the design of the shuttle seems like for public relations to me, there are actually dots on the side of it that look like windows (these arent really windows i think). the whole thing is intented to look a bit like a airplane.
reusability is a mayor part of making it look like an airplane, now reusing parts of the rockets jetisoned at lower attitudes may be usefull. but reusing the whole shuttle sounds a bit like putting a lot of efford in putting a satelite into orbit (and not a smal one either), and then again a lot of effort to get it back down.
i cant imagine why they wouldnt start developing a new system for this when they realised the public relations thing isnt that important anymore.
they also said the sheet conducts, i think they'd use that.
on another reply to this:
heating from microwaves from selphones are neglible. the damage from the radiation is just a small increase to the normal radiation you recieve from space, human nuclear activities etc.
in the first link:
"For example, Baughman and other researchers would dearly love to create artificial versions of the body's muscle fibers, which can convert a chemical energy supply into mechanical work with even more efficiency than a car engine."
and what's the efficientcy of a car engine? 30%?
its pretty good but the sentence seems to imply that a car engine is more efficient then say an electromotor. (ofcourse an electromotor needs its more generated elsewhere, but these nanotube also do)
btw the site is missing the "slingshot" using other planets. this uses the fact that a hyperbolic orbit leaves the planet at the same speed as it entered, *in the planets frame*. so in the spaceships initial frame the speed when leaving can be larger or smaller. (i restrained from explaining further, isnt complicated but find it difficult to write clearly about in this form) (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114.htm seems good, but its missing how to aproach the planet to head out a certain direction (if you know a better sites, post!))
I've always thought they use the methods like in the given website for a first estimation, and then use simulation to determine more exactly the orbit. Is this true? they may use Monte Carlo simulation (simulate slightly differently many times) to account for errors that get into thrust direction and strenght, but these are probably small.
i know that explicit analytical formula's for trayectories for more then three planets are not known (or dont exits in form of normal arithmetic). (all of which have non neglible mass) so everything yielding an analytical result uses aproximations. (are these really good enough?)
also the website doesnt say anything about how the position of the planets and spacecraft are measured, by earth or spacecraft. and how all this data is processed. (this isnt the fault of the website, its just about the mathematics of it)
I think the lack of teamwork in the game isn really the fault of the players being boneheads
I often find myself even ignoring the commands my squadleader gave me, since they are usually just get that flag, with the idea behind it that if a lot of people converge there we can take it. usually i think something like ey, that flag is closer and undefended. then why should'nt i go there.
Commanders often only use the scan, uav, artillery. and when i am commander (no-one else wanted to be) i do that too.
(my in game name is cannonsmudge for the same reason my nick here is Jasper__unique_dammit
mutiny me if im commander)
maybe there should be a battleplan beforehand, then people may see some logic in why to move how, but i dont see how it is feasable when people keep respawning, then they dont have plans and just will go about semi-randomly. (ofcourse you could spawn everyone at the same batch, but waiting is boring, maybe let dead people play in arcade-ish separate arena)
teamplay may only be practical in games when teamplayers know each other and have voice chat. which is a long cry from the random people that enter servers now
I wasnt expecting a realistic game. In the game, i find myself basejumping (parachuting from buildings) all the time (which is silly because everyone will see me but usually i get away with it).
Im behind a computer screen anyway how realistic is that?
I do agree though that it may be a good idea to make a optional setting that aims for more realism.
Slashdot Mirror
the design of the shuttle seems like for public relations to me, there are actually dots on the side of it that look like windows (these arent really windows i think). the whole thing is intented to look a bit like a airplane. reusability is a mayor part of making it look like an airplane, now reusing parts of the rockets jetisoned at lower attitudes may be usefull. but reusing the whole shuttle sounds a bit like putting a lot of efford in putting a satelite into orbit (and not a smal one either), and then again a lot of effort to get it back down. i cant imagine why they wouldnt start developing a new system for this when they realised the public relations thing isnt that important anymore.
they also said the sheet conducts, i think they'd use that. on another reply to this: heating from microwaves from selphones are neglible. the damage from the radiation is just a small increase to the normal radiation you recieve from space, human nuclear activities etc.
in the first link: "For example, Baughman and other researchers would dearly love to create artificial versions of the body's muscle fibers, which can convert a chemical energy supply into mechanical work with even more efficiency than a car engine." and what's the efficientcy of a car engine? 30%? its pretty good but the sentence seems to imply that a car engine is more efficient then say an electromotor. (ofcourse an electromotor needs its more generated elsewhere, but these nanotube also do)
btw the site is missing the "slingshot" using other planets. this uses the fact that a hyperbolic orbit leaves the planet at the same speed as it entered, *in the planets frame*. so in the spaceships initial frame the speed when leaving can be larger or smaller. (i restrained from explaining further, isnt complicated but find it difficult to write clearly about in this form)
(http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114.htm seems good, but its missing how to aproach the planet to head out a certain direction (if you know a better sites, post!))
I've always thought they use the methods like in the given website for a first estimation, and then use simulation to determine more exactly the orbit. Is this true? they may use Monte Carlo simulation (simulate slightly differently many times) to account for errors that get into thrust direction and strenght, but these are probably small.
i know that explicit analytical formula's for trayectories for more then three planets are not known (or dont exits in form of normal arithmetic). (all of which have non neglible mass)
so everything yielding an analytical result uses aproximations. (are these really good enough?)
also the website doesnt say anything about how the position of the planets and spacecraft are measured, by earth or spacecraft. and how all this data is processed. (this isnt the fault of the website, its just about the mathematics of it)
I think the lack of teamwork in the game isn really the fault of the players being boneheads I often find myself even ignoring the commands my squadleader gave me, since they are usually just get that flag, with the idea behind it that if a lot of people converge there we can take it. usually i think something like ey, that flag is closer and undefended. then why should'nt i go there. Commanders often only use the scan, uav, artillery. and when i am commander (no-one else wanted to be) i do that too. (my in game name is cannonsmudge for the same reason my nick here is Jasper__unique_dammit mutiny me if im commander) maybe there should be a battleplan beforehand, then people may see some logic in why to move how, but i dont see how it is feasable when people keep respawning, then they dont have plans and just will go about semi-randomly. (ofcourse you could spawn everyone at the same batch, but waiting is boring, maybe let dead people play in arcade-ish separate arena) teamplay may only be practical in games when teamplayers know each other and have voice chat. which is a long cry from the random people that enter servers now
I wasnt expecting a realistic game. In the game, i find myself basejumping (parachuting from buildings) all the time (which is silly because everyone will see me but usually i get away with it). Im behind a computer screen anyway how realistic is that? I do agree though that it may be a good idea to make a optional setting that aims for more realism.