Jump to content

Wanderfound

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,893

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Wanderfound

    Kerbal MMO

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Nothing to do with the project but... the one halo ripped off was the culture orbital (smaller size ringworld) by Iain M. Banks which was I believe based on the ring world from nivel...

    For your project, try to build a 1km radius ring and we will see.

    ...and they're both pretty much variations on a Dyson Sphere (Ringworld more so than the Orbital), which in turn was inspired by even older SF. There's nothing new under (or around) the Sun.

    So im building a rocket-plane...

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    I thoroughly approve the spirit of this, but my boring-old-man status forces me to say: are you sure you know what you're doing?

    Home-made rocket motors have a nasty habit of exploding at undesirable times, even when they're made out of sugar.

    (assuming that you do know what you're doing, though, make sure you post plenty of photos here afterwards...)

    R.I.P Robin Williams

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    I know all that, but we do have the means of controlling the urges to take one's life. It's a very severe condition, not just typical very bad mood. He supposedly killed himself using inert gas. That requires some planning.

    I don't want to argue with you while you're upset, but no, we don't. We've got some drugs that are of some help to some people some of the time. They don't work for everybody, and they're not a panacea even for the people who do find them effective.

    Depression doesn't prevent planning, and treatment does not necessarily cure depression. There's actually a substantial link between SSRI use and suicidal ideation, particularly in teenagers [1].

    In Robin Williams' case, there's also the issue of several decades worth of excessive cocaine use. This is known to cause substantial amounts of neurotoxicity, focussed chiefly on serotonergic systems (the thing that SSRIs target).

    Unfortunatelly for me, I know what your're talking about.

    You ain't the only one; my knowledge of this field is not just professional. Scientists tend to research topics that they have a personal connection to.

    [1] As in, it appears that starting SSRIs may often increase the suicide risk rather than reduce it. There are a few theories as to why [2], but nobody has a proven answer yet. Chasing this question was the thesis topic of one of my close colleagues.

    [2] It's possible that SSRIs may in some cases reduce depressive apathy/demotivation without actually improving mood; in lay terms, the patient still feels horrible, but now has the energy to do something about it. There's also some preliminary evidence that the impact of SSRIs on brain function differs markedly between teenagers and adults. Teenage brains aren't just younger versions of adult brains; they are a substantially different thing in terms of neurochemistry.

    Tips on SSTO's?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    I've watched some vids on the KSP god Scott Manley and he says that you shouldn't design an SSTO based on an atmospheric plane because they're meant to work in the atmosphere, not in the atmosphere and then into space. Soo, any tips other than building planes and then spaceplanes cause, honestly, that's what I've been trying to go from for a while now :)

    What he's getting at there is the people who try to build spaceplanes that look like a 747 or Learjet. Don't build something that looks like "a plane", build something that looks like a hypersonic spaceplane. Take your styling cues from the fast stuff: SR-71, MiG-25, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, etc.

    Spaceplane speed challenge: shortest elapsed time from runway to orbit.

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    Just as the title says: how quick can you get a spaceplane to a 70 x 70km orbit?

    Rules:

    * Post a screenshot of your plane in orbit, with both the orbital details and elapsed time visible.

    * Ferram Aerospace Research must be in operation, with default settings; stock aero is a whole different game. Keep aerodynamic failures on.

    * Must take off horizontally from the runway and be recognisably a plane; no fair just sticking fins and landing gear on your favourite rocket. We're looking for spaceplanes, not winged missiles. Lift with your wings rather than your engines. Climbing vertically is fine to get out of the low-altitude soup, but you should be levelling off and building speed spaceplane style once you get into the stratosphere.

    * No abusive airhogging; no intakes within intakes and go easy on the tricouplers. Kudos substantially increased if you can do it with something that actually looks like it might work in the real world.

    * Must hit orbit with sufficient fuel remaining to get back down again. Gliding in to KSC is okay if you've got the plane for it, though.

    * Spaceplane Plus and B7 (edit: B9, of course) parts allowed; other spaceplane packs will be considered on application. Apart from that, all stock parts. No non-stock engines.

    * Do it airbreathing SSTO if you can, but if you want to strap some solid boosters onto your plane, give it a shot. Separate prizes for SSTOs vs planes that drop parts during ascent.

    EDIT: do it however you'd like. However, the intention is to see who can get an SSTO spaceplane to orbit the fastest. Separate leaderboards will be maintained for stock aero vs FAR/NEAR, SSTO vs dropped boosters, genuine spaceplanes vs winged missiles, practical vehicles vs specialist speedsters, etc.

    Post your craft file with your entry. If you think you can beat someone else's piloting, feel free to have a go with their designs.

    EDIT 2: If you'd rather treat this as a pure piloting challenge, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1357777&viewfull=1#post1357777 for the benchmark plane to use.

    All stock, no mods required.

    --

    To get the ball rolling, my most recent experiment with Spaceplane Plus:

    Runway to orbit in 5 minutes 58 seconds (about 2 minutes of which was coasting to apoapsis), using a 30° pitch until the air ran out and 45° while the oxidiser burnt. Craft file available at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90344-Kerbodyne-Velociraptor-light-cargo-express-SSTO-for-Spaceplane-Plus-and-FAR

    screenshot351_zps1455e10b.png

    --

    Current Leaderboard:

    Stock Aero SSTO:

    O-Doc: 4 min 40 sec

    FAR with dropped boosters:

    Renegrade, 4 min 1 sec

    FAR SSTO Speedster:

    Wanderfound: 3 min 32 sec

    FAR SSTO Practical Cargo Lifter:

    Wanderfound: 5 min 58 sec

    FAR Kerbodyne Benchmark (control plane):

    Wanderfound: 4 min 5 sec

    Economic Fuel to Oribit

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    Because not all of us want an orange tank in space for a fuel depo. What you suggest seems to be legal in the sense of the challenge though, so go for it. Just don't use non-stock parts for tanks, engines, and wings. If you stay stock, then those of us interested might be able to copy or download your craft.

    You can use space planes to get the fuel up there if you want. We're looking for cheapest cost to get large quantities of fuel and oxidizer up there.

    Wanderfound posted a link to a plane that supposed to be able to get an orange tank (full) into orbit for the minimum cost of about 4000. I downloaded his plane and gave it a shot but it didn't look as though it was possible to get it to space with my flying skills. I'm not using ANY mods for this challenge, and that might be what the problem is. His plane was tuned for FAR and that's not installed here. So his plane may not be performing as advertized.

    But, if someone could get that orange tank to orbit for just the cost of fuel, then it probably would set a very high score.

    Almost all of the serious spaceplane crew use FAR; you're not likely to get many willing to fly under stock aero.

    It's certainly doable, though. Stock lets you get away with unaerodynamic monstrosities that FAR would tear to pieces, as well as doubling the power of RAPIERs and turbojets. The major difficulty in building the D7 was in stopping it from breaking apart under aerodynamic stress; that's why it has a few zillion struts on it. That's not an issue in stock.

    You're right that it's not the easiest of planes to fly, though. It's a big and brutal beastie.

    Kerbodyne Velociraptor: light cargo express SSTO for Spaceplane Plus and FAR

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    Like the idea of SSTO cargo spaceplanes, but can't be bothered waiting around for them to get up to speed? Have we got the plane for you...

    This thing is ridiculously fast. It can go supersonic while in a vertical climb and reach orbit with tanks better than half full. Treat the throttle with caution; although it has enough thrust to reach crazy high Mach numbers at sea level, you'll shatter the airframe if you crank it up too much below 10,000m. Climb vertically until the atmosphere thins, level off while you take it to 30,000m and flick the Vernors on to enhance stability during the oxidising burn.

    Check the action groups and switch off the Vernors while docking. The Vernor thrust should be sufficient for VTOL landings on the Mun or Minmus.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/3u2omnejrwstcma/Kerbodyne%20Velociraptor%20ST.craft

    Requires both Spaceplane Plus and Ferram Aerospace Research mod packs.

    screenshot349_zps58f86699.png

    Tips on SSTO's?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    I've watched some vids on the KSP god Scott Manley and he says that you shouldn't design an SSTO based on an atmospheric plane because they're meant to work in the atmosphere, not in the atmosphere and then into space. Soo, any tips other than building planes and then spaceplanes cause, honestly, that's what I've been trying to go from for a while now :)

    We can't give you any more specific advice unless you tell us exactly what's going wrong with your own designs. Preferably accompanied by top and side screenshots in the SPH with the CoM/CoL/CoT indicators on.

    If you're completely stuck, download this one: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89092-Kerbodyne-Scattershot-a-simple-and-easy-to-fly-beginner-s-SSTO-spaceplane

    Take it for a spin, see how it flies, and then go back to the SPH and tear it apart so you can see how it was built.

    Tips on SSTO's?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    Also useful: RAPIER engines are currently severely buffed. They already simplify spaceplane design significantly, but with their weight drop, you can pull off absurdities like this

    Ferram has significantly debuffed the air-breathing engines, BTW. If you install FAR, turbojets and RAPIERs (when in atmosphere) will have about half the power they produce in stock. That's still plenty enough grunt to go to space, though.

    I'm not sure if he nerfed them in NEAR as well, but I'd be surprised if he didn't. The more realistic drag model substantially benefits atmospheric flight speeds.

    Tips on SSTO's?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    I've watched some vids on the KSP god Scott Manley and he says that you shouldn't design an SSTO based on an atmospheric plane because they're meant to work in the atmosphere, not in the atmosphere and then into space. Soo, any tips other than building planes and then spaceplanes cause, honestly, that's what I've been trying to go from for a while now :)

    Depends. If you're using stock aero, you can get any ridiculous thing into orbit. With FAR or NEAR, it generally helps to build something that looks like it could fly in the real world. For an example using Spaceplane Plus:

    screenshot327_zpscafc1a33.png

    Or if you prefer stock parts:

    screenshot310_zpsda0ab35f.png

    And if you like vertical SSTOs:

    screenshot336_zpsed0d3cc4.png

    You do need to think about how it will work in vacuum, but that doesn't mean it has to be ugly.

    Technicality requirement of scientific papers.

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    I ve been trying to get in contact with the universities here, but none of them have rally payed me any attention whatsoever, I ve called at least 10 times and none of them did they actually contact me with an engineer or someone who could mentor me.

    Don't phone, email. As a general rule, science and engineering academics have a completely insane workload; 70+ hours per week in the lab is routine. I did six months straight of seven day a week 12-hour nightshifts a few years ago.

    Make it easy for them to help you, don't interrupt them when they're working and don't get cranky with them if they can't spare the time. Most scientists are fanatically passionate about their topic and enjoy sharing their enthusiasm with others. But they are also extremely overworked, underpaid and permanently stressed out.

    Tips on SSTO's?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    There have been quite a few threads on this topic lately; there are plenty of dedicated spaceplaners here.

    Have a read through these:

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89643-SSTO-question?p=1334110&viewfull=1#post1334110

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89212-My-newbish-spaceplane-efforts-suggestions-for-improvement

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89092-Kerbodyne-Scattershot-a-simple-and-easy-to-fly-beginner-s-SSTO-spaceplane

    Your best bet is probably to start by building atmospheric planes, then move on to small spaceplanes, then on to something that can carry cargo. It's not too hard once you get the knack, but you do need to get some understanding of aerodynamics and supersonic piloting first.

    Give it a go and hit the forums (with screenshots, preferably) once you run into problems. If you do it right, you don't need to rely on any air-hogging or part-clipping tricks, and you can make highly functional and economical spaceplanes that are fun to fly and look really cool.

    You should also strongly consider installing FAR or NEAR if you haven't already. Spaceplanes are much more fun when they actually fly like planes.

    R.I.P Robin Williams

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    Everything I know about him reminds me so much of a bipolar disorder. He presented us with his cheerful side, full of energy, and tried to control the opposite by drinking.

    And epic quantities of cocaine, over the course of decades of use. He had been quite open about his drug history.

    I've googled it and yeah, he really had that disorder. I don't understand what went wrong. We have remarkably good drugs to treat this illness today.

    Speaking as someone with a doctorate in psychopharmacology and a fair bit of close-up experience with mental illness: not so much. The drugs are a lot better than they used to be, but there's still a long way to go.

    As a general rule, psychological and psychiatric medicine today is in a similar state to conventional medicine of the 19th century. Half of what we've got is totally ineffective, and even the things that do work are often accompanied by horrible side effects and/or a serious lack of understanding as to why they work.

    Depression is a particularly problematic one. We're not too bad on anxiety disorders, and we can damp down the manic side of bipolar, but no-one really has a good handle on depressive illnesses yet. The SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants barely beat placebo in clinical trials, and there are substantial reasons to doubt the validity of even that evidence. Talk therapies are even less impressive.

    None of this is because the psychs and neuros are lazy or incompetent; it's because brains are really, really complicated. We're only just starting to get a proper understanding of how they work.

    Technicality requirement of scientific papers.

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Thanks for the reply man! I know it is common knowledge, thats why I wondered wether it is actually adding anything or just explicitly appyling the bulk of the theory. I will still continue with the project just for fun and to try and learn some things on my own, given that most I cant really access the papers that actually talk about the topic at a great extent I will just continue experimenting. I will follow your advice, I greatly appretiate you taking the time to answer. Thanks!

    If you have any friends who are university students, get them to lend you their library login so you can download papers. Alternatively, if there's anything that you want to read that's behind a paywall, send an email to the authors asking for a copy. Most scientists will be so delighted by the thought that somebody actually wants to read their work that they'll be happy to send you a PDF.

    You'll also find plenty of material in the open-access journals these days. Check out PLoS.

    More plane fun! (and questions)

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Nice looking! Is this something that would have enough lift for a 10T payload? If so I am totally overengineering how much wing I need. It is hard to know starting out.

    I'd expect so, but I haven't used the Spaceplane Plus parts much yet; I like the challenge of doing it stock. OTOH, my dodgy old laptop likes the drastically reduced part count that SP+ allows. I'm planning on designing some SP+ lifters today; I'll post them to the Spacecraft Exchange if I come up with anything good.

    For designing lifters, the NRAP mod is very useful. It's a single-part pack that gives you a test weight of widely tweakable size and mass. And remember that wings add drag as well as lift; especially if you're flying with FAR/NEAR, too much wing is counterproductive.

×
×
  • Create New...