Jump to content

SciMan

Members
  • Content Count

    697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SciMan

  1. This mod looks VERY promising, I look forward to what it becomes in the future! Regarding the ion thruster causing the craft to spin, that should be relatively easy to fix. I think all you need to do is add in the line "CoMOffset = X, Y, Z" where X Y Z are numbers that create a set of coordinates telling the game where to put the part's COM relative to the part's origin. Mess around with those numbers a bit and you should be able to find (or calculate) numbers that make the COM of the satellite line up with the thrust axis of the ion thruster, therefore eliminating the source of the
  2. That's a valid method since it gets the job done, but the reason I use the Rendezvous Planner is that it has all the buttons for the functions you need right there, and it includes very helpful displays of your current orbit, the target orbit, your relative inclination, the time to the closest approach (only valid if closest approach is less than one orbit from now), and the distance at closest approach (also only valid if closest approach is less than one orbit from now). I find that it has all I need to get within physics loading range of any vessel in any orbit, assuming the craft I am
  3. I find I get the results I want much more consistently if I use the Rendezvous Planner and just hit the right buttons in the right sequence, instead of letting the Rendezvous AP handle things (which does the same thing, but with you theoretically only having to push one button). What you would do when using the rendezvous planner is hit the Match Planes button, execute the node, then Hohmann transfer, execute the node, use RCS to trim the closest approach to ~ 150m (trim this value to suite the size of the thing you're intercepting, further away for bigger things), then hit Match Velocity
  4. That's fair, but it did make me take a second look at what I said and compose my thoughts in a better way, which I'm thankful for.
  5. When I said we already know 99% of what we need to know to make better parts IRL, I didn't mean we know 99% of everything there is to know. I meant that further data from the types of experiments that KSP 1 has to offer, simply inform us of the conditions on another world, instead of informing us about how to do something to get better rocket engines or bigger fuel tanks or something of the like. What I meant is that there's no fundamental difference between the starting fuel tanks and the largest fuel tanks in the game. Yet somehow those larger (and smaller) fuel tanks cost "science" to
  6. Well if you're going to go with the "any random gas" idea, and you still want electric propulsion, there's not much better than some kind of electro-thermal thruster. It's very much a thermal propulsion method, as you're heating propellant to produce thrust, but the heat comes from electric energy. There are several types of electro-thermal thruster, with most of the difference in the types being in exactly how the electric energy is transferred to the propellant. On paper a resistojet is about the simplest and therefore most reliable electrothermal thruster you can get. Just stick a
  7. In my limited experience, for a surface base there's little reason to choose anything other than a cheap but heavy molten salt fission reactor, because even tho it's heavier than a fusion reactor for the same power output the need to save weight is much less on a surface base. Additionally, the power requirements for ISRU are rather modest, with total power output not usually going much over a couple hundred megawatts, meaning you can get away with a surprisingly small reactor and radiators provided you target the power output you need, and don't go chasing thermal efficiency. Plus, most
  8. Some of the first ideas for sending manned missions to Mars were using lifting-body gliders (Von Braun mars landers). It took several probes (flybys and later orbiters) to determine that the atmosphere was in fact quite problematic. The information gathered by several flyby and orbiter probes painted a problematic picture: Mars' atmospheric density is in a "sour spot" where it's really hard to take advantage of it. The atmosphere of Mars is dense enough that reentry heating is high enough to require a heatshield of some kind, but also not dense enough to enable use of parachutes alone to
  9. I was writing a big post about how you should need science of some sort to get the ideas for new part concepts, and then it takes money and time to do the R&D to actually produce parts from those concepts, but now I'm thinking we don't even need a science points system. The reason is simple. NASA doesn't send experiments to distant worlds to learn how to make better rocket engines. That's backwards. What NASA does is build better rocket engines so they can get science experiments to distant worlds. So how do you get better rocket engines? You invest in science research RIGHT AT H
  10. I'm glad someone was willing to put more work into finding UR-700 pictures than I was, I really didn't do it justice. That last one from @kerbiloid looks to be of a similar quality and style to William Beck's excellent 3d models, would be really nice if we could get the engines for it in Tantares so we could build it with the Proton fuel tanks that are already in. EDIT: also, @kerbiloid that first image you linked (the early versions of proton) didn't seem to work right. I'd love to see it, but it doesn't load for me.
  11. IDK how, but nobody has mentioned the OTHER soviet moon rocket (sadly it never left the drawing board). The UR-700. Just like in Kerbal, they wanted to use fuel cross-feed. Just like in Kerbal, it seems to have been created at a time when they did not have the tooling to simply "make a wider cylindrical fuel tank" instead of clustering smaller tanks and engines. It even had a proposed nuclear variant that would have been able to put 700 tons in LEO. IIRC, it was fueled by hypergolic fuels, so you also get the "infinite restarts" found in KSP. Having a hard time linking the picture fr
  12. Just downloaded NF Electrical, and I was going thru the files as I usually do to make sure everything is in order before I actually install it. I noticed one minor problem, the included version of Module Manager is not the most recent one. Included is 4.1.3, current is 4.1.4. EDIT: I got the addon from SpaceDock as I usually do.
  13. If I was going to do it, I'd probably use module manager to strip out the stock magnetometer experiment entirely from the stock magnetometer boom, and in its place put the DMagic magnetometer boom experiment code. The only problem I can see with this is that it would probably mess with the new moho probe mission (if you have the DLC for missions). EDIT: Thinking about it some more, maybe you could keep both experiments but DMagic would nerf stock science experiment science collection to account for the fact that there are more experiments to do now.
  14. Not sure about how to fix it, but I know that other modded fairings have been having issues in 1.10.x so it doesn't really surprise me to see that this mod's fairings are having issues.
  15. Is this still usable in 1.10.x without any major coding changes? I'm unsure if this is needed anymore, but I'd like to have it just in case there's even a small chance of issues cropping up that could be prevented by installing it. Granted it was I think around a year or so ago now that I saw a base obliterated by the bug this fixes (on EJ_SA's twitch channel, his fuel refinery on Minmus got wrecked by it) but I'm still fearful that anything I land on the surface of a planet or moon that is over a certain size would have a similar fate, and I want to prevent that because I want to do a Jo
  16. I voted for both the "theoretically possible....." options, and I also voted for the "Tech that is only possible if a material with certain properties exists, which may not exist - example: Warp drives using negative mass" option. However, I have a few caveats for that last one. First off, I don't specifically want that kind of tech in the game, but I'll still buy and play it if it's in. Secondly, if they DO put some form of "warp drive" in such as the "Alcubierre warp drive" in the game, it shouldn't be able to go faster than light. That speed limit is absolute, and I'm of th
  17. I'd love to see all kinds of electric propulsion, even the ones that DON'T have plasma exhaust (looking at you, resistojet and arcjet thrusters). Resistojet/Arcjet thrusters would make ideal high-thrust high-power RCS thrusters because they are basically propellant omnivores. I mean they'll run off basically anything that (as a gas) obeys the ideal gas law and is capable of being boiled without applying too much heat (sorry, mercury's probably a bad pick). Oh yeah and it's probably not a great idea to use a propellant that eats the heating element (resistojet) or electrodes (arcjet) or the hea
  18. To be honest, I don't know why we need another low thrust attitude control system. Sure it's "realistic", but this is a game in the guise of a very simplified simulator, not a simulator. We don't need realism. What we need are solutions to problems, and currently I don't know how they're going to handle the attitude control problem on all these gigantic interstellar craft. Currently, every kind of electric propulsion is what's known as "thrust limited" because we can't get enough power to go thru the propulsion system. That might change if we can get compact and lightweight reactors that
  19. Can we solve the problem @KerikBalm has with Metallic Hydrogen engines and fuel by simply renaming them to some form of handwavium? It's a game after all, we don't play games for everything to be realistic. IMO KSP is NOT a simulation, it's a game that makes heavy use of simulation elements but it's not in itself a simulation. RSS and the associated mods do turn it into a simulator, but the base software is still a game. Don't expect me to reply much to this, I rarely pay attention to the forums anymore.
  20. I honestly don't care if metallic hydrogen in KSP2 turns out to be just a form of handwavium. If you don't like it, just make a simple mod that changes the name. I know that it's "easy" to get around the planets with chemical engines in stock KSP. However, I'm tired of the abysmal TWR of the LV-N, the only nuclear engine in the game right now. Right now it's next to useless because you can get just about the same delta-V with basically any upper stage chemical engine and the appropriate fuel tanks. The LV-N needs both doubled thrust and at least a half ton less mass to make it useful. And
  21. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I explained it earlier. With the current situation in KSP1 and setting all sliders to 100% on a Science mode save, you can fully unlock the tech tree without ever doing a mission beyond Kerbin orbit. It got even worse with the surface experiment packages you can get with the DLC. You do have to pretty much fully explore Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus, but that's it.Nothing else. You don't need to use a science lab in KSP1 to end up in this result either. You can do it simply by bringing back experiment data from the experiments the game gives you. Heck you techni
  22. I've given this a bit more thought, and my opinion has changed. We might need two fuels to fully represent what Liquid Fuel is. Because to be quite honest, I agree with the argument that fuel cells and the LV-N Nerv (and maybe even the Mammoth and Vector) should use Hydrogen, which would be less dense than the current Liquid Fuel. The only reason I'm opposed to splitting out further between Methane and Kerosene is that it would make many of the engines already in the game only able to be re-fueled by landing back on Kerbin or another life-bearing and geologically active planet. Of course
  23. Not sure if I posted in this thread before or not, but there are two big things that would absolutely kill KSP2 Stone Dead for me. 1. "Milk run simulator, IN SPACE!" You have to run every single re-supply mission manually. I should be able to run a resupply mission once, and then the computer should be able to repeat it as many times as it needs to to get the supplies from point A to point B. This would make me out-and-out not buy the game, or only ever play it with mods that remove that limitation. 2. "Sure, you CAN go anywhere, but you don't HAVE to". This is a problem with KSP1, y
  24. Probably Glumo, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a gas giant. Fusion drives take hydrogen or helium isotopes for the most part, and what better place to find that stuff than a gas giant? If nothing else, I'd set up a small orbital colony for refueling my interstellar transport ships.
  25. Enzmann or not, I want some form of torch drive. If the answer to "do you want high specific impulse or do you want high thrust?" is Yes/Both, then what you want is a torch drive. Capable of sustained burns of 1G or more for extended periods. Great for in-system travel, get to Mars in a few days. An Orion drive is a torch drive we could build TODAY if the will was there for it. The "Epstein drive" from The Expanse is a torch drive. We might not be able to build that one for a while, but despite it coming from a sci-fi book it's theoretically possible according to some calculations (the tri
×
×
  • Create New...