Nothalogh
-
Posts
1,287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Nothalogh
-
-
3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
However, it doesn't capture the lost heat energy.
Sure it does, it heats the air in the duct.
Same way a thermal ramjet does.
-
4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
I believe it should be a separate satellite with one impactor, one small nuke, and a crashable dampener in between. Actually, it's absolutely like an Xray laser but with impactor instead of the bunch of parallel rods which generate the parallel bunch of beams.
This is the Cold War practical lunacy I come here for
-
Just now, Spacescifi said:
True. Months of spaceflight seem counterproductice to that.
Faster drives would be ideal, but we know project Orion will probably never see the light of day so it is almost pointless for me to suggest it as a possible solution.
This is one of the reasons that Musk is pursuing high TWR transfers and aerocapture at destination.
-
1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:
Elon is designing a stainless steel starship. But won't steel react with the cosmic ray particles in space and do damage to the crew? Cancer?
They may be shielded by other materials somewhat, but in general, thicker materials shield better, but space is a limited thing on a spaceship optimized for long range travel.
One of the best ways of mitigating radiation is to minimize cumulative exposure, followed by shielding methods.
-
9 hours ago, sh1pman said:
They'll say that space suit visor is actually a VR screen that shows deceiving images of spherical planet.
Unless they remove the helmets first...No worries, they can go without the suit
-
4 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
Steel is not magic.
And therein lies its strength
-
5 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
turbo pumps to pump money into their development
The problem with negative displacement pumps is that they are inefficient for high vacuum monetary transfer.
-
47 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
Its still expensive megastructures, the concrete oil platforms are the heaviest structures ever moved, they also rank high on heaviest overall structures build as in heavier than skyscrapers but lighter than dams and a couple of the pyramids.
It makes sense if you can pump up oil for decades. Not as an niche low capacity airports who might be replaced by other systems in 20 years.
Easier to just build an island like the Chinese do
-
2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
the requirements NASA has for an abort system is a bit overkill.
Especially in light of their adoption of the STS as they did.
-
3 minutes ago, Raven Industries said:
Refueling seems to be planned as end to end now, rather than the old side to side thing we've seen previously.
It's where all the plumbing is anyway, least amount of added mass for a refueling system
-
10 hours ago, MatterBeam said:
but having to run the raw materials through your nuclear reactor in the first place is going to be quite difficult
Not exactly what I was insinuating, I was more proposing the use of the syngas byproduct as propellant
-
24 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:
Calculating a point object and where it'll end up is far less taxing than the entire aerodynamics of an aircraft rapidly shifting while in flight; i suppose they could reduce the load by only calculating key areas and using them to approximate the entire body. But even then; it just seems like it'll end up being a massive framerate sink for very little gain. Reasonably there's only a few situations where compression lift becomes a factor; even then you have to design the aircraft to exploit it. Could it help with SSTO Aircraft? Sure, but is it really worth it for the one dude who'll design his aircraft to be a space-age XB-70?
It applies to all aerodynamics in the hypersonic regime
-
19 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:
I wouldn't be so sure. A lot can change. Especially since SLS is threatened* by the Starship. They might boost the whole program, though I think that's something that would be really hard unless politicians are willing to throw money at it. However, if that happens I will have a reason to suspect hands were greased.
The last 40 years of NASA and its attendant contractors shows an entrenched bureaucracy devoted not to tangible results, but to budgetary farming via a human centipede of development programs.
At this point I'm convinced that the only reason STS ever flew was because the military had a serious stake in it.
-
Just now, GearsNSuch said:
looked suspiciously like Jules Verne’s moon bullet...
With canardflaps it looks like a squid.
-
1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:
they are pretty much exactly at the same state of program completion.
Excuse me, but when was the starliner launch?
-
4 hours ago, MatterBeam said:
An NTER can choose to switch propellants during its trip!
This would mean that you could utilize Plasma Gasification to convert garbage, sewage,and or stowaways into useful propellant.
WH40K proven to be prophecy yet again.
-
1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:
Pretty sure compression lift would be a nightmare to code; it would require looking at the shape of the aircraft and then determining to what degree it would generate it. Then calculate that in real time while accounting for speed, density etc.
The Trajectories mod dynamically calculates atmospheric trajectory based on vehicle orientation in real time while accounting for speed, density etc.
-
8 minutes ago, jadebenn said:
absolves SpaceX of all guilt in CCrew delays
They're the only one with hardware that isn't effectively a mock-up.
No other contender even comes close.
-
2 minutes ago, jadebenn said:
Neither was I when they promised they'd send crew to the ISS, yet I'm old enough to drink now.
We've already been over this.
NASA hamstrings such programs so as to make them infinite development programs for the various contractors to farm tax dollars from.
The fact that SpaceX has produced the whole system of flight ready hardware, is astounding.
A sane society would demand an independent investigation of NASA, its contractors, and its congressional oversight.
Looking at the last forty years of NASA, a reasonable man would be forced to conclude that something is amiss.
-
3 minutes ago, jadebenn said:
Touche.
No, seriously, I wasn't even old enough to drive when they started promising us this was just around the corner.
At some point one has to begin to suspect malfeasance.
-
1 minute ago, jadebenn said:
There was a block buy of Orion spacecraft announced earlier this week. Apparently you didn't hear about it, but they've signed a contract with Lockheed Martin that fulfills all NASA's Orion orders for the next decade.
Unless you're alleging that NASA is going to suddenly revive the alternate launcher study after rather decisively trashing the idea a few months ago, they're going to need SLS cores to launch those on.
Call us when it flies
-
On 9/22/2019 at 3:24 AM, OHara said:
StarTheory plan for KSP2 to have aerodynamics very similar to that in KSP1
That system uses several rules---some of which may have helped to make a good game---and not all of them will carry over into a fresh implementation.0) Each part feels aerodynamic forces as if it was moving through the air alone.
Struts have zero drag, but all other parts have aerodynamic forces applied.1) Except, KSP1 reduces the forces on each face that is node-attached to another part, to the extent that the attached part covers that face.
The need to explicitly define the 'covering area' for tube-like parts has tripped up many mods, including Making History.2) Offsetting a part does not change the size of the aerodynamic forces on the part (but the point where those forces are applied to the whole craft does move with the part).
Clipping, offsetting parts inside other parts, is purely aesthetic3) Rotating a part does change the aerodynamic forces.
We can set angles of incidence on wings, and on SRB-fins, to give the desired effect.
We can rotate nose-cones 180° and avoid the leading-face drag in favor of the much lower trailing-face drag.4) Except, any part inside a closed container feels zero aerodynamic forces, and only parts in the 'Payload' section in the VAB count as containers.
The definition of inside is reasonably sophisticated and is rechecked when the container opens or closes.
There have always been one or two bugs where the checking goes wrong.5) Parachutes, thrusters, antennae, and landing gear do not function from inside a closed container ("cannot deploy while stowed").
We have an override ('deploy shielded') for landing gear6) The forces on wings as a function of angle-of-attack give a very soft stall, that behavior being defined by custom curves in physics.cfg.
7) Skin drag, from faces of a part parallel to the airflow, use the same shape factor Cd as they would have when facing the airflow.
This gives Mk2 cargo bays slightly lower drag when open, at high speed.8) As the side-face of a (non-wing) part is tilted into the airflow, the force proportional to tilt angle is all counted as drag, where we expect drag proportional to sine-squared of the tilt angle from standard aerodynamics.
An Mk2 spaceplane in KSP1 at 3° angle of attack feels sin3° = 5.2% (where one would expect only sin²3° = 0.3%) of the of bellyflop drag of its bottom surface.9) The lift on wings as a function of mach number, is higher at low speed, lower lift at high speed, compared to expectations from standard aerodynamics.
A space-plane can easily have enough low-speed lift to glide near touchdown speed the entire length of the runway.Links to threads for reference in spoiler:
Now seems like a good time to discuss which of these have been good or bad for the game, in our experience with KSP1.
>which parts of KSP1 aero do we want to keep?
Hopefully none of it, we need FAR style voxelization, and hopefully supersonic and hypersonic compression lift as well.
-
4 minutes ago, jadebenn said:
So said the same people in 2014. And 2015. And 2016. And 2017. And 2018. And 2019. And (presumably) in 2020.
Meanwhile SLS continues to get built, and more and more are procured. The block-buy contract is going to happen fairly soon. That will fill out the launch manifest for the next decade.
Interesting that all of this is supposition of future events.
-
Just now, jadebenn said:
You know, the fact that people seriously still think this is going to happen shows how divorced from reality that segment of the fandom is.
The SLS can't die, because it was never alive.
It will simply be rolled into a new development program, just as its predecessors were, ad infinitum.
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Also, you are defining a turbofan solely by the design scenario of a high bypass turbofan, and that is not the reality of the design at all