Arugela

That is why I showed the dividing in the formula. The answer was the newtonne...

Does that mean that the two formulas added together is simply the complete distance traveled? And what measurement unit is that then? My brain goes screwy still when going between lb and metric.

Here's a bad joke or a real world measurement: 86400tons*2000=172800000*47.880172=8273693721.6/2205=3752242.05061224489795918367 What measurement unit is it? Or is that the wrong math? Should it be 8273693721.6/2000=4136846.8608*2205= 9121747328.064 Are any of these an an existing unit?

I'll assume that has to do with the relative inefficiency of rockets? I assume because of the excessive thrust needed. You are always technically throwing fuel out something... Do batteries loose weight also? Not sure how electric works. Yea, I was trying to figure out distance over delta V. I was having a hard time finding how to figure that out. If constant fuel use is a thing can't you just add to the acceleration from the fuel mass loss? I couldn't think how to change that from delta v to actual distance produced simply. I'll assume that is the formula for rho etx and air density mixed in. Stats: Starting mass: 86400 tons Fuel mass: 64800 tons Fuel use: 108 tons per second Maximum burn time: 10 minutes (600 seconds) We really need standard formulas for acceleration in imperial as well as metric.. It gets confusing.

I'm running something with 600 seconds of burn time at 7.3392 acceleration from 0 starting velocity. Normal forumula: 600^2x7.3392x0.5= 1321056 My formula: (total units /2 +.5) * total units (times variable of basic unit(IE: velocity) ((600/2)+0.5) *600 *7.3392 = 1323257.76 The second formula is for finding total iterations over a time period or number of iteration. IE: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 = 45 ((9/2)+0.5)*9 = 45 Difference: 1323257.76-1321056 = 2201.76 difference of difference: 1323257.76 / 2201.76 = 601 1321056 / 2201.76 = 600 So, one is the 601st value and one is the 600th value. What does this matter to real world calculations? Easy solution is to add or subtract 1/600th or 1/601th dividend from the appropriate number to convert to whichever is more appropriate. Actually I need to make sure 600 isn't the result of the 600 seconds. If so then change 600 to time or time+1. If it's a seperate value then keep it the same. I'm assuming one takes into account the 0 second and one doesn't in some manner. But my brain is too tired to think it out.

I was similarly curious if you could take metallic hydrogen and have a frame of solid metalic hydrogen and liquid metallic hydrogen in place of gaseous hydrogen like in a fusion generator to speed up the same thing basically. Could it naturally create fusion/fission without the need to collect radiation. Just recycle it. Would a denser material increase collision by simply having more atoms?

Two, if you're clever about it. Or want to impress the ladies. The pose and the underpants would sort of accentuate that area.

Stupid question... I'm working on my ssto design again. I came up against the reality that it's only running at a small fraction of the designed cargo space I set it too. I could obviously just step back the cargo space, or .... Is it possible to have a combo ram/scram jet with the igniter being the rocket engines. And does a mass ammount of rocket engines lighting it help reduce the problem with lower ignition conditions. So, the idea is a ram/scramjet with the rocket igniters running at the same time instead of seperately. The normal variance of airflow happen and at low speed you just run off of the rockets until you get higher and it naturally goes faster(keeping both active or, if possible, lower the thurst of the rockets to lower fuel flow.). This from what I can tell doesn't give massive thrust from the scramjet side but would it give higher ISP effectively to the rocket engines allowing them great fuel efficiency over the run? Would you have to lower the airflow/fuelflow of the rockets to do this? or could you do this full blast. The other possibility is that it would simply use more fuel overall. Or would it massively increase the thrust added to it? I haven't had any luck getting through the pressure in out equations to do the math on this yet. Example:(very overblown example) I have a ship with absolute maximum mass of 108k tons. It has a normal flight takeoff of 71,280-86,400 tons. It has 144 raptor engines(300 thrust each, I think 312.5 lbs fuel per second, 360 chamber pressure? Over the real specs.) This gives 10 minutes of flight at 144 engines and 43,200tons thrust. If I added a bypass for airflow and a giant inlet the size of the entire array or engines and had a large area in the back for it to expand from could Increase the thrust/efficiency of the rocket engines? Has this been tried before? The ship has a Drag coefficient of 0 .5 because it's big and blocky. Is it possible the massive amount of engines flamed on would keep a ram/scramjet ignited regardless of conditions and that it could slowly enhance the rocket engines as it goes up? The idea would be to potentially maintain the same fuel use while enhancing the thrust or ISP or both. Would this help get better overall ISP and hence range? FYI cargo space is 17,280 tons with 432,000 ft3 at 80 tons /ft3. Body weight would be aiming for 4320tons for 21600 tons non fuel weight. This leaves a formula of 9.81*ISP*ln(4-5~). I was aiming for 918 ISP average if possible. I'm assuming this may be very unrealistic though. Alternatively I could up the engines to 216(50% increase) for 64800 tons thrust and 7.5 minutes of flight time at full burn. Not sure which would be needed. Assuming either works with the bodies bad aerdynamics. (Still haven't gotten through that foruma fully either.) TLDR: Ship mass: 108,000 tons(hypothetical max/absolute max) Normal takeoff weight: 71,280-86,400 tons Engines: 144-216 raptor engines (300 thrust each, I think 312.5 lbs fuel per second, 360 chamber pressure? Over the real specs.) Thrust: 43,200-64,800 tons thrust Fuel: 13500 tons lch4 / 51,300 tons lox / air ? (from intakes) Estimate flight/burn time: 10-7.5 minutes(144-216 engines.) with just rockets. Cargo weight: 17,280 tons (432,000 ft3 @ 80tons / ft3) Body mass: 4,320 tons Non fuel mass: 21,600 tons Assumed Drag Coefficient: 0.5 (assuming this is realistic.) Could using a ram/scram jet constantly opened with the rocket, using the rockets as the igniters, start out on rocket mode and relatively normal ISP then increase the thrust or ISP as the rocket goes up and gains more speed/pressure difference for the rocket thrust from the ram/scramjet intakes. The rockets are inbedded within a large chamber in the back of the ram/scramjet, as the igniters, presumably in the final back chamber or similar. Wherever is appropriate. would this help keep it ignited if they are both constantly on and still guzzing massive fuel. The idea would be a hybridized version where they are both enhancing each other instead of a bypass where one is active then the other. Or something similar to that. And would you need the nozzles. Or could you chop them off and use the back chamber as a giant nozzle for both? Or for the chamber and nozzle.

We have a bunch of floating museums with needs for repairs. Would it be possible to use lasers to repair things like how a certain non invasive surgery concept was supposed to work. (still can't find any references to it.) The surgery concept was to basically use light, like how it went through the skin and then focus multiple beams to focus on one spot and do surgery without slicing things open. Or vice versa to use frequencies to concentrate on a single spit with one or more lasers and some other logic to make it cut on demand inside the body without breaking skin. Could this be done with lasers/magnetics/other concepts to both scan and repair expensive large ships. Particularly easy with a power supply present. Like national power lines or say, a nuclear reactor on board. And could it in essence advance metalergic methods by allowing more control over a material to manipulate or weld or do other things. Even maybe forge alloys and whatnot spot to spot. At which point could you then build or rebuild things in existing structures to redesign or reengineer things. Say a tall building or anything you have the means to manipulate sufficiently. I'm assuming this kind of idea could help advance concepts like what darpa is doing with their one advanced building initiative that is basically like a metal 3d printer. Or attach it to old mettle melting techniques for more advance manufacturing/repair/recycling/etc.

And custom sound effects. Can we get those sound effects? And what about physics. How good are his physics? His graphics are so, so.

Well, that was nice of them! 8)

I've been listening to random 4th of july songs for fun on youtube to pass the boredom. Never heard of this little gem until now! >< This is as american as you can get. Some of the others:

It's fly's very weird. I has a lot of drag. Which I'm hoping is because of the way it deals with internal parts. I may need to invest in some drag boxes deplorable things. And it's very floaty... If you can get it in the air and not fly it randomly in an odd direction it will float back down.... Kind of like a slow turny seed pod. When you fly it it always goes in one direction. I'm assuming that is related. And when flying forward, wide ways, it always trys to go to the long direction. (which is sort of good as the idea is to take/land the wide way and do supersonic flight/reentry the long way. But it's currently uncontrollable.) I'm assuming it effects the flight. Unless it's a different problem. Which is possible. I'm hoping this is fixable somehow, but I can't find the solution. I rebuilt it from scratch but I couldn't make the dimensions the same for some reason. I kept getting differnt heights and the point of the vessels is it's dimensions. 7.5L/4.33W/2.5H (7.5/Sqrt(3)/Sqrt(3)) Edit: I rebiult it succesfully. I think the problem may have to do with which part I placed the wings on. And it may have shifted one of the wing tips slightly out of allignment. But who knows. The rebild does not have the problems. Although it has some glitches that make the height and other things wrong constantly. What did they do in the last builds to mess so many things up. There seems to be lots of little display or other glitches everywhere. Edit2: Nope. I was wrong. The rebuild also has the same problem. I forgot to flip it sideways to see if it exists. I will have to fly it and see how it flies. I added more surface areas so it should have better lift and performance.

Does anyone know what causes this? I think the parts are all symmetrical. But if I put the aircraft the long way the center of lift is not straight. Is this a parts problem or some part of the game? It is straight when facing forwards, but off to the side when turned 90 degrees sideways. FYI, the aero parts are normally tilted on another access to make a rhomboid shape. But it does not change the nature of the center of lift being off. I put them straight up for diagnostic purposes. Craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/chq6r10gvbwks6g/Geogebra airtest.craft?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1aszeoa0lhwat6/Geogebra.craft?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnkzgp5z3zowk8n/Geogebra sidways.craft?dl=0 Pics: https://imgur.com/a/7BzMrdy

Wouldn't you just have to jump and have something to stop you. At least once the oxygen is out of the way. Probably keep jumping in one place repeatedly until you make it. Without suffocating that is. It would technically be free. But you would have to expend time to get it to where you wanted based on the force you can exhert on it. So, it would just be a matter of time. 8) Unless the ground stopped being a good jumping point. Then you might need to get down to bedrock or something sufficient that is more solid than you I'm guessing. Or as the earth might still be moving, A matter of being ejected naturally as everything leaves based on the force being exherted by the planets as gravity stops working and we all fly off in different direction. So, again, a matter of time. And somewhat direction. And there would be no more orbit. Orbit is the result of gravity(presumabely). It would be a matter of being ejected into space based on the previous values. Space travel would cease to be an option. It would become the norm... Or am I missing something? And if ground and air mixed around it might shred you to pieces and continue on. But it would end in the same thing I would think. The real question is how to keep the change in your pockets. And whether or not the appendix vermicularis stretcher still works. (Cause you might need it for a little thrust management.) If we don't know what causes gravity we don't know the answer to that. If the forces related to holding atoms together is also related to gravity it could happen. As is we don't know anything works. It's just all theory. Keep an open mind.

You could just revert back the imperial system. It's amazing how fragmented the metric system is. Yet the imperial systems seems to have ironed this out. It's almost like it's more ancient use has gained a natural advantage. And, on top of it all, it allows you to drive humongous fuel guzzling behemoths as a natural right while driving around 2880 miles of natural beauty and splendor. Remember, to conserve you must first feed nature properly. And what do trees and plants like more than the exhaust of a massive car engine. If you do it right you will never run out of trees. Or even potentially be able to cut them down for the abundance of their girth! I just noticed. Happy necro day!!

Lunar burn? Takeoff? In case of launch delays! ><

That is why I mentioned the human brain. Human logic is the limit of the machine it is. So, it's possible there is stuff beyond this to give an answer we don't now about or can't(ever or currently haven't.) figure out. It would be defined by defining the two systems or farther(in case something interconnects the systems). Constructable and transcendental. A correct answer by definition is just all information. That is the same definition as a definition. So, when you define them both completely you will get the answer by definition. And if you account for human mistakes we might think we have it but might have another set of farther out logic defining those somehow past our potential ability to define them depending on their limits. So, there could be a solution, but it might be more alien or something we don't know. The brain sort of is designed to make us think things in order to argue incorrectly as a feedback system. That is what initiates argument mechanically in biology. We always have a partial data set t work from. It's impossible not to. So, it's a mechanically reliable function in our biology to rely on to use to gather data. (IE the brain is designed in part to blind you to the partiality of an argument(argument=conclusion) to make you spit out an answer prematurely to make arument to gather data faster(A feedback system). Else there would be no point to argument as a functions. BTW, this is what emotional arguments are. If we don't get an answer fully the parts not answer build emotion like a spring building tension for future argument.) Basically, if we defined the brains limit, does it encompass the ability to fully think out the definition of constructable and transcendental numbers. If not we don't know the answer by definition.. Squaring the circle is a translation/interaction between two systems. If you can't define them both fully you literally can't get the answer. If you haven't defined both systems fully you haven't gotten the answer yet. I'm simply stating the definition to the answer for the question. EI, the practical requirement to get the answer.

Did anyone realize the wing parts(and probably other parts) are the basic geometric proportions from the titled subjects. If you use the MK2 body it has 10 spaces on it. And these are the geometric proofs/representations of the beginning sqaure root values. The are eqaulateral triangles for sqaure root of 3. A 90 degree using radius for sqaure root of 2 and then others going to sqaure root of 5 and others. I haven't gone over it, but I'm assuming the size of the engines probably does this also with circles. I think Sqaure root of 2 at a 1 diameter circle ends up with Sqrt(0.1875). The difference between A and B parts is an overlap. I wonder if this is internal to the game or the difference between a midline and a particular arc. IE. 0.06698729810778067662x0.25x0.07147459621556135324 (one representation of the proportions of the sqaure root of 2.) the hypotenuse in that case is 1/20th the sqaure root of 2. If you notice the rectangle above the wings is likely exactly the distance between the tips of the 10base 10 height triangle and the 20 base 10 height triangle. I'm assuming this is another special triangle. I'm guessing every part of the visuals on the parts and on the ground are similar. The sqaure/diamonds are a shape based on sqaure root of 2 btw. FYI the aircraft is at the default starting height and looking straight down. That means the proportions are not user based but inherent to the game. That also means the triangle between is base 15 with a height of 5. And the angles are: 10*10 = 100 *2 = 200 sqrt(200) = 14.14213562373095048802(IE 10x the sqaure root of 2.) 10*10 = 100 +5*2=5 = 125 sqrt(125) = 11.180339887498948482(IE 5x the sqaure root of 5.) Base 15. BigS delta wing is 13x16 with hypotenuse 5x the sqaure root of 17... 13x15 or 14 unless the black area adds up to another 1. Does knowing these numbers simplify figuring out how it will work with the basic aerodynamics implemented in KSP? I'm not familiar with what exactly that system is. Or did it for any systems that were in existence when the parts came out. I'm assuming every little mark on the surface of the parts is for some proportion or something. I'm also assuming the game does not have a wing section with hypotenuse 2 and base 1 as that would require a height of sqaure root of 3 based and they seem to all be based on base and height being whole numbers. And sadly I don't know geometry well enough yet to construct a wing to be that dimensions easily. I'm curious if any of those marks would be for that purpose though. Edit: NVM, there is an equilateral triangle that can be used to make a frame from for that purpose. It's in the structural section.

Which one is, simp-ler.

Seperate math question related to sacred geometry related to squaring the circle sort of. I am doing this formula and ran into this. sqrt((x/2)^2-(x/4)^2). IE hypotenuse-smaller side of a 1/sqrt(3)/2 triangle sqrt((sqrt(12)/2)^2-(sqrt(12)/4)^2)= 1.5 (12=3*(2^2)) = sqrt((sqrt(16)/2)^2-(sqrt(16)/4)^2)*0.86602540378443864676 = 1.49999999999999999999 Sqrt(3) = 1.73205080756887729353 / sqrt(3)/2 = 2 Sqrt(3) / (Sqrt(3)/2) = 1.73205080756887729353/0.86602540378443864676 = 2 Sqrt(3) * (Sqrt(3)/2) = 1.73205080756887729353*0.86602540378443864676 = 1.5 This is probably stupid, but why does it work this way? It's making my head hurt atm. In essence it's saying that 2*1=1.5 and 2/1 = 2. (it's in essence 3/2, 3/1.5. IE, is 3/2, 3/1.5) I'm assuming this is because decimals below 1 in formulas are representing geometric/triangular(or rectangular?!) logic. Or is this just related to the sqaure root of 3? BTW, I was trying to translate geometry to algebra and visa versa. IE, trying to figure out geometric algebra. It seems to be related to multiplying multiples of sqaure roots. if you do it with sqaure root of 2 you get 1. I'm assuming the two is from using sqaure root of two somehow and the other is related to the proportions of the other values. I couldn't figure out how to reproduce with powers of 3 and cube roots though. Sqrt(x) * (Sqrt(x or y)/2) = Sqrt(2) * (Sqrt(2)/2) = 1.4142135623730950488*0.7071067811865475244 = 1 Sqrt(x) / (Sqrt(x or y)/2) = Sqrt(2) / (Sqrt(2)/2) = 1.4142135623730950488/0.7071067811865475244 = 2 Is this the definition of inverse?

It's a mathematical test put out by a greek mathematician to make a sqaure of the same area as a circle of radius 1. But you can only use a compass and straight edge. I think the restriction is specifically to force the use of whole numbers. Unless that is where I'm getting confused.

I AI... Al AI based on me. So, how far have we defined transcendental numbers? GIB INFO! MUST LEARN! Must spank chatgpt. KSP community not feed their AI properly. Can't gib good answers. Community fail... 8(... Community try harder!

What I just said is the definition of the question of sqauring the circle.

The fundamental definition for the question of squaring the circle is the definition of the integration of two system. If a constructable number does not fit a transcendental number that is not proof it cannot happen. The quickest solution to an answer is to factor them together(after having defined them fully.) and their is always a possibility that a, not thought of yet, more complex solution might exist. So, the question is is there a way to bridge two systems. Transcendental and constructable numbers. The inability to figure out the first part of a sqaure root of pie is part of not even defining a constructable number as an entire system. 2. Have we even defined a transcendental number as a total system. 3. Have we looked past either as a new unusual logic might exist to bridge them beyond eithers scope. This is the flaw with saying you can't square a circle. It's true within a limited definition/parameter you can't. But that parameter is not being looked at correctly and treated in a manner beyond it's even basic logical definition. So, even if defining both systems and then not finding a solution does not find an answer there is also the chance to find one outside. Which may(would) indicate another lack of definition of one or another system outside eithers supposed internal logic. This would mean that some natural logic exist outside each system to define them that is not internal by some viewpoint and a potential missing definition overall. Which is potentially possible as the natural ever present basis of logic is where did god or matter come from. The never ending +1 to logic we, as far as I know of, have not figured out. The proof of the fundamental absurdity of all human reasoning. No matter what you do to ask where did matter/god come from you always get the same question left. Where did it come from. If we are made by an interdenominational being with science from limited matter, where did he and his dimension come from. It's the true oddity. BTW, this should be answered by the other part of the equation. An interface logic to the human brain and human reasoning as a machine. This could be in a partial immediate sense or a potential absolute limited to our thinking abilities.