Reddragon
-
Posts
593 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Reddragon
-
-
[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. -
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.
-
I'll definitely try this. To me it looks like to be the missing "procedural engines" addon for Procedural Parts.
-
I love the idea! I can help in testing later if you need it.
-
Congratulations! Will you post a video about it? I'd definitely watch it!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Even then, I'm still not sure that I would be comfortable riding such a plane as described in the OP. The 'powered by tiny nuclear explosions' bit doesn't really help, mainly because of the baggage the words 'nuclear explosion' have.
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).
-
Anyways, I still don't understand where the propulsion is coming from, is it coming from the plasma?
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.
-
Angry Duck Lord wants to be fed with tantares updates, NOW !
Five nights at KSC.
-
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
-
i was wondering how i could add my own flag to ksp like how you do it.
(i want to add Fijian flag to ksp... (i come from Fiji))
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.
-
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.
-
They're just Kerbal Konstruct objects, not planning for adding these to Kerbin-side or anything like that
Great to hear! I always miss launch towers from the game. I usually build my own towers though.
-
Cottage + Radio Tower
It is inspired by Scottish High land buildings, a little bit.
Radio tower needs a lot more greeble...
http://puu.sh/iG0f9/f87ae6ac11.jpg
http://puu.sh/iG1C5/fbd732c96b.jpg
http://puu.sh/iG1Xq/9c15281be3.jpg
This is all a 256x512 texture, which I am quite proud of!
The launch pad isn't quite right with the "chicken wire" (?), but I am stuck for designs...
Are these for kerbinside?
-
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:
-
Also, the crew would basically drink up their own radiation shielding...
-
"...which they can drink from and stuff and will shield the crew from radiation..."
Yeah, this doesn't sound right at all.
-
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...
-
The only goal of manned spaceflight is manned spaceflight. It is "studying how to live in space so that humans can live in space"
Which doesn't require going beyond LEO I think.
-
We can seriously do better than that with an artificial colony on Venus.
The problem is that it's still completely science fiction.
-
I guess it also depends on your TWR. You'll take less gravity losses with a higher amount, but you already knew that, so... Redundancy!
I guess I never factored in a proper result for drag forces. All I did was an average, and accounted for lift afterwards. Maybe I should try from ALT 0.01 as well.
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.
Yet you seem to be comfortable enough floating on a piece of rock over molten magma. With a large enough platform, what's the difference?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'.
-
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.
-
I see that the Apollo Command and Service modules together were like 29 metric tons. They supported a 3 man crew to the Moon.
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.
LEO version will fly on a modified LM-7 while the Lunar version can fly on either a LM-5 or LM-9.LM-9 it will be probably. LM-5 can't send 20 tonnes to the Moon.
Elon Musk confirms Falcon 9 first stage single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) capable.
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
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.