Shpaget
-
Posts
2,000 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Shpaget
-
-
1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:
When only a few pulse burns are needed to reach space, that is very fuel efficient.
300 ISP is 300 ISP. Burning your fuel faster, doesn't male it more efficient.
-
$50. That's what it would have cost them to hire a native english speaker.
-
Intuitively, yes, they do look a bit small.
They say "65+" passengers. I count 33 windows, so two seats per row? I've been inside Concorde, and that thing is tiny and cramped inside. This can't be much larger, can it?
Net zero carbon? What, the food
carttray? -
That's a waste of resources. You'd still need to use the rockets to boost the orbit of your tractor beam installation.
Also, ablating your hull to achieve propulsion, when rocket tech is available is just ridiculous.
-
39 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:
Fire high energy lasers in a circular pattern around the perimeter of your target on it's side walls (not any directly facing you).
The resulting ablation plumes will propel the target toward you... albeit slowly.
You would need to hit the back side of the target for this to work even hypothetically.
39 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:The hard way:
Create a beam with cold plasma side walls holding in a magnetic gas.
How do you do that? What is this magnetic gas?
-
7 hours ago, Spacescifi said:
Also with math it is possible to calculate just how much ice or cork you need to ablate to reach the upper atmosphere for running the rocket engines.
I strongly suspect that mats alone won't get you far, and sooner rather than later you'll need a hypersonic wind tunnel.
-
9 minutes ago, cubinator said:
Here is a table of specific heats of various materials, ice and cork are pretty similar with cork being around 1.9 kJ/(kg*K
To be fair, and joking aside, for ice you should add heat of fusion, which is additional ~330 kJ/kg.
-
Just now, cubinator said:
Lighter ones? Like cork, which also is pretty non-toxic.
Not only that, but it also grows on trees.
-
6 hours ago, HebaruSan said:
The previous update (which I think went into more detail on the construction ring idea) didn't mention the lottery, so I guess that's out;
Possibly someone explained to him just how impossible it is to organize a worldwide lottery. Maybe he's reading these forums.
-
For all you stamp collecting aficionados, USPS, about to start selling JWST stamps.
-
Magnets can't produce thrust. If you suppose that they can, for purposes of scifi, then just suppose that whatever lifting engine installed on your vessel is adequately sized and engineered, or not, depending on the story you want to tell.
-
Didn't F1 nozzle size cause quite a few head itches to the engineers, because of the size?
-
4 hours ago, KSK said:
Trains have restaurant cars, so I'm cool with this.
A proposal, if I may. Cars with restaurant trains.
Flexibility of a car to not be restricted to a rail network, but all the luxuries and comfort of a train. Plus, since it's a restaurant train, and not a car, it's necessarily bigger, and bigger is better.
-
350 wheels of tritium radiating.
-
Getting there is one thing, but refueling a Superheavy in a middle of nowhere, somewhere in the middle eastern desert is not going to happen.
Obviously SSTOTWR (single stage to orbit twice without refueling) is just fantasy.
-
On 7/2/2022 at 12:06 AM, Exoscientist said:
Having a SSTO capability would be a great selling point for this purpose.
Why?
Anybody who knows anything about rockets will immediately realize that forcing the single stagedness is wasting potential and sacrificing payload.
-
If the balloon can carry the spacecraft, the you don't need the convoluted throw and catch rinse and repeat Rube Goldberg contraption. Just winch it.
Also, nobody cares about SSTO. It has been explained over and over. Seriously.
-
Now that you have the ship size, pick an arbitrary amount of time in which you would like to make the turn and calculate the necessary angular acceleration to achieve it. Don't forget to slow down at the end of the turn.
When you have that you'll be able to calculate linear sideways acceleration felt by crew however far away from center of mass you want, calculate the resultant of that and main engine 1g.
Why do you always wait for others to do your math for you?
-
What does "big ship" mean? Are we talking a handful of passengers or a container ship size thing? If it's former, a few seconds to do a full revolution is super fast. If it's latter, it's immersion breaking fantasy land.
-
52 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:
I say this because unless a big ship turns slowly, there will be g-force felt by the crew, enough to make them fall towards a nearby wall or something.
Do your proposed maneuvering engines produce meaningful acceleration? Unless your big ship turns as fast as Vipers in BSG, your passengers won't even notice the pitch, yaw and roll. Acceleration is happening in whichever direction the ship's engines are pointing, regardless of the direction in which the ship is moving.
-
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:
realized solid fuel similar to the sprint missile would be ideal.
What made you think that? Why Sprint specifically?
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:Space is at a premium on a manned SSTO
It is? I always thought it was mass.
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:so having solid fuel which takes up the least amount of payload space is ideal.
I would think high ISP would be better.
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:Reaching orbit: Take off a runway at high g acceleration (not 100g but definitely 10g)
That sounds unpleasant.
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:crew can be do liquid breathing to handke g-forces.
Even more unpleasant.
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:In space: Any SSTO would have planet use solid fuel sprint-like engines and space only engines that use chemical propellants.
Sprint uses chemical propellant too.
8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:Conclusion: Who knows if it would work,
I could name a few individuals...
-
Nope. The list of supported OSs is:
32-bit version of Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7
It's Mach3
-
Not a building/buying question, but I figure this is still the best place to ask.
I have an ancient Win XP machine (about 15+ years old) that seems to be perfect (free) for what I need it to do - run a small CNC desktop milling machine. The software that runs the machine is perfectly happy to run on XP and refuses to run on anything 64 bit. The problem is that I need to be able to transfer files to that machine from a more modern one (potentially two) computers (Win 10). This transfer will be happening multiple times per day, so I'd like a convenient solution. The new one is hooked up to the internet (obviously), but I'm hesitant to connect the old XP one as well and put it on the same network. My concern is that I'd like to keep the XP machine as lite as possible with no unnecessary software (to improve the stability of the system) meaning little to no protection against malware.
What would be a good way to go about this? Ideally I'd like a functionality similar to a shared folder on XP machine into which I could just push the files, and/or shared folder on the win 10 machines from which I could pull them. Files in question are small txt files.
-
No, because of conservation of étendue.
Is Blue The Only Color For The Exhaust Plume Of An Uber Pulse Rocket?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
That's like saying that you can pour more water out of a bucket if you pour faster.
ISP is the measure of how efficient the rocket engine is at using the reaction mass. If you lock it in, then the efficiency is fixed.
This is the rocket equation: