Jump to content

DStaal

Members
  • Content Count

    3,997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,331 Excellent

2 Followers

About DStaal

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I haven't seen any changes in the way the email is laid out - just the content. Before it was the whole post, now it's the first line.
  2. No real opinions one way or the other at the moment on the web UI. Looks like it's following modern design practice - which has both upsides and downsides. However, I primarily follow the forum via e-mail: I hit 'follow' on a thread, and read the posts as they come in. Or at least I did - the update truncates any post down to about two sentences, so actually trying to follow the conversation like that is no longer possible. (Which honestly means I'm likely not going to be following the forum at all...)
  3. What do you mean by torchdrives? There's a good in-depth discussion on them here: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php But generally torchdrives are a class of drives, not a specific drive. Some of the proposed realistic drives can fall into that class - depending on exactly how you define that class. (Arguably, the mostly-tested Orion nuclear pulse design would be a torchdrive...) So, which of those drives are you referring to?
  4. I'll admit my initial 30 minutes was a bit flippant (and I even knew it at the time), but I don't think it would take months either. The suggested NTR engines as a replacement are fairly close in most respects: - They use the same propellent. (Hydrogen.) - They operate at the same temperature. - They have similar ISP. - They have similar thrust. Given the theoretical nature of any of these options, ISP and thrust could be left alone - the theoretical ranges overlap, so the values would work in either engine. That easily covers #4 and #5: They are drop-in replacement
  5. On the other hand, it would be the work of about 30 minutes to change the configs over to something else, if they wanted to just reuse the models most likely.
  6. The fact that they have made no statements about engines since the original statement that started this whole discussion isn't really evidence either way at this point: It just means they aren't making statements on what's under development. They could have scrapped it the next day, they could be ignoring this whole discussion, they could be debating it internally - we don't know, and we don't have any evidence one way or the other. They aren't obligated to say *anything* on the topic until the game is actually released - and even then all they have to say is 'these engines are powered by te
  7. I thought they'd changed that in KSP 1.3 or so - when they switched to a more realistic areo model.
  8. I don't think anything specific has been said announcing solar sails - however they *have* mentioned being able to handle thrust while on-rails or even in the background, and that they'll have better tools for managing such burns. Those are the biggest issues with solar sails in KSP1, so whether or not they're officially part of KSP2 they'll be a lot easier to add via mods and work with.
  9. The standard version works just fine with macOS. No need for a separate version.
  10. It's a bit hard to guess what exact specs they are thinking of for a MMH engine - and they appear to have two modes of it, from the images - but yeah, generally the estimate would be similar to a large swath of the liquid/gas core nuclear engines. Which design would be best as a replacement largely depends on what your goals are - if you want size, TWR, or ISP as your primary concern you'd pick slightly different designs. You may want something else as a landing/takeoff engine as well.
  11. Metallic hydrogen is only useful if it's in fact metastable. We would then need to make leaps and bounds to be able to reliably produce it - but we'd have a known goal to work towards. At the moment the best evidence is that it is not metastable. If it's not metastable, then we can't make it metastable - that's a property of some atomic arrangements, and if the arrangement you're working with isn't metastable then you're stuck. That was the point of my 'metastable water' argument: That you could substitute any other material into your statement and make just as much sense. The onl
  12. I'm not as dogmatic as some, but I've generally come around to the against side. Yes, it's a game. And if it provided some needed mechanic for the game that nothing else even semi-realistic would provide: sure, go for it. Making the game work for the players is more important than being strictly realistic. However - it doesn't. There's half a dozen other techs which would provide similar performance and would be more realistic, so any needed mechanic in the game could be covered with a more realistic alternative. So instead of using some tech which is highly dubious that it is e
  13. Let's use a possibly illustrative example here: Instead of talking about metastable metallic hydrogen, let's use metastable water. You take normal water and heat it up without letting it boil and vaporize to several hundred degrees Celsius (at least 500 Kelvin) and then by abusing it's metastability you store it in a normal water bottle, still with all that heat energy. You then connect that water bottle to a rocket nozzle, and pump it out, letting it revert to steam at some high PSI as it exits the nozzle, producing thrust. Depending on how hot you can make it stable at, you could
  14. To add to that: Besides adding engine plates, they've also said they're addressing some of the issues with high part count ships, so using an engine plate with 4 engines (5 parts) instead of the one-part combined engine will still be reasonable performance wise - even if you scale that type of thinking up to rest of the ship as well.
×
×
  • Create New...