Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


416 Excellent


Profile Information

  • About me
    Void Technician

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Damn, this is a good one. And cool to see a face put to the name with Chris Adderley (AKA Nertea, king of the KSP modders) for the first time. Also, I totally called it that the torch engines would be for smaller brachistochrones in-system like in the Expanse. Any word on if we'll be able to include the flip in the timewarp? Edit: Wait. Does this frame seem to show you guys are modeling relative stellar motion about the galactic core???
  2. Bro what even was that omg
  3. Adding NFTs to KSP 2 would be the worst thing I could possibly imagine. Like, worse than breaking the base game up into expensive DLCs and endless microtransactions bad. Do the people who want that crap in video games even understand why video games are fun? Does it compute for them that there might be reasons to do things other than getting more money? It's disgusting. I don't want to play a speculative slot machine-like stock market, I want to get into orbit.
  4. Go watch the video I embedded. "Point at target" would not be nearly enough.
  5. To everyone saying KSP 2 is a game about "peaceful exploration", if there's going to be multiplayer with separate ships you're basically denying an entire other dimension of gameplay that can exist. If I'm screwing around with my friend in cismunar space and I go "Minmus is MINE muahaha, attempt no landing there!" do you think the game will be more fun or less fun if we both are equipped with the proper tools to challenge or defend that claim? Peaceful game worlds or passive mode ships can always be a single context menu button away. Maybe KSP 2 shouldn't come with striker drones and attack lasers but at the very least, probe cores should be able to continue to follow SAS commands after you tab away from them (and maybe also have a proportional aiming based 'face target' mode too!)
  6. Oh crap, I found something better! There's been a recent kickstarter for a 6DoF joystick by a group called Sublight Dynamics, and it looks far superior for the application of flying. From what I've read, it's easier to avoid having motions bleed into different axes and you get a better range of travel. Last we heard from these guys was a few months ago, so it doesn't seem like they're vaporware or a scam or anything. I would expect this to easily integrate with joystick controls, so long as RCS translation can also be assigned to analog axes.
  7. Hey, every word I've heard says these things aren't great. But they literally do have a monopoly on 6dof controllers like this. Like I said, I'm not trying to shill for them.
  8. To those who are unfamiliar, the 3DConnexion Space Mouse is this unique six degree of freedom mouse that allows three axes of rotation and three of translation through manipulating a joystick-type thing. From what I've read from several years-old forum posts, the compatibility KSP 1 has with the Space Mouse is crusty at best. I think it would be really cool for KSP 2 to have native support for RCS translation and rotation as well as attitude control in flight using these from the get go. I know Space Mice™© are uber proprietary and support would be enshrining this one highly specific company and all that, but c'mon. The Rocinante uses them as her main controls.
  9. Even if it does have a metastable phase to it, it's still a monopropellant. John D. Clark's Ignition! tells us that when you're working on monopropellants not reliant on catalysis to decompose, you're essentially playing with primary high explosives. Metallic Hydrogen could be ridiculously dangerous if the slightest disturbance in the fuel lines resulted in your entire craft going up like a low yield nuclear explosion. Not to mention needing, like the devs said, to have a mixture of hydrogen and a dopant to make the substance reactive to a magnetic field and able to be contained by a magnetic nozzle. How would that even work? I'm not trying to argue the fuels' exclusion from the game, I'm just saying that it's basically the one propulsion mechanism whose physics aren't really understood. Even with nuclear salt water rockets, we're maybe a year of multiphysics simulations performed on big iron at some national lab like Los Alamos before we'd have a working design. Inertial confinement fusion is real technology. Nuclear fission is real technology. Metallic hydrogen? Remains to be seen whether it can exist without the weight of a gas giant bearing down on it or a wall of metal imploded by a nuclear explosion transiently rushing in on it.
  10. They actually do not. That concern was speculation brought up while the details of nuclear aircraft propulsion were still being figured out and the theories surrounding their operation was in their infancy. It's still persisted, but if it matters at all just remember that a nuclear thermal rocket is essentially the same exact principle and those have been fired for long duration (just like nuclear jet engines have) without ill effect. It is of course true that they require high enrichment, but that much is true for any reactor designed to be compact or move around. If you had the ability to travel anywhere at will, by far the easiest way to come across multiple fission weapons' worth of high enrichment Uranium would be by going to the Moon or Mars in the near decades and stealing a Kilopower reactor. Remoteness replaces security up there. Of course planes are easier to steal but this is space frog video game. For your last point, it is true that shielding weighs a massive amount but it's offset by the fact that the plane needs to carry no heavy fuel otherwise. (Firing footage around 9 minutes or so)
  11. Dang, that certainly doesn't sound trivial. Maybe if you took solids out of the game you could avoid all smoke trails!
  12. Yeah. A lot of what I included in the images there is the XNJ140E nuclear turbojet, which was a General Electric project which made it basically all the way to the operational flight testing phase until Kennedy suddenly said "nuclear flight is de-cades away!" in his classic Boston accent before cancelling the nuclear aircraft propulsion program in 1961. Development for the engine soon ended, and to date a plane has never flown under nuclear power. The engine was expected to have an operational life of 1000 hours. The big fat thing I also posted, the HTRE-3 assembly, was successfully run at full power for almost 130 hours straight. There were a number of different designs that either had a turboshaft go straight through the reactor pile or else had multiple separate engine assemblies lead to a single reactor. It seems there never was a purpose-built compressor and turbine assembly and that the hardware used was repurposed from normal combustion turbojets. The website link there is the blog I got most of this information from, by the way. The Convair NX2 was a bomber with an interesting split tail design meant to accommodate three of those engines. Here's another good one: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1048124 Hey look! A nuclear ramjet! No moving parts! Edit: oh and here's a last one, another Russian design that smartly avoids sending a turboshaft directly through the reactor pile (neutron embrittlement anyone?) but does it by sending the intake air and exhaust off to the side all funky-like.
  • Create New...