Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

252 Excellent


  • Rank
    Dark Lord of Dres

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sitting in the Lucasian Chair
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

864 profile views
  1. I guess it's partly because the frames which would benefit from this are nearing the end of their lives, and we really need to replace them, or that other frames durable enough to last were designed specifically around one engine's structural loads. But I don't think it's fallen out of favor; the B-52 is scheduled to get a reengine soon, to serve till 2050ish, and there was a proposal to reengine the F-35. IDK.
  2. "We do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other." And good luck using it. Exactly this. This confused me when I first read about nuclear engines, until I realized that all a reaction engine is is a way to spit hot gas in one direction.
  3. Actually, there are four. Your two, plus 3) he doesn't care whether some guy on the internet thinks the "misconception" needs to be remedied, admitted, or otherwise acknowledged, or 4) he cares more about having a playable game than having a perfectly scientifically accurate game, and included this because it was fairly plausible. (There are probably even more we both missed.) 3 is perfectly acceptable and well within human rights. 4 is a good sign that the devs are concerned with balance and engaging gameplay. (And it certainly isn't an excuse to include things like reactionless dri
  4. Wow. And nothing says he has to "admit" anything to us. [snip]
  5. I like that definition, too. It just needs to distinguish between major planets, sevenperforces' "irregular planets" and moons. Then I'm happy.
  6. Perhaps I'm not following you, but what I think you're proposing can be achieved just as easily with a small burst from the thrusters many minutes, or even hours, before collision. Unless you just want to wait until the last minute to dodge, which is silly. When it's that close, you can shoot it. (And if you can't, your warship + drone swarm should be resilient enough to handle it.) Depends on what you're trying to do. My idea was for a terminal phase high-g vector change, to make it difficult to hit. The high ∆v part would have been the first stage. All that said, if you're worki
  7. Maneuverability is basically unimportant. It's great if you're engaging a target more than a few light-minutes away, but the "maneuverability" you would need in order to dodge there would be your normal RCS thrusters. No optimization required. More crucial is the issue of expanding your effective combat radius. You need to spread assets out over a large area volume, to control it. To do this, you should use attritable drone swarms, either functioning as glorified kamikaze drones or carrying missiles, railguns, etc. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen is equipping a missile w
  8. Here's the big question. Since the ships will not be getting close at all, and since sensor range is infinite, compared to a star system, space war will look like a missile and railgun slugfest. Since humans are bags of wet meat, and can't endure high g's, autonomous drones will be popular. Ships will not need tactical maneuverability, but they may possess defensive maneuverability. (i.e. Closing for an attack vs. dodging) So space warfare might look like swarms of low ∆v budget drones screening a fleet, acting as sensor platforms, and shooting. You'll need a mothership for the drones, an
  9. Gosh, sounds like our old telephones we had to rent. That was a long time ago...
  10. I think it's pure fantasy, especially for a manned version. Just think about all the work that goes into making airliners run. And airliners don't do 6 g belly flops, don't get cooked by reentry, and don't use highly refined rocket engines which experience some of the most difficult environments for materials to survive in. And what kind of payload would we launch three times a day, or more? Starlink would be finished in the blink of an eye at that rate.
  11. Me too, to be sure! They can fill the same performance regime, but I bet they'll be bulkier, and, of course, they'll need shielding. I think... Maybe mmH will be the fuel of choice for surface-to-orbit, and nuclear will be better for orbit-to-orbit? And is mmH going to be transferable through regular docking ports, or even at all? If it weren't, it would nerf it significantly. Maybe @Nate Simpson can say?
  12. You aren't being forced to post here, right? If you are, we can help. Its called "Suspension of Disbelief", and is a necessary component for all fiction. And even if KSP was perfectly, exactly scientifically accurate (it isn't and can't be) then it would still be fiction. Why? The rockets you are "building" don't exist. They're fiction. As for lore, just say that the Kerbal universe is just slightly different from our own, and mmH works there.
  13. We don't even have KSP2 yet, and you want to talk about "KSP3"? And seriously, what could they do in a "KSP3" that they aren't doing in KSP2?
  14. I agree. Organic is usually worse for the environment, anyways. And less healthy; not as many nutrients.
  • Create New...