Spacescifi

Is it not ironic when we game to escape stress only to be stressed out over the game itself? Trading real problems for imaginary ones LOL! It can be a vicious cycle of sorts....but it leads to confronting or ignoring what is truly stressing you out and finally making some judgement calls about what should and will be done. Obviously... no stress goes away if you ignore it, but it is all too easy to delude oneself and say, 'I just like the game!' Or 'I like the challenge!' when in reality a person may be using it as a way to escape unpleasant challenges instead of actually doing what they can to improve their situation. I am not anti-gaming, but I do know that balance is a must. Part of me still wants to see if I can beat this or that challenge, but I must admit I can reap similar 'highs' from other activities that reap more benefit. Like exercise. or honing skills in a hobby or mathematics.

Purdue article is using water ice with alluminum somehow? No mention of fluorine that I saw... Even said they want to make a gel of the stuff. Funny eh? Future propellant be like hair gel LOL.

Since powder is more dense than fluid, yet can easily be turned to fluid, would it be possible to create a kind of propellant powder that could be converted easily to fluid again for a rocket engine? I am thinking more dense fuel storage but with the same advantages of chemical rocketry. Methane powder is a thing, and I reckon it is binded with something... probably salts. Would be cool if some lighter gases could be powderized or at least made into a thicker more dense fluid (like hydrogen, helium, oxygen, etc). Oh... this is cool: https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2009b/091007SonRocket.html https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.1077

Yes... more mass indeed. Which is why TWR would have to be unusually high as well as specific impulse for it to be viable at all. Futurstic for sure. I know in popular scifi on TV embeddsd nozzles are popular, but I suppose it is because of tropes.... and maybe someone is aware of the reentry shielding.

There seem to be some advantages to hull embedded nozzles, yet they are not popular choice. Seems to me the main reason is staging. Embedded nozzle holes on a flat side of the hull are perfect if there was an SSTO that could do it with a reasonably useful mass of payload. You could have big vacuum rated nozzle in the center and a ring of smaller atmospheric nozzles surrounding it. During reentry if you fly belly down your nozzles are shielded. Hull embedding on a flat side also makes fuel transfer docking in space easy. Just dock butt to butt with the flat sides between like ships and pump fuel. Reasons why not do it: Staging. SSTO's are not practical. But if they were, embedded nozzles in the hull might catch on. Nozzles don't move, so you need really good RCS thrusters to compensatem In the meantime we have starship, while not embedded nozzles it does have a skirt to protect nozzles during reentry.

Both are public USA gyms. I am considering joining one or the other since: 1. A toxic person (to me) is coming to stay for a few weeks. Gym would give me some place other than home to be after work. 2. I would not mind, and would enjoy the weight lifting and running. 3. I am not rich but I could afford either. Cheaper is great, but I still want to know which gym is best for me. 4. My body type is mesomorph, and I am not fat, so my goal for the gym is mainly for upgrading my strength and speed. To push myself to feel alive and what not... Thoughts? In-shape gym VERSUS Planet Fitness!

Hmmm... Linux does have windows emulators available called Wine. Not sure it will allow KSP to work, but you can give it a shot. Not all things work in wine, but some do.

Probably impossible. I honestly think scale matters. The universe has it's own code, for things to behave a certain why depending on density and scale. Once you reach a certain scale you no longer have an a atom. At macroscopic levels you could say the milky way is like an atom and the stars and planets are like the protons and electrons. Even though they truly are not. I doubt in the same way a scaled up atom would behave like a real one, since nothing I know of behaves the same scaled up or down. Scaling up increases inertia, scaling down lowers it.

Hmmm.... the moon has alluminum, yet smelting and forging is best done on a lunar base equipped with centrifuges I think. Smelting and forging requires water on earth does it not? The moon has some ice, but use will be torn between industrial and human drinking water. At any rate the larger the moon base the more alluminum that could be stored away. Alluminum make okay spaceship hulls. Don't know about nozzles or engines. Likely require lower heat engines or else.

Concrete. Source could regolith, from the moon or any other celestial body without an atmosphere. I think concrete may be easier to manufacture offworld than metals. Both will likely be helped with centrifuges, but bulk metal manufacturing requires more overall than bulk concrete manufacturing. Concrete spacecraft would make OK orbiters and moon landers. Earth reentry is not for them though. Kind of funny to think the first offworld built spacecraft could be a whole fleet of ships made from lunar clay. Truly lunar craft. What do you think? One more relatively reachable use of space resources.

I was well aware that it is easier to reach outer planets since they are movinf slow anyway... relative to us. Time is the main factor. Matching orbits with rockets is fairly easy.... just depends how fast and how much propellant tankers you want to use up or wait longer. Matching orbits is still faster and rasier than actually taking the time to coast there.

Perhaps not.... may not matter though. I know Jupiter orbits slower than Earth does around the sun. Earth orbit around sun speed: 30 kilometers per second. Jupter orbit around sun speed 13.07 kilometers per second. Which means there is less than 16.93 kilometers per second that must be lost to orbit jupiter, since no one wants to drop their whole ship there. Losing that speed can be done quickly via rocketry or slower via gravity fly bys.

True.... my point was if you combine scifi tropes like FTL jump or warp drives with even modern rocketry that would be enough to go to jupiter with rocketry or anywhere else. Of course it depends heavily on your warp or jump drive being way more efficient than your rockets.... but I digress. If I recall correctly to the delta v to match Jupiter's orbit from Earth orbit is not high from a delta v standpoint. It's the acceleration long trip all the way there from earth and the retroburn of arrival that kills your propellant. Scifi jump and warp skips that step.

Question: Do you think it is or ever will be possible for mankind to create metastable metallic hydrogen? What do you think it would take to do it? I honestly do not think only pressure is the answer, since once it is released... I don't think the hydrogen will stay compacted. I presume some kind of binding agent would be required. And if that means a type of EM field it would likely be expensive and require a lot of radiators. It would be better if we could bind it with a matter agent that made it metastable or at least lowered the amount of EM field power required to keep it metastable. What do you think? Project Orion Is Not As Good As I Thought: 1. Rockets are cheaper and easier to make. 2. Orion is what you use if you have NO better way. 3. Orion is too dangerous. 4. If the pusher plate misfires too soon you can break the pistons. 5. So heavy that RCS will make turning an issue over time. 6. Has enough bomb power to wipe a country off the map. Why rockets are better: 1. Safer. 2. Cheaper. 3. If you wish to combine even FTL jump or warp, rockets, even todays, will work so long you bring rocket tanker ships for ressupply. Tankers ARE your delta V.

I know KSP forums is global, so this may not help, but it is worth a try. Here in the USA even if you already had an X-ray 8 months ago or less from the previous year they will often (the dentists and crew) say they will NOT treat you for general cleaning UNLESS you agree to another X-ray. I have a serious problem with this because: https://news.cancerconnect.com/brain-cancer/dental-x-rays-linked-to-common-brain-tumor I have asked why get an X-ray to a dental worker once, and he said we won't know how to treat you without seeing your teeth. Seemed reasonable enough. But I really do not think it is necessary for within a year or less of time to get more X-rays unless teeth are just that messed up and one has bad symptoms to boot. I have heard rumors that dentists order more X-rays than they need to, although I am not sure why. Silly reason: X-ray pictures are cool! We collect them. More likely reason to me: There is some profit motive. Perhaps they use their X-ray machine enough some profit incentive or qualification is reached that helps the company or dental office in some way that average people do not and should not know, as it would mean dentists are responsible for radiaating patients more than necessary in behalf of the 'almighty profit'. Any ideas on this, or suggestions on how I can STILL get general dentistry cleaning care without X-rays? I have my last X-ray pics from over six months ago. I had hoped I could use those for reference.

In fiction: Character goes through some severe dramatic test or tragedy. The experience sticks with them and changes them and their behavior ever after. In real life: A person experiences a severe dramatic test or tragedy. It changes them temporarily, making them act out of character for two weeks straight. Then slowly but surely they revert to their old self. By the way, the IRL experience was my own. I have seen that in fiction, characters most often become just what is needed to enable the plot, all their ups and down have brought them to the penultimate moment to prepare them to fit the role the author had in mind all along. So often because of that character changes stick in fiction. IRL? Not necessarily, as character development IRL is slow and often difficult too. My experience occurred after the death of a family member. For two weeks straight I acted so out of character, trying to send thank you cards and gifts to people that had helped me in the past that had nothing to do with the memorial service, and one that did. It was so strange that I literally became upset when a person refused to give me an address of one person I did not know that I wanted to send a gift to. I knew at the time that I was slowly but surely reverting back to the old me, and the newfound magnaminous generousity would not last for long.... so I was trying to use it for good while I still had it. Thr five stages of grief... really only four for me occurred in this order: 1. Denial. Did not last longer than secibds though. 2. Anger. Came again and again. I was sweeter toward those I felt warmth to, and those I disliked or that mistreated me in both the past and the present I tended to grow openly wrathful with... which is not my usual self. 3. Acceptance. Death is as easy to accept as it is that we cannot fly like Superman. It is a lack of power to prevent the inevitable that we are forced to accept. 4. Depression. This lasted the longest of them all... perhaps I was being generous in part to compensate for my own grief. It did make me feel good doing things for others. So I guess my point is that IRL we make the plot more or less, so character development is far more fluid and changeable than fiction where characters are often static in nature and unchanging. Real people either get better or worse.... staying the same only lasts for a while before circumstances enforce changes they should have already made. For example a young man or woman may eat unhealthy in their twenties, but as they age their body will force them to make dietary changes or else What times in your life developed you as a character? Did the development stick or was it temporary?

Rockhoppers be uncrewed. Too slow to warrant crew. The fastest burning thristy ships be crewed. Only thing faster burning and more thirsty be military.

Thanks. So all gas planets have a little oxygen? Seems like they are full of everything else but oxygen. How would do about propellant farming on Uranus, Saturn, or Jupiter? Same way as Titan or Venus? Jupiter has 2g gravity too... so that's an issue. Seems like gas worlds either tons of carbon dioxide or hydrogen, while oxygen which is related to living things is either low or nonexistant. I don't know what each gas world has, but I know some are rich in carbon dioxide and hydrogen. A balloon platform might work, so lobg acid clouds or high winds don't rip it apart. Which is an issue on certain gassy worlds. Jupiter has a storm bigger than Earth called the red spot, and I reckon I read that other gassy worlds have storm issues too.

Moon has plenty of that. Moon great for SRB fuel. Chemical is not as muchm

As long as rocketry is relied upon, tanker spaceships will also be relied upon. It is easier to refuel off a tanker than ISRU. ISRU bases could also supply the tankers when the time came. Yet I was curious just what each planet offered in terms of propellant. Earth: Everything but hard to access. Moon: Maybe a bit of ice but not a lot compared to other options. Plenty of stuff for solid boosters though. Mars: Methalox. What else not sure. Mercury: Not a clue, but I reckon any barren world you can use to maje solid boosters. Venus: Plenty of options Some harder to get than others. Neptune: Ditto. Jupiter: Ditto. Saturn: Ditto Whatdo you know on this?

Essentially correct. When relying on rocketry with limited propellant and you donot have torchships that can do 1g for days, the most valuable ship, for battle, trade, exploration, or anything else, is the giant tanker full of propellant. If that goes kaboom, the local fleet is either stranded or cannot go certain places or intercept certain stuff anyway. Tankers are the unsung hero spaceships seldom ever seen in pop scifi. Never. Ever. Fly solo. Two vessels minimum can tether and spin for 1g or less. Four vessels and you can have several tankers at your beck and call. Of course I prefer orion drive tankers, since they can save their propellant for the fleet that needs it since they rely on a limited suppply of bombs for propulsion.

That is a legit point.... but in a scifi trope setting it could work well enough (don't explain the impossible, not the job of scifi). All the other stuff is based on reality and theoreticals that we do understand some. All scifi is a paradox... I like Orions and rockets. People pick what they like. My reasons for liking rockets with tankers is it allows greater freedom of movement while still not making them overpowered as a torch drive that can go 1g for days.

Main Question: How high up in space are antimatter bomb blasts safe? Nuke level yield but using only AM annihilation? Reason: I figured out that scifi tractor beams that can both push and pull as beams would work great for pushing or retracting an otherwise massive stationary launch platform into LEO space. From there Orion drive tankers could take off and use AM bombs to fly into orbit, saving most of their propellant for crewed rocketships that dock in orbit and refuel Normally an orion drive used as a giant propellant tank would make little sense. But in this setting it would make plenty. As the space rocketships are proper warp starships but rely on tankers for propellant. Orion drives save chemical propellant by using bomb push propulsion. Lots of ISRU bases would help too, with more tractor beam luft platforms. Like they say, once in space you are halfway to anywhere. So if that becomes easier then rockets become a whole lot more practical when you use a lot of Orion tankers. And getting back to Earth is just as easy... adjust your speed via tankers far away, warp in and land on a platform and let it take you back down to Earth.

Should come as no surprise that I researched this before.... but the answer is... yes.... IF your RCS also have infinite RCS with the required thrust too. Do note that IRL your RCS would look like flaming main enines to pull this off LOL. Honestly with IRL physics propellant is a precious resource and the more massive the ship the longer it takes to even to even have a reasonably good turn rate that won't take several seconds. To be sure, if ships fly around at a constant 1g that still gives some time to dodge. But if ships can jump drive or warp anywhere like in popular scifi, then you won't be dodging much when ships jump within weapons range and missiles are seconds away from impact. Long story short is that unless you purposely handicap warp or jump ability in some way, all spaceships are sitting ducks to any ship that warps in and blasts them. Meaning combat would attempt to be done at warp or via jumping, since that would be the most effective way of NOT being shot.

In atmosphere the shockwave air blast does give extra boost. In space it is the plasma... which is the inverse of a rocket which throws plasma exhaust. An Orion smashes itself with plasma to push along, so the fuel pellets are concentrated plasma blasts if high velocity, since the mass is vaporized anyway.