Jump to content

ChrisSpace

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    560

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ChrisSpace

  1. ChrisSpace
    I'll believe it when I see it. Until I actually see things like the Europa probe going up and the commercial crew program, I'm remaining skeptical. Well, if it continues doing what its doing then inevitably someone will beat them into deep space. Who that is, I'm not sure. I still feel sorry for Rocosmos after what happened to their budget. Perhaps China and SpaceX are our only hopes now.
  2. ChrisSpace
    And guess who promised that? A government-run space agency! Your analogy does not work. Well, obviously not now, when we have half a planet's resources at our disposal. But when certain minerals become extremely rare there will be a point where it suddenly becomes more economical to begin mining on Mars. I know that point is a very long way away, but it will happen. Well, how would you expect a settlement to grow on the open ocean? The problem with all orbital colony ideas is that they have no resources around them to independently grow themselves with. The only temporary solution is to build the colony on an asteroid, but that causes even more problems.
  3. ChrisSpace
    1. To get a general view of how things should be, your method works. But to find out exactly what things can be like, I think mine is better. I think. 2. But... I was planning to have Venus as a tropical rainforesty planet, so are you saying that can't happen? 4. Because there is no realistic way to have them in KSP, and one of my side projects is to make this system in KSP and in Space Engine. 5. How does being tidally locked put the land around the equator? 6. An interesting idea. This is one of the few 'suspensions of disbelief' i'm having. I know that in reality this wouldn't happen, but when you look at the yet-to-be-revealed storyline it makes much more sense. I imagined the native Martians/Venusians to be similar in technology to Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians. So unless by 'they' you mean humans, I doubt they'd be able to develop a vaccine. Is 5-10 Earth masses big enough (I haven't decided on an exact number yet)?
  4. ChrisSpace
    Well, after reading the WBW post on SpaceX they have been completely quiet about this, so it's good to know they're still working hard on it. 15 meter diameter... that's far wider than any other rocket in history! Well, for a single-core rocket. 5000-6000mT... Holy ----! That's like 2 Saturn V rockets duct-taped together! 180 meters tall just for the first two stages... then again, they used the word 'Ship' for S2 so perhaps there are only 2 stages. 236mT payload to LEO. So in 2010 they said it would be 140mT, in 2014 they said 150-200mT... by the time this thing launches it's payload will be huge! 20mT nuclear reactor? I see how that makes sense, but wasn't SpaceX against using that sort of thing? Three tanker trips to fill up, but how big are the tankers? The leak/rumor did say that the 'Ship' stage would be 60m long and 15m wide, so how does that compare with the aircraft shown? Can someone do a side-by-side comparison of the rocket and some stuff? Oh, forgot about that. ----! 200,000 people signed up to colonize Mars when Mars One did their thing. And that was without M1 actually demonstrating or showing anything. SpaceX could get a much larger number of people wanting to join the colony. I'm not going to do the math, but in a world of (by then) 8 billion people should have plenty who have the knowledge, skills and desire to live on a new world. Perhaps the lander and habitat are the same, but its an inflatable module and the 15x60m launch configuration is the uninflated version? Exactly. Remember Europe from 1492 onwards? It's the same situation. If it works, it works. Tell someone in 1949 that there'd be a manned moon landing in 20 years, they'd think that to be pretty crazy as well. It wasn't so much that the journey was long, more that it took a long time to get there. The travel times are actually quite comparable, 8 or so moths to get to Mars on a hohmann transfer, and 8 or so months to get from Europe to a new colony somewhere in the new world. How can you tell without breathing the air yourself? But seriously, I think they'd produce air and water from ice in the ground.
  5. ChrisSpace
    I see what this is. While you're looking at estimates for the edges of the habitable zone, I am actually thinking about the planets themselves, individually, looking at every relevant detail possible to determine how far I can push a planet's characteristics. What if the ocean coverage was still similar to Earth's, but the oceans were really shallow so the total amount of water is very low? Would that work? I'll probably remove Juno entirely. I'm still thinking about this. Perhaps I'll do some calculations on what the smallest size for Luna I can get away with. I was thinking Laythe has roughly the same percentage of land coverage as in KSP, perhaps a bit less. And did I ever say the water content of the early solar system was the same as in OTL? I'll mention it when I update the front post. As for KSP, other than looking different, does it make much of a difference? I was thinking the same thing. My original idea for Ceres was basically what Minerva is, so there's nothing Ceres doesn't have that Minerva doesn't.
  6. ChrisSpace
    Yes, I did read them, and I added on the bits I liked/could work with.
  7. ChrisSpace
    I have seen that idea before, but in reality it is really flawed. Basically everything outside of LEO, LLO or deep space behaves very unrealistically. There is simply no adequate way of having binary planets without n-body physics, which we'll probably never have. There is one way around this that I can think of: Move Luna much closer to Earth so the barycenter is within the planet, hence making a binary barycenter unnecessary. That would also help with a few plot-related things, but it would open up one massive problem: Months. In OTL Months are based on the orbit of the moon, so if Luna is much closer then either i'll need to invent a new month naming system, or it will have to be based on something other than the moon's orbit (Aurora's?)
  8. ChrisSpace
    But if it were any larger, the barycenter between Earth and Luna would be outside of Earth. So how could I add a binary planet system if, as a side goal, I'm going to have this as a KSP mod? I mean, I could just move Luna closer to Earth, so the barycenter goes back into Earth, but that would cause more problems.
  9. ChrisSpace
    I was thinking it would be closer to 0.15 solar masses, and much further out. No! When did I ever say that!?!?!?!?!?!? It's the same size as in OTL!
  10. ChrisSpace
    Edited again, taking into account new suggestions
  11. ChrisSpace
    Wait, how is an orbit like that stable? Also, I suppose that throws my idea of 'Vulcan was discovered in 1862' out the window. Unless we can add L-points in KSP, we'll stick with other orbits. Yes, I am planning to make a mod of this. Hmm, I wanted Aurora to look like that but I see you have a point. It's gonna take me a while to look through all that. Just wondering, how long would it take for Aurora's shiny surface to sublimate? Oh, i'll need to check that. And yes Vulcan is tidally locked. Once we have the solar system sorted out I can reveal my storyline plans. All I can say right now is that the story is of an alternate history where space travel is developed about 100 years earlier than in OTL. Well, that's only one plot point. And yes, nuclear fusion is perfected much earlier than in OTL, but that isn't for a while.
  12. ChrisSpace
    I couldn't have said it better myself. These talks don't mean anything, and I doubt any serious action is going to take place until it is several decades too late. As for the poll question, I think a mix of renewables and nuclear is optimal so long as someone who I'm not going to name here doesn't use the uranium for... other purposes.
  13. ChrisSpace
    You never disappoint me. Did you get Aurora in a stable orbit? Also, I never expected Vulcan to have such a visible tail.
  14. ChrisSpace
    I suppose I'll need to edit Vulcan's description. But... but... I have only completed the planets out to the E-L-A system!
  15. ChrisSpace
    -__- Well, looks like I have only one solution: Try everything. L-points, Cycler orbits, surely there's something that can put Aurora in the Earth-Luna system? If not, I have a backup plan for the system, but merely saying what it is is a last resort.
  16. ChrisSpace
    I was thinking Aurora only recently came into the Earth-Luna system within the last few thousand years. So it doesn't need to be perfectly stable, just stable for long enough for everything in the timeline to take place. If it originally formed further out that could also explain its high ice content.
  17. ChrisSpace
    I have actually been thinking a lot about that. Unfortunately, it isn't doable. Aurora is, partially by design, far too large for humans to change its orbit regardless of what its orbiting. Also the reason i'm having it as a second moon is that I want it to be a 'stepping stone' between Lunar and Interplanetary travel, and if it is millions of kilometers away most of the time that causes problems. And another problem with having the impactor a 'Main Belt Comet' is that its tail would be less visible from Earth.
  18. ChrisSpace
    Just to give you an idea of what Aurora's surface is supposed to look like, here's one of the photographs taken on the first expedition there: The temperature calculator I am using is here: http://www.astro.indiana.edu/gsimonel/temperature1.html So if the temperature seems inaccurate then it's a problem with the calculator, or perhaps I plugged in the values wrong. Probably both.
  19. ChrisSpace
    As much as i'd like to do that, my temperature calculation software has me stuck with the atmosphere's mass. If there is any way I can convert one to the other, pls let me know.
  20. ChrisSpace
    How much time are you spending on this? Also, micro announcement: Later today or tomorrow I'll begin posting statistics on the planets and moons for anyone who wants to simulate them.
  21. ChrisSpace
    Did I ever say it formed there?
  22. ChrisSpace
    Well Minerva is somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9 AU, which is inside some of the Extended Habitable Zone estimates. So I suppose that clears that.
  23. ChrisSpace
    Yes, I read the article. What did I miss?
  24. ChrisSpace
    No, I never said the comet was going to be the catalyst for space expansion. It's really just a plot point to get more nations involved in space and expand the capabilities of the nations that are already in space. Most estimates on the thickness of the habitable zone assume the planet being used is similar-ish to Earth. For example, if we put a planet with 10 times the atmosphere of Venus further out than the HZ, it would still be too hot. If we put a highly reflective object closer in than the HZ, it would still be too cold. The only way to properly figure out how far Minerva would be from the sun is to figure things out for this specific scenario.
  25. ChrisSpace
    In that scenario the world would be much more focused on rebuilding than space exploration. And the technology at the time would be sufficient to know the comet might impact Earth, and as measurements become more and more precise the chance of an impact becomes higher and by that point the space programs are making plans even before the impact is 100% confirmed. If Minerva has a dense atmosphere with lots of greenhouse gases, why would it need to be anywhere near Mars? Okay, cool. But again, why can't a Trojan be similar in size to its parent body? I'm quite curious. Both of those are exactly how I planned them to look. Did you keep the moon's real terrain?
×
×
  • Create New...