Jump to content

Darnok

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,266

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Darnok

    DLC on steam?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I had to ask around because I didn't know what they are either. Turns out those 'apps' were created back when we were working on the NASA pack, which we originally wanted to offer as a free piece of DLC. In the end we decided to integrate the NASA pack into the game directly, but the Steam packages were never removed. Steam apparently refreshed / updated the old information on the packages which shows them as recently updated. If you click through to the individual apps you'll also see that they haven't been updated in more than a year.

    P.S.

    And they are, in fact, empty.

    :(

    I had hope for something else

    Thorium reactor discussion thread!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Everything kills people.

    The trick is to find the stuff that kills the least, and when taken into account the amount of energy produced, nuclear has a pretty good record.

    I am also talking about perspective. A few deaths caused by an accident pale in comparison with the number of deaths that occur on regular basis.

    If something kills people maybe we should get rid of that and try to develop technology based on new concept?

    What is more important human life, profit or life style?

    Thorium reactor discussion thread!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    What about Fukushima?

    Tell me, how does that incident compare to more than 150 000 people that die each day?

    How many people die or suffer serious health issues as a direct result of coal power plants emissions?

    Interesting argument. So if one technology kills people then other technology that cause deaths is fine? :huh:

    snip

    Ok, I get it, it is pretty safe... but does making deep underground power plants would make them any safer? Or cheaper, since this "tombs" probably cost a lot?

    Will Skylon Actually Fly?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    I have seen video with different Skylon configuration, it had main Sabre engines, but in tail section was rocket engine to make final push to orbit.

    Maybe hybrid with main jet engines and large tail section rocket engine would be better? Lynx can make suborbital flight just with rocket engine, Skylon would push it bit further? (I know Lynx is much much smaller)

    Devnote Tuesday: Kerbal Space Program 1.0.5

    in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

    Posted

    Erm... Actually, the intake is just a tunnel in fuselage\hole in front of the nacelle that serves as an air duct.

    In case of jet engines, KSP doesn't model the engine itself - only the exhaust. The engine itself is implied to be inside the fuselage :)

    See picture:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Jet_engine.svg

    I get this, but like you said KSP cuts part of engine, so reasonable solution would be to increase weight of air intake to balance this. And my solution wouldn't limit usage jet engines for VTOLs, right now it is hard to make CoM of small VTOL in the right place.

    Devnote Tuesday: Kerbal Space Program 1.0.5

    in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

    Posted

    That is actually on purpose, it has to do with the a more realistic jet engine assembly mass distribution. Someone with more knowledge about jet engines would be more suited to explain this, though :)

    You can have same result after you increase mass of air intakes and decrease mass of jet engines (with CoM on middle).

    Because real jet engines have heavier air intakes.

    How far until nothing?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok
    using translator, sometimes creates mess

    Because the plant absorbs red and blue light reflecting the remainder.

    You created two properties.

    I can create two different properties/scenarios/hypothesis for this:

    1. plants absorbs all light except green, they don't have to have ability to reflect, just all not absorbed light has to go somewhere

    2. plants reflects only green light, all other colors are absorbed

    It seems to be same thing, but it isn't, because in science you have to think what property studied object has, so you could create equation for your calculations.

    It is important what you pick are you measuring reflection-property or absorbtion?

    The colors that we see are really illusions, because it is the color of the object should determine the absorption capacity, or reflex is arbitrary. Same it is with every issue, in which we interpret and describe the universe or some object within the universe.

    For many years, the geocentric system was the only and right model of universe, because an observer from the earth really see, the planets moving around him. But then someone got the idea that this concept is totally wrong and the property of planet Earth has changed. Now we calculate Earth movement, before we didn't.

    Geocentric and heliocentric systems/models are two ways of perceiving reality, two different interpretation, and both can create many equations that will give correct results.

    Of course science has rejected one of these models, and there is nothing wrong with that, were it not that scientists have forgotten that the old and misconceptions to be discarded and they should be looking for new ones.

    Instead today, misconceptions are not discarded, they add the new field of physics (and not only) to only justify their accuracy in a wider range.

    An example is Newton and his notion that the force that occurs between an apple and the Earth comes from the direct influence of the properties of one and the other at a distance. How does he prove that in his times? Why he has accepted only such a model?

    Yet the second model that comes to my mind is one in which the force between objects is created by an environment where these objects are. And this model is simpler because it does not require the creation of additional property(mass) for objects apple and the Earth.

    This come into my mind when I read @lajoswinkler "It's a property of our universe" ;) do we really measure properties of universe or only our interpretations of those properties?

    How far until nothing?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    It might help us if we were very far from where we are at, but in the here and now most of the known physics varies extremely little (the only thing that I can think of is gravity varies in the 7th to 8th decimal place).

    I see you don't get it... what is color of grass?

    How far until nothing?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Saying "until we get FTL" is like saying "until we manage to draw a cubical circle". It won't happen. It's a property of our universe. We're stuck here.

    What property?

    Just because someone wrote equation doesn't mean that equation defines how universe works. Person who build model of universe based on his knowledge and his interpretations of experiments could think in wrong way. It wouldn't be first time where science "works" in very narrow range, but if you try to apply that in wider range, it doesn't work like hypothesis predicted :)

    Sadly science instead of going back and throw away wrong interpretation and equations make additions to them... and scientists say it is ok to make small "patch" to entirely wrong concept.

    Top 5 wants:

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    1. Life support - when all resources are consumed Kerbals can become uncontrollable. They can also disable all remote access turning off all probe cores on vehicle, so you would be forced to send more "food". You can rent NPC space agency to resupply your Kerbals, to make game less repetitive and it would be good late game feature.

    2. Make mini games during experiments?

    3. This one is interesting, but it is not all. Right now we have "science points" and you can develop news wings parts while making non-atmospheric mission that is main problem.

    We should have few types of science points, different type for Mun (no atmo) and different type for Duna/Eve/Laythe (atmo). During carrier mode we should be able to buy wings only for points gathered in atmospheric missions.

    Next types could be points for manned and unmanned missions, with those 4 types you can do many interesting things. Players wouldn't be able to grind science points on Kerbin or Mun and buy whatever they want to and possibly we wouldn't have to grind at all, because things could be cheaper, just would require us to go in many different locations.

    With probe core you wouldn't be able to improve your capsules or landers cans and opposite with manned mission you wouldn't improve probe cores :)

    4. Yes please.

    5. The more engines and parts the better for me :) Devs should add some low and high tech parts for carrier mode, I know in sandbox low tech parts probably wouldn't be used much, but in carrier mode people have to make path for better tech. Also would be nice to have few futuristic parts, since KSP is game where we should get much farther then Mun!

×
×
  • Create New...