TBenz

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

196 Excellent

1 Follower

About TBenz

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. TBenz

    ermmmmmm what ?

    It's about as rational of a response as this thread (or the rotor bashing thing) is.
  2. "Space Program" often refers to a government agency, such as NASA, or Roscosmos. I haven't seen it formally defined one way or another, but an argument could be made that "Space Program" is a distinctly governmental affair, and private space companies are just private space companies. Either way, it's clear that these Kerbals were launched by private companies, seeing as how you get the missions to recover them from the exact same private companies. And whether or not you might refer to these private companies as "space programs", they don't seem like the type of entities that would be racing you to the Mun at great expense for nothing more than bragging rights.
  3. They have said several times that they plan/hope to continue support and development for KSP 2 much the same as what KSP 1 received. And that is really starting to become the norm. "Games as a service" (providing regular updates either as purchasable DLC, or freely in the hopes of driving other micro transactions) is becoming the thing to do these days. I'm hoping that KSP 2 isn't monetized as heavily as some of these other games (reasonably priced expansions with adequate content is perfectly fine). But unless something bad happens and it just tanks at or shortly after launch, I think it's safe to assume that KSP 2 will receive regular free updates and paid expansions.
  4. According to Nate Simpson, they haven't.
  5. Engines aren't defined solely by their vacuum ISP. We need to consider atmospheric performance, thrust weight ratios, fuel availability, tank requirements. While I'm no expert on speculative rocket engines, I'd imagine that NTRs hold a different niche than a metallic hydrogen rocket, and the two aren't simply interchangeable. Also, I'd be very surprised if there weren't a variety of NTRs already planned for KSP 2.
  6. Orbital Dry Dock. ODD [I tried posting this twice before on mobile and nothing appeared to have happened. So, if there end up being three copies of this post, that's why.]
  7. That's a fantastic enough acronym that I can almost forgive it for not being exactly 3 letters long.
  8. Orbital Dry Dock. ODD. There, Star Theory, now make it happen.
  9. I'd definitely rank "you only experience the gravitational pull of one celestial body at a time" higher on the suspension of disbelief list. Apparently gravity in the Kerbal universe is an inherently 2-body problem.
  10. A major departure from the completely non-magical "liquid fuel" we had before that worked efficiently and universally across practically all engines, from bipropellant rockets, to air breathing jet engines, to a nuclear thermal rocket.
  11. By hacking it together in a way the community won't really be happy with, is my bet. I'd love to see n-body mechanics. But I don't believe Star Theory is going to risk straying too far away from KSP 1's core physics. I would not assume that the inclusion of a binary system means anything beyond Star Theory believing they can adapt the SOI system for binaries. Which ultimately would mean a "binary" system that doesn't really act much anything like a real binary system would, gravity wise. If we get something better than that, I'll be ecstatic, but if we don't then I won't have any expectations crushed. Maybe I've bee following Star Citizen for too long, but I tend towards the lowest possible expectations.
  12. Let's take a peek at the config files, shall we? Note that the Mk25 has twice the amount of Semi Deployed Drag and 1.7 times the amount of Fully Deployed Drag, while also heating up slower (machHeatMultBase is lower and chuteThermalMassPerArea is higher) and can withstand a higher maximum heat. So, despite what the radius values may lead you to believe, the Mk25 does actually function as a more powerful parachute, and in addition, can handle hotter (faster) speeds.
  13. What is the point of posting to the forums if you are just going to ignore everyone? To Reiterate: What we have seen is pre-alpha footage, and it's unlikely that any optimizations have taken place yet. The frame rate we see now is not representative of what they can achieve for the final release.
  14. Sounds like slippery slope fallacy to me. They are willing to take on some speculative technology that might be impossible, but that doesn't mean they are willing to have technology that we currently know is impossible, or have no reason to believe that it might be possible.
  15. The video wasn't particularly high quality, but I'm pretty sure I saw some decoupler-looking trusses holding those engines onto the craft.