p1t1o

1. Im sure you could get at least some use out of a dish in the tens-of-metres range, depending on the wattage and frequency band, but you can easily extend your baseline to several hundred metres (or even many kilometres) by having several remote probes with smaller antenna fly in formation at a distance, forming I think what would be an interferometer or something. Someone around here might be able to elaborate on the technicalities, but I know that a "virtual" antenna can be formed of multiple smaller units, artificially expanding the baseline. 2. This is where a nice simple optical/IR/UV telescope comes in (Also a radar antenna can double as a radio telescope)

Has anyone with any actual knowledge of epilepsy commented yet?

A Radar. The larger and more powerful the better. Accurate ranging is required for resolution of orbits, and I would wager my hat that some clever tricks can be done to use the radar beam to make composition analyses, such as atmospheric content, surface water etc. It can also be used as a powerful communications beam/sensitive receiver, on that note it would also be an excellent passive sensor of various EM emissions coming from planetary magnetospheres and other things along those lines.

Some excellent reading here: https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Second_Stage.pdf On another note, I recall hearing an anecdote about this, but I cant remember which rocket it referred to - whether it was the space shuttle main tank, or a Saturn V stage or something else I dont recall, but it went something like: The insulation between the hydrogen and oxygen tanks was tuned in such a way that enough heat flowed from the warmer O2 tank into the H2 tank that O2 boiloff was essentially zero, meaning only the hydrogen tank had to be equipped to handle significant boiloff, ie: the H2 tank actively cooled the O2 and only one boiloff system was required ~(saving mass yadd-yadda...). **edit** More: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/s-ii/s-ii-insulation.html

A very significant reason why nobody has deployed a "rods from god" system is that it is destabilising, politically. In the same way that project pluto was destabilising. Building what is effectively a superweapon, tends (and rightly so) to make every other country on Earth just a little nervous, and pushes fingers a few millimetres closer to those big red buttons. The US would *love* a rods-from-god system, their military's dream is a "prompt global strike" ie: the ability to put a decent size (conventional) warhead anywhere on the planet within 24 hours, and rods from god might well be the *cheapest* way of doing it, since the technology is essentially off-the-shelf. However, the US are instead spending far more so that they can try and find a way to effect this goal without it having to look like an ICBM at launch or having weapons floating around in space - both of which are very politically undesirable situations.

The tail rotor may be out of line with the CoM, but perhaps the way that this puts it more in line with the plane of the main rotors (which are generating significant gyroscopic stability) takes precedence? Perhaps a force out of line with the gyroscopic centre generates a worse defect than a force out of line with the CoM? Due to their speed the rotors having a larger...something-or-other...than the stationary fuselage?

*Interplanetary *November

Welcome to the Forums! There are folks with all sorts of backgrounds, and Im sure someone will elaborate, but here is a start: 1. Spot-on. "delta" is science-speak for "change-in" so "delta-V" translates roughly as "change in velocity". Your rocket has the capacity to change its velocity by 8km/s. Note that a rocket which accelerates to 4km/s then decelerates to a (relative) stop also uses 8km/s of dV. 2. Slightly more complex situation. Lets say local gravity is 10m/s^2 ****, then your rocket must use 10m/s of dV per second just to hover against gravity. Ergo, in order to accelerate upwards at 10m/s^s, against a 10m/s^2 gravity field, your rocket must be capable of exerting a 20m/s^2 acceleration in zero-G conditions, ie: have a TWR (thrust-to-weight-ratio) of 2. This is complicated by the fact that the gravity field weakens with distance. The rest of the question is a little unclear (since any vehicle not using aerodynamic lift technically has "VTOL" capability). Google "gravity losses" and "escape velocity". Return here if you have any follow-up questions. 3. Firstly, it makes little sense to categorise propulsion systems by the "speed it can get up to" because the only thing limiting this is the fuel carried (and the speed of light, naturally). However you are correct with the rest of your statement, more direct trajectories are less fuel-efficient but if you have excess dV available you can get there very quickly without having to wait for alignments. 4. Given infinite fuel, one can simply point directly towards the target and burn. Technically you will find you would need to make corrections as the target moves through space, but the initial condition (infinite fuel - essentially a magic spaceship) is quite fantastic, on an interplanetary trip one would reach speeds high enough that this effect would be minimal (unless you have a very low acceleration, and even then you will attain high velocities requiring only minimal corrections). Matching velocities with the target may be complicated as the target will have some velocity relative to your starting position, but with infinite fuel this is hardly a concern. Planning an ideal trajectory would take some fairly involved maths and data on the properties of the craft, your origin and target (relative velocities, acceleration capabilities and the like). In practice, once you escape Kerbins gravity well, there isnt much to slow you down, so only several km/s dV is needed (once you are out of Kerbins SOI) to get a decent direct-ish intercept, still very much NOT burning all the way, but still very much faster than a Hohmann. Fun Fact: if you have a ship with "infinite fuel" (obviously without infinite mass, lets say it can produce a 1G thrust forever) will, taking into account time dilation, allow you to cross the entire observable universe in only about a century of perceived time ("ship-time") as time slows in your ship relative to the rest of the universe and because constant thrust will allow you to approach an arbitrarily high percentage of the speed of light. Many billions of years will have passed for the rest of us however. ****Do you understand this notation? Gravity is measured in terms of the acceleration it induces, and acceleration is measured in "metres per second-squared", ie: 10m/s^2 means that your velocity increases by 10m/s, per second.

They dont always get insta-locked, but usually a post is "necro'd" because someone doesnt notice that the last post was a year ago (I've done this several times) and they won't know not to expect a reply and things can get a little confused, especially if things have changed over time. When a thread is locked, it is done by the moderators.

Kerbal mod modding nightmare ram hog mod-tastic full of mods Program.

Ah yes, but for me that is only a recent addition

I have talked about this before, so I am definitely a supporter. Planning for flighton other bodies was not something I considered, but would definitely be extremely useful. Maybe you want to fly a glider on another planet - how do you know what its aerodynamic properties would be without flying a full mission there to find out? And not for nothing but - how do they plan for this in the real world? Wind tunnels. With FAR installed, you get a rudimentary version in that it can overlay some data whilst you are in the VAB/SPH, but its a little clunky/maths-heavy, a bespoke feature could be made quite handy I wager. I imagine it would take some work to put it in, but the functionality/calculations are already there, or seem to be. NB: If someone replies with "Why are you talking about this when we havnt even got such-and-such-a-feature yet?" I swear to god I will type so many frowny faces that you will forget what a smile looks like. Is that what you want? Do you want children to look at you and cry?

To be fair, at least in my build (I mess around with mods so much Im never sure which mod a feature comes from, or even if it is stock or not...) different features of mechjeb area unlocked with various tech nodes, which makes things a little less cheaty as you still have to do lots of manual stuff in early career. By the time you have everything unlocked you are tired of manually pointing retrograde/prograde all the time or finding those tricky intercepts, but at least you had to for a while.

I am learning that identifying information-containing signals amongst the noise is more complicated than I thought, but here is a thing - if it is so common for data to be indistinguishable from noise, encrypted or otherwise, then how are we so confident that all the noise we hear *is* noise, and not dense datastreams?

I swear to god it wasn't me this time!

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times. *** If you know this song, you were alive in the 90's If you were alive in the 90's, you know this song Drive boy dog boy Dirty numb angel boy In the doorway boy She was a lipstick boy She was a beautiful boy And tears boy And all in your innerspace boy You had hands girl boy and steel boy You had chemicals boy I've grown so close to you Boy and you just groan boy She said comeover comeover She smiled at you boy.

Ah is that so, clever. It does seem to imply at least, that some effort has to go into making the data encrypt that way, and that different types of encryption have different levels of vulnerability to this type of analysis.

You're probably right. Still grates though D: Elon should learn how to squanch.

It may seem like jumbled noise, but it would definitely show signs of information content, it would be distinct from random noise. (It is also significant that it would be exceedingly unlikely to resemble any naturally-produced signal, ruling those sources out.) I think even an encrypted signal can be analysed for information content without first knowing how to decipher it. Ie: if someone "encrypts" some random noise, and then separately encrypts a dictionary, you would, without knowing how to decrypt it but with some analysis, be able to tell which encrypted signal contained information, and which one just contained noise. I think. **edit** Possibly relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

Did a little googling, couldnt find anything that said games HAVE to have a warning (though I have seen many myself) but what I did find was that a display does not have to be showing a flickering scene to trigger a photosensitive seizure and merely using a monitor or a television is a risk apparently.

Dont ALL computer games come with a standard epilepsy boiler-plate? Just using a monitor is a potential trigger is it not? A computer can, at any time (within a game or without), suffer a crash or glitch which causes the screen to flicker after all. Just the other day I loaded XCOM 2 and was treated to a nightmare-pink-disco-holocaust as the textures glitched out.

I dont think we are being *that* cautious about it...

Ok, fair point, however what we do transmit is incredibly information-dense, which stands out significantly from random or regular signals. The paper itself presupposes that the signals are intended to get our attention, but that is part of the problem, I think the author has pre-supposed quite a lot. To be honest though, I dont know enough to say it is definitely bunk.

Kerbal meaning the game...doesn't scan for me Kerbal meaning the species, is similar to the word "human" - 1 human, 1 kerbal, 2 humans, 2 kerbals. Saying "Kerbal is awesome" is analogous to saying "Human is awesome!" in reference to "a human space program", thus it makes no sense! These would have made sense: "Being Kerbal is awesome!" "Kerbals are awesome!" Though if I could choose a preference, I would have had him charge around the stage pumping his arms in the air chanting "IM A KERBAL IM A KERBAL MYOOP-NYORG-DA-BYURBLE-PLORP!!" But I think that might have impacted his business... Anyway, Im sure he just misspoke

Only amateurs play the short game.