into this?
-
On 2017-01-21 at 6:53 AM, Nibb31 said:
Reality has a habit of biting back those who base their actions on opinion rather than on facts.
Is being elected the same thing as being bitten back?
-
On 2017-01-24 at 2:17 PM, Darnok said:
Magnetism itself is form of energy.
There should be a law under which you have to define the word "energy" before you use it in a discussion. This could also apply to "Quantum", "Theory", "Entropy"... It would help to localize confusion.
-
24 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:
And what if you settled for something like a 2-3 km. earth altitude equivalent?
If the moon could hold onto an atmosphere it would have one.
-
5 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:
Considering the situation, I think you just made the argument for using the scoop (which I'm assuming is a field of charged particles of some sort) rather than traditional shielding. Even if its only the equivalent of 2 tons of TNT, you are at the very least billions of km from the nearest help and more likely light years away in a tin can probably built by the lowest bidder (profit motive isn't going away any time soon)... would you rather have a field based deflection system or armor that you have to constantly patch?
The scoop is actually a magnetic field which, as has been pointed out, generates drag. This necessitates running the engine as long as the field is operating to provide enough thrust to (at least) compensate for the drag. So we end up with an extremely powerful and sophisticated field generator and an engine both operating constantly for forty years. That is a high energy maintenance nightmare. A slab of plates flying along in front of the ship like a shield seems like a dependable (lower maintenance) option. Obviously this is a very dangerous aspect of the trip and there is just no way around that.
-
1 hour ago, Carl said:
I'm going of talk of the difficulties in the final chapter of colonies in space from memory, that chapter is here:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap16.html
1"but when passing through a star system, the spacecraft may encounter particles the size of a grain of sand. These will strike with the energy of a ton of TNT. "
So there ya go, my math said it would hit with the energy of about two tons of TNT. (Yay, I'm not utterly innumerate!)
Is Laythe Possible IRL?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Certainly possible, look at HAT-P-6b.