Jump to content

ARS

Members
  • Posts

    1,291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ARS

  1. Airship based aircraft carrier makes much more sense than having an aircraft carrier with giant 4 helicopter rotors strapped on it's side. There has been a real life airship carriers, but the project is slowing down when they realized carrying a lot of bombs makes much more practical for airships instead of just several aircraft, not to mention the difficulty of getting plane back on airship. The project was totally abandoned after the Hindenburg disaster and aircraft carrier becomes practical
  2. Ore-carrying container is still good idea for a base truck, I can put some power source, small drill, ISRU, radiator and fuel tanks to turn it into mobile refinery suitable for refueling small landers that lands close to my base
  3. Very nice design! If fits perfectly with kerbal stock aesthetic! Question: does the containers compatible with KIS?
  4. Some errors that's prevalent about aircraft in movies: 1. A plane that loses power to the engines still retains it's aerodynamic properties. They become a giant glider that can still be guided for long distance to make emergency landing. In movies, when a plane loses power to the engines, they instantly slows to zero speed and plummets. Even something as big as commercial passenger jet can be glided for a dozen of miles without engines (air transat 236 managed an unpowered flight for over 100 miles before crash landing with no fatalities) 2. Not all crash landing result in a fireball of death that consumes the plane due to the fuel exploding. It depends on pilot's skill in how to perform a crash landing with sufficient angle, speed, and adequate terrain to prevent the fuel from exploding. A skilled pilot can land a plane with no landing gear without igniting the fuel onboard if he/she knows how to do it 3. In NATO pilot speak, "bogeys" are for unidentified aircraft, while "bandits" are for hostile aircraft. This often gets reversed 4. Many movies and TV shows depict helicopter/ aircraft mounted rocket pods (usually Russian UB-16-57UMP or UB-32 rocket pods) as machinegun pods 5. An aircraft that loses one of it's wings will roll towards the direction of the missing wing due to the asymmetric lift. Somehow, it's common for movies to depict an aircraft capable of flying with only one wing because the pilot is skilled enough (or push the control stick hard enough). Some aircraft does have a flight model that allows it to perform limited flight with one wing (such as that F-15 incident where it loses one of it's wing. The pilot didn't even realized it!) 6. Modern air combat is often depicted within spitting distance of each other. BVR missiles be damned. Today, air warfare has been progressed to the point that the range of missiles is so great that the pilot might not even seeing an explosion from his/her own missile. Also, modern aircraft in movies often fires it's cannons for a much longer duration than it would in reality. Those onboard cannons have a rate of fire in thousands of rounds per minute to ensure that at least some of them will hit the target for a kill, but modern aircraft often have a maximum ammo capacity for less than a minute cannon firing, and even then, those cannons have a range in kilometers and only used when it's too close for missiles to achieve lock on enemy aircraft 7. When the aircraft being locked on by enemy missiles, a lot of movies seems to not understand the difference between "flares" and "chaff". Chaff is strips of metals designed to disrupt radar images, and only effective against radar guided missile, while flares is a burning compound used to fool the heat sensor of heatseeking missile 8. Movie's missile lock on tone of "beep... beep... beep... beep... Boooop!" Is never heard in real cockpit. The lock on tone for radar guided missile like AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, and AIM-54 Phoenix is continuous low pitch ringing tone. For AIM-9 Sidewinder, it's continuous low pitch growl 9. Russian planes in movies is almost always referred as MiGs. It's very rare to hear Russian aircraft referred as Tupolevs, Sukhois, etc. 10. Some movies depict some rocket launchers (most often LAW or RPG-7) as if they are anti aircraft launchers (they are not, both are meant to be used against tanks and armored vehicles (and occasionally low-flying helicopter)) firing guided missiles (they are not, both are unguided, and their rocket motors aren't even powerful enough to propel the warhead onto aircraft's flight altitude) 11. Blimps and airships is an unusual aircraft that seems to compound the Hollywood confusion about them. Unlike elastic balloons, they do not POP when you shoot/ poke a hole on it. The gas inside is barely under any pressure and they take their "torpedo" shape because of the internal frames. A lot of German airships during WW2 managed to limp back to the friendly territory after they are shot full of holes. Even today, blimps are often being shot by people who thinks it WILL pop. Many modern blimps and airships uses helium instead of hydrogen to avoid "Hindenburg v2.0", and even then hydrogen-filled blimps and airships is notoriously difficult to ignite due to the lack of oxygen inside the gas envelope to sustain the combustion, making hydrogen explosion extraordinarily rare (until British makes a special incendiary rounds to specifically ignite and sustain the combustion)
  5. Back then before we truly understand how crucial TWR and Dv in designing a rocket, most older movie, comic, books, etc. seems to include a villain with the intention of "I'll destroy city X with X", with a rocket that seems awfully tiny compared to today's regular cruise missile and underpowered for the task it's supposed to do
  6. It's all about the rule of cool first and scientific explanation made up second
  7. A planet that isn't moving generates no gravity, and that means you don't have to worry about escape velocity, but the problem is, nothing will keep you nailed down on planet, so you cannot land by gravity
  8. Spaceship is indeed impractical in gundam universe (they rarely survive a single beam gun before going kaboom, unless it's prototype/ capital ship), but they are justified for being the carrier for gundams where they act like aircraft carrier in space (their firepower is from craft/ gundams they carry, but cannot fight direct confrontation) The reason for giant robot is a bit vague, but some source material claims that it allows the usage of more powerful weapons with acceptable mobility (gundam assault rifle is basically full auto tank cannon, which, if mounted on conventional weapon platform like tanks, aircraft, etc., would literally tear it apart from immense recoil. Placing it on gundams allowed it to be braced properly like how humans handle the guns and gundams can also adjust the bracing stance to compensate with terrain/ environment), still ignoring square cube rule though (except in space, but that problem belongs to orbital mechanic)
  9. Maybe it's because KSP mainly isn't about graphic. Remember, most game that came out recently prioritize graphic first and gameplay second. KSP need intensive programming for simulating astrophysics and calculations for gravity, drag, orbit, etc. Those codes is a lot more complex than FPS hitscan code. Maybe squad doesn't have much time to make the planet texture prettier since their main focus is coding for simulation But back on topic, as for stock planets, I agree that most planets beyond kerbin is quite dull, especially because of their simplistic texture that makes it quite jarring when being compared with kerbin. Stock planets looks like either big ball of rock/ gas with texture slapped on. Graphic mods does makes them prettier, but on low performance computer, it lags like hell that the game becomes nearly unplayable. My opinion is, in order to make stock planet much more interesting without resource-heavy graphic mods is altering their terrain layout No, seriously. Duna would be much more interesting to visit when there's a network of deep canyons (like mars' noctis labyrinth) to explore, imagine exploring those labyrinth at night using rover. Or make a deep canyon that stretches across the equator (like valles marineris), this can make elcano challenge much more interesting (so far, the only closest thing in stock KSP that looks like this is Dres' canyon, which makes Dres as my favorite landing site) Just a diverse variations of terrain layout can give players a lot of gameplay value. Sure, graphic mods helps a lot to make it prettier, but no matter how pretty graphic mods can alter the scenery of a planet, you're still basically strolling across flat bland surface of duna. Giving more varied terrain variations can give players more reason and incentives to start "exploring" for the sake of exploration, not just FOR SCIENCE!
  10. OCS: Orion control system Effect: makes all RCS thrusters uses Orion drive propulsion
  11. KRAKENS: Kinetic Rounds Augmented with Kerbal-made Enhanced Nuclear Shells Effect: when installed, any weapon mods firing bullet-based weapons (like machineguns, gatling, etc.) will create nuclear explosions (like in North Kerbin Dynamic mod), basically turning them into full-auto nuclear machine gun to satisfy your MOAR explosion fetish
  12. Debunking bad astrophysics on almost ALL space movies out there
  13. James Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies: Royal Navy frigate fires the cruise missile at the terrorist "flea market", M tells 007 he has four minutes to get clear. The target is 400 miles from the ship. A Tomahawk cruise missile (as shown) has a top speed of about 550 miles per hour. It should have taken the missile about 43minutes to get there. The novelization blows it even more thoroughly, with a Harpoon missile being launched, and traveling 800 miles in 4 minutes 8 seconds. First of all, a Harpoon (an antiship missile) has a maximum range of less than 100 miles, and second, it travels at about the same (determinedly subsonic) speed as the Tomahawk. To do 800 miles in 248 seconds, it would have needed to achieve about 11,600 miles per hour, or about 3.2 miles per second - about half of Earth's escape velocity. Also, any object traveling that fast at low altitude would burn up like a meteor hitting the lower atmosphere - plus what the shock wave effects would do to anything along its path on the ground
  14. Ah I see. I thought ICBM was guided instead of using ballistic trajectory
  15. Okay then... And how about curving/ slingshotting a projectile across the planet's horizon by using it's gravity well to hit the target on the other side of the planet? Is that possible?
  16. Is this scene possible? (Seen from above-earth perspective) -Main character's ship in orbit on 6 o'clock position, moving clockwise -Enemy orbital platform in orbit on 12 o'clock, moving clockwise -Relay satellites in orbit on 9 and 3 o'clock position, moving clockwise -Main character ship's engines faced retrograde and fire the thrusters to lower it's velocity. Craft's orbital trajectory changed into suborbital trajectory for reentry (it's not yet entering the atmosphere) -Enemy orbital platform fires a tactical nuclear missile to hit the main character's ship before it enters the atmosphere from 12 o'clock position -Detecting nuclear launch signature from hacked relay satellite, the main character used the relay satellite to track the nuclear missile (which is still en route from position 12 to 1) and calculate it's speed, trajectory and altitude -The main character activates the rail cannon on their ship and synchronize the tactical feed obtained from relay satellite and used it to calculate shooting trajectory and gravitic compensation for the rail cannon -The rail cannon is fired (from position 7 o'clock). It's projectile trajectory slingshotted along earth's horizon curvature due to earth's gravity and hit the nuclear missile, destroying it (on position 1 o'clock) -The detonation created EMP effect, obscuring enemy targeting sensors, allowing the main character's ship to enter the atmosphere Is this possible? Using orbital mechanic?
  17. First Transformers movie: 1. An AC-130U Spooky gunship is used to take down the Decepticon Scorponok using "105 sabot rounds". The AC-130 is armed with a 105 mm howitzer, but there is no such thing as a sabot round for this type of weapon. 2. F-22 Raptors were used to attack the Decepticons during the final battle using laser guided air-to-ground missiles. In real life, the F-22 cannot carry any laser guided air-to-ground missiles; it is designed to use GPS-guided bombs for air-to-ground attacks. 3. Freakin' jet powered Predator. While the C variant of the Predator is jet powered, it also has substantially redesigned wings and fuselage. Putting a jet engine in a Predator B frame and putting it through the maneuvers in the movie would probably have snapped the wings off.
  18. The whole "using humans as a power source" idea. In reality, it would be an enormously terrible idea to use ANY living thing as power source. Burning humans is provides way more energy than using their bioelectrical output (also, since they can grow humans on fetus field farms, burning humans is much more simpler since they don't have to deal with life support systems). Rumour has it that the original idea was to have the humans being used as processors for computing power, but then somebody on the production said that this idea was way too complex for most moviegoers to grasp, so they changed to Duracell batteries. A bit more on the prequel of the matrix, the Animatrix, the humans used nukes to destroy the 0-1 (machine city) but it has no effect on machines since they are resistant towards heat. Apparently nukes on the future doesn't have EMP effect or blast shockwave from their detonation, merely creates "heat"
  19. Might not been related to physics, but I've read a book with quite interesting premise, but can anyone clarify is this plausible? "It's set within current day timeline and technological level. Basically, after WW3, whole earth is united into one single global superpower. In order to combat the insurgents, separatist and those who didn't support the alliance, a network of 48 defense satellite was built on geostationary orbit, complete coverage of total surveillance. The satellites are equipped with laser intended to shoot down any ballistic missiles, rendering ICBM useless. However, the system proved costly to maintain, and after all satellites has coming online, there's a dispute about who should be given control of the satellite. The internal conflict rages and eventually, the earth alliance is breaking up from inside. The control codes for the satellite itself was lost in the ensuing conflict. With the earth alliance being disbanded, surviving nations bands up into 2 factions and fight against each other in order to gain total domination on earth. At some point, the programming protocol of the satellites got corrupted, and instead of shooting ballistic missiles, it shoot all satellites on earth orbit, and anything that leaves stratosphere. Now here's the main premise: with no satellites, humanity has no GPS, orbital surveillance or remote communications anymore. The only thing that's still active out there is just that laser satellites, which also prevents most high altitude bombing, ICBM and missile strike. Humanity has no BVR combat capabilities anymore, and combat was done in visual range (with current day weapons). With this limitation, it gives rise to the armored infantry division, troopers who wear heavily armored exoskeleton outfitted with heavy weapons comparable to a main battle tank. The suit has an operational duration of 8 hours with internal battery. It gives the trooper the firepower and protection of a tank, but with agility of humans" Assuming we lose all satellites on earth orbit, how the warfare will change? Note: with no satellites, there's no global communication. It's like WW2 communication there
  20. No, this isn't about orbital mechanic, there's not even orbit involved here. There's also no phlebotinum technology like warp drive or hyperspace travel. They simply used that engine to burn directly towards the Saturn from Earth, Constantly. And when they are about to crash into planet, they reorient the ship to point the boosters towards the planet and burn it directly for landing (while reentry) Probably. They didn't specify if the engine has alternate mode or not. Other than being very fuel efficient can run continuously for years but has horrible thrust The background material says that they are the race of nomadic alien. And their city is spherical in shape. Half of them above ground, the other half is underground. When they are departing, the whole city is lifted and flies into space. When they are arriving, the whole city lands and the engines.... How can I say it, basically point it towards the ground (while the city is still descending) to progressively create a crater that grows larger and larger the closer the city get to the ground so the whole half of the city will fit neatly into the crater
  21. Well, they are humanoid aliens, but their definition of habitable is similar to humans (1G planet, atmosphere, oxygen within minimal habitation threshold, water) and their posture is like Navi in Avatar movie. In fact, their ship is occasionally crewed by humans too
  22. I found this sentence, in a background material for a sci-fi story, can anyone say is this making any sense? "The immense spherical object is a massive self-sustaining space city/ colony ship, intended to carry a whole generation of colonist to a distant planet. Due to the bulk of the ship's mass, it's engine is not powerful enough to give it any appreciable thrust, even though it's very fuel-efficient and reliable. It takes roughly hundreds of years to travel a distance comparable to earth-saturn mission. When arriving on a habitable planet, the engine is used for planetary landing and terraforming landing site terrain to fit for habitation and conversion of ship into a permanent city" An engine that's very poor in thrust is good enough for planetary landing? We're talking about an object the size-weight of 1/4 of death star here
  23. Asymmetric engine ignition. My craft goes sideways and destroying the launch pad when the SRBs activated asymmetrically Most of the cringe-worthy moment in KSP can be summarized to begin with: 1. Staging error 2. Placing something wrong 3. Forget placing something 4. Pressing the wrong button
  24. So... I want to ask some question. Does placing high-gimbal engines on top of rocket (like on nosecone or around upper stage) works better for stability compared to having engines placed on the bottom like regular rocket?
  25. Sliding doors is not very good at locking/ pressurizing/ sealing the room, especially since the it's far more prone in getting jammed or damaged. The submarine-style airlock door allows you to build a very strong door that can withstand depressurization. It also doesn't require power, so you can open/ close the door when there's no power (imagine your ship is getting hit by EMP, disabling all electronics, then the enemy fired a missile that hit the main reactor. You ordered to abandon ship, but you can't get to the escape pod because sliding door on the bridge cannot be opened) and no, no sliding doors ever used or proposed for real life spaceflight
×
×
  • Create New...