• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,600 Excellent


About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So its the same basic principle as a can of compressed air as a rocket, or the old fireless locomotives Now decades ago, there were some calculations about what pressure would be required to obtain metallic hydrogen, and what pressure would be required to keep it metallic. The calculations for the pressure required were waaayyyy off. Back when they were making those (incorrect) predictions for required pressure, a paper or two suggested that maybe you could release the pressure after making it metallic, and it would stay like that unless sufficiently disturbed. So you wouldn't need some heavy, incredibly strong container with a horrible mass fraction to store it (which would render it useless) Now just because their model was wrong doesn't mean there is no metastable form of metallic hydrogen. We seem to have made metallic hydrogen, and it wasn't metastable. However, as Ice has many forms as it gets more compressed, maybe metallic hydrogen does too. There is always the possibility that there is some even more compressed form with different properties (note: as work/energy put into it is a matter of force over distance, the forces involved in compressing it even more are enormous, but the distances are miniscule, so don't expect much of an Isp increase). If such a metastable form existed, it would be amazing. Without it, you are relying on mechanical strength to store energy, and you might as well say you have a drive that uses a spring made of an uber-material/scrith/ unobtanium to launch pellets or whatever (mass is mass for momentum purposes) for propulsion. When you've fully extended the spring, you need a service station to recompress it and load more rocks for it to launch... Or something like that. I just want to see a hint that such a metastable form can exist. To me the criteria of "you can't prove that it is impossible" is not what we should use to determine what kind of drives to put in ksp 2
  2. Yea, the standard orion concept has very little remass in fission fragment form. As mentioned, ffre engine designs may have bad thrust levels... The thing with really high isp and good thrust is that you need really really high energy outputs... Like the power output of a detonating nuke. So if we could imagine an ideal system where you have a fission device that has a 100% fission rate, and some way if using it ... a magnetic nozzle like the mini-mag Orion concept? Since it would involve a nuclear detonation, I would put it as a orion drive variant... But yeah, it would be quite different from the standard shaped charge with tungsten, maybe sig amounts of U 238, and... I don't know, a 10% fission rate?
  3. Well, you just kicked up the reactor power (already likely way too high) by a factor of 1,000x On top of that, you have to assume that your reactor can operate for 112 years on its onboard fuel supply. Modern ships require refueling every 20 years or so... That reactor is only 550 MW of thermal power (less once converted to electricity and photons). So as you use up fissile fuel, what do you do, jettison it? That is wasted reaction mass. Its inefficient to send some energy/mass back at 1c, and send most of your energy/mass (only a small fraction of the rest mass of U-233/U-235/P-239 is converted to energy) at essentially 0 m/s. If you want to get max dV from a fission reaction, you don't use light as your remass, you use fission fragments... like with the orion drive Its most efficient to use all the released energy from the fuel to accelerate the fuel to high velocity.
  4. There are about 9.0 × 1016 joules per kilogram according to E/M= c^2–energy_equivalence#Practical_examples So 1 watt is 1 joule/sec. 1 megawatt is 1*10^6 joules/sec, or 1/9 *10^-10 kg/sec. That times c would be 1/3*10^-2... so that checks out. The SNAP-10 reactor mass 290 kg, and output 30kw of electrical power So for less than 4x the mass, the reactor has to produce 33x as much power to meet his stats. Still, thats actually far better than I thought it would be. 333,333 seconds to accelerate 1 m/s :92 hours to go 1 m/s, nearly 4 days for 1 m/s.... around 11,500 days to go 3000 m/s for escape from LEO (32 years)... still, not good.
  5. Have you checked out my mod Rald? I started with something very similar to what you have: But then I went much more fictional: Not only blue skies, but green life around the water's edge: early work, only a slight green tint added, that turned the red to yellow: And, yes, I did go under the oceans:
  6. Breaking ground props work in water, as do aero surfaces with bg rotors. What is missing is more interesting underwater terrain, and underwater surface features ... Which can easily be modded in:
  7. I thought its Isp was fine, but its thrust was way too high, like the "even at 99.9% efficiency, the waste heat would instantly vaporize it" kind of high.
  8. I'm not aware of any tank using active sensors for identifying and engaging enemies. Early NV systems used IR illuminators, but modern NV uses image intensifiers (ie "starlight" scopes). They also use actively cooled thermal imagers, but these are passive sensors detecting heat from targets. The only active sensors on armored vehicles that I know of are for 1) anti-air systems (something like a zsu-23 shilka, 2s6m tunguska, etc)... Which are not properly considered tanks; And 2) active defense systems to intercept incoming ATGMs, but these systems don't detect enemy tanks, infantry, etc, they aren't really used for targeting the weapons of the tank.... Except when an incoming missile is detected, it can intercept it, and then train the turret in the direction of the incoming fire... But that only points the turret in the general direction of the threat, it doesn't provide a targeting solution. The tank still needs to use FLIR or normal visual sighting to engage the target.
  9. I thought that the Epstein drive was explicitly a fusion torch? What the show doesn't say is what kind of fusion reactor it is.... Inertial confinement, magnetic confinement, beam colliders, dense plasma focus... etc. "Fusion Torch" doesn't say what method is used to achieve fusion.
  10. I should have been more specific, and clarified that I was talking about dV from a single stage. I wasn't talking about 15km/s multi stage designs. Of course an eve mission requires more than that. You mentioned a multi stage mission getting a paltry 17km/s... But none of those stages get close to 1/1000th of 5% of c. Sure you can easily get 15km/s from an ion stage, but I would argue that such dV is nit practical to use. You mentioned "4x timewarp, and let it burn boatloads of fuel overnight" and I argue that isnt practical.
  11. I really doubt this. Its the same RPM limit, its the same "thrust" mechanic with apparently the same offset. So their thrust is just a matter of RPM, theire "area" stat, and their pitch relative to the speed. They have smaller area's than the corresponding size prop blades (although a large duct blade is physically smaller than a large prop blade). So I'd think they give inferior performance for the same part count, but can be made a bit more compact.
  12. pictures would help, but I suspect this is simply a frame of reference change, and there's actually no problem
  13. Alien life is fine. My mod world Rald has seas, with green land around the water, and grass tuft ground scatters... Nothing more. So obviously, I am ok with that level of life (although in my headcannon, it shares a common origin with life on kerbin, thanks to ejecta and being nextdoor relatively speaking, so its not completely alien) I could maybe even go so far as to be ok with pre-industrial civilizations... Anything beyond that leads to interaction that would massively change the scope of the game, or break suspension of disbelief if it doesn't