NGTOne

Our own Sun is composed of about 75% hydrogen, 23% helium, and the remainder being heavier stuff, including oxygen. Assuming Kerbol has a reasonably similar composition, you could theoretically "scoop" it for those things, as well as some other useful stuff (for instance, iron). Then you can go ahead and produce water and LOX/LH rocket fuel out of that (or use ion engines - you have no shortage of power, and our Sun contains neon, which can be used for ion propulsion). As for supplies, one assumes that the colony has the ability to produce its own food and whatnot, and other, less replaceable stuff (electronics components, etc.) could be trucked in either from Kerbin, or an automated facility on Moho. Now, I will note that all of this assumes that Kerbol has a reasonably similar composition to our own Sun. If that's not the case, obviously this idea wouldn't work.

How? (10char)

Another non-obvious (read: balls-out crazy) might actually be low orbit over Kerbol, just outside its "atmosphere" (corona?). If its composition is reasonably similar to our own Sun, you could conceivably scoop it for hydrogen and oxygen to produce water with minimal dV, and you'd never have a power problem. With a big enough heatshield on the bottom (Kerbol-facing) side, I don't think temperature would be too big of an issue either. And, with the amount of solar energy you had available, I think some sort of electromagnetic shielding might be feasible, to protect against the worst of the radiation. As for entertainment, with enough sunglasses, you could always look directly at the surface of the sun... Thoughts?

The arms are made of various large components from Gaby's Quick and Dirty Miscellania and NovaPunch. Each arm, right now, is about 30 meters long, based on a visual estimate (the station core is known to be 15 meters in diameter, and the length of each arm is about twice the diameter of the core). Because the individual components are large (3.75 to 5 meters in diameter), the part count is low. And here's a picture of the launch vehicle for the arm base modules (no picture of the core LV, sorry): It's not my best LV design, but it does the job. 3 stages to orbit, quick and easy. The upper stage is a bit overpowered, but there's no engine that has the power I need in NovaPunch (they're all either too powerful or not powerful enough). The station is still in an early stage of construction - I estimate anywhere between 100 and 500 more launches before it's finished, depending on how I design the ring components down the line. I will likely be releasing .craft files when I have a full example station up and running, though. Also, there's no need to apologize for the question spam - I like answering questions about my work

"Net rotation" is a somewhat vague term, and what's more, there are a number of different approximation models that COULD be used, each with different results. For instance, 1. The rotation of the part closest to/farthest from CoM, ignoring the rotation of all other parts. 2. The individual angular rotation of all parts, divided by distance from CoM and averaged. May yield strange results due to how KSP handles distances. 3. The "navball rotation" - i.e. the rotation of the currently selected command part, again ignoring the rotation of all other parts. These are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, there are undoubtedly others. EDIT: Ninja'd. The real question is, how computationally expensive is it, especially given Unity's limited ability to cope with the physics problems that KSP as it stands currently presents?

Man, I should totally try this in Orbiter later. First in KSP, though. Is it even possible in Orbiter?

OK, so I've abandoned my first attempt at a Stanford torus, because it was, in a word, ridiculous. I wasn't building a space station, I was building a suspension bridge. That does not, however, mean that I've given up on building a Stanford torus. I'm just taking a different (much bigger, possibly MORE ludicrous) approach, with the eventual goal of building a 1:1-scale (diameter = approx. 1.6 km) Stanford torus. I present to you, KOS High Aspiration, which has currently just finished phase one of construction. Phase 1 consists of 17 different modules (16 arms and a core), and clocks in just shy of 2300 tons (though it's still less than 250 parts due to extremely conservative design). It is anywhere between 60 and 90 meters in diameter (this is a visual estimate, as I have no way to check due to the fact that it's still completely automated, and will be for a while). MET thus far is about 2 days, 7 hours. Phase 2 (extending the arms to full length) has now begun. Anyways, without further ado, the requisite image spam: View of the completed Phase 1 station. The core and arm base modules (thinner on one end so they have sufficient clearance around each other) are in place. The first arm segment module arriving onsite. How I keep the part count of the station down. This frame holds the RCS thrusters, MechJeb control unit, fuel and monopropellant, and ALL of the struts for the arm modules, such that none of those parts are present on the finished station. When the module is docked, the frame is removed and de-orbited. The end result is an extremely low part count relative to the size and mass of the station. With the arm module inside, the RCS is extremely well-balanced, to the point where translation becomes reliable (no small feat for an object that, when taken together, weighs more than 700 tons). The in-progress phase 2 station can be seen in the background. The in-progress phase 2 station, with one arm extender segment docked. Check back regularly for updates and more insanity!

Well, any landing you can walk away from...

Welcome to the forum! Always good to see new faces (metaphorically speaking) around here. Happy flying!

I think the real issue is that the rotation for each part is calculated separately - i.e. your spacecraft doesn't rotate as a rigid body (this is unnoticeable for small capsules, but incredibly prominent for larger objects with large cantilevered components - hence the long-lamented "wobbly rocket problem"). Timewarp puts the spacecraft on rails, and models it as an ideally rigid body (and snaps all parts back to their original positions as long as they haven't broken off). Any model for timewarp rotation would have to take into account either the nonrigid behaviour of the spacecraft (FYI: I just described physwarp, which does this simply by increasing the forces applied in some fashion based on warp factor, sometimes with unintended results because the strengths of the part joints aren't multiplied to compensate), or some way to translate the nonrigid rotation of the non-warped craft to rigid rotation.

Phase 1 of my Stanford torus project is complete. The core and the arm root sections (thinner at the inner end to make sure they have enough clearance around each other) are docked together. Current diameter is estimated at about 60-90 meters (value is imprecise, as the station is still wholly under automated control and there is nobody up there to take measurements), and mass is just shy of 2300 tons. 17 launches were required to complete phase 1 (18 if you count the space tug that was used to rotate one of the arms 90 degrees when I mucked up the docking). Total mission time thus far: 2 days, 7 hours. The station has been named KOS High Aspiration, in honour of the mammoth size of the undertaking. Bringing the final arm section in to dock. Perspective is from the "bottom" of the station, looking towards Kerbol-rise. View of one of the construction frame units just prior to deorbit. These frames bring the sections in to dock, then are removed to strip away unnecessary parts (RCS ports, struts, etc.). The station can be seen in the background. A few orbits after the final arm is docked and the frame is removed, in the same position as before. I just like seeing Kerbol-rise. Detail of the station, looking from the "top".

Now isn't there a sad truth.

From what I understand of KSP, graphical cheapness doesn't actually count for much past a certain minimum threshold. The lag comes from the physics calcs, which use CPU rather than GPU time. I don't think you'd notice much difference between elevated tracks/roadways and ground-based, flat-surface ones in terms of graphical performance.

This. I read an analysis from the '80s which, while hopelessly optimistic in a number of ways, predicted that fusion and space solar would both form important parts of the US (it was American-centric) baseload generating mix by the mid-21st century (and they reached this conclusion without knowing the outcome of the CO2 generation controversy - coal was a large part of that portfolio as well. Knowing what we do today about pollutants and whatnot, I can only expect the fraction provided by these "future tech" power sources to increase). Commercial fusion is, according to the current roadmap and barring revolutionary breakthroughs, AT LEAST 30 years away, and that's only for the first plant (appropriately called DEMO). Widespread use of fusion for power generation will probably take until at least the 2050s-2070s, if not later. All the technologies required for space-based solar generation have been demonstrated (though, admittedly, not at the scales required) - the only thing lacking is funding and willpower.

I think elevated tracks are kind of a given for this sort of system, no matter what model of track design you're using. The land in KSP doesn't curve smoothly enough to permit proper train operation (you hit an angle in the terrain and your train goes flying - anyone who's tried to drive a long, rigid rover with low clearance - which is basically what a train is, but linked together in series - knows what I mean), and it would allow for shallower grades and bridges and whatnot at any rate. You'd end up needing to model the track in 3D space, but that's been done before (any model railway design/build simulator comes to mind). If you wanted the track to hug the terrain, you just change the elevation to 0 and the "elevated" part is beneath the ground. In my opinion, this mod needs to happen. It sounds AWESOME.

Well, the challenge could be in the weight as well. Train tracks aren't exactly light, and there could be several different types (classical/high-speed/maglev), with differing masses, costs, and performance characteristics. Imagine having to launch a 100-ton kit from the KSC to lay 1km of track, and you get the general picture. Might make for some interesting designs in terms of track-laying infrastructure - imagine, for instance, a train that takes track kits from spaceships at a landing zone, transports them to the railhead, and installs them.

Well, that was my thought in a nutshell. I dunno too much about the internals of KerbTown, though (haven't played with it), and specifically whether you can only place stuff OUTSIDE the game. If that's the case, something new would be needed. After some thought, you'd probably have to work out the track-laying mechanic in a "Railroad Tycoon" sort of way, to prevent your train from jumping the tracks between sections. Basically, there would be some interesting spline modelling going on to create smooth track curves and the like. I'm pretty sure, however this works out, there would be a very heavy programmatic/mathematical element to any plugin this approach would produce.

Don't forget the part where the hatch cover weighed about 2 tons So... my plan is, take a thousand monkeys and lock them in a room... I can only hypothesize that the result would be a) an exotic, banana-powered spaceship, and Jebediah Kerman. Planet of the Apes indeed (or is that Galaxy of the Apes)?

Well, I think the optimal solution to this would be a "melding" of what's been said. You lay the rail as parts (launched as a pack or something, maybe, so you can build railways on other bodies - Evian inter-colony high-speed rail system, anyone?), and then it becomes part of the scenery, like the space center buildings. Basically, you launch a construction kit, that lets you lay a certain length/type of track, and then the game treats it as an immutable object once it's laid. Nicely takes care of the structural strength issue, too (you can't knock over the VAB, after all). Dunno how workable that is, though. You'd obviously have to write some sort of plugin (a fork of KerbTown? I dunno).

You wrap the link in [ imgur][ /imgur] tags (omit the spaces, they're just there for visibility).

This. As far as I'm aware, the only mathematically consistent theories we have about FTL travel require some bending or warping of spacetime around the object in question - in effect, the object remains still relative to local spacetime, and spacetime instead moves around it (think of a surfer riding a wave - he's moving, but from the PoV of the wave, he's stationary). To an observer outside the bubble, the ship is faster than light. To an observer inside the bubble, the ship is completely stationary (I use the term "bubble" here because warp field geometry [and, yes, there are people - real scientists - who do research into warp field geometries, which is, in a word, AWESOME] is still highly theoretical and nothing is known experimentally, and this is unlikely to change for some time barring a few changes in our current understanding of how the universe is put together that would make it possible for us to construct an FTL drive system - if I recall, current equations call for a particle with negative mass to exist, though I have no idea how it works - I'm not a physicist. As far as I'm aware, the current general consensus is, "there is no way for us to currently generate a warp field where one does not already exist"). c, under classical/Einsteinian physics, is an immutable barrier. It is a natural constant, and CANNOT be reached by classical physical means (see bending spacetime, above), including any sort of rocket, INCLUDING such exotic propulsion sources as antimatter. It's only when we start messing with the underpinnings of physics itself that we can do any differently.

A much harder problem (technologically, at any rate) than power satellites A US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report on space-based solar power actually made this exact conclusion in the early '80s, before ground-based PV had had a chance to take off (it was far more expensive then than today). They also correctly predicted the fact that most solar generation would be decentralized (for example, panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, generating for internal use to supplement grid power) rather than centralized (large solar "farms" in sunny locations). The mistake a lot of people make, I think, is to assume that terrestrial solar or wind can be integrated into baseload ("always-on") generating capacity - it's not reliable enough for that, and we haven't solved the energy-storage problem enough to make it so. You can't predict when the sun will shine or the wind will blow, and you certainly can't make your customers tailor their electricity use to the weather. In space, the sun is always on (though, naturally, the particulars vary based on your orbit), which means a space-based solar plant is a baseload system, like a nuclear plant, and can keep generating consistent amounts of power around the clock.

Near-infinite. The closer you get to c, the more you need to get even closer. Getting to 0.9c from 0 is actually easier than getting to 0.99 from 0.9, if I remember my physics right. I think you've hit the nail on the head - you'd need a black hole (or other sufficiently dense object - neutron stars come to mind) to slow yourself back down. Of course, whether or not you WANTED to slow down would depend a bit on your mission objectives, but I digress. Damn right it would take a lot of energy, but we're dealing with something that is improbable on a number of levels (for instance, the tidal forces that close to the event horizon would shred your spaceship like it was made of wet tissue paper), so a few key assumptions have to be made (indestructible spaceship, some means to make these maneuvers possible, etc). And, yes, it would be a bad time to have an engine failure. Though methinks you might end up shaking hands with Jeb on the other side of the event horizon

It took me something like 100 iterations before I got into orbit, so don't feel bad. 90% of them blew up or shook themselves to pieces on the way up. Welcome to the forum!

The issue isn't even CPU power past a certain point. I've never seen KSP max out on even one of my 8 cores, but the game starts complaining past about 550 parts, and REALLY hates me when I get past 1000. I think it's more a limitation of the Unity engine itself, as opposed to hardware (past a certain minimum threshold).