• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,962 Excellent


About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. KerikBalm

    How do you SSTO to duna?

    I do 100+ ton payloads to orbit in SSTOs with 40%+ payload fractions... I do mk3 cargobay shuttles that can take modules down to the surface of duna and back up to build and relocate surface bases. I did a SSTO and duna back just once... no thank you... not worth it. Single Stage To Orbit is worth it... Single Stage To Duna is not. I would much rather have an SSTO carry a lander that detaches, than to try and land a Kerbin SSTO on Duna. If you insist, you'll want: breaking parachutes, because its low gravity and rough terrain. Trying to keep a plane stable as it barrels over uneven ground at >100 m/s is not my cup of tea... better yet: retro rockets Better yet: hover rockets Other good options are tail sitter designs with parachutes at the front so landing on the tail is super easy. That requires a lot of thrust to take off on kerbin (at least 1/8th of your wet mass would be engines if you do a vertical takeoff on jet thrust alone), but you'll then have a super easy time breaking mach 1. Alternately you can make some tail sitter designs that can also take off vertically on kerbin. As to the turning radius... that air is thin... Duna may be low gravity, but inertia doesn't depend on gravity. To go from going 500 m/s east to 500 m/s north (a 90 degree turn) in even 30 seconds (3 degrees per second), requires an acceleration of at least 23.5 m/s. High flying speeds (due to lower atmospheric density) = more change in velocity needed to turn lower atmospheric density = lower forces generates by wings = much longer turning times. Try to turn to fast (using RCS or reaction wheel torque), and you AoA will be way to high, stuff stalls, center of drag shifts... losing control is a possibility. Keep your AoA low.
  2. KerikBalm

    Propellers Please?

    3 hours is a bit of exaggeration, no? The point is to cruise along at 150-200 m/s in 4x time warp, whereas a rover that can cruise along over rough terrain at 30m/s (particularly in low gravity as on Duna) is quite difficult. Even more so adding 4x timewarp... and then there's eve with seas that rovers can't cross. As to the speed and duration of the electric props, that's entirely game balance. Even if built for shorter flights, the point is biome hopping/ surface exploration. As for mech jeb cruise control... I thought we were talking about adding stock features... if you're fine using mods for rovers for one purpose, then mod props should be fine too... unless you're also arguing that mech jeb cruise control should be stock along with piston engines. KSP's aerodynamics are simple. There is no need for swept wings, there's no shifting of the CoL as mach number changes, no need for area rule. The only challenge is a high coefficient of drag as you approach mach 1. The only difference between subsonic craft and supersonic craft is their TWR as you approach mach 1. Mostly this just needs an engine swap. Swap a wheesley for a panther, and often a subsonic design. Scalability: 2x the engine, 2x the payload. Part count a problem.. make a bigger size to reduce part count (like goliath vs wheesley) Versatility: the same part works on twice as many stock planets. More destinations = more versatile. Then there are other combinations for different purposes: combine with fuel cell: its an LFO fueled system, combine with ore tanks: its a sub propulsion, combine with solar panels: its a long duration flyer. Batteries and a single RTG: a short duration hopper that works at the poles/at night, the last two giving indefinite operation without resupply. An airbreathing piston engine gives us pretty much the same thing that the wheesley gives us. But its more efficient and slower you might say... ok..? so? what new options for gameplay does that enable? We could have a Rapier with a higher top speed and lower airbreathing Isp+higher vacuum Isp for even better SSTOs... but what would that really add? it would do what the rapier doesn't already do? A dual mode intake system could simply be added to existing jet engines, no new part needed. Yea, but this is KSP, and people already do that. This would be less ridiculous, it would basically just be changing the prop blades (electric motors have great torque and RPM ranges) Was referring to air augmented rockets here Depends entirely on part balance. Consider how much solar power an ion engine would actually need to produce 2 kN of thrust at 4000 Isp And they don't... or haven't... and there's a lot more demand for that... so that's why I dont have my hopes up for a whole set of parts, and I'd focus on just 1 that adds the most gameplay options You replied to a sub thing about batteries and lift... didn't seem relevant to discussing subs... Easy to do that with a turboramjet or a goliath already. Yea... that's a problem brought up on the forums often... what to do after getting to a place, other than plant a flag and leave. At least some planets (mods mainly) have some interesting terrain... flying through canyons generally being more interesting than roving. Also that lack of stuff to do is why I started experimenting with stock rotors and subs in the first place Well, they are "physicsless" (which used to mean more in older versions where they litterally added no mass and no drag), so the effect of the higher part count is less than other parts... also you're forgetting the 2x8 static panels... Again, that depends entirely on part balance, and how one designs a plane. Spammed 2x4 surface attach solar panels are one option. Battery powered short duration ones are another, and yet another are fuel cell powered ones. As to the battery powered short duration ones, they'd have unlimited range, just not without stopping to recharge. If it takes less gameplay time than using a rover, it has a point (plus it can fly over liquid, rovers can't reach islands and such) My argument is not that they wouldn't be nice to have. My argument is that they should be a lower priority than electric props. Obviously that argument results in bringing up negatives... but my goal is to argue for electric props being a higher priority than ICE props. My goal is not to argue for no ICE props. If we can get both... great... but people have been wanting props for a long time, and nothing has happened, so I think a whole set of stock props is rather unlikely, which is why I'm arguing to narrow the focus to "top priorities".
  3. KerikBalm

    Propellers Please?

    For a high Isp engine, you don't need a high fuel fraction. Also we've got some fairly large monoprop tanks like the mk2 and mk3 fusalages. Well, I was envisioning these not as large WW2 bomber type things, but little scouts for Duna and Eve... like so: A rentry test: Now I do have quite a few solar panels on those, but there's nothing preventing the use of a single RTG and limiting the flight to short hops. It depends if you want to be able to cruise non-stop or not. If I want to go faster or lift more, jet engines on kerbin and laythe (and mod worlds with O2) work even better. For non-O2 operations, a turborocket would work: This next one was a bit more complicated: It was configured as a ram-rocket with no thrust augmentation at 0 speed, the air augmented mode (with high Isp) only worked above mach 0.35 so it needed a closed cycle mode to accelerate to the speed where the rameffect can work. I actually gave it 2 engine modules, with velocity curves so that the closed cycle starter motor fades away as the ramrocket engine takes over (since we can't vary Isp with speed) you could do it that way, but you need an intake module to determine if there is O2. For one that only needs atmosphere, that can work... but it won't work with electric motors. You need to expel something with mass, so you can use intakeAtm (or intakeAir, and have the intake flag for checking for O2 to be false). If ramrockets/air augmented rockets (since those shouldn't work without an intake, unless you incorporate the intake into the engine model) + electric props were added alongside recirpocating engine props, the system would already be there. That would be nice, but I really doubt they'll do that, I think we'd be lucky to get 1 new engine for atmospheric stuff. Given the similarity in purpose between props and turbofans, it should be one that works on Eve/Duna/without O2. If we had to have just 1, I'd choose electric for the most gameplay versatility. If we get 2, then I'd want an electric and an air augmented rocket. If we can get 3 or more, then by all means, yes, lets have reciprocating engines turning props. Strongly disagree. LF/IA would be the most redundant and least versatile. Their role would overlap with the Wheesley and Goliath, but have a lower max speed and altitude. They wouldn't work on Duna or Eve, they'd be worse than electric for subs (changing buoyancy, don't work on Eve), and worse for spaceplanes on Duna and Eve. They'd be far worse for carrying large payloads than air augmented rockets (even if they are LFO reciprocating engines). Electric props scale linearly with payload, they seem to scale just fine in my modded experiments... not that I have ever felt an incentive to use them for large craft. I've always used them for small surface exploration craft (particularly for science gathering). If I want to lift large payloads (also... to where, props generally aren't helping you get to space to space), that's the work of a jet turbine/air augmented rocket, IMO. See, that's where we fundamentally disagree... to me the whole point of props is to aid exploration of bodies without O2 in their atmosphere. You can unlock the Juno after just a couple launches, which is still early in career. I would not be opposed to a piston engine and basic wings and control surface being unlocked right from the start alongside the flea booster... but I recognize the limited resources and will of squad, and I would want to focus on just one or two parts that would open up the most gameplay possibilities for us. By adding 1 part (an electric motor), we get a lot of gameplay options. Fuel cells would turn it into effectively an LFO burning prop engine, and reducing part count is a good goal, but then to get the same gameplay possibilities, we need 2 new parts, instead of 1 new part that can be used in combination with existing parts for different effects. What do lift and batteries have to do with anything? I didn't even bring them up. I only mentioned buoyancy (and an RTG). As to other points. 1) There are quite a few modern diesel electric subs in modern militaries. 2) There are many many modern submersibles for underwater work (oil rig inspection, scientific research, etc), none of which are nuclear powered. What I want to build are exploration submersibles, not ballistic missile submarines. diesel electric sub:ōryū-class_submarine The list goes on.... I'm referring to gameplay usage, and discussions are between multiple people, 1 person alone does not dictate the scope. Naval usage is within the scope of potential usage or propellers, so I think it does fall within the scope of this discussion. There's nothing inherently thirsty about turbines at all. That's why power generators use turbines to generate power, not reciprocating ICEs (except for small portable generators). It all comes down to how much mass you throw back vs how fast you throw that mass back, and thermodynamic efficiency (ICEs are often quite bad with that, it basically comes down to expansion ratio). A Abrams gas turbine is not comparable to an ultra high bypass turbofan at all. Generally, doubling the volume of air you throw back can incrase your Isp by a factor of root 2 (assuming no other changes in efficiency). The amount of air used as working mass is a factor of the cross section of the blade arc, the density of the air, the percent and degree that air is deflected. Now props have a fairly large cross section... still larger than the ultra high bxpass turbofans seen on commercial airliners. A more valid comparison is a turboprop vs a piston engine. The difference is quite low: "Turbines aren't as efficient as piston mills, but the difference isn't as much as you might think ... piston engines are more efficient and offer a lower specific fuel consumption (.43 lbs./hp/hr) compared to turbines (.58 lbs./shp/hr)." Anyway, KSP's turbofans (and jets in general) are already ludicrously efficient (about 2x RL values, except for the Rapier, which is about right if we assume H2 as fuel and not kerosene). We don't need something with 20,000 Isp (since the goliath is already over 10,000 Isp). What would that add to gameplay? to space exploration? Not a ramrocket that has higher atmospheric efficiency even withoutusing O2 in the atmosphere Well... that's you... I have little no interest in such craft in my KSP game (WW2 flight sims are another story, they make good targets for fighter planes). Also electric motors have great power to weight ratios (its why the old tesla roadster was a very very sporty car, particularly in acceleration. The problem is and has been for a long time, the battery capacity, and duration. If you want to lift a large plane, electric motors are more than capable of doing it. If you want to lift a large plane, and fly it for hours, electric motors start to have a problem. This of course swings in the favor of electric propulsion when operating a spaceprogram and an exploration craft on another world where it can recharge batteries, but not refuel itself. I guess we have fundamentally different gameplay goals here. Of course, many electric things are already OP'd in KSP... like Ion engines and reaction wheels, so I wouldn't object if it was relatively easy for solar panels to supply the needed power for sustained flight. You'd only space panels if you want continuous flight, if you can land, timewarp to recharge, and fly again, you can get away with a lot less. Also you could forget most of the batteries and solar panels, and just add some fuel cell arrays. The could be balanced such that its 1 array per motor... part count goes up by 4... not a huge deal. Also, I'm still confused by what exactly this payload is supposed to be, if its not going to space? is this a sub-orbital mk3 cargoplane to move cargo around the surface? If there's O2, the jets we have are already plenty good for that. I am also not arguing against getting ICE props. I am arguing which should be the higher priority *IF* the devs decide to add prop motors/atmospheric motors for use on worlds without O2, but only 1 or 2 of such motors. If we get only 1, I want electric. If we get 2, I want electric and air augmented rocket If we get 5, I want: 1) electric 2) air augmented rocket 3) 0.625 or1.25m piston/turboprop (either monoprop or duel mode with LFO/LF+IA option) 4) 2.5m piston/turboprop (either monoprop or duel mode with LFO/LF+IA option) 5) 0.625m or 1.25m basic piston engine, unlocked from the start of the career alongside the flea
  4. KerikBalm

    Propellers Please?

    Dual mode could work... but I don't know what you mean about a mountain of support systems. In game or real life? In real life monoprop is simpler than a LFO system. In game its basically the same (ISRU can make either, so that support system is the same, and the fuel for each is stored in its own tank). In game the electric prop would need the least support. A battery + RTG or solar panel will enable unlimited travel, as compared to ISRU which requires at least a drill+converter+power source+ore tank+fuel tank, ideally with a radiator too, and its going to need to have sufficient range to cross areas without ore. As for vacuum thrust, it shouldn't have any. Its super easy to add another intake resource (often named IntakeAtm instead of IntakeAir in mods, such as the community resource pack), and have intakes produce that regardless of O2 presence. Then the engine only works in an atmosphere, but it doesn't require O2. You'd have one mode using LiquidFuel + IntakeAir, and another version using LiquidFuel + Oxidizer + IntakeAtm. A selection??? We'd be lucky to get one part, and the simplest and most versatile would be an electric one. +1 part (fuel cell array) and its an LFO engine (we could make Fuel cells essentially dual mode, using Oxidizer or IntakeAir) They'd work for subs (plus with RTG instead of fuel, they'd never have buoyancy issues), they'd be simpler to operate long term (no ISRU). There'd be no mode switching needed or wondering if you need to bring oxidizer or how much fuel is needed, etc. An electric propeller would be way better than reciprocating engines. Reciprocating engines would be almost worthless compared to turbofans. Dual-mode airbreathing/closed cycle atmospheric engines would be nice, but such a dual mode engine doesn't need to be a reciprocating one.... and for the goal of the game it might as well be something more like a turboramjet (Ie a turbo-ramrocket). I'd much rather have air augmented rockets/turbo-rockets or propellers turned by electric motors over propellers turned by reciprocating engines. I agree completely. It is unreasonably complicated (which is similar to the problem I mentioned: "High part count") If they were going to make multiple new atmospheric engines, I would love for a piston engine+propeller to be available by default (like the flea SRB)+ basic wings (they could be worse than the wings unlocked later... cheap and light with a heat and impact tolerance as low as the basic fins.. so they aren't useful for spaceplanes). Then you "upgrade" to turbojets and turbofans (juno, wheesley), then low bypass afterburning turbofans (panther), then ramjets (whiplash), then the dual mode Rapier. At some point, there could be a branch for an electric motor (special R&D for ensuring it survives the rigors of space travel, that lubricants can operate in near vacuum, special sealing against fine dust/electrostatic discharges, etc), and a monoprop propeller. But that would already be 3 new engines, and I think we'd be lucky to get one. Side note... Could we possibly get a triple mode engine? The Rapier could then just have its properties changed. Open-cycle: acts like normal, uses incoming atmospheric O2 Atmospheric-closed cycle: injects O2 to combust with LF, but still uses atmosphere in turbine blades and as working mass, Isp would be reduced by 0.9/2 (the ratio of liquid fuel mas to liquidfuel+oxidizer mass), for an atmospheric Isp of 1,440 (nearly double what a LV-N gets, with a much better TWR, at sea level on Eve or Kerbin). Vacuum-closed cycle: Acts like closed cycle now Open-cycle and atmospheric closed cycle would have the same cutoff point in the atmosphere, so you wouldn't switch from open to atmo-closed to vac-closed. Automatic switching logic would always favor open cycle over atmo-closed. Switching order (for manual switching, as by action groups) should probably be open>vac-closed>atmo-closed. That way for normal rapier ascent, your switching works as normal (but if you want to manually switch back to open cycle after reentry, you press the switch mode action group twice instead of once). For use on Eve or Duna, with automatic switching it would work just like automatic switching works now on kerbin/laythe, except switching to/from an IntakeAtm+LF+O mode instead of IntakeAir+LF mode. For manual switching, you'd set it to IntakeAtm+LF+O and have to press the switch button twice (instead of once) to go into full rocket/vacuum mode. Then we'd have an efficient enough engine for subs on Eve, for planes on Eve or duna, and it wouldn't add any new parts, and would maintain a space-focus
  5. KerikBalm

    Are SSTO's worth it?

    What is it? Funds? you can definitely save funds with them. Your time? If you have fun and enjoy it, then yes. If you'd rather launch disintegrating totem-poles, then they're not worth it. IMO, just about anything you can launch with a rocket, you can launch with a spaceplane, however, spaceplane part count may be higher.... and for obscenely large payloads (greater than 10 meter diameter/greater than what a 3.75meter fairing can expand to enclose), it gets quite difficult to get a working design off the runway.
  6. You may want to check out Val... And you can get modded worlds too: (can be a bit hard to see, but its an airstrip)
  7. KerikBalm

    Propellers Please?

    But there is, my problems are: 1) High part count 2) They don't work under water, so stock subs are only really possible on Kerbin/Laythe/a body with O2 in the atmosphere 
  8. KerikBalm

    Proper Submarine Parts

    All we need is an efficient propulsion that works in atmospheres without oxygen. It could be an electric fan, a mono propellant reciprocating engine, a turborocket/air augmented rocket (would also be useful for ascent vehicles on Eve, unlike the other two, so usefull for getting to space from bodies with thick atmospheres but no O2). The rest is already in game, as my screenshots demonstrated.
  9. KerikBalm

    Propellers Please?

    And there's no reason that you can't do that with a turbofan, or a turbojet, or a ramjet. Then you've got what are known as ram-rockets/turbo-rockets/air-augmented-rockets: They use the atmosphere as working mass, but not a source of chemical energy. For the same amount of chemical energy as it takes to throw 1kg of mass back at 200 meters/second, you could throw 4kg of mass back at 100 meters/second for 2x the thrust, or 16 kg of mass back at 50 meters/second for 4x the thrust. If the reaction mass is "free", your effective Isp could go up by a factor of 4x. This is a major part of the efficiency gain of jet engines, and why high bypass turbofans do so much better than turbojets. The other efficiency gain is of course taking O2 from the atmosphere (in real rockets/jets has an Oxidizer:Fuel mass ratio of around 2-3 : 1 ... in KSP it is only 1.1 : 0.9) Still, it would be simpler to just use monoprop, which is why I suggested a monoprop powered reciprocating engine. After all, we don't currently have a lot of use for the larger mono-prop tanks (unless you just like using monoprop engines for the lulz, or are really, really, really bad at docking, or decide that reaction wheels are OP'd, and only use RCS to maneuver). If you make a LF+O consuming recip engine.. you might as well just make it electric charge consuming, and give players the option of pairing it with fuel cells for more flexibility.
  10. KerikBalm

    Proper Submarine Parts

    I should check if the radar altimeters in the cockpits work when underwater. We currently have an AGL system, its just hidden in the IVA views of specific parts. I believe that KER can give that information. It is useful, because that deployable sub that I posted above had multiple instances of hitting the bottom nose first and losing the docking port (requiring a revert). Some headlights would also be good for those purposes One doesn't need hyperedit... you can send the Ore tanks pre-filled, or you can fill them with drills. Something like hyperedit is good for messing around in sandbox to test various iterations of a design, however. I have not been able to make a stock sub that works on Eve, or any other mod world with oceans but no O2 (I still like to make stock designs, even on mod worlds). We can make stock propellers for flying around on Eve, but they don't work underwater.
  11. KerikBalm

    Fibre for space elevator

    The ring is not at GSO for the nth time! Ring radius could be as low as 6.4 Mm
  12. KerikBalm

    Fibre for space elevator

    The ring is definitely anchored. The stations move with respect to the ring (exerting force on it, anchoring it) while remaining stationary over the ground. Any stress-wave is not going to have a 24 hour period, as the ring would just be in LEO, and orbiting faster than orbital velocity, giving it a period of under 90 minutes. There would be at least 2 stations (so down to 45 minutes between stations), ideally many more (for redundancy and greater stability, or less "wriggling as a whip"). To avoid wear and friction, the station would ideally not be in physical contact with the ring, but rather interacting via electromagnetic forces - the lack of physical contact does not mean its un anchored, it would be coupled to the stations electromagnetically, and those would be anchored to the ground mechanically. Kerboloid, you're really going to have to make it clear if you're talking about a classical space elevator, or an orbital ring, because often it seems like your comments are meant to apply to both (ie: ring/lift) when they are very different designs with very different challenges.
  13. KerikBalm

    Fibre for space elevator

    The part of the ring in shadow will be in shadow less than 45 minutes (and how much less depends on how much over orbital velocity it is spun up). The ring would have a very small "foot print". It could service any landmass. Its orbit isn't stable, that's the point of the ground stations, it does require active stability (but not propellant once connected to the ground)
  14. KerikBalm

    Life support system

    I do, but its not an argument against implementing life support (although I can't tell if you actually agree with @The Dunatian or if you're just interjecting in a conversation for lulz
  15. KerikBalm

    Life support system

    So when we send them to Eeloo, they should die from lack of sunlight? A sidereal day on Moho is 102 kerbin days... should they die if they land on the darkside of Moho? Do they just consume electricity to power cabin lighting? This is a terrible argument against it. You could argue that it adds needless complexity, that it will increase part count- that all it does is require a bigger payload packed with supplies, that it will just punish players if they do their maneuvers wrong and plot courses that take longer than what they initially planned/if they forget to leave during a departure window and want to wait for the next one, etc... but to say no because kerbals are green? Despite my above statements, I play with TAC-LS, with some modifications of my own (mainly changing efficiency of recyclers, and adding greenhouses)