Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


260 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

5,024 profile views
  1. Then whatever it would look like from kerbin. Would that change with the scaling of kerbol though? It is much smaller. Or would the atmosphere make up for it? I'm not sure how that works specifically. Do we know what type and size of telescope and other tech they have at KSC?
  2. I wouldn't blur it. I would make it realistic to what you can see inside the telescope/tech used from kerbin. Or from any previously accomplished missions. Then you realistic scale up as you go. This could ultimately include satellites that you scan the planet with including your ship to gain maps etc realistically. Although once you have gone over with a ship visual/recorded data could be applied to each orb. Maybe with filters to show different things you have collected. Make it realistic. BTW, if you did the same to kerbin, couldn't this lower the problem with the massive resources used on the runway.
  3. Can we please get the option for fuel types somehow. I really want to make a hydrogen base rapier plane as it's the obvious choice to replicate a workable sabre vehicle. Will we be able to do this. Can we now and I missed it?(super laggy for me) If not It really needs to go into the game somehow. The game needs to be done around defaults to get the current game design. Then just allow advanced users to change it for other things. But make it so it has to be realistic. At least in certain game modes. Why can't changes in fuel type just change out the rest of the stats to make realistic limits. Even if unusable.
  4. Allow all parts to select materials. then make it dynamically change the qualities like weight, cost, heat tolerance limits etc. Maybe even allow control of the thickness of the materials if you wanted to. The default could be for standard use and the modification could be for custom design needs. what are common materials? I know I would use a lot of carbon fiber or maybe carbon nanotubes. Various steels, titaniums, aluminums, etc. God forbid custom materials. You could even allow parts of the part to have different materials if the game can use it. If not for future updates or mods.
  5. Gives about a 50% gain for me. If you start underwater!! Anyone try to make a sub base water launcher? I mentioned this in KSP1 back in the day and they mached me...
  6. It's so you can run a scramjet like the sabre at 3600 isp for higher in the atmosphere and up to a higher mach speed..
  7. If you put a scramjet in a fitting where you can add intake to an intake. IE a prechamber before the normal intake. Can you fill it with air converted from liquid air to feed a scramjet with an artificial atmosphere? https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ramth.html If a scramjet takes 100lbs of air per second per 2 lbs of fuel(not sure which type), and air is 710 less dense than liquid air why do we not feed it into a scramjet with reserves of liquid air turned back into air to make perfect potentially vacuum based scramjets? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/liquid-air-and-compressed-air-density.975471/ Is there some technological hurdle that stops this? From a fuel storage concept this is easy. The weight of storage to feed this is 50/710=0.070423= 7.0423% of the mass. This seems as ideal as possible for a rocket. Does this ratio change when using something like a sabre engine with liquid hydrogen fuel? If you take this concept and add the ability to generate hydrogen and or liquid air in flight you can just keep extending the rockets abilities potentially. At which point is it feasible to generate clouds sufficiently from a crafts body to collect the water to make some of this? If you do a tank of 183 tons of liquid hydrogen and have around 12 tons of liquid air to feed it. That is near 200 tons of fuel. Wouldn't that allow a vehicle of 600 tons to orbit and back potentially. 800 tons on takeoff and 600 for body/cargo? Is the sabre 16 or 24 tons per engine. It is 14:1 thrust to weight. But is that at 440k lbs of thrust at sea level or 660k thrust in vaccum. If it's at sea level you can do 36 engines at 16 tons each for 581 tons and around 19-24 tons of cargo depending on hull weight. Not sure how this works enough yet.
  8. I've been looking into the sabre for a giant diamond SSTO I've been trying to make for fun. I'm trying to figure how many hypothetical sabre engines I could shove into it. Does anyone know the potential diameter of the rear of the sabre and or the max trust of any of the variants. I can't fine a lot of info. And the mk 4 looked like it lost thrust. The idea is the center of the diamond has a massive sphere. This could be for slush hydrogen or other things. But as I'm looking at a sabre probably slush. The idea is the top and bottom of the sphere has sabres along the surface in the middle arch. The front is a massive intake(possibly variable sized) this creates a space that is basically artificial atmosphere. Could this be used to make the sabre run in efficient thrust air breathing mode for longer hypothetically. I'm not good enough at the math to figure out how much air it would need or lox/lair to fill the space for the engines intake needs. But if it could get up to mach 25 with slowly amended air into the intakes it could hypothetically reduce or eliminate the need for the rocket mode unless it has too. I estimated a row of engines that are 7.2 feet in diameter could fit 9 engines top and bottom each(18 total). The problem is the max thrust is only 5400tons of thrust and I technically wanted around 14400 tons of thrust minimum. So, it would have to operate at reduced functionality. The original sabres ran at 440,000lbs thrust or 220tons at save level and 660k/ 330tons in vacuum. That is 3960-5940 tons of thrust at 18 engines. Are the sabres smaller than 7.2 ft diameter or likely larger? Not the best visual, but the ssto is a diamond of originally(blue filled in) 96ft length, 54ft height, 166ft width. Outer size is 128ftx72ftx222.8ft. accordingly. The original dimensions weren't enough. I think it has a total of 430,000-440,000 ft3 of space(assuming a straight flat diamond body and no curves).(Edit: Possibly only 400kft3.) The main tank has an inner diameter of 54ft (82,570ft3)and an outer diameter up to 56.7ft. Approx 2.7 ft. The tank with slush hydrogen could hold a max of 219tons or 183tons liquid hydrogen. The idea is: 0.5. There is a, possibly rotating, set of engine plates(top and bottom) taking up about half of the spheres outer diameter(56.7ft-72ft diameter). 1/4 top and 1/4 bottom area on the surface. 1. The front of the engine plate is an intake of potentially variable shape and closable. (Could this be used to fill to feed the sabre past it's normal atmospheric limits?) Haven't figured out how much that might need to be yet. 2. The engines are center lined physically in the top middle, The back is a massive exit(hopefully not an issue) that either directly fires into space/air or funnels it down to use the body of the aircraft as an aerospike. 3. The engine and top canopy/engine pods rotate to go from the wider 60 degree angle?(can't remember) as front during low slower flight and changes to the 36 degree? angle for hypersonic flight for better aerodynamics. Assuming that is useful. 4. it's ideal design would use metalic hydrogen fuel(and possibly different engines) and would have a max cargo weight of 7200 tons fuel and 7200 tons full cargo/body mass for around 14,400 tons total weight and 5 times the max thrust(72,000tons thrust). This is trying to make it work with realistic potentially existing tech. So, probably max take off weight of up to 5760 tons or less. Maybe much less. 5. From top down it has a wing area of approx 14,400 sq ft. It has horrific wing loading, but it is a massive diamond. Does that make that less of a problem or more? I was hoping most of the design would be dealing with hypersonic flight. 6. Cargo room: 100,000ft3 of cargo, 82,570ft3 main fuel, 250,000ft3 oxidizer. Under current design. Changeable as needed. 7 Rough Estimate: 100,000ft3 cargo at 80lb/ft3 = 4,000 tons. 82,570ft3 slush hydrogen = 219tons. 250,000ft3 liquid air = 6750tons max(30.8 times the slush hydrogen.)(Edit: 180-220kft3 = 4860-5940tons liquid air = 22-27 times * slush hydrogen). 14,400 tons max weight(not considering engine power.)x14,400 sqft wing surface. 3,431 tons max empty weight. Edit: 1890 less liquid air = more cargo or better flight characteristics or LOX. 8. Can 2 feet of carbon fiber body hold up 1 ton per sqft of wing loading?! 8p (Which is around 2880tons of carbon fiber and over half a billion dollars. So, pony up elon if you want a real rocket!! ;D) 9. You could change it so a diamond of the 250,000ft3 is in the center for liquid air and the surface layer is all carbon fiber surface and thinner chambers for cargo. Haven't done the math on this yet. But given that the original diamond is about 180-190k ft3 and make the inner area 330kft3 instead with the surface a bunch of removable cargo bays. It could have hex shaped or other surface structures that can be detached in orbit and collected. If something like this could use the 3600isp or anywhere near up to mach 25 it could probably easily get to orbit and back for massive payloads. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) The engine appears to be nearish to half of the body diameter. So, it's possibly near that size. There is a small margin for room potentially. Or just a custom casing to hold it as it would be encased.
  9. Randomly ran into this on youtube. I thought maybe someone lit a fire as a joke about the game or a review using this as a heading, but it's too old. Think of this in terms of past video game forum problem where they shut the forums down in the past. You can make some funny jokes out of some of it. 8) Maybe it's just me. lol Lock down your dumpster fires! ><
  10. It's not a business. And such things used to be an active engineering environment with more ability to get work done in a given time and think it out ahead of time... Let alone put more work in overall for fun. Fun is work. If the work ain't fun. You ain't doing it right. Or aren't doing it at all. Depends on which side of it you are on. It's now a world of bad 80's business men. Even bringing back dead necro business like activision and running on a world of badly educated artists... Because Impressionism.! We used to at least maximize our games so people could enjoy them. We have gone completely way from that. Forethought is design. the more you have the more you can get done and avoid traps like redoing work. Or you make a tool to make it easy to redo work. Or you take it all the way and correctly automate the work. Software is farther behind than people understand. All old game genres should be drop in automated bits with full working old game genres generated as standard. We are not really trying and software and game design are all retrogressing. And we aren't even getting fun retro stuff out of it!!3 There is a process to software design. Correct answers in logic are simply 100% of the information. That is the same definition as what it takes to do work correctly and to automate something in a computer. These things should go a certain way. That is not happening. The cycle is broken and hanging like a broken bike chain. The only thing closed to automation were old 80's tools for older games before they were used to make 90's games. It did not progress after that. This applies to all software development. If you can't define it, you don't know it. If you know it you can automate it. The object is to be able to automate it. This is the same standard for education(although not in practice at this point in time.). No one will undstand this, but emotions are a part of the brains data gathering functions. you have data use mode and data gather. If you have feelings, it's data gather. Put more info in and it will revert to data use until out of data. This is what makes feelings. If it's hard it's a feeling. It's the brain tricking you to argue partial data sets in your brain to try to learn.(argument is part of a data feedback system.) It's a trick of the brain. It's always a result of a lack of knowledge. Fix the problem the feeling goes away and you can do work again.
  11. 1. KSP1 graphics. Literally with updated game logic. Not sure if something make this impossible. Does anyone know. I would love to know out of curiosity. 2. Elite 80's graphics mode. Pure lines and space. Literally original old game graphics. Then the surface elements on Kerbal are not a problem. ;d Is any of this possible? elite even had color at some point: then they could add an old text rpg interface from early games like maniac mansion and make some retro text games into KSP! 8) That could make some fun stuff to do when you reach your destination. Or in the KSC. KSP murder mystery game!!! 8D
  12. I'm going to guess we have to travel to stars, activate a gate via a building/power or colony, then we have instant teleportation to that location. The x's on the moon gate are the gateways to bad design and performance. They will port to x box before ever doing linux(which they may never do) and it will open the gate to all issues. 8)
  13. The compressed swap was something added to linux. It happens automatically. I used to have no swap then after an update i had swap and now my ram never goes above about 14gb. The rest is the actual swap file. It does really good when the ram is full. I think I was just reading windows 10 had compressed ram also. It's probably similar in concept. But it sounds like it has it for all ram. So, I'm assuming linux was behind on this one. Assuming how that normally goes.
  14. That is good news in a way. Looking forward to proton updates.
  15. I think I've seen it up to 14gb with a full 8gb in swap. In linux the swap is now compressed in the ram. So, that is running at about 4x the size with the CPU doing the chugging if i'm not mistaken. So, It's technically 22gb's of ram. Not sure how that works out under the hood though. Definitely not buying a new computer unless something changes with the prices. I'm waiting for the high end stuff to come back down and become standard if that ever happens. I guess I will see if i can get a 20 year upgrade path going!! >< Maybe by that point we will have the same CPU cores and GPU cores and software using it. 8) At some point won't gaming computers become fast and strong enough the graphics are live computed the same as the rendering computer. I wonder how much father we need to get live compute. I'm guessing never. As the physics aren't purely reproducing a live human body full of actual particles. Unless there is some temporary lull in the worthwhileness of more complete graphics vs complexity and they catch up.
  • Create New...