Jump to content

KSP2 Hype Train Thread

Whirligig Girl
 Share

Recommended Posts

mmamh2008

mmamh2008

Posted
Posted
Just now, t_v said:

Can you explain this? I wasn’t sure what I was looking at here at the front of the vessel. 

This vessel at the end of the video has habitation cans like in habtech 2 , in this shot , it has a fly by near the camera , it's from the right of the vessel .

You'll see also the NERV-US engine if you've seen the video or the above screenshot.

4 hours ago, mmamh2008 said:

x7iIVJb.png

Habtech is dead now .

hmm , maybe those things are antimatter tins for the engine ? then we have habitation and control ? or maybe it's a base ? but it has goo so maybe it's a base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mmamh2008 said:

well , they're just procedural radiators , nothing interesting for me. I never used a radiator before .

That's in KSP1, they already confirmed months ago that heat management is going to be one of the main costraints in designing the huge interstellar ships (and probably most interplanetary non chemical motherships too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Aziz

The Aziz

Posted
Posted

MH engines generate ridiculous amount of heat, I bet any ship would just evaporate without cooling.

Though, very close to the sun (500 000 km and less) they are undoubtedly useful for simply keeping the spacecraft from overheating from the star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darthgently

darthgently

Posted
Posted

Any good links to recent research about the plausibility of creating, storing, and using MH as a rocket fuel?   My sense is that its plausibility has gone down a bit since it was decided to incorporate MH into KSP2.  I can live with that, but am just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmamh2008

mmamh2008

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Master39 said:

That's in KSP1, they already confirmed months ago that heat management is going to be one of the main constraints in designing the huge interstellar ships (and probably most interplanetary non chemical motherships too).

I know that they're essential to interstellar ships , And i know they're in ksp 1 but I don't need them , maybe in ksp 2 I'll need it .

48 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

MH engines generate ridiculous amount of heat, I bet any ship would just evaporate without cooling.

Though, very close to the sun (500 000 km and less) they are undoubtedly useful for simply keeping the spacecraft from overheating from the star.

For sure , they will make ships explode if not radiating .

12 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Any good links to recent research about the plausibility of creating, storing, and using MH as a rocket fuel?   My sense is that its plausibility has gone down a bit since it was decided to incorporate MH into KSP2.  I can live with that, but am just curious

hmm , what do you want ? see the second feature video which talks about MH is specific .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darthgently

darthgently

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mmamh2008 said:

hmm , what do you want ? see the second feature video which talks about MH is specific .

I meant real world MH links.  As in is MH any more feasible as a rocket drive than warp drive kind of thing.  My understanding is that while in theory it would be great, the hurdles in creating and storing it last I read something verge on insurmountable.  I was just wondering if there is something I'm missing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmamh2008

mmamh2008

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I meant real world MH links.  As in is MH any more feasible as a rocket drive than warp drive kind of thing.  My understanding is that while in theory it would be great, the hurdles in creating and storing it last I read something verge on insurmountable.  I was just wondering if there is something I'm missing

MH in real life ? Maybe we're still far from it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmamh2008

mmamh2008

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, gussi111 said:

sorry, next time I will ask you before posting it it's interesting for you.

I didn't mean something to you LOL , You can post what you want , maybe you're hyped , but at least , this destroys theories about cancelling the game and that they stopped development ..... etc

Don't take it seriously man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gussi111

gussi111

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, mmamh2008 said:

I didn't mean something to you LOL , You can post what you want , maybe you're hyped , but at least , this destroys theories about cancelling the game and that they stopped development ..... etc

Don't take it seriously man.

Of course I didn't take it seriously, didn't you see the sarcasm? jeez

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmamh2008

mmamh2008

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, EngineeringWaffle said:

Those parts at the front could be literally anything. Nothing says habtech is dead.

yeah yeah , maybe someone will want to replicate the ISS , You're right .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EngineeringWaffle

EngineeringWaffle

Posted
Posted
On 3/27/2022 at 4:16 AM, mmamh2008 said:

yeah yeah , maybe someone will want to replicate the ISS , You're right .

I don't understand. There is no reason to believe that cryo-frozen kerbals will be in the game. Even if we assume those front cans are at a low temperature (which is kind of what it looks like, but it could be many other things), they could be fuel tanks holding a fuel that needs to be stored at a low temperature, or they could be science instruments. I agree that just freezing kerbals to go interstellar kind of kills habtech, but there is no evidence for that being in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SciMan

SciMan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Personally I hate April Fools day. To me it's just a day where you can't trust anything you hear, and for someone like me that grounds their entire existence in facts and logic, it just scrambles my brain.

So to break the bubble, neither of the above posts from the KSP devs are to be taken seriously. There will be no legitimate news from KSP today.

And if there is, well that'll be one hell of an April Fools joke.

EDIT: I suppose I should slightly elaborate on why I hate April Fools day so much. I despise being made a fool by the actions of other people. When I'm wrong, that's on me, but when someone else changes the supposed facts around so that I'm wrong (but not actually wrong, but I think I'm wrong, but I'm right in the end), it just gets me frustrated. And not the kind of "get up and do something" frustrated. I mean the kind of frustrated that makes you wonder why you even got out of bed in the morning.

And considering I have been diagnosed with depression, and some days already have enough trouble getting out of bed that's not very helpful, now is it?

EDIT 2: It's coming from pretty much the same place in my psyche that makes me really hate dealing with people that can't just accept the well known and well proven facts (said facts having been proven independently countless times), rather than continuing to operate on their own (incorrect and/or harmful) beliefs. I can accept that I'm wrong, when it's proven to me, why do I have to go beyond proving it to someone for them to believe the facts that I've laid out for them? I do my best to give a complete picture, why do people have the need to reduce everything to a soundbyte or meme? I mean I like memes, but that format of information conveyance has it's limitations, as do soundbytes. And I tend to talk about subjects that are highly resistant to being reduced to so few words as those found in a soundbyte or meme. There is such a thing as an idea that is complex enough that you can't just "explain like I'm 5 years old". Sometimes the adults need to use a lot of big words in a single sentence. That doesn't meant the subject is bad. It just means you need to take a bit and actually listen for more than a minute or so.

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...