Jump to content

Reddragon

Members
  • Content Count

    593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Reddragon

  1. [quote name='Steel']While I agree it would be cool, there have been other rocket stages that would have been able to go SSTO. The Saturn V second stage comes immediately to mind, and if I recall correctly, I think the Atlas could have done SSTO instead of it's 1.5 stage design if it just used it's sustainer engine (but only just).[/QUOTE] Sure but the point is that they needed extra boosters. Quite many stages could do that if we had efficient second stage engines on them. If F9 can do it without additional booster power, now that's something.
  2. [quote name='Beale']Hello my lovelies [s]my name is Mr. Plinkett[/s].[/QUOTE] Ha! Paaart 31! Nice work on the new (and old) parts as always.
  3. DECQ, Your Saturn V is so far the best I've ever seen for KSP. I love to play with these realistic rockets and it is especially good for RSS.
  4. I'll definitely try this. To me it looks like to be the missing "procedural engines" addon for Procedural Parts.
  5. I love the idea! I can help in testing later if you need it.
  6. Congratulations! Will you post a video about it? I'd definitely watch it!
  7. Isn't it essentially a hybrid engine? I mean as I see it uses both fission and fusion. Nevetheless a clever design but even if they'll test it, I don't think it will be used on real commercial airplanes. At least not for now. Although it could cut the costs for air travel for sure.
  8. I think the radiation you'd be exposed to cause of the high altitude would be more than the radiatiod from the uranium panels. I guess. At least there should be proper shielding on the engines and on the hull of the aircraft.
  9. I know it sounds like something out of Fallout but these "nuclear explosions" wouldn't even be visible. It's only to "heat up" the uranium. On the second thought the video explains it differently than I did and say that the propulsion is generated by the fusing atoms themelves but that neither sounds right nor really efficient (to me).
  10. If I understand it right then only the heating is coming from the nuclear fusion process otherwise it's a normal jet engine but without kerosene. Both the SU and the US tested similar fission powered engines back in the 60's but each plane powered by it needed a small nuclear reactor on board.
  11. I had a crazy idea to make this hardcore sci-fi nuclear spaceplane. The first version was flying like a brick but this one turned out to be the best aircraft I have made for the new aerodynamic system so far though with some "cheating" of course, as the wings are partially hidden to make it look like the one in Fallout. It isn't an SSTO though. The original one: Download and try it if you'd like to! https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lbljdidbfduu2u/Delta%20IX.craft?dl=0
  12. It's pretty easy. I'd suggest using Paint.NET (it's a free software) which isn't at all as complicated as Photoshop but much better than Paint and everything is easier to edit. You need to make your (width)256 X (height)160 picture than save it as a .png file. After this just copy your flag in the Gamedata/Squad/flags folder so it will appear ingame.
  13. I also tried to make some Fallout stuff. My absolute favorite is the Delta IX rocket plane. It is using the Tantares nuclear engine and has a decent DeltaV but you definitely need a booster to launch it for the very low TWR. I haven't tested this new design yet.
  14. Great to hear! I always miss launch towers from the game. I usually build my own towers though.
  15. The SLS first stage will use 4 SSME (RS-25) engines. I don't know about the second stage. Here's the aerodynamic test model:
  16. Also, the crew would basically drink up their own radiation shielding...
  17. "...which they can drink from and stuff and will shield the crew from radiation..." Yeah, this doesn't sound right at all.
  18. On the TED site under the video it sais: "...and why it could be the next big step in solving the global energy crisis". Wow, a global energy crysis? I don't think the situation is dramatic with producing electicity...
  19. The problem is that it's still completely science fiction.
  20. It depends quite much on your TWR I guess. You definitely don't want to spend too much time fighting gravity in the lower atmosphere. I hope you were joking... Yes, I feel very confortable here especilly compared to a flying bunker which can actually fall down unlike this 'platform'.
  21. Even if we could land humans on the surface Venus, it would be the last place I'd go for sure. Also, who would want to live in an airship/airplane flying constantly above hell? I'm pretty sure sometime in the future there are going to be science missions to Venus but I can't imagine crowds moving there for a colony.
  22. Note that Apollo had to carry enough fuel to make a lunar orbit insertion with the lander. As of now, no manned lunar lander is under development. + What AngelLestat said. LM-9 it will be probably. LM-5 can't send 20 tonnes to the Moon.
×
×
  • Create New...