Darnok
-
Posts
1,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Darnok
-
-
50 minutes ago, p1t1o said:
No, its not about recognising an object from memory, that video is not just a shot of Saturn from on-high. Its about how real the object look in context with one another. A good example is the fake-CGI "shakycam" effect which is both too bumpy and not-bumpy-enough, its hard to put into words why it looks fake, but it does, and is.
You want me to say "Yeah this *looks* fake but I've never seen footage from saturn before so how should I know?" but I've never seen footage of a shrek in real life before but Im reasonably certain that he is just a CGI construct.
Shrek was CGI... no way
Have you seen movies Gravity, Interstellar and Martian? Does that kind of "quality" would be enough for you to tell this is real?
10 minutes ago, Gaarst said:If the Chinese went to Mars I'm pretty sure we'd have more than a single YouTube video to prove it.
Unless they would lost it somewhere in storage
-
37 minutes ago, p1t1o said:
Not "quality" as in pure resolution or signal-to-noise, but "quality" as in how object appear in reality as opposed to if they are put together unnaturally - subtle effects of light and shade that disagree with the eye, motions of objects with respect to other objects etc.
How do you know how Mars or any other planet or moon looks like from around 400km high?
If understand your way of thinking right... you would need at least single video or picture that you can identify as "real", then you only compare new photos and videos with this first "real" evidence you have. So please show me this pattern/standard 1 real photo or video of every larger body in our solar system
-
1 hour ago, p1t1o said:
Sure, if NASA posted a video that also looked as real as a 1989 sitcom, I wouldn't believe that one either.
So it is only matter of video quality for you? Having HD video of China landing on Mars today would be enough proof that it does happen today?
-
19 minutes ago, Scotius said:
Homesite adress: UFOatSection51. Yeah. Totally legit. Nicely done though - only with way too much sunlight that far from the Sun.
So if that video would be posted by NASA you would say it is real or not?
Also same way in background you can put Earth...
-
Why those batteries are not inside?
-
Then in this thread we can talk about politics
I don't really see anything political so far, someone is supersensitive... give it a break guys and let us speculate about future of NASA. -
Quote
anyone want to speculate
17 minutes ago, insert_name said:Source? I see no hints of Orion/sls going away. And why would the new administration export space jobs when he promised to bring jobs back.
I don't need source for speculations
-
1. SLS going to be cancelled and replaced by Falcon Heavy and New Armstrong,
2. Lunar space station (if this is not going to happen then Orion is going to be cancelled and replaced by future versions of Dragon v2 and Boeing CST-100),
3. Mobile sea launch and landing platform for reusable rockets or... new launch site on Cuba or Mexico or Venezuela (after they declare bankruptcy),
4. Some missions to Venus and Mercury,
5. Development of laser communication satellites -
2 hours ago, MinimalMinmus said:
More generally, IMHO there should be a science lab for 3.75m as well. Oh, and as we're talking "bigger parts"... 3.75m hitchhiker, anyone?
-
On 26.12.2016 at 11:29 AM, Nibb31 said:
There's barely a need for fighters at all at this point. The next gen will probably be drones.
Drones or not, any flying craft is going to have trouble during laser war age, because it is super easy and super light armored target.
-
In some cases numbers does matter... during WWII Germans had superior technology, but Soviets had numbers and medicore technology.
-
Merry Christmas
-
Been playing with BD Armory...
Tau Howitzer
mass: 5.2t
parts: 16
weapon: M102 Howitzer (50 shells)
Tau DualHowitzer
mass: 6t
parts: 16
weapon: M102 Howitzer (70 shells)
Tau MAV (Medium Armored Vehicle) AA (Anti Air)
mass: 14.3t
parts: 54
weapon: Oerkilon Millenium Cannon (30mm Ammunition x 1200)
.50cal Turret (.50 cal Ammunition x 1200)
More photos http://imgur.com/a/6jsH6
-
"The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,"
Which means some people were right that companies making GMO are paying for "favorable" studies and good ratings.
-
Larger batteries (4k is too little for large ISRU), larger generators and larger solar panels (gigantor like, but in different shape).
As for ISRU sizes I agree they should have almost same efficiency, but smaller one should have lower "transfer rate" what would add time needed to convert ore into fuel.
-
12 minutes ago, kurja said:
...A balloon filled with vacuum would be buoyant in vacuum? Maybe not ,)
Not in vacuum, but in tin atmosphere, above 40km.
-
5 hours ago, magnemoe said:
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line
Formula is: lift=1/2 * air density * airspeed^2 * lift coefficient * wing area.
at 100 km air pressure is 1/2.200.000 of sea level, now having an wings 2 million times higher than needed for flight at sea level is an bit unpractical
Balloons faces the same issue in that it also need to be two million times larger, if you need an 1 meter in diameter balloon for sea level lift it need to expand to 130 meter at 100 km.
What if your balloon would have light gas at sea level and the higher it goes you would lower pressure of this gas until you reach vacuum inside "balloon"?
Of course such construction would need structural skeleton to keep balloon shape, but difference in pressure of air and vacuum at 40km should be low, so materials wouldn't have to be super strong.
-
51 minutes ago, Shpaget said:
Since 6000 years ago, then?
Please quote part of Bible saying that world started 6000 years ago
Creationism isn't anti-science like most of people think, because even if all creatures would be created they still have to "work" on some rules and those rules can be studied with science.
-
6 minutes ago, Shpaget said:
Since when is creationism science?
Since beginning of times
-
1 hour ago, Azimech said:
Flying an airplane is a bit too easy. I want strong winds & turbulence during take off & landing.
Also, I want to sail ships.
this would be amazing...
sail ships + balloons
-
Just now, p1t1o said:
Freefall yes, but you can do this yourself by jumping an inch in the air, nothing special about height in it
Well larger height gives you more time for fun?
12 minutes ago, Steel said:Maybe in some planes, however by the look of this one if you dive for too long you'll over speed and the wings will come off
Yea I know it is not jet fighter
-
On 11.12.2016 at 10:26 AM, Nibb31 said:
It's a plane. It can only go up to 60000ft max. It has nothing to do with space.
I am not a pilot, but IMO from 60 000 ft you can dive and feel zero gravity for while?
If YES, then this sounds like first step towards space for common person, that is afraid that rockets can blow up
-
54 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:
Not sure why anyone would thing link this to space tourism. If that was the case, then Concorde would have been a spaceship.
According to Boeing capsule able to orbit on LEO is called "Starliner"
As for space tourism you have to make first step somehow, I doubt it you would be able to pilot rocket alone, but you will be able to pilot SolarStratos.
-
http://www.solarstratos.com/en/plane/
This is going to be good if they made it... space tourism at full speed ahead
BTW we would need lighter pilot cockpit, new wings and this electric engine in KSP
Is it real?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
So we are back to "if NASA released it it must be real"