Jump to content

KerikBalm

Members
  • Content Count

    5,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,093 Excellent

7 Followers

About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Under this system, the center of mass of your ship dors not move, but you may displace part of your ship - like the nose going forward as the plate goes back. But then the nose goes back as you retract the plate. All cycling this does is to shake the ship, and never move it anywhere. Center of mass never moves, the ship just shakes around it.
  2. This looks like a great update, now to wait for kopernicus to update, and to have personal time to play (I have a 6 mo son now... and my god does that change things)
  3. I was wondering if any of the gas giants would be suitable, knowing the atmosphere gets hot as you go deeper... nope: Also note that Venus is quite hot at 1 Bar. At the top of Mt Everest, air pressure is 0.3 Bar, and that is quite survivable... sure going up there without O2 will lead to low level brain damage... but... thats the lack of oxygen. Venus at 0.3 Bar is not too warm at all, and inside the habitat, you can pump up the percentage of O2, so that thehab is at ambient pressure, but the residents don't suffer hypoxia.
  4. I would have the stars be visible, but not the planets. Then with some telescopes, you can figure out how many planets, and their bulk properties (radius, mass, atmosphere), but you need to visit the system to see surface details
  5. oh god.... looks like I'll be sitting out of KSP2 for a while until all the DLC is out in a cheap bundle... already waiting for 2022, so, yea, whats another year or three.
  6. Well, I already mentioned that PSM refueling will need more infrastructure.... although the resources (hydrogen) to manufacture it would not be rare at all. I also would not assume that the ISRU drills and refinery from KSP1 that work for KSP1's chemical rockets will make a return in KSP2, given the colony mechanic. So that leaves us with just the idea that you need higher level equipment to make PSM fuel, fine I see no reason why PSM engines cannot be made in similar small variants. Anyway, PSM should not be the main focus of this dicusion, but rather engines mak
  7. Well, due to the lack of details, we are engaging in speculation. I could also speculate that it just means that you need to land more material to start using PSM channeled by the colony for supply routes and new ships... Well, I mentioned fusion AND Fission. NTRs are certainly compact and will be included. It will be interesting if they require both propellant and occasional refueling with fissile material. Well, its a big fear of mine. The PSM engine seems like its just a straight up upgrade to chemical rockets, and I don't see how they can introduce any new challenge that th
  8. Two points: 1) I somewhat expect that chemical will still have some role in KSP2 despite the higher tech, when first establishing/bootstrapping a colony. Making hydrolox fuel would be relatively easy (electrolysis of water/ice), wherase one can expect that channeling purple space magic will require construction of elaborate temples for the rituals. Similarly, producing advanced fission and fusion drives will take more manufacturing capability than a chemical rocket - perhaps even giving pressure fed chemical (perhaps even monoprop) rockets a role, as they could be the first thing a growin
  9. What? the change in velocity is 1948 what? meters per second? or 0.017 m/s (17 mm/s). Funny, I used a flea for propulsion on my craft, and it had a dV of neither 1948 m/s nor 0.017 m/s. Perchance you have made an error in your calculations?
  10. From my perspective, it would be great gameplay, and really fit into the KSP2 theme. A lot of KSP2 seems to be about using future tech, and setting up infrastructure. Beamed power checks both of those boxes. It would add a commnet-like gameplay mechanic as an alternative to using nuclear engines (which have a radiation mechanic). In both cases there is a gameplay tradeoff for the performance gains over chemical propulsion. Or.... you know... just throw in purple magic and have something that requires no infrastructure to operate, has no radiation concerns, and gets you superior
  11. Please tell me how much dV is equivalent to 1000 watts... I want to know
  12. Imo, beamed power to get the performance of mmH is far less cheaty then mmH, as it requires the reactor somewhere nearby(not an insignificant undertaking), line of sight, timing your flights r establishing something like comm-net, adding a gimballing receiver to your craft, etc... Or you can just have mmH that magically stores all the energy that you need. Plus, a fleet of motherships with power beaming equipment could easily be turned into warships :p which is a cool thought.
  13. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#laserlaunch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion I'm wondering if KSP2's engine can support some kind of beamed power propulsion, and if so, could it be included in the game? Once you have a colony all set up, you could build a large laser or similar and use it to power a variety of drives that could equal or exceed various types of fission propulsion, without the radiation issue... Likewise, an orbiting mother ship could do beamed power for a lander. Just a thought, it would be nice to see.
  14. I don't know what is going on with your area, but the vast majority of scientific papers do so. For reference, a paper we just submitted with 315 positive cases from our testing center, then mean Ct value was 22.5. Also note that Ct values cannot be directly compared across different tests and sample preparation methods. Furthermore, if you get tested early in the incubation period (as part of contact tracing), the PCR result may be negative (that is, not detected even after 40 cycles). There are two sides to a peak, and Ct<35 doesn't just detect "old" infections - granted that the slo
  15. No, asymptomatic spread is definitely a concern. Children and youth still shed similar amounts of virus, and at least one stdy found asymptomatic transmission accounts for 44% of new cases: He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, Deng X, Wang J, Hao X, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nature Medicine. mai 2020;26(5):672‑5.
×
×
  • Create New...