p1t1o

No, it most certainly isn't! Room temperature superconductors represent almost a "holy grail", "Pyrolytic" carbon is essentially identical to graphite, for most intents and purposes. It does have some magnetic properties which allow it to be used in magnetic levitation experiments though, which are often associated with superconductivity, perhaps this is where the confusion arose?

Ah, you're right. Think Imma re-watch that tonight, was a pretty good flick I think Wrath of Khan had a pretty submariney bit too, and bonus - they make a bit of a deal about fighting in 3 dimensions (although it shouldnt have been a big deal at all, should have been obvious - in fact, it should be rare that 2 ships would meet oriented the same way up!) Speaking of Wrath of Khan, amongst many others - nebula in space are not dense gas clouds, I doubt you would be able to *see* a nebula if you were actually in it.

Ooh ooh! I've got one. In the movie Elysium, someone (cant remember if it was the matt damon character or not) uses a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher, approximately the same size and shape of a contemporary stinger missile, to shoot down a shuttle in *orbit*. That tiny little missile must have had some seriously sci-fi propulsion...Not to mention how did he aim the dang thing...technology such as this being in the hand of the poor and downtrodden, kinda throws the whole plot into question, if the rich live in space...but the poor demonstrably have weapons capable of reaching them...the rich would be safer on the ground (easier to build a large fortress-city than a vulnerable space station) and the poor could use some of their amazing technology to increase their quality of life. I admit its been a long time since I saw it so might not be remembering it with complete accuracy, but there was *something* iffy about that rocket launcher...

Exactly what I thought. Especially since it was already ace and has just gotten better. Some folks are going for "5 more minutes" but I already nominated something else for that. "Test of time" I think is a little more prestigious anyway.

Hot enough, but definitely not a high enough pressure, besides, if iron fusion did occur, it would *cool* the explosion, not contribute to it. Its not enough to blow it apart so that it doesnt re-coalesce back into a planet (*complete* destruction is defined as putting all of earths mass into an escape trajectory), but it will almost certainly convert it into a random mish-mash of rubble, after expanding some and re-contracting.

Ah ok, not wrong, I just misspoke - the impact is the same as hitting a stationary *car* at 100mph, so the stationary car will absorb its fair share of the impact, you are right there. If I make that change, the picture should be correct, both scenarios are still equivalent. (the correction also makes the last question makes a bit more sense)

50mph vs 50mph - both cars experience an impact equivalent to hitting a stationary wall car at 100mph. 30mph vs 70mph - both cars experience an impact equivalent to hitting a stationary wall car at 100mph. There is a little difference between the two scenarios - there is a kinetic energy difference between the two combinations, with the 30-70 combination having a slightly higher total kinetic energy than the 50-50 combo. However, the relative speed is the same and total momentum is the same (Another slight correction - total momentum is not the same, as momentum is a vector with a direction [see further below], total momentum change is the same in the 2 scenarios however. The total of the *modulus* ["sign-free"] of the momenta will be the same ) I think that the excess kinetic energy in the 30-70 crash will be present in the wreckage as motion (ie: the combined wreck, if we say they clump together) in the direction of travel of the 70mph car. With the 50-50 impact, the wreckage will be motionless, or its CoM will be anyway. All 4 cars see the same impact. All cars decelerate just as rapidly and for the same amount of time, just that in the 30-70 combo, the 70 car doesn't quite get to 0mph and the 30mph car is decelerated to a negative figure (ie: it is propelled backwards somewhat), meaning that in the 50-50 combo, there is no kinetic energy leftover, and in the 30-70 combo there is. If all 4 cars are identical, all 4 will be deformed the same amount and all passengers will be subjected to the same forces. The difference is in the energy leftover in the wreck (which of course, could result in further forces on the car and occupants, but the initial impact is the same). ***edit*** Remember, momentum has direction (ie: if car 1 has momentum in the direction it is travelling, car 2 has negative momentum in that direction), there appears to be excess momentum in the wreck of the 30-70 crash, but the momentum change is the same. ***edit #2*** Hitting a stationary wall - well it strongly depends on the wall. In the real world yes, a portion of the impact will be distributed to the wall and its components. If we assume an infinitely strong and rigid wall: When the car hits the wall, force is transmitted into the wall which wants to make it move, this applies a force between the wall and whatever is holding it up - this force is essentially applied between this support and the car itself with the wall as a neutral go-between, meaning that with an infinitely strong, rigid wall, the full 100mph is felt by the car. If the wall is a normal, ordinary wall, some of the force will be absorbed by deformation of the wall and putting parts of it into motion, meaning that the car experiences slightly less than the maximum force. Effectively the wall "cushions" the blow a little.

You could work it out mathematically if you can accurately describe the geometry of the lens and know the refractive index of the material.

If we could access the matrix, we could find out how many polygons are being rendered and define the shape mathematically!

Something we could do if we got bored one day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_Cassus

Are you referring to a photon drive? If so, they are not technically reactionless, conservation of momentum is preserved.

LV-N is a nuclear engine, it just isn't a *specific, real-world* nuclear engine. Reaction engines did not invent the jet/rocket hybrid engine with SABRE, they invented *a* hybrid engine of particular design. If Rapier is a SABRE, then it is at the same time an RB545 as well. Either way, the only way to have a VASIMR be of any use would be to make it arbitrarily similar to the current KSP ion engines.

@5thHorseman @monstah I cant believe you *both* forgot to realign the navigational deflector...

Well my answer would still have to be "because it isn't SABRE". There is no "odd reason" that VASIMR doesn't have a direct analogue - the reason is very simple: the thrust level, if realistically portrayed, would be useless.

Dont worry it was just a realllllllly long-reaching guess

Potential mechanism? EM waves -> gravity waves -> thrust?

Something about this paper irks me - gravitons? Aren't they a bit old-hat? Generating gravity waves in the laboratory? "The phased array will convert EM radiation at 2.5 GHz to 5 GHz High Frequency Gravitational waves (HFGWs)." - ??? "focusable GW beams" - ??!? Some *extremely* speculative stuff about dineutrons... On the other hand it might just irk me because the science is way above my pay grade, or just extremely speculative, and Im just embarrassing myself by complaining

Whats to say that hasn't already been said? "Look at this silly guy, he made a video about how the earth is flat lol!" "Lol that is crazy, what does he say to X, Y & Z evidence of obvious roundness" "Guys technically the earth is not a sphere…it an oblate spheroid lol" "You can’t use proof or evidence against these guys…" "To be fair guys, science is about keeping an open mind and advances are always made by people who push the boundaries" "No this guy is a nut tho" "Something something hitler something WWII" "Perpetual motion!" "Joke" Etc.

I also nominated for "test of time" as it is even better now than it was back in version 0.20 - which sounds obvious, but it was crazy fun even that early.

Its just an "autumn" sale, Im holding out for a big christmas/winter sale, I think there will be better deals.

Any launch should be conducted in such a way that nobody would be endangered in the event of a CATO, so I'd say go ahead with the other motors, if you have enough spare rockets [and infantrymen] to risk! I would say no to modifying the engines in any way though, the only difference between a motor and a bomb is confinement, and it can be a fine line. You may be increasing the minimum safe distance - which would be fine if you knew by how much, but I dont think you could. It may be that the propellant is cracked, in which case reinforcing the end cap could significantly increase its explosive effect.

I dunno, considering that we dont know how it works, like at all - or even *if* it works, predictions are hard to credit, but [if it turns out to be a viable thruster] performance will increase over time, that is inevitable. Perhaps flying cars are a stretch though

Fair enough I suppose, this is my point of view: If Rapier is a simplified SABRE, then the ion engines are still a simplified VASIMR. According to a quick google, a contemporary VASIMR produces approx. 5N for 200kW. The current KSP "Dawn" electric engine produces 2,000N for 3.6E/s. So if you really want a true VASIMR replica, its going to be absolutely useless, even if you improve it by a factor of 10. Or you tweak it to be useful, in which case you'd end up with something pretty close to what we have. (I dunno if you are into mods at all, but it almost goes without saying there are some excellent part mods for extra engines like these - with stats useful for KSP though.)

Rapier is *not* sabre, rapier is a KSP invention that is both a jet engine and a rocket. The special thermodynamic cycle which is the unique part of SABER is not simulated, its just a decent jet and a decent rocket in one package to simulate near-future possibilities. We dont have vasimir either, but we do have "Ion" engines that are far and away more powerful than real ion engines, ie: probably a fairly close approximation of VASIMIR - a high-thrust electric engine.

From @Snark (quoting from another page is a hassle, so I did it this way) "Note that it's possible to write a KSP mod that mimics the effects of some of the above-- for example, you can provide UI and so forth to give an experience similar to custom action groups-- but I don't count that as being "possible with mods" because it's a one-off solution that doesn't integrate with the game's UI and other mods can't interact with unless they have a cumbersome individual compatibility patch." There was definitely something which did it for kerbals, I cant find anything though Might be defunct.