Fluburtur has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Neal has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<funkenstein>
;mission
<LunchBot>
You are tasked with obtaining a surface sample from Jool. Your rocket is eaten by a horde of white mice.
<funkenstein>
Beware the Mice of Jool
<funkenstein>
;outcome add Beware the Mice of Jool.
<LunchBot>
Added outcome: Beware the Mice of Jool.
UmbralRaptor has joined #KSPOfficial
UmbralRaptop has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
Tank2333 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Althego has joined #KSPOfficial
<raptop>
Althego: so, ina is playing the cat game
<Althego>
yes i saw it
<Althego>
didnt expect her to play at this time
Wastl4 has joined #KSPOfficial
Wastl2 has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
Neal has joined #KSPOfficial
nshirelaptop has joined #KSPOfficial
<funkenstein>
spam meow
<funkenstein>
;mission add You spam meow.
<LunchBot>
Added mission: You spam meow.
Neal has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<funkenstein>
I have been finding that "achieve proper inclination, aim at mun" has been working very well as a method to get to minmus.
Ezriilc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
comicsansgreenkirby has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
comicsansgreenkirby has joined #KSPOfficial
<XXCoder>
;missiom
<XXCoder>
;mission
<LunchBot>
You try to find The Awnser. Blood for *all* of the Blood Gods.
<XXCoder>
Awnser is only one with plenty blood for them. the only answer
<funkenstein>
I feep forgetting how to activate the kerbal rcs packs
<funkenstein>
eva
<funkenstein>
ah. R
<funkenstein>
I got the mk2 lander can to survive both atmospheric entry AND a sneeze
darsie has joined #KSPOfficial
<Izaya_>
FITS screenshots would be neat, imagine all the metadata you could embed
Izaya_ is now known as Izaya
<Izaya>
you could embed location, speed, time, mass, fuel levels, the whole craft file, really
* UmbralRaptor
wants to say that you can fit an arbitrary amount, but it's hacky and has to be in ASCII
<UmbralRaptor>
Hah!
<Izaya>
base64 wants to know your location
sasamj has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Neal has joined #KSPOfficial
nshirelaptop has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
nshirelaptop has joined #KSPOfficial
nshirelaptop has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sandbox has joined #KSPOfficial
<funkenstein>
is it worth spending the science to get the mobile processing lab
Revelator has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<SporkWitch>
funkenstein: absolutely yes, but there's a caveat. Many consider the lab to be overpowered. It's effectively a way to print nearly infinite science. So you know you normally get science for doing an experiment and transmitting or carrying that science back to kerbin. The lab is another place you can carry that data to. The lab then, over time, converts that to more science than simply
<SporkWitch>
returning it to kerbin does. It also gets a multiplier for the body it's on or in orbit of. It's not mutually exclusive, either. You can take a temperature reading from Minmus Greater flats, return it to kerbin to get that science; now temp from greater flats is worth no science to return to kerbin, BUT you can bring it to a lab landed on greater flats, and that will make more science from it.
<SporkWitch>
Now that's consumed for a lab on the surface of minmus (I don't know how granular it goes, but I assume it's considered "done" for all labs on the surface of minmus), and I think you can do ANOTHER copy of it delivered to a lab in ORBIT of minmus.
<SporkWitch>
Effectively, you can complete the entire vanilla tech tree without ever leaving the kerbin/mun/minmus system, by using science labs.
<SporkWitch>
For this reason, many consider them overpowered and don't use them except for role-playing reasons and to level up kerbals without needing to return them to kerbin first; they don't actually give science data to them to process.
<SporkWitch>
Now if you're doing Interstellar? USE LABS. You need tens of thousands of science to complete that tree, it's nuts haha
<SporkWitch>
(looping back a bit, you can even take a sample from the surface of kerbin and bring THAT to your lab on minmus, a lab in orbit of kerbin, a lab in orbit of the mun, AND a lab on the surface of the mun, and each will generate more science, further impacted by the multiplier for being in orbit or surface of that body). You can see how ridiculous it can get heh
<darsie>
SporkWitch: IIRC you can process the same science with new labs over and over again.
<SporkWitch>
so even more broken than i thought; i wasn't sure, but i was confident that worst case (best case? heh) would be surface lab + orbital lab, per body
<SporkWitch>
funkenstein: one other thing to note: make sure you have plenty of batteries and power generation, as well as a transmitting antenna. Labs use a fair bit of power to generate science, a LOT of power to reset experiments (though it's nice not having to go EVA to reset them), and they can store up to 500 science, which takes a lot of power to transmit back to kerbin (and it has to be transmitted;
<SporkWitch>
HDDs don't exist in KSP, so you can't ferry it back home physically :P)
<SporkWitch>
started a new X4 playthrough the other day. SOOOO tedious getting initial production set up; the AI is not very smart about filling production gaps, so getting the materials to build those first factory stations is a nightmare, heh
Kevin has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
Kevin has joined #KSPOfficial
comicsansgreenkirby has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
<funkenstein>
so I couldn't transfer data to an expeeriment storage unit with a small rocket motor, fuel, and probe core, decouple it from my lab and send it back to kerbin to be recovered?
<SporkWitch>
no, because giving the experiment data to the lab converts it to "data" rather than a specific experiment. Data is converted by the lab into science, which must be transmitted with an antenna.
<SporkWitch>
(though I guess you could actually return the lab itself, maybe? I've never tried, as it's not really how they're intended to be used. It's expected that the lab is part of a permanent station or base, sometimes a ship that never leaves orbit, but the point is it stays up there)
<funkenstein>
alright but sending a full experiment storage unti back full of experiments not data?
<SporkWitch>
experiment storage units can only hold experiments (e.g. crew report, goo results, etc.). You can use it to transport it TO a lab, but when you click the button in the results window to give it to the lab, it consumes that result (but if you've never returned it to kerbin it doesn't "use it up" in terms of the science reward for returning it) and converts it to Data in the lab. The lab, as I
<SporkWitch>
already stated, consumes this data over time, converting it to Science, which you can then transmit from the lab back to kerbin (TRANSMIT, not carry)
<SporkWitch>
Really, there's no REASON to carry it back, as there are no losses or caps, like with transmitting the experiment result itself. You just need to make sure you have enough storage / production of power (alternatively you can just enable "allow partial transmission," but this can make it take a LONG time to transmit fully, and you'll want to pause Research -- conversion of data to science -- while
<SporkWitch>
it's doing that, so all the power is going to transmitting the next packet)
<SporkWitch>
i really don't know how to simplify it any further, you'll just have to use the thing, it's very simple and obvious how it works once you do it once
<darsie>
Mist, I missed it.
Revelator has joined #KSPOfficial
King_Arthur has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
King_Arthur has joined #KSPOfficial
sasamj has joined #KSPOfficial
minas_tirith has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
minas_tirith has joined #KSPOfficial
_whitelogger has joined #KSPOfficial
<Althego>
kikkerikii
<darsie>
.
<raptop>
birb
<Althego>
launch in mabout 2 hours
<raptop>
Huh, starlink
<FLHerne>
(again)
<Althego>
next stream is starlink too
<FLHerne>
only noteworthy thing about this launch is that it's the quickest turnaround of SLC-4E by a huge margin
<Althego>
i think there is a chinese launch in between, but no stream
<FLHerne>
10 days since 3-1, shortest previously was 22 days
<SporkWitch>
... so the extreme end of the climate activists are apparently, and unironically, proposing a literal "sunshade" at L1 to counter global warming... lol
<SporkWitch>
that's up there with Futurama having all the robots light their farts to push the earth into a higher orbit lol
<FLHerne>
eh
<FLHerne>
people have semi-seriously proposed the opposite for Mars terraforming
<SporkWitch>
the need for that extreme of action is actually scientifically backed for mars terraforming, though lol
<FLHerne>
it wouldn't have to cover the whole sun, just a few percent
<SporkWitch>
("the world is going to end in X years from climate change" is on par with "fusion is 10 years away"; that is, the number never changes, and they've been saying it for decades)
<SporkWitch>
1.8%, from one of the clips i saw, yeah heh
<FLHerne>
that sounds less convincing, given that most of Europe is currently having a completely unprecedented heatwave
<SporkWitch>
same source, it would "only" require a shade THE SIZE OF BRAZIL
<FLHerne>
"world end", no
<Althego>
as usual the last year is almost always the hottest year on record
<FLHerne>
"really undesirable changes in climate that screw up our current society and infrastructure", right now
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: two points, 1) "we're having an unprecedented heat wave" is no different than the counterargument "we just had more snow than ever," it conflates weather with climate, and why no one cares what meteorologists like that Watts idiot have to say about GLOBAL climate. 2) no one competent disputes the reality of AGW, the issue is that that was settled with Berkeley Earth something like a
<SporkWitch>
decade ago, and what's left in the news coverage is ONLY the massive extremists
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: not over 250 years of records, no
<FLHerne>
and it's not an isolated event
<FLHerne>
as Althego points out, basically every year for the last couple of decades has been hotter than the historic average
<SporkWitch>
"really undesirable changes in climate that screw up our current society and infrastructure": even this doesn't fit the realistic models (or the actions of the people funding the activists... cliche as it may be, it's hard for me to take seriously someone saying we have to kill 60+ million by ceasing fossil fuel use immediately, when the same person just bought beach front property that will be
<FLHerne>
I'm not sure what you mean by "settled"
<SporkWitch>
underwater in just a couple years, according to their own claimed numbers)
<FLHerne>
it's certainly settled that it's real, it's not settled in the sense of having any viable plan to deal with it
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: the last legitimate scientific opposition to Anthropogenic Global Warming was the Berkeley Earth project. The lead didn't like the models used to generate the famous "hockey stick" graph and thought there were methodological flaws. He did his own study, correcting those flaws, and ended up with the same results. Thus died the only legitimate claim that AGW wasn't happening.
<FLHerne>
the problem is, that beachfront property *will* be underwater in a few decades
<FLHerne>
I don't know where you've found single-digit years from, sounds like some strawman extremist view
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: the strawman extremist view is literally the one put forth in mainstream media.
<SporkWitch>
BY the climate activists
<FLHerne>
nah
<SporkWitch>
well then their messaging is terrible, because that's how they come across lol
<Althego>
the problem is not the beach property. but the fact that most of humans live quite close to oceans, so big cities will be underwater
<FLHerne>
mainstream media a few years ago was giving the "extremist" predictions that we'd have 40°C weeks across the continent before 2050
<SporkWitch>
i don't actively consume this particular subject, so 90%+ of what I hear is the claims of the climate activists in the media
<SporkWitch>
i DO think the actual scientists are probably a bit more rational, but public policy isn't being decided by those rational people
<FLHerne>
are you confusing "must act by <2020>" dates with the estimated dates of the consequences coming about?
<FLHerne>
most of the former are in the past now
<SporkWitch>
i'm referring to "must act immediately or it's over in 12 years" which is the standard line
<FLHerne>
there *will* be large-scale warming without ridiculously dramatic interventions like your sunshield
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: name a single 'reliable' media outlet that's claimed it'll be "over" ever
<FLHerne>
(excluding the kind of tabloids that say everything is cancer)
<SporkWitch>
name a single reliable media outlet in the current era...
<FLHerne>
yeah, hence the quotes
<Althego>
hehe
<Althego>
all the big media is pushing its own narrativem not truth
<FLHerne>
Major newspapers, state media that isn't North Korea, whatever
<FLHerne>
whatever you consider "mainstream media" to be
<SporkWitch>
I think the mistake you're making is thinking I'm talking about rational individuals with expertise in the relevant fields. I'm not. I'm talking about the activists who are promoted in the mainstream, defended when the engage in anything from getting that guy arrested (was on parole, they blocked a road preventing him from getting to work, refused to open even one lane for him to get through) to
<SporkWitch>
outright ecoterrorism, and it's these lunatics that are the ones drivign the POLICIES
<FLHerne>
They're not at all wrong
<FLHerne>
the consequences are starting to be noticeable now, but will be worst in a couple of decades
<FLHerne>
the time to act is NOW
<SporkWitch>
they mostly are, and they actively fight the single most effective means of addressing it: nuclear
<FLHerne>
or ideally, like, 20 years ago
<FLHerne>
but a time machine would be nice
<FLHerne>
Yeah, the nuclear thing I don't get
<Althego>
ah yes the dark greens
<SporkWitch>
it would help, yeah; lot of damage has been done by shutting down nuclear plants and replacing them with russian oil :P
<Althego>
dark as in dim
<Althego>
even today, with "current geopolitical items", coal powerplants are coming back
<FLHerne>
trivial volumes of waste we can stick in literally a handful of well-protected holes, vs ecosystems across the planet?
<SporkWitch>
i DO get it, because it's not so much about the environment (at least not for their handlers; the plebs on the ground believe what they're told and repeating) as it is control
<SporkWitch>
Althego: that's my big gripe with pure-electric vehicles. Overwhelming majority of power generation is goal and oil
<SporkWitch>
*coal
<Althego>
depends on where you live
<SporkWitch>
global average
<Althego>
but yes, they a re not a complete solution alone
<SporkWitch>
i'm a HUGE fan of hybrids, though, as those actually do have a massive fuel effect on reducing fuel consumption and pollution, much more so than pure EVs
<Althego>
i hate hybrids
<Althego>
those are basically the wrong way. they are too complex, creation consumes lot of energy
<FLHerne>
they make sense while cell production ramps up, possibly
<SporkWitch>
i can't imagine hybrids are any more costly in terms of pollution-in-production than a pure EV...
<FLHerne>
currently that's the most limiting factor on EV production
<FLHerne>
and you can make perhaps 5-10 PHEVs with the cells for one pure EV
<FLHerne>
with the range to do most daily commuting on straight electric
Ezriilc has joined #KSPOfficial
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: lifetime of cars is ~20 years, the energy mix over their lifetime will improve a lot
<FLHerne>
UK has gone from ~20% to almost 50% renewables in the last decade
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: again, it's more about how the power is generated. Your pure electric vehicle is actually contributing MORE to pollution than a pure gas car, because that power is being GENERATED by fossil fuels, then you're tacking on all the transmission and conversion losses from turning it into power at the plant, getting it to the charger, charging the battery, then converting it back to mechanical
<SporkWitch>
work
Tank2333 has joined #KSPOfficial
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: that's simply wrong
<SporkWitch>
it's not, it's basic physics and the reality of how the majority of power is generated in the world
<FLHerne>
efficiency of large generators under steady load is more than double a car ICE
<SporkWitch>
It's the same reason cold climates still use wood and gas for heat, not electric: it's FAR more efficient
<FLHerne>
even with a totally coal-fired grid, even including production emissions, EVs are slightly ahead of petrol
<Althego>
there are multiple levels. first a small fossil fuel power plant, like the engine of the car cant be as efficient as a big power plant. second, an electric car has regenerative braking, third, not all of its power comes from fossil fuels
<FLHerne>
big power plants are ~60% of maximum theoretical efficiency, ICEs are more like 25%
<FLHerne>
transmission/charging losses are single digits
<Althego>
so electric cars help somewhat
<Althego>
but they are not the solution alone
<Althego>
but there is no cure all solution
<Althego>
we have to move step by step
<FLHerne>
heating is different because you're producing, well, heat
<SporkWitch>
also have to consider side-effects (i refer again to the 60m+ estimated to die in the first winter if, as the activists have called for, we just kill fossil fuel use overnight)
<FLHerne>
you can't really have lower efficiency at smaller scales because all the waste energy is heat
<SporkWitch>
and it does no good to cripple our own countries if other countries aren't also going to do their part
<FLHerne>
(but electric heat pumps from a gas-fired CCGT power station are about twice as efficient as simply burning the gas at home)
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: frankly, that's fewer people than are going to die from continent-wide crop failures
<SporkWitch>
if you can afford that, maybe; the other 99% of the population can't. Hence the choices are RESISTIVE electric heating (either direct, or in the form of an oil-fillled radiator, which is marginally better), wood, or gas
<FLHerne>
this year, the European potato harvest is going to be down by 40% or whatever it was
<FLHerne>
not a major problem because we're rich and can import whatever
<FLHerne>
but in Africa or wherever else is short of foreign exchange currency, that's a pretty major famine
<FLHerne>
yeah, I don't think anyone is pushing for resistive electric heating
<FLHerne>
doesn't buy you much
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: which we wont' have to worry about for SEVERAL decades, at minimum. As to the reduced harvests this year, that has several factors, the climate being negligible. The primary factors are governments literally stopping farmers from farming (the Dutch recently shot at farmers protesting being prevented from farming), and the fertilizer shortages due to the Ukraine war (that's really only
<FLHerne>
heat pumps can be a lot cheaper with economies of mass production
<FLHerne>
they're still an expensive niche thing
<SporkWitch>
still going due to western funding; not that I want Russia to win, but it would have been over pretty quick if not for the west funding Ukraine)
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: Did you miss the bit where I said *this year*?
<FLHerne>
it's not a several-decades problem, it's a frequent-by-2030s problem
<FLHerne>
no, I read the rest of your sentence now :p
<FLHerne>
It's mostly due to lack of rainfall, the other factors are pretty minor
<SporkWitch>
yeah, that's literally the "world is ending" talking point from the extremists that make the news, that i'm talking about. No, the world is not ending that quickly. If it were, Bill Gates would be buying up solar plants, not farm land.
<SporkWitch>
You can't convince me of the doomsaying nonsense when the people promoting it are constantly and consistently taking actions that say they don't believe it and are seeking to profit.
<SporkWitch>
i'm sorry, you're trying to say that lack of rainfall has a larger impact than governments literally shutting down farmers and stopping them from farming...? Did I misunderstand?
<SporkWitch>
okay, fair enough, going after both.
<FLHerne>
yes, because the latter is pretty much a made-up talking point
<SporkWitch>
it's so made up that police in the netherlands were literally just shooting at farmers protesting the government not letting them farm...
<SporkWitch>
Farmers in the US literally being paid to fallow their fields... it's not a made up talking point, it's literally happening across the western world...
<SporkWitch>
even the far-left Politico, which regularly "fact checks" and then contradicts their own claim later in the article (a recent one was literally "these didn't shut down" and a bullet point a paragraph later says they did, in fact, shut down), admits the reality of such programs: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/29/usda-farmers-conservation-program-507028
<FLHerne>
so, looking at the wiki, your argument is that this year's potato harvest is down because of proposals to limit Dutch livestock farming in the future...
<FLHerne>
to be fair though, 30% reduction in livestock is pretty significant
<FLHerne>
albeit probably a net win for human calories, because the feedstock -> meat efficiency of cattle is hopeless
<SporkWitch>
1) wiki is not a source, and isn't remotely reliable for anything even possibly controversial. About the only thing at all trustworthy these days are their articles on maths. 2) no, I'm saying that harvests in general are down because of two years of supply chain disruption (resulting in things going bad and thus lost), preventing people from farming, and the more recent fertilizer shortages.
<SporkWitch>
if draught has tacked on and the total is 40%, fine, but we see draughts all the time, we've been seeing these shortages for longer than just this year, and the prediction for it to be really bad this fall is MOSTLY blamed on the fertilizer shortage, but is really exacerbated by stopping people from farming
<SporkWitch>
... meat is literally one of the most efficient means of getting those particular nutrients... there's a reason that herbivores spend literally their entire lives eating and sleeping, they have to, or they don't get enough, because plants are NOT efficient sources...
<SporkWitch>
the simple fact that you have to watch your diet so carefully if you DON"T eat animal products is further evidence of this. You WILL have nutrient deficiencies unless you're eating a VERY careful diet, and even then, you will generally need to supplement it with pills
<SporkWitch>
related to all this, and hopefully a bit less controversial, is that breakthrough something like a century ago. Did something like DOUBLING crop yields, but the NUTRIENT content stayed the same (meaning LOWER nutrient density). It'd be interesting to see some research into that to see its correlation with rising obesity (which I believe has even been an issue for europe more recently, no longer
<SporkWitch>
just the US)
<FLHerne>
there are far more efficient means in terms of energy/farmland/GHGs [methane from cattle is surprisingly significant]
<SporkWitch>
i forget the name of the guy that came up with it or the name of the tech
<FLHerne>
not as convenient or tasty though
<SporkWitch>
well you're welcome to your cricket burgers :P
<SporkWitch>
you can bet Bill Gates won't be giving up his steak, but he can afford the 200$/lb it'll cost with the policies being pushed
<SporkWitch>
one of the only things i can agree with the marxists on: the elites do seem to want to bring back serfdom and feudalism heh
<SporkWitch>
looping back, apparently they hit 40% efficiency on solar recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8crjuL8FFs (personally, I think it'll only really be viable once beamed power is viable; really need orbital solar farms to make it practical at scale)
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: I did eat some crickets, they were a bit meh
<FLHerne>
Bill Gates does have own a large share of 'Beyond Meat', trying to make meat-tasting plant-based burgers
<FLHerne>
s/have //
<FLHerne>
you're right that he's not a vegetarian though :p
<FLHerne>
truly massive-scale deployments in deserts that no-one was using for anything else, with the highest insolation you can find on the surface
<FLHerne>
and at that scale you can afford to build grid links to wherever you need it
<FLHerne>
(tl;dr - 10GW solar plant with on-site energy storage in Morocco, with dedicated HVDC link to the UK; 8% of UK power demand from one project)
<FLHerne>
space-based is neat in theory, but I'm skeptical of the efficiency advantages making up for the cost
<FLHerne>
especially when you allow for inefficiency of the ludicrous-power microwave beam based on technology that doesn't really exist
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: you're back to transmission losses again. There was a multibililon dollar project to build a huge solar farm in the Sahara; it was scrapped, because there would be no cost-effective method to get the power anywhere useful from there.
<FLHerne>
transmission losses of HVDC cables are fairly minor
<FLHerne>
and what's the transmission loss of a GEO-to-surface microwave beam?
<Pinkbeast>
stretch goal for space-based, make it work without making it look like a highly effective orbital weapons platform
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: space-based is definitely not going to be cost-efficient, what it is is actually FEASIBLE, since you don't have to deal with the terrible inefficiency of ground-based panels even at the equator, and the massive amount of space they take up to generate enough power to matter. It would require massive government subsidies to make it affordable for consumers to buy that power, but if you
<FLHerne>
> 3.5% per 1,000 km
<FLHerne>
so about 7% losses for this project
<FLHerne>
it's not nothing, but it's not huge
<SporkWitch>
really want to replace everything, including nuclear, with solar, that's the only way I see it working. Wind is a non-starter. Horrifically inefficient to build, terrible efficiency for power generation, VERY limited places where you even can do it and limited times when it generates
<Pinkbeast>
FLHerne: Also I think maintenance costs might be a bit lower if the system is on the ground
<FLHerne>
ideal-case space solar can maybe triple the efficiency of panels on the ground in equatorial deserts
<FLHerne>
(including the extra time in sunlight)
<FLHerne>
is it going to cost less than three times as much? I really doubt it
<FLHerne>
Wind depends
<FLHerne>
it's a pretty large chunk of the UK grid, but then we have lots of coastline
<FLHerne>
offshore wind is quite reliable
<FLHerne>
(in terms of being consistently windy)
<FLHerne>
I'm not convinced that large on-land wind farms make sense
<FLHerne>
perhaps if you have somewhere big and flat like Texas
jazzkutya has joined #KSPOfficial
<FLHerne>
(just looked it up, wind was 24% of total UK generation in 2020, which is the latest year with convenient stats published)
<FLHerne>
it breaks even without major subsidies
<FLHerne>
also wind and solar tend to complement each other; it's typically windiest when it's not sunny and vice versa
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: again, not arguing that orbital solar would be money-efficient, the point is that it eliminates the physical space requirements. Slap 'em in a polar orbit and make starlink's constellation look like a connect-the-dots compared to a DSLR photo.
<FLHerne>
I don't think we're going to run out of Sahara [et al] in time for that to be a near-term problem
<SporkWitch>
no longer have to deal with hundreds of acres of land being taken up, massive physical transmission infrastructure taking up more space. You wanna do stuff on the ground? Do nuclear.
<FLHerne>
eventually we'll need to upgrade to a Dyson sphere, too
<FLHerne>
underwater HVDC links don't take up much space anyone was using
<FLHerne>
More nuclear would be good
<FLHerne>
although it just takes too long to build now
<FLHerne>
and I don't see that changing
<SporkWitch>
better uses for the sahara. You're worried about climate and farmland? Go for a full Kynes-level reclamation project.
<SporkWitch>
the only barrier to nuclear is the activists
<FLHerne>
yeah, but you can't change the activists ;-)
<SporkWitch>
you can, but it takes removing their puppetmasters from power; the activists rarely think for themselves, they just parrot what they're told
comicsansgreenkirby has joined #KSPOfficial
<SporkWitch>
back to video game space: huzzah! my production is finally up and running and turning me a profit! take that terran protectorate! stuff can actually get built again and you're paying ME for it! bwahahaha
<SporkWitch>
gonna have to scale it up, though, need to produce more for faster profits...
<FLHerne>
SporkWitch: something I forgot about space solar - what orbits are you using?
<FLHerne>
if it's GEO they're stuck over the equator anyway, anything else and you'll need a huge number of ground terminals to switch between
<SporkWitch>
as i mentioned earlier, polar constellations seem to make the most sense, as it would maximize sun exposure
<FLHerne>
low altitude and you lose the benefit of not being night half the time, high altitude and you have to avoid frying Starlink :p
<FLHerne>
I don't think polar would work that way
<FLHerne>
you'd have to shift plane a degree or so per day
<SporkWitch>
Assuming we're not worrying about transmission losses (we're already ignoring monetary cost), might be possible to have relays in geosync orbits, assuming it's easier to have the farm sats keep pointing to one of those. Dunno. Even in geosyncrhonous orbit, though, you've got much more daylight time than on the surface, and no atmospheric attenuation
<FLHerne>
which would require an impractical amount of Δv
<FLHerne>
you have atmospheric attenuation of the massive laser beam :p
<SporkWitch>
i'm fine with frying starlink; DATA transmission makes much more sense with cables and is a much better use of limited places to run said cables
<FLHerne>
unless it's attached to a space elevator
<FLHerne>
cables are pretty much 2D, I don't think lack of space to run them is a problem
<FLHerne>
also I still don't really see the point, everything works if you assume infinite money and resources
<FLHerne>
and with a finite amount, you can get a lot more energy at near-term costs with ground-based solar without needing unreasonable amounts of land
<FLHerne>
if we have in-space manufacturing next century I can see it being workable
<SporkWitch>
i'm referring solely to collection. Transmission proposals generally use microwave. 10GHz has excellent range even at lower power levels and has minimal atmospheric attenuation
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: lack of space to run cables is absolutely a problem, though mostly in cities. The other issue, though, is that especially with long-haul, they're very susceptible to sabotage and accident (one of many reasons that multibillion dollar saharan solar plan fell through)
<FLHerne>
Microwave receivers aren't going to help in cities
<FLHerne>
there isn't enough area for a low-power-density one, and no-one is going to let you target a death ray at their capital
<SporkWitch>
For data it's worth it, without crazy advances in modulation technologies and transceiver power/sensitivity, you've got serious botttlenecks, especially since you still need to leave spectrum for other uses. Fibre, on the other hand, allows for extremely high thrughput and low latency, exactly what you need for data transmission.
<FLHerne>
The Sahara thing has un-fallen-through again this year
<SporkWitch>
I like the idea of starlink for very remote areas, but mostly i see it as gimmick and orbital clutter.
<SporkWitch>
It's not like most people that live in the middle of nowhere are serious gamers, so low latency isn't really a big requirement, so traditional satcom is fine without cluttering up the orbits.
<SporkWitch>
(though I suppose part of that could be that serious gamers consider fast internet access when deciding where to move, even when we want to get away from cities... I'd give up super-fast internet to get away from the cities, main reason for me to avoid total middle of nowhere is that I'm still hoping to find the future mother of my future children haha)
<FLHerne>
Have you tried to use any modern website on a (GEO-level) high-latency connection?
<FLHerne>
they just don't work
<FLHerne>
everything is loaded by JS in multiple round trips
<FLHerne>
so page load times are like 10x the round-trip latency, or multiple seconds, and then you hit timeouts and it all breaks
<FLHerne>
and yes that could be solved by having non-stupid websites, but that ship sailed 20 years ago
<SporkWitch>
FLHerne: as recently as 2013, yes. It's not fun, but for general usage it's fine, which accounts for 90% or more of consumer internet usage. My job in the USAF was radio and SATCOM
<FLHerne>
It's got a lot worse since 2013
<FLHerne>
largely because everything has to be 'responsive' for phones/tablets now
<FLHerne>
so many common site frameworks pretty much assemble the page client-side to fit the screen
<FLHerne>
the initial page request gets you a blank page and several megabytes of Javascript :-(
<FLHerne>
which then fetches all the actual content over several more requests
<SporkWitch>
well we're back to running fibre, which is my preference anyway
<SporkWitch>
starlink, by its very nature, has a serious scalability issue.
<SporkWitch>
so again, i'm fine with frying them with my orbital solar farm, and we free up the sahara for a desert reclamation project to make the tree huggers happy
<SporkWitch>
well, unless they're the Ann Clayborne (Mars Trilogy) type... heh
<SporkWitch>
(Ann was the character in the Mars Trilogy that opposed anything that would change anything about the state of Mars as we found it)
<SporkWitch>
bah, i'm sitting here trying to figure out why my silicon carbide factory is starved for silicon, and the stupid miner assigned to it is just sitting in space with its thumb up its butt >_< lol
<FLHerne>
Yeah, I liked R/G/B Mars
comicsansgreenkirby has quit [Quit: comicsansgreenkirby went and go died]
Althego has quit [Quit: HMI Module Alpha Humana on approach to Space Station Mercury]
funkenstein has quit [Quit: webchat.esper.net]
<XXCoder>
;mission
<LunchBot>
You steal your sister's hair bleach to recolour your rocket. You discover that aerospikes do not function well as air intakes.
rubdos has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.5]
<XXCoder>
considering I think bleach works for rockets, no wonder I was confused on aerospikes..
rubdos has joined #KSPOfficial
Addle has joined #KSPOfficial
funkenstein has joined #KSPOfficial
* funkenstein
blinks
<funkenstein>
;mission
<LunchBot>
You attempt to detonate the explodium sea. Contract successfully completed.
<funkenstein>
;mission add As you approach the surface, you think "Here we go again..."
<LunchBot>
Added mission: As you approach the surface, you think "Here we go again..."
<funkenstein>
;mission
<LunchBot>
You crash into Kerbin with infinite fuel enabled. Your parachute fails at the very end of the return to Kerbin, killing your crew.
<funkenstein>
I guess that's how
<darsie>
Hydrogen peroxide is a rocket fuel.
<darsie>
propellant. oxidizer
<darsie>
monopropellant
<funkenstein>
bill just kicked his lander several meters into the air
<Mat2ch>
Well, I just loaded a quicksave in KSP and it mixed quicksaves up and suddenly I was in a rocket on the surface of Eve.
<Mat2ch>
I have no words for this. But I made the ascend. :D
<funkenstein>
That is beautiful and hilarious
<Mat2ch>
But I have the feeling that there should've been no fuel in the rocket... even though it had hundreds of parachutes.
<funkenstein>
hehe
<Mat2ch>
Also that save game is two years and several point releases old.
<funkenstein>
I vaguely remember you talking about eve recently so that makes sensew
<Mat2ch>
You understand how long ago that was?
<funkenstein>
but I also remember you saying you were low on fuel at the surface, I thought
<funkenstein>
yes, quite
<funkenstein>
welp. hopefully there wasn't anything important you lost
<Mat2ch>
Nah
<Mat2ch>
I fire it up twice a year now
<Mat2ch>
Eve is just too hard and the performance too bad.
<Mat2ch>
Even on my 2700X
<Mat2ch>
I think the plan was to land a robotic rover to refuel or something like that
<Mat2ch>
I like Minmus. Everything on Minmus is easy ;)
sandbox has quit [Quit: Leaving]
darsie has quit [Ping timeout: 189 seconds]
Fluburtur has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<funkenstein>
apparently nobody understood what I was asking yesterday, I CAN send science back home in storage units by probe
<funkenstein>
sorry if my mpl question being asked within a few minutes caused confusion
<SporkWitch>
i mean, i did answer that as well. "experiment storage units can only hold experiments (e.g. crew report, goo results, etc.). You can use it to transport it TO a lab," I didn't explicitly say you could use it to return it to kerbin too, but I thought that was implied: the device exists to store experiments for transport, as well as easily collecting experiments from the modules that did them