Nuke

Members
  • Content Count

    2,389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

698 Excellent

3 Followers

About Nuke

  • Rank
    Mutants Worship Me

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. hince my post. i need to spend my mw5 refund somewhere. shutupandtakemymoneydotgif
  2. so is there going to be a preorder? i have another preorder elsewhere i can cancel.
  3. i was having a really crappy day. then i finally got a second to relax. fired up youtube and there was this ksp2 teaser on my thing. my mood is much better now.
  4. i think the inflatable bits on a space habitat will be significantly thicker than what you have on a beach ball. its got to handle the pressure difference, heating, radiation, impacts with space debris, and the mass per square inch of surface is a lot higher than vinyl sheeting used in normal inflatables. pretty sure the inflatables would still be able to hold their own rigidity, but the deformation will be more substantial when under thrust. its going to be important not to put any additional loading on the structure though as you don't want any tearing or chaffing which is why you want a ridgid internal structure to stand on.
  5. could we build one? probibly. the question is would it be an effective battleship or just a big fat target that eats fuel like mad. i think its going to be more expanse-like (assuming we have torch drives) much smaller ships with much of the battle taking place at beyond visual range. smaller ships accelerate faster and can dodge dumb projectiles better. active defences will be used instead of armor, unless you can come up with armor that weighs less than a bunch of pdcs. even if we do have powerful torch drives they will likely be <1g drives. the expanse's powerful epstein drive makes a lot of larger ships possible that wouldn't be practical with lesser drives. battlestars use fighter screens and do have some ww2 style flak screens. but flak screens dont make sense in space (exploding shrapnel can come back) but then again neither to the gatling gun type pdcs used in the expanse. ammunition is heavy. very accurate single barrel autocannons with a low rate of fire to minimize error from recoil induced vibrations make more sense. you might even do away with guns for small interceptor missiles as the ability to course correct improves accuracy and effective range. or perhaps maybe gun fired missiles, more like a grenade launcher really or something like the torpedo launchers on star trek (technically a rail gun that fires self propelled ordinance, eliminating the need to burn fuel on initial acceleration and more fuel for course corrections). you might also have some directed energy weapons, more to scramble the sensors on incoming warheads than to actually kill them. as for the fighters it makes little sense to project firepower like that. limited fuel and ammunition means they can be easily overwhelmed, plus you have the limitations of pilots and the tactically undesirable need to recover them. or take the mass you saved not having fighters and carry more missiles/guns/ammo/torpedoes.
  6. you could install a fold down flooring system that can be put in place after the ship is inflated. these would brace against the central core and wouldn't press on the "floor" of the habitat. the inflated sections should be able to hold their form under a 1g acceleration with minimal deformation.
  7. i was thinking using chemical energy to do the ionization for you so that you are left with a magnetically accelerated exhaust. but i dont know of any high energy reactions that would produced charged exhaust products. but again my lack chemistry knowhow leaves me scratching my head. as far as i know most research into rocket fuels has been about more thrust or more isp, rather than creating charged exhaust.
  8. idk. i really dont know enough about chemestry. all i know is that some reactions create ions. not sure if any rocket fuels would do that or not.
  9. you got things like arcjets that can take a normal chemical engine and boost the isp so i dont see how it would be impossible. of course its going to boost the weight of your engine and require a beefier power source. but its possible. microwaves are a good way to heat water, which is what the exhaust products of a lh2+lox engine are. a bunch of megatron's pointed into the combustion chamber might do something. maybe you can come up with a fuel mixture that results in ionized products with a quasi decent isp that can be boosted magnetically.
  10. exactly what i was looking for and russian translates pretty well on google.
  11. you still need a means to desaturate. but this is likely a lot fewer thrusters and less sophisticated (likely smaller with a very simple control system) thrusters than what you would need for something capable of docking. you can probably also detorque with engine gimbals or differential thrust on multiple main engines during burns if you aren't expected to saturate between maneuvers. ive managed 3 axis control with only four strategically angled thrusters provided you don't mind accelerating to do it (works fine with ion drives that need to burn continuously though). though im not sure if you are able to dump the momentum of one axis into another allowing you to detorque all axes with only 2 thrusters or detorque roll with only a single gimballed engine.
  12. say you are a scientist doing an experiment aboard the iss and you need to know the mass of an object (for science!). what are the practical methods they would use to do that? i know astronomers have ways of determining the mass of distant celestial bodies but how is it done for smaller objects in the floaty lab?
  13. they help improve stability but i was able to turn them off and survive a flight from the island to the ksc. joystick helps.
  14. you dont need the servos. deploy the blades and use the authority limiters. quad copters work very well. i tried a khinook style helicoper but it had a nasty nose down tendency i couldnt get rid of. a tricopter might work, two fixed forward rotors with a servo driven tail boom for mounting the third engine. pitch and roll work pretty much the same as a quad, but yaw control is provided by the servo instead of differential pitch on kitty corner pairs.
  15. i did a quasi-functional mod for freespace 2 a very long time ago that allowed newtonian flight, atmospherics and even some orbital mechanics. granted the thing would crash if you tried to orbit anything bigger than tethys. i started my own engine to get around those limitations, many years later and it still isnt done, i havent even ported my physics code over yet. i do recall doing a video of me flying around in mars atmosphere. this is planar terrain (1d gravity model) so this does not show the orbital mechanics. but the script does support spherical terrain/gravity. it was a great little novelty in what was becoming a stale game for me and ksp pretty much stole my attention away from the fs modding scene.