Rocket Witch

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

540 Excellent


About Rocket Witch

  • Rank
    Running 1.3.1

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The injector at the top, where the fade to black is typically done on KSP models, is basically a shower head. I don't think every engine has corrugated internal nozzle walls, which may or may not be pipes for cooling, but it is a common feature. There's a really good Featured Image of the inside of an RL10 somewhere on Wikipedia but I can't find it atm.
  2. Designed a 3.75m hydrogen-fuelled lifter to handle much larger payloads than before in my science save. Rated for 17t to LKO and 5t to Mun transfer, it's pretty weak for its size, but I wanted an 'all new' rocket without boosters as a baseline for further development as required. It's mainly about having the structural gauge appropriate for high volume fairings while keeping the craft firmly in the medium weight class. Unfortuntely I don't quite have 3.75m fairing bases yet, so it has a kind of unique profile. Low FOV shots from high altitude tend to look nice. Here the first stage can be seen, already far below.
  3. Not sure of all the implications, but there is some elaboration here:
  4. They do seem weak for their propellant content, making burn times long. Kerbin ascent typically takes a little over 2 minutes (not to circularise, just attain an exoatmospheric apoapsis), and when you have SRBs that burn for a full minute it's a bit weird because that's usually only shortly before the first core stage drops too. At Kerbal scale, SRBs ought to burn for 30-45 seconds. The long burn times appear to be intentional though, as they're balanced for higher Isp than normal, and the FM1's description suggests it is intended to do double duty as both a liftoff engine and vacuum kickmotor. I would still boost their thrusts to 25 and 60 kN, or at least 18 and 40 kN. For reference, some equivalent modded SRBs have at least double the thrust: RLA's Boostertrons I & II have 40 and 80 kN (but approx. 3x dry mass and 30 lower Isp), and the SpaceY 05S has 150kN with much decreased burn time (the idea is you can thrust limit it for longer burns). Of course these are mods and the balance starts to wander off everywhere when you involve mods, but these are at least some data points for what stats other players felt were appropriate.
  5. They didn't even polish those — the service bays use PNG textures.
  6. One of the pitfalls of this approach is that, while the information isn't useful per se, you do become identifiable as "that guy who sends random answers". Your protection is ultimately only as good as the proportion of people also doing the same thing. Ergo, counterintuitively, it's actually better to give very average answers, such as that you use a standard 1920x1080 monitor, have whatever the most common CPU is, etc.
  7. Well, believe it or not, the extant small landing legs are designed for .625m landers. People just keep using them on 1.25m ships to save mass, and if you add some even lighter legs they'll use those on them too, appropriacy be damned.
  8. Expansion is a trait of life. Weeds show up constantly in gardens and farms, and they'd certainly grow on asteroids if they could. We are the weeds of the Solar System.
  9. A "jet fuel", ie. kerosene NTR would perform fine; the only wrinkle coming from KSP in this regard is that such an engine should have an Isp of around 550, not the 800+ of straight hydrogen. On the other hand, hydrogen gives your propellant tanks bad mass ratios and leaks straight through the walls, so the performance difference of the overall vehicle isn't actually as pronounced as the engine numbers would suggest. Adding more types of NTR to KSP could actually teach people a bit about them, since it's a whole category of engines, and having one example of the technology leads to perceptions like "they are/should all be like that".
  10. Yet it's not like KSP2 is going to avoid including engine lighting for this reason (the footage of the floppy rocket shows it being lit around the bottom when the engines turn on). The real reason, I think, is more to do with KSP's long iterative development history, and the fact that mods already do a lot of things they would add in a finished version of the game (clouds are another example) but since modders already made and continue to maintain these things since long before Squad could get around to implementing their own version of such features, well, they may as well not bother now.
  11. I expect by "unique" they actually mean something like 6 different explosion graphics which will be assigned to parts depending on their function or resource contents (ie. fuel tanks have the fireball explosion, structural parts just have bits of metal and paint flying outward). The term unique is often used in marketing to mean only "a set of possibilities" rather than physically generated from data like the geometry and energy involved in an event.
  12. The RT-5 just needs better Isp. I gave it the same as the RT-10 in my game (175-190). This, I feel, is perfectly reasonable since the descriptions and performance of increasingly larger early game solid motors show that more powerful propellants are being developed alongside them. Presumably it's no major stretch to put the better propellant into a RT-5 casing after it is developed. RT-5s are a lot simpler to just plug onto the backs of RAPIERs with decouplers, than radially attaching a bunch of sepratrons in places you might not have space for without shifting the craft's centre of thrust. Overkill, maybe, but when it's this easy and affordable, why not.
  13. The STS tank was originally painted white and used this way on its first two missions, so replicas are only 99% wrong. An oxygen & cyanogen engine with a stoichiometric ratio of 0.975 would closely match KSP rockets' ratios, propellant densities, and in theory Isp, though cyanogen is not the most sane fuel to confine to an engine. Ammonia is a more plausible candidate, at a stoichiometric ratio of 0.85 again with oxygen, but is less dense than Kerbal LF.
  14. The Linux market share has grown a lot in the past few years. IIRC the last Steam hardware survey results I saw showed Linux users to make up about 25-35%.