Jump to content

Bill Phil

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,483

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bill Phil

    Devnote Tuesdays: The "Doin' the Work" Edition

    in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

    Posted

    On spotting the mistakes:

    1. The side liquid boosters have no fuel lines, making for bad asparagus staging.

    2. The side solid boosters are set to separate at the same time as the liquid boosters, even though they likely aren't synchronized.

    3. The retroburner sepratrons on the pod might not be big enough to deorbit the pod, but certainly are big enough to overheat the adjacent mystery goo.

    Asparagus staging isn't the only way, in fact, it's actually not a very good way because you have to make sure the TWR of the core is good enough.

    He's already confirmed what it was, I'm pretty sure it was staging.

    Those sepratrons are not capable of de-orbiting that capsule.

    And those sepratrons probably won't overheat the Goo cans as far as I know. Since there isn't an all part heat mechanic (as far as I know) it won't do anything at all.

    Nerf the LV-N

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    Or, better yet:

    Lower the default Kerbin science modifier.

    There's just too much in the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system, that there's no reason to even go to other planets except money, and there's plenty of test contracts and science from x-place or planting flags on x-body to keep you afloat.

    This has really been bothering me for a while... And I'm sure it's more than just me being bothered.

    They should be expensive, though. Nuclear reactors are by no means cheap.

    And add a very scientifically expensive pre-requisite node for nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel storage. That way it makes sense.

    Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Armor will be designed according to what the spacecraft is supposed to endure, and the rest of the spacecraft will be built around it. Both maximum acceleration, delta-V, and armaments will be considered for the final design, just like today's military jets.

    Also, any physical missile fired at a spacecraft doesn't have to be invisible to be problematic. It only needs to chase you around like an attack dog. The purpose of high acceleration capability is to avoid these.

    If the spacecraft is supposed to endure typical micrometeors and more, than it can survive a long time. Then you have missiles that easily be tracked, and easily avoided at a long distance. Now, the acceleration is not a big consideration due to the small change further out equals big change closer in law. Or whatever it's called.

    Chances are a missile won't have as much deltav as a full-fledged spacecraft, so the target can easily change it's velocity and get a completely different orbit. The missile most likely doesn't have the deltav to intercept.

    Although, if the missile is S-IVB sized....

    Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    In a military situation, high thrust/TWR is a very important consideration. It affects how well a particular spacecraft is able to avoid physical projectiles (anything that isn't a beam weapon). To simplify, the higher Gs the craft can pull, the more likely it is to evade a missile of some sort.

    That's assuming that pieces big enough to be a problem would be untrackable. And if you consider that some kind of armor would be used...

    It's much less of a problem than you would think.

    Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    There are technical considerations. For the same thermal power output from a reactor/combustion chamber, one can either get high thrust or high ISP, but not both. If both is needed, one would increase the reactor/chamber's output, either ruining the mass ratio, or if he added more propellant, maximum acceleration, negating the high thrust capability.

    High thrust isn't entirely necessary on solar system scales.

    It will all depend on the craft specifications.

    Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Bill Phil - until they start using nuclear reactors to power space craft, and then they have dV to spare for ion drives and other "electric propulsion" system, or even just NTRs

    Elfnet - "the recoil would most likely propel you back and probably cause you more damage by hitting something than the other person being shot by the bullet. The shell casing also would be propelled out and have enough velocity and be hot enough to burn into something critical or someone else. Every aspect of a firearm is"

    You've got to be kidding me. The recoil from a 9mm fired in space is not going to be harmful to you.

    You think recoil doesn't affect you on Earth? you thin air resistance stops you?

    No... its just not that much. It will cause you something like less than 0.01 m/s of a change in velocity.

    The casing will only be ejected at a few meters/second at most, and it won't do much burning.

    It will still lose heat due to black body radation, and its not all that hot to begin with.

    Just because that have high ISPs doesn't mean we can't have the same propulsion system, possibly with a higher mass ratio and thus more deltav.

    There is a weapon in development with no casings, actually, caseless ammunition has existed for a while, though that's not what I'm referring to.

    If I recall correctly, it's a weapon that's a tube with bullets stacked and it uses electricity to ignite the powder.

    Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    If you make a target in GEO evade, you've neutralised it.

    That's very true.

    In fact:

    If you can get a vehicle to evade you into another orbit that it's not planned for, it can no longer perform it's mission. That way it's neutralized. Perhaps that's what space combat will be. Forcing them to leave their target orbit at certain times could change everything about the mission.

    Say, if a nuclear-armed craft is on an Earth-Mars transfer, and you rendezvous with it, you can force it off its transfer trajectory significantly. And if you last long enough, the nuke ship will run out if propellant.

    Sounds more likely than gun to gun battles.

    Whay would real-life war spacecraft look like?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    It'll probably be a miniature version of the ISV Venture Star with some sort of propulsion system. Maybe GCNTR? Now that would be something...

    Actually, come to think of it, a highly elliptical orbit has more energy at Pe than a ~circular orbit, so if you perform a rendezvous like that, it could be used for space "dive bombing". The craft would probably be buses that carry super dense chunks of metal that is released a la MERV. Your station probably wouldn't survive that...

×
×
  • Create New...