Deredere

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Deredere

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Oh, right on. Thanks. I can probably manage a few spare parts. One thing I'll miss from EPL (which was a nightmare, I'm not super sad it's gone) is being able to make tiny things, like an one-man shuttle pod, or a KIS box with a small part in it, without having to orchestrate a shipyard. Would be cool if things like that could be completed inside the assembly space. I should probably post this in your thread but I'm lazy and stupid. Anyway, thanks.
  2. Did this never happen? Did I just spend 2 hours trying to figure out how to build off-world to no end except "install EPL"?
  3. So, uh, no chance of a change to advanced resource prices to make extraterrestrial manufacture worthwhile? I mean, it was fun building antimatter collection supercomplexes in Jool orbit, but now I might as well just send an matter powered antimatter freighter made of antimatter now.
  4. Any plans to add metallic hydrogen chemical rockets? I feel like if the EM drive works and exotic matter is gamable we can suppose metastability is possible
  5. Okay I realize this is two years old but I really must object to tritium costing - by my math, anyway - 340 times less on Kerbin than on Earth. If you took all the tritium in human nuclear weapons - which wouldn't exist without the demand for those weapons, but whatever - and put it on the market, the price would not come down anywhere remotely close to 340 times. Math: a liter of liquid tritium in Earth prices is 6.4 million dollars. Assuming that 1√,=1000USD, it's $18,800 on Kerbin. This makes producing your own tritium super, completely pointless just because people didn't like not being able to buy their way into a fusion rocket program with money they found under their couch. And antimatter is a hundred thousand USD a gram? What? Even if we sold antimatter at Earth grid electricity prices, it should be 6 million dollars (6000√) a gram. (49929066 KW*h/gram at 12 cents per KW*h). Realistically it should be thousands more than that given its utility in space propulsion and significant cost and inefficiency of manufacture/storage. Please change, I want to make some money and have an actual reason to have antimatter creation infrastructure instead of buying it in infinite quantities from Antihydrogen R Us. I realize I could change this easily in the config but I could also change the Isp of liquid fuel to 7 billion seconds. That would be unrealistic. I think this is realistic, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But please have a thought for people who like realistic economics. I don't begrudge you your realistic physics when my radiator is bigger than my spaceship.
  6. Found the problem, I needed to use the Interstellar scoops, which for some sick reason were set to "no technology required" and thus never showed up.
  7. Why won't this thing produce nitrogen? Or CO2. Or Oxygen. Or anything besides compressed air and He4? After a considerable search of this thread I read somewhere that scoops aren't even necessary anymore, yet it still says "scoop is not deployed". Despite there being a scoop. Which is deployed. Atmosphere extraction is enabled. I was wondering about that.
  8. The atmosphere does have a considerable impact on efficiency, but fortunately this is not Kerbal Truck Simulator 2014, and you can leave the atmosphere. Launch thrusts using beamed power are still more than possible, however, especially if you have a ground-based generator.
  9. I haven't played KSPI since .24, but you can overcome the heating problems by using a thermal receiver in conjunction with a generator, powering a plasma engine. Your power input is cut in half by the generator inefficiency, but you need only small radiators for any amount of power and you can simply double the network power to generate nominal thrust. I was rocking a terawatt network, at which point I was getting maximum thrust out of even the large plasma engine using hydrogen reaction mass, even at semi-oblique angles.
  10. A virtual certainty, although be sure to back up your save before attempting to load it, because if you've forgotten a mod - or a mod has discontinued a part that you've used - any ship with the missing parts will be erased from the space-time continuum.
  11. That's... odd. What kind of fuel do you have that's that much denser than water? Liquidfuel should be 20% less dense or so assuming it's kerosene. Or 92% less dense if it's liquid hydrogen.
  12. I think probably 60 at the very least, so two mass-balanced tanks can freeze a Kerbal. Volume wise, that monoprop tank in stock looks to be about bathtub sized, which would be around the 120 liters needed to do one Kerbal; but if you wanted to keep it lower to game-balance, you could pretend it includes bulky heating equipment to keep the Glykerol liquid. Or just scale it like you said. So I'd say 60 or 120.
  13. I'm months late, but what planet do you live on where 100 liters of glycerin is 1.2 tons? It would be 120 kilograms on earth. Which would make your weight a lot more reasonable. But you've probably fixed this months ago. Oh, and this system is awesome. I should say that too.
  14. So I have these extra EPL parts in the beginning of my part list: http://i.imgur.com/9pNeYVH.jpg A lot of them are untextured. The same parts appear later, all textured, in the list. I can't figure out where these are coming from. I've deleted and reinstalled EPL and the whole mod build is fresh. I suspect Active Texture Management might be doing it, since these parts are somehow in front of B9's, but I can't figure how to fix that, if that's even the case, and only EPL is affected.