I don't want to burst your bubble of ksp simplicity but, I think things are gonna be more complex.

[SpaceFace545]

Alright, see that big disc behind the liquid hydrogen tanks on that ISV, I may be wrong but I think that is a radiation shield to stop your payload and kerbals from being nuked by the artificial star at the back, which means life support and radiation will be a concern for designing your craft. Tell me if you think I am wrong and your thoughts below. 

[FreeThinker]

First of, those are realistically speaking not Liquid Hydrogen tanks but rather Liquid Helium and Liquid Deuterium (but I guess KSP2 will introduce some kind of abstract alternative, like FusionFuel). Secondly, the radiation shield is just for show I think, adding actual radiation would make it a lot more complex for players that just want to make cool rockets, and radiation is not cool.

Edited May 18, 2020 by FreeThinker

[SpaceFace545]

32 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

First of, those are realistically speaking not Liquid Hydrogen tanks but rather Liquid Helium and Liquid Deuterium (but I guess KSP2 will introduce some kind of abstract alternative, like FusionFuel). Secondly, the radiation shield is just for show I think, adding actual radiation would make it a lot more complex for players that just want to make cool rockets, and radiation is not cool.

I know, that it would be deuterium and helium 3 but i was just saying hydrogen as KSP tends to simplify things, but it could fully be deuterium and helium 3 hence the big and small tanks on the ISV and metallic hydrogen needs to be doped with cesium so complexity may become a new reality. But I think that radiation will be in the game as a radiation shield would not be in the game if it served no purpose.

[jimmymcgoochie]

43 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Alright, see that big disc behind the liquid hydrogen tanks on that ISV, I may be wrong but I think that is a radiation shield to stop your payload and kerbals from being nuked by the artificial star at the back, which means life support and radiation will be a concern for designing your craft. Tell me if you think I am wrong and your thoughts below. 

I think that’s just the outside edge of the engine, which is shown in the trailer and other images/videos to be a MASSIVE Daedalus-type fusion engine.
I would be surprised to see any kind of life support system in the game at all, given that it’s an area where a variety of mods already exist with varying complexity from simple single resource systems all the way to fully realistic and as such a stock implementation of any kind would be considered too difficult by some but too easy for others. If one was added at all I would expect it to be similar to Snacks with one or possibly two resources that Kerbals use up and which can be generated or recycled by specific crewed parts like labs or habs.

[SpaceFace545]

15 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

I think that’s just the outside edge of the engine, which is shown in the trailer and other images/videos to be a MASSIVE Daedalus-type fusion engine.
I would be surprised to see any kind of life support system in the game at all, given that it’s an area where a variety of mods already exist with varying complexity from simple single resource systems all the way to fully realistic and as such a stock implementation of any kind would be considered too difficult by some but too easy for others. If one was added at all I would expect it to be similar to Snacks with one or possibly two resources that Kerbals use up and which can be generated or recycled by specific crewed parts like labs or habs.

No that’s not the outside of the engine, the engine is shaped like a big dome and in the trailer you can see the engine attached to the back of the shield.

[Superfluous J]

I thought for sure they actually already said that if you were on the wrong end (but not even actually in the plume) of those engines you'd be dead.

I have a distinct memory of them talking about that scene in the trailer where 2 EVA'd Kerbals were watching that engine warm up, and the developer nodded at a question  and said "Yeah they'd be dead for sure" or something like that.

But anyway I'd be surprised if it was more than "Within X distance and not behind a shield = dead."

 

[Guest]

Even without the radiation shielding we have rotating habitats and resource containers, that's already something more complex than KSP1 "just put everyone on seats strapped to the tanks"

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Alright, see that big disc behind the liquid hydrogen tanks on that ISV, I may be wrong but I think that is a radiation shield to stop your payload and kerbals from being nuked by the artificial star at the back, which means life support and radiation will be a concern for designing your craft. Tell me if you think I am wrong and your thoughts below. 

The dev diary said that they don't want players babysitting hundreds of kerbals, so life support will probably be minimal if implemented.

[afafsa]

I've probably gotten too sucked into this debate about realism, but I'm on quarantine so it's not like I have anything better to do. I first discovered this game back in college and it ended up shaping my real-life career path, so I'm really passionate about KSP as an educational tool. I think the debate can be reduced to this.

Engineering decisions should be driven by practicality.

Too many people seem to have it backwards. KSP is a game about solving engineering problems, not designing cool rockets. Designing cool rockets is just a way to solve cool engineering problems. Adding a centrifuge on an interstellar ship shouldn't be because it looks cool, it should be a practical necessity to ensure your kerbonauts arrive safely. Setting up a base at an ice deposit doesn't just mean having water to live, it means having to design rockets which take advantage of water for fuel. Every choice should have a practical consideration behind it, and the sum total of these decisions should be rockets, spaceships, and colonies that look and behave a lot like their real-life and theoretical counterparts.

KSP shouldn't just be about learning how KSP works. One should be able to open up Atomic Rockets, learn about some new concept, then fire up KSP2 and make something work using real-world knowledge. That feedback is a beautiful thing.

[The Aziz]

3 hours ago, afafsa said:

Too many people seem to have it backwards. KSP is a game about solving engineering problems, not designing cool rockets.

Including the devs? I'm quoting myself quoting their words:

 

[afafsa]

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Including the devs? I'm quoting myself quoting their words:

Semantic differences. They also say "Defining and achieving unique goals." My point is that one serves the other, otherwise the experience is hollow. Simple Rockets has a far superior creative interface for rocket design, but I'd argue it's not as popular (and not as good) because the purpose behind the rockets isn't well-defined.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, afafsa said:

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

Including the devs? I'm quoting myself quoting their words:

Semantic differences. They also say "Defining and achieving unique goals." My point is that one serves the other, otherwise the experience is hollow. Simple Rockets has a far superior creative interface for rocket design, but I'd argue it's not as popular (and not as good) because the purpose behind the rockets isn't well-defined.

KSP is a space flight simulator. It was never about practicality. Besides, what use is there in talking about practicality in the context of a game where planets have impossibly high gravity for their sizes and grass grows into dirt that is presumably as hard as rock?

[Toucan]

I expect almost every aspect of the game to be enhanced, changed slightly or be outright re-imagined. I expect there will be twice as many very lifelike engineering challenges to consider when launching any vehicle.
There must be familiarity but at the end of the day there would be no point in making the new game if it was just a big version of Environmental Visual Enhancements.

[mattinoz]

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Including the devs? I'm quoting myself quoting their words:

 

Not sure about this I'd say what the Dev have said in many and numerous places supports the idea that KSP is an game that challenges people to problem solve with cool rockets and certainly they are problem based on dV but to me this is the killer line from the dev note in which they say they are minimising colony management note not eliminating it.

"We all know that Kerbals just need cool suits, snacks, and something fun to crash."

Cool Suits and Snacks to me both say life support with environmental pressures (or lack of) but a simple and clean. Not micromanaged just making sure Kerbals have what they need to self manage. (which then gives a solid base for mods to extend without reinventing the wheel each time).

KSP2 can't just be the same solve this dV problem game play it needs more depth, constraint, release and flexibility or in short FUN!

3 hours ago, Toucan said:

I expect almost every aspect of the game to be enhanced, changed slightly or be outright re-imagined. I expect there will be twice as many very lifelike engineering challenges to consider when launching any vehicle.
There must be familiarity but at the end of the day there would be no point in making the new game if it was just a big version of Environmental Visual Enhancements.

Exactly how do they get 10 years of development out of the game (a stated aim) without expanding the scope for challenges?

[mcwaffles2003]

17 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I know, that it would be deuterium and helium 3 but i was just saying hydrogen as KSP tends to simplify things, but it could fully be deuterium and helium 3 hence the big and small tanks on the ISV and metallic hydrogen needs to be doped with cesium so complexity may become a new reality. But I think that radiation will be in the game as a radiation shield would not be in the game if it served no purpose.

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

First of, those are realistically speaking not Liquid Hydrogen tanks but rather Liquid Helium and Liquid Deuterium (but I guess KSP2 will introduce some kind of abstract alternative, like FusionFuel). Secondly, the radiation shield is just for show I think, adding actual radiation would make it a lot more complex for players that just want to make cool rockets, and radiation is not cool.

Why helium-3 and not tritium? D-T fusion is much easier to achieve.

Is neutron radiation of that great a concern?

Edited May 19, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why helium-3 and not tritium? D-T fusion is much easier to achieve.

In short because D-T fusion produces 80% neutron energy, which makes it less suitable for interstellar travel. It effectively means you lose 80% of energy potential, limiting your engine to an isp to 300000s tops, at best this would allow you to build multi generation ships. Beside crippling your exhaust speed and therefore maximum deltaV, you also need to deal with all that nasty neutron radiation, which will be a pain because it requires radiation shields and radiators which will be heavy.  D-He3 produces less than 1% neutron (with some trickery), meaning it will maximize your potential deltaV, which is all important if you want to travel fast

Edited May 19, 2020 by FreeThinker

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

Because D-T fusion produces 80% neutrons, which are unsuitable for interstellar travel. It effectively means you lose 80% of energy potential, limiting isp to 300000s. Beside crippling your exhaust speed and therefore maximum deltaV, you also need to deal with all that nasty neutron radiation, which will be a pain.  D-He3 produces less than 1% neutron (with some trickery), meaning it will maximize your potential isp

But then don't you still lose energy potential with the 1 proton? I don't see a magnetic confinement nozzle to redirect the protons produced

[FreeThinker]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

But then don't you still lose energy potential with the 1 proton? I don't see a magnetic confinement nozzle to redirect the protons produced

No the Fusion energy is in the form of kenetic energy in the fission product, the trick is to redirect the energy to the back, which will push the engine, and therefore the vessel forward

[AntaresMC]

12 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP is a space flight simulator. It was never about practicality. Besides, what use is there in talking about practicality in the context of a game where planets have impossibly high gravity for their sizes and grass grows into dirt that is presumably as hard as rock?

Ok, a simple life support is just about perfect (I use USI, and thats not too much of a problem while adding a lot of deph and nerfing the OP labs) and practicality (more precisely purpose) is what drives my 1000h in the game. If I just wanna build cool rockets, I draw them, or play some Scifi videogame...

Im making a theory of the Kerbal System, I cant figure out how it formed (infinite Improbability, I guess) but cold degenerate matter (ultradense supersolids mostly, as a crystal dwarf) in the cores of everyone but Jool (a normal, big venus like planet), Gilly (just a heavy metal rich rock), and havent done the math on the jool moons (Laythe an Tylo ovbiously). Kerbol is a regular (especially dense and stable, but acceptable anomally) red dwarf and is so bright because is like around 1/2 quadrillion years old or somethig around (red dwarves get brighter over time). The asteroids are so light because are H2 ballons or made of porous ice (which explains its awful lot of burnable content). Dres doesnt exist, is a conspiracy made in the False Dres Images Facility in Dresden XD but if did, would have also an ultra dense core... The ground is so hard because have degenerate matter particles (and life has adapted to it, the kerbals have some kind of metabolism that process it, that explains the no need for life support, as this thing is almost as energy dense as an RTG) AND will explain why all KSC is so hard but flammable... Any thoughts/questions? Id like an astronomer to help in this topic, just saying...

[Guest]

8 hours ago, mattinoz said:

Cool Suits and Snacks to me both say life support with environmental pressures (or lack of) but a simple and clean. Not micromanaged just making sure Kerbals have what they need to self manage. (which then gives a solid base for mods to extend without reinventing the wheel each time).

Environmental hazards life support is something I expect since I first saw that radiation shielding and heard Nate talk about "nothing like you're used in the mods" when asked about life support.

Habitat requirement (like having spin gravity for long periods of time in space), radiation protection, different suits for different situations (no need for RCS packs on Eve, maybe something to resist the pressures and temperatures) 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why helium-3 and not tritium? D-T fusion is much easier to achieve.

Is neutron radiation of that great a concern?

On earth it's not, but on a interstellar ship that will be continually operating the reactor for decades or even centuries one must consider the effects of neutron activation even if we discount the health effects and lost energy.

Whatever materials your magnets are using won't likely remain magnetic after being constantly transmuted by neutron flux, and even your automated maintenance robots won't likely appreciate the hard gamma radiation emitted  from the daughter products as they proceed along their decay chains. 

[AntaresMC]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

In short because D-T fusion produces 80% neutron energy, which makes it less suitable for interstellar travel. It effectively means you lose 80% of energy potential, limiting your engine to an isp to 300000s tops, at mest this would allow you to build multi generation ships. Beside crippling your exhaust speed and therefore maximum deltaV, you also need to deal with all that nasty neutron radiation, which will be a pain because it require radiation shields and radiators which will be heavy.  D-He3 produces less than 1% neutron (with some trickery), meaning it will maximize your potential deltaV, which is all important if you want to travel fast

Talking on neutrons, what do you think about spin polarized? In KSPIE is a fusion mode, but I think it needs a rework.

I propose a specific engine (would be seen as a reactor+ATILLA like nozzle (flat, as the earth) a bit of He/Charged particles generation (DT fusion, obviously), enough to power itself, a bit more power (like an extra enough to power itself with 1-2 CP generator upgrade, so when furder upgraded generates power).

A laughable thrust (mabe should measure it in 10s of Newtons (or scale up by a 1000 factor and half Isp as done with stock Ion engine)) and Isp of some million seconds (like even more than the Unobtusstard) in a size similar to the nuke lightbulb (probably a bit wider/moe compact, but around there)

Mabe a generator, but SP fusion is almost useless for power.

I believe, and its just a hypothesis that you can make a neutronium battery to store the nuclear power from the spin pol. fusion if have proton doping and a powerful enough magnetic bottle. Would be likee antimatter, containment fail and BOOM, (a multi ton thermonuclear device bom that lasts around 1/4h). Pover density by mass on pair with the best fission/worst fusion fuels, by volume, the best until kuggerblizes/black hoes in general. 100% charged particle output (unless thermal loses). Im looking forward to design an egine. I think in something like that:

A low power (have to calculate the mass flow, but I guess around 50-500 kN, really difficult (yet possible in small quantities) to afterburn), high Isp (around OPdalus level) long, not very wide magnetic nozzle like engine. The tanks are thousamds of magnetic bottles marble sized that contain dust mote sized athomized neutronium. The tanks make wasteHeat and the hotter, the more they make (linear, but have a radiator to not make exponetial, it would be like a Log2(wasteheat)×neutronium quantity while the radiators arent filled). A "big" (big sand grain size, remember thats literraly tons!) Is created from a SpinPolarized DT Neutronium generator, that transforms tons of DT in He, neutronium and the biggest mountain of wateHeat you've seen evah

then, another thing that you attach at the SPDTNG (mabe put a nickname) takes that neutronium and converts it into "dopedNeutronium" with a bit hydrogen and a lot of power (external, the *insert nickname* uses up all its own, mabe a tri alpha, or even an antimatter-fission-fussion?) That you can move to the tanks. A tank (2.5/3.75, scaleable) may have around few thousand tons at max, while a mass ratio of around 1/100.

Also see a torch that uses anti hydrogen cat neutronium fission at the end of the tech tree when both branches merge (I imagine neutronium an antimatter being in the same level as Gas Core NTRs and fusion, neutronium lead to dead end, but better in the short run) thats around 10^6s Isp and like 10-20 MN (plus limited afterburner capabilities, but seems a quite unnecesary feature) at Unobtusstard/OPdalus size variant and equally dubious thermodynamics as the Kerbstein. Mabe should do a model to illustrate... 

Ah, both endines would be heavily pulsed, at best as VISTA, but most probable as the MIF or even minimag orion...

Mabe should start a new thread related to this resource... would love it in KSPIE/KSP2, but isnt well known and deserves more love from scifi.

Also, finally, sorry for the Library of Babel, Im confined and have nothing to do ;D 

Edited May 19, 2020 by AntaresMC

[FreeThinker]

9 minutes ago, AntaresMC said:

Talking on neutrons, what do you think about spin polarized? In KSPIE is a fusion mode, but I think it needs a rework.

I propose a specific engine (would be seen as a reactor+ATILLA like nozzle (flat, as the earth) a bit of He/Charged particles generation (DT fusion, obviously), enough to power itself, a bit more power (like an extra enough to power itself with 1-2 CP generator upgrade, so when furder upgraded generates power).

A laughable thrust (mabe should measure it in 10s of Newtons (or scale up by a 1000 factor and half Isp as done with stock Ion engine)) and Isp of some million seconds (like even more than the Unobtusstard) in a size similar to the nuke lightbulb (probably a bit wider/moe compact, but around there)

Mabe a generator, but SP fusion is almost useless for power.

I believe, and its just a hypothesis that you can make a neutronium battery to store the nuclear power from the spin pol. fusion if have proton doping and a powerful enough magnetic bottle. Would be likee antimatter, containment fail and BOOM, (a bom that lasts around 1/4h). Pover density by mass on pair with the best fission/worst fusion fuels, by volume, the best until kuggerblizes/black hoes in general. 100% charged particle output (unless thermal loses). Im looking forward to design an egine. I think in something like that:

I'm afraid I don't understand but what you might be getting is a fusion fission hybrid, where D-T fusion produces the Neutrons which is then used to produced high amounts of fission.

[AntaresMC]

 

10 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I'm afraid I don't understand but what you might be getting is a fusion fission hybrid, where D-T fusion produces the Neutrons which is then used to produced high amounts of fission.

No, thats the manufacturing mthod, that would be too waste heat/energy/fuel/mass/time (yo have to burn tons of DT, that takes time) heavy for a ship. And the problem aint neutrons, but you need a MeV dense beam, and only think I can think of (appart from supernovae) is spin pol. DT. You fill up  your ship in orbit (cant imagine lift it up) and deppart. Its like 100 times less energy dense by mass than antimatter and only some tens of times better by volume, BUT it produces 100% chargedParticles, what makes it possible to be burnt quickly and with no working fluid, easing a lot torch making. THATS the point.

And on the other side, YES, neutronium is a battery, isnt found naturally exctractably, so yes, you store fusion power, but same you do when antimatter, they are vey simillar in that they are 2 faces in a coin (gameplay machanics wise). 2 batteries, one is dense, heat producer expensive and "safe" and the other is less dense, cheaper, CP generator an "not as safe" (yea, I never thiked of antimatter before as the safer option XD)

Mabe could be made in a cyclotron, but quantities so miuscules tha may be a science experiment with byproduct (a Kg as much)

Edited May 19, 2020 by AntaresMC

[FreeThinker]

I heard of spin polarized Helium3 but can Tritium be spin polarized  as well? Intresting, I need to investigate

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3850.pdf

That might be possible but the problem remains that Tritium has a half life of several years, which means it becomes Helium3 + Hydrogen over time.

Edited May 19, 2020 by FreeThinker