Darnok
-
Posts
1,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Darnok
-
-
And all models about galaxy movement went to trash
-
Spaceship filled with liquid would be better, in any way, than ship filled with gas?
-
First define time
Second define how you measure time.
Then we can talk about scenario when time has stopped. -
Maybe we should be able to mark locations in map mode, just click on location you want to mark and label it + correct/edit latitude and longitude for this mark.
-
2 hours ago, Aethon said:
I thought Michelson-Morley and relativity killed the idea of the "Luminiferous Aether" years ago. Is it back in the form of the Higgs field?
"Luminiferous Aether" had some assumptions and only those assumptions were wrong, not entire idea about aether filling space. Higgs and many others just took Tesla's ideas and rewrote them, in weird way, to get rewards and reputation.
-
18 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:
They cant due the Outer Space Treaty, also nobody will allow you (from the public media perspective).
If these laser array are build, it will need a huge international consensus, maybe they need to be build in neutral ground, like the antartika or something like that..
But one advantage of this as is mentioned in the video, that can also work as asteroid defense if they use a fresnel lense in orbit.
If they select very well the laser frequency it can cross the atmosphere without much interaction.Haha right because everyone needed approval to start working on nukes
I like idea of asteroid defence system, this can be better usage for such strong lasers than Hawking idea.
14 minutes ago, p1t1o said:Are you seriously suggesting building a military lunar base for defence applications on earth? This idea has been discredited for decades due to the (rather obvious) limitation of it being very, very far away. It is literally the worst place in the Earth-Moon system to put a military base. (On top of that lasers make poor long-range weapons)
Also, a base on the Far side of the moon was being discussed - pretty hard to hit the earth from there. Mirrors will just attenuate the beam further than it already will on the 300,000km journey to target.
I assume this is why the probes in the OP are accelerated so hard - because if you don't they quickly end up too far away to receive much energy from your laser.
It is literally best place to put military base, since it can't be observed directly from Earth, so if you are first you can target and destroy rival rockets, probes or spy satellites before they even find your base. And they can't even announce that you destroyed their property in TV, since its military secret
---
As for main topic... we shouldn't send anything outside of solar system, because we don't know what rules and laws can have alien civilizations, maybe they obey basic laws of nature and act like predators, where stronger and more advanced are higher in "food chain".
-
19 minutes ago, p1t1o said:
Sure! Easy-Peasy! Hell, lets build ten!
This would actually prevent the array from being used as a weapon, but its is probably the least accessible place in the Earth/Moon system. Would be easier to build something at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. So I will continue to not hold my breath.
Building Moon base would cost more than US nuclear missile launch facilities? If lasers can make huge damage on our infrastructure then I am sure that laser-bases would replace nukes for next ~50 years.
-
12 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:
You want to use the laser as a weapon? of course you can use it as a weapon, even from earth using mirrors in space.
But the main idea here is how to build a potential weapon without put in risk to others, in case is taken by terrorist or controlled by one country and a crazy president.
Earth surface can be safe if nobody launch a big mirror, the other is build this in the dark side of the moon, and you dont need to deal with atmosphere.Ok, but you can still build large mirror on Moon orbit and target Earth from dark side
My point was what is possible to damage or destroy using such strong laser. If everything I mentioned is possible, then nobody is going to stop US, Russia and China from building its own military bases on Moon and target rivals. Just like they do right now with nukes.
-
9 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:
You can build the laser in the dark side of the moon to prevent that.
Prevent what?
-
So if we would build Moon base with huge laser and target someone on Earth we could kill her/him?
Would it be possible to destroy or damage car (Tesla), planes, rockets, missiles and satellites from Earth or Moon orbit, with such strong laser and so precise targeting system?
EDIT: disabling power grid for cities from orbit would be possible?
-
8 minutes ago, YNM said:
Additionally, I also believe a more spread system would works better energy wise - you can fit solar panels on top of every building !
Not only for smaller buildings you can use different materials than concrete and steel.
-
19 hours ago, AngelLestat said:
But the car (1300kg to transport 70kg) and streets is our main problem today.. if we live in a 40th floor, and we need to travel 5 km to the 30th floor, we waste a lot of time and energy, first in elevators to the ground, then in traffic congestion (because everyone travels by these small street veins) and then rise again. But if every 3 or 5 floors we have an horizontal travel system between our infrastructure and buildings which dont need streets between, you save a lot of time, energy. How to achieve that? Just with new construction regulation and policies for each new investment that goes in hand with sustainable planning growth.
You are looking at this from wrong perspective.
Why would you want to spend your live in 30-40 floor piece of concrete? You can't even decide there what can be color of your front doors or windows. You have to agree for what majority agrees and live like others wants you to live.
Vertical buildings for living are nonsense, but they are useful for offices, services and shops. Imagine city with only few tall buildings where you can buy everything you need. Costs of transportation of goods to those buildings would be lower, because you deliver goods to few locations, even if those goods are from other side of the country. Trucks, taking large part of road traffic, wouldn't be even needed, because you could build train station near this tall building.
Main reason for us to travel is that we want to buy something... you have to go and buy things, because your goods are single use products that are breaking really fast. Each new product needs box, so there is reason to transport resources for boxes... then you have to drop box and transport garbage etc etc.
Direction where our industry has developed is main reason for huge resources and energy usage (waste) and reason for huge traffic. Changing american-style-of-live (100% consumptionism) into more reasonable way of live would cause less traffic, less resource and energy usage.Cars aren't issue, its the reason you have to use car to buy milk or tea is problem. Common goods should be sold in local shops, so you wouldn't have to walk more that 20 minutes to buy something for dinner. Then only guy who would use car to transport goods would be shop owner.
While more advanced goods (electronics, furnitures etc etc) can be delivered from tall-vertical building.Why we are not going in this way? Because your time (your travel time) doesn't cost anything, while employees time costs, so corporation prefer to waste your time instead of their moneys. And allowing for local business to take over some branches (like food distribution) is something that corporations (large markets) won't allow any time soon.
-
Guys it is not about transportation, it is about your time. Cities should be build to save time of its citizens, otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Today using car you can travel 50km in shorter time that travel 10km inside large city, that is why large cities are total nonsense.
-
19 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
Right. Population density is not an issue, but it would require something like four Earths worth of nothing but arable land to provide an average standard of living comparable to that of the American low middle class.
Then maybe American low middle class person consumption rate is too high?
We still have oceans, seas and hydroponics, so we have 4xEarth lands.
-
This film predicts that next reason for racism can be modified DNA. People with artificial, better, DNA will think that they are better since day they were born, while people made by natural evolution will be second category humans, with lower talents and skills. This is exactly what created very harmful ideologies in past.
Sadly we are going into that direction... people, celebrities after plastic surgeries are considered as prettier, more talented and better. Everything that is artificial is considered as better today... this is not going to end well. -
9 minutes ago, Steel said:
Exactly my argument, you cannot regulate borders effectively without military force.
That is why this treaty is pure nonsense... it is for people that have no idea how world works. It is like saying that no country can claim land in North and South America after they were discovered
-
On 9.04.2016 at 4:53 PM, Steel said:
OK, so what's to stop China (just an example, could be any nation) landing the first man on mars, claiming it as part of the People's Republic of China and claiming that any attempt to land on it will be trespassing/ a border violation/ an invasion?
Same thing that was since we learned to draw animals on caves walls... if you have army large enough to defend this territory it is yours.
-
Parts inside storage bay or cargo bay should have better crash tolerance under water... or even water shouldn't be able to break them at all.
I have tested remote tech (before 1.1) and if we are going to have similar stock functions then default range for probe cores should be more than 3 km... near 70-100km seems fine for me.
More capsules with many additional functions like in this mod
This is really great idea to have empty tanks in capsules, so we can save few parts. I would add some capsules tweak for small solar panes, RCS thrusters, additional life support (for future use
), landing legs and lights.
Few more wheels and landing legs would be good addition... like SpaceX legs used on Falcon 9, and tracks wheels for heavy vehicles (using plane landing gears for this is really ugly). Landing legs could have tweaks, like cargo bays doors, for how much we want them to eject them.
More adapters... this is pain in stock.
Stock ramp, 2.5 tail section is great, but for smaller crafts would be great to have small ramps for ground vehicles.
-
On 10.04.2016 at 0:11 PM, KerikBalm said:
then we'd need a whole new set of engines, cockpits, probe cores, batteries, reaction wheels... etc... I'm not sure its worth it.
Or few flat and not only flat adapters?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
QuoteMany [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...]
The common source of these disturbances became most dramatically apparent in the populations of our first series of three experiments, in which we observed the development of what we called a behavioral sink. The animals would crowd together in greatest number in one of the four interconnecting pens in which the colony was maintained. As many as 60 of the 80 rats in each experimental population would assemble in one pen during periods of feeding. Individual rats would rarely eat except in the company of other rats. As a result extreme population densities developed in the pen adopted for eating, leaving the others with sparse populations.
[...] In the experiments in which the behavioral sink developed, infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population.
Something we can hear a lot these days... environment and laws made by us does affect our way of thinking. Building even larger cities for more dense population is wrong direction.
-
18 minutes ago, Atlas2342 said:
True, but there are a lot of advantages of vertical cities
What is more important than health of citizens? We want to fight with fossil fuels because environment health is most important yet we ignore things that are harmful to our own health... this is wrong.
1 hour ago, YumonStudios said:But doing those things are healthier than not doing them.
What? running near large road and breathing chemicals and concrete dust while you are exhausted is healthier than what?
-
2 hours ago, YumonStudios said:
But it makes sense, urban sprawl is a serious problem, especially since cities are often located on prime farmland, and ecologically important deltas.
What? So its time to build new cities in other ways.
Anyone that thinks you can grow healthy food in huge city is wrong. If you think you can be healthier by running in the morning few kilometers in large city you are very wrong. Making huge zero wild life zone you are harming environment much more that if you would make less dense lower zone where everyone can have their house and small garden. -
4 hours ago, Spaceception said:
The Japanese might be fine with it tbh.
Chickens are also fine with it
20 hours ago, Atlas2342 said:I'm pretty sure large horizontal towns would affect the environment greatly...and for other reasons stated by the OP...
I am pretty sure that vertical are worse, for your health and environment, because you have layers of concrete. While in lower and less dense buildings style you have more green and more space.
-
But this is nonsense, we could build like that in times when our main transport vehicle was horse, but today we have small, easy to use and fast vehicles that can transport us on large distances very fast... but we are making towns vertical and put speed limits on cars instead of go other way and build larger horizontally towns with good access for parking spots and roads.
Lifting Mjolnir
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
http://imgur.com/gallery/XNJn9