• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1681 Excellent


About KerikBalm

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator
  1. SRBs are heavy for the amount of dV they'll give you. You'd have a lighter (and more controllable) design if you used an LFO engine between when jet thrust is insufficient, and when LV-N thrust is sufficient. SInce rapiers can already cover the gap and are what you should be using as jets for SSTOs anyway... the only real advantage is that the kickback is the longest single piece. Now this is sometimes a good feature, but it ceases to be a SRB thing, and is a kickback specific thing.
  2. What would life on Europa look like?

    I'd think eyes and bioluminescence are unlikely. Bioluminescence probably wouldn't serve any purpose before organisms had light sensing organs, and light sensing organs wouldn't serve any purpose without light to detect. I don't see how it would get started. I doubt that there would be enough "glowing hot" magma to drive the evolution of photo receptors, at which point a feedback loop of light sensing and light productions could conceivably lead to something like that. I'd guess it would be microbial and centered around hot spots on the sea floor. The ice is so thick, and the sun at jupiter is so weak, that I doubt there'd be anything clinging to the undersurface of the ice.
  3. Large Eve rover wheel woes.

    Did your probe have a connection/did you have the comm network turned off? Does it have any electric charge storage>
  4. How badly do the stock planets need a retexture?

    Yea, I think its the terrain itself, not the texture that needs an overhaul. Moho should be like Mun (although Mun has some crater that are way too big IMO), but even Mun needs more canyons and maria (not just crater basins). Duna isn't as bad as people make it out to be, it does have some canyons, but it lacks finer details, even at the heightmap level, It needs some drainage channels (I do see some features like this in Gameslinx's heightmaps, and IMO they are the best feature of many of his heightmaps) and such. A few prominent volcanoes wouldn't be amiss either. Perhaps some cliffs or ledges to mark an ancient sea shore. FYI, duna with some water: Dres could use procedural craters, as could parts of duna and every moon/planet without an atmosphere. Joolean moons could use fault lines similar to Europa, ganymede, etc... they are likely to be ice worlds, and there should be visible "ice plates" Eeloo has this to an extent, but it could be much better. There could be mountain ranges adjacent to some of the plat boundaries, for example. In general, there is nothing that resembles features formed naturally as a result of plat tectonics in stock KSP (and I would say in that is mostly true for Gameslinx's bodies as well) - there should be, and I'm sure it could even be done procedurally.
  5. How badly do the stock planets need a retexture?

    Well, I took a lok at some of your configs, you seem to use something like this On all the ones I've looked at so far... I don't want to add random ridged patterns to my height map, I'f tried using those, perlin, etc, I didn't find any to be satisfactory.
  6. How badly do the stock planets need a retexture?

    yes, mars is huge, but Duna... not so much, again, its not that the heightmap isn't detailed enough, its as detailed as any other heightmap which would have the same pixel to area ratio. and yes, I have tried with using various pqs mods to add heightnoise, but I haven't found any good combination that preserves the features I want (the delta islands, the impact craters, the streams and valleys, etc), without basically being pointless and not noticable.
  7. How badly do the stock planets need a retexture?

    Actually, its got quite a bit of detail... if you didn't recognize it... that's mars with an ocean and green around the edges... we have some pretty heigh res height maps of mars... the thing is that mars just does have a lot of flat areas... but thats not to say that it lacks detail, but at certain altitudes, it does look pixelated: Sorry, but I don't think its a matter of a heightmap that lacks detail... since its a real heightmap from a real planet, I'd say it has exactly as much detail as it should have, given the resolution of KSP heighmaps (the high res martian heightmaps are much higher res than the 2048x4096 that are standard for KSP/kopernicus planets) Also, the ocean does cover the land covered blue, the two tones of blue is meant to indicate shallow coastal waters, like this:
  8. How badly do the stock planets need a retexture?

    meh, that texture looks better than I expected from the start, but how does it look on the surface compared to kerbin? Its not uncommon for a planet to look great from orbit, and then be rather meh upon landing (particularly if its a big planet/you're playing on a scaled up system). Also, scatterer and eve alone make stock planets look much better. I think this looks just fine: I think this looks great: But up close... it can be rather... meh... depending one where one lands, and what the scale is...
  9. Ramjet help

    Even if there are no secrets involved, one wouldn't want to help with something that sounds suspicious. If Ted Kaczynski was on here asking about exothermic reactions that can be accomplished with commercially available products, would you enthusiastically help him? Well, that still doesn't tell us much about the project. I noticed that you said "round trip", is it supposed to return to its point of origin? a real ramjet won't really operate at below mach 0.5. I don't know exactly what you did with compressed air, but perhaps what you had was more of simulating a turbojet... after all jet turbines have a compressor in front of the combustion chamber. If you want to really have a ram jet, then you need a design going > mach 0.5, and if its going to be a round trip, then you'll need to do a 180 after reaching 100km away, so now it seems your craft can't be just something that flies straight and stable, it'll need significant wing area for a turn like that. No, you don't have to tell anyone, but they also don't have to give you any help. If you wanted help building run of the mill RC planes, even jet powered RC planes (they exist, see the following) It wouldn't be such a big deal... but the specifications that you've given really really really sound like that of a weapon, and people will want to answer 2 questions: 1) IS it a good idea to help (2) is it legal to help To answer #1 will require that you provide more information. To answer #2 probably depends on the nature of the help. You mention that you've applied for permission, but that seems pretty irrelevant given 1) an application is meaningless until its approved (2) we don't even know what authority would be giving the permission. With all that said, you'd probably be better off on a RC forum or model rocket enthusiast forum. I'd wager that most people here only have a conceptual knowledge of how these things are made... I doubt you'll find the sort of detailed technical advice that you want. There may be some aeronautical engineers here who might have some insight. There's at least people that know aeronautical engineers here -ie, my dad has a degree in aeronautical engineering, and many years ago worked for lockheed missile systems)... but I certainly wouldn't go asking him how to do this for the purpose of passing it on to some guy on the internet that won't say anything more than he wants to hurl a 75kg (presumably) guided payload 100 km away at mach 0.5 + (implied by the very nature of a ramjet).
  10. Ramjet help

    [snipped response to removed content] What matters is what you want to do - and that is to develop an unmanned system capable of delivering a 75 kg payload at high speed over a distance of 100km. This sounds an awful lot like you want to make a cruise missile. You do not state what or who the project is for. You say that you applied for permission, but it hasn't been granted. You also don't say *where* you applied for permission. For example, if you were in North Korea and Kim Jong gave you permission, it could still be illegal for any Americans on the forum to help you - Kim Jong's permission would have no bearing on the legal ability of an American to help you with the project. You are being far too vague about what this is for, and it really sounds like you are describing a high speed cruise missile.
  11. I think he was just socially awkward and had some social anxiety. I didn't see anything that would make me think he's on the autism spectrum.
  12. NASA again looking at Nuclear Rockets

    It would be great if the same NTR rocket could manage to use two propellents, LH2 for ejection, NH3 for the capture burn-return. Empty fuel tanks would be staged off, but you'd still have an over powered engine for the return/capture. Methane should get ~3% higher Isp. Its got a low boiling point, but its not nearly as bad as H2. Boiling/Melting (1 Atmosphere): H2: 20.3 / 14 K CH4: 111.7 K / 90.7 K NH3: 239.8 K / 195.4 With a mass difference of 16 vs 17, its not going to be much better. Atomic rockets says something about problems with carbon deposits in the engine. I think it would be easier to split the H from C than to split the H from N. So if you've got a nuclear lightbulb that gets hot enough to cause decomposition of the methane but not Nitrogen, then your Isp is going to be significantly better... I'm not sure that temperature is reachable though.
  13. Meh, I've experimented with retrorockets before, but I don't bother with them. For the upper atmosphere, varying AoA should be enough to correct your approach to the landing site. For landing, I prefer a raidal mount drogue because it can stabilize and slow the craft. I have used retro thrusters for some duna spaceplanes because of the thing air and low gravity (very bouncy touchdowns), but now I just build them to be VTOL - They are vertical lift rockets, and I just pitch up to slow down. Ummm.... if you decouple the SRBs, then its not a SSTO. If you keep the SRBs, then you're taking a lot of excess dry mass and causing a lot of excess drag. You should not need any help with Whiplashes (or rapiers) getting to orbital velocity, and then should take you to more like 3/4 orbital velocity, not half. I've only used RATO to help accelerate on the runway, and even designed RATO boosters with sepratrons and parachutes so that when I decouple before the end of the runway, the SRBs land on the runway (before leaving the 22.5km physics bubble) and I can get 100% recovery.
  14. Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

    Stopping you right there... unless that missile has some super compact "torch ship" drive that can provide constant and high thrust (requiring a really high Isp and high thrust for ludicrous energy output)", there is no way that a missile fired from the other side of the planet is going to get to the ship before it enters the atmosphere.
  15. Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

    @ARSAs far as the idea of warfare in a contrived situation where laser sats have taken out GPS and shoot down anything leaving the lower atmosphere... Most long range communication does not go through sats anyway, are fiber optic cables not a thing? are cell phones not a thing? We had systems that worked on the same principle as GPS before satellites: While satellites can cover the globe easily and give easy "line of site", all you really need are 3 transmitters of a known location, and you can triangulate your position relative to theirs. Many cell phones now do this with cellphone towers instead of GPS satellites. It won't work out in the jungle (if there is a jungle left in this future setting), but accurate guidance within industrial and post-industrial areas would work fine. Also, most BVR weapons don't travel along a ballistic trajectory anyway. Cruise missiles could still be a thing, Ram-rocket long range missiles like the MBDA Meteor would still be a thing. So nope, not even this scenario would make mech combat plausible. Even if we ignore that aircraft could still work and engage at long ranges without triggering any plausible WMD defense system, tanks would still be superior. A bipedal armored system would have a very high profile, and due to physics could not be as heavy as a very squat design, so it would have much less armor than a tank. Tanks in hull down positions would "snipe" these mech suits before the mech suit even saw the tank. Good luck making a walking design that can mount a 120mm cannon, can withstand hits from a 120mm cannon (from the front armor), and would be able to see and shoot the tank first.