ZooNamedGames
-
Posts
5,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ZooNamedGames
-
-
I think the Switch could run KSP- but it would have to be very custom built to keep the processing at a minimum so the hardware can handle running KSP. Granted I think you'd have to modify so much you'd end up with a new game altogether. That said- Squad doesn't make console ports. They've contracted out for them. If they do branch out to the Switch- it'll likely be through another 3rd party entity.
-
On 5/20/2019 at 7:02 AM, magnemoe said:
That is other beliefs, and believing the earth is flat dont give you much credibility in the others
And yes its stuff like bretharians
, believing you do not need food or even water who is way more idiotic than flat earth and is far easier to prove being wrong. In short any bretharian has to be cheating
Credible or not- these are parents of the next generation. These are the people making decisions. Ignoring them merely allows them to teach more children, and for those children to accept it as truth and expand that thought process outward.
Ignorance or denial about them solves nothing.
-
54 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
yes I know, also +90% of flat earthers on internet is trolls. They claim the earth is flat simply as it get people to argue with them, so they will simply not engage in an dissuasion they will lose.
Issue is there are plenty that aren't trolls. And assigning the rest of the community as 'trolls' advances nothing. If anything it proves science is above authority and perpetuates the problem. You can't solve anything with ignorance and dismissal. You have to address it or it will perpetuate.
Especially since flat earthers do not only subscribe to the notion of a flat Earth- but also are in vocal support of removing vaccination requirements for schools (ie anti-vaxx), are anti-medicine and promote any 'natural' alternatives. This is because they do not know any better, and ignoring them doesn't solve the problem. Since people who don't know any better will only hear their opinions and perspectives. Which only expands the problem further.
-
On 5/13/2019 at 11:39 AM, magnemoe said:
My list of watched flat earth movies is pretty empty and plan to stay that way
Flying between Australia and South Africa is better as it would be impossible long route and would require supersonic speed to reach in 11 hours.
https://www.google.com/flights?lite=0#flt=JNB.PER.2019-05-29.JNBPER0SA280*PER.JNB.2019-06-02.PERJNB0SA281;c:NOK;e:1;sd:1;t:b;sp:0.NOK.9219*0.NOK.9219
Now if an A340 had supersonic speed and an 30K km range while supersonic they would used that capability other places.
Volvo ocean race is another fun one and one you can follow for free.
Yes you might claim its very strong wind between south Africa and Australia and between New Zealand and the Magellan strait
had been fun if some calculated the distances on an flat earth map, and the optimal route then translated to an normal map.
It's easy to say it's XYZ for us roundies when you don't know half of what their claims are using as evidence or their conclusions and how they got to them. Especially since just outright dismissing their claims solves nothing in the long run, neither for us or for them.
-
Just now, mikegarrison said:
No, you are missing that they are all related. The 2707 needed that swing wing and stuff because of the lousy fuel efficiency and need for trans-Pacific range. Trans-Atlantic-only wasn't going to work -- Concorde already was there. Flights over land were out. Stopping to refuel negated the speed advantage. Only trans-Pacific was a viable market. But to carry enough fuel to get trans-Pacific needed miracle tech.
the swing wing optimizes flight chararacteristics more so than it's efficiency. If they wanted to maximize efficiency alone, they would've used a delta wing as per the Concorde's design. But they opted to design a swing wing as that would allow them to get better handling at a wider range of speeds (subsonic/transonic through to supersonic).
Fuel efficiency was important, especially as a factor in range- but didn't truly crush supersonic aircraft until the fuel crisis of the 80s.
-
4 hours ago, kapteenipirk said:
KHB-2500 Skyfall
Decided it was time to include something a little bigger and more original to the mix.
In this case a bit of a "what if you took the TU-95 and AN225 and mixed them together" style super-bomber, or doomsday-bomber as i like to call it.
I wanted the bomber to have heavy defensive armaments, and a secondary command/AWACS aircraft capability.
It has a wingspan of over 80m and a length of over 70m.
And don't worry, i plan on removing the turboprops (airplane+) and replacing them with inverted wheesleys on the one i send you...unless of-course you want me to keep them there.
And here are a few more picks of the aircraft
Flaps and spolers included.
To make sure the enemy attacker is properly destroyed.
A nice view of the side.
And a view from the top as-well
Bloody brilliant and an artistic masterpiece as always.
-
3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
What killed all supersonic commercial airliners is fuel efficiency and rules against overland supersonic travel.
Yes, but ultimately those were problems that came about after Concorde entered routine service and the technical challenges (swing wing, fuselage material, etc) behind the jets become too costly to surmount.
-
1 minute ago, Exploro said:
As envisioned, Skylon does not utilize conventional jet engines of any kind.
It's bimodal, meaning it runs in both rocket mode and an airbreathing mode. From the wiki- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)
"The design comprises a single combined cycle rocket engine with two modes of operation.[3] The air-breathing mode combines a turbo-compressor with a lightweight air precooler positioned just behind the inlet cone. At high speeds this precooler cools the hot, ram-compressed air, which would otherwise reach a temperature that the engine could not withstand,[8] leading to a very high pressure ratio within the engine. The compressed air is subsequently fed into the rocket combustion chamber where it is ignited along with stored liquid hydrogen. The high pressure ratio allows the engine to provide high thrust at very high speeds and altitudes. The low temperature of the air permits light alloy construction to be employed and allow a very lightweight engine—essential for reaching orbit. In addition, unlike the LACE concept, SABRE's precooler does not liquefy the air, letting it run more efficiently.[2]
After shutting the inlet cone off at Mach 5.14, and at an altitude of 28.5 km,[3] the system continues as a closed-cycle high-performance rocket engine burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen from on-board fuel tanks, potentially allowing a hybrid spaceplane concept like Skylon to reach orbital velocity after leaving the atmosphere on a steep climb."
-
1 minute ago, RocketSquid said:
Skylon uses liquid hydrogen fuel, which means it cannot just launch from ordinary runways. It will still need to be mated to a similar umbilical system, will still need to be launched from set launchsites, and will still need uniquely trained personnel. The advantage of skylon is lower total fuel mass and thus, theoretically, lower launch cost.
But can operate bimodally- meaning it can launch using typical jet power. Allowing it to launch from typical runways. Augmenting existing airports would be vastly easier than having to find a suitable launchsite based on launch inclination, build the launchsite and then purchase additional hardware for moving any rockets as we do currently.
-
19 minutes ago, tater said:
This simply isn't true.
We literally have no idea, not a clue, what the refurb time of spaceplane might be. There are what, 2 examples (Shuttle and X-37), and they are nothing remotely like SSTO spaceplane concepts. You know where the most useful data is likely to come from---long before anything like Skylon even flies in the atmosphere, much less space? Starship.
Which is like comparing a car to a boat. They will operate completely differently. Starship has to be mated to a launchpad, can only launch from set launchsites, required uniquely trained personnel and so on. Skylon would not.
-
2 minutes ago, tater said:
There's only one being worked on, and they are investing only chump-change on it. I'll be dead before Skylon flies, probably.
HTHL spacecraft have been proposed for a while, but they will have to demonstrate real operational reuse (like aircraft) before we can say they are any better than the similarly unknow costs of craft like Starship.
SSTO I don't really care about, TSTO is just as good (regardless of how it lands).
We just need to overcome the hurdle of making SSTOs and I'm comfortable in saying that more will pop up since they promise easy use and require no additional downtime than a normal aircraft.
-
1 minute ago, tater said:
NASA did attempt a reusable SSTO, in fact:
All that matters is cost/kg.
Got me with the Yankee Clipper. I knew of it and it did slip my mind.
cost/kg is a big factor but not for making space more accessible as we're locked behind launch scrubs and delays in getting things launched when spaceplane SSTOs can do it quicker and more routinely. Besides once that door is open, SSTO companies will become rampant.
-
6 hours ago, Brownie352 said:
I'm wondering why nasa wants to build the gateway,the only convincing argument was for manned experiments
also why would you need the gateway to go to mars you need more dv by having a rendezvous with the station, right?
I'm not a scientist but it doesn't make sense to me
(Sorry if i posted this in the wrong topic)
It isn't the most efficient to travel to the station, but it is a waypoint that could be better optimized for deep space exploration. Despite being our newest endeavor to date- the ISS is old. Really old. We don't need to be using it anymore in all actuality and a lunar space station offers deep space 0g research (more intense than what's currently available to the VA belt shielded ISS), a way point between the Earth and the moon (a place for landers to dock and stay while awaiting crew and then to return crew to). With Mars exploration vehicles being deployed from the station, and using ion thrusters, can get good ISP at the cost of launching from the moon, but seeing as they're so efficient, it isn't so bad. Plus, it's easier to launch missions from lunar orbit than from the lunar surface.
That said- I am thinking that gateway development is going to get pushed back or be put to commercial development to the point that either there will be only the PPE, a life support module and a habitation module and that's about it, with crews arriving to the station just to board the previously commercially launched lunar lander and descend using it or have the full station, commercially launched anyway. Reason being that time spent by NASA assembling the station will waste time they could spend actually going to the moon.
After all, looking at history. The way NASA got to the moon before was by contracting our segments of development. Now they are just contracting out the launching part too for everything except crew.
-
NASA wouldn't have attempted a reusable booster like SpaceX designed, yes. As it's extremely costly and NASA is in the business of innovation and discovery and reusable boosters is more of a cost saver than anything new. We were reusing plenty of hardware thanks to the Space Shuttle program, so it didn't discover much and wouldn't innovate enough to keep NASA's interest. It's why NASA has always been focused on efforts above and beyond that of LEO since the end of the space shuttle- NASA doesn't tread where others can do it more cheaply and despite what others claim- so far only NASA has the ability to send crew BEO. SpaceX isn't there yet.
That said- I appreciate Musk trying to innovate with BFR and it's great for lifting heavy hardware but it's not as practical as he claims. For full reuse- a plane style SSTO (cough Skylon cough) would be vastly better. Being able to launch from any properly set up airport and launching to any inclination and avoid bad weather by flying around it or above it. Rockets can only launch from very special facilities and require extensive care during assembly and payload loading. A spaceplane can have the payload inserted like any normal cargo aircraft, and then rolled onto the runway after an inspection. With a rocket, it has to be picked up, and in the case of the F9, tipped over onto it's side, and then carried to a processing center elsewhere. A spaceplane can fly and carry itself to the processing center. Saving a lot of time and money.
But that's just my opinion and I've been called crazy before.
-
On 5/14/2019 at 10:28 PM, satnet said:
I did a little digging and it looks like the founders are from Generation Orbit which worked on the X-60A, an air launched rocket for hypersonic research. Giving them the benefit of the doubt they may simply underestimate how hard it will be to take that experience and turn it into something that really can be used for passengers (my cynicism says, they probably have some idea). To be fair Boeing thought they could do the same thing (see the video), though they did at least think they could fly domestic flights when they started and they were only going for about mach 3.
What ironically killed the American super sonic jets was the swing wing. Just too big and too difficult to get working in the 60s.
-
Sounds like an issue for another mission. EM-1/2 don't necessitate the docking program so it could be left on the backburner until EM-3 in 2024 (according to Wikipedia, and even if currently correct, would likely see a change to it's mission plan to meet their current #ShootForTheMoon goals) when they deliver the utilization modules to LOP-G.
-
In real life- there are more factors involved such as fuel decay, fuel ignition challenges, precision and navigation drift from such issues as gyroscopic precession.
Largely, it's similar, just with more steps involved. As the ISS is on a high inclination orbit, since it was launched from Russia, which has a high latitude inclination. As a result, most spacecraft must enter a similar orbit, however, it won't match its orbit completely, so they'll complete midcourse burns to get the proper orbit, then burn again for inclination, then again to close the encounter. Followed by a final deceleration burn if necessary.
-
1 minute ago, IncongruousGoat said:
Launch delayed to 11:00 PM EDT. No official reason yet.
Damnit. Trying to keep my parents awake for it so they can see their first Falcon launch and return.
-
[snip]
52 minutes ago, Sky Vagrant said:I was specifically discounting SLS, not all the other efforts out there. I’ve seen the SLS concept being tauted since the late 80’s and I think if it were a good idea we’d have done it already.
Which is fair- but if it was truly that easy- someone would've beaten NASA to the punch by now. Instead it's nearly 2020 and only NASA and one other company show serious ability to develop and build a SHLV. So perhaps before you throw SLS under the bus, you should keep it mind it's all the world has with the exception of BFR, which is even further behind in it's development cycle and being developed by a company notorious for pushing back and failing to meet promises.
-
1 hour ago, Sky Vagrant said:
Also, let’s just discuss the video in general. I think it is a good video, but I don’t think the SLS will meet schedule and they should just go with Space X.
[snip]
You completely ignore ULA, ESA, Northrup Grumman, Blue Origin, Russia and JAXA just to praise Musk.
-
3 minutes ago, Brotoro said:
The Space Shuttle did not use the robotic arm to dock to the ISS.
No, the ISS' docking arm did.
-
43 minutes ago, tater said:
Tug.
If Orion goes directly to LOP-G, do we need a tug? It's efficient for trips from LEO to the moon but right now only the ISS is a compatible place for crews to travel to, and I don't know if it can handle such a large vehicle for the time between missions. How will that effect station drag? Risk for potential FOD damage? Direct using Orion seems pretty seasonable.
46 minutes ago, tater said:What doesn't seem to be on the table ever? Orion being capable of docking by itself. How could they design a modern spacecraft without this capability as a given?
To be fair, the space shuttle, the last manned American spacecraft and NASA's most recent also didn't directly dock. It instead rendezvoused and was captured using the robotic arm then pulled in for docking. Which seems vastly more efficient and easier than designing docking thrusters which need to be more precise than typical attitude thrusters. Not to mention the addition of translational thrusters as well.
-
32 minutes ago, scottadges said:
It was referred to as “Sputnik” (Russian for satellite) because it was an R7 variant designed to carry satellites. Later iterations of the R7 were named based on the components or missions, like Voskhod, Soyuz, etc. they were designed to carry.
From the R7 wiki page:
“The R-7 family consists of both missiles and orbital carrier rockets. Derivatives include the Vostok, Voskhod and Soyuz rockets”
Point being that the rocket typically takes a backseat in naming to it's payload.
-
Personally I just think that it's gotten the name based on the fame of what it often carries. Like how 'dumpster', 'Styrofoam' and 'velcro' became household names despite being copyrighted icons that may not apply to the actual design. Even the R7 version carrying Sputnik is listed as the Sputnik. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(rocket)
So perhaps the Russian has a meaning but I doubt that meaning really has baring on why the name Soyuz has stuck around.
Just my thoughts.
, believing you do not need food or even water who is way more idiotic than flat earth and is far easier to prove being wrong. In short any
Recovering Snoopy
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
With time, I don't see why they can't try to use a laser or something weaker. It would take a while to slow down, but the thrust generated by the laser could be easily dampened out by reaction wheels and still allow the LM to slow it's rate of roll.