Bill Phil
-
Posts
5,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Bill Phil
-
-
43 minutes ago, WestAir said:
The first biologically immortal human will not be able to relate to the rest of us at all; He or she will be making plans for how to watch the Ocean's boil, or starting research on how to survive the decay of his or her protons. Money, politics, even simple things like birthdays would be an absolutely ridiculous concern. This person could spend 200 years watching glass droop like a fluid, just because.
What's really interesting is what happens when a decent portion of society becomes biologically immortal.Biological immortality doesn’t mean they won’t die. Death by non-biological (and even some biological) means is still very possible.
-
Eh.
I’d forego any surface settlements at all. No real point to it.
We can build orbital habitats instead. Once such a technology is mature they could even be used as vehicles to emigrate populations to other places. Settlements built with material from the Moon and some asteroids may find themselves in orbit over a far off planet.
Ceres might make a decent destination for such an emigrating habitat - if it can self replicate and build more habitats at Ceres then it could be worthwhile.
But to get to that point we’d need to develop orbital habitat technology.
-
2 hours ago, Entropian said:
Woah, you really think so? What about asteroid mining, He3 scooping, and 0g crystal growth? (seriously, 0g crystal growth would be extremely profitable)
Asteroid mining is only useful for space industries and He-3 is not worth mining at all. At least not on the Moon. And even if we had a perfect and highly pure source of He-3, we don’t have the technology to use it.
0g crystal growth could be profitable but you need large infrastructure and an ability to return said crystals to Earth in large numbers.
-
1 hour ago, Vaporo said:
So, I haven't been on this forum in a while. I burned out on KSP a few years ago, and since I was starting college I had other priorities.
However, a few months ago I officially graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Aerospace Systems Engineering, and in part I have this game to thank for inspiring me to pursue this path. Unfortunately, with current events™ the Aerospace industry has taken a bit of a hit, so I'm still looking for a job (By the way, does anyone here happens to be looking to hire a structural FEA or Systems engineer in the Aerospace field?). Today though, I happened across this gem of a job posting:
To my knowledge, KSP can only mean one thing, and although they're asking for someone with a lot more experience, that alone has convinced me to put in an application. So, wish me luck!
Download GMAT real quick if you haven't - it's free and you can simulate missions with it. Maybe try and learn it a little as well.
-
8 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:
1g acceleration wouldn't get you out of the gravity wells of the giant planets, which is the biggest hurdle in acquiring resources from other planets. Much easier to return resources from asteroids. But if you return large quantities of rare resources and dump them on the Terran market, the prices would plummet, cutting into or destroying any profit.
My strategy would rely on that. Platinum and other platinum group metals are extremely useful catalysts for many industrial processes, but are too expensive for widespread use. For instance, much research has gone into reducing the amount of platinum needed for fuel cells. I would deliberately crash the price of platinum, with a production line ready to crank out consumer fuel cells and other devices that could make use of abundant, cheap platinum, and profit that way.
Gold and other rare metals may have similar uses. For example hohlraums for IC fusion power use gold and other high Z materials... abundant gold could lower the price of fusion power.
But other materials could be used for the hohlraum too.
-
27 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:
Come now...are you saying there is NOTHING special the other planets have in abundance that we do not?
And futuristic processing equipment is not given.
Whichever company makes the MOST profits in a decade will be allowed to keep their ships.
The others will be returned to the benefactors... who place a high value on earning profits. They only want to see who on Earth is worthy of their technology.
Thus the test.
And yes this a totally contrived tale for the sake of discussion.
Production for profit is a mode of production that necessitates exactly that - production. Not just acquisition of natural resources. Without production, and markets, profit is not really possible.
The thing is it will be easier, on a timetable of ten years, to get those resources on Earth. Because you still need large amounts of capital even if you have the spaceships to go anywhere in the solar system. So you might as well just let the ships sit in a warehouse and invest in highly profitable Earth based enterprises. Maybe fly a few ships to keep up appearances.
It isn't an issue of other planets, moons, or asteroids having resources in abundance. It's that we also have those resources in abundance and we already have the infrastructure to process them here. So there's no reason to go to space for resources. The only real things worth doing in space are producing things that benefit from the free fall environment, like crystals and some other materials. Indeed, establishing a space-based industry would likely be the most profitable thing that can be done. Producing satellites, probes, telescopes, space vehicles, and other products would be the only really profitable business. Space tourism may work out fairly well too, though, if the operating costs are extremely low. But you'd also need spacesuits and stuff.
Basically, these benefactors need to have a much larger timetable if they want to really gauge who will make the most profit. Something around 25 years or longer.
-
The best bet would be to create a new economy in space, perhaps by creating space settlements, and then be part of the class which benefits the most from the economic driving forces.
Bringing resources back to Earth isn't really that profitable and is a short term way to make quick cash. But long term you need another source of money flow. Because you need to still process these resources the profit margins might be larger than Earth based extraction but not by a tremendous amount. Unless "our benefactors" provide us with systems to process these resources.
-
8 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:
I'm moving into college today. I don't feel ready for this, hopefully I'll do okay.
Yikes. What a year to start college. Good luck man.
-
3 minutes ago, catloaf said:
The fact is Duna is better, any saving gained from the transfer to Eve can be remedied at Duna, because you can aerobrake without specialized hardware, so you don't need to lug around heat shields or extra fuel. Also, Duna isn't that hard to hit, especially with mods like transfer window planner.
You don’t need extra fuel, it’s just helpful for extra margin to make up for mistakes. There’s no saving in going to Eve, you’re looking at two different missions with two different rockets.
Again, a Mun rocket can do a Gilly mission. No aerobrake needed. No changes needed - only new science experiments and probably getting rid of landing legs. But the rocket itself would be the same. The only changes are on the lander - and they’re minor changes. Some extra fuel would be helpful. Maybe a heat shield if you’re worried but you can get rid of most of the ablator. But it isn’t strictly necessary.
-
7 minutes ago, noname_hero said:
I don't know how long you've been playing KSP, but I'd guess you have lots of experience. I don't, because I only bought it like last October or so. And I'm afraid your experience makes it more difficult for you to imagine yourself in a newbie-ish player's place. Duna is newbie-friendly. You need next to no inclination changes, a Poodle is enough to get you there and back, parachutes work, your skills do transfer pretty well and I've actually posted a picture of a Duna lander here that's basically a Mun lander with more Terriers.
A newbie-ish player can land on Duna, plant a flag, get the satisfaction of *finally* making it to another planet, and get those kerbonauts back home alive. Bonus points for visiting Ike.
Eve is a torture chamber that first tries to fry you if you attempt an aerocapture and then mocks you for your inability to leave should you try to plant that flag. You as a player learn next to no new skills when visiting Gilly compared to visiting Ike.
Sure, one can visit Eve and land on Gilly with low tech and farm science there. But the learning curve is steeper and the emotional reward much smaller.
Duna may be friendly to newcomers but Eve is easier to get to - probes and orbiters are easier. It's the easiest to get to but the hardest to get off of. Which is why I recommend going for Gilly. Eve is easy to get to and then you go to Gilly.
You need inclination changes sure. But you need that for Minmus too. So you should have that down already.
A Poodle can get you to Eve and back easy. In fact I recommend using 1.25 meter parts - you don't need 2.5 meter parts for Gilly.
Eve is only a torture chamber if you try to aerobrake and land. Which is why I'm saying don't try to. If you're going for Gilly you just brake into a highly elliptical orbit. Then it's easy (in terms of delta-v) to go back to Kerbin. This is because Gilly is so high up in Eve's gravity well that a lot of the work is already done.
Players learn plenty of new skills if they go to Gilly as their first interplanetary trip. Dealing with small SOIs, dealing with inclination changes if they haven't already, dealing with immensely low gravity, and returning to Kerbin from higher orbits. In fact I would argue that Duna-Ike has much fewer new skills - no need to change inclination as you previously mentioned, Ike is very similar to the Mun, and Duna just adds a thin atmosphere. But the low gravity of Gilly is more challenging than the thin atmosphere of Duna if you ask me, if only because you have to be more precise.
As you mention Duna is more friendly to new players. And that's part of why I recommend Gilly. Because Duna is too friendly. It's too easy, just another rock. Gilly has much lower gravity which necessitates a more precise play style on it - which is a skill that is useful in general. And you can use a Mun rocket. Which is another reason. You don't have to spend much time in the VAB at all - you can just add some fuel, science, and go (waiting for the transfer window, of course). Then it becomes more about your piloting skill and not your building skills. It's because it's a bit more challenging than Duna but also can be done with a rocket you already have that I recommend it. The total difficulty taking into account both game aspects is less. Gilly can be done with a rocket you already have.
I may be unique, but I have much more fond memories of my Gilly mission than my Duna mission. I'm still proud of my screenshot where you can see the shadow of a Kerbal and his spaceship against the surface. One of the best missions I've ever flown. And with Eve in the sky it's incredibly beautiful.
-
27 minutes ago, catloaf said:
But Eve's inclination makes it harder, plus Ike is much closer to Minmus than Gilly (in terms of landing procedure.) As you can see though, it doesn't really matter which you pick, especially if you don't plan to land. Once you do either a mission to Eeloo or one of Jool's moons is I your grasp and you can complete the tech tree, however, I think Ike is better for beginners because it's simpler even though it may require a little more dV. Although it may be unnecessary, once you unlock the nerv a mission Eeloo or Bop is very much possible, and even a Jool 5 for a skilled player. Also it depends on if you can dock or not, if you can you can do Gilly, Ike, Dres, Duna or Bop, and if not it's best to do Gilly.
Eve is the easiest planet to get to, it's SOI is quite large and it takes the least delta-v to escape Kerbin.
-
37 minutes ago, catloaf said:
I actually prefer doing Ike to Gilly, you can still build a very small lander, but getting to Duna is easier, because you can safely aerobreak, the mission profile I use is having all my science on the Ike lander, as well as my Kerbin re-entry capsule, and only leave tanks in low Ike orbit, and use two radial nerv engines as my propulsion for the entire mission beyond lko.
Wow, a textbook run on sentence! I will keep it (because I'm lazy!)
Aerobraking may not be safe at Eve but it's mostly unnecessary - just get as close as you can to the atmo without going into it and then use engines to brake into a highly elliptical orbit. After all, the plan is to go to Gilly anyways, so why brake all the way into Low Eve Orbit? Just brake into an extremely elliptical orbit and then circularize at apoapsis. Then plan a transfer to Gilly. Can do it with a little more than a Minmus rocket since Eve takes less delta-v than Duna to transfer to. Total delta-v to Gilly should be less than Ike by a few hundred m/s. Aerobraking can change this, but Gilly takes less to land on. Plus Eve's SOI is massive so it's a lot easier to encounter. For beginner interplanetary missions, a mission to Eve is a good one. Then you can practice rendezvous with Gilly and get Eve orbit science.
-
Eve and Gilly - Gilly has a few biomes and is incredibly easy to get off of. It's also incredibly easy to brake into Eve orbit. Though I'm not recommending landing on Eve - just Gilly.
Then Duna and Ike.
-
10 hours ago, Fraktal said:
From what I've seen so far, "crap compared to the previous series" is applied to literally every single Star Trek entry past the original series. When TNG came out, it was crap and TOS was good; when DS9 came out, it was crap but TNG was suddenly the holy grail; when VOY came out, it was crap but DS9 was suddenly good drama; when ENT came out, it was crap but VOY was suddenly good; when Discovery came out, it was polcorrect SJW crap but ENT suddenly became an under-appreciated gem gone too early; around the time when Picard started airing, people suddenly started saying Discovery finally found its own identity.
So to an outsider who's never seen any of it, the nostalgic bellyaching surrounding every single entry post-TOS sounds hollower than an empty fuel tank. And more than a little annoying too. I've been eyeing the franchise for getting into it for a few years now, but by god is the fandom's general attitude so frakking toxic. And people wonder why I watch Gundam instead...
Yo, Gundam is epic. I would say I like it more than Trek (the Gunpla I've bought should attest to that and I don't think I have any Trek merch). But I think it suffers from similar issues - some people don't like ZZ or Unicorn, for example. And Gundam has its own timeline problems as well, thus why alternate timelines exist... G Gundam, Wing, SEED, IBO, and so on.
Fandoms generally don't like new stuff - it's all too easy to dissatisfy fans. At least diehard fans. Every sequel ever made suffers from this, which is why few are considered to be good - not that they're bad movies but they're bad sequels. There are exceptions like Terminator, though. But those exceptions still had to deal with backlash.
-
6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
If the Earth is round (let alone non-flat), how do we know four cardinal directions?
Have you ever seen a circle with angles?Yup. Spherical trig is not for the faint of heart.
-
Eh. I'm not a big fan of Elon and his ventures (for a variety of reasons).
I would rather KSP work with more space programs and scientists, as well as focus on graphics and bugfixes. Maybe a few more DLC if they think they can add new and fun gameplay elements (a colony DLC would be interesting, though that might be better understood as an expansion and perhaps better left to KSP2).
-
41 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:
Not by much. Enough that there was little novelty to be found. Didn't they even tangle with the Borg? Who were so far away that the only reason Next Gen met them 200 years later was because Q zipped them 7000 light years and back? Similarly, the Ferengi were supposed to be so far away that Next Gen had only heard of them by rumor at first encounter, but here they are poking around in Earth's front yard. This is like having the Olmecs stroll into Sumeria one day.
I think you're willfully ignoring the problems the other shows had. TNG's early days were pretty bad too, but it got better.
Funnily enough, the Borg thing actually made sense. They were remnants from the Borg attack during First Contact (that is, the movie). And it was pretty clear that the Enterprise crew and Earth never really learned anything about the Borg - it was just an event that happened. Not to mention that the Borg were in Federation space long before Q yeeted the Enterprise to that cube - the destruction of many outposts along the Romulan Neutral Zone was later revealed to be the work of the Borg. This was in TNG.
And the Borg were aware of the Ferengi seemingly before they were aware of humanity (assuming their species designations are sequential) - so I'm not really surprised at them showing up.
1 hour ago, Nuke said:yea i kind of expected a lower tech star trek than what we ended up getting. it didn't really have that many memorable episodes either. i think we should let enterprise rest.
I can think of a few memorable episodes. The pilot, the first Xindi attack, the alternate timeline where the Xindi destroyed Earth, the episode about Vulcans on Earth in the 1950s, the one about Archer breaking the warp barrier with his friend, the mirror universe episode (with the Defiant from TOS!!!), the alternate WWII episodes, the Borg episode, the one where T'Pol goes crazy, the freighter episodes, the Romulan episode, the second to last episode, and the series finale.
It probably is best to let Enterprise rest - I prefer sequels to prequels anyways. But I think it is better than it gets credit for. I think there's a safe argument that it's not as good as other Trek shows, that's fair. But I think it was mostly better than, say, early TNG.
-
5 hours ago, Dragon01 said:
Creation, yes (because you can't create energy with antimatter, anyway). Storage, no, because it's the most mass-efficient way to store energy, plain and simple. It may also be the most volume-efficient, assuming the containment gear is not huge. For things where this matters, like spacecraft and weapons, this is the best choice there can be.
That may not be the case depending on the technology available. Certain particles in certain theories of particle physics can essentially convert mass directly into energy - no antimatter required.
-
12 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:
Hmmm... what if I had a few tons of antimatter at my disposal... or is it time to throw in the towel and admit defeat already?
LOL.
If you have antimatter you’ve already created matter - the process that creates antimatter also creates matter.
And this process is incredibly inefficient.
-
6 hours ago, tater said:
Like many shows (or novels like The Martian), all it takes is a little thought, sometimes just changing a line of dialog. For the travel times, have them say, "How long will this take?" as exposition (gov types watching a screen, they're definitionally dumb). Answer can be, "About a week, we'll call you back to the CIC when it's time." Switch to other events. Switch back, clothes changed on the gov people (military obviously in uniform). Dunno what they did about that smashed base from things in orbit in the book (trying to not do spoilers). Add a space elevator that can fall (just a moon)?
The slingshot? Just set everything up with it taking more time do do everything is the only way, then he comes back and it takes weeks... Maybe there's a trajectory that lets him do some real burns very close to Jupiter in a way that masks it so it take less time?
What sucks is that I can usually think of solutions in real time, while I am watching. And they don't change the story, and likely add very little in new scenes.
The books are generally better about how much time it takes to do things.
-
21 hours ago, KerikBalm said:
[snip]
My understanding is that it’s intended to alter the bulk magnetic properties of the material - cesium was investigated as a working fluid for MHD generators and is used in some magnetometers.
-
1 hour ago, Gargamel said:
Since some of you are going to be entering college in the near future, I'll again plug Alpha Phi Omega, the national co-ed service fraternity based on the Scout Oath and Laws. When you're doing your campus tours, ask about visiting a chapter (if they have one, most do), the brother's (male and female) there would be more than happy to meet you. It's like Scouts for college kids, but with less camping (That's what the outdoor clubs are for!).
I joined the Unit College Scouter Reserve, which is another option if you want to stay involved with a troop.
-
One light year is around 64 thousand AU - or about 9.6 trillion km.
It would only take about two years to cross one light year at 1 g assuming you brake halfway through and only using a Newtonian model - but you would get relativistic in that flight.
The Oort cloud is extremely low density - not quite as low as interstellar space but it’s close.
If you can solve interstellar travel you can solve traversing the Oort cloud.
-
Tidal acceleration - Deimos is above synchronous orbit so it gets pulled along by Mars’ slight bulge. Phobos is below synchronous orbit so it’s undergoing tidal deceleration - it’ll fall into Mars over time and pass the Roche limit.
In a point mass model this is indeed impossible, but astronomical bodies are not point masses.
Something similar is happening to every moon in the system - Titan was recently discovered to experience a much larger tidal acceleration than previously believed.
Shower thoughts
in The Lounge
Posted
Well they’ll still be able to relate to us. Likely won’t expect to see the oceans boil either, and almost definitely won’t live long enough to really care about proton decay.