Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


75 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. (This is basic rocket science groundwork. If you are already familiar with the maths, feel free to skip below) The rocket equation tells us that the sacred number, Delta-V (dV) can be found with the following. dV = Isp * g * ln(mfull/mempty) Given KSP's non-infinite selection of parts, there are absolute maximum values that can be had for each of the variables- Isp and the mass ratio (mfull/mempty): The maximum Isp attainable with chemical engines are 350 s (Poodle), or 380 s with Making History (Wolfhound), 800s with the NERV, and 4200s with the Dawn. But I think the stock parts do give a decent range of Isp's to go along with tech progression. The same cannot be said for the mass ratio. Liquid fuel (and LOX) tanks have a maximum mass ratio of 9, which gives us an absolute max delta-v of 7536, 8182 and 17226 m/s with the Poodle, Wolfhound, and NERV respectively, as the number of fuel tanks approach infinity. With xenon, the maximum is attained with the X150 Xenon Container (the 0.625 diameter one), giving us a max delta-v of 78081 m/s. (Now for the actual suggestion) These delta-v caps are enough to get you most places, especially with advanced orbital mechanics techniques, and are basically removed with ISRU. However, the mass ratio values don't really fit in with the progression - they don't get better with technology or with the square-cube law, and the normal cylindrical form factor that you get from the start has better mass ratios than the fancy aircraft parts (which might be justified since those need more dry mass to do aircraft things). And these hard caps do encourage players to use aforementioned workarounds such as ISRU, gravity assists, etc. But I still think it would be beneficial to progression to reward research into more advanced fuel tanks by giving greater mass ratios to larger radius tanks, and to perhaps add a special supermaterial 1.25 m/0.625m tank to bring the smaller radiuses in line with the larger ones.
  2. First of all, please use imgur, gyazo, or another image hosting website that isn't as littered with ads and doesn't make people go through the inconvenience of having to download files onto the user's hard drive. Or, just embed images directly onto the post. And does it actually look so bad in-game?
  3. I watched a ton of Scott Manley and other youtubers before actually getting my hands on the game demo, so I knew what I was doing, and I would like to think my first flight actually got into orbit. It was a bog standard 3 stage rocket, with Swivels on the lower stages, the 2nd stage being a bit smaller than the first, and a Terrier, a lone fuel tank, and the pod on the orbiter. Of course, I didn't really understand the science behind the whole thing, so my attempts to go to the Moon or something with 3 of the fuel tank + terrier combo with no modifications to the lower stages didn't end well.
  4. Kopernicus bleeding edge is a thing for 1.10.1
  5. I was thinking more along the lines of the XB and YB-35, and the YB-49: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35
  6. EDIT: oh wow totally missed the Interstellar Extended entry on kerbalism mod compat page. Late response because I've been busy and wanted to poke around in Kerbalism and its compatibility with Nertea mods before I reply. However, most of what I write will apply to KSP-I (@FreeThinker) since that is what I am most familiar with. I probably should have posted this in the OP. Anyways: Well, I'm wanting a bit more realism-focused design constraints. I've never really been comfortable with how you could get away with arbitrary placement of high-energy parts (reactors, engines) as long as basic thermal, kinematic, and aerodynamic constraints are met, and you have the components need to start up your say, fusion reactor (e.g. with a starter fission reactor). This means you have fusion reactors as compact as the ones that Lockheed Martin/Skunk Works advertised that they were making a few years back, right next to your crew compartments, powering your hypersonic SSTOs that could be launched off a carrier. Specific changes that I would want are: Scaling up fusion reactors and beyond to be in line with realistic (Kerbal) scaling Making them pose radiation hazards beyond making EVA kerbals go poof when near certain KSPI drives, probably through Kerbalism Directional radiation, so shadow shields are a thing, and the player has to make decisions on where and how the shielding is applied (this might be getting into raytracing territory) Different types of radiation (Beta, neutron, gamma, etc) The first two, I can do the dirty work myself through roleplaying and Kerbalism configs, respectively (and I should actually do it instead of complaining). The last two are most likely something to discuss with the Kerbalism dev and not here. I have only played around with the default configs but I'm assuming they aren't modelled in Realism Overhaul configs either.
  7. I've played around with Deep Space Exploration Vessels and KSP Interstellar, along with several other mods that add futuristic super engines (e.g. Mk2/Mk3 Expansion) but both of them are rather too arcady to me, with minimal design constraints that these high-energy reactors pose other than heat. Far Future Technologies seem to be having some major restructuring away from what I am looking for. Is there a more realism-focused alternative to these mods, or perhaps something like Kerbalism compatibility?
  8. I don't really have any ideas on how it plays into the wider culture but perhaps there is a rite of adulthood that earns you the "Kerman" title. Or more darkly, perhaps the KSC could be in a conservative caste-based society, where only the Kerman caste get to be kerbalnauts. Maybe the kerbals had a history of such a society, but now everyone gets to be a "Kerman" thanks to civil rights. I would even go as far as to say that if different countries or equivalents exist, other countries might not even have the Kerman title.
  9. The last name "Kerman" isn't an actual last name, but merely a title.
  10. Have you considered a more traditional suborbital hopper with ISRU?
  11. What do you guys think about the two mod management software for KSP; the Twitch desktop app and CKAN? I've never tried the Twitch app until today (though I'm kinda burnt out on KSP and is in the "modded minecraft" phase of my "favorite games" cycle). CKAN has served me quite well until something breaks and I have to fiddle with the files myself which breaks the thing that keeps track of mods installed forcing me to manually delete and reinstall the 50 or so of them I have installed...
  12. My calculations show (G(2.6457580 * 10^19 kilograms)(40400 seconds)^2 / (4π^2))^(1/3) = 417940.868 meters. I also learned that for this application, merely putting it in the Google search bar is more accurate since Wolfram appears to round it to significant figures. This is confirmed using the Wiki's figure for a synchronous orbit gives me 60000 + 357940 = 417940 meters for the semi-major axis. Using the first figure to calculate the mass of Minmus of sanity-checking, I get ((417940.868 meters)^3 * 4 pi^2 )/((40400 seconds)^2 * G) = 2.64575801 × 10^19 kilograms, consistent with the Wiki. Calculating using the precision figures gives me orbital parameters that have no noticeable drift. Parameters: Eccentricity: 0.8444756065 Linear eccentricity: 352940 meters Semi-major axis: 417940.868 meters Periapsis: 65000 meters (5000 meters from "sea level") Apoapsis: 770881.736 meters
  13. My initial maths were done using the 40400 second figure, which had somewhat less of a drift, but were still significant. The wiki lists the 40400 seconds as the sidereal day while the in-game info tab lists 40380.
  • Create New...