Angeltxilon

I was wondering if it would be possible (and better) to use some xenon or krypton compound as oxidizer or "fluorinizer" for rockets. For example xenon hexafluoride, or xenon oxytetrafluoride, or nitrosonium octafluoroxenate, or... Noble gas - chalcogen/halogen bonds are weaker than chalcogen - halogen, interhalogen or "itself" bonds; so that reacting with a fuel should generate more energy (=more thrust and isp?) since less energy would be required to break the previous bond (or more energy would be produced from breaking that bond). However, there is the problem that xenon and krypton are (relatively) heavy atoms, so they could negatively affect the isp. What do you think?

What about a liquid fluorine - solid lithium hydride hybrid rocket?

Ionic propulsion is useful for making precise movements in space, and can be used to travel to other worlds through techniques that involve periapsis (I do not remember the name of these techniques very well). Ionic propulsion has a very high isp, but a low thrust (just like in real life). In general, the average life of a deposit of xenon is much higher than that of any other fuel for space exploration. However, there comes ionic propulsion becomes useless in many goals. It's just very slow, and the game does not allow you to speed up time (over x4) while the ship is propelling itself. Nor is it possible to program complex and automated orbital motions that would be very useful for ion propulsion drives. This mean that ionic propulsion is finally used for very few things due to its slowness and need the constant attention of the player. KSP should implement warp under acceleration (in space and over x4 speed) and programmed automated orbital movements, at least when using ionic engines.

For planned parts... What about lithium fission rockets or saltwater lithium fission rockets? (sources: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39844.20 and https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/clean-lithium-fission-saltwater-rocket.863418/) And positron radioisotope rockets? (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/05/positron-dynamics-antimatter-propulsion-drive-update-april-2018.html)

I found an interesting idea about a propulsion system that would be based on the fission of lithium-6 (exothermic reaction that is only possible with high-energy neutrons). As I understood, it would use water or heavy water with dissolved lithium hydroxide. Such water would be irradiated with fast neutrons generated in a supercritical plutonium nuclear reactor, a non-aneutronic nuclear fusion reactor, or a spallation system. The water would be heated by the reactor like in a classic saltwater nuclear rocket, but the fission of lithium-6 would generate much more energy. This translates into an ISP higher than that of conventional chemical and nuclear rockets, and a pushing force superior to that of ionic rockets. The main problems are the neutron source (it must be big) and, in case of use a supercritical nuclear reactor, the risk of core meltdown (typical of nuclear rockets) or even a nuclear explosion. It could be interesting to see an addon based on this idea. Sources: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/clean-lithium-fission-saltwater-rocket.863418/ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39844.60

Ammonia borane (H3NBH3) is a compound with properties analogous to ethane, but with a higher point of fusion. Basically ammonia borane is solid at room temperature and pressure, unlike ethane that is a gas. Ammonia borane has an special property: it will release hydrogen while is heating (being transformed to H2NBH2, next to HNBH) until degrade to nytrogen boride at 1000 "C. If ammonia borane isn't degraded to nytrogen boride, it can be recharged of hydrogen. This is a good thing, since a ammonia borane volume is able to store much more hydrogen than the same volume of liquid hydrogen. Then, it could be used for build light reusable rockets, as well as compact high hydrogen density cells of cars, and like hydrogen batteries for jet engines. Currently the ammonia borane is being studied for its possible application for hydrogen batteries of future, the main problem is the production of this substance, together logistical problems derived in the extraction and recharge of hydrogen gas from it.

What happened with mecatrons?

So I came back, and I bring an idea from two years ago, but improved: Omnidirectional wheels. In addition of other two new: Continuous tracks and Screw drives Omnidirectional wheels: Omnidirectional wheels are wheels and systems that gives the ability of move omnidirectionally without spin to the land vehicle. My idea is basically add these three types of wheel (and variants by company or size, of course): - Omni wheel (little). - Mecanum wheel (small and medium). - Liddiard wheel (medium and big). Omni wheel: Omni wheels are basically primitive omnidirectional wheels. They are common wheels with added little wheels to the edge, in perpendicular to the main wheels. These wheels would be slightly hard to use, possibly would need the use of action groups. However, with this you can make functional omnidirectional vehicles with octagonal, triangular, etc shapes. Mecanum wheels: This type of wheel is a multi-wheel that contains small wheels aligned 45º over the extreme of multi-wheel, and aligned 45º degrees over de radius of multi-wheel. How it works? Small wheels deviate the multi-wheels when these multi-wheels spin each in different direction, this causes a lateral or spin movement of vehicle, much more useful. These wheels would be easier to use than omni wheels, using like controls AWSD, and also Q and E for move to left and right without spin. Basically, vehicles with this type of wheels would have a better maneuverability and bigger left-right speed than the other two types, but it would have a big lack of friction. Liddiard wheels: Liddiard wheels are basically toroidal wheels which inside has rollers and tires has an special rolling system. This type of wheel move like common wheels, but its toroidal tires can spin from inside to outside for move right or left. These wheels, like mecanum wheels, use AWSDQE controls. Basically, vehicles with this type of wheels would have a big friction and traction, however the left-right speed is the lowest of the three types of omnidirectional wheels. Continuous tracks: This is the drive system of tanks and several types of tractors. This drive type would have sizes from small to big. additionally, these could have an special modular building (ie, you can adjust the length of the continous track, longer will cost more expensive and shorter cheaper, obviously). Screw drive: This would have an extremelly big friction, plus the ability of move left and right without spin. Controls are, again, AWSDQE. The problem of the screw drive is its big size and mass. Screw drive in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afJ18eJeNgU What do you think?

KSP is realistic, and FTL is protorealistic. We simply don't know if such thing can exist really. And if FTL is impossible, KSP will stop of being realistic. Anyway KSP is based on actual and near future tech, so, FTL is very far. The thing that could be a good idea is to add different solar systems to choose at the start of the game (an red dwarf system, an blue supergiant system with tens and tens of planets, etc), but of course, it will not be possible to change of solar system of a game profile after start such game profile, and it will not be possible to move to others stelars systems.

The idea of add liquid coolant is simple. The liquid coolant would be a new material storable in little tanks, with little amount needed (ie, little consumption). This material could be used in engines, intakes and heat shields to refrigerate these parts (that are overheat in high velocities in the atmosphere commonly). The use of this material could be automatic or programmed in action groups, also could add a little more isp to overheat engines, due that can be used like propellant when is used to refrigerate. Also could be used in thermal nuclear engines instead liquid fuel, the difference of functionality is minimal, with the only difference of that liquid coolant is more expensive but can prevent overheat.

You must do "right-click" in the crew cabine (the head of rocket, were there is the kermans) when you are using the rocket or aircraft, so you will see several options, you must select the "crew report" option.

This is may be a dummy question, but I do not know what mean "apha1" (for example) in controls of game and, so, I do not know how can use custom action groups, obviously. Please help. Thanks in advanced.

Neil deGrasse Tyson concluded that the mjolnir would be make of neutron degenerated matter and have a weight of 300 billions of elephants...

And the major part of hypothesis to unificate strong force and electroweak, suggest natural mechanisms to "violate" these conservation laws (better said, exchange these), related with the hypothetical proton decay. p+ → e+ + π e+ + e- → 2y π → 2y Strong force and electroweak unification implies that the barionic number can be exchanged with the leptonic number. The basis of think in proton decay is, if protons does not decays, these violate thermodynamic laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

Magnetic monopoles are present in lots of hypothesis (not only one), and in hypothesis should have stable subtypes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

Well, I started this topic with little details, but I hope, the enough to can discuss. Recently I found a strange hypothetical rocket concept: a barionic desintegration rocket. What does this have to special? A barionic desintegration rocket (also named catalized proton-desintegration rocket), would be very similar to antimatter rocket in thrust and isp, but would not require of antimatter. This type of spaceship propulsion would be based in the hypothetical desintegration of proton, doing use of hypothetical particles (like magnetic monopoles, Higgs bosons, and X-Y bosons) like catalyst. These particles are not consumed in the reaction, and should be stable (in the case of magnetic monopoles). What are the problems? The problems of this propulsion method, are the same of antimatter rocket problems in beginning, related with radiation. There has more problems, like: - It needs the existence of hypothetical particles, related with hypothesis of big unification (electroweak-strong force). - The matter must be ionized without electrons and suffer a big pressure to can react with the catalyst, like with the fusion in fusion rocket engines. - The hypothetical particles would be extremely strange and difficult to obtain in the nature, or need extremely big energies to be produced (and is required lots of these), being more expensive than antimatter (millions of times). What are the advantages? - It does not requires advanced containers, removing useless mass. - It can work with any collected barionic particle of space environment, without require extra strange particles (due that catalysts are reusable); this mean the possibility of obtain extremely powerful Bussard ramjets, based in total conversion of matter in energy instead nuclear fusion. Mechanism: The rocket is based in the proton decay. p+ → e+ + π >Barionic-leptonic number is conserved and exchanged by relation of forces (strong-electroweak).< The problem is that, if this is possible, one proton will take 6.6x10^33 years to decay. Magnetic monopoles and others particles can accelerate the process until very little times of femtoseconds. The debate begins.

May be space war would be very different to the popular idea of "near spaceships vs spaceships". A realistic space war would be very slow, with attacks of extremely big distance, with difficulty to move the spaceships due to the orbit, a space war would be based in big part in "orbit-earth attacks". Real designs of war-spaceships: Thor project. The orion battleship of before. German sun gun. Space-based interceptor. Soviet fractional orbital bombardment system.

Probably not, but in the past a "orbital battleship" was proposed in 50-60 decade, in basis "orion project".

Have you heard about PACER project? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

The helium hydride could be a extremely strong propellant (in the correct mix and chemical reaction), or a monopropellant, due to her acid and unstable nature. However has several problems: So, it would react with any substance, even with others acids and superacids, this is an advantage in the propulsion, but a disadvantage in her containment. Also any strong electric discharge could desionice this ion, and produce her discomposition (that is the basis of use it like monopropellant). Another problem is her obtainment, currently is very difficult obtain helium hydride and is expensive because needs tritium like basis. It is viable like rocket fuel (at least in the tecnic/practic and not in the price)? Think in it like a far future fuel, like antimatter and nuclear pulse rockets.

Design a antimatter engine is (relatively) easy, design a viable antimatter container not, and produce antimatter less yet. I think that we should develop more near and cheap propulsion systems, like airspike, ramrocket, and, beyond, nuclear pulse propulsion. Why try to develop antimatter engine if we did not want develop nuke engines (when are more safe and less destructive than antimatter engines, and has a more near and cheap utility)? This is a little weird...

If you move extremely fast a object without friction, this will continue having friction and pressure losses (heat losses). This is due to the object stay having a "x" surface of interaction with the air, and the air has friction losses. By the second law of newton, the forces of friction are distributed between the object itself and the air. Also the different pressure zones can cause more friction and the ram effect.

Arcologies, layered cities, underground cities, all these are interesting concepts, but, we need really this? I think that we will not have these types of structure until obtain very big space and transport problems, if these appear, of course. Why? Simple because are more expensive than classical building and difficultly are applied without need.

There is a hypothesis that says that the earth core could contain a little subcore of several kilometers of radius, a subcore made of uranium, plutonium, thorium in constant fission and transmutation, and surrounded by a subcluster of nuclear waste of the fission and disintegration of these materials. This hypothesis is named "georeactor model", and exposes that is possible that the energy produced from earth and others planets is not only in basis disintegration, but also by natural nuclear fission reactors. This hypothesis also can explain the formation of the moon by a extremely big nuclear explosion that broken the planet (changing also the rotation axis of this and creating the required heat to obtain the liquid core), can explain the existence of natural nuclear reactors (like the nuclear reactor of Oklo), and the neutrine anomalies. What are your thoughts about this? Founts: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0523.pdfhttp://nuclearplanet.com/Herndon's%20Nuclear%20Georeactor.htmlhttp://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/did-the-moon-form-in-natural-nuclear-explosion/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo

Kerbal Stuff is currently broken. Can you upload the mod to other site?