Jump to content
Forum will be temporarily offline today from 5 pm PST (midnight UTC) ×

silversliver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    119

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by silversliver

  1. silversliver
    Yes it seems stable, and it seems to be even with 0.00008x Earth mass as wrote on the main page. The doubt that I have with your version of Aurora is that seems too small. I was picturing something like Phobos and Deimos.
  2. silversliver
    I wanted to write Earth but I wrote kerbin, I don't know why, probably I'm playing too much ksp. The lagrange points are very (read: impossible) difficult to simulate in a realistic manner with my simulations so it will be better not. The tail is VERY bright. (and isn't consistent with my simulation) The simulation says that the higher the albedo the less the temperature, so it could be a vantage. So the more an object is brighter the lower it will be its temperature.
  3. silversliver
    Yes, is in a circular 7-600,000 km orbit around kerbin. The tail of Vulcan is short but very bright, it's visible from Saturn. I thought of Enceladus, also the surface is less regular than it seems the differences of altitude are around 70km. With more orbital parameters about gas giants I could do it with universe sandbox but only for around 200 years maybe 300, then the sim would probably crash.
  4. silversliver
    And now Aurora. I'm not entirely convinced by the colour but the surface is very similar to the image.
  5. silversliver
    Why not? I remember seeing an N-body simulation of the various systems of moons of ksp solar system and apart from Jool they all seem quite stable. We are analysing a system very similar to kerbin-mun-minmus so this should be stable too. Also I made a climate simulation of Vulcan using universe sandbox. http://it.tinypic.com/a/5f26ol/3 You can notice: The surface isn't melted by sun heat, you absolutely need geothermal activity to explain a (almost) completely melted surface. The tail is the opposite of what I thought, is in minimal part gas of the atmosphere and the major part is dust from the surface that is literally vaporized. For this sim I used Venus with a thicker atmosphere because the composition of that seems very close to Venus OTL, and I used Mercury with an added atmosphere to simulate the surface. As you can see the results are almost the same. Also the temperature you found is consistent with the temperature I simulated in this cases, but as I said before you haven't took in account the lava on the surface.
  6. silversliver
    Seems that I guessed right the diameter for Aurora. Pics later. Also it seems that I guessed wrong the diameter for Vulcan and very wrong the one for Eros. About Vulcan there's an error. It's surface temperature can't be so low, you said that a good part of it's surface is molten and lava is around 1700-1800 °C at least. Also taken in consideration the distance from the sun and the 4x greenhouse effect the simulation says about a surface temperature around 3000-3500 °C.
  7. silversliver
    Very little, it's easier than it seems. Also the statistic would be very useful to simulate some of the planets.
  8. silversliver
    Ok, keep it simple. ================================ And now Vulcan:
  9. silversliver
    Yes because of this (semi-realistic) theory I developed: The moon is a captured body. It was formed beyond the snow line, between Jupiter and Saturn. Because of that it had a lot of ice on the surface and no atmosphere. Then it migrated to the inner solar system were it has been captured by Earth. There the ice sublimated and formed a (temporary) atmosphere and bodies of liquid water. I pictured this has happened around 100-200 million years before the actual time in the solar system. This would explain various things: The craterisation is before the migration (no atmosphere so no protection against bolides) The tidal lock isn't (still) happened because of the "short" timespan since the migration and capture
  10. silversliver
    I made the new moon and Minerva, what do you think?
  11. silversliver
    Up for 1.0.5
  12. silversliver
    First thing first, this made me laugh a lot. Then the rest: As it's been pointed before I don't like the fact that there are so many life-friendly worlds. I like the challenges that arise when you have to live on a body without bodies of liquids (not necessary water), without atmosphere, magnetosphere and so on. You said that this is the only way that colonization can happen, but you may do so: you have planets with atmospheres and magnetospheres but each one as an hostile trait. For example on a world there may be a magnetic field and an atmosphere with normal pressure, but which contains a toxic element for humans. Also in this way you can have (intelligent) life forms that adapted to this conditions and maybe for them Earth's atmosphere is toxic; IMHO this would make wars more interesting.
  13. silversliver
    Ok, in this way it makes sense, however as you said this should be a feature of every fission reactor, while the non-built-in reactors don't have this.
  14. silversliver
    I noticed another couple of bugs. First there's something wrong with the engines that have built-in reactors. Specifically: TORY nuclear ramjet engine Direct cycle nuclear turbojet NERVA Closed cycle gas core engine CANDLE traveling wave reactor engine The problem is that they produce energy (ElectricCharge) even when offline. To replicate launch a vessel with one of those engines, shutdown the reactor, wait until heat decay is complete and in the control window the reactor is offline. You still notice that they produce some electricity. Second some of the radial attach points for some of the parts of microwave transmission are upside down. Specifically: Deployable phased array microwave transmitter Phased array microwave transmitter Microwave beamed power receiver You'll notice that if you attach them in-line they're fine, but radially are upside down.
  15. silversliver
    A book by Stanislaw Lem, quite famous. It talks about a scientist that goes to make studies on a planet believed to be sentient.
  16. silversliver
    You probably read too much Solaris.
  17. silversliver
    Probably is because the new parts in 1.0.5 are made with a new PartTool and they changed something in the way the models are handled.
  18. silversliver
    It's not an issue, it has been so since stock resources have been introduced.
  19. silversliver
    The common resources are placed.
  20. silversliver
    No is a thing that was present even in 1.0.4 and before, you can only see certain resources with the Orbital Scanner and those not includes the ones in atmosphere or in the oceans.
  21. silversliver
    You can't see resources in atmospheres or oceans.
  22. silversliver
    So this is a confirmed bug? G-R-E-A-T I submitted this, hope it gets fixed because is extremely gamebreaking to who use CommunityResourcePack.
  23. silversliver
    Here is the last sandbox save that I made. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xco5pkkotw0vi1e/default.zip?dl=0 As you can see there are two probes around Kerbin and Mun , and I have scanned both of them.
  24. silversliver
    Hi there. I have a problem with orbital surveys. I can see them through the overlay of the Orbital Scanner, but when I go in the Tracking Station it's not showing up, telling me that I need to make an orbital survey. I don't think that is a problem with this save because I tried with three other saves and still isn't working.(both careers and sandbox) I also tried a save from 1.0.4 where I made orbital surveys but even this says the same thing, but in 1.0.4 is working perfectly. Of course I have build 1028.
  25. silversliver
    Inspired by the Almighty Scott in his video presentation for 1.0.5 I built a jetpack. http://i63.tinypic.com/n6su3s.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/2vxmyj5.jpg Incredibly manoeuvrable thanks to the OP reaction wheels.
×
×
  • Create New...