Leszek
-
Posts
490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Leszek
-
-
TVR-200L and a couple of powerful 1.25m engines would make a nice LR-87. You can also use a dual-nozzle 2.5m engine from KW Rocketry.
That KW engine isn't powerful enough. Until either Tantares or OMSK makes a Titan we don't really have a good rocket. I was using the OMSK Atlas II (Called Atlas Centaur in OMSK.) but it just doesn't have the performance anymore. It isn't hard to make a rocket that is either overpowered or underpowered for the Gemini, it is just hard to make an appropriate rocket. Doubly so if you want it to look the part.
-
A quick Google shows that they do in fact make USB to HDMI.
-
I don't know what tent your talking about ours had to have a rainfly over the tent to keep the water out. Now We've switched over to using these.
That is right a rainfly, basically a tent over the tent. Neither was really water proof so you had to make sure they didn't touch. And just to be sure you didn't leave your stuff against the side of the tent.
Same, I joined in November 2008. It's written on the inside of my handbook
Oh my, um it was late 80's when I was in Scouts.
-
Jebediah and Valentina learned to be BadS's by watching Scott Manley Tutorials.
-
I was in Cub Scouts for 3 years and made head of Tawny squad (Is that Firster? I can't remember the terminology.) I had about 20 badges or so. I then joined Boy Scouts for a year and I had perhaps 5 badges, I might still have my sash somewhere.
That was lots of fun. We had those old fashioned tents that you had to put a tent over the tent or it wouldn't be water proof. Now'a'days you just take the thing out and it practically springs into the setup tent, you young whippersnappers!
-
I do believe I have found a bug.
If you dock two ships in orbit, and both have engines it might be necessary to disable the engines on one ship because they oppose each other. However afterwards the predicted time and DV for maneuvers is wrong. I discovered the error when my ships built with Tantares mod parts kept running out of fuel early. A 900 m/s burn actually used ~1300 m/s of DV. I tried to replicate the issue with a stock ship. I was not able to produce such a huge difference in DV but the predicted time for one of the burns was 1:02.4 but the burn took over 3 minutes to complete instead. Other burns didn't match DV or times either.
I don't know if it matters since I don't know how KER logic works, but one ship was not crewed and they had dissimilar engines with large differences in thrust. The stock ships both had a VAC ISP of 350, the Tantares probably had different ISP's. I have noticed this on more than one Tantares ship and my stock ship docked to two different drones with the same results so it doesn't seem to matter all that much what how the ship is made. (Hence I didn't bother with screen's but I can get them if you want.) Finally, I did switch control to the drone ship for all the maneuvers, it was the crewed ship that performed the docking and then shut down.
I thought once that as I used monoprop for orientation my predicted DV of my ship didn't go up as it's mass went down, but I have been unable to replicate since then. I am only mentioning this for the sake of completeness.
-
It's strange. I may be the only one, though I doubt it highly, but I really enjoy seeing me with a high post count. But why?
Is it so we stand out in the community? Let me know what you think.
Because it has electrolytes. It is what posters crave. (For those who think about Rep/Post Ratio, I get rep for posts like this almost as much as I do for well thought out serious posts. But this post isn't supposed to be serious so shhhh, ignore the point made.)
-
Secret NASA documents show the face on Mars is of Scott Manley.
When aliens finally do land on earth, their first words will be: "Take us to Scott Manley."
-
Well, I now have crashes with error logs, it seems I am running out of memory after about a half hour of flying. Some sort of memory leak then would be my guess, but I am not sure where to go next to track down what is causing the leak. Contents of the error folder are linked below.
-
Reproduction steps: Build an aircraft using tier 4 tech level parts or lower, attempt to fly to Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn. The game will crash over the desert well before you get there. (Something like a half hour of flight.) There will be a windows message that the game crashed. There will not be a crash folder.
Game Version: 1.0.2
I have lots of parts mods but this plane is mostly stock. The fuel tank is from KW Rocketry and one science instrument from DM orbital science. I don't think either has anything to do with it. I also have KJR, Transfer Window Planner, Docking Alignment Indicator, precise node. The remainder are all parts mods, whose parts are not on the plane.
Spacecraft have no issues.
-
ATM is Active Texture Management, keyword is active. The plug in resizes the textures in memory as KSP is loading. It doesn't alter the source files. So if you remove ATM, the next time you start up KSP will just load from source files like normal. No fuss no muss.
-
I fly with no fins on my KSP rockets all the time.
It isn't hard to keep near the center of your velocity vector. It is just a matter of getting your gravity turn right. I think people are still launching with 1.5 or 1.7 TWR. You would have to start your gravity turn right away almost to get that to work.
I use 1.25 starting TWR and do my 5 degree kick at 70 meters per second. After that I just follow the center of the velocity vector. You can lag your VV to slow down your gravity turn, or lead to increase but I stay well within the circle the whole way. I use a 20km AP by 45 degrees as a milestone. (I want to have a 20km before I reach 45 degrees.) It isn't until I reach 30 kilometers in altitude that I leave the VV circle and when I do I leave it smoothly.
When I first switched to NEAR (and later FAR but there was not a big difference) I had issues with my rockets flipping all the time. That is until I had experience doing it. With the new aero both V1 and V1.0.2 I have had almost no issues. It is very similar to how NEAR was and my launch profile is not much changed.
Really I think the root cause was that the stock aero wasn't changed earlier and now everyone has to deal with the learning curve at release instead of before the bad habits got firmly intrenched. I made the switch to NEAR after only a month or so after I got the game so the vertical to 10k with a 45 degree turn never had a chance to become normalized.
P.S. Just to be clear, you don't need fins, you don't need extra reaction wheels, you don't need to worry about your CG. It is just a matter of practice to get any reasonable rocket to orbit without flipping. I never worry about any of these things, and the fins, even the small ones makes it harder. Sure you don't flip, but you can't control your gravity turn easily.
-
I got RCT3: Platinum in disk form. Old school man
I have the discs for all of them, I don't have all the CD-Keys though.
Though if you want to go old school, I still have the original space Quest on a 3.5 inch floppy and also 5 1/4 inch floppies somewhere.
-
Roller coaster 1, 2, and 3 all work on Windows 8(.1). 1 and 2 turned out to be extremely future proof, and 3 is a relatively modern DirectX based game. Not really sure where you can get a hold of them though.
Steam has them as well as GOG.
-
There is a freerct.org but they haven't shown much progress in the last year.
The free version of the original tycoon game that started the whole genre is still updated and functional: openttd.org
-
The last time I looked at the persistence file, they are all still there. All you have to do is change the status. You can look at an available kerbal who isn't on a mission to make sure you have the format right.
-
There is a Canadian one. I tried to find it on youtube but found some weird US one that had Canadian names in it. (It even talked about the president of Canada!)
The Canadian one starts with a long "attention tone." Going by memory it is a very long tone that lasts for, hmm, I am going to say 30 seconds but it seems to last a minute and ha half. After that I have only every heard the standard message: This is a test, this is only a test, if this was a real emergency... you would get the heck out of here.
-
Likewise, they probably thought of the limits of detection as well. While I agree that it's impossible to account for everything without knowing everything - that's even the point I'm making to K^2 in regards to how the drive might operate in violation of known physics, however well-established - you should still probably give the Eagleworks team some credit. Even if they're NASA, they probably ruled out the obvious suspects by now at least.
The comment about the power supply acting on the walls of the chamber made me want to comment that they already tested an "RF load" with the same power supply and nothing happened, but at the same time it made me remember that the drive is a weird electromagnetic device that uses a vaguely thruster-shaped chamber. While the walls of the testing chamber are probably insulating the device from outside interference, could it be creating a "shaped" magnetic field that extends primarily in one direction, pushing off one side of the chamber but not the other? Is that theoretically possible (cue K^2 answering "sure is more possible that reactionless thrust"), and how would one test for/against it?
How much credit EagleWorks gets is irrelevant. It is a hazard in working in that regime.
Now, if the device is scaled up to put out say a pound of force, then almost all those objections disappear, and what is left is easily accounted for. (And actually it could be a whole lot less than that.) That is why they are trying to scale up the device. And be sure that if they do and the device thrust doesn't disappear, about a 100 labs would have their own EmDrive being tested the next day. (Figuratively of course.)
-
They've identified that effect and compensated- the key attribute being that thermal effects arnt instantanius. When they turn the device on, there is an instant responce, followed by a thermal effect rampup, then when they turn it off, there is an instant drop, followed by a fade in thermal effect.
Yes I am aware that they probably thought of everything I will and then some. Doesn't change the point.
-
Okay. But what of the next step? Eagleworks would have went "huh", and tried to determine what creates the thrust, since thrust is a thing you can measure, and they had been measuring it. If the tampered-with, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt nonfunctional test article still produces measurable thrust, something is going on. That is, as I said, the one area where Eagleworks is at an advantage. They were not aiming to prove the existence of thrust as a concept. They already know that thrust is a thing that exists, so when their results show that there is thrust, they know that something is happening. Blondlot had to prove that he wasn't, as it were, "seeing things" first.
Like I said, I don't know if anyone tried to do any follow-up experiments to determine what, if anything, the experiments were actually detecting before. But unless the creator of the concept of N-Rays admitted that he made the whole thing up, I think it was a thing that could have been looked into - at the very least so that whatever that factor was does not interfere with any future experiments.
Sorry about taking some time to reply to this.
I had just spent several posts explaining why all this is dead wrong and useless.
They haven't really measured anything. Nothing. Zilch. (Nothing that can be trusted anyway.)
Understand that as long as you are near the limits of detection, all sorts of errors creep into the data and that makes it really hard to validate anything.
For example. The Hubble mirror is famously out of whack. When they were making the mirror they had to account for the traffic in the parking lot. What finally got them is that some paint on the sensor was worn and not the proper thickness.
With the EmDrive, it could be that turning the device on causes it to expand slightly due to normal thermal heating. This causes the device balance to change. This causes thrust to be measured when there in fact isn't any.
It is not the scenarios that we can imagine that will get us, it is the scenarios we can't.
You may have pictured in your minds eye a flat line measuring thrust that moves up when the device is turned on. That itself would be suspicious. Being near the limits of detection means that the line is going to be jittery and jumpy and the thrust of the device is going to have to be detectable in that noise.
The electricity going to the device could be making an electric field that is acting on the walls.
When you are near the limits of detection, there is NO WAY to know that you ruled all the sources of error out. You might think you have, but you can't know for sure.
That is WHY it is dangerous to work with data near the limits of detection. That is why pseudoscience likes to stay there. It is easy to imagine data in the noise whether there is data or not.
When they scale up the device so that it produces results of a larger magnitude, then and only then will they have something definitive.
-
So to my understanding, if the hypothesis behind the physics of the drive is correct, using a mismatched wavelength and cavity dimension would produce less or (preferably) no thrust? If so, I believe we have a negative control.
Of course, assuming that cooling, materials etc. would not be an issue for those types of tests.
We can use that to rule out some possibilities...
But assuming for a moment the device works, we don't know how or why. That would mean that a proper negative control is almost impossible. We could play with various variables and try to figure more things out, but the device in its current is unfalsifiable.
There are plans to scale up the device so that it has output that isn't near the limits of what is detectable. That is when tests will be definitive.
-
Didnt someone mention that Dr White figured out a way for it to work while "only" rewriting quantum mechanics?
At the very least it would mean we're only throwing out 100 years of scientific progess, not ten thousand.
There is also the fact Roger Showyer's original theory and math doesn't pan out, so that means he built a perfectly functioning drive effectively accidentally.
-
Why are you so angry, Leszek? If you're argumenting for level-headed rationalism in the face of unlikely experimental results, it's best to do so in a level-headed fashion. I know what you're trying to say and why, but your style of writing, frequent use of absolutes and extreme emotion really works against you here. You're sounding more like a zealot than those you wish to remind to not be zealots.
The truth of the matter is, Eagleworks doesn't release conclusive results because they don't have the funding to produce conclusive results (and likely because the scientists received a gag order after the whole media hubbub). There is no official EMdrive program at NASA. There's just a bunch of (admittedly highly qualified) enthusiasts with a license to think outside the box and an eagerness to experiment with this thing they got handed because of a third party's outrageous claim. The only reason this is even moving at any perceptible speed at all is because the device involved is so simple that it could be kludged together in a garden shed. Bigger test articles are under construction, to be used in bigger vacuum chambers with proper vacuum-rated equipment (which Eagleworks themselves does not possess). But this will take time, because again, there's no budget assigned to this. Only discretionary funding - in other words, whatever can be scraped together by the lab leads.
Until that has happened, it is nonsense to claim anything proven. But it is similarly nonsense to claim anything bogus and wrong. There is no "doesn't work until proven otherwise" in science. There is only "works if proven to work, doesn't work if proven to not work". You need to prove either case. And neither has been conclusively proven yet. Despite repeated attempts, the Eagleworks team has failed to come up with an experimental setup where it doesn't work. At the same time the results, while appearing clearly above the noise floor, are not yet good enough to rule out errors.
There do however exist simulations that explain the experimental results - down to being able to accurately predict the result of an experiment before it's been run, and down to being able to explain the experimental results achieved by the Chinese team as well. The simulation does not break any known laws of physics; it simply makes an assumption about the behavior of the quantum field that goes against the commonly accepted assumption. It's important to keep in mind, however, that the behavior of said quantum field also falls under things that are not conclusively proven either way. Even the commonly accepted assumption is just an assumption. It can be wrong, it can be right. We don't know for sure.
And then it's possible that the simulation just happens to replicate the experimental effects even with a wrong assumption, because that wrong assumption just happens to work in the narrow range of results observed so far, but it stops working outside of that range. It's even possible that the simulation uses the wrong assumption to accurately predict something that actually works because of a different reason that nobody has considered yet. Sometimes, math works out that way.
In the meantime, until the slow process of un-funded science produces a conclusive result, we're left to speculate. There's nothing wrong with speculating, so long as you don't claim it for fact. I also believe that there's nothing wrong with cautious optimism, based on the data that Eagleworks has released so far (and they shared quite a lot, at least until recently). As of today, there has been more progress made toward explaining why it might work than there has been made towards proving that it doesn't work, despite attempts to achieve the contrary. This may change wth future experiments - but there will be time to discuss that in the future, when they are published.
So as I said, I am not angry or even upset.
My use of absolutes are carefully chosen. I never said EmDrive doesn't work for example. Where I use absolutes I mean them. Because they can't be ignored or more accurately if you do you are drifting into pseudoscience territory.
In fact as I read your post, I find that in general I agree with it. I am left to wonder if we talked past each other or something. So I am going to be explicit about what I disagree with...
I disagree with just one thing here. People insist on making statements beyond the reasonable limits they can. For example statements like "It is doing something" are totally false as point of fact. We don't know, we can't know, until we have results that are outside of the margins. Until that point, we have nothing concrete. I can answer any result claimed by anyone here with "It doesn't matter until it is outside the margins." That is not the same as claiming the device doesn't work. That is not the same as claiming the results are fallacious. As long as people are counting their chickens not just before they have hatched, but before the eggs have been laid, I am going to have issue. Any model that claims to explain the results that may or may not actually be there are nice. But if you can't even be sure you are modeling a real phenomenon they don't really help. Sure you can use them to inform what experiments to do next. But imagined results can follow any theory or model produced. Even the theory that faeries are how EmDrive works. You don't know whether you have imagined results until you are outside the margins. It is a failing of human perception, and it has hurt us before. That is why we are sceptical now.
And yes I can get a bit passionate with my speech. Sorry, I am human.
- - - Updated - - -
There was more I found in the article that was unfair, but I was sticking to that particular point (while ignoring a couple other ones that I felt were unfair) since it seemed even THAT was falling on deaf ears. There was no reason for the author to say that the hard vacuum test may have been falsified or mistaken. But it was being defended by Leszek, even though Leszek is convinced that it WAS tested in a hard vacuum. The only reason I can think of for that, is that Leszek could only see the larger picture, which is me defending the validity of the EM Drive itself. And since that points to me not being as skeptical as I should be, that means I'm wrong about everything I've said in this thread. That's a classic logical fallacy.
Hmm.
Perhaps I came off too far to one side. I have dealt with lots of pseudoscience topics before. In those cases, there are lots of claims by "paranormal investigators" and "UFOlogists" (Where did they go to school for that?) along lines that sound much the same as the claim they were tested in vacuum. I have learned long ago to be sceptical of such claims until the data is shown in peer reviewed journals. That is not because the people in question are telling falsehoods. It is not because the people in question are not scientists. (There are people with doctorates in pseudoscience.) It is because until you have someone really double checking your work under scrutiny it is very easy for very human scientists to fool themselves.
Having said that, I have real hard time with the idea that those involved were unable to tell if they had a vacuum or not. But as a point of principal, and perhaps too generally applied, I am loath to accept any claim until the data is shown. The trust that comes with that is abused so much so often by so many both deliberately and accidentally.
- - - Updated - - -
Sean Mirrsen
As I read your post I am sure you misunderstood the situation.
"So it was. So was Wood's change to the N-Ray experiments. The obvious difference being that Wood was running his experiments separately from the N-Ray experimenters, and the hypothesis he was testing, was that the N-Ray experimenters' experiment was hogwash."
Is wrong.
Blondlot, was running the experiment as a demonstration to other scientists. Wood removed the prism and the source from Blondlot's experiment without tell them. Blondlot and his assistant then proceeded to run the experiment with successful results anyway. The fact that the wood he put in as a source was the same kind of wood Blondlot already said didn't produce N-Rays, or that without the prism there was no way to focus said N-Rays onto the detector didn't stop the prism from focusing the N-Rays on to the detector and producing the required results.
So if I had gone to Eagleworks, and removed various required parts of the EmDrive without telling anyone, and the drive continued to work, that would demonstrate the results are imaginary.
-
/me looks up N-Rays on the Wiki.
Heh, this sounds familiar:
If Eagleworks gave in to the same sort of thinking, they would have abandoned the project after the first experiment with the removed slits.
A proper scientist aims to find out what is happening, rather than disprove a specific claim and leave it there.
I don't follow you. The experiment with the removed slits was a deliberate change to test a hypothesis. An analog to what Wood did would be to disconnect the power to the EmDrive and not tell anyone. If they then run the experiment and still detect thrust and space warping, that would be a definitive test of a different sort.
I actually find your post really interesting in that there were many problems with the N-Ray experiments. The whole thing would get you a failing grade in 1st year university if you tried it today. But as the saying goes, experience isn't something you get until right after you needed it. But even after all it's flaws, you managed to pick the one thing that was right and criticized it while talking about what a proper scientist would do. I hope you just skimmed the article quickly.
Anyway, I have to go now so I will not be responding to the other posts right away. But it is hard to miss the first line of the next post so I will just say that I am not angry. Not even a little. Exasperated a bit perhaps...but that is my fault.
PSA: Don't set your chutes to open at 50m. I just lost Val this way.
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
The stock IVA's all have radar altimeters installed. Err, they did before I think they still do.