Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DStaal

  1. On 9/14/2021 at 8:48 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

    New release,

    • Added AssemblyVersion.tt
    • Added InstallChecker
    • Changed default log level for  release to ERROR
    • Added AsemblyFileVersion

    Regarding the logging, if you already had SAVE installed, you will need to manually change the saved log level in the configuration.  At the MainMenu, follow these steps:

    1. Click the Configure button on the SAVE window
    2. On the first line below the word Configuration, click the log level you want.  Suggested (and default for new installs) is ERROR
    3. Click Save Config


    This release does not appear to actually have a release:

    (There is source code downloads, but no compiled release.)

  2. On 5/8/2021 at 1:35 PM, HebaruSan said:
    • Have you ever clicked "follow" with the intention to wait for this specific notification?
    • Do you find this notification useful?
    • Do you find this notification annoying?

    No, yes, not really.

    It's mostly useful in the sense of 'are the mod authors still paying attention to their mods' sense - it's sometimes nice to know that the mod author has actually tested it, and not just not looked at the mod under the current version of KSP.

  3. 20 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said:

    Reading the forum on email is 1000 times worse for me. The text never lines up with the email width and I have to scroll slightly, obscuring the poster and other info. I'm fairly sure this is a Gmail problem not a forums problem.

    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.

  4. 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...)

  5. 15 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    I agree that it is extremely likely that mmH does not exist. But it is also highly unlikely that torchdrives can exist. One of these is being included; why is it not being attacked?

    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?

  6. 5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

    Presuming that NSRW's will not be already part of the game (in that case you don't even have a suitable replacement), that requires:

    1. Redoing all the engines assets
    2. Redoing all the tech tree related parts
    3. Removing all the already made assets from the game
    4. Researching an setting all the behavior of the new engines
    5. Re-balancing the gameplay around the newly added engines.
    6. Reworking ant radiation mechanics to account for the lack of non-nuclear options

    Exactly the "months of work" that I was talking about.

    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 replacements.  Art assets will depend a bit on how they're set up, but at the very least nozzle design is limited by operational environment, propellent composition, and operating temperature and pressure.  Both NTR and MMH use hydrogen as a propellent and exhaust at the same temperature/pressure ratios (as they'd have to to get the same ISP and TWR), so nozzle design can be carried over.  NTRs would have a larger reaction chamber however, so there might need to be some art assets for that.  (However the same composition/temperature/pressure mix governs how plumes appear, so you could use the same plumes - though if you wanted to tweak them to include a bit of Uranium spectra that wouldn't hurt.)

    I can't speak to the tech tree - that could be a non-issue, or it could be a major issue, depending on how they have it laid out.  Note that related parts would all be similar as well - with the exception of dedicated MMH storage, which would be dropped.  I suspect they already have Hydrogen storage, so you just continue to use those tanks.  (Uranium storage would be a change, but other engines they've shown also use Uranium so again I suspect they needed the storage options for other things anyway.)

    Radiation mechanics could be a large balance change in end-game.  However, they've shown early and mid-game engines which do have radiation outputs and shadow shields, so you could have the player keep using them.  The real major difference there would be for takeoff/landing in inhabited areas - and the derated MMH-with-water solution they've shown for that would have similar ISP/thrust to high-end *chemical* engines, and you already need a two-fuel tank system there as well: One of which is Hydrogen in both cases so you're at least very close there as well.  (You could even postulate a dual-mode NTR/Chemical design that can be switched over depending on the situation. That would be an extreme engineering challenge - but it's still an *engineering* challenge.)

  7. 17 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

    They obviously haven't, because otherwise they would've pulled the engines from the game and issued a statement. But not a single statement has been made.

    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 technology X', not why they chose technology X - and if X isn't MMH, why they changed their minds or when.  There's no reason to infer anything based on what they haven't said at this point.

  8. 12 hours ago, Popestar said:

    Once again, apologies if this has already been asked.

    Are solar sails a possible propulsion system to be revealed in KSP2?  You see them in science fiction all the time, and the technology was actually put into practice in 2010 on IKAROS.


    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. 30 minutes ago, OHara said:

    My only idea is to imagine some not-yet known isotope (thus obviously fantasy) of hydrogen that decays to 1H in some controllable way, maybe under irradiation, because nuclear decay is where you usually find that high energy density.   Probably there is a reasonable alternative at the Atomic Rockets page but it is large and I am unfamiliar.

    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.

  10. 2 minutes ago, Lewie said:

    And you take this into a whole different direction...

    Not once did I say that humanity will be able to harness metallic hydrogen. Maybe, and this is a really big maybe, in a few hundred years as our technology expands, and we male leaps and bounds, we’ll be able to use mh. Is it feasible right now? Of course not. In 200 years? Maybe. 

    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 only reason we're discussing this is that one flawed theory from the 70's indicated that MH *might* be metastable.  While we have very flimsy evidence against metastable MH, we have stronger evidence against that theory, and overall the evidence is fairly convincing that this isn't going to work - ever.

    Metallic Hydrogen is a thing that exists in this universe.  Metastable Metallic Hydrogen is 95+% sure not a thing that can exist in this universe.  If it's not a thing, no amount of technical advances will let us use it, because it doesn't exist.

  11. 14 minutes ago, Lewie said:

    Like I said, it’s a game. And it’s not even a ‘science based game’. (Jool’s moons are impossible, we all know that). A game. Ksp is a much more realistic then other space games out there, so what if there are a couple engines that are speculative? A game. A GAME. It doesn’t hurt you. Don’t worry...the mean metallic hydrogen won’t bully you. 

    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 even possible (I do admit @Master39's point that evidence is fairly slim either way at this point), why not use one where we know the physics works even if we can't build one yet?

  12. 13 hours ago, Lewie said:

    One last note-sure, metallic hydrogen isn’t feasible right now. But...as humanity advances, and we make technological leaps and bounds, maybe we will be able to harness it someday. Think about this-only a hundred odd years ago, people though flight was a madman’s dream. Nowadays, it’s so common we don’t even think twice. And when you think about how much we have advanced even in just the last 30 years...I think it’s safe to say that in 200 years or so, we’ll be able to use metallic hydrogen. Just a thought, Mr. Fox.

    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 get great thrust and ISP - similar to say a nuclear salt-water engine, if you could keep it metastable at high enough temperatures. Better in fact, as you wouldn't be losing some Uranium as propellant.  You'd have to work on keeping the heat in the tanks, but vacuum is a great insulator and I'm sure you could work out something - especially since the normal problem is getting *rid* of heat.  Since it's metastable you don't have to worry about keeping the tanks all that strong, so the only weight penalty would be insulation.

    Does this sound useful?  Does it sound reasonable to put in a game?  Could you say 'as humanity advances, this may one day be possible'?  Or does it sound ridiculous and something you wouldn't want in a science-based game?  Here's the thing however: there is actually *more* evidence that this would be possible than metastable metallic hydrogen - after all, you can keep water metastable a couple of degrees above boiling.

  13. 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.

  14. 28 minutes ago, Grogs said:

    On the surface on Minmus (using ALT-F12 to test) it seems to work pretty well though. The rover wheels were well clear of the landing legs, and there was no apparent instability in the connection. I'm also going to switch the Rhino engine for vectors so I can have flatter/wider (and more stable) landing legs on the fuel tanker. I will lose a bit of dV going that route, but it should still leave plenty of fuel for getting the whole package to Duna and then refueling on Ike.


    For this type of refueling, you might want to take a look at the KAS mod.  Then you'd be able to just run a hose over.

  15. 12 hours ago, DoubleUU said:

    I'm suddenly having a really odd problem.  KER in VAB is showing me a vastly different Delta V by stage than what I get from KER when I hit launch.  It's off by hundreds of m/s.  I have craft which I successfully launched which had and still shows ~3100 delta V for stage 1 & 2 in the VAB, but when I launch, they only have ~2700 delta V in the same stages (i.e. I can't make it to orbit with a craft that I currently have in orbit from a launch before this issue cropped up).

    I'm thinking I may have a corrupt save file or something.  Has anyone else ever experienced this?  I've got a ton of hours into this save I would really dislike starting over.

    What are your settings for the Delta V window?  (Atmospheric/vacuum, what planet, etc.)

  • Create New...