Arugela

I put a bunch of shock cones so I could come in backwards and slow down for reentry.

I think I saw something about new graphics and whatnot. Do any of the settings in game make it offload partially to the GPU over CPU in a way that would give less overhead to the massive single CPU thread used for the ship. I'm trying to fly a large ship. Does anything besides the lowest settings give extra performance? Or do any of the graphics settings use the GPU instead of the CPU to allow better graphics without harming the ship performance of larger vessels?

Is it an ironic joke about not using the main folder being like not having a working parachute?!

As the title says. Does this still work in 1.11?

Do any of the new additions offload stuff to the gpu over the cpu?

Would painting them technically solve the problem. They could still mess things up flying over the area you are recording. Not familiar with the specifics mind you.

I figured out dres's purpose while doing mining vehicles many versions ago. It is or was a source of guaranteed near maxed sized asteroids and one point in the game. The point of dres was to get to minimal orbit and then capture or hook onto a roid and mine. Anything else you could probably do with a smaller vehicle. I think they have added bigger roids since. So, I'm curious if it has bigger one's now or if there is a new spot for the even larger asteroids. NVM, everyone else mentioned this. It's a great spot for very large mining vehicles. Or just very large vehicles on the way around the solar system. If you have the delta V. End story: It technically has moons. It has spawnable mini moons.

Doing random math in a video game. Trying to figure out how to figure out a bunch of numbers added in succession with changing values. Ran into two things. Might be useful in some circumstances. No zero value: Odd: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45 This value works out to the end number times the middle number. 4 in each direction is 5. 9x5 is 45. Even: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 55 This also works out and even numbers are 5 and 6. So 10x5.5=55 Zero value: Even number: (odd sequence) 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8=36 In this version you take the middle value and multiply by the end number and then add it as well. 8x4=32+4=36 Odd number: (even sequence) 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45! 9*4.5=40.5+4.5=45! Not sure how to easily add in complex changes in numbers. This c0uld act as the basis for a formula to add to things besides +1. Another defining feature of this is that the numbers are all additions of the same value. 0+10=10, 1+9=10, 8+2=10, 7+3=10, 6+4=10. So it's 10*5+5=55. (5/6 previous. 66.) 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45 10x4+5 (9/11 previous) 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8=36 10x3+5+1 (4/5 previous) 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28 10x2+5+1+2 (7/9 previous) 0+1+2+3+4+5+6=21 10x1+5+1+2+3 (3/4 previous) 0+1+2+3+4+5=15 10x0+5+1+2+3+4 (4+1=4, 2+3=5) (5/7 previous)(3/2) 0+1+2+3+4=10 10x0+1+2+3+4 (2/3 previous) 0+1+2+3=6 10x0+1+2+3 (3/5 previous) 0+1+2+=3 10x0+1+2 (1/2 previous) 0+1=1 10x0+1 (1/3 previous) 0=0 (0/1, 0/-1, -0/1, -0/-1 previous?) 0-1=1 10x0-1 (-1/3 previous If mirrored downward. If coming from positive I'm not sure of the relationship.) Some of this has to do with 10 base, but the rest is neutral. In some cases the numbers add back up to 10 like 5+2+3 with more than two numbers or 5 with 2 numbers.

If that is true it just means absolute 0 isn't really the absolute limit and we have to reexamine things. You can never assume a theory is the correct answer for observation. Observation can be caused by things much more complex or different than what you think atm. You need more observation and as much as possible to try to get the tiniest chance of every truly being correct. It would be fun as we would find new things to mess with and expand on our current knowledge/technology.

I'm sure I'm missing the nuances of this, but if electricity can be turned into magnetism. Then the answer is yes. You can simply convert to electricity then magnetism. Make an electromagnet from the solar power. Which I assume we do all the time. Couldn't you use electricity to power permanent magnets also and use them like batteries. I'm assuming they are less efficient than other sources unless they can stay powered longer than normal batteries. Either way maybe they could be used for both electricity and magnet features? No idea what amount you need to power such magnets though.

Yes you can. If current design is 80% of max potential from a physics standpoint you can design it to 85%...

You are missing what I am saying. Yes, if you just put the bullets gas back in it might be a problem. I'm assuming you put more gas from a new source to replace it. IE add to the system. A secondary source of gas or pressure to replace the explosion from the bullets material. I'm taking from a design standpoint. The question then is does going to soley external sources of propellent then outweigh just the bullets and moving the bullets with no inherent powders or something else. And the sole reason for not doing so it not just efficiency. Hypothetically efficiency doesn't even matter with a gun. You can choose to go with the design regardless for any reason. It can be as simple as public being used to it or the reverse and thinking it's cool or choosing one parameter as better than another. Or the companies not wanting to switch or spend money on new things because of potential unforeseen problems. There are endless reasons. The reason I'm stating nebulous things is because the realities are nebulous. Like cost of materials etc. And gains are not necessarily incremental if you consider the current implementation is not near efficient.

No, it does. That was the point. I'm assuming if you want you can improve other aspects to regain efficiencies with more work in other ways or leave as is. Like better barrel muzzling or custom bullets to go through it at extra lengths to achieve the original performance. You could even improve the part where you collect the gas. There should logically be means of improvement if going for pure performance. If you want to go through the hassle. Were not advanced enough to out of means to improve something. Not counting cost. the power provided by anti matter might make room for some functional things. Or bring up new necessities in practice. Considering the increase of the scale of it's uses. The conversation started in a discussion about dark matter engines. I assumed this was reasonable to do. Here is an idea. Pre chamber the/a gas. Do so without shooting a bullet. Then use the gas after powering the other features to push behind the bullet to keep the original performance. Or as close as possible.(this could go towards a system with the gas not in the bullet like a pea shooter or paint gun then.) Yes, this adds weight or something(maybe). But you can do it. I don't see where the argument is against this. Cost is a factor but it might be usable by the time you are running much more powerful rockets. You will probably need it when doing manned mission as you need a lot of other things anyway. You can prioritize function as you might be going x-y for mars or something and the safety backups outweigh the basic ship design. Especially if these functions are then part of a system on the planet or in orbit as a safety function in case of problems on the ground. It goes into other areas depending on what it is as the systems scope increases. Current designs are primarily around shorter missions. You will get drastically different realities as we try to go farther than LEO. All sorts of other things will come in changing efficiency to things like raw materials at lower efficiency for instance. We will not be playing with the same rocket designs potentially. If you can mine or reuse things you got more options. Our current environment is from a limited reality of buying or making parts in a very specific limited fashion/ecosystem. That can change in may ways. You could already run into this if someone donated a bunch of materials. You can then use it at lower expenses from weight in a bigger craft. Or other realities depending on the materials that could easily break design models. Priorities change. A lot of things come from existing fab equipment costs or whatever. Those realities can all change drastically. Especially if you start mining in space. You are not considering enough factors and how much of a difference there can be as we expand or any other circumstances. There are probably tons of thing we can do now we are stupidly ignoring. Either from just using existing things because of hassle. Or an assumption we can't do better and not looking farther. Why can't we make light weight fabs in space on the ISS. We have existing methods that can be used and fit the normal paradigm of light weight space construction. We are not trying much. All of them are very mature technologies and decades to centuries old or older. But nobody is doing it. We could send very light weight materials up saving rocket cost or payload weights for that purpose and make probes in space saving many other factors. But we choose not to do so. Ironically, the opposite of traditional realities of scientific experiments. You could literally make small probes with cheap materials and even fabrication parts that could fit in an astronauts pockets... But we choose not to. Over very expensive very heavy probes. I can only imagine the reason.(I assume it's because of things that should not be factors.) Vacuum chambers are a lot cheaper and lighter in space. They cost and weigh less than a screen door! 8) If you have small and cheap probes. Assuming size is a factor. You can do lots of things we can't because of money constraints. And yes, we can do this now! Here's about as cheap as it gets. You want a hull. Take up a bag of hefty trash bags!!! That is an extreme example but NASA in general is no way past doing that in ground experiments... Why do we need only multi ton or 100's of pound gold covered satellites when we could get away with much less and much more. There are things that could last longer than a trash bag too. Take actual spider or silk to the ISS from the silk bugs and use it's tensile strength and spray with titanium to make rods to build with on a very small scale. You can use tiny spools of materials to do it and make a probe. Just make tiny ion engines or something and have a blast. Get live observation over every planet and keep a live map and dedicate our resources to keeping a constant scan on all objects in the solar system. Or for other research projects. We have the ISS. We should probably use it to it's fullest while it's still there. Unless we just want to go back to the stone age. BTW, we could get much lighter coatings of gold also if fabricated in space. Or I'm assuming we can. If not maybe cheaper. Unless it something about getting very exact application over loosing materials in the process. Assuming you can drop the hull mass. Hypothetically you can get other qualities including cheaper engines even if the are less efficient. This could save cost or be convenient. Especially if you can use extra cheap materials. I don't understand why we make satellites out of heavy ground base materials like large metal rods. Why do we even need a solid structure. I'm sure some of it is for longevity, but if it's cheap enough you can simply repair. Does it help enough to avoid getting hit by debri with the speeds involved? Maybe stuff that is designed not to spread easily that is super light weigh. Or is likely to contact and connect with itself to be easily collectible. Or something that is just like an airbag that can have stuff go through it. Preferably with low debri or easily collected or destroyed debri. We seem to be making things out of the worst possible materials and criteria because of ground manufacturing and who knows what else. Here is an idea. Deeps space hubble 2.0. Make super light weight structures like I mentioned above(replace with better if needed.) then make a massive mirror out of super light weight materials and coat in space with titanium or copper or gold. Make an array of these at the top/bottom/other important gravitational places in the solar system and make a massive hubble array for cheap. Or simply a bigger one. I'm either missing something or we are seriously lacking in ambition and imagination. Is there a quality problem with the coating process? I would imagine you could make good enough equipment to make a massive array in space. Nasa has the budget probably. And the part doesn't need to be big potentially. I imagine a small satellite/probe in space is ideal for this type of manufacturing. Or could be made to be so. You could probably make a better lighter base than that glass also. Maybe even more precise.

I think you are missing the point. You do not have to collect all the gases. You just have to need to collect some of it badly enough to be viable design. Hence you are not stopping the thrust. Just some of it. This is useful when one thing is prioritized over another. This is probably more useful as you get more complex engines overriding simpler ones. And why can't you design specialized inner engine chambers to recycle an oxidizer or something in the process of burning potentially? It could even be shaped to help with efficiency. It's just a matter of knowing how. Current designs are not the peak of what can be done. I'm assuming you can cake the walls with it via something simple potentially for a possible use with modern rockets. You could then add into that point or design around a process using physical features of the rockets walls and possibly injection to recycle in a simpler manner. Assuming there is a process usable to do so. Or whatever works. It's not necessarily the gases. It could be anything collected to expand tanks or anything else. It's just a generic example. Whatever allows functional expansion of the tanks or similar. Even more generic than that actually.

That technically isn't the definition of a planet though. That is the real problem here. Just stated why that is. See, when you use a word from another language in a new language, especially in formal use, it's best to not change it's definition and just do the right thing.(It sort of creates confusion.) Problem solved.

The base problem looks like it comes from the fact that originally, "planet," was based on observable patterns of movement in the earths sky. This could be retained as a definition and then use other words to amend it for different systems like mass or whatnot we have since adopted. It's a problem caused by, "scientists," who can't keep their definition straight and use sloppy means to name things. It's a simple problem and an issue with redefining terms with no new definition. Their fault. I state above how to fix it in detail. Planet remains a word based on it's original orientation and a system of earth based observational patterns. IE it's pattern in the sky and not mass or newer features. Other terms are amended to then display mass or other needed words per the conversation. I believe this is how latin works. Just in english or whatnot. (Depending on the terms used.) So, if it's still in the same observable pattern defining planets from earths viewpoint then it's still a planet. but it has other terms for mass or diamter you then add as desired.... Micro, mid diameter, planet.... Assuming those words have specific ranges of exact measurements. All they did is stupidly reuse a word, "INCORRECTLY," that had nothing to do with the new measurement system the word was being reapplied to. This is as simple a problem as it gets. If they can not figure this it out, remove their degrees and kick them out of the field and let them refigure their lives out so we can have real scientists working in their place with beyond gradeschool levels of logic. I believe this is the law currently in some places but we have a bunch of people in places illegally saying that reasonability is based on public opinion and not the opposite as it naturally is... Especially if these, "scientist," waisted public money in the process. They should literally be held to legal consequences for this by current and previous law... If not the schools forking these degrees out to people not meeting the criteria for them.

Except that it can be solved by only catching the fumes from the bullet just like with a silencer and then recycled to be used. It's how things work in the real world. You are not thinking it out enough. Imagine if prior to the bell you have a bunch of tubes in the shape of a helix with maybe tubes going backwards and up if needed to catch materials or something instead of a normal chamber(loose example). You have several injections at the top of the helixes. You then use the walls and chambers or whatever is needed to somehow collect some of the oxidizer and recycle it in the process of thrust reducing the use of oxydizer release and recycling it with the trust itself via it's heating action somehow. either via natural things in the thrust or via the release of other materials into it or whatever works. It's doable and could increase the overall oxidizer via production using the thrust process to recycle while burning. No idea the exact methods or shapes need. But this is just a sloppy example. The concept of shaping itself can be used to increase efficiency for thrust in general or other things. This is what nobody gets about things like infinite energy concepts. They are all real world examples. They are the natural extremity of designing for efficiency increases. It's a part of real world engineering. You just have to think it out a little. They are always applicable in the most blunt sense. That is literally what they all are naturally. Literally textbook cases.

Yes it can, hypothetically, be done. And yes the formula has nuances. If you expand the one side to display all variables possible you have smaller areas to play off of. That is where design plays in and yes you can catch some things(or a lot depending on chosen design.). And there are lots of inefficiencies to utilize potentially...(or just plane old tradeoffs.) What you are saying is not how real formulas work vs real life. BTW, pure simple efficiency is often or normally over ridden by other things. The efficiencies you are normally talking about either don't apply or are a part of other unstated considerations making up the current circumstance and within it. Which often contradict other generic efficiencies which are also other limited considerations. IE, you are not looking at the thrust in relationship to the rest of the system(s). And not looking at how you can sacrifice things to produce functions. That is literally as oversimplified as you can get it. It's not an argument in real life. It is not a scientific issue. You are basically only considering the simplest of rockets(And none of the inefficiencies.). IE there is nothing inherently inefficient about the existing design. And not considering things about the thrusters and more advanced complex designs utilizing those things we don't bother with atm. You can expand the sides of the formula to consider/represent nuances. Plus when your thrust system engages in an, "outside," system as part of the formula, etc. Which is technically already a part of it. There is no end of things you can do if you want to. There is, but that is the actual limit of reality. Which is not that simple. Any single small unconsidered factor of that thrust, or it's accompanying systems, means you can do more. You are assuming your thrust takes into account all things possible. That is not the case as you do not know enough about it to see what the current consideration fully is. It's just the limits of your current understanding. Not the actual limits. Yes, the formula technically represents thrust as it's a simple formula. but it does not represent all the things that formula represents in the real world if you expand the formula to it's natural actual entirety. Case in point. The current thrust is virtually unguided particles flying against a disorganized(assuming) medium(large mass to hit other small mass in space because of lack of guidance(like WW2 bombs vs modern munitions). If those factors are changed you can produce more or less thrust(IE different). You are literally assuming no inefficiencies or variables. Which means you are flat out wrong. The very design of a bell shooting matter at air or space is by design very disorganized and inefficient. It's sort of the point.(literally simplicity of design and manufacturing over complexity.) There are many factors that could then be used to do this relative to an existing design. Especially as your current design is only a set of inputs. And in a limited variation/consideration of the formula. It's that simple! Else you could literally never produce more efficient engines or any other designs period! This is not complicated. That is apart of the formula by nature. This is how the real world works. If there is more than one efficiency you are wrong. There are more efficiencies than one design. Simple as that. And if you follow this logic you are also assuming your understanding of mass is correct(Or endless other things.). That is why I brought up or expanded on what someone else said about light and resting mass(or I should say made a point of). If other things have different resting mass than the current measurement you have potential room to utilize it(assuming I'm using resting mass correctly.). Therefore it is an engineering issue. As things are currently constantly in motion when measured if their existing mass measurements includes some other factors including things like/producing momentum. This means anything not using true mass could be utilized to do better. That means your current understanding is simply flawed along with your proposition. Very deeply might I add. You are literally assuming everything as simply stated is as complicated as it gets. That is not the case and never to be assumed to be the case. Particularly as the human brain uses partial sets of data collected over time via sensory information to produce thought. This means the base presumptions is always limited as we are designed physical weak and incapable of holding all information for efficiency reasons by design(This used to be better understood in academic areas and is the natural basis of everything in the world in relationship to our understanding. IE science.). Therefore it's incorrect to argue except as a potential argument. Just like everything else. IE, if the current measurements are not singular things but the product of multiple variables(or even multiple things/objects/forces by whatever definition that is.) then your viewpoint is completely mistaken on it's face. It's then potentially correct if things happen to line up that way. But they are potentially/literally incorrect if they don't. which given the relative simplicity vs reality naturally inherent in ideas could also appear or exist as one thing at one point and another at a different. And taken farther, if all measurements just happen to be when it is in that form it could have another unmeasured form when it's not we don't know of or haven't measured(Which could still be the produce of one or more things in any variation we can't consider or know about in any variation to the natural extent of the most generic extreme logic(IE, an unkown.).). That is always the case in real world application and the basis of proper logic. IE, accuracy and considering the situation of the idea(IE our brain as a machine processing as the type of machine does.) and our unknowns in it as and any other extremity or circumstance that we can or can't conceive of. Proper logic/science is we don't actually know if matter or anything else even exists. It could be a product of many other things that just happen to do x and y time when measuring and always fit the criteria. No statistic is logical to say x amount of measurements overrides this either as we naturally have no perspective to the extremities to say what it is set against. Any attempt to do so is logically flawed. This is proper, "science." At most we can say we keep doing x and this registered as y. nothing more. Anything could be under the hood. Realistically, you are looking for if those complex things can be done simply from a human perspective. The more you know the more likely you will find a method fitting those other circumstances. The things we use most are often things that are complex but are made simple as things around us do the hard parts for us.(We live off this concept in the form of plants and animals and all thing making our environment. which are factories that are far more complex than things we produce as humans.) It's not about potential/complexity in the generic sense as it is making something do the work for us sufficiently making it relatively simple. Or within our criteria as other machines(IE, interfacing). This includes materials and all other existing objects/forces/etc and how much we have to do to make them do what we want. This bleeds into economy and it's basis is the knowledge collected by what we gain in sensory data as it produces rarity via things like relative ability and many other factors. Although there are a bunch of nuances no longer understood well that are parts of other formal subjects you have to stick together sufficiently. And if thrust is not pushing off any medium in space, but the ship itself, you still have the efficiency of it from the space ship to use. There should be lots of inefficiencies there to improve. BTW, if you are just collecting materials from burnt oxydizer to recycle which could be ignited in a small chamber to start with to produce other thrust why is that problematic. The majority of thrust can be from the other materials. Your just basically filtering out materials to reuse some. It could avoid interfering with most if not all thrust potentially. And obviously ion can go through glass(might be thinking the wrong thing.). So, you could burn something and collect it where not collecting ion. It would just have to burn with insufficient thrust to not override the ion thrust. This could be done and so could other combinations. Or if I'm thinking that out wrong light could be produced with expent, "thrust," and collected for secondary reasons and the light could pass through gas to generate(translation of energy) a second thrusters with more thrust. It's a matter of proportions. This can be done with magnetism and other factors as well. I'm assuming this is more useful if you have a reason to produce a ship that does not adjust mass from thrust. Or to minimize it. Having massively increased production of oxidizer on board could be useful. Does anything allow you to do something simple like burn and oxidizer store it in a solid/burnt state and then recreate it from the mass? can anything collect it that easily or would a low? thrust engine be useful where the collection forces from what is hopefully a small amount of oxidizer be collected and reconverted? And if you are talking bells and inner chambers you can always design them better and then do more with them like recycling materials instead of increasing thrust. Simplest. This could also be used to control the explosive medium to get better thrust potentially like the concept of using ground turbulance or something. No idea on the lifespace of the microchanels or whatever used. If you could redo them between bursts. Maybe with a coating method using vacuum and some very small materials between thrusts. I'm assuming the more exotic things won't be useful without more powerful energy sources to power them. Unless we can do it efficiently now. And maybe the amoeba concept uses magnetics or light or something to push off of. Maybe an inner solar system ship? Even very low thrust would work if unmanned. Maybe using the idea of those toys your rock back and forth onto build momentum. And maybe it's filled with gases instead of gels. Maybe the shell is like a giant solar sail or similar and the motions tries to play off of it. Using multiple types would allow you to stop as you don't always move in one direction. I wonder how scale of the ship to the materials matter. What is the most optimal scale based on the limit of the materials. Would small be better or does increasing size help to reduce relative thickness for less overall mass compared to engines or other thrust. At that point can you use stuff to mess with the explosion in the chamber? Maybe using magnetics or ion or a combination drive. Maybe at lower thrust? If it's all going out the same hole... Or do soemthing stupid like hold ionic gas in the amoeba like a blimp and use motion to push it against things on the wall to produce thrust or make it escape.. Maybe translate it into something else. Could you take the concept of lightweight production I mentioned previously(if anyone can find it.) and make a fission fusion or other manufacturing plant around the sun using it's magnetic field and resources to simplify it and then produce antimatter? ( I keep typing fission when I mean fusion. If i said fission previously I meant fusion.) Just found this: https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_antimatter.html https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-we-know-that-dista/ Here is a stupid idea. What if the middle of the sun and other things contain anti matter that formed a container and then started producing fission or started to gather normal matter around it and it's all under our feet. The earth could be a sun with a hard shell that then mixed materials into the outer layers until it became earth creating lava and other concentrated elements. Call it the anti matter universe instead of electric universe... 8D (could one theory prove the other?!) I guess that sort of fits this: https://www.wired.com/2010/07/dark-matter-sun/ What if it is not being produced at the center but at a higher part of the sun? If it's 5 times higher than predicted it could account for a seeming speed variant. IE, if the center is largely anti matter with a containment shell of some type naturally and then normal matter with the heat starting in essence at the separation for certain purposes. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2010/11/17/antimatter-atoms/ Would it help to also build a collider near the sun in orbit and use relatively higher temps to do research as to not need to lower it as much? Also, what if gamma from solar flares is from escaping gamma from an anti matter core? I was just reading something about the observed anti matter or gamma rays not exiting the sun from flares like expected if magnetics or something were the cause.

A bunch of tiny black holes that are encased in something to protect against the individual explosions or even mass explosions? Black hole batteries? Preferably remake able after the fact. The explosion could even be used if possible. Black hole combustion engines in space could be one concept. If not funny as you could actually fly a car in space then. You could have a space flyable cadillac with a B8 engine! I don't know if this is practical, but if you can print space ships with light weight methods like using vacuum and spraying light weight materials onto another lite weight material(some light weight specialized string covered in titanium or other coatings for strength along the needed length and possible the ability to take hits and bounce or other needed things(like a draw bridge.).) Could you then build a cheap generator or battery producer near the sun using it to start a cheap fission or other battery type to then be put in a space ship at some variable efficiency if the ship provides the means to maintain the reaction? Or is that not usable. Maybe it would help with the making of the fission/fusion anti matter concept or similar. If that could be done you could even do none rigid body ships that move like living organisms. Space amoeba ships? You could make them big enough to protect things by reducing the odds of being hit while also using other parts of the ship to protect more important parts as needed via moving them(out of the way or in the way for protection) or even producing them or other things. Depending on time and ability. You could even have multi purpose parts that float in the ship doing various tasks(especially if they are easily producable) and then have them move to the rear or other sides to jet out material as thrust of similar. Assuming they use thrust or can't use forces from inside the ship to produce momentum. A lot is doable if you can use momentum combined with other forces. You could translate with forces produced inside the ship and momentum from the body to produce thrust potentially. Therefore never loosing mass for thrust. At least not directly. BTW, if the ship has internal gel it could also protect things inside via slowing other things momentum. Then you have basically a spaceplane that can push it's momentum vs other things to move and take hits via constant thrust production potentially. At least on demand. It could also be used to collect things in space like space debri in case of the worst case scenario. It just needs a means to repair itself and replace any potential lost materials. Assuming it's not constantly gaining materials. Could be a fun way to mine in space. You literally eat the roids and can use any materials that hit the ship. As long as you can keep repairing it's outside and whatnot. No idea how much momentum can be taken out of objects in that way though. It might need a combination of forces to protect the ship given potential velocities in space. Maybe if the hull can quickly enough put things in the way along the edge to let the objects hit and slow down on top of anything else. A variety of methods could be used to slow things down. Especially if you see it coming. Not sure if you don't. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/amoebas-are-crafty-shape-shifting-engineers Then you can start using a wider array of energy and sources like biology. And a much wider array of devices to produce needed ship functions.

Unless there is something else at play. Say if you go beyond a certain distance and it ceases to produce as much thrust. Or can be collected with angular momentum to limit the counter effect. It might be possible. Especially if you are collecting one of multiple fuels. Or if you use the angular momentum somehow like gravity production or something. It could excuse or use the loss of thrust as a secondary product. If collecting fuel for fuel maybe it can help regain a single very small thrust producing fuel to in essence extend a very small tank to a very large effective size. Say there is an additive that is used in a fuel that is added at something like 0.01% of the total fuel and this lets it's fuel last for the entirety of the other fuel types relative to it's small size and have very little. Or a stored vs a produced fuel. The 0.01% fuel is stored and the other produced from something like a fission or fusion batter source that is nearly limitless. Might be good for probes. This lets the 0.01% fuel additive work closer to the time the fission/fusion battery does. Not sure on the other fuels but maybe they don't need to be collected. That or go oddball and say the collected fuel is light and it's collected from solar panels or heat collecting panels across the surface(or from a surface that naturally does it.) this could be used to various effects depending on what is at play. I think conceptually this is the equivlant of x=y where x is the total thrust vs a more complex formula where you view x in more complexity and only replace part of x giving more room to do things. Hence not taking up all of x as counterforce. I'm still not convinced you can't find a way to reduce the effect of collected gases to some small amount with tricks that don't have a complete conterpull. If you use angular momentum around a sphere, with other factors why can't you to some extend reduce the counterpulls effect. Or if you did something weird like fly in a spiral and collect along the edge that is helping or is pushing the spiral correctly it should count reduce the effect. Then you just have to have a reason to fly in a spiral. There should be oddities in practice where it is applicable one way or the other. It just have to have a reason to excuse the other losses. Which is normal. There are uses for additive that are not fully a matter of thrust. It's easy for other things to be more important and it at minimum part of a system to make up for some other needed functions. And with straight thrust, if anything about it is not perfectly linear then there is a use. Assuming you can get the efficiency. I read something about someone saying if it's not a scientific issue but an engineering issue it can be done ultimately. If there are any nuances in the formula to play off of then it might be possible. Just a matter of when and how. Then you might be able to make some cool stuff out of it. Maybe with specialized fuel combinations or something else that works. This might work with ships made in space. I had and idea for using ships that can go to space to print other ships in order to make space ships. If you can get an oxygen using plasma ship to near orbit and get it in orbit you can take up small amounts of material for varied space oriented manufacturing. Preferably that make very light weight but orientationally strong material layouts. like composites that are make of lattices of small angular materials or similar printed on a small scale to form what looks like firm material. Then you can use methods to spray material on it for coatings for mirrors or protective layers if needed. Maybe even for electrical signals or other things to be sent. Then you give it a propulsion means and have much lighter weight probes and printers for research and exploration. All of these methods exist currently and basically just need to be applied. The only limit I assume exists is having enough power. You might get more unusual circumstances with these or be able to make ships needing such things. Maybe it would be good for satellites first. Even if you can eak out the smallest thrust or as part of angular controls to go with existing methods it might have a purpose. what if it helps power another function even if it has net 0 gains in thrust or movement in itself. Maybe translation of force via materials while doing other things to aid in overall ship design. Temperatures maybe. cold plasma is useful but could also control temps for various reasons. Who knows what oddities coudl come into play with different long term material uses. Any other quality is usable. And it might work well with long use things like antimatter or fusion/fusion like the one I showed. Could it act as a stabilizing force to avoid or create an existing counterforce for engines to stop or stop loss of rotation? If you have a certain thrust it could give a collectible fuel used in rotation or to give a force to fight against to stop rotation giving room for other thrusters to not effect as much during manoeuvring potentially. Or if it could gain even the smallest gains it could be upscaled and be recyclable fuel source to counter needed thrust from forward fireing engines. If the collection is only part of the thrust and you only gather back one fuel type then you have positive gains. It then extends the fuel type(maybe needed to fire the other one like an oxidizer), but is not totally needed for thrust. Maybe this could collect needed things to help produce more oxidizer for longer trips. could be part of a longer fuel system keeping oxygen for crew and the thrusters. Maybe part of a system to produce oxidizer or something more exotic where loss of thrust is acceptable. The burning could be part of a system producing heat and using the thrusters heat to do something and then collecting some of the material back. Thrusters that are more than just thrusters. The ability to collect in space or stop at planets and collect materials for on site production without a standing station might outweight the loss. Maybe for colonization ships or whatnot. Could you collect any part of an antimatter system with such a setup. By smallest gains I don't mean actual gains. I mean not loosing the entirety of x in x=y. (IE, using nuances of it that previously weren't. Assuming x=y equals all potentials.) The above example could work if are recollecting/recycling/remaking oxidizer for extending fuel tank size/etc. Then you could use magnetics at the end after initial ignition for then propel with another means to produce secondary thrust from a different balance location. Placement would obviously depend on the exact design, but it's doable if needed. It's just a compound engine system. Maybe that would work better with ion or something weird and recollect some exotics put through it that effect more than just thrust. Then it's propelled afterwords and as greater thrust with directional thrust abilities where the initial is only straight forward. Maybe the exotic or additive is for temperature or other controls as part of another system. If not maybe it could work as a part of an atmospheric thrust effect where gases moving from thrust could be used to play on the variable of the medium it's thrusting against to recollect some fuel of some sort. Maybe if the thrusters create a void area in the thrust that then collects fuel at that point while still maintaining thrust against the other points with heavier gas to push against. At which point why not do the same with magnetics or other things in low-0 atmosphere. They would just be specialized engines. If it's thrusting it's pushing off of something. This means it's variable or could be made to be variable enough to collect with less loss of thrust. this might not be the exact correct method to do this, but the principle is there if you can create any variation. which you can if there is anything there to use to thrust against hypothetically. You are never playing with a perfect medium(or perfectly or even remotely efficiently). So, you are not currently thrusting off of a 100% efficient surface. This means there is room to play off of in one direction or another. It's just a matter of understanding it and using it. If it already does something to loose effiency and the thrust material slows down from it's point of most momentum creating push wouldn't the collection of material be less if it looses momentum after pushing against the medium it's pushing against. It can't be as simple as just x=y. Nothing ever works that way or you are not accounting for the how between x and y. Even when converted into the ship movement there still should be room to do something. Even if it's just collected angularly or as part of an inefficient system as above. There is likely some wiggle room to do something. Especially the longer the thrusters have to be active because of build up of gains from the fuel system. Even if from very small gains somewhere else. Say overall tank size of balance of the ship. The more complex the functions the more room there should be for odd systems. I'm not assuming this would work in the most straight forward and simple rocket. And going from resting mass from the idea of lights true mass vs momentum.(IE mass technically currently including some momentum or other things as a force when measured.) Does anything else share similar qualities?(assuming not everything.) If resting mass is just the reality of movement adding massive thrust via movement and is true mass. The variable nature of other materials could allow this between fuel types if it's slowed down by a medium not effecting the ships momentum. It would simply be using another medium in an existing system before collecting the fuel or matter. Just have to keep it off the ship at that point. Complex variation in atmosphere could do this naturally as it's in play in various ways potentially. And if it can be done in a dense medium like the atmosphere it could be done in space as it's technically the same thing. Just a matter of how and how much energy has to be used to do it and where the energy comes from. Basically it's translation with an outside system. Therefore not screwing up x=y. Just scaling it outside one ships systems and to a larger perspective. I think the problem is considering the current variables are simpler than they might be. If there is more too them there is more wiggle room potentially. We live in something that has lots of unknowns that could be played upon. Or current knowns not used for various reasons. Antimatter may add enough power to play on such things to start. Maybe using the explosion to shoot against the current medium and breaking it down as thrust then only collecting a small part of it. Or something far more exotic. Obviously that is getting very sci fi potentially. Maybe there are current things that could be used. More rambling: 8) Could you in essence create enough angular turbulence to then collect with a more efficient means like magnetics or simple redirection. Energy itself can move things to save energy with more efficiency systems. Can this be done otherwise? Could some be bounced back at the ship so the collection happens in the direction of the ships momentum? Not sure how that would work though in detail. Basically the effect of ground or other surface turbulence using space or atmosphere as the medium instead of harder matter like ground or water. Maybe this could be focused on a single set of things like oxygen particles(or to collect/redirect such particles). Could it be done in a way with variable efficiencies of materials?(a translation system) If it's not all equal and currently simplified. I assume you have to bounce it off the medium in a way as to use the same energy overall without bouncing off the ship prior to collection but making the medium do the work for you and going into the greater system. I'm guessing this would require massive thrust or something more delicate. I'm assuming that would take some very specialize thrusters made to play off of a very light medium. Possibly by very efficiency thrust targeted at hitting the medium efficiently somehow. Either hitting small particles or bouncing with nets of thrust material like using some particle that catches as many counter materials to bounce off of somehow without loosing sufficient efficiency or function. Even if the smallest differences exist in the medium you are pushing off of or the using to push you can use it's energy hypothetically as a source to collect matter. It's just a matter of knowledge. IE, and engineering problem. Each molecule is different. If it's usable it's usable. Even if it's not currently usable. We might even already know it but can't use it for various reasons like energy. Anti matter might make up for that. Especially if engines like the one I posted can exist. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott Kircher/fissionfusion.html Could you make a variable engine that created thrust and combine it with something that uses a "lazer" like the other ones that hit matter and in the process redirect or make it bounce back for collection via the above or a combination of destroying the particle to some degree. If it it's just bouncing ions back for collection. You could even do it if a certain combination makes it efficient for collect some stuff back while not being efficient for thrust overall. As long as it collects something important enough to use the extra energy. Especially if that energy isn't using up something significantly enough or significant enough proportionally(If it already exists as waist or with waist remaining as one example). Solar sails could be fun if combined with an engine pushing stuff at the solar sails. Maybe something long burning that helps use solar sales in deep space to create artificial sources. Could you push with one medium to create an artificial source(that could produce thrust itself off material in space then push off that material with something like electricity or magnetism or other sources to create a ground effect and bounce some material back for collection? Any combination could be used potentially if you can find a way to do this. This could increase collection of ions for sales or oxidizer materials or be used to push off a turbulent material to reduce momentum without effecting the ship for the ship to collect hypothetically. As long as the energy is spent in the medium without directly effecting the ships momentum. Not sure what energy is spent getting it to do this or loss of overall thrust. But if you can get the effect by carefully direct it and there is existing waste it might be possible. Maybe it's possible to play off space like playing pool and get more efficient than current to not loose overall thrust. There has to be lots of waist in current thrusters. So either make it do this or use things we already do that make this happen on their own or in combination. A lot of things are useful even if not efficient because of outside factors. so the efficiency is not really the overriding factor. If you can get more with less efficient for money or resources or other issue it can outdo a more efficient design while those factors outweigh the other issue.

Yea, technically. I think people are missing that point. How about we reclassify it as a Planetine to really confuse people. Then we could also add in banana shaped objects! The answer would then be multiple classification systems based on what is being emphasized(or one overriding one with all considerations). You then combine the names based on the emphasis. Then it's whatever the nature of the conversation is. Problem solved. Unless you lack sufficient descriptions. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planet If this is correct it's meaning is it's viewed movment from earth.. There is your definition and the orientation of the earth. It has nothing to do with the other factors. Use planet in relationship to perceived orbit from earth. Find another term and system for defining it from the standpoint of mass and what not. Then call it a dwarf planet. Then as long as it looks like it moves in a certain way as the original term you call it a planet and add on other terms as required based on the conversation. Easy peasy. An intelligent use of a term that can solve all arguments. Example: Pluto: Planet: moves in a way viewd from earth: yes/no? Mass: categorized by a mass system from a given stated perspective. If a second mass system is used use a different or both terms and or keep definitions clear. Size: diameter or other systems term etc. When talking simply say pluto is a low mass, planet?, of said diameter.. 8o See how easy and objective that is!! 8D Systems are simply definitions said as you use them. The only thing you can do is confuse your own definition. A word can then be defined by it's original intent and used as such. Or in this case maybe the oldest one we have. If not we have a clear definition by that standpoint. And any change to such a definition can be stated by the person stating it. Basic logic and pre-existing rules of a conversation already cover the entire issue and define where the problem is. Person says something his definition is the definition when he said it. All confusion is a matter of miscommunication. If you want clear communication stick to known communicable things in the circumstance. Or put the extra work into saying the definition more clearly to others. The above is a simple example of how to do so. It's all about stating the definition of what you said when you said it. Just like with writing. Which is another area we mess this up constantly these days. You can't always assume the same definition across documents. Especially if you didn't write them. Real world is too complex.

But you could imperfectly do it to try to recycle thrust materials if you had a type that could be put back into the system. It just has to increase effective fuel over time. Or whatever criteria is important. Assuming you can get more thrust out of it. Or if something else takes priority. Say you have a thruster and a long set of rods out the back that then collect the thrust material away from the back of the thrust rear opening. This could be designed to catch thrust like a net but in a way that doesn't produce a lot of counter thrust as it's collecting looser material away from the nossel. If it's designed to efficiently collect a some types of matter but let most thrust go through can you get more fuel and stop less thrust to get a positive outcome by recycling it back through in some manner. even if you expend another type of fuel or other energy source to reuse it. could other sacrifices be made to not add too much weight to gain? Say loss of cargo. Maybe it would work for probes with small cargo bays. Or other combo vehicles. Or some sort of limit to adding/adjusting fuel storage space. One idea could be like a solar sail but made to not impede thrust(like being porous or similar) while collecting materials from the thrust. Maybe the material naturally draws in the thrust material while not stopping the push back producing thrust. Not sure if there is a distance where the thrust material stops producing meaningful push. Of where the collection would not produce enough pull. Are there any odd material combos that can produce this in any way. Would the slowing of the potential material or a limit of collection make this worthwhile? Would ion or anything weird do this. What about plasmas? Or types of fuel with multiple fuel types and you only recollect one type as the other may be in greater amount or near infinite. Then you might be collecting less mass. Maybe it requires a special type of thrust/fuel combo and certain materials to collect in the correct way. Maybe it would have to be part of an engine where the thruster is not primarily thrust and has another purpose. Maybe it's good for balance in a design and making new designs workable. Any gain whatsoever could be used to shrink tanks. Or redirect them even at a loss of efficiency so some of the fuel is kept in another location for balancing or other reasons. I'm assuming this exists in fuel loop system or similar, but his could extend the loop to out of the spacecraft farther. Maybe the thrust catching could give variable balance modes also. Then it wouldn't just be with pumps or gravity base fuel lines. complexity aside(assuming). I was assuming the effects of the thrust happened close to the nozzle. This could then allow something farther back acting as a collector to some extent. Then to avoid adding mass to the craft you could stick the thrusters near the middle to front with open air/space between and simply adjust the geometry a bit. Maybe thrusting into large cone shapes in the hull. And with or without another whole in the rear to more propulsion via squeezing the thrust into a small space over a long hull shape. This could then be the primary/secondary thrust with a lot of collectors and maybe a balancer in the middle or end. That or apply magnetism to aid as a second thrust or something depending on the things being used. Or could this be done in a larger enclosed space. If the moving of collected materials takes less force or energy it could be viable hypothetically. And I was assuming something like a turbine in the previous example to then power ion or similar. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431264-500-plasma-jet-engines-that-could-take-you-from-the-ground-to-space/ This could fun if converted into a plasma combustion or other engine type for cars or bikes. then you could have real hybrid electric air powered vehicles with the option for gases. They could be combustion or any other type of vehicle by design. You could also combine thrust and engine torque or other methods together in a more complex system. The primary fuel could be oxygen with all other things besides electricity being mandatory. I would assume it could use a variable concept with compressing air at minimum to adjust during various speeds or performance marks if needed to propel itself and whatever systems are in it. And it could then only need enough to get up to speed to gain air similar to a jet engine. Although this could be started with electricity to create pressure from a stopping position. Or as the thread is discussing primarily what about an anti matter power source in a closed loop as a base electrical generator. What about something like an antimatter fision/fusion reaction or generator that goes back and forth between the two to create constant energy and utilize the effects of both? http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott Kircher/fissionfusion.html Edit: I wonder if the collection of mass for recycling fuel in a system could be offset with directional thrust/momentum(maybe via the method of collection). It might cost energy(hopefully without adding mass) but it could make the collection not impede completely in the same direction to reduce the effect. Maybe with passive collection materials. and in a system with other forces using the rest of the thrust material to produce more thrust at the end of a collection chamber. I think this is done in aircraft basically. Why not space craft? Just a matter of efficiency. Or is that offset in aircraft by the need for constant or variable thrust to begin with?

[Moderator's note: This thread was originally split from another thread about antimatter propulsion. It was split to its own thread because it's addressing a completely different topic: confusion about conservation of momentum and how reaction engines work, rather than antimatter per se. The executive summary: OP is wondering why you can't save fuel on a rocket by collecting the exhaust gases. Other folks are trying to explain why that can't possibly work, due to conservation of momentum. The moderators decided to split the thread, rather than simply pruning the off-topic content, because it seems like a discussion worth having: it can help people (including folks who are just reading the thread out of interest) understand how momentum works. So, please everyone, let's remember to be civil and polite to each other. Nobody ever convinced anyone of anything by being dismissive or rude, regardless of the merit of their arguments. If you don't have the patience to stay polite and respectful, best to give this one a pass and just stroll on by rather than pouring gasoline on a fire. Thank you for your understanding. -- The moderator team] I'm going to take it that light does have mass then but it's not been found yet. Either way, why not then heat the water with gama to turn a generator to then use photons? The next question is then there a way to collect all matter released from thrust and make as near 0 loss engines as possible. Could large area be built around the engine exhaust to put it back into the system and still produce thrust in what is in essence a closed loop thrust system? If so some of the other steps would not be needed. You could then even potentially build thrusters in any part of the craft for a much wider array of designs. Assuming the area does not adjust thrust a little if it pools a large amount of thrust matter as opposed to quickly moving it back. Assuming it's enough distance to matter or not in the same location. Or even farther ahead. Lots of weird stuff could be done with tanks that never need to be emptied. Or minimally adjusted. If a system could be made to reproduce fuel in some way you could endlessly recycle it and try to power with solar or something for better efficiency. I'm assuming way more doable in space than in atmosphere. You could then only exhaust fuel as needed in gravity or in atmosphere as needed and then recollect if possible for space exploration. Or maybe just make an anti matter chamber that produces thrust in a small location. You could even try to have multi vector thrust and other odd things.

The more realism in the engineering department the better.

My biggest problem with my current and long standing project(1000t cargo ssto.) is the landing gear positions. This is something that in real life would be trivial. You design the plane. Then you design landing gear to fit. So, what about giving the current LY series landing gear the ability to move up and down to give it some real world abilities. Then you can have optimal landing and other gear positions for cargo and variable takeoff and landing positions without the need to add more parts. And in particular it would need the ability to change the gear positions in flight. Just like with the telescopic hydraulic cylinders. With this addition I could easily set my landing gear to super stable runway positions and both upward and downward facing positions for getting cargo out the front and back while also providing the option of upward and downward facing landings/takeoffs. It would allow for optimal performance at the push of a button. Especially for large craft like this where it is impossible to get both with just normal landing gear positions. The versatility is needed after a certain size or complexity is reached for ssto planes. The physical distance could fit the actual hydraulics realistically. And both straight up and down hydraulics could exist and the part that adjust to go into the wheel base. This could also be adjustable, but at a cost to strength of the part under weight. From a game balance standpoint the adjustments could be an upgrade. Maybe it can be turned off or changes like visuals for fuel tanks.