Jump to content

Darnok

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,266

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Darnok

    Kerbals interactions, planetary bases, career...

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    Kerbals:
    More "jobs" for Kerbals would be nice, we could have some procedurally generated objects, little different for each biome, on planets and few interactions with them... like study, break, take sample, put into goo container, push, pull, lift, carve Jeb face in stone etc etc.

    Ability to eject from plane cockpits... with parachute of course :wink:

    Add some Kerbal sized scanners, so we could search and study things, of course those should have finite batteries, not like helmet lights.

    While in EVA we could have futuristic UI for Kerbal life signs heart beat, oxygen, maybe some damage report if you fell from really high. Something like Iron man style with partial transparency, so player would get a feeling he is inside helmet.
     

    Planetary bases:
    Add basic structure for base, single part with special ability to attach itself to planet surface. While base is attached it is unloaded from physics engine and every additional element that will dock to this base structure is also unloaded.

     

    Career:
    Current tech tree is... bad. IMO if we would get it super simple like experience points for Kerbals, but for every single part.
    For example if we are using basic SRB points for more advanced SRBs are increasing for each mission, after few missions we would unlock tier 2 SRB and have few points on tier 3. Of course for each tier we would need more points.
    Same with engines, tanks or wings, if you want more advanced wings you have to use planes and you have to take missions for atmospheric tasks.
     

    Multiplayer:
    If this ever happen we could have use of different frequencies in communication parts, so each player would have to allow other people to use his communication network or they would have to guess what frequencies he uses :wink:

     

    Have we landed on the moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok

    17 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

    #1) I am american, do I get to say "we"

    And?

     

    Quote

    #2) Your logic is incorrect. That's like arguing that we can't say that "Mammals landed on the Moon" because not every mammal went to the moon. Its like saying Human's didn't land on the moon because not all humans went. Humans did land on the moon. We are Humans. Soviet humans did not, Chinese Humans have not (time may change this), but without any qualifiers, humans have landed on the moon.

    Your way of  thinking is flawed by united humanity propaganda. Why nobody is saying "we discovered America"? We are saying "Christopher Columbus discovered America", but he didn't done that alone. He didn't spend his own money to get there, he had crew, he had informations from other sailors and travellers about "how to reach India". Yet nobody is saying it was achievement made by entire humanity... because it was done long before united humanity propaganda started and this achievement is labelled correctly. While newer achievements are labelled as "ours", I am not fan of US, I do criticize most of US action for past 20-25 years, but saying "we" landed on Moon is not fair.

    Also if you think that Moon landing is achievement done by entire humanity then maybe "we" should also say that dropping nuclear bombs in Japan is also achievement done by entire humanity? :)
    Entire nuclear branch of technology isn't work of single man nor single nation, so why there is no united humanity achievement "we nuked cities"?
     

     

    Quote

    #3) The last Chinese mission to the moon did return evidence of our landing, their orbiter photographed the landing sites, with the tracks and descent stages still there.

    As far as the technical details, I'm sure it went as described. The telemetry data was there for any interested nation to observe (the soviets sure were tracking it). Grounf stations around the world helped track the spacecraft and communicate (if the Aussies helped with communication and telemetry, do they get to say "we" ?)

    The hardware is all known. Heck, soviets were even allowed inside an Apollo spacecraft while it was operating. There's still a Saturn V on display, I've seen it. International observers saw the launches.

    The political backstory? the details of the private conversations that went into getting funding for this, other political motivations for JFKs "we choose to do this... " speech?

    Sure we probably don't have the entire backstory there. I'm sure some senators and congressmen used this multi-billion dollar project to line their pockets or the pockets of their campaign contributors.

    That is no reason to support conspiracy theories about the mission itself.

    Like I said, I am not saying that there are no tracks or pieces of equipment on the Moon, I am not so sure they got there just like official version tells us :)

    As evidence you should know that NASA lost original recordings, what makes me super suspicious.
    Another thing is how NASA is protecting its prototypes https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/07/nasa-lunar-vehicle-prototype-auction-apollo-missions ... would you throw into garbage prototype of working lunar rover?
    And why technology developed during Apollo mission wasn't developed any further, instead they turned all their work into something very different like space shuttles. If you have super expensive, working and tested technology there is no reason to start absolutely new technological branch to achieve even smaller result.
    Unless your technology doesn't work and you wasn't able to send manned mission with it, instead you sent unmanned mission to leave some equipment and tracks :wink:

     

    Have we landed on the moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    16 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

    Without Russians Americans wouldn't have enough inspiration. So, in some sense this is a collective achievement.

    They wouldn't have reason to start space race... and that is why united humanity didn't go further than USA in space exploration, because there was no reason to push this technology further.

    Have we landed on the moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    "Have we landed on the moon?" - no we haven't. Only Americans landed on Moon. This wasn't international mission it was single-nation mission, so saying "we" as humanity is wrong.
    This modern fairytale of "united humanity" is fail in our space exploration (and in our way of thinking), because we as "united humanity" couldn't do more than single nation could do. There should be historical lesson for all space programs... but it is omitted by most of people talking about space missions.

    ...also I would like to see evidence of their landing confirmed by other countries after they send there manned mission, because I have doubts it went just like the official version says.
     

    Make "Control from Here" action groupable

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Martian Emigrant said:

    Hi.

    Hard to make a short phrase that tell what I (We) want here.

    When combining things with several "Control from here" the game will more often than not select the wrong (At the moment) one.

    Example a lander with a command chair. Jeb gets in and the game think it's a rover. I have to reselect the probe core....again.

    Not hard to do but if I could have a magic-button set in the VAB-SPH I would like that. I imagine several user might like it too.

    Sometime combining lander cans in every darn direction you end up with strange re-entry angle when selecting retrograde.

    I have designed things where the desired probe core is clipped or in a service bay and clicking the part is dificult. Again annoying.

     

    Thanks for reading.

     

    Great game.

     

    ME

    Would be nice if editor would show us arrows where is top/bottom using selected control part.

    Would This Work?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    Just orienting its atoms, not storing an energy.
    Making its structure to betray the Chaos and turn to the Order.

    Yes, which means if you would be able to build device that would disorienting atoms of neodymium you should in result also get fraction of energy used in process of manufacturing neodymium magnet.

    Would This Work?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    6 hours ago, p1t1o said:

    Oof. Oh no, no nooo.

    You cannot extract energy from a magnet without first putting energy in. A magnetic field is not a source of energy although you can use it to store energy.

    Think of a magnetic field as a spring. You cannot extract energy from a spring, its just a piece of metal. If you squeeze it though, you are putting energy in, which you can store in the spring and release later.

    You are wrong... take for example neodymium, this is your spring. If you put energy in it you add magnetic capabilities to this piece of metal. Now you have squeezed spring ready to make work (release energy).

    Key thing is to develop mechanism able to drain energy stored in neodymium and of course you can not drain more energy than you stored :wink:

     

    Is it real?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Kryten said:

    The USA conducted 1,054 tests and two operational uses. 928 on the Nevada Test Site, 105 in the Pacific Proving Grounds, three in the South Atlantic (on rockets fired from a ship), three in Alaska, two in New Mexico, two in Mississippi, one in Colorado, and the remainder in areas of Nevada that are not formally part of the NTS. 

    Russia performed 715 tests. 456 at Semiplatinsk, 224 at Novaya Zemlya, and the others in various other locations throughout the USSR that saw a few tests each. I'm not going to list them just for a forum post, but the lists are out there.

    The United Kingdom performed 45 tests. 21 took place on Australian territory; seven at Maralinga and two at Emu Fields on the Australian mainland, and the rest on various islands. The other 24 tests took place at the Nevada Test Site in the US.

    France has performed 210 nuclear tests. Four took place at Reggane and thirteen in In Ekker, both now in Algeria, with the rest taking place in French Polynesia 

    China has performed 45 tests, all at Lop Nur in Xinjiang.

    India has performed six tests, all at Pokhran in Rajasthan.

    Pakistan has performed six tests, five at Ras Koh and one in the Kharan desert; both in Chagai district.

    The DPRK has performed five nuclear tests, all at Pyungge-Re in North Hamgyong province.

    Will that do?

    And you know this from what source?

    Is it real?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Elthy said:

    At first i thought you are being sarcastic, but now im not sure anymore. Do you realy belive its possible to cover up a manned mission to Saturn?

    If US military wouldn't tell anyone about dropping two nukes on Japan you wouldn't know about this :)
    Do you know how many nukes were testes and exactly where? How can you cover up nuclear explosions? :)

     

    Is it real?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Just now, razark said:

    The CIA, FBI, and NSA are rather well-known.  Some of their activities are rather less well known, but the last few years have shown that even those can be hard to cover up.

     

    But somebody is going to notice if we stick them in a damn big rocket and shoot them to Saturn!  None of the things you talk about is as large, encompassing, expensive, personnel intensive, or noticeable as a mission to the outer solar system.

    How can you hide every submarine and military ship? Do you know location of every submarine on Earth? Do you know even location of few submarines on Earth?
    All of them are more expensive than every space programs ever done on Earth? And they can be kept in secret, how is this possible?

    Do you know location of all military bases around the world? There are thousands of people working there... how many military bases you are aware of?

     

    Is it real?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 minute ago, razark said:

    Heard of, yes.  Know a lot about, no.

     

    Seriously?

    How the flipping hell do you hide a multi-decade space program requiring multiple launches, millions of people, trillions of dollars, and who knows what else, when you can't even hide emissions test fakery and banking papers?


    How can you hide CIA, FBI, NSA and whatever secret services there are on Earth?

     

    I forgot about Mars TV series... does human in space suit walking on Mars looks real in those videos?

    Is it real?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

    No, we are back to "if it looks real then its probably real, if it looks fake, then its probably fake." Because it is VERY hard to make something fake look *really* "real" to a human eye. That is not opinion, it is due to the nature of our biological components. Even the very latest state-of-the-art CGI only fools you for a little while, and that is without close scrutiny.

    I did not say compare it to NASA footage, ok I mentioned the space shuttle and the ISS which both have heavy NASA involvement, but there are other people aboard the ISS at least. What I meant was, *any* type of industrial recording, specifically from the space industry but other footage would count as well. What Im getting at is footage shot in similarly heavy-machinery and human-safety types of environments, regardless of which organisation is involved.

    But even if we take footage comparison out of the picture entirely - compare it to your own eyes, your own eyes should tell you there are things "off" about the Saturn footage. Even strange things that dont look how you expect dont look fake, "fake" is a specific property and the saturn clip has it.

     

    I am not arguing that Saturn clip is fake or not, I am only asking how other people make distinction of which video is real and which isn't.

    Personally I don't believe in any space related video, no matter who release it, what quality (both in resolution and details) it has... because at some point, like Gravity movie and "real" ISS video, I am unable to say which is real and which isn't.

    If NASA would release some directors cuts from Gravity and say it is theirs video would you be able to say it is fake?
    I probably wouldn't be able to do that.

     

    Is it real?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, razark said:

    Well, NASA does release footage of things they do, and tend to be pretty clear when they're showing artists' representation.

     

    But why look at the video in the first place?  There's no way something like a mission to Saturn could be kept secret for this long.

    Have heard about VW cheating with it engine tests? Or about Panama Papers?
    How things like this could be kept in secret for years and any space mission wouldn't be possible?

    5 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

    Credibility depends on what they say they have been done. One video is never credible, if somebody say that they have visited in Saturn.

    What if someone says he visited Moon, had one video about this and lost it? :)
    Is that credible source?

×
×
  • Create New...