Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ARS

  1. Does ballistic weapon the worst choice for space-based weapon compared to energy and missile based? Since it needs physical projectile (more mass to carry), generate heat (especially for railgun, since in space you really need highspeed projectile to hit anything) and the need for counter-thruster to mitigate recoil (more propellant dedicated for the gun). Compared to the guidance capability of missiles and sustained use of energy weapons

  2. Is it possible to die simply from sheer pain alone? (You only feel pain, but nothing actually happen on your body) Like you're inside a simulation (but you don't know about it) and have a vision in your mind that you are now burning up to ashes in reentry gone wrong, you can feel the pain, you can feel the heat, but it's all just a sensory output of your brain. In reality your body is still lying on bed, with your brain still jacked up to simulation

  3. So... Today I got 2 things to ask: First, is there any limit on the size of the moon a planet can have? Is it possible that the moon of a planet is larger than the planet it orbits? For instance, if the planet has heavier mass despite it's smaller in terms of size than the moon? And second, is it possible for a moon's orbital period and characteristic to perpetually place it on 'eclipse' position on the planet (in other words, the moon is always between the star and the planet, so there's always a total solar eclipse on illuminated side of that planet)

  4. Well... I have only 1 name (ARS), but it can mean several field of specialization in my space program. ARS may stand for:

    Abnormal Rocket Specification (for building just big dumb booster rockets to brute force the launch)

    All-purpose Relay Satellite (for managing communication relay and satellites)

    Absolutely Reliable SSTO (for building long endurance SSTO for travelling beyond Kerbin)

    Aerial Reconnaisance and Sightseeing (for managing atmospheric aircraft for science or tourism)

    Automobile and Rover Steering (for building land vehicles and rovers)

    Anyone Ready for SCIENCE? (For doing SCIENCE!)

    Advance to Reach the Stars (for managing preparations and missions of off-world expedition)

    Advanced Rocket System (For testing new rockets and do some design corrections along the way)

    Advanced Reusable Shuttle (For building SSTO that's used for around Kerbin only)

    Absurdly Robust Spaceplane (For building spacecraft specifically designed for lithobraking without being outright destroyed)

    Absurd Rocket Science! (The general modus operandi of my space program)

    I might be overusing it lol :P

  5. I can think of GENESIS (Gamma Emission by Nuclear Explosion Stimulate Inducing System), from Gundam SEED. To summarize: GENESIS is a huge gamma ray cannon that uses nuclear explosions to produce a massive burst of gamma radiation, which is reflected back by an external alignment mirror and focused by a second mirror on the cannon to create a laser beam. The laser fired by GENESIS is sufficiently powerful that if it were to hit Earth, it would wipe out half the life on the planet. It causes human bodies closest to the shot to inflate and explode, even inside the ship. The external mirror is severely damaged in the blast and must be replaced for another shot to be fired. The GENESIS was protected by multiple layers of Phase Shift armor, which is capable of even withstanding a hit from a Positron Blaster Cannon, and could be concealed by Mirage Colloid. In other words, that's a giant cannon that focuses multiple nuclear explosions into a single devastating beam

    For a defensive weapon would be Neutron Stampeder device, which actually isn't a weapon but a gigantic high-intensity neutron emitter mounted on a spaceship.  Mounted on a Nazca-class destroyer, it is nearly as large as the ship itself. It works by remotely controlling the movement of free neutrons to induce runaway nuclear fission reactions. When activated, the Neutron Stampeder emits a massive energy wave, which causes any nuclear weapons it comes in contact with to prematurely detonate. Unfortunately, the quantum fresnels fry themselves after firing, so the weapon can only be fired once

  6. Funnily enough, I found about KSP from Tvtropes page. Here's how it went:

    Around 2013-2014, I  was browsing about eldritch location (forget the actual page name) before stumbling on something. It's about how Kerbal will have their body violently twisted, mangled and stretched at creepily weird angles once they passed Jool's atmosphere before blows up in a cloud of dust (with a link on video about it). I clicked the video link and it leads me to Danny2462's video about messing around in kerbol system. A soon as I saw that scene, I thought 'Hey, this game looks great!' Then I searched around YouTube about it and I saw a lot of videos about flight challenges, amazing ship designs or just people messing around with Kerbals by blowing up stuff or breaking the game's physics. That alone is enough to motivate me to get the game (I also love building stuff). Now here I am, actively visiting the forum and engage in discussion with other players

  7. 43 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    I've always wondered that. If we do, I would guess that it's a combination of sight and hearing. You see who's in what position, and then you turn away. After that, you can hear any changes in their position by changes to acoustics in the room. IDK. That's just my guess.

    To test for it, I suppose we'd get a couple of groups of people and sit them down, as in your own experiment. One would be stared at, and the other wouldn't. Finding out exactly what is going on might be harder. Testing on another group, we should not let them know they're being watched, and not permit them to see the watchers, and again, compare them to a control group. If they still have the sensation, then something besides sight is involved. To test the auditory hypothesis, maybe we'd use an anechoic chamber or something?

    I found out that Wikipedia has an article about it, it's called psychic staring effect

    It's mostly relied upon recognizing the specific pattern of human eyes (iris, sclera, etc.) when angled directly on you. If the target's eyes are directly set on you, the brain automatically registers the human eye pattern to alert you that you're being watched, and if the target shifts his/her field of view, even if it's just a few degrees to break the line of sight staring effect (still looking at your direction, but not directly on you) the brain stops registering the specific eye pattern and you feel not being stared at. However, the way human can still recognizing that someone's watching outside the field of view is still unclear

  8. Does humans actually have an ability to 'sense' other human's attention in close proximity? (aka the sensation of being watched) Like in a lot of sci-fi movies, we can see the character said 'I think we're being watched', 'someone's watching us' and other similar remarks. I've run an experiment with some of my relatives to sit with me in a room with me facing a wall and I can consistently tell who's watching me from behind and who doesn't, even without me looking over my shoulder (this also happen without the experiment, like when I'm walking on the roadside I can tell who sets their eyes on me in close proximity). Does this kind of behavior has some explanation or it's just a myth?

  9. As long as the game mechanic of KSP1 (orbital mechanic, newtonian physics, free build) is still in KSP2, I don't mind. Just because the game is about rockets and spaceflight does not mean that's the only challenge. What considered 'challenging' is very different between each person. Some consider building the most complicated and largest rocket a challenge, other just trying to reach destination with smallest amount of fuel, other just want to watch things go boom. I myself has been playing KSP since it's early days and has tried many different playstyles, and based from my experience, I find building cool stuff and fixing any aerodynamic/ technical issues from it challenging

    Though yeah, for people that's really unfamiliar with orbital mechanics and other physics-related stuff, an additional difficulty that's specifically caters for non-nerd is beneficial for the game. Maybe tweak some of the minor stuff (such as reaction wheel has no EC cost, infinite EVA RCS jetpack, unbreakable solar panel, some minor stuff that has little impact towards teaching the orbital mechanic for the newbies) so they can acclimatize to the game before trying the normal difficulty (AKA the REAL KSP experience) where such little things now must be taken into consideration

  10. On 5/18/2021 at 5:50 AM, Spacescifi said:

    A shield made of lasers?! A shield that shields against lasers?

    Now that makes me think, if an energy shield is really made out of lasers, does it really shield against actual laser? Against solid projectiles and missiles I can accept it as they simply vaporized when in contact with the shield, but against lasers? Lasers will simply pass through each other unimpeded, although their point of intersection may experience any constructive or destructive interference between the two beams depending on the characteristics (wavelength and phase) of the lasers involved, but does that interference sufficient to neutralize incoming laser attack (in ship-to-ship combat scale)? Especially since the laser used against those shielded by energy shield in the first place is usually ship-grade high-power laser weapon

  11. Back then on 1997, Progress M-34 crashed with Mir's Spektr module and causing a depressurization breach that forced the crew to seal the module and isolate it from the remainder of Mir station for the rest of station's life. What would people do if such an event happened on modern space station such as ISS (collision outside the station that caused one or more module to depressurize that necessitates it to be sealed from the rest of the station), are we leaving it like that for the rest of the station's lifespan? Are we going to detach and deorbit it (a dead module is essentially a dead weight for stationkeeping thruster right?) before replacing with new ones? Or the space technology has advanced enough from Mir era that we can now attempt to repair and restore the module?

  12. In movies, Time Bomb, no matter who made it or what it's original purpose, whether it's a jury-rigged bomb made by terrorist in a garage to blow up a city block or a nuclear bomb made by NASA to destroy asteroid by splitting it in two, there's bound to be a scene of 'Wire dillema' (aka the classic red or green wire to cut?), now I'm not going to ask about the wire color problem, as any self-conscious bomb maker would definitely made it harder to defuse. What I want to ask is, does this mechanism really exist in real-life bombs? A bomb mechanism where at the end of it, there's 2 wires that when one is cut, it just stops the timer and if the other is cut, the bomb explodes instantly?

  13. In a lot of sci-fi movies involving brain-machine interface, there's a concept where the memories of recently dead person can be viewed by doing whatever the tech the movie has (such as the one in 'The 6th Day' and 'GI Joe Rise of The Cobra'). Now, if a person die, does the brain (which works using electrical impulses) still have memories of the deceased person even after the electrical activity has ceased entirely? Like how a harddrive that stores the data of a computer (alive) is being plugged out of the system (dead) still retains it even without power? I'm not talking about the tech to view that memory, I'm talking about whether the (recently) dead person's brain still retains it's memories and knowledge?

  14. Bullets have effective range (the longest range it has enough kinetic energy and still reliably do damage) and max range (the longest range it travels). We're assuming that this value is based on shooting level horizontally, and the values might change depending on the angle of the gun fired. In any case, air resistance will eventually slow down the bullet and gravity will pull it downward, decreasing it's kinetic energy the longer it travels. But what about this? Let's assume that a gun has effective range of 200m and max range of 300m (at level firing), but what if we fire it straight downward? For instance, firing it from 1000 m high elevation, so the gravity isn't a factor of it's max range. Assuming that there's no wind (but there's still air resistance), could the air resistance from traveling 1000m downward enough render the bullet not effective at all (no kinetic energy left to reliably do damage) or it's still lethal all the way down?

  15. Frequently, in space sci-fi, we can see ships (whether small or large) that's asymmetrical in shape (that is, the port and starboard side are drastically different in shape, which in turn makes one side heavier than other), mostly this is a mobile space station or space colonies, with more thrusters placed at the smaller side to compensate the thrust from engines placed on the other side. From engineering perspective, especially in spaceflight, should the spaceship being better designed as symmetrical or should the asymmetrical design be avoided as possible? I know that the aerodynamic doesn't matter in space and you can build spacecraft in any shape that you want, but I think the symmetrical design are usually much easier to design, especially for engine layout, and in case of engine failure, the stability of the ship isn't affected as much since the center of thrust is more or less focused at a single point at the rear (in case of multiple engine design that necessitates the placement of some engines off the main center of thrust, just turn off the other engine on the other side). That being said, should this mean that in a large-scale space battle, if the enemy bring an asymmetrical capital ship, theoretically, we can just focus on attacking only one engine (preferably the smaller one) so that one it's disabled, the ship can only helplessly spin in place since no thrusters to compensate the asymmetrical center of thrust from the engine on the other side

    What do you guys think?

  16. If a craft is flying very fast in atmosphere, it experiences atmospheric drag and excessive heating, in addition to causing a sonic boom effect. Is there any equivalent for it in underwater scenario? I know that there's a supercavitation effect that allows torpedoes to travel at highspeed underwater, but does the effect is the same like in the air, such as the underwater equivalent of sonic boom? Does being underwater mitigates the heating caused by drag or it does nothing?

  • Create New...