For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[Hcube]

They also have a Concorde.

Oh well that must be very recent. I went there in 2012 and there wasn't any. There was already Enterprise, although it had been installed little time before.

Not quite; it's an A-12 OXCART, the blackbird's CIA ancestor

Oh okay, didn't know that. Pretty interesting ! Are they distinguishable simply by looking at them or do they just have different internal specs ? Because it does look a lot like a sr-71 to me ^^

EDIT : seems like the blackbird holds more fuel and payload, and is a bit longer. It also looks like the oxcart is a single-seat aircraft

Edited November 14, 2015 by Hcube

[Kryten]

Oh okay, didn't know that. Pretty interesting ! Are they distinguishable simply by looking at them or do they just have different internal specs ? Because it does look a lot like a sr-71 to me ^^

SR-71 is bigger, has two seats, and has more prominent chines. EDIT: Also, SR-71 has US AIR FORCE and small roundels on the top surface, A-12 has no markings.

[GeneralVeers]

Before entering the rings, Cassini did turn it's antenna prograde to shield the spacecraft from particles. So obviously, it was recognised that there was some risk, but I guess that risk was small enough to justify this mission plan.

Can anyone expand on why that was the case. Is the debris in the rings (or at least, in the part that Cassini crossed) so spread out that any collision was very unlikely? Are the particles in that section of the ring so small that a collision would not damage the antenna?

I'm going to take a wild guess that Cassini orbited Saturn in the same direction the rings do. In which case the difference in velocity would have been pretty small.

[problemecium]

Okay, I know someone must have done this by now.

So. I have an awesome KSP ship and I want to convert it into a 3D model (digital I mean, not a real life model) for use in cinematics, porting to games like SpaceEngine, etc. Where can I find a plugin or converter that does this?

And no, I of course don't intend to steal SQUAD's models and sell them. It's all for personal use.

[K^2]

[quote name='parameciumkid']So. I have an awesome KSP ship and I want to convert it into a 3D model (digital I mean, not a real life model) for use in cinematics, porting to games like SpaceEngine, etc. Where can I find a plugin or converter that does this?[/QUOTE]
So first of all, someone might have written one that's specifically designed for KSP, which would probably be way easier. You can try asking about it in modding section. Failing that, there are two general options.

1) Unity runs via DirectX on PC. There are tools specifically for ripping 3D models from DX games. 3D Ripper DX is pretty popular, and apparently, people have used it successfully with KSP. So that might be a good way to start.
2) There are some Unity specific tools for ripping models, which might make it easier to get model and corresponding textures together. [url=https://github.com/ata4/disunity/releases][u]Disunity[/u][/url] came up after a brief search, but it is Java, so I don't know if you want to bother.

Personally, I'd give 3D Ripper DX a try, since it's something that people have been using for years to rip models from all sorts of games. It usually has the downside of not handling animations, but that's not a problem for KSP.

Oh, keep in mind that pretty much regardless of what you use, you'll end up with individual modules, not the whole rocket/plane. You'll have to assemble these together yourself in your favorite 3D editor.

[problemecium]

^ Yeah, I can already do that (extracting individual parts) just by using Blender and the .mu files. Something for specifically loading and assembling them according to the .craft file is what I was trying to find.

[Wjolcz]

In his Interstellar Quest Scott Manley mentioned that when going near the speed of light you can send messages into the past. How does that work? Does the radio wave get in front of the warping ship and reaches twice the speed of light, or something? Edited November 19, 2015 by Veeltch

[K^2]

[quote name='Veeltch']In his Interstellar Quest Scott Manley mentioned that when going near the speed of light you can send messages into the past. How does that work? Does the radio wave get in front of the warping ship and reaches twice the speed of light, or something?[/QUOTE]
That doesn't sound right. Do you have a link and time-stamp to where he says that?

[More Boosters]

What's a bit of information I'd find interesting?

[micr0wave]

nm, replied to a post that suddenly was gone

[RainDreamer]

In a post-apocalypse situation, how long can a nuclear power plant run, provide there are still people with knowledge of how to run and maintain it surviving?

[ChrisSpace]

How much energy would I need to completely remove the earth's axial tilt? In other words, how much energy would I need to make the earth's rotation lined up with its orbit around the sun?

[Hary R]

[quote name='RainDreamer']In a post-apocalypse situation, how long can a nuclear power plant run, provide there are still people with knowledge of how to run and maintain it surviving?[/QUOTE]

Well if you have the people with knowledge, the only problem will be supply and man power. With that well, there is no reason it won't last as long as it would in normal situation.

[ZetaX]

[quote name='ChrisSpace']How much energy would I need to completely remove the earth's axial tilt? In other words, how much energy would I need to make the earth's rotation lined up with its orbit around the sun?[/QUOTE]

This cannot be answered without more information on how it is done I think. You want to change angular momentum, which is conserved. Hence you need to put it somewhere. It should be like with specific impulse: you can either spend more energy or more reaction mass. You could calculate the exact angular momentum, but that will not give you the energy.

For example, you could try to change the axis by shooting packs of rock into space. Theoretically, even a single rock the size of your fist would suffice, but you require absurd amounts of energy then. Or you could somehow abuse the moon or the sun (those, followed by the planets, are also what mainly influences the tilt in real life) for it, which gives you much more reaction mass to work with, leading to significantly lower energy usage. if you can somehow tie the entire Milky Way to this, then the energy probably becomes laughable (but to actually get there you would probably require absurd energies again). By doing a very very precise prediction you could maybe abuse the chaoticity of the system to just throw a rock into space now and then wait for a billion years for it to do all the work itself.

[peadar1987]

[quote name='RainDreamer']In a post-apocalypse situation, how long can a nuclear power plant run, provide there are still people with knowledge of how to run and maintain it surviving?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the design life. In theory, you could probably get a small reactor, overdesigned, with multiple layers of redundancy, to operate for a hundred years or more. Current designs are supposed to last for sixty, and they're not being designed to power a Vault (which I'm guessing is the inspiration for this).

[technion]

How the heck does a guidance computer work in space?

Navigating my car only works because there are GPS's that know where they are above me. In particular, early rockets and moon landers had no such thing. It's not like a computer can "focus view" on pluto and then fiddle with precisenode until it sees New Horizons getting just as closed as it's meant to.

[NFUN]

[quote name='ZetaX']This cannot be answered without more information on how it is done I think. You want to change angular momentum, which is conserved. Hence you need to put it somewhere. It should be like with specific impulse: you can either spend more energy or more reaction mass. You could calculate the exact angular momentum, but that will not give you the energy.

For example, you could try to change the axis by shooting packs of rock into space. Theoretically, even a single rock the size of your fist would suffice, but you require absurd amounts of energy then. Or you could somehow abuse the moon or the sun (those, followed by the planets, are also what mainly influences the tilt in real life) for it, which gives you much more reaction mass to work with, leading to significantly lower energy usage. if you can somehow tie the entire Milky Way to this, then the energy probably becomes laughable (but to actually get there you would probably require absurd energies again). By doing a very very precise prediction you could maybe abuse the chaoticity of the system to just throw a rock into space now and then wait for a billion years for it to do all the work itself.[/QUOTE]

You wouldn't be able to calculate the energy of Earth's rotation (I/2*omega^2)?

[Superfluous J]

[quote name='technion']How the heck does a guidance computer work in space?[/QUOTE]

You know where the Sun is, relative to you. You therefore know you are on a line somewhere. That line that goes from the sun, through you, and out to the stars.

You know where any planet is, relative to you. You therefore know you are on a similar line that goes from that planet, through you, and out into the stars.

You know where the planet is, relative to the Sun. You do this because you have a clock and charts.

There is only one point in space, for any given time, that is exactly where those two lines intersect. You are there.

[KerbMav]

But without knowing your exact orientation - or a third point/second planet - you would only know that you are somewhere on a circle, no?

[Superfluous J]

[quote name='KerbMav']But without knowing your exact orientation - or a third point/second planet - you would only know that you are somewhere on a circle, no?[/QUOTE]

One nice thing about being in space is it's always night, and the stars are always out. So, you can compare where the object in question is relative to them.

In fact, if you can make out the planet's disc (or bounce a laser off it) then you only need it (and the stars), as you'll know your distance AND direction. Edited November 20, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[peadar1987]

[quote name='5thHorseman']One nice thing about being in space is it's always night, and the stars are always out. So, you can compare where the object in question is relative to them.

In fact, if you can make out the planet's disc (or bounce a laser off it) then you only need it (and the stars), as you'll know your distance AND direction.[/QUOTE]

It's always night but... It's also ALWAYS DAY!

Mind. Blown.

[ZetaX]

[quote name='peadar1987']It's always night but... It's also ALWAYS DAY!

Mind. Blown.[/QUOTE]

Actually it is only always day. You would need a rather weird definition of "night" to be able to claim otherwise.
Yes, it is dark, but I wouldn't take anyone seriously who closes the curtains at noon and then proclaims "night". Seeing stars also can't be it, otherwise every cloudy day is "night". And so on.

[magnemoe]

[quote name='KerbMav']But without knowing your exact orientation - or a third point/second planet - you would only know that you are somewhere on a circle, no?[/QUOTE]
Think that you do is first orient regarding the sun, rotate around the sun axis then the other guide stars should line up and you have an fixed orientation, You will need calculations or an lookup table for position of earth and target.
Observations will show any errors, you get distance to earth by the time delay on communication. Earth also know the direction to you and distance.

[KerbMav]

[quote name='5thHorseman']One nice thing about being in space is it's always night, and the stars are always out. So, you can compare where the object in question is relative to them.

In fact, if you can make out the planet's disc (or bounce a laser off it) then you only need it (and the stars), as you'll know your distance AND direction.[/QUOTE]

I am nitpicking. :wink:

[quote name='5thHorseman']There is only one point in space, for any given time, that is exactly [B]where those two lines[/B] intersect. You are there.[/QUOTE]

[Superfluous J]

[quote name='KerbMav']I am nitpicking. :wink:[/QUOTE]

It must be a small nit, as I can't see it.

Are you talking about how I say one line in one post that is talking about one line, and two lines in a different post that is talking about two lines?

Technically in the second post (which you quoted first) the line intersects with a sphere.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='ZetaX']Actually it is only always day. You would need a rather weird definition of "night" to be able to claim otherwise.
Yes, it is dark, but I wouldn't take anyone seriously who closes the curtains at noon and then proclaims "night". Seeing stars also can't be it, otherwise every cloudy day is "night". And so on.[/QUOTE]

Now that, right there. That's nitpicking. ;)