PB666

Also raise there life insurance rates.

You would only need to turn it on to communicate.

I made smaller cores, don't use them anymore (meh the MechJeb does the same). The irony is that I wasn't using them for cores. I need a smaller node starter and surface attachment, so a shrank the OKTO2 to 1/2 and 1/4. But this actually proved to have some value because one of the things that you can do is to put a tiny core on a fuel lifter, in a station, you frequently want balance, but you can't get balance on side tanks unless you deliver two tanks. The problem with KSP is putting two tall skinny tanks on a sz 1 docking port creates instability (you can fix this with addons EL) so replaced the sz 1 with sz2 and shorter tanks, And send them up in one launch, but at least one tank will not have a command module. So you simply put a small ockto somewhere on the tank, a solar panel, a couple of downgraded RCS tank and a 4 RCS thrusters around its CoG crossection, and you have a low dV ship. So whats the logic here. The ship comes in and drops off the first tank, this one has the controller. Then the remnant is detached, the station then rotates 180, stops, you then release the second ship, it then scutes in with its RCS and docks leaving the 2nd stage drifting away. If that ship also has a controller, it can use any remaining fuel to deorbit, or it can shove itself into a recycling bin. I have a whole set of parts that I made that take the place of stack starters I have a flush mounting pipe anchor, also a 5-faced pipe started that flush mounts on the sixed face. But the one thing that Mech Jeb and flush mouting stack starters don't have is a battery. So basically I am replace the core piece with 3 other pieces.

Like I said, I would hate to have been a software engineer on that project. Failsafe checkstatus was not properly programmed. It may be true that the mission could not have succeeded with that failed gyro, anyway satellite is still in one piece, the could have deorbited it. And of course they could have had 3 gyro. and more inertial sensors.

Won't be rocky. Here is the reason why. If it is as large as Earth or larger. 1. Its too far away from the Sun to have its atmosphere stripped by solar winds 2. Instead it will be condensing hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen from space. 3. Unlike solids that may get thrown into bizarre orbits, gases undergo frictional energy loss and fall into the orbiting body without solar winds to kick the out they will collect. Nitrogen would liquidfy Carbon dioxide will solidfy and sink in the liquid nitrogen Hydrogen would compose the atmosphere, but disolve and occasionally react with nitrogen forming ammonium H2N2 and with carbon diozied froming carbon monoxide and ice. While this expected it would be infrequent since in the atmosphere of the planet we expect plasma will create a positive charge on the leading edge can electricity would flow into the atmosphere causing eventually charge cancelation and molecular formation. Since most of this will occur in the upper atmosphere, the heavier stuff would only circulate upwards in strong storms, or co-gravitate with hydrogen and thus the composition is minor. Carbonated Ice will be the heaviest in hot spots (volcanic, but nine may be so old, it does not need to be the same age as our system, it could have been a neutron star or a planet from a system that went supernova during the previous generations of stars so volanism may not be major). the carbon oxygen and hydrogen could react forming complex rocks and other organics, which would litter the liquid surface of the planet in a very thin layer, followed by frozen carbon dioxide, ice, liquid nitrogen, pools of liquid hydrogen and mostly gaseous hydrogen.

If you walk into a mine field, the best thing is not to start jumping around to find out where the mines are. Turn around and step your previous steps backwards until you are out.

Read carefully, before they did the spin up they should have stopped and evaluated their sensors, after they did 2 sessions of 20h spin up where they are at 118/120 tolerable, they are doomed. Had they looked at the solar panels before allowing the spin up they would have seen what was going on. ASTRO-H is in 8 pieces, it may still communicate, but its function is ended, its >8 pieces of unwanted space junk.

I dont know . . . . . . . . there are alot of cows, chickens, pigs on the planet. We also do a pretty good job feeding rats, pidgeons, seagulls and cockroaches.

We can call them moonitoids

If you are going to remove half earths mass, just spin the earth faster, faster. finally your surface speed is half the dV needed to circularize. Then launch from a high mountain on the equator. Mass Driver, Ballistic cannon. Mass driver = set a limit at 30 a . d = 1/2 a t2 v = 8000 m/s = a * t d = 0.5 x 64000000/ 30 = 1066 kilometers. BTW that only gets you to orbital altitude, you need to apply energy to circularize. Needs a 1066 km railroad track with an outlet about above 80,000 meters. (do able would cost more than rocket kerosine and oxygen). - - - - - - - - - - Space hook, again d = 1/2 a t^2, even if you have a magnet, what it catches is traveling 100s of m/s relative to the magnet, at 30g max it travels 1000s of meters before it stops. Ever tried to reel in a blue whale with a 100 lb test line on a deep sea fishing real. Bzzzerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr---rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr---rrr--rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr--rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr--rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [snap] - - - - - - - - - - Space elevator, rotate the earth faster, lower the GSO to 1000 km. (joking of course). For a space elevator to work you would have to lower the mass of the earth by more than 9/10ths its current mass. - - - - - - Space fountain, First remove atmosphere, but then use mass driver. - - - - - High altitude balloon launch, gets rid of a fraction of the dV required. 1. removes drag waste 2. allows nearly horizontal launches (but requires high g forces) - removes hoovering waste 3. lowers climb relates energies. Remains is the overwhelming amount of power needed to get to 8000 m/s. This could be reduced if the high altitude ballon could be accelerated to say 2000 m/s via some sort of plasma pulse drive system and light weight solar panels. Also good because it allows an increased horizontal aspect at launch. Carries hydrogen and oxygen for higher efficiency, so 450 starting ISP instead of 300. This has alot of advantages. Ac = v^2/r 4000000/6371000 = 0.65 m/s this mean you need only maintain starting 9.1 m/s force/mass vertical. If you launch with 3 g of acceleration it means that the down vector of thrust need only be 17.8 degrees, the cosine of 17.8 is 0.95 therefor little of the initial thrust is wasted, even getting a 5 m/s2 climb still keeps more than 80% of the thrust horizontal. For launching sensitive equipment like large telescopes. The reason here is that you start your launch and need to gain velocity going vertical, a burn option, that means that by the time you start to turn to horizontal, you are above 100000 meters. you know longer have to worry about dynamic pressure. At maximum dynamic pressure CRS-8 was at 10000 meter, if you launched from say 20,000 meters, you would be at 90,000 meters when you reached the same speed, that atmosphere would be 1/30th the density. I have no affinity for any launch system that stresses the payload. Oh another benefit, no fairings or nose cones required. Problems. Lets just say we had a gas 1/10 as thin as air and we had a heater in the gas and a layer of insulation to keep the gas at STP. How much gas would we need to get to 20,000 meters. So lets estimate this to be 1/10th ATM. So the last rocket launched was 555,000 kgs. So at STP there are 22.4 liters of N2/O2 per. If we then take this 29.2 grams per mole then there is about 1.30 grams per liter of 1300 grams per cu. m. (1.3 kg) If that is then at 1/10th atm it can amounts to .13 kg per cubic. meter. For a 555,000 kg rocket I would need 1.11 * 555,000 / 0.13 volume of gas (presumbably hydrogen) = 4.7 cubic meters of hydrogen. That constitutes a sphere of around 150 meters in radius. That is roughly 3 time as long as a football feild in all dimensions. The surface of the sphere would be, if there were 3 layers of plastic to retain heat it would need around 77000 sq. meters of plastic, and in the lowest sections the plastic along the lower few meters of rocket along the boundary of a perimeter of 1200 meters would need to be strong enough to support about 500kg (1100 pounds per meter of length), this plastic would have to be stronger and heaviery than standard 3mil plastic which can support about 100 lbs per meter on edge. To distribute the weight there would have to be wires and a weight distrubition structures inside. I don't see this system being developed because it lacks simplicity, but I suspect that some space agency might begin trying this as soon as ground launch cost reductions have started to equilibrate. THe problem with this system in a Space X scheme is this. Lets say we used this system to launch a rocket with a bigger dV in space, the launch phase for retroburn is going alot faster, and its all horizontal, so there is less control in where it comes down and more of a reentry burn. The second problem is what is going to happen when you release the rocket, that balloon is going to go up, and actually you want it to go down, so you would have to massive pump hydrogen into a reservoir. The third problem is high altitude balloons are at the mercy of upper level winds, you might launch ok but you might have to wait several months to recover the launch vehicle The forth problem is that humans cannot work outside at 20,000 or 30,000 meters. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I want to add my, a jet powered hovering launch platform, made from 100,000 lb MSL thrusters.

Gyro malfunction. What about backup gyro, XY inertial censor. Or how about a 'things aren't getting any better, just stop and try to communicate with home plate'. I don't think I would want to be a software engineer on that project, I'de be looking at my accrued vacation time before i did programmed this: During a Z axis roll a third of the thrusters become useless. The best thing to do is to reverse what was done step by step and see if the inertial sensors calm down. If you are adding angular momentum around the Y axis and its not responding stop, reverse, if reversing has no effect either change plan. Theres a saying in electronics that one of our engineers once told me, when your high-tech stuff begins to fail, look for a low tech work around (as he put it everything inh is house is repaired old 60's and 70's equipment) - euphemistically known as 'stone knives and bear skins'. Some of the new electronics tend to have tighter tolerances and shorter lifespans than the old stuff. They work great as long as temperature remain inside a certain range, not so good if you roll them into a sun exposure with no radiator potential. Even some of the new-production 80386 knockoffs will overheat if they cannot radiate off some of their heat. There are probably redundant sensors on the space craft that can act as angular gyros (with a little calculus). 1. Basic data (alternative sources) a. are the solar panels open, true / false b. if true then are the solar panes pulsing amperage in an unexpected light cycle true/false c. look at panels, are panels actively tracking, (check amperage to tracking motors) - true/false d1. if false confirm z-axis stable (see 2), true/false. d2. if true then roll sensor is correct other sensors have malfunctioned. Find out which sensors. 2. Asses control. a. make a controlled turn on y axis of 90' using reaction wheels, panel trackers should turn (amp up) then stabilize (amp zero). light should be constant on at least one panel. Roll Y back to original, confirm. b. if z-axis was in roll then panels would track, if panels did not cyclically track after the roll it means no axes were rolling. c. block sensor. d. if d2 above, a rolling 90's on y should take more energy if craft was rolling Z 3. Assess attitude, stable? a. using panel trakers from Y-roll and Z-axis positions to determine the Z-axis relative to the sun. b. get an attitude check from USAF c. rotate 90' on any axis (avoid pointing the scope at the sun) d. get another attitude check from USAF e. rotate 90' on another axis (avoid pointing the scope at the sun) f. get another attitude check from USAF g. rotate back to original position. h. do some astronomy, find out where target is roll to that approximate position. confirm star-tracker agreement, true/false. i. if there is small disagreement thank your stars that you did not roll your craft into 8 pieces. 4. Repair a. Call NASA have them reinstitute the shuttle program and request a repair. (heh-heh) b. after they laugh you off the phone, call Elon and beg for a proof of abilitiy mission (free) so he can put his expertise to work on your repair. Maybe haul your scope to the ISS and drop it off for a repair. c. after that fails. limp around like Kepler K2.

Didn't you know, space base significance is signified by the number of exclamation points that come after their name, not what it actually does. ISS Freakin big station! Really freaking big station!! Ginoromous really freaking big station!!! and [drum roll] " Mars orbit station, a Mars base, the first people on Mars in 1985, IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " If wishes were horses beggars would ride. Its interesting how people put all the onus on the USA to get folks to Mars, If the shuttle was so bad the ESA or the Russians could have put up the money to launch their own high traffic high capacity repair-ready orbiter. Look at space X, they have been only at this for 5 years. Surely one of these two great space powers can come up with something that can haul humans, launch satellites, repair space telescopes, 1/2 build a space station, the shuttle was such a failure by joove any simple minded political body could have invented and put into place a more modern alternative.

I think the point is that one can't blame KSP for ruining science fantasy, its is already teetering on its pedestal for a while. The idea for HHGTTG came to adams in '71 and the first radio series was from '75. So sci-fi already has a reputation, it doesn't take much to see that, one episode of lost in space, after a while we watched the reruns for the comedy, not the drama. "Warning, warning, warning". How about an upside down garbage can pretending to the the master of the universe in Dr. Who. The last sci fantasy movie I saw before HHGTTG was terminator II, seriously nice special effects but too much effect and not enough plot. What was the critical velocity in Star Trek, at warp 9.6 you could go anywhere in the Universe and be there in an instance, and yet Voyager spends 5 years in the gamma quadrant trying to get back home.

The lesson there is don't take a baseball bat into a time machine.

Your energy becomes part of the black hole, its a singularity only from the outside point of view. The hole idea of black hole radiation is the energy communicated to a black hole cannot be lost, eventually it has to be communicated back. The larger the hole the better able it is to hold onto that energy, but eventually it has to let go. Since time slows down in a black hole, the tiny amount of energy that it radiates would seem large from the point of view of the observer in the hole. Theoretically a black hole could become so large that it could never communicate any radiation back, but that might be the state beyond which triggers a big bang. The concept of entropy is that the universe is always going from a state of order to disorder, our energies should eventually diffuse into space and become shifted to wavelengths longer than long wave radio signals. A black hole that does not radiate starts to violate this. I should point out here that the discussion generally ignores the observer-observed relationship, time slows down from an observer looking at the observed falling into the black hole. The theory of relativity basically argues that there is no preferred tempero-spatial reference frame (alas since i am referring to relativity and not quantum mechanics its a premise to the argument). But a black hole is a special case of space time because the comoving spacetime at the event horizon is extremely dynamic. What you see at this horizon in terms of particles is equally energetic and exotic.

HHGTTG was satirizing science fiction also, there was an interview with Patrick Stewart were he pointed this out in no uncertain terms.

Time can only stop between observation frames, you have to go very fast. The other guy will see you as stopped, to yourself you are still moving The process of time at the quantum level is quasirandom, however the accumulation of events statistically processes through time. The level is very very small, it does not accumulate up to scales of a human. Its is like many things at the quantum scale, for example quantum wormholes are possible, actual spacetime wormholes probably impossible. You can think of it like this..... If you need to make something move at FTL speeds its not so hard to do at the quantum level if you abide by certain rules 1. You can subdivide the object into atomic or subatomic particles <---- 2. That individual particles could be in many places at once for example the position and momentum of a particle are best defined statistically. 3. that the starting and ending points are within or very close (as in a chain or relay) to the statistical places that the particle is normally expected to be. Increasing the size say 100 fold or the distance 100 is very difficult. Electrons may be exceptional because it is possible to create resonance states in which the electrons probability can exist over 4n+2 atoms at once, as far as I know there is no limit to n, so n could be infinity. You place an electron on a sheet of graphene atoms, and you can pick it up immediately on the other side. It cannot flow at FTL, but its speed is exceptionally close to the speed of light. You could for instance place 100s of electrons on a graphene sheet at once, and take them off at the same moment on the other side. Getting back to the topic, at the relativistic scales we live in spacetime, it doesn't stop for us (OK maybe for 10-44 second). Time just keeps rollin along.

So true, but I think the bubble needed to be popped. But I think if you worked flight dynamics as NASA the way rockets behave in KSP would have tainted credibility. Ah and think about your life support systems, some system specialist probably dreams 'if only humans were a robust, smaller and resource independent as kerbals"

Dynamic pressure is dynamic its not a factual number. The instantaneous and imprecise value is what we would call a subjectively-defined quantum statistic, it is a point in a confidence range of values, usually defined by a mean and standard deviation, skewing and kurtosis. In this particular case you would be looking at forces on the lip of the docking port that are not due to non-inertial motion, that itself would be a range of forces, because there are local fluctuations of pressure on the nose cone, particularly after the turn to horizontal has begun and there are a collection of time points that statistically could have been Max-Q at any one of these points. Many players in the game have difficulty because they are all but oblivious to drag. Here is a graphic to help on player deal with his flex problem, it exhibits perfectly the problem of maximum dynamic pressure. The cause of bending rockets (in 1.0) was drag not thrust per say. IOW, if I cheat this rocket into space, and set the gimble on the rocket below 20%, the rocket can fire through its first stage and survive. non-axial drag forces cause flexing at the segment joints. Since rockets in KSP are only attached at their nodes or attachment points, they have extraordinary segmental flexibility, drag is the enemy of these types of design. Its good however to demonstrate that small differences in the angle of attack cause differential drag on the forward surfaces, the more pointy and flexible a rocket is, the more susceptible it is to this type of problem, since all rockets need to turn to make orbit, the effects of drag even in aerodynamic rockets cannot be avoided, in fact it can be worse. The situation above, the un-cabled rocket tries to fly in different direction than its controller is pointed. Gimbling only makes matters worse (this is a low gimbling engine) because in introduces resonance, the resonances destroy the rocket. The rocket is also doomed because it is difficult to avoid Max-Q forces unless you reach a very high altitude at which point all the early stage fuel would be spent, flight dynamics reveals that it is unstable above 80 m/s at 2000m and so max-Q whatever the force is at an indicated airspeed of 60 kts. (about the speed of a super-cub). In this case Max Q is an IAS were above my ship could enter harmful resonances, it is a speed that will vary with altitude. I don't really care what the pressure is as long as I stay below it. (actually in the bottom panels above I fix the flex and resonance with cabling, still has a dynamic limit but much higher) The relevance is this, if you go and watch the CRS-8 launch, you will see that Max Q is at a predetermined velocity, 1250 m/s, where they expected it to be, and if you look at the graph there are many points that could qualify as Max-Q. If you care about your designs the plot effort is worth it, not on every part but a sampling of parts used in rockets with different composite CoD. This is not the first time that I have plotted drag. The design below was built to facilitate the launch of a 2 heavy fusion reactors (mounted on the Karmony modules, hey kerbals not fraid of a few stray neutrons). Note: Another major complaint was about the fairings, people were having problems with them during flight, above two sets of fairings are used, flight dynamic are a major issue for fairing release when powered up, this particular rocket has to reduce its engines to near zero to jettison the fairings, but jettison did not damage other rocket parts, this is because the fairings are protected from drag forces by cabling (third full panel from left) to keep the fairing from flexing too much and sustaining damage in flight. In the game aerodynamic forces can damage fairings causing them not to release correctly (or at all). The problem with fairings is that they encourage combinations of parts that are thick on top and thin on the bottom, even in RL, this would cause flexibility problems. Bracing is needed under the fairing to prevent sway during flight, again, pretty much all due to aerodynamics.

Right, many threads.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160412-debate-intensifies-over-dark-disk-theory Dark gravity welcome to Dark Disks.

Yes but photons are only used breifly as soon as the force is release the sail will turn, if you miss-target it turns. So there is no way to keep from turning except constantly applying force all the way to aC, in that respect its impossible.

by this you mean also proxima centauri.

Solar wind travels at several hundred km per second outward,145,000 m/s ( 0.0005c), your vessel is traveling at 0.2c. The density at earths orbit is 1E9kg/4pi*150000000000^2 = 3.5E-15 per square meter transient or 2.4E-20/cubic meter. Why I throw out this trivia is that a craft traveling at 0.2c, the solar winds are all but a static drag force. So if the sail was 4 square meters, and travel 60,000,000 meters per second it would encounter 5.76x 10-12 kg of protons/second which would deflect around the sail as it built up positive charge (more so than the payload because of its size). The differential energy is 1.8E15/kg therefore the and if we assumed that in deflection 10% of the photons energy was transferred, then we would see an energy in the form of sun facing force on the sail of 1036 joules/second (basically a kilowatt). The work done per unit time is F*d and interaction distance is 60,000,000 then the force 17 micronewtons per kilogram mass, and so if the whole device weights a gram its 17 ma of acceleration which declines at the k * SQRT(dsun/150,000,000,000) . The bottom line is that the device will turn, the convex surface of the sail will face the sun, because there is gas density all the way to aC, it will stay facing the sun, any signal it sends will be sent away from the sun. The only way to stop this is to charge the sail so that it bottom is negatively charge and top is positively charged, since the sail is decelerating and the payload is not the sail would fall into the center of the payload and the sail would collapse around the payload reducing the force. To prevent this the payload would need to be positively charged to push it away from the sail. What they could do is charge the device and turn it, transmit to the next IS ship one the way, which is set to receive by default force then turns around and sends it message to the next one back. And alternative is to move a nuclear based ship into Interstellar space (IOW no orbit relative to the sun) with a huge antenna, very low frequency signals (long wave, of low power can transmit almost perfectly between heliopauses), and a very high gain antenna could be made a mile wide with widely separated wires, you could potentially receive such weak signals. The problem with such a receiver is that you would have to have an active cooling system that was very close to absolute zero. The other problem, data transmission would be in baud, like 20 baud or so. The way to do the is set up tracking arrays with lasers in elliptical orbits that have the same periods as Earth, then you can repeatedly accelerate a larger craft and you are not bound by the limits of earth tracking. In addition since velocity is lower you would have less of a challenge with the solar wind. One way to create a huge antenna is ro roll out wire (like the wind sail in the other post) and rotate the wires, using a tether pull the ends toward the center, These wires could be .01 mm in length made of memory material that assumes a certain shape, again the frequency so low that the great distance of the wires would reflect the signal in the desired direction. Another way is this, create a extra-heliopause ship that sends out sorted poly-chromatic light, telling the ships were they are relative to the center. The ships when launched retract their sails to slightly alter velocity. The first ships leave their sails out, the last ships retract their sails, They steer using their sails to the center of the light path based on the wavelength of light they detect, once at the center they search out other ships, which then can send signals out in parallel each ship sharing data with the next and each ship gathering its own bit of science. If you launched millions you could actually have them build a robot that then collects other ships that build an antenna.

Gee, I have to do everything. Had you followed my instructions you would have a time stamp, a velocity stamp and an altitude. From that you could have derived this. Note m/s is wrong (x-axis), I converted back to the original units for the graph, its km/h . Done so because the original call out was done at 1250 kph. Gravity is known, we already deduced acceleration for the period at around 6.8 and we can see that were we should be is around 11.5 So, there are one of two things you can tell from that. 1. There was no throttle down and about 4.5 meters per second times mass of drag force was present 2. There was a throttle down in order to avoid those high levels of acceleration in which case what you would have seen was a fall in acceleration So if we add all the forces. Force 1 = gravity 9.8 m/s, Force 2 & 3 are 11.5. The total force is 21.3 m/s, a bit below the 30 I predicted, its hard to guess at these things remembering what you saw on a video 6 days ago. Can we now guess that force? The original tack off condition was, with a bit better math extrapolated to take off , 2.5 m/s + 9.81 = 12.3 m/s, the original thrust was 6804000, we can guess the mass was 553,000 kg. That was for an ISP of 318 We then had an ISP of 338 thus thrust is 7231kN. We have a total mass of 340,000kg so now we can estimate the forces (data trimmed to second digit for obvious reasons) Gravity - 3,300,000 velocometric acceleration - 2,400,000 drag or engine throttle down - 1,530,000 So now you have a nose cone. Right, so my guess its between 2 and 22.5 meters in radius, this gives it a surface area of 12.5 to 16.25 sq. meters. If you then take the drag force and divide you have the Maximum pressure around 120,000 N per square meter () 12 N per square cm, = 17 PSI. ATM is 14 PSI as MSL. Assuming that SpaceX has a better engineering team than V program in germany, the critical problem is now moved down to the docking port and its bracing. Assuming that it is about 3 cm thick on its railing, and that you have and it radius is around 1.5 to 2 meters, the area of the railing is around 0.37 meters, this means the force pressure on the railing (including magnets and what not electronics is going to be about 4 million N/meter sq. As you break Mach 1 most of the pressure is on the nose piece, however do to their non-Sears-Haack shape the is wave pressure on the launch vehicle, as speed increase that travels past the powerplant and thus you get soot all over the launch phase and, you start acceleration. If you want to get a better answer than this I suggest you send a few bottles of French wine and Russian caviar to the launch engineers at Canaveral.