radonek
-
Posts
662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by radonek
-
-
51 minutes ago, RCgothic said:
I've never really been clear why warp core detonation is the primary risk to a starship however. Containment failure of the antimatter tanks would be far more devastating, and making safe the warp core should just be a case of reducing the antimatter flow. Even if the core injectors froze you should be able to shut off the antimatter flow elsewhere.
The only thing I can think of is for containment field instability requiring increasing containment field power that only a full power core can generate. In which case there should be a safety system that can provide a enough power to maintain core containment whilst the core shuts down. It's basically the Chernobyl safety gap all over again.
You are taking the fantasy too much seriously. We all know that in reality, Federation was destroyed five minutes after someone realized there is no need to fuss around with phasers when technology allows you to deploy singularity artillery and spew RKV's.
-
43 minutes ago, DDE said:
Therein lies the rub. Open cycle is hardly required. Here's a scheme for four engines fed by one reactor:
Yes, but that aircraft is manned. Crew is certainly a good reason to bother with complexity of closed loop. So, was this "Burevestnik" crewed? Or are there other reasons for unmanned misile to go for closed cycle?
-
On 9/4/2019 at 9:38 AM, Scotius said:
Who would you follow?
The emperor of course. Not that I'd like, but everything else is heresy :-)
Seriously though, there is one thing I don't understand. If this was really open cycle nuclear thermal propulsion, wouldn't successful test firing be even less inconspicuous then failure?
-
Steer clear of pip, you are always better off installing stuff via package manager. Unless you run windows – there you can let pip put stuff into your profile (no admin privileges) and call it a poor man's package management I guess.
You add a library to python project via
- installing it into site-packages (Don't mess with site-packages unless you know how to do that properly, which you obviously don't)
- put it anywhere and add it to $PYTHONPATH. (Afaik this is what most IDE's do.)
- just put it into your project. If your library does not pull other dependencies, this is the most simple way to do it.
Micropython (upython) is not a library, it's a custom interpreter with trimmed down standard library. Forget about it now, it will only interrest you once you start toying with actual hardware.
As for changing syntax, you don't do that. That essentialy equals to creating a new language, and that is way out of your league. You don't need it anyway, you just need to learn how namespaces work, how to cut logic into functions or encapsulate it in classes. In short, learn the freakin language, which is what several people already pointed you to.
4 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:If it is the pip anaconda library name thing. How do I actually go about opening that command prompt. It would be my first time doing that
Man, you have a LOT of learning ahead of you.
-
Limit factor for KSP engine is not fancy graphics, but physics. Working with multiple moving reference frames aint easy, that's why "better" games/engines tend to have some kind of global speed limit. Only exception I know of is the new Elite. It has _two_ reference frames, one of which have rather severe speed limit and other lacks physical interactions completely. Working around this will be major thing in whatever engine squad may choose for KSP2.
-
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
So, looks like "anarchistic meritocracy" = "free lords are equal, and thou shalt obey them"
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. "Free lords" being superintelligent AI's to whom other citizens defer simply because superintelligent AI's are much more able to run the show. Except its quite a bit more complicated, suffice to say it's outright utopistic, yet I don't find it naive or idealistic, just Lightly Seared On The Reality Grill.
-
My take would be "post-scarcity anarchistic meritocracy". In short, the Culture.
-
Not sure I get your intent, but it seems to me you just need while True block with bunch of if statements inside.
-
On 6/7/2019 at 1:36 PM, DDE said:
Well, looks like the show’s as melodramatic and atomophobic as expected.
Looks like author of that article could not be bothered with basic fact checking. I mean, I have issues with the series, but it's obvious Mazin did a lot of research.
-
If it's atmospheric vehicle, why not use ordinary aerodynamic control surfaces?
-
Dunno about broken legs, but your lander does not look very good to me. Tall, quite high CoM, that's just asking for trouble. Single landing leg sticking out at sides… if you land on even mildy inclined ground, that one leg will bear almost all of the force before others touch down and can share the load. Your design is really helping any problems to manifest in worst possible way.
-
18 hours ago, Laie said:
The standard 1450m/s figure already has generous room for low TWR, bad aerodynamics, or both. No need to increase it further.
I see we are all looking at the same delta-v map :-)
-
I would say that at this stage, what OP needs more then calculator is getting handle on controls and orbital mechanics. Lots of supposedly counterintuitive properties of spaceflight can actually become quite familiar with experience, and instinctive feeling of something being wrong is something you can't calculate yet it saved me many times. So my advice would be – do it like real astronauts, in incremental steaps. Play around in orbit with tasks you can handle easier (or fail with less pain, which will inevitably happen) until you learn enough to pull off Mun orbit and then landing. Playing with orbits, chasing sattelites, doing EVA's, building stations - there is a lot to do.
One particular thing that I always recomend is to learn rendezvous and docking. Tanker or rescue ship can get one from many sticky situatiuons, pretty much everything except really hard landing. Yes, it's one of the hardest things to do, but that is why you want to practice it in easy steps, at familiar Kerbin orbit and not in real distress.
-
On 5/13/2019 at 5:08 AM, Pacca said:
I was just wondering if there was a good way to quickly quantify this at a glance looking at the engine stats.
For me, simple rule of thumb is this: how does weight of the engine compare with weight of rest of the payload (that is, everything that is not fuel)? Or put another way - if I add hypotetical fuel tanks to lighter engine to make up same total weight as the heavier engine, would I gain anything?
For (exaggerated) example, if I compare spark with LV-N, it means _tons_ of fuel for spark. Now, if my craft is a small comm probe with something like small toroidal tank, those tons of extra fuel will obviously add a much more delta-v then what better efficiency of LV-N can save. On the other hand, if I were to make a big tanker based on good 'ol large orange tank, few tons of extra fuel does not make that much of a difference.
-
IMO easiest way to get to Moho is just to pack more fuel, get to some lower solar (kerbolar?) orbit (possibly with Eve assist) and do a transfer from there instead of falling all the way from Kerbin. Yes, it's a waste of fuel, but so is hauling big TWR down there, especially if one have big craft that needs something like mainsail to slow down. Eve assist may be more efficient, but tricky to set up and you still arrive with a lot of speed to shed. If your intermediate orbit is low enough, Moho capture burn is not much bigger then, say, Mun one. Again, this is not best way to do it, but easiest to start with.
-
On 5/9/2019 at 8:59 PM, MPDerksen said:
Now the unfortunate part: Once I had the Miner ready to go again, I landed in a hot spot, filled up the fuel tanks, (liquid and mono) as well as 3K units of Ore. I used a huge % of it just go get back to the station. But I was able to add a fair amount back to the Station. I just don't get as much per trip as I would have liked, since it takes SO much dV to get all the ore off the surface (but then I just convert it in orbit and put it into the fuel tanks that have drained on lift off.)
I don't think that lifting ore off Mun surface is very economical. I would go for surface ISRU and lift up processed fuel. If you want orbital processing, Minmus is a place to go.
-
Of course I still love names of Elons ships, but if he comes out with something like 'Gunboat Diplomat' or 'Attitude Adjuster', I will be worried.
-
Low, wide designs are much easier to land then pointy towers. Hauling them up is another matter though.
-
32 minutes ago, mattssheep4 said:
Edit: If you really want citations, I can provide them.
Too bad antivaxers are not interested in citations. However, I have one interesting observation from meetinge one of the afflicted: pointing out medical side of things fell on idiotic ears (one noteworthy response was that treating any illnes (including viral!) with antibiotics is safer and less stressing for body then vaccines), what did have noticable effect was pointing out business side of things – how all those nice people saving us from evil medicines have this or that finacial interest. Looks like people care more about being fooled off their money then health.
I would like to point out different angle. I think reason these people cannot be persuaded by medical facts is because they dont care about medicine at all. They do this to fight The System. Consider this:
- While chaining oneself to a tree requires effort, antivaxers "fight" by literally by not doing a thing. It's perfect form of protest for age of consumerism.
- Beats up being beaten by a riot squad. Serious protesting can be unhealthy, while antivaxing conveniently outsources any health risk onto your children.
- It's perfect for helicopter parenting since it does not take up your time. Care about dangerous chemicals in toys or food requires constant attention. Evil Shots will bother you just a handful of times.
- It's does not cost anything. Donating to a cause will never be this cheap.
- Politicaly neutral issue in itself, but any half competent party will have issue with it. You can asociate with other afflicted across political spectrum and still fight any political party you don't like, or all of them at once if you feel extra radical.
- It gets more attention then old, boring fight against Evil Corporation. Having a transmission vector running around tends to grab attention even from people who do not care about Important Causes. And number of Bad Pharma agents around guarantees warm feeling of being Important anytime.
-
14 hours ago, amateur astronaut said:
hey! I tried something before using the mod: I warped until my spacecraft was 90 degrees ahead of KSC, waited a bit, made a maneuver node a bit behind my craft, (so that it needed to circle around the planet), and the planet, the periapsis, and the spacecraft were alligned perfectly!
And how did the landing go?
I plan my retro burns by surface features, since those tend to stay in conveniently fixed position relative to KSC. For fast balistic reentry, this is desert peninsula ahead of KSC. This method was also used in real spaceflight - early cosmonauts and astronauts were trained to expect certain prominent earthly features be visible at certain points in flight to have an independent navigation aid.
-
I don't think there is a practical way to get up to circular orbit in single burn. My usual way up:
- Straight up to get decent speed (depends on TWR)
- Lean over slowly to full horizontal at ~60km altitude.
- Burn until slightly under target altitude.
- MECO, coast to AP minus ~30s.
- Circularize.
-
Bought it a long time ago, just because it looked promising. After they implemented nonintertial mechanics I lost faith and not launched it since then.
-
6 hours ago, IU_R said:
My next main mission is to have the first Kerbal stepping foot on the Mun and returning home safely!
Believe it or not, that is comparatively easy. Your target is big, have no orbit of its own (relative to you, of course) and even pull you closer on it's own. What could go wrong with that :-)
-
Well, I don't give much about Grand Tour or Big Tonnage because those feel like "how many parts can your rig handle". Proper use of gravity assists is definite mark of a Pro in my book.
Pure Newtonian Combat... Surprises
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Actually, no and this whole discussion does not make sense unless you people stop mixing up technology levels. Any concievable kind of FTL/warp/whatever operates on wholy different technology AND energy level then propulsion buses seen in COADE . "Warping" to sub-light second distance to slug it out COADE style makes about as much sense as using ICBMs to deliver lance cavalry.
If you possess technology to manipulate space advanced enough for something like "warp", you don't warp in kinetic battleships, laser dreadnaughts or any other precious museum articles. You send in a singularity bombs.