monophonic
-
Posts
735 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by monophonic
-
-
5 hours ago, tater said:
If someone on Mars is a deatbeat, maybe they don't deserve sustenance. In a necessarily closed system like a small domed colony (whatever shape it takes
), the resources are much more obviously finite than on Earth. If everyone needs to pull their weight you're stuck with a market punishing them somehow, or them eventually tossed out the airlock.
3 hours ago, tater said:Bottom line is that people work partially out of a desire to do something, and partially because they have to to live above a bottom of the barrel level. The point is why would any new, bespoke society allow this at all? Criminality, for example. Violence, stealing? Out the airlock (body to then be picked up and composted, obviously, least their carbon has value).
So when an accident renders your top performing crew member a quadriplegic, out the airlock he goes? Where do you draw the line between a deadbeat and someone worthy of sustenance due to their prior performance? Who gets to draw that line? Does the rest of the crew just take it and wait for their turn to slip below that line?
-
On 4/14/2024 at 4:55 AM, SunlitZelkova said:
How many Starships will it take to build the city? Way more than Musk theorizes. An interesting Seattle Times article did the calculations and the weight of a home came in at about 300 tons. So 300 million tons of material need to be moved to Mars for the housing alone. Starship 3 can bring 200 tons to LEO, and with 4-5 refueling flights could bring that to Mars. So 1,500,000 Cargo Starship launches would be required to send the materials, ignoring things like volume restrictions and what have you. Add 4 tanker flights per launch, and that would be 7,500,000 Starship launches.
IDK about SpaceX, but NASA has been investigating using local materials for housing structures. So how much would you save from that mass if all of foundation, floors, walls and roofs were made from martian minerals? 90%? Presumably surface materials like wallpapers/paint, flooring, probably window glass, etc. would still be brought from Earth. Most of dome material as well, I think. Could there be weight savings by accepting a large number of small(er) domes?
Then if you accepted a more european standard of living? So halve the average floor area per capita desired. That doesn't exactly halve the mass requirement, because all rooms still need four walls etc., but it should still be a significant reduction. Could drop it even further if going eastern europe level. Of course this will make recruiting new martians harder, but let's have that discussion another time. I don't think any numbers we might reach will make Mars City happen in our lifetime. I'm just interested how the numbers change if we adjust some of the assumptions slightly towards more realistic.
-
15 hours ago, magnemoe said:
Yes fighter pilots don't have problem because the planes acceleration who is maximum around 2 g but sharp turns pushing them down into the seat, here the only limit is how much the plane and pilot can handle.
Practical experience tells that, for squishy meatbags i.e. humans, the limit is 9g and even that only for a very limited duration. Meanwhile smaller non-squishy things are turning in excess of 60g and functioning like a machine, i.e. what those missiles in fact are. If it wasn't far more efficient to have the light weapon do the turning instead of the heavy launcher, manned aircraft would have been replaced with drones in air combat long ago.
-
Well, for a stationary target you just head straight at it. This also works for moving targets as long as they move slower than your robot. That is called pure pursuit and is an unoptimal strategy though. Improving from there depends on what kind of sensor your robot is using to track the target.
If your sensor gives direction and range, you can track the target for a short while to get its motion vector and use those to calculate where to move your robot to hit the target.
If you only get direction, you can steer to keep the angular velocity at zero. This has two solutions though, and only one closes in on the target. The other steers you away from it. You can distinguish them by whether the direction to target is closer to the nose or the tail of the robot.
-
3 hours ago, ARS said:
I just saw this on the internet. This is V-611 missile for M-11 Shtorm AA system on aircraft carrier Minsk. The one that I'm intrigued about is that nuke symbol, because as far as I know, Russia has no AA nuclear missile, and V-611 missile is only using HE-frag warhead. Can someone clarify?
Russia has used depleted uranium in fragmentation warheads. I know Finland withdrew their R-60 air-to-air missiles from use over public concern of DU. (They probably didn't have much life left in them anyway, but I digress...) I do not think this is the case here though.
This photograph is taken in 2013 when the Minsk was a theme park in China, so the paint job including the anatopistic NATO designation is probably of chinese origin. Since this location was most likely publicly accessible, I consider it most likely that the radiation warning sign is a sticker stuck there by some self-proclaimed peace activist. Most people inclined towards that behaviour that I have met (which is not many, I admit) would not have been able to differentiate a giant pencil from a nuclear ballistic missile. A conventional anti-aircraft missile would look like an ICBM to them.
-
On 1/25/2024 at 5:38 PM, PakledHostage said:
I am not going to make excuses for Boeing. That wasn't the intent of my post. My post was intended to point out that the people in the industry generally aren't a bunch of "Mr Burns" types, with an array of evil plans. Neither the MCAS nor the door plug issue should have happened, that is clear. But let's not over-simplify those problems (or their solutions) either.
My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that. What I tried to communicate was that I think the source of the issues is 100% at the management level and cannot be fixed if fixing is not started there. But that has been quite thoroughly discussed since my last visit to this thread, I feel.
12 hours ago, PakledHostage said:Constance von Muehlen is woman. And it is a token gesture because she's not making the determination on her own that it's safe to fly. A whole team of experts, from regulators to engineers to mechanics have done that. There are people under her and in adjacent roles to her whose job it is to deem an aircraft airworthy. She's a figurehead and she's showing leadership, but she's not taking on any more risk than any other passenger takes on any other flight. All passengers on all flights are trusting with their lives that the team of experts (pilots, mechanics, engineers etc) have done / will do their jobs correctly.
There used to be a tradition, in our air force, that after a major servicing the chief mechanic who worked on the airframe was on board during the first flight. I don't know whether that is still a thing, although certainly it isn't possible with single seaters like most fighter aircraft are. But that would certainly have provided motivation to do the maintenance properly.
-
12 hours ago, PakledHostage said:
They are people though. They make mistakes. Pilots make mistakes, mechanics make mistakes, engineers make mistakes, management makes mistakes. But the system, as a whole, is designed to catch those mistakes before they become catastrophic. It does an extremely good job of that.
It is starting to look like Boeing's management has been making some very big mistakes, in my eyes. And the system is catching up to them finally, I hope. The MCAS issue certainly wasn't caught before catastrophe. It may have been the "keep your seat belt on at all times" rule that was the last line of defence that prevented fatalities in this case. A bit too close for comfort for me.
-
17 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:
I get the feeling this was inspired by Boeing...
Mayhaps. I think among other things Boeing acquired this "open door policy" with McDonnell Douglas. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96
-
On 1/20/2024 at 2:01 AM, darthgently said:
If my shirt got ripped off and my cell phone flew sideways I would be well past caring what was allowed. Common sense supercedes regulations in this situation. I'd be moving to a safer location and urging those around me to do the same. I certainly wouldn't want to stay there and get repeatedly hit in the head by cell phones ripped from the hands of those trying to livestream the drama. Don't sit in the fatal FOD funnel
I agree the obvious instinct is to get as far away from the danger as possible. That said it is also common sense to not cut loose the strap keeping you tightly attached to your seat. So whichever instinct wins may vary from person to person. Anyone who was not seated and strapped yet is still inside the plane is likely to flee of course.
All I hope is I don't have to find out which instinct would win in me.
-
Could be just the angle. Zooming in especially the first image it becomes clear the black "plate" behind the nozzle is actually conical in shape, and its rim is clearly some distance off the backplate of the airframe. (Spaceframe?) Parallax from this offset could explain the apparent difference in engine position at these viewing angles.
On 12/31/2023 at 6:53 AM, tater said:Would be cool to see a large version of this vehicle.
So the planned X-37C? Could probably still happen if a customer is found, but it might be tough competing with the Dream Chaser in the space plane category and CST-100 on the Boeing line up for commercial uses.
-
On 12/25/2023 at 8:24 PM, StrandedonEarth said:
A quick Google look for FM transmitters (for either streaming radio or a playlist) seems to only turn up the type meant to transmit to car radios, which I doubt have the range we'd need. I did find this:
(From: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf02087.html#q4) In Canada, low power FM transmitters that produce a field strength of under 100μV/m @ 30 meters can be operated legally without license, as long as they comply to Broadcasting Equipment Technical Standards 1.
I don't know how that translates to what the effective range of a legal transmitter is i.e. is a strength of 100μV/m sufficient for consumer stereos to tune in to? 30m would be plenty of range for the shop. Apparently I need to start digging deeper than a surface Google search to find specs on power/range for the offerings out there. I suppose they are cheap enough to experiment with.
This side of the arctic most radio stations have streaming available for free, so you could forget the FM. Any old cell phone + cheap bluetooth speaker can replace the radio set entirely. Assuming of course you can get wifi or cell reception (+ cheap data plan) in the shop. You wouldn't even need to set up any playlists if your favorite stations stream online.
-
Mine set off the biggest fire crackers they managed to scrounge together and dance around menacingly dressed as cachalots* to scare off the Kraken and bring on a new year of only planned rapid disassemblies.
*I wont tempt the forum censor module with the name this marine mammal is usually known as. A famous, although fictional, individual was white.
-
On 12/12/2023 at 11:43 AM, SunlitZelkova said:
Now, Wikipedia seems to say to get from LLO to lunar escape velocity, you just need 0.9 km/s. But it also says that to get from TLI to LLO, you need 0.9 km/s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget
So in theory Fregat should be able to brake the whole thing into LLO, right? But this here says the mission architecture considered for Soyuz IRL required a Blok DM stage for lunar orbit insertion (see the “scenario 2” section) https://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_acts.html
What am I doing wrong here?
You are missing the LEO to TLI burn. In your link scenario 2 the first Blok DM send the entire stack from Earth orbit towards the Moon. The second Blok DM eases the stack to low lunar orbit. Finally the Fregat is sufficient to send the remaining vessel back towards home.
You could use the information from their mission plan to calculate approximately how much dV they have budgeted for each part of the mission. Then compare that to what you were considering.
-
15 minutes ago, Shpaget said:
According to https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
"Generally any person - United States citizen or not - can make a FOIA request."
Awesome. Sadly said site does not open for me. Not without a VPN at least and I have too much going on to dive into that too. So I could not have found that out by myself.
-
5 hours ago, cubinator said:
He's stated on multiple occasions that the video was low in quality, which might be one of the main reasons. If someone's selling a still of it online for $500, though, it must be possible to find it somewhere. Typically this NASA stuff is free to the public, etc.
Maybe someone who shares citizenship with NASA could make a FOIA request for it? Should I be so bold as to suggest they might also release it globally for the rest of us to enjoy? IDK how precisely one has to identify the stuff they request in the USA, but here in my country the information in this thread is sufficient that the officials are required by law to help identify the exact document.
-
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:
Yes, the lab experiments are documented fine.
And the views from the plane as well.
But I mean that this phenomenon looks usual for the medieval people, who were watching it right on the churches, cathedrals (with their metallic pikes), and on the wooden ship masts.
As the thunderstorms and the medieval cathedrals look same, I was expecting a lot of videos on youtube, but I can't see anything but planes and thunderstorms.What's changed is not only minute details on the cathedrals themselves but also the surrounding environment. Typical city around a cathedral is now very well lit, meaning the phenomenon may well still exist but is invisible in the flood of light. There are also hundreds of lightning conductors on the surrounding buildings which route their own share of the electric charge in the ground, meaning the charge available to light these fires at any single point is much less. Finally as the phenomenon is now well understood the church decorations have in many places been modified to reduce it. (Mainly to avoid lightning strikes though but the measures are the same.) E.g. sharp points have been rounded or small orbs attached at their tips.
-
2 hours ago, Shiki404 said:
In a lot of medias, whenever there's a planetary-based colony, there's a high probability that asteroid strikes is mentioned as a major hazard for the colony (especially if the colony's celestial body has little to no atmosphere). In a lot of them the solution is either have a network of guns to destroy the object or in more softer sci-fi, an bubble of energy shield
But in real life, what'll be a realistic measure to handle such a threat? Assuming there's an asteroid big enough to threaten a colony by causing major damage to infrastructure, what solution that's most likely being implemented in real life? Shoot it with ground-based gun? Launch a missile to divert it's trajectory? Attach probes on it with thrusters to divert it? Or what? (energy shield is obviously not in the option)Sufficiently spaced out network of individual habitats and evacuations of threatened ones. I.e. how we manage predictable disasters here on Earth right now. Hurricane heading towards Florida? Evacuate. Volcano getting ready to erupt under Grindavik? Evacuate. Asteroid on course to hit Hellas City? Evacuate.
There has been a lot of talk about potential methods to deflect threatening asteroids. The problem is that all the feasible ones have to be implemented a long time before inevitability of impact becomes apparent. That means sufficient funding is unlikely to be allocated in time to be effective. Improving technology will eventually change that, but there is still a long way to go.
-
2 hours ago, Shiki404 said:
Does the amount of colonist needed different between planetary-based colony and orbital-based space colony? Assuming the necessities such as food, life support, basic services and healthcare etc. is already fulfilled, what's the minimum amount of colonist needed in order to create a stable and growing population?
(TL;DR: No.) The question of minimum viable population (use this as your search term) doesn't seem to have a single clear cut answer. For a short-ish period, whatever may count as short-is, as little as fifty individuals might suffice. For very long term i.e. from here on out to eternity, the estimates seem to hover around a few thousands. Ten thousand seems like a safe-ish bet.
The long term threats are major catastrophies and inbreeding. The population doesn't all have to live in the same physical colony as long as there is sufficient movement between the individual habitats to keep their gene pools effectively combined. Dividing the population to multiple habitats also helps protect against catastrophies, if there are enough survivors even if a meteor strike takes out an entire habitat and its inhabitants. Active measures such as that icelandic "cousing detector app" or even genetic testing can help prevent inbreeding depression (another search term). The testing comes with a hefty can of worms raising questions of moral nature, though.
So, assuming everything else is truly equal, the required population numbers are equal. If one type has e.g. better radiation protection, there may be minor differences for shorter periods of isolation. Long term I expect those to disappear into the noise.
-
12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:
3. Here’s a big one. What are the basic formulas I would need to know to do a very rough design of my own space mission?
I couldn't find it now, but when I played KSP1 a lot I had a spreadsheet to plan my missions. I used dV maps calculated by others and the rocket equation to calculate the dV available in my designs. So rocket equation and those to calculate the dV requirements for transfers should get you far.
-
11 hours ago, tater said:
If I were working on Mars as a plan, I'd build a space station with a couple Starships tethered, and spin them up to 0.38g and raise some animals, breed them, etc, and see how it goes. Otherwise send the human exploration teams (adults would would want to go anyway, even if just to visit), and raise animals as part of the research. The early colony dev missions build infrastructure, and raise mammals to test for bone loss, etc. This lasts enough synods to get good data before people talk about having kids on Mars.
So you do advocate the no rush plan after all. Musk, and thus by extension SpaceX (as he is the CEO and majority shareholder) has been quite explicit about skipping all that research and going for the mass emigration phase as soon as they can build enough Starships.
-
19 hours ago, darthgently said:
I assumed he meant rotating the beam around its own axis. Yes rotating the aim point around a point on the target is an entirely different matter and makes sense for all the reasons you bring up
But would be limited by distance, beam decoherence, and heating being spread by the circular path radius
I'm certain he meant exactly that, but as has been mentioned it makes no difference. So I jumped forward to what might actually do something. Actually I originally though about a semicircular beam that rotates around its center, but that might be overly complex to get set up right. Reading the newer posts it does seem other effects like those you mention dominate anyway.
-
Maybe, if the rotating beam covers only a portion of the hole at a time. For a precision drill you want to outright vaporize rather than melt the material anyway. Then you need to get the vaporized material out of the hole. The only route out is the one the laser beam is entering, so the material disrupts the beam and thus your drilling efficiency. A partial cross section beam would leave space for the material to exit, but you would need to rotate or otherwise move it to keep creating the open space as the hole deepens. This is not entirely unlike how a CNC router creates a hole bigger than the bit in use.
-
21 hours ago, KSK said:
Depends who's funding it and whether anyone ever hears about the failures. Cis-Mars space is a very large rug to sweep things under.
Assume that this article has been discussed elsewhere. I'm taking it with the requisite grain of salt, but if even half of it is true, it doesn't speak well for privately funded Mars city efforts. Which I imagine they'll mostly be, since I can't seen any government being too keen to sink funds into that size of Mars-doggle.
A short life awaits you in the off-world colonies.
Oh my, that was an appalling read. Anyway, it will be very difficult to sweep stuff under even that large a rug and not leave any bumps to tattle in today's society. Most people would have some family or friends expecting to hear back from them and start asking questions if they don't. So if stories of injuries can be suppressed, there would still be stories of people suddenly going completely unreachable for no apparent reason.
-
8 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:
What's the rush? Well, let's not wait until Earth is nigh uninhabitable before starting. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, yadda yadda, and didn't a wise man say not to put all your eggs in one basket?
Right, let's get to it! We must build a thousand Orion ships to get enough mass to Mars to build that self sufficient colony, prompt! Never mind what launching all those does to Earth. We don't need Earth when we can have Mars!
Yeah, that's reductio ad absurdum for you. Mind that not rushing does not mean sleeping in the bushes as the turtle crawls past either. It is just way too early to try to run (build planetary colonies) when we have only just learned to roll over (build LEO space stations). There is so much we must learn before we can build a Mars colony that can be learned much closer to home i.e. cheaper and safer.
Worst thing to do right now would be to build a colony that fails and kills its inhabitants. That would make any and all funding and support shy away for generations if not forever.
), the resources are much more obviously finite than on Earth. If everyone needs to pull their weight you're stuck with a market punishing them somehow, or them eventually tossed out the airlock.
For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
I'm pretty sure the units I've owned all worked with bang-bang magnetron power control. Mind you majority of them have been visually identical other than the front panel, so probably all came from the same factory in china. The "PWM" frequency appears to be on the order of 0.1Hz or so, judging by the cyclical changes in the hum and how melting of butter in the first few seconds is not affected by the power setting. The spinner does not stop though so it must be powered separately from the magnetron. Never took one apart though, and ain't gonna touch the current unit as it still works.