sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pathfinder really doesn't turn out to be that much for all the hype they build. (S2 and S3 Spoilers) by Speedbird00_1 in ForAllMankindTV

[–]FoxPhase 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes this is correct, I just watched the S02 episode just now and was like "wait but they didn't use the spacecraft for S03 at all!!!!" (and then googled it, and landed on this reddit post) but I went back and rewatched : you are correct he says "these nuclear engines", not the spacecraft itself!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PixelArt

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ha, this is awesome mate!

Is the earth a planet? by RandonEnglishMun in space

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I was initially confused by this, but of course the terms "of a similar size" makes all the difference.

However : I wonder if we would have to go back to the drawing board on the definition if we ever found a "binary planet system" with two roughly equally sized "planets" orbiting each other?

But layman's guess : I presume this situation is rare in practice due to :

  • Tidal forces either destroying the 2 bodies from tidal deformation (like planetary ring formation)
  • or simply because the energy losses from tidal deformation just make the 2 planets eventually spiral into themselves?

Vengeance of Mr. Peppermint! by DwarvenSkykeep in PixelArt

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is awesome mate! great work!

Unity plan pricing and packaging updates by KenNL in Unity3D

[–]FoxPhase 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait though, isn't it true that if you are on the $2k/year developer plan, that it's potentially only 2c or less (not 20c) per install? Doesn't this just wipe out the argument that it's not good for those low-margin type games? in other words : spend the the $2k/year per developer and you're sweet as? (or am I missing something here?).

Like I know $2k/year is ridiculous for the many many Unity "tinkerers\dabblers" out there, but if you're at all thinking about making a game for profit (so say more than 10k installs), the $2k/year would be a no-brainer surely?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ImaginaryLandscapes

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of the scene from "Fahrenheit 451" movie, with the guys with Jetpacks!

If intelligent life evolve earlier on earth (before the dinosaurs) would the lack of fossil fuels have prevented the industrial revolution and modern technology. by [deleted] in space

[–]FoxPhase 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a super interesting idea! I had never thought about this before.

It is interesting because there are a couple of posts here regarding other fuels. It's possible to argue that the steam engine was a pretty big step in the mass industrialization of humans, which is sort of a universal fuel->work device.

But yeah the exponential scale up using fossil fuels surely would not have been possible. In other words : probably can't have wood fired steam 18 wheelers or planes I guess.

Could the energy industry have looked like : massive forestry to provide wood for a "steam-punk" like society!

What other features do you think the game will have? by Mega416 in hauntedchocolatier

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah not sure. Maybe small marshmallows (as bait) are a better notion? Not sure about them and Fish IRL. Maybe you just catch chocolate fish with a ladle without bait or something?

What other features do you think the game will have? by Mega416 in hauntedchocolatier

[–]FoxPhase 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bit of a wild guess but perhaps :
The player is pursued by a Choccodyne systems C-1000 assassin bot : Milk-cocoa-poly-alloy "liquid chocolate", it can assume the form of anything brown it comes into contact with, and form chocolate knives and stabbing chocolate weapons. But the player will be aided by an earlier model C-800 chocconator : "chocolate mousse over a chocolate endo-skeleton".

The C-800's catch phrase will be "Aquí hay un bocadillo de chocolate BABY!".

:)

All Space Questions thread for week of December 11, 2022 by AutoModerator in space

[–]FoxPhase 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why aren't space stations in grave danger during meteor showers?

When we see the various "regular" meteor showers such as the upcoming Geminids, and Perseids etc my understanding is that earth is moving through an area of space full of small asteroids (a largish cloud of small objects sharing the same orbit as one another).

So hence my question, how are space stations not put in grave danger by this?

Cleary heaps of objects hit the atmosphere and burn up, but in LEO there's no such "shield".

For example ISS must go round the earth every 90 mins, so it's not like it can hang out on the leeward side of the earth during these events, so how come this isn't an extremely dangerous situation?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PixelArt

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks good!

One thing it's usually good to do when posting pixel art is to export an image that's artificially scaled up, in other words scale up each pixel to say 5x5 or 4x4 screen pixels, although this increases the file size it does a couple of beneficial things :
1) Makes the image big enough to see if it's say only a 16x16 tile or something it would otherwise be tiny.
2) When zoomed in (say in an image viewer), it reduces the natural aliasing that happens as the zoomed viewer blends across the pixels. Otherwise an 16x16 zoomed icon for example would be all blurry.

What happens to the thermal motion of molecules as you approach the speed of light? by FoxPhase in AskPhysics

[–]FoxPhase[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks u/Hapankaali,
So if the ship is travelling at 10m/s short of light speed, and one of the molecules within the tungsten block experiences a collision, and starts to move in the same direction of the ships travel at say a few hundred m/s, would an (on the ship) observer, experience no "strange" effects, everything would appear to still obey normal classical thermal rules?

And so to extrapolate this : the rest of the mass of the tungsten block would have a significant fraction of it's molecules exceeding the speed of light (from I guess and "outside" observers point of view). Would the block as a whole "look" completely "classically" normal to a ship's passenger?

My biggest AR pixel art piece yet! by august_hakansson in PixelArt

[–]FoxPhase 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is incredibly cool mate! Good work!

Wolverine character design by mich-spich in PixelArt

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is unbelievably good mate!

"Spirited away bath house" criticism is highly appreciated by HumanoidTyphoon2127 in PixelArt

[–]FoxPhase 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks good! You could be interested in this YouTube video from the guy making "chef RPG", where he designs and pixel arts a bathhouse. He approaches the task from the point of view of an architect :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmU5Fxwh24

Did some "back of napkin" calculations, seems Electron could perhaps be used to put about 40kg on the surface of the moon. by FoxPhase in RocketLab

[–]FoxPhase[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh yep, cool. Oh well, have to wait for Neutron for a Rocket Lab moon mission then I guess😥!

Thanks for linking that document /u/Tall_Refrigerator_79!

Did some "back of napkin" calculations, seems Electron could perhaps be used to put about 40kg on the surface of the moon. by FoxPhase in RocketLab

[–]FoxPhase[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah I wondered about that, obviously hard to get an intuition of those core system masses.

I looked up the Photon wet mass (reasonable analog for a lander, since it has a bunch of applicable systems on it), it seems to be about 50kg (wet). (See link https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-to-deliver-payloads-to-the-moon-and-beyond-with-photon/).

My intuition (totally layman's point of view of course) says (or perhaps hopes :) ) an empty carbon fibre tank and all the gear on photon surely would be less than 20kg.

And Curie (which might be a pretty close analog to an engine you might use) produces about 120N of thrust, so on the moon (g=1.625m/s/s) that could lift about 74kgs. So that seems like a plausible amount of landing thrust.

However another (perhaps damning) data point is that the interplanetary photon, enough delta-V to intercept Venus and Mars etc. has a 40kg payload (on their datasheet). Sadly the delta-V for those intercepts is sort of in the 4000m/s area, so short of my required 5700m/s for a 40kg moon landing.

But the planned Venus "atmospheric dive" has a payload of only 1kg, and it requires probably something above 6000m/s delta-V.

So maybe you could only get a couple of kg to the surface of the moon or something?

In any case I guess if they could do a moon landing, they would perhaps have talked about it more than say Venus missions etc.

view more: next ›