farmerben
-
Posts
830 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by farmerben
-
-
4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
What's more expensive, the ship or the bridge?
Lawyers or Insurance companies?
-
I can understand relying on a generator to power all ship systems. But critical systems should be on a battery.
-
Quote
Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Its main engine, a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2[11] unit manufactured by Hyundai Heavy Industries under license, is rated 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) at 82.5 rpm.[2] Its service speed is 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph).[5] For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster.[4] Electricity is generated by two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp) and two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp) auxiliary diesel generators.[4]
-
You have to have some speed for the rudder to provide control. 8.5 knots is not very fast, though it probably would have been fine at half that speed.
The ship also has a bow thruster for low speed maneuvering, but that probably failed along with everything else when the power went out.
I'm still not clear on whether they dropped anchors before the collision. In such a scenario the anchors probably would not have dug in and done much, but it's one more thing to try.
-
The power lines have hexagonal protective structures around them. No such structure is visible around the bridge piers.
-
1 hour ago, Arugela said:
Could the bridge supports be rebuild strong enough to actually take a hit from those boats?
To quote the Simpsons, "Short answer, yes with an if. Long answer no with a but."
The ship was travelling 8.5 knots and has a max speed of 22 knots. So it could have hit with about 7 times more energy than it actually did.
-
1000km is short range for space lasers. The divergence is more an issue at astronomical units.
-
The big problem in the atmosphere is that high power lasers super heat the air, turning air into a diverging lens. In space, lasers will be much more effective. You still face divergence no matter what.
-
Isn't it better to do vertical launches from the day-night terminator?
-
Manned fly back boosters would be super cool.
At suborbital velocity you could use the rogallo wing.
-
I now think that, if you can accelerate fast enough the vertical approach can save dV. The key thing is to reach escape velocity quickly which is the same as saying below a certain altitude.
-
Staying in the atmosphere longer means more loss due to drag, no doubt about it. The inclination difference is no big deal. It's easy to adjust inclination after leaving the atmosphere. Nobody claimed the vertical approach would save dV. But if the difference is not significant, what advantages does it have?
One of the big advantages in game is you can have oversized payloads without a fairing. The aerodynamics hurt you less.
-
1 hour ago, tomf said:
Just to confirm my intuition I just did a test in ksp. I built a simple two stage rocket with about 5000 m/s delta v with fairly low twr.
First launch was directly upwards and it arrived at the edge of kerbin's soi with a speed of 856m/s.
The second launch did a conventional gravity turn before burning parallel to the surface. That one arrived at the soi with 2000m/s
So it seems clear that the gravity losses for burning directly up are pretty substantial.
I did my tests a little differently. burning until the escape bubble shows up and then seeing how much dV I have left. I just tried it with a simple two stage rocket with 7000 m/s, I had about 1700 left in both cases. If anyone else wants to test this please do.
-
Orbit first is the base case. The vertical approach probably does not save delta-v. The amount wasted is a function of "fighting gravity longer". If you have TWR of 1.5 or so, then the vertical approach is way less efficient. With TWR greater than 3 the amount wasted is very small.
-
I was playing KSP again recently and I remark how easy it is to leave Kerbin's SOI going straight vertical the whole way. Launching at dawn ( for which there is a convenient warp) has a near optimal trajectory for increasing the solar apoapsis, conversely dusk launches go closer to the sun. To optimize the angle you just have to go a little west to offset the initial planetary spin. Generally speaking, I think it works out to close to the same dV to escape Kerbin's SOI with or without orbiting first. Maybe somebody has the calculations. The vertical approach is easier than orbiting, not that the latter is difficult, but the former lets you get away with much sloppier designs like using lots of SRBs or having more aerodynamic drag in the nose.
Do you think the vertical launch approach is a good one to take in reality?
I was thinking the shuttle and SLS style SRB's are a really good value, then use 8 of them and take the vertical approach.
Or maybe the problem is wanting everything to land in the ocean...?
-
I wonder what happens when a tokomak quenches all at once. The magnetic field in the inductor cannot change instantly so the activity of the plasma must spike.
-
They would probably use a chemical rocket in the atmosphere and start the nuclear reactor in space. Uranium before fission is not too bad.
-
Real Estate would become scarce and extremely expensive. The most beautiful ranches never go up for sale anyway, they pass down through families. Under immortality the best pieces of real estate stay in the same hands forever and never go on the market. Meanwhile the TV will be full of home improvement shows to confuse the working class about the value of buildings (which always go down in value) vs land (which goes up).
A percentage of people would decide it's better to live on a boat than on land. But, marina space is limited so most people can't afford it. So new services will deliver supplies to boat people wherever they happen to be, just like now you can order so many things delivered to fixed address.
-
If the reactor core operates at 700 degrees, and the nozzle operates at 4000 degrees then it makes sense.
Here is your core for kilopower
-
You would not bother with lunar solar panels. Just stick one end of the hyperlink inside a star and the other in the boiler room of your ship.
-
If you're running a combined cycle power plant into a mostly thermal engine, the inefficiency doesn't mean much. The key is whether a pure tungsten nozzle can operate at higher temperatures. Or if you can get some ion thrust by running cathode ray tubes out parrallel to your plasma nozzle.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopower
The kilo power reactor uses sodium as a working fluid, and radiates heat into space.
-
What do you call electrothermal propulsion? You could run a kilopower reactor as primarily an electric generator then run tungsten heating elements with hydrogen propellant. It would still be combined cycle, as the waste heat from the reactor would warm the cryogenic propellant into a warm gas before running it though the primary heating element in the nozzle. Would some sort of ion drive be better?
-
External combustion can be very efficient in terms of energy, it just tends have a lot of mass and volume. Stationary power plants, and still some cargo ships use steam turbines.
Many locomotives are hybrid electric. Electric drive, (external) diesel generators.
I wonder if you could trickle a tiny amount of antimatter into an RTG like case and get a steady few kilowatts of electric power?
Francise scott key bridge. Could it be remade immune to damage?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Insurance companies can usually borrow the money to pay off claims, then increase rates to cover the loan. Who benefits? The other insurance companies who can easily raise rates right now.