• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

1 Follower

About OOM

  • Rank
    Space technician

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I use this mod purely as a mod for cosmic radiation. It looks great but adds a bunch of head and back pain. In short, this mod ... makes all effectively shielded manned capsules unplayable with their standard launch vehicles, they have to be enlarged using TweakScale. So on the example of 7K-L1 "Probe" from the Tantares mod. Soyuz 7K-L1 Weight 10528 kg of them: 1. Dry weight of the structure: ~ 3380 kg 2. Radiation shield: ~ 4150 kg 3. Fuel: ~ 2820 kg 4. Supplies of food, water, oxygen: ~ 110 kg The ship itself weighs only 3.8 tons (with fuel and standard protection). In low lunar orbit, the radiation dose for the crew is 6.4k bananas per day. But with shielding up to 11 bananas a day (an absolutely safe dose), the 7K-L1 rises to 10.5 tons. As you can see, for protection against radiation, protection with a mass was required even more than the 7K-L1 itself weighed in the stock state. Based on this, I needed an artificially enlarged "Proton" with a mass of ~ 300 tons. Without the Kerbal Heath mod and shielding, the standard Proton with a mass of 150 tons would be enough for me. *** For my personal shielding, I use an initial heat shield which, depending on the size, can give different RadShield HP. And yes, because of this, the number of parts grows by + 15-20 pieces, especially if the case is small and it is impossible to integrate a large shield with a large amount of RadShield HP into it. Despite all this, Kerbal Health is the best mod for this kind of thing. ps. I play at a "hard level" where the shielding efficiency is half that of "normal".
  2. no AVP is the best graphics mod, although it requires a powerful computer. Spectra is MUCH worse than AVP in graphics but better in performance. I have personally tested this myself. In addition, AVP is compatible with OPM and various system scales (such as x2.5) I can even show with a screenshot what my game looks like with AVP. It's even better than the future KSP 2 (I'm serious)
  3. Energia-Buran. The rocket is very beautiful but very difficult to operate manually. However, the March Jeb autopilot has no control problems. (it is also nice to know that Buran had an automatic flight system)
  4. Not yet compatible. But Kopernicus 1.9.1 is already officially released in CKAN It even seems to me that the new Kopernicus is much better than the old 1.8.1 from the old developer.
  5. Future KSP 2 is crying aside Your star systems and planets are the best ever created by others. They are beautiful, diverse, but at the same time quite realistic exoplanets.
  6. 1. Tech that is theoretically possible, but we don't have a good idea how to solve the engineering challenges - examples: pure fusion rockets/antimatter rockets 2. Tech that is theoretically possible, and we have a good idea how to solve the engineering challenges - examples: Orion drives, liquid/gas core NTRs 3. Maybe... Warp drives using negative mass
  7. I think that after every interorbital flight, the spacecraft should be checked and repaired by robots that are part of the local orbital station. In the end, just replacing the engine if it has reached its end of life. The worst thing is when the engine breaks down during flight. But I don't want to think about it.
  8. Just play with the x2.5 scale, which is considered the best in terms of optimal difficulty / realism The planets are now the size of real moons and no longer look so cartoonist. The DeltaV demand is approaching the limit of many chemical liquid fuel rocket engines, which allows for a better understanding of why rockets are built in 2-3 stages, and SSTO is a more complex option.
  9. Intergalactic flight even with the Warp Engine looks tough, not to mention flying at a speed of light of 99%. Even in Star Wars, the intergalactic flight was fantastic)))
  10. I have zero expectations both in the visual part and in the realism of the new mechanics. But I really hope for modifications. They will make garbage worth a masterpiece as it was with the original KSP. Take a screenshot of my post. But the graphics in KSP 2 will be at the "spectra" level for the original KSP. This is of course far from a beautiful AVP.
  11. Plasma rocket engines can be any, even a chemical rocket engine that essentially emits plasma during combustion. NERVA nuclear engine also emits hydrogen plasma. A magnetic nozzle working together, fusion reactor will also use D-T plasma.
  12. I don’t even know in which direction to move. Almost all engines / reactors have their pros and cons. But, probably, I would recommend using the very first MIF fusion engine, in which lithium balls are used as “fuel”. It has good thrust, 5000 specific impulse, low power consumption and a small amount of heat. I think a ship with a MIF fusion engine would be ideal for faster interplanetary flights with crews of up to 6 Kerbals.
  13. For reference. To obtain 8000 m/s using a traveling-wave nuclear engine (160 kg mass) per 1 ton of dry weight, 2.7 tons of liquid hydrogen are needed. As you can see, the tank with liquid hydrogen is very large against the background of the rest of the details of the spacecraft.
  14. If you had nuclear engines like NERVA \ LANTR \ Thermal Nozzle + Reactor then nothing surprising. You just took not enough liquid hydrogen, it needs a lot, unlike stock "liquid fuel". Therefore, if you need less than 4000 m/s Delta-v then the use of nuclear engines does not make sense. Therefore, you are most likely right, to unlock the potential of nuclear engines is possible only on large and medium-sized ships. The exception is a traveling wave reactor a nuclear engine. This tiny nuclear engine weighs very little and produces 4 kN of thrust. This is great for small space probes and does not require a lot of liquid hydrogen to achieve effective Delta-V