• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

837 Excellent

About Dragon01

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's where you start propelling your ship with nuclear and ion engines, and eventually things like nuclear explosions, flow-stabilized fusion and antimatter. Before that, you just have to make big rockets. Overpowered parts are never good. A good selection of balanced parts is what KSP needs.
  2. Actually, RSS scaled down to Kerbal Scale would be about as bland and have all the problems of stock KSP solar system. You want do scale it down 64%, and then stock parts becomes almost balanced, without any tuning required. Of course, you can scale up the Kerbal system to an approximately the same scale, and get similar results. If you do that, pretty it up and add some planets, then you'll get JNSQ, which, while a big jump from stock, plays surprisingly closely to how RSS does, but without the hassle of having to rebalance parts. The biggest difference between JNSQ and RSS, beside absence of RO, is that in JNSQ, you get a perfectly equatorial launch site, the the moon doesn't have a funny inclination. Stock parts are very OP for stock solar system, which was originally designed with 1m parts in mind. Kerbals were much smaller at first, and a three-Kerbal Apollo-style capsule was 1m, which translates to 25% scale, much closer to 9% of the stock solar system than what we have now (still not balanced, but there wasn't any balance at all back then). Squad scaled everything up massively when they implemented EVA (Unity wasn't very good at handling Kerbals that tiny), except for the planets, which they didn't touch. It wasn't very well planned out, but then, there wasn't a whole lot of planning going on in those days.
  3. Actually, given that the real arm would shred itself if it was even capable of producing torques this one can in KSP (and it isn't), I'd say it is not a big problem. All other robotic arm mods had the same problems, save for those that were a single part, which wobbled themselves off at the joint instead. That's real physics, and that's why IRL they take things slowly with the arm. Can limits on rates of traverse be customized? I think tuning that would help. I've played around with the arm, and found it a bit tricky, but fun to use. Also, when bringing a part around for docking, it's a good idea to reduce the docking port force. Extendable ring on the docking port would likely help, as well, but I haven't tried it with ports that have this feature, yet. I agree about the control method, though. Manually fiddling with each motor is annoying. The real thing does have something like IK, although it may also be possible to command specific angles on each joint, for preplanned arm operations.
  4. Another COVID-19 casualty... although it seems that like most of them, it had some pre-existing conditions, so to speak.
  5. No, my point was about the "I've had no idea" bit. If everyone actually tried truly realistic gameplay before complaining, there'd be less complaints. RSS is harder than stock, but not for the reason people think. And it very much is fun, as long as you're willing to accept that your first flight won't be manned and probably won't be orbital, either (suborbital flights in general are underappreciated in KSP).
  6. You know you're making a compelling argument for RSS here?
  7. RSS belongs in mods category, or perhaps a separate expansion pack (not DLC, a proper, old-fashioned expansion). It's just too different from stock. What KSP2 should provide in stock is Kopernicus. That is, planet modding should be straightforward and not require mods built atop more mods.
  8. That's not true. Planets and moons in real life can be unique and varied without being colored like candy.
  9. It should be noted that you don't need much to control roll of a launch vehicle. It's less for rolling it, and more for stopping it from rolling around on its own. KSP doesn't really model this, but IRL, random external torques are very much a concern. Roll authority on a rocket doesn't have to be very large.
  10. Not to mention during 50s and 60s, only proto-hippies cared much about environment, and you didn't have many of them in the space program. That, and nuclear technology was in its infancy, and so nuke propulsion, while also considered (and indeed, the craziest designs come from this period) wasn't as reliable as a conventional engine running on an exotic fuel. That was also a time when costs mattered less if it meant gaining the advantage over the other side (this kind of thinking eventually sank the USSR, in part due to costs of the Buran project).
  11. I think it just goes to show how far does paying attention to basic hygiene really matter. There should also be some reduction in accidents, murders, suicides, and other deaths that are only preventable if there's someone else on hand. For instance, my friend's father had a stroke recently, and he only survived thanks to her brother being home. I imagine survival rate for this sort of thing is going to go up across the board, as long as hospitals aren't overwhelmed. People also don't go out and don't do dangerous things, either as part of the job, part of a hobby, or because they're violent or drunk. Instead, they spend time at home, and in many cases there's another person with them, and for people living in cities, neighbors next door as well. All this adds up to a much safer way to live. I should note, these problems are all well known, acknowledged, but the obvious solution (working from home) was never implemented at such a scale. I'm not sure how stress factors in all this in the US, but from what I've gathered, people are pretty calm about this (around here, at least), and are making good use of their free time, or from working from home. Stressful commutes and toxic work environment are significant contributors to mortality. That said, quarantine and a pandemic going around can be stressful, too, so I'm not sure how much we're actually gaining here.
  12. I remember this one. Good point in the first post, then the rest was fawning over theoretical performance. Fluorine never went anywhere for a reason. Safety is not the only reason why fluorine is pricey, BTW. The main reason is also precisely why it makes such a great rocket fuel on paper: it's incredibly reactive. Due to this, once it binds, it binds very tightly, and this is why most non-halogen fluorine derivatives are safe and usually quite inert. To get it out of minerals that contain it, one must input a lot of energy, and the conditions for the reaction to occur are really severe. It's also not all that common, as far as elements go. All this means you have a process that uses relatively expensive feedstock, lots of electricity, expensive equipment, and has stringent safety regulations to deal with. Any industrial plant making the thing, even as a byproduct (though I can't think of a process that'd have pure F2 and not another fluorinated compound as a byproduct), will have very high operating costs. Fun fact: oxygen does not fall into the same problem because literal plants are constantly supplying the atmosphere with it, using a solar-powered process the efficiency of which would give any industrial manager fits. Hydrogen actually does have the same issues, but it happens to be an ubiquitous byproduct of natural gas refining. It's easier to get off a molecule than fluorine, but if we had to, say, electrolyze it out of water, we likely wouldn't have had LH2-powered rockets at all. It's only because we use fossil fuels so much that hydrogen is affordable (though LH2 still isn't exactly cheap, because the liquifying process is another electricity hog).
  13. Fluorine is ridiculously expensive, aluminium is not. Making a bigger rocket is vastly cheaper than any exotic fuel designs. People tend to act like Isp is everything, and that smaller rocket=better. This is wrong. Cost is everything. Chemical rocketry does has not yet reached the point where diminishing returns make increasing the size of a rocket pointless. Even a nuclear rocket with conventional propellant (hydrogen or methane) would be cheaper than a fluorine-based stage, and the main problem with those is cost, too (more so than politics). Not to mention an NTR is less dangerous and polluting of the two, and it has a higher Isp with most sensible propellants.
  14. The heat exchanger is actually for tank pressurization. There's a small LOX pipe running from off the main oxidizer duct, through the exchanger, and the back into the LOX tank. The LH2 tank is pressurized by the regenerative cooling system: