Ksp 2 Exhaust and jet engine. I hope!

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Yes I am and that is true. The closest thing the orion drive relates to is a PDE. 

I see the root of the argument now and it is a misunderstanding. You've mixed up a  pulse detonation engine with a rotational detonation engine (the original engine discussed in this). But a pulse detonation engine still isn't the type of engine used for the project Orion tests where conventional explosives were used. As for those I can't fine what exactly they were classified as other than "Orion drive" 

On 5/14/2020 at 9:21 AM, Ethan Ng said:

I think ksp2 should add rotating detonation engine.

The specifics impulse of the rotating detonation engine is 25% higher that the normal engine with it's fuel types.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[KerikBalm]

*sigh* looks like a line by line response is in order

On 5/18/2020 at 7:27 PM, shdwlrd said:

Isn't the same concept, just using very different methods to achieve the same thing. Or does the laws of physics differ because one is using rotational motion to create thrust and the other is using an explosion?

The above is incoherent, and I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Quote

Quote

#1) An orion drive uses a shaped charge explosive, this does not

#2) An orion drive has the explosive set off outside and well away from the craft, this has the "explosion" inside the craft

Yes it did, some type of plastic explosive on the demonstrator back in the 50s. I'm pretty sure they didn't use mini nukes for a proof of concept. (I hope they didn't anyways.)

And that relates to the 2 points I made how? Neither of the two points do you address. So they tested orion mock ups with conventional explosives... points 1 and 2 are still valid, the rotational detonation engine does not use a shaped charge, is not pulsed (implicit in the use of a shaped charge), and the detonation is internal, not external.

Quote

Are both uncontrolled reactions? One in the atomic level and the other at the molecular level. In the end, the effect is the same, a release of energy and a pressure wave in atmosphere. Magnitudes of difference between the energy levels for the reactions I will admit.

Hey, if I start a bonfire, its an uncontrolled (by those standards) reaction releasing energy, ... so a bonfire is the same concept as an orion drive using that logic. A continuously burning rotational detonation engine won't make a pressuree wave in the atmosphere like you mention (the pressure wave from detonation is inside the combustion chamber only)

Quote

Yes I am and that is true. The closest thing the orion drive relates to is a PDE.

Cool... but a rotational detonation engine isn't a pulse detonation engine... I'd agree that a PDE uses a very similar concept to Orion drives.

Quote

Please see above. The end effect is the same.

Only if you speak in terms so general that I can say a propellor and an Orion drive have the same end effect.

This rotational detonation engine is like a normal rocket engine, except in the very specific method by which the combustion front propogates... which is completely not applicable to nuclear reactions. If you say this is the same concept as an Orion drive, then so is a normal rocket engine.

Quote

Don't you think they would build that into their estimate? 

Build what into what estimate? You really need to be more specific dude... I don't understand what your point is over half the time.

[shdwlrd]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Only if you speak in terms so general that I can say a propellor and an Orion drive have the same end effect.

Bingo...

I'm not focusing on the specifics, I'm focusing on the end effect. 

I'm thinking about the in-game physics, not real life physics.

I'm thinking about how you have to tell the game engine how you want the physics to work. Where in reality we can't dictate how the laws of physics works.

KSP isn't training simulator where everything must mirror real life. It's a game that approximates real life.

So if the devs want to add the circular explosion rotational detonation drive, they can. And they have the honor of telling the drive how to work within their construct called KSP2.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

9 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Bingo...

I'm not focusing on the specifics, I'm focusing on the end effect. 

I'm thinking about the in-game physics, not real life physics.

I'm thinking about how you have to tell the game engine how you want the physics to work. Where in reality we can't dictate how the laws of physics works.

KSP isn't training simulator where everything must mirror real life. It's a game that approximates real life.

So if the devs want to add the circular explosion rotational detonation drive, they can. And they have the honor of telling the drive how to work within their construct called KSP2.

Then why waste time, money and effort to just make what's effectively a buffed Orion that doesn't have any of the unique considerations of the Rotating Detonation Engine that are brought about because of how unique the methods by which the engine must be constructed?

Why not just add a upgrade to Orion that allows the use of Antimatter-Boosted Fusion Bombs which are smaller and more powerful and would provide a similar if not much greater increase in ISP, especially since the engineers and scientists working on Orion were already considering these methods for the times when they became available.

I think what you're not seeing is that if you simplify a concept down this severely, then you get an end product that doesn't have anything to distinguish itself like it would in real life. Orion is a massively different drive than conventional rockets, trading the ability to throttle for immense ISP and thrust (Basically becoming a torchship) and the ability to Brute-Force it's way along hyperbolic trajectories. Metallic Space Magic isn't as powerful, but sits nicely in the middle. Allowing much easier transfer of men and materials around a local system, and even being suited for short interstellar hops. Plasma Torches provide decent thrust and ISP, and outclass both. But monumental energies and thermal exchangers are needed to tame the fusion dragon screaming from the back, and it's unlikely to work well within an atmosphere. Antimatter is the ultimate in propulsion capable without mainpulating space and time itself, being incredibly dense with fantastic ISP and thrust.

This highly simplified drive you're proposing? It's Orion but a bit more efficient, and that's not enough to distinguish it from the rest.

[shdwlrd]

9 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Then why waste time, money and effort to just make what's effectively a buffed Orion that doesn't have any of the unique considerations of the Rotating Detonation Engine that are brought about because of how unique the methods by which the engine must be constructed?

Why not just add a upgrade to Orion that allows the use of Antimatter-Boosted Fusion Bombs which are smaller and more powerful and would provide a similar if not much greater increase in ISP, especially since the engineers and scientists working on Orion were already considering these methods for the times when they became available.

I think what you're not seeing is that if you simplify a concept down this severely, then you get an end product that doesn't have anything to distinguish itself like it would in real life. Orion is a massively different drive than conventional rockets, trading the ability to throttle for immense ISP and thrust (Basically becoming a torchship) and the ability to Brute-Force it's way along hyperbolic trajectories. Metallic Space Magic isn't as powerful, but sits nicely in the middle. Allowing much easier transfer of men and materials around a local system, and even being suited for short interstellar hops. Plasma Torches provide decent thrust and ISP, and outclass both. But monumental energies and thermal exchangers are needed to tame the fusion dragon screaming from the back, and it's unlikely to work well within an atmosphere. Antimatter is the ultimate in propulsion capable without mainpulating space and time itself, being incredibly dense with fantastic ISP and thrust.

This highly simplified drive you're proposing? It's Orion but a bit more efficient, and that's not enough to distinguish it from the rest.

I'm not saying that they should add it. I'm saying they could add it if they wanted to.

[Ethan Ng]

Can I know how pulsar fusion work?

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Ethan Ng

[mcwaffles2003]

On 1/27/2021 at 8:12 AM, Ethan Ng said:

Can I know how pulsar fusion work?

 

Can you?

Yes

[Mikenike]

On 5/2/2020 at 11:03 PM, Ethan Ng said:

3.I also hope that ksp 2 have a better exhaust like this  jet engine afterburner

I mentioned this earlier, but your pictures for this jet engine, and the "Nuclear Engine" (A  Pratt & Whittney F100). KSP has the AB on the Panter, but it is not as good as the real life things.  This will most likely not improve, because of KSP being a space type game and not a Flight Sim.