Nathair
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Nathair
-
-
34 minutes ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:
If it's a space-borne fuel launcher, it's gotta correct it's own position between firings, in turn using fuel to deliver fuel so that the hero ship doesn't need to carry it.
That's OK though because every bit of effort and energy that can be imparted by something other than your ship is a good thing. Doesn't matter if your launchers have to jump through hoops or expend energy, they're right at home where they can be tended to, maintained and refueled or replaced easily. Your ship, meanwhile, doesn't have to haul the fuel to accelerate the fuel used to accelerate the fuel used to haul the fuel used to accelerate the ship.
-
3 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:
The important part of that post is "reletivistic-speed particles"... At a high enough energy, even a single hydrogen atom carries enough force to do significant damage. Regular shielding just won't work in a situation like that.
0.2c is not "high enough energy" for that.
-
54 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:
The scoop field also diverts relativistic-speed particles away from the crew module to keep them alive, which will induce drag, which needs to be compensated for with at least some thrust.
Did I say "full throttle?" If so, that was probably wrong. You could probably use a smaller field once you get acceptably close to 0.12c. But if you turn it off completely, you get a lethal dose of radiation.
Sounds like a job for more traditional shielding.
-
1 minute ago, HebaruSan said:
... 39 years and 281 days of which would be spent burning at full throttle just to stay in free fall
I'm sorry, why are we burning the whole time? Once you hit that .12c why wouldn't you just turn it off and coast?
4 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:economically viable reasons
Economically viable is not the only metric to apply.
-
11 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:
Seems to me that this would actually be incredibly inefficient. If the ship never slows down, then anything that is going to be carried within must, by default, catch up to it to get on board, meaning they will require the same energy expenditure as if they were to make the journey on their own.
It's like the Aldrin Cycler. The ship itself carries all the massive engines, shielding, etc. Just add a few passengers and consumables on each cycle, much easier to accelerate to board and then the accelerate again at the other end.
-
1 minute ago, SpacedInvader said:
Beamrider networks sounds much more like hand-waving sci-fi than anything we've discussed here so far... "self-maneuvering smart pellets"? On a separate note, can please provide a link for a description of RAIR, all I'm coming up with in google is some compliance management companies and I'm not familiar with the term.
Try Googling "RAIR rocket".
-
2 minutes ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:
It's all well and good. Just means we (humanity, not us) might see some of those fantastic "generation starships" one day.
Is 40 years a generation ship? If we could achieve, say, .2c then we'd have Lalande 21185 within reach in about that time.
-
Just now, regex said:
A RAIR system would function much better than 0.12c methinks, since it carries a lot of its own fuel and at the target can use the scoop to brake (and refuel). tbh I think that will eventually be humanity's road to the stars.
I'm with you that far but (sadly) I don't think 1g all the way to the core is going to happen.
-
Just now, HebaruSan said:
As much as I love that book, we should note that it was later proved that such a craft has a speed limit of 0.12c due to drag from the interstellar medium. If I'm doing the math right, that means your 1g would run out after about 42 days (maybe longer if it winds down gradually).
IRL ramjets (and RAIR systems) have a whole raft of issues to overcome but ignoring them... 0.12c is almost respectable. That's Alpha Centauri in under forty years...
9 minutes ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:Which would become worse as you approached the center of a galaxy, right?
In the book they thrust laterally in order to spend most of the trip well above the galactic plane to minimize density then when they actually got close to the core other things became more significant.
-
8 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:
new propulsion systems will most likely arise to allow for this sort of constant thrust. Basically, just because we haven't envisioned it yet doesn't mean its not possible.
Bussard Ramjet. Obligatory SF reference: A World Out of Time featuring a 1g acceleration trip all the way to the galactic core.
-
Just now, DoctorDavinci said:
True, however it had no large biological entities onboard ... metals, ceramics and other compunds used in the design and construction of spacecraft can sustain much more stress than us 'squishy' types
Stress? To put it in familiar terms Dawn went from 0-60 in four days. That kind of acceleration "stress" would be almost imperceptible.
-
8 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:
Both of those do exist, however consider that everything inside your body in not being held in place.
Your body consists of individual parts such as your muscles, skeleton, blood and organs and all these organs have mass and some are heavier than others ... Think about the individual weights of each organ and how it would be compressed
I see bruised livers, bruised hearts, bruised kidneys, possible concussion like symptoms, increased strain on the lungs, blood system going all out of whack due to restriction of capillary flow, possible nervous system effects, stressed ligaments, strained or bruised muscles, spinal disc degeneration .... the list goes on
Which brings us back to Haldeman's Acceleration Tanks/Shells. A combination of liquid breathing (oxygenated PFC) and full body immersion with compression...
Of course the whole point of that was to deal with relatively short periods of very high acceleration.
-
3 hours ago, evileye.x said:
I think it is completely wrong to recommend installing mods and KER right from the start
I think that depends on the mods. I see no problem at all with installing, say, Scatterer or Chatterer or even PreciseNode or KAC. Personally, I'd recommend KER as well to a new player although I can see why some purists might feel otherwise.
-
On 2017-01-22 at 2:30 PM, mikegarrison said:
Yes, but cloning gives them all a shared mind and they become straight again.
Er, not exactly. As Man tells them "I make no distinction between heterosexual play and homosexual."
On 2017-01-22 at 2:51 PM, HebaruSan said:I love when a sci fi novel reveals the author's wacky ideas for future cultural developments.
1Then you should read yourself some Samuel R. Delaney.
I don't really think that most of the "wacky ideas", like Haldeman's, are predictions or expectations. They're often more like extended metaphors. The Forever War, for example, is about a war that seems to go on forever while meanwhile, back at home, society changes out of all recognition. Not terribly surprising themes from Haldeman, a Vietnam vet who had trouble reintegrating into civilian life...
-
I agree with all the critiques offered, but I upvoted you one for the effort and intention.
-
11 minutes ago, cyberpunkdreams said:
one of the questions on the "future of RT2 questionnaire recently
The what now?
-
18 hours ago, rudi1291 said:
The shroud displacement happens without mods as well. Not quite sure what causes this. It often happens after timewarping, and its pretty new, never seen it before 1.2...
Good to know, thanks.
-
12 minutes ago, razark said:
Is there a benefit to a symmetrical acceleration/deceleration, and why limit it to 1g instead of slightly higher accelerations?
1In fiction it's often about having a crew living in 1g for extended periods... comfort.
-
39 minutes ago, diomedea said:
Below a list of what mods I have, if any were as well with your install, would be the first I'd check: AmpYear, E.V.E., Asteroid Day, Aviation Lights, BetterBurnTime, Chatterer, ConnectedLivingSpace, CorrectCoL, DPAI, EngineIgnitor, FASALaunchClamps, Final Frontier, G-Effects, Gravity Turn, IR, KAC, KAS, KIS, KER, Kerbalism, Kerbulator, Kostruction, SDHI, KSPARP, MandatoryRCS, MJ, MKS, NDAI, NavUtilities, PartOverhauls, PilotAssistant, PreciseNode, RPM, RCSBuildAid, RealChute, RemoteTech, SCANSat, Ship Manifest, Sounding Rockets, TAC FB, TokamakRefurbishedParts, Trajectories, TransferWindowPlanner, KSPTOTConnect.
3My mod matches to your setup are: AmpYear, Asteroid Day, Chatterer, Final Frontier, KAS, KIS, KER, PreciseNode, RCSBuildAid, RealChute, RemoteTech, SCANSat and TransferWindowPlanner.
If nothing else, that should help the process of elimination should I come up with some way to get it to predictably happen. Thanks.
2 hours ago, Benoit Hage said:A long time ago in Kerbal, you couldn't use a coupler with stack decouplers underneath as only one of decoupler would actually work, the others would only be cosmetic. Now I have no idea if this is still the case today in KSP, but from the look of your picture, it seems only one engine shroud is properly attached. The 2 others, seems off, hence my comment.
Hmm, then perhaps the engine shroud issue and the tank shroud issue are two separate issue...
-
This is a rather vague issue. I've noticed lately that sometimes some of my shrouds become displaced. It appears to happen when I jump back to a ship already in flight. Sometimes it's the flat top-of-the-tank shrouds that are now floating beside their parent tank (displaced laterally to the outside of the tank) and sometimes it's engine shrouds no longer coaxial to the engine (as below.) It doesn't actually seem to affect anything, it just looks weird. I do suspect that Modular Fuel Tanks might be involved but that's more of a hunch than anything else. Any ideas? Anyone else seeing this happen?
-
1 hour ago, AliceTheGorgon said:
The mod now checks to see if the kerbal's name is in a contract and if they're exiting a ship named after them and if that ship has no eva fuel.
That's a Kerbal Klever approach.
-
1 hour ago, Ginlucks said:
consider you have a sat (named sat-far) too far to be reached by ksc, it would be nice that I can send a second sat (sat-messenger) that reach sat-far bring to it a msg: " hey even if we are too far from ksc and we can not comunicate with it at the moment, before launch it told me that you have to modify your trajectory with this commands. I coming back, my trajectory will bring me in a zone reachable by ksc, see you there!"
is it clearer now?
Clearer. I just don't see ever doing something like that. The whole point of the exercise is to set up comm links such that you're not sending probes off into the black with no way to control 'em. Sending your commands to your probes by physically sending other probes out to them with individual commands on board is more than a bit on the bizarre side.
-
1 minute ago, neitsa said:
I always have modified the SMA (semimajor axis) of the satellites manually in the save file. This is cumbersome but I haven't fond a better way
I was typing exactly this when your response was posted.
Since station keeping isn't really an option a way to automate synching the SMAs once the sats were up would be handy. Perhaps only available if they were all within a margin of synchronization already?
-
Simple enough, thanks.
"Direct" burn to planet?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted · Edited by Nathair
I think if you do the math it turns out that that "modest fraction of C" is pretty darn large for "nuclear bombs" to happen. Grain of sand (which is actually pretty big) weighs, say, 50 micrograms. At .2c and applying 1/2mv^2 we get (assuming my math isn't completely wrong) a "nuclear bomb" of 0.002kT. It's a boom and you definitely want to have some plan for dealing with it but it's not a "nuclear bombs" boom.
But check my math, seriously.