For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[todofwar]

5 hours ago, p1t1o said:

It does, answer it I mean.

The ascending/descending nodes do not rotate with the Earth - your orbit, for all practical purposes, is fixed in space and is not affected by Earth's rotation. However the "longitude" in this context is not measured against a fixed point on the Earth's surface (eg: the Greenwich meridian (0^o Longitude) like it is on maps) but rather against a fixed reference direction in space. In our case it is apparently the "First Point of Aries". So whilst your "longitude of ascending node" (as measured against the First Point of Aries) does not change, the actual Earth-longitude over which your ascending node lies, will change as the Earth rotates, covering the full 360^o once every day.

I see, I was misunderstanding what longitude they were talking about. Many thanks!

[delta wee]

I'm having some trouble understanding orbital inclination. I'm trying to get two spacecraft to have identical orbits, except that they are moving in the opposite directions. In KSP I have one spacecraft at a 30 degree inclination. What inclination do I have to set the other spacecraft to in order to make it follow the exact same orbit as the first spacecraft, but in the opposite direction?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, delta wee said:

I'm having some trouble understanding orbital inclination. I'm trying to get two spacecraft to have identical orbits, except that they are moving in the opposite directions. In KSP I have one spacecraft at a 30 degree inclination. What inclination do I have to set the other spacecraft to in order to make it follow the exact same orbit as the first spacecraft, but in the opposite direction?

If you are traveling the opposite direction you have to flip your pov in the game, if you are visually matching the orbital planes. Otherwise you will move the inclination the opposite direction that you want. 

360  + 30 = 390  (rule theta = theta + 2pi in radians)

390 - 180 = 210'

 

 

[RainDreamer]

How are payload inspection handled by private launch providers and are there any any regulation about that process?

I am imagining when launch cost gets a little bit cheaper and stuff get launched up more frequently, there might be cases of people with bad intention tampering wiyh pay load, by say, someone installing explosive to a satellite without the owner and payload provider knowing and detonate it in orbit to scatter debris and destroy other satellites, with nothing tracing back to them.

[MatterBeam]

Hi.

Would anyone be interested in reading blog posts from my hard science fiction blog, on the Science forum?

If anyone remembers Rocketpunk Manifesto, these are in the same vein.

[DDE]

On ‎15‎.‎06‎.‎2016 at 7:13 AM, RainDreamer said:

How are payload inspection handled by private launch providers and are there any any regulation about that process?

I am imagining when launch cost gets a little bit cheaper and stuff get launched up more frequently, there might be cases of people with bad intention tampering wiyh pay load, by say, someone installing explosive to a satellite without the owner and payload provider knowing and detonate it in orbit to scatter debris and destroy other satellites, with nothing tracing back to them.

I can't answer your question directly, but there are two notes of interest.

Firstly, you've forgotten the more funny situation of the entire satellite being stolen and then the rocket intentionally crashed. This falls under the old criminal offence of barratry. And the sources that mention it, such as Atomic Rockets, claim that it may have already happened.

Another is, dunno about explosives, but someone managed to strap a 280 mN gravity torsion field inertialess drive (a glorified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive ) to the Russian scientific microsattelite Yubileyni under the guise of a trimming weight. The launch provider (Roscosmos) pretty much overlooked it.

Which means you should probably be on a terror watchlist for having overly brilliant ideas.

[PB666]

24 minutes ago, DDE said:

I can't answer your question directly, but there are two notes of interest.

Firstly, you've forgotten the more funny situation of the entire satellite being stolen and then the rocket intentionally crashed. This falls under the old criminal offence of barratry. And the sources that mention it, such as Atomic Rockets, claim that it may have already happened.

Another is, dunno about explosives, but someone managed to strap a 280 mN gravity torsion field inertialess drive (a glorified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive ) to the Russian scientific microsattelite Yubileyni under the guise of a trimming weight. The launch provider (Roscosmos) pretty much overlooked it.

Which means you should probably be on a terror watchlist for having overly brilliant ideas.

Well then you are condemning about 75% of practicing science, lol. Have you ever read the pentagon papers? The folks who might better list-qualified are often the ones claiming to be doing the watching.

[DDE]

39 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Well then you are condemning about 75% of practicing science, lol. Have you ever read the pentagon papers? The folks who might better list-qualified are often the ones claiming to be doing the watching.

Well, duh! The best anti-hackers are the White Hat hackers, the best safe makers know their way around a lockpick, at cetera ad infinitum.

And they should be on the list, of course.

[Kryten]

On 6/15/2016 at 5:13 AM, RainDreamer said:

How are payload inspection handled by private launch providers and are there any any regulation about that process?

I am imagining when launch cost gets a little bit cheaper and stuff get launched up more frequently, there might be cases of people with bad intention tampering wiyh pay load, by say, someone installing explosive to a satellite without the owner and payload provider knowing and detonate it in orbit to scatter debris and destroy other satellites, with nothing tracing back to them.

Launch providers get detailed plans, and they put payloads through extensive testing to find the exact mass distribution; there's no way you could attach something without it being noticed.

21 hours ago, DDE said:

Another is, dunno about explosives, but someone managed to strap a 280 mN gravity torsion field inertialess drive (a glorified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive ) to the Russian scientific microsattelite Yubileyni under the guise of a trimming weight. The launch provider (Roscosmos) pretty much overlooked it.

If you believe this, then I've got some prime real estate in the florida everglades you might be interested in.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Kryten

[DDE]

43 minutes ago, Kryten said:

If you believe this, then I've got some prime real estate in the florida everglades you might be interested in.

You first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yubileiny

[Kryten]

Just now, DDE said:

You first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yubileiny

The source for that is Pravda, it's about as reliable as the World Weekly News... so, are you interested in the everglades real estate?

[DDE]

22 minutes ago, Kryten said:

The source for that is Pravda, it's about as reliable as the World Weekly News... so, are you interested in the everglades real estate?

http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/02/22_a_3328272.shtml

http://www.mk.ru/science/2015/10/30/aura-kolbasy-i-gravicapa-na-sputnike-samye-gromkie-nauchnye-falshivki-v-rossii.html

If references to the liquided-off head of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is Commission on Anti-science are insufficient for you, go hug a gator yourself!

[PB666]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/02/22_a_3328272.shtml

http://www.mk.ru/science/2015/10/30/aura-kolbasy-i-gravicapa-na-sputnike-samye-gromkie-nauchnye-falshivki-v-rossii.html

If references to the liquided-off head of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is Commission on Anti-science are insufficient for you, go hug a gator yourself!

Crocs, now the glades have crocs and gators, also you coukd get hugged by a burmese python. 

[GarrisonChisholm]

On 4/9/2016 at 1:05 AM, Dfthu said:

Could they reuse the falcon heavy boosters and then make them boosters for the core or cant they do that? How about taking a side booster and making it a core on a Falcon 9? (no boosters) How hard would it be to make them cores or vice versa?

...again, in Arnold's voice... *busts out laughing at work...*

[Dfthu]

5 hours ago, GarrisonChisholm said:

...again, in Arnold's voice... *busts out laughing at work...*

Wow, this is the 4th post about Arnold's voice. I didn't know i could bring so much joy by my profile picture.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Dfthu

[Core]

If someone made a mod in KSP, that added a giant Halo structure from the Halo series, how would its gravity work to effect orbit of spacecraft in-game?

[RainDreamer]

Depending on how they define the ring. If it is like a planet/moon, it has it own SOI and will allow orbits. If it is an object like asteroid, it wont.

[JebKeb]

Why do we actually want self driving cars apart from safety? It just seems very sad that we're so lazy we pour in effort into something like this. I think they're very interesting, but why do so many people seem to like it?

[peadar1987]

3 hours ago, JebKeb said:

Why do we actually want self driving cars apart from safety? It just seems very sad that we're so lazy we pour in effort into something like this. I think they're very interesting, but why do so many people seem to like it?

Safety is a pretty damn good reason!

[magnemoe]

28 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Safety is a pretty damn good reason!

Safety is one reason. 
Road capacity is another, you can pack self driving cars much tighter allowing more cars on a road, this is an big one. 
Allows people who can not drive because they are blind, drunk or both to use an car.
Some other, it will make parking easier as the car can park it self another place. Carpooling become more practical as car car can go to next user. car can also park closer as you don't need space on the sides. Yes you risk having unmanned cars circling an area with no parking spaces.
For some businesses like long haul freight it will save lots of money, military is interested both for freight and patrolling. 
 

[justidutch]

You had me at "blind drunk"...

[p1t1o]

 

On 6/21/2016 at 7:45 AM, JebKeb said:

Why do we actually want self driving cars apart from safety? It just seems very sad that we're so lazy we pour in effort into something like this. I think they're very interesting, but why do so many people seem to like it?

 

On 6/21/2016 at 11:12 AM, peadar1987 said:

Safety is a pretty damn good reason!

 

On 6/21/2016 at 11:51 AM, magnemoe said:

Safety is one reason. 
Road capacity is another, you can pack self driving cars much tighter allowing more cars on a road, this is an big one. 
Allows people who can not drive because they are blind, drunk or both to use an car.
Some other, it will make parking easier as the car can park it self another place. Carpooling become more practical as car car can go to next user. car can also park closer as you don't need space on the sides. Yes you risk having unmanned cars circling an area with no parking spaces.
For some businesses like long haul freight it will save lots of money, military is interested both for freight and patrolling. 
 

 

This was quite interesting, even if it was from Gizmodo. Jist of it is: A survey showed that people want self driving cars to attempt to minimise any casualties in an accident, even if it means putting the safety of its own occupants at risk. However, the same survey showed that not very many people would be willing to travel in such a car...

http://gizmodo.com/your-self-driving-car-will-be-programmed-to-kill-you-de-1782499265

 

[peadar1987]

Hmm... I'd be happy to travel in it. I'd only hope that if I was driving my own car I'd have the guts to put myself in danger rather than innocent bystanders.

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

Hmm... I'd be happy to travel in it. I'd only hope that if I was driving my own car I'd have the guts to put myself in danger rather than innocent bystanders.

Its hard to call, you may have small children...but you may be heading towards small children. There's gotta be situations where you'd say "Either way, its going to be tragic." and I'm not sure if having a machine make the call might not sit well *even if you would make the same call* - at least you'd have made it.

[peadar1987]

5 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Its hard to call, you may have small children...but you may be heading towards small children. There's gotta be situations where you'd say "Either way, its going to be tragic." and I'm not sure if having a machine make the call might not sit well *even if you would make the same call* - at least you'd have made it.

To be honest, I don't really value small children above or below anyone else. I'd run over two small children to save three adults in a heartbeat (and run over two adults to save three children). What if the car has to make a choice about whether to hit a doctor, or two criminals? At a certain point, you just have to go with the solution that will result in the best outcome most of the time. I don't really have any time for the argument that the cars will decide who lives and who dies, if they have the potential to save many lives on average over a long enough period of time, from a utilitarian perspective that's far better than whatever permutations of the trolley problem people can come up with.