Hcube

That's really interesting, Thanks ! Are there any other oddities of this kind in the classification ? Some elements that "should", from some point of view, be part of another group/family ?

New question : The observable result of a B+ radioactive desintegration is a diffused spectrum right ? Not with stripes but some kind of curve instead ? (If this first assumption is wrong tell me already). If so, how is it possible since the positon/electron annihilation emits two 0,511MeV gamma-photons ? Those should result in a spectrum with stripes... There is no probabilist repartition of the energy(at this point)... It's not like the neutrino is being detected haha What is it? Can anyone enlighten me ? Thanks

Sc and Y might be above Lutetium and Lawrencium, but they are not lanthanides for sure, since they belong to the D group and not to the F group. They are transition metals (whatever the definition you consider). How the hell do you come up considering them as lanthanides ? Are there exceptions depending on the domain of research/science ? I'm curious !

Tu as toujours le Mk2 Drone core que tu peux utiliser ... Mais c'est vrai que ce mod rend mieux !

Wait, isn't Yttrium rather just above Lanthane 57La ? And their similar orbitals and electronic structure would give them similar chemical properties, not physical, am i wrong ?

Some posts are indeed exaggerating but most of this thread is about real facepalm-inducing things and it's actually very funny. All of this anti-evolution, flat earth and "Rockets don't work in a vacuum" stuff is actually hilarious.(the conspirationists are always-ALWAYS.-the funniest

How come you know about magnetic properties of the Yttrium if you work with Lanthanides ? Just wondering... I'm not really experienced with the periodical table yet, but i'm learning orbital structures this year and i have to know the (whole) table by memory so i'm getting quite interested !

That's great ! Thanks !

Hey, i was just looking at the design of some variable wing geometry aircrafts (panavia tornado for example), and i wondered : When you have missiles or bombs attached on the pylons under the wing, sharp end pointing into the airstream, what if you retract the wings back in supersonic flight position ? Then the missiles wouldn't be facing the airstream anymore but would be angled instead, probably creating some nasty turbulences.... So what happens ? Do the pylons turn in the opposite direction ?

How is a nuclear fission plant safer than a solar cell array ?

Holy.... What does your teacher teach ?

A thing i've heard that made me facepalm ? Let me think... Uuuuh... KSP porting to wii U ?

I just finished day 1 of medschool and i'm suspecting that what i'm seeing here is an hallucination due to too much work.. there's no way that this is not a joke. What is wrong with you squad ? Wii U ? For realz ? -crappy CPU (and ksp is CPU demanding) -wiimote control ? Well... Maybe not the best for rocket piloting... -aren't there already 2 ports going on ? -ils flying tiger going to do it ? Can wee see what they are capable of before anything ? (Except their masterpieces on their website) -how are three console ports not going to slow down PC dev ?

Fan-ta-stic ! Too bad memes aren't allowed...

I'm having this conversation with a random guy on Google+ / Youtube : (it's in french so i'm giving a short translation) Guy : a rocket could not lift off from a Lunar base because combustion is only possible when oxygen is present. Me : you are confusing rocket and jet engines. A rocket brings its own oxygen along the way. Guy : yes, but not enough. To lift off, the engines need air to produce more thrust. Once it's in space the rocket can travel with its less powerful engines because travelling in a vacuum is easy. The thrust [yes he saud thrust ] needed to get into low orbit is hundreds of times higher than the thrust needed to travel into space. [then he gives me some BS example of throwing an object on the surface of the earth vs throwing it in a gravity-less vacuum] Me (after a few facepalms) : the oxygen in the ambient air does not react with the fuel and therefore is not used to produce thrust in any way. Rockets actually perform better in a vacuum. You are confusing DeltaV and thrust here. You can go anywhere with a very low thrust, but you can't go anywhere with a tiny dV budget. Guy : engines don't need the ambient air but liftoff thrust is optimal only when air is present. it's like the helix that propels the boat. [this is probably the worst analogy ever] The air doesn't react in the engine but gives the engine more thrust. Me (facepalming harder than ever) : How could you get more thrust from the engines thanks to air if the air does not react with them ? This is completely confused ! [i provide schemes of engines to show him that there is no air. I also provide him specs of various engines, with the sources from the rocket builders (Aerojet-Rocketdyne, Safran, orbital ATK... etc] See? rocket engines have higher Isp and higher thrust in a vacuum than in a pressurized environment. I'm "waiting" for his answer... and i triple curse the awful physics teacher that this guy must have had. (unless it's a 6-years old lil' boy haha)

KW rocketry offers some nice Apollo-looking 45° angled RCS quads if some of you guys are interested

Oui oui je comprends mais àmoins d'utiliser des 3.75m (et lancer un truc comme ça en 3.75m ça serait complètement overkill ! ) on va se retrouver avec une coiffe énorme sur une tout petite fusée, car le CRV doit pas être bien lourd et donc il faudrait idéalement utiliser des 2.5m pour le lanceur. Et en 2.5 avec une énorme coiffe, il faudra spammer des ailerons en bas du premier étage pour garder une stabilité aérodynamique ! un spaceplane, c'est quand même beaucoup plus classe ! @Well : en tout cas, j'ai vraiment hâte d'essayer ce CRV et aussi l'IXV ! J'espère que tu mettras un lien de DL assez vite (parce que àpartir de septembre je touche plus àKSP jusqu'en juin :x )

ça a l'air bien trop gros pour être mis dans une coiffe de 2,5m ! regarde par rapport au docking port sur la photo... et dans un 3.75m ça restera très gros par rapport au corps de la fusée (qui ne nécéssitera sûrement pas d'être en 3.75, mais plutôt en 2.5m, et on va se retrouver avec une énorme coiffe sur une petite fusée) je suis d'accord avec toi pour l'avantage de la coupe que tu proposes par rapport àune coupe franche, mais bonjour l'amarrage ! pour que ça soit pas trop moche il faut très peu d'espace entre le corps du CRV et le cargo, c'est un véritable crénau qu'il faudrait faire ! EDIT : j'ai édité mon post page 2 pour illustrer mon idée de section arrière

came across this on 9GAG... Holy Jupiter father of Apollo what the hell is this ? i can't believe it. Who did this ? if this is old news, or superfamous already (and it's just oblivious me that wasn't aware of it), sorry and please close the thread !

Except the soyuz LFBs, i don't really miss anything from the russian space program : sure, voskhod-like command pods would be cool, but spherical parts would fit very badly with the rest of the stock parts (how do you stick a round vostok to a 1.25m tank anyway? it would need a specific adapter, wich would be useful in this case only). What has spaceflight history to do with the shape of the parts in KSP ? Agreed, at first it may look like the mk1 pod is the mercury analogue, and the Mk1-2 is Apollo CM, but after a while you understand that they are very different...

Wow, that is some pretty hardcore damage... i wonder what could rip through relatively thick aluminum that way... Even though the wheels are 3 years old, i wouldn't have expected gaping holes like that ! Since we are talking about mars rover wheel design, am i the only one bugged with the design of ESA's ExoMars rover that should launch in 2018 ? Those look very, very small and are not wide at all... I remember this has been a problem on previous rovers. They are flexible wheels, but still made of metal. I can imagine problems like the rover being stuck in sand because of having its mass distributed on such a small surface.

Super travail ! C'est vraiment génial et je suis impatient de l'essayer ! Bravo ! 1) Je pensais moi aussi àune section arrière détachable, mais pas come Vahal l'a suggéré, je pensais plutôt àune coupe bien nette, qui permettrait un docking du cockpit àl'élément arrière... Imaginez les possibilités avec plusieurs éléments arrières en orbite et un cockpit passant de l'un àl'autre... (O_O) 2) Mon seul problème avec ce truc, c'est comment le lancer? ce machin est tellement gros que pour le mettre en orbite il faudrait recourir àun lanceur énorme et ridiculement disproportionné ! (en plus en mettant ton CRV en haut, il faut mettre des ailerons partout en bas de la fusée pour compenser la portance, bref le gros bor*** ! ) ----> Ducoup j'ai pensé : 1+2 =3, mix des idées précédentes : 3) Et si tu ajoutais un "élément arrière" encore plus gros àce CRV (ducoup on découpe pas forcément le CRV) pour faire décoller le tout comme un spaceplane ? le CRV entier pourrait être collé àune section arrière de lancement (avec des slots pour des RAPIERS ou des turbojets), puis seulement le CRV se dockerait avec une sation par exemple (comme dans ta photo). EDIT : illustration : attention, paint sans tablette graphique c'est moche : ne faites pas attention aux proportions ni aux détails, c'est juste pour qu'on voie de quoi je parle ! j'ai aussi ajouté des drop tanks sur le module arrière, ça peut le faire pour un spaceplane. Evidemment ce n'est qu'une idée, ce que j'imagine demanderait un travail astronomique Mais ça peut t'inspirer ! PS tu devrais poster ça sur la partie anglophone du forum, je suis 100% sûr que ça aurait un succès monstre.

Well, at least the mk1 cockpit and jet engines are getting a nice texture revamp in 1.1 ! this is really good news. I hope the stock SRBs (hammer and flea, urgh), the 2.5m tanks, and the mainsail/poodle/other ugly engines are next on the list.

Uh i thought it was monoprop like the hydrazine, with the propellant being activated with a catalyser (iridium or so). I don't know about the exhaust, but since it is to be used in space... who cares ? I'd say the point is to avoid having toxic materials during launch...

a good fan is a really good investment, especially if you have a good CPU. Replacing the stock ventirad with, say, even a 20$ fan can double the lifespan of your CPU, wich is a huge gain of time and money considering a CPU is worth at least like 200$...I have a middle-end 25€ fan for a good i5 CPU and my temps are always under 50°C, and go as low as 30 when idle...39C outside temp does not matter... try to install a program that will tell you the actual temperature of your components !