1101
-
Posts
132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by 1101
-
-
27 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:
I've been experimenting with stacks of rotors to get extra torque, and attempted to reinforce it with a stock bearing to keep the top of the stack in place. But even so, I can't seem to break 100 m/s before the bearing slips and the prop blades start wobbling. But I can at least slow down and get it to pop back into place - usually with a stock prop once the bearing slips it's just broken.
Have you tried changing the rotor pitch? I made a similar addition to my multi fuselage design, but by far the biggest improvement was to change the pitch of the blades. I got up to 101m/s on a design that previously got 80 or so. Best to constantly change it during flight, the altered pitch produces basically no thrust at low speeds.
-
Experiments with the P-38 thing led to some improvements in speed, but testing of smaller motors gave this (Proof of concept, about 5-6 minutes of electricity, no fuel cells):
Somehow it was able to fly through the big R&D bridge:
Amusingly, landing turned out to be too much of a challenge. Approach started on the opposite bearing to this:
-
First 'nice' design:
There really isn't much speed in this thing. Was trying to use a P-38 style design with props rotating opposite directions, as KSP does seem to give a realistic torque effect. Also really nose heavy and gets through the batteries in about 90s, uses fuel cells to give endurance.
-
Does there seem to be 'something' venting from the top of the first stage earlier in the stream? T + 1:48 for example....
-
So... I just did a flood response course a few weeks back, and as a guideline our instructor said to assume that 'floodwater' is about 50% water.
The other 50% is whatever was formerly on the floor, every bit of debris, rubbish, excrement, hypodermic needle, disease, dirt, assorted chemicals, animals (alive, maybe) plus the contents of the drains. Obviously a tsunami is faster moving than your average (British) flood but the rule would hold for the water, where the hydraulic features aren't trying to kill you. The water can pin you under a vehicle (or a plane why not), against a fence, in a tree, inside a building if or when it gets in and that's just off the top of my head. If you're unlucky it could pull you down a manhole, the lid of which will be elsewhere.
So, my vote, is in the building, as far away as possible.
QuoteShould you look for a sturdy part of the building, maybe tie yourself to a roof pillar?
Nope!
Rope is almost as good at getting you drowned as the water itself.
-
Sure. You don't need stealth though, when you can get 4,000 tons into orbit....
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#id--Project_Orion--Orion_Battleship
https://www.deviantart.com/william-black/journal/Hard-SF-Feature-04-Scott-Lowther-504258455
The er, 'highlights', of which can be summarized as hundreds of RV nukes, and Naval guns.
SpoilerGod was knocking, and he wanted in bad.
WHAM
WHAM
WHAM
quiet
Footfall, Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle
-
On 6/19/2018 at 7:26 AM, CatastrophicFailure said:
Does that look like the face of madness to you? Just look at that face. No sign of a kerbelle gone mad there, no sir, right as rain!
Back away slowly, no sudden moves, and for Kerm's sake, whatever you do, do not break eye contact!
Did you just blink? Someone blinked. I just said no blinking! This could get awkward...Spoiler'Don't Blink. Blink and You're dead!'
'Don't look away. Don't turn your back, and don't blink'
'Good Luck!'
Now re-reading this, up to the first Rald stranding. It is a very good thread!
-
2 hours ago, YNM said:
Would just be passed as doomsday stuff.
There's no guarantee the dates or events would even line up.
Being from the country that had the tsunami AND the eruption, I'd say people here don't take too much notes. They are to be expected anyway.
http://indonesiaetc.com/in-memory-of-170000-indonesians-or-not/
(though i'd be amazed if the alternate verse is going to be better on us.)
Of course people will take it as doomsday stuff. But that isn't all bad. For starters, while it could be dismissed, there would still be the fact that someone had a really good guess on the effects of a large eruption such as that. And no one in 400AD or so could see worldwide events such as that, or do the cause effect analysis of volcanic winter.
The funny possibility exists, of course, that mainstream science/literature types would dismiss it, but some crazy conspiracy site somewhere would guess at the truth. And everyone else worldwide would be like 'That's Crazy!' when it is in fact true.
-
Didn't see the idea mentioned, so here is my idea:
Rather than encoding mathematics or anything like that, describing the past/future. My presence may change human history but it is likely that nothing we have done as a species changes geological events.
So, describe a significant, distinct catastrophe, and get it in, for example, the Book of Revelation. The 'Boxing Day' Tsunami of 2004 is a large enough event that could be used. Tambora's 1815 eruption and subsequent 'Year without a summer' could also work, as an example of holy wrath. Modern scholars could look at it and say that the author was just describing (actual) past events, but a detailed or sequential enough description might work:
"and then His wrath poured forth, and with it brought destruction through clouds of glowing fire. Those many leagues away could hear, the sky turned red and for a year none on his creation had summer"
Or something like that.
If around the time of the King James translation, encoding an actual, working Bible Code could work similarly. Use all major events you can think of to increase probability of it being detected, and possibly used:
Tambora 1815
Krakatoa 1883
Tunguska 1908(?)
San Fransisco Earthquake 1906
1960 Peru Earthquake
Mt St Helens 1980 (include detail of lateral blast)
2004 Earthquake and Tsunami
2010 Haiti Earthquake
2011 Japan Earthquake
2013 Chelyabinsk Meteor
And so on. I'm unlikely to influence human history, possibly include WW1 & 2, Moon Landing, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Loss of the Titanic, Tenerife Airport Disaster, Lockerbie Disaster, 9/11 etc. Even if history does change, if all those are included but I got everything else right, then the conclusion that a time traveler was involved could be reached.
If further back, i.e. before 0 AD or so, obvious problem is that your religion could die out first.
-
It looks like the flip starts when you turned on timewarp, which is known to give such effects on occasion. Also, you may want to use bigger wing parts/control surfaces near the back, which should give more authority there as well as pull the center of lift further back.
Prior to that, though, your speed was really dropping off, so you may need more engines or less mass...
-
Sorry to add a whole extra thing to think about, but the Drag Coefficient will also change depending on Mach number. It usually increases towards M = 1, then decreases again after and levels out after M = 1.2 or so. And the speed of sound itself changes with temperature, which varies depending on where in the atmosphere you are (decreases, then increases).
-
4 hours ago, YNM said:
Yeah.
But you could plan for floods. You could prepare for the wind. You could ameliorate the earthquakes. Not much to do for molten rocks.
The estates aren't a relic of distant past aren't they ? If they are, I wouldn't be too surprised (though I'd be surprised if the entire thing caught by surprise), but if it isn't, seems like a ridiculous oversight.
I also live in a place where people can't escape natural disasters (the lands are only here thanks to volcanoes, and the volcanoes are only here thanks to plate subduction), and we care freak-all about planning for such events, because most people can't even be sure whether they could eat in the next few month. We only care that our crops can grow, the livestock can graze and they aren't getting stolen. Even if that means going close to an active volcano, or living in floodbanks.
But I thought, this being the US, suurely they have raised their bars a bit ?
Well, they have raised their bars a bit in the on the spot hazard mitigation - no casualties from this event. The USGS have an absurd number of volcanoes to watch, including KIlauea, and have a good understanding of what is going on. To be fair that has been learned the hard way, for example with Mt St Helens (38 years ago to Yesterday!).
As for other countries, I can't overly say because I don't follow those as much, but the impression I get is that it really is a cultural thing. Places like Merapi for example seem to have a lot of people who are unwilling to move or can't move for a long period of time if a lengthy evacuation notice is placed. The reasons for that probably stray too close to politics for this forum.
Planning for floods, I can relate to that as I live near places that flood from tides or rain - and ultimately it does come down to prediction as much as anything else. If you can evacuate prior to the event, things can be rebuilt afterward. Evacs and resupplying for people who can't immediately ultimately comes down to relatively low cost, low risk approaches like wading with a boat and a team of first responders. Yeah, you need a helicopter for Hawaii.
And I believe some of the affected area in Hawaii is actually on a 1955 lava flow, so yes it has been affected before.
-
2 hours ago, YNM said:
I'm actually surprised they were allowed to build houses close to areas of possible fissures.
I was surprised too, but this explains it:
QuoteWhile the USGS prepared and made available the Lava-Flow Hazard Zone Map for general information and planning by land-use managers, there is no legislation requiring its use. The USGS provides hazard information but cannot advocate for, or require, its usage for a specific purpose. Thus, this question is best directed to the County of Hawai&3699; Planning Department.
from https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/faq_lava.html
Hazard map available here.
The main argument I've seen is that people build in floodplains, earthquake zones, tornado areas, hurricane areas etc too, but that feels more like a lack of geohazard planning being a species wide thing.
-
On 5/18/2018 at 9:17 AM, Gargamel said:
Chronologically maybe.... but as a reader who has never picked up a book, plot wise, the wrong book wouldn't make sense to me. Where should I start?
The Destiny's Children books (Coalescent, Exultant, Transcendent) should make sense by themselves, more or less. I started with the big 'Xeelee: Omnibus' book, which has Raft, Timelike Infinity, Flux and Ring.
-
I daresay many people here are aware of Kilauea currently erupting, but for anyone who doesn't know, here was a livestream (not sure when it ended):
Current Status of the whole situation here, courtesy of USGS.
Map as of about mdnight (UTC) 19th May:
Thermal map, base image is not current, but Thermal was as of about 0100UTC 19/5:
Lighter colours are hotter. On the right where it is labeled as stalled it would seem to be poking through again - will be interesting to see the next image.
-
On 5/25/2016 at 3:54 AM, Kuzzter said:
Well, unlike Earth's CV-6 the KSS Enterprise was not intended to be a warship. Even before Year Zero the Kerbin Kerbals are goofy and non-violent... but if "history had gone a different way" and, say, there had been an "accident" involving explosive decouplers, well, who knows?
Guessing that would be the relevant quote then....
Or, your edit and post of the start of the prelude, that too.
-
On 5/14/2018 at 7:32 PM, Torgo said:
He used a tool to intimidate, if not injure or kill another creature. Like a monkey grabbing a bone and using it as a club on an animal it's going to eat, or on another monkey, this bridge has now been crossed and can't be uncrossed. Has he now become the monster from which he was trying to save his crewmates? Will they ever be able to look at him, or themselves, the same way again?
Not sure on the exact canon as far as this story is concerned, but I assumed that Kerbals gave up violence after some sort of cataclysmic war, which explains all the rocket parts that are 'found lying by the side of the road'.
-
1 hour ago, Kuzzter said:
We've finally reached the point of decision: can Kerbals use violence to save themselves? And will they? In other words--as Sean "never bring a knife to a gunfight" Connery also said in The Untouchables-- "what are [they] prepared to do?"
"Don't [BLEEP!] with the
CultureKerbals"QuoteYou might call them soft, because they’re very reluctant to kill, and they might agree with you, but they’re soft the way the ocean is soft, and, well; ask any sea captain how harmless and puny the ocean can be
-
17 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:
I'm not understanding this simpily because of the lack of mathematical signs.
20 lb ÷ 0.167 ÷ what exactly = 20 Ib and that's where you completely lost be I'm not following simpily because their are no math symbols. Can you please use words instead.
I think it is 20 pounds divided by 0.167 pounds burned per second is equal to a specific impulse of 120 seconds.
Or, 20 lb/0.167lb.s-1 = 120s
-
26 minutes ago, DAL59 said:
I think, technically, they can both win.... and the structural integrity of FH loses...
-
24 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
There are actually more significant changes. Apollo 11-13 used a constant mixture ratio in the Saturn V first stage, but Apollo 14-17 and Skylab used a variable mixture ratio. By burning more oxy-rich at launch and more fuel-rich later on, the F-1 engines had a higher TWR at liftoff and a higher isp at the end of the burn. I'm actually surprised that the difference was only three seconds.
I did kind of skim read those documents - one thing of note was that Skylab apparently got higher Isp (and about 18m/s more dV) than expected. I didn't know that the S-IC could change mix ratio, for some reason thought that was just the J-2 stages. Back to SpaceX I guess...
-
25 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
However, for a lighter payload, the launch stack will be higher, faster, and further downrange at MECO, because it has been lifting less mass. The mass of the payload is only a few percent of the total vehicle mass, of course, so the difference isn't going to be huge, but it's measurable.
As an example, a comparison of Apollo 11 to Skylab 1 gives some interesting results - 3 second shorter S-IC burn time for Skylab, but peak accelerations prior to CECO/MECO were ~4.4g for skylab, ~3.9g for Apollo 11 with it's squishy LM and humans. Skylab MECO velocity was 2,565.3m/s, Apollo 11 2,402.7m/s.
Figures from the Flight Evaluation reports for both missions:
So overall Delta-v would be really similar for S-IC performance across both launches (only 150m/s difference), burn times nearly identical. I presume small increments in mission procedures and payload type (crewed vs uncrewed) are other causes for the differences.
So, as burn time is a function of tank size and fuel burn rate, more or less the same for most (non-recoverable) boosters.
SpaceX, I get the impression at least, flies steeper (especially for RTLS) to give the second stage more time for a longer burn, and reduce velocity to be removed for recovery, but correct me if I'm wrong.
-
9 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:
That’s (I think) the biggest engine in my save on a 10 meter booster. Finding a payload even worthy of that will be a challenge (although it does show some promise as a moderately useful SSTO...).
Add more mods! Like Ol' Boom Boom. Or Sea Dragon!
And congrats on landing somewhere as evil as Venus. Did you spot any runaway greenhouses?
-
On 2/27/2018 at 12:27 PM, roboslacker said:
What are the fleas for?
Probably to ensure an explosion, in the event of unplanned nominal behaviour.
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
"1000, as all seats would be “coach” & no toilets, pilot area or food galley needed. "
That would be an ICBM that could MIRV Tsar Bombas, then....