p1t1o

Well one thing is for certain, they sure as heck aren't going to turn it into an orbiting museum, or bring any part of it back to Earth intact.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

It would work if they thought bigger, put one around a city!

In the wet? Im still a big no thanks. And thinking about emergency scenarios makes my mind boggle. The idea might be suited to smaller airfields handling light aircraft, but do they even suffer from congestion?

Quick calculation via an online calculator give a lateral G-force of 0.6 @200mph on a circular course radius 1.5km. No thanks. I'd go so far as to say - thats crazy.

Are aircraft expected to steer around the curve on takeoff/landing rollouts? Or is it shallow/wide enough to allow straight runs for sufficient distance? With a diameter of 3km, it doesnt seem that way. What about emergencies, eg: brake failure/tyre blowout etc? A typical conventional runway gives around 3km of straight-run. Cant say I like the idea. Sure would make airports look pretty though.

Agreed. And I see no reason why anyone has a right to be upset about this. But I'll just come out and say it - there's no way I'll buy that Squad have legally bound themselves to the offer, there's no way it is a "contract" formal or informal. *** I recently checked my KSP purchase - July 2013

This apparently HAS been tested, although the results are a little different to a searing fiery death-beam. There isn't too much to go on, unsurprisingly, but it seems a test, codenamed "Chamita" was carried out in support of a "Project Prometheus" and was investigating using a orion-pulse-unit-style setup to project a "beam" of solid shrapnel at velocities in the 100km/s area in a cone 0.001radians wide. Whether this can really be extrapolated to megaton versions vaporising kilotons of metal at extreme ranges, is probably guesswork though. But what appears to have been empirically verified is still quite eye-opening. This document (http://extremal-mechanics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Fenstermacher.pdf) makes reference to a "The one known NKEW test (having yield under 20 kilotons) occurred on 17 August 1985 and was named "Chamita." This document (http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/060/31060372.pdf) lists "chamita" as a 20kt test burst in a shaft, listed as "weapons development" This document (https://books.google.de/books?id=_fwwAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA160&lpg=RA1-PA160&dq=chamita+nuclear+test&source=bl&ots=QZjzw2SUar&sig=pnm2pKX56sTnRvgzue4INC3-VWU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwippM6Go_vSAhVBKyYKHYunBjgQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=chamita nuclear test&f=false) states in a reference: "[Ref#]68. Christopher E Paine, unclassified presentation at the Washington Test Ban Workshop, 20 March 1990. It has been reported that the 17 August 1985 “Chamita” test, in support of a nuclear-powered kinetic energy weapon, accelerated a 1-kilogram tungsten-molybdenum plate to 70 kilometres per second and that five known x-ray laser tests occurred between 14 November 1980 and 28 December 1985, all but the first of which having yields in the range 20-150 kilotons." "Up to 5 percent of the energy of a small nuclear device reportedly can be converted into kinetic energy of a plate, presumably by employing some combination of explosive wave-shaping and "gun-barrel" design, and produce velocities of 100 kilometers per second and beam angles of 10^-3 radians: (The Chamita test of 17 August 1985, reportedly accelerated a I-kilogram tungsten/molybdenum plate to 70 kilometers per second. t) If one chooses to power 10 beams by a single explosion, engaging targets at a range of 2,000 kilometers with a kill energy of 40 kilojoules per pellet (one pellet per square meter), then such a device would require an 8-kiloton explosive and could tolerate random accelerations in the target, such as a maneuvering RV or satellite, of up to 0.5 g (5 m/s2).* * SPARTA Workshop, 1986. This scaling presumably holds up to about 50 kilotons but, due to blackbody x-ray emission, decreases to about 1 percent for larger yields" Note that 5% figure - not the 60-80% figure that is often reported alongside Project Orion materials. Also note that this is a "beam" of solid particles, not a beam of x-rays. Also note the predicted degredation with larger yields. Further: "There is also a fundamental problem with both the Casaba and Prometheus concepts that becomes relevant at higher yields. Despite the alleged success in directing 5 percent of the energy of a small nuclear explosion into flying debris, a good portion of the remaining energy inevitably becomes blackbody radiation, which would quickly overtake the pellets. Even at 1 kiloton with optimistic assumptions, this poses the risk that most of the particles will be vaporized or even ionized, rendering them ineffective: The NKEW concept is thus one that may require subkiloton explosives to be feasible. If its feasibility also depends on employing shaped thermonuclear explosives to help direct the pellets or dust more efficiently, then the concept is further burdened by the difficulty of designing thermonuclear devices with yields less than 1 kiloton. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that demonstrating a rush of hypervelocity pellets from a nuclear blast, while perhaps impressive, in no way guarantees that a useful weapon will ever be derived from this concept." [emphasis mine]

That actually helps, thanks, Im still not 100% on how the dense propellant ends up with more energy than the dense radiation case, but I can live with it being a mystery to me. I can see there being some sweet-spot trade-off with masses, molecular weights, radiation fluxes, opacities and transparencies, emission/absorbtion rates, lots of high numbers regarding temperatures, pressures and velocities, the word "plasma" all over the place etc. I have faith in the science behind it, I just find it noodle-baking enough that I think I'd have to see it work before I can get that hyped about Orion-style propulsion, its always bugged me.

I know the math is supposed to add up, and I know roughly what is going on inside. I just find it very counter-intuitive that there isnt at least an equal amount of energy (whether EM radiation or kinetic energy of matter) projected in the other direction, I mean newtons 3rd law and everything. Unless the 60-80% is emitted along one axis rather than one singular direction? Which would make more sense since that is how reaction forces work.

If you are referring to chemical explosives adjacent to a detonation, I'd agree that it is fully ionised very rapidly - before any chemical reaction have a chance to take place. But the chemical energy in the bonds must still be released onto the environment, it will be insignificant but it must still be there I suppose. There are almost certainly going to be neutron interactions with that much fissile material around, but it will just "fizzle" and wont add more than a few percent to the yield. Chernobyl was about as close an approximation as we are likely to get, to a nuke going off in a pile of nukes, and that was just a large "fizzle".

That would be my gut instinct too for the fomer. For the latter, well it depends on what you mean by "lost" - if you mean for propulsion, then yes. However according to the various studies done for the project, some ridiculous percentage, like 60-80% IIRC of the energy can be put into the propellant - Im kind of skeptical about that, but they have the maths, so...

It turned out fine because NASA had to revert the whole thing to the launchpad. I did send a CV to JAXA though, but apparently a craft file "isn't a CV".

But Im an astronaut and KSP made me miss my last three launches, and on the one before that I got suspended for exiting the command pod at 340,000 feet because I was bored. Apparently thats "unsafe procedure" or some other liberal PC garbage.

Can I sue them for loss of earnings as well?

They are "shaped charges" but they are still nukes. You get a spherical explosion in terms of radiation, but it will send a pulse of denser debris in one direction, possibly two. Its not like being off the the side is "sorta ok", you still get vaporised. Im not even sure what happens to high explosive when you vaporise it faster than a detonation wave can travel through it. I guess it still explodes. Either way, it is certain the entire ship will be destroyed and only the first bomb will undergo a full yield detonation.

I think I remember reading somewhere that this was actually procedure in some EOD manuals, under certain circumstances, like if a bomb fell off an aircraft and was damaged on impact. With a quick google this was all I could find: https://warisboring.com/when-to-shoot-a-nuclear-bomb-with-your-gun-f1f97093a64e#.ovpqdpho8 So less an "official" procedure then, but still...

Yeah, I dont see this happening ever, the enforcability of an agreement is also relevant. Nobody is going to start a class action suit with 100,000 claimants who area asking for $10 each... That means if legal expenses exceed $10 per person, which is certain - just for the time it takes for a legal secretary to get your details - then its a loss for everyone. Its all moot though right? Squad are honoring it?

Not for nothing, but you chose a *very* high relativistic speed there, knock 30km/s off your speed (so two 9's less) and the kinetic energy of incoming particles drops by a factor of 10. Though I couldnt find much in the way of densities, it was clear that one can expect the solar system to be an area of increased density. I would also wager that there is a better approximation than comparing it to subterranean nukes - the energy is not going to be released at depth but quite close to the striking surface. But even so, under some conditions it still might not be enough For the Daedalus designs, albeit considering a much lower relativistic speed, used boron as a shield due to its high heat of vaporisation. Either way, if you are going to put that many 9's in your relativistic speedometer, you are going to need a very heavy shield indeed, or some other way of dealing with it.

@regex hmmm approximately the same thing, and not exactly an insurmountable challenge. As if this is the only game with sharable content, mods and DLC.

I dont get the obsession with "stockness", are extra parts such an anathema to some people? I get that a set selection of parts is useful when doing challenges and things, to make it a fair playing field, but "Oh no extra DLC parts wont be stock it will divide the community" sounds like garbage. "This challenge does not include DLC parts" - problem solved, insomuch as there was one.

To be fair to the man, my other half has a habit of "backseat driving" so bad that it sometimes impinges on my ability to drive safely, at least a couple of times I have had to pull over. Shouting "STOP!!!" in my ear whilst I am trying to avoid what she just saw does not a safe trip make. Or "LOOKOUT!!" for no apparent reason. Swapping between "You are going too fast!" and "You are driving like an old woman, speed up!" is a popular one too. Or trying to tell me when it is safe to overtake from the passenger seat Darn it.... Once I even was told that I should drive closer to the huge truck in front of me so I could get past it faster, only for one of its rear tyres to spectacularly explode, sending pieces of shrapnel spinning everywhere. If I was closer, my windscreen (at least) would have been gone, with predictable results. But yeah, it would still be my fault if I pulled out like that. That is why you dont backseat drive, because the responsibility is always the driver's. Well that and you are gonna cause an accident. Now we have a rule that if we are both in a car, ANY talk about my driving is banned. Does anyone know if it is an actual offence (in the UK) to distract the driver?

Im not a leading expert in everything, which limits my access to power and influence. Life is harsh.

Woah woah woah, I doubt that, very much. Even if it was, being based in Mexico, anyone not living in Mexico would have zero recourse anyway, except through the mexican legal system. Steam certainly aint gonna give you a refund. If you're a lawyer, I of course retract everything.

@HurricanKai Take a look at the orbital "period" of each probe. The period is how long it takes a thing to complete one orbit. For them to remain in precise lock-step, the periods must be equal. In practice it is difficult/impossible to get them exactly equal, but you can make it close enough. A difference as small as a few seconds, can make probes bunch up or spread out over hundred of orbits (which might only be a few in-game days). Generally if you can get the difference under 1 second, they will remain in formation for a decent amount of time (months to years of in-game time). The apoapsis and periapsis dont have to be the same, its the period you want to check. Tiny bursts of RCS are a good way to make small adjustments, dont worry about apoapsis or orbital height of any kind, just burn prograde to lengthen period and retrograde to shorten. *** Alternative solution. One method I end up using is just to make every probe sent up for any contract or reason a node in the network. In this way, you spam it with so many nodes that statistically there will always be a viable connection pathway, regardless of how well sequenced or in formation they are. Even 1-shot landers or rovers left lying around on moons and things can be useful nodes. *** The same problem exists in real life, it is very difficult to get the orbits so exact that they never need adjusting to stay in formation, and thats not even taking into account gravitational perturbations from the sun, moon etc. Real life satellites have lifespans limited by the amount of station-keeping fuel they have on board and must save a certain amount for final ejection into a "parking" orbit wher it will remain for a long time without risk of collision with working satellites.