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

[AntaresMC]

 

4 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

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.

It can, just more difficult as have less electric charge, and the plan is toproduce in situ and have He3 as a poison, like Actinide in fission. H is not a problem since you need it to dope.

Edit: Why polarize He3? The idea is to can redirect the neutrons and He3 doesnt produce neutons with almost anything

Edited May 19, 2020 by AntaresMC

[Incarnation of Chaos]

8 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

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.

If you're already using fission-fusion, then there's no need to store raw Tritium. You could produce it from Fission of Lithium (Yes; it can undergo fission even though it's such a light element) if you can tank the dry mass penalty.

No idea about the rest of this stuff, but i wanted to chime in on this xD.

[Stevie_D]

Putting  too much stock in a screenshot and assuming information and thinking of it as locked in can be misleading.

Seeing the radiation shield in front of an engine is like saying "I saw the pipes above the Skipper engine in a screenshot, so we'll need to do maintenance on rockets."

For all we know, the radiation shields could just be the top end of the model for the fusion/nuclear/metallichydrogen/whatever rockets, and are there for asthetic purposes.

I'd like to -think- we have to deal with radiation, but taking a screenshot and saying it's so just because you see something doesnt make it true.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Stevie_D

[AntaresMC]

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

If you're already using fission-fusion, then there's no need to store raw Tritium. You could produce it from Fission of Lithium (Yes; it can undergo fission even though it's such a light element) if you can tank the dry mass penalty.

No idea about the rest of this stuff, but i wanted to chime in on this xD.

The problem is that you are fissing neutronium, that generates no neutrons (funny, eh?) but ß and H in equal amounts (by number). Yea, you could use a bit of the neuton beam to fisse Li7, also spin polarized (have ABSOLUTELY no idea if thats even possible, imagine yes) and breed tritium, but I think its better/simpler/more efficient to breed from an external source, you need a power source anyway, so why not a cheap D-D fusion with a Li6 blanket?

Also, storing raw T is a really bad idea, since He3 would be a dangerous poison that reduces efficiency, heats up and could even unstabilize the forming neutonium ball, leading to neutron radiation/embrittlement/activation, small neutronium loss over time and serious waste heat problems, if an "anti charged particle filter" isnt there to prevent overdopation (aka the instabilities I talked)

Edited May 19, 2020 by AntaresMC

[Incarnation of Chaos]

8 minutes ago, AntaresMC said:

The problem is that you are fissing neutronium, that generates no neutrons (funny, eh?) but ß and H in equal amounts (by number). Yea, you could use a bit of the neuton beam to fisse Li7, also spin polarized (have ABSOLUTELY no idea if thats even possible, imagine yes) and breed tritium, but I think its better/simpler/more efficient to breed from an external source, you need a power source anyway, so why not a cheap D-D fusion with a Li6 blanket?

Neutronium? The stuff that freaking neutron stars are made of? That a tablespoon's worth would punch a hole straight thru the earth like it was made of paper?!

T H A T ' S what you're proposing working with?

[AntaresMC]

I said antimatter was the safer option, didnt it tell you anything?

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Neutronium? The stuff that freaking neutron stars are made of? That a tablespoon's worth would punch a hole straight thru the earth like it was made of paper?!

T H A T ' S what you're proposing working with?

And wouldnt punch a hole, just pass right through letting a death trace of dirty nuke radiation and almost pulverizing by embrittlement

Edited May 19, 2020 by AntaresMC

[Incarnation of Chaos]

26 minutes ago, Stevie_D said:

Putting  too much stock in a screenshot and assuming information and thinking of it as locked in can be misleading.

Seeing the radiation shield in front of an engine is like saying "I saw the pipes above the Skipper engine in a screenshot, so we'll need to do maintenance on rockets."

For all we know, the radiation shields could just be the top end of the model for the fusion/nuclear/metallichydrogen/whatever rockets, and are there for asthetic purposes.

I'd like to -think- we have to deal with radiation, but taking a screenshot and saying it's so just because you see something doesnt make it true.

Also I'm surprised you're the first person to point this out tbh; i could find dozens of screenshots of people in KSP that have more "Realistic" additions to their ships including Centrifugal rings, Radiators and etc. But unless they're running a modded game it's all for looks. Also the OP has been making thread after thread about implementing more "Realistic" features into KSP2, and therefore is biased towards seeing these things where they might not be.

He's persistent though; I'll give him that.

2 minutes ago, AntaresMC said:

I said antimatter was the safer option, didnt it tell you anything?

 

I skimmed thru your first few posts tbh, so that's my fault.

[AntaresMC]

49 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also I'm surprised you're the first person to point this out tbh; i could find dozens of screenshots of people in KSP that have more "Realistic" additions to their ships including Centrifugal rings, Radiators and etc. But unless they're running a modded game it's all for looks. Also the OP has been making thread after thread about implementing more "Realistic" features into KSP2, and therefore is biased towards seeing these things where they might not be.

He's persistent though; I'll give him that.

I skimmed thru your first few posts tbh, so that's my fault.

Its really difficult to find info about that and I often have to do my own math/theories  based on only a few papers. Its a luck that Im good at reverse engineering settings with low info (have years trying to decipher scifi/magic and Ive been succesful with really soft systems, yea, Im a friki/nerd (last quite obvious))

Anyway, its a thing that really deserves more love in scifi and investigation, would love some help from someone that actually knows quantum mechanics in deph, or high energy phisics, or at least an intensive study that isnt about pulsar cores, or useless structural strength.

But I love it, its the most kerbal engine in the universe! Forget about the orion or saltwater! XD

Edited May 19, 2020 by AntaresMC

[AntaresMC]

1 hour 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.

Ah, lol, I misunderstood the statement, no.

Im talking about squishing down neutrons to make a ball of pulsar crust, the only fission that occurs is that of the superheated neutronium as the pressure is released, decays, heats up until it dissociates in a superheated plasma of H+ and ß, its the nuclear equivalent to metalic hydrogen or solid helium, the most kerbal material until quark matter. It would even be possible to make antineutronium, at the cost of basicly 0 safety (LETS DO IT!), but ghats mabe quite a lot...

[DunaManiac]

21 hours ago, afafsa said:

KSP is a game about solving engineering problems, not designing cool rockets

You are the one who is backwards, my friend. That's what KSP was designed for!

Edited May 19, 2020 by DunaManiac

[afafsa]

20 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

You are the one who is backwards, my friend. That's what KSP was designed for!

Then play Simple Rockets. It's far better, if that's all you care about.

Kerbal Space Program is a game about a "Space Program." None of this is to say that rockets should be made intentionally boring, which seems to be the bizarre insinuation. Only that the "Space Program" part is what makes the rockets interesting, and thus is where the emphasis should be placed.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

[The Aziz]

If I wanted my rocket to serve one purpose and be nothing but designed to be practical and as efficient as possible (and that covers "solving engineering problems") I'd play Orbiter.

If I wanted my rocket to carry as much as it possibly can without breaking to pieces (after watching for hours how it explodes because I overdid it) with nothing but physics and imagination stopping me (that is, having fun building cool rocket and then solving engineering problems with cherry on top) I'd play KSP.

If I had a potato computer, I'd play SimpleRockets.

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, afafsa said:

Kerbal Space Program is a game about a "Space Program."

No, KSP was just a "build a rocket and launch it" simulator when first released. It has grown over the years to include planets, moons, and space agency stuff. The aircraft parts were an afterthought. Kerbin's atmosphere was not a priority for several years. Drag and lift wasn't a thing until after .9x. Science and career modes were only introduced a few years ago. The relic parts lying around were the original models used for the game.

That's the reason why there is such a resistance to the added complexity for realism sake.

I for one would like to have reasons to build colonies, need rings on long-term space voyages, and such. But not at the expense of needing to spend long periods of time planning, nitpicking parts to make sure they can be used together, creating spreadsheets for supplies and such. I just want to slap together a mission and just go and do it. Minimal planning, minimal fussing about.

I think everyone understands that there will be some more added complexity, but what most people are suggesting is going overboard. Extreme realism is no fun. Games are about fun.

You keep saying go play simple rockets if you want to launch cool rockets. In my opinion, simple rockets sucks compared to KSP.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

That's the reason why there is such a resistance to the added complexity for realism sake.

I for one would like to have reasons to build colonies, need rings on long-term space voyages, and such. But not at the expense of needing to spend long periods of time planning, nitpicking parts to make sure they can be used together, creating spreadsheets for supplies and such.

The problem here is that everyone is thinking this as 2 variables, "simplicity" Vs "realism" when the problem has at least a third variable, "gameplay".

I'm opposed to both the "realism for the sake of realism" and "simplicity for the sake of simplicity" approaches while I'm all-in for new, layered gameplay, one that's adjustable with difficulty options as in all management, simulation and sandbox games especially in KSP which is all of the above.

I don't want to pass an afternoon calculating fuel ratios, designing a turbopump for a new slightly different methane engine just because that's realistic, but I would find having to choose between the "cheaper on Kerbin" Kerolox LV-T45 engine and the "costlier but you can IRSU on Mün" Hydrolox KS-25 Vector a more engaging gameplay than just strapping any engine you esthetically like because they just all work in all situations for the sake of simplicity.

The same reasoning can be applied to any other aspect of the game: life support, automation, programming and so on, the priority should be to have a compelling gameplay not one as simple as possible to the point of being empty but not a super complex one to the point of needing spreadsheets to be able to play.

[shdwlrd]

40 minutes ago, Master39 said:

The problem here is that everyone is thinking this as 2 variables, "simplicity" Vs "realism" when the problem has at least a third variable, "gameplay".

I'm opposed to both the "realism for the sake of realism" and "simplicity for the sake of simplicity" approaches while I'm all-in for new, layered gameplay, one that's adjustable with difficulty options as in all management, simulation and sandbox games especially in KSP which is all of the above.

I don't want to pass an afternoon calculating fuel ratios, designing a turbopump for a new slightly different methane engine just because that's realistic, but I would find having to choose between the "cheaper on Kerbin" Kerolox LV-T45 engine and the "costlier but you can IRSU on Mün" Hydrolox KS-25 Vector a more engaging gameplay than just strapping any engine you esthetically like because they just all work in all situations for the sake of simplicity.

The same reasoning can be applied to any other aspect of the game: life support, automation, programming and so on, the priority should be to have a compelling gameplay not one as simple as possible to the point of being empty but not a super complex one to the point of needing spreadsheets to be able to play.

I agree with most of of this. I highlighted the part I disagree with the most. I don't want the precursor motors to work with only specific fuels. I don't want to add that headache to the game. The new motors and drives need new fuel types, and that is understandable. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is changing something that doesn't need to be changed.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I agree with most of of this. I highlighted the part I disagree with the most. I don't want the precursor motors to work with only specific fuels. I don't want to add that headache to the game. The new motors and drives need new fuel types, and that is understandable. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is changing something that doesn't need to be changed.

It was an example from my previous response on the fuels topic on which different fuels have different uses and are unlocked at different time to scale things gradually towards more advanced engines and fuels, that's why i used the LV-T45 and the Vector, one is a beginner, low tech, simple tier 2/9 engine while the other is an advanced, costlier, tier 8/9 engine, the same tier of the Ion propulsion.

My point is that it would be useless to have such a thing "just for realism" but it would add value to the game if it has some new gameplay to bring, like having specific engines being more useful on specific bodies because you can extract and refine their fuel, differentiate the exploration because if everything is just a mere "Delta V challenge" i don't see a reason to ever plan an interstellar mission.

It surely can't be as simple as KSP1, in KSP no choice, design or specific part matters for anything, you can just strap a seat on an orange tank with a vector and call it a successful Jool mission, some complexity is to be expected just not to have a "progression mode" that's not a broken mess like Career and Science are.

On top of that we already know of 5 or 6 new fuel tipes (one of which is actual nukes!), and we know that part of the colonies point will be to refine/synthesize them so that probably means we'll have some multiple resources to work with (and the abundance of containers in all the screenshots seems to point toward that) and that's even without counting the fact that you will be able to build and launch missions from colonies, I don't think they will just drop a 200m wall in the learning curve for the sake of "tradition", base building is already completely different from what we know (that's hacking together space station parts with workaround because base building is not present in the game), and I more than certain that IRSU operation will look nothing like we know in KSP1

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

I agree with most of of this. I highlighted the part I disagree with the most. I don't want the precursor motors to work with only specific fuels. I don't want to add that headache to the game. The new motors and drives need new fuel types, and that is understandable. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is changing something that doesn't need to be changed.

Let's say  (and my whole post is an assumption) they simply change current LF to liquid hydrogen, and OX to liquid oxygen.

Okay, that's fine, many conventional engines present in the game at the moment can work on that.

But our old LV-N? I don't think it could work with just liquid hydrogen, it's a nuclear engine for a reason. So that gives us one new fuel type, probably to be used by few other engines as well.

Jet engines shouldn't work with LF, now known as as hydrogen, that wouldn't make much sense, from what I've read, many jet engines work on kerosene, so that's second new fuel.

Plus you can mix kerosene with liquid oxygen, and boom, another rocket propellant. Or we could just have kerosene instead of hydrogen. 

So, not much has changed in terms of complexity, we got one more fuel type, only because it makes a little bit more sense. Plus few new names for old fuels. They're still the same thing, just properly named. And still with old engines of ours.

Why not?

Edited May 19, 2020 by The Aziz

[Bej Kerman]

10 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

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...

That's your preference but KSP was never about practicality.

10 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

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...

None of this makes sense, and where did you get "red dwarves get brighter over time" from?

[shdwlrd]

@Master39 you're assuming that everyone will play through whatever the devs decides will be the progression for the technologies.

I play KSP in sandbox, period. Not because the career and science modes suck, or whatever KSP2 adds for a progression mode. It's because I want to use whatever parts I want, and do anything I want. Which in turn, means I don't care if a motor uses Kerolox, Hydrolox, Methalox, or whatever. If the motor or engine requires a liquid fuel and an oxidizer, it's LFO in my mind. I don't care about the different physical and chemical properties of the different petroleum and cryogenic fuels.

Now if a motor or drive doesn't use LF or LFO, then yes, it needs it's own fuel resource.

This is the mindset in pointing my disagreement on. 

It punishing the people who just wants to be creative and do what they want, which is the spirit of KSP.

 

 

[shdwlrd]

@The Aziz i don't want to sound dismissive to your argument, but as I said to Master39, I don't care about the different petroleum and cryogenic fuel fuel types.

If they want to change what fuel works with the Nerva, I wouldn't have an issue with it. It never made sense to me that they had it working with jet fuel and not LH2 or hydrogen. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

It punishing the people who just wants to be creative and do what they want, which is the spirit of KSP.

Then let's make the jets work in vacuum, or any engine without fuel at all, that's also punishing by the standards of other space games.

I don't se how 6 fuel tipes are ok but 8 are unbearingly punishing for people who want to be creative, we're just arguing about arbitrary limits.

 

Remember, I'm arguing for gameplay, not pointless realism, obviously if you decide to ignore the main mode of the game you'll also find the related gameplay features to be useless, but I would argue that pairing tanks and engines it's hardly considerable a mild inconvenience at best and that the devs should not cut content from the progression mode to keep the sandbox simple.

[mcwaffles2003]

12 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Then let's make the jets work in vacuum, or any engine without fuel at all, that's also punishing by the standards of other space games.

I don't se how 6 fuel tipes are ok but 8 are unbearingly punishing for people who want to be creative, we're just arguing about arbitrary limits.

 

Remember, I'm arguing for gameplay, not pointless realism, obviously if you decide to ignore the main mode of the game you'll also find the related gameplay features to be useless, but I would argue that pairing tanks and engines it's hardly considerable a mild inconvenience at best and that the devs should not cut content from the progression mode to keep the sandbox simple.

Why have 8 when 6 can do the job just as well? Make things as simple as possible but no simpler

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why have 8 when 6 can do the job just as well? Make things as simple as possible but no simpler

If they don't add anything in terms of gameplay let's simplify, if they add some compelling gameplay then let's add them in a realistic way, that's my point.

In that specific relply I was just remembering that the game is designed around the progression mode, not sandbox, just like Minecraft is designed around survival and not creative.

The fuel is just an example I used 3 replies above in an example I thing adds more gameplay but I'm not advocating for having more fuels, I'm doing it for more gameplay. 

[SpaceFace545]

7 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why have 8 when 6 can do the job just as well? Make things as simple as possible but no simpler

But adding a few more won’t hurt anyone. And it adds more gameplay challenges, I think a real fuel option would be best as people are kinda split between lfo and real fuels.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

If they don't add anything in terms of gameplay let's simplify, if they add some compelling gameplay then let's add them in a realistic way, that's my point.

In that specific relply I was just remembering that the game is designed around the progression mode, not sandbox, just like Minecraft is designed around survival and not creative.

The fuel is just an example I used 3 replies above in an example I thing adds more gameplay but I'm not advocating for having more fuels, I'm doing it for more gameplay. 

So long as engine performance is dependent on the engine then I feel new fuels add nothing but a name. If instead we built the engines themselves and could change their performance values which would be dependent on fuel types then I would be all for it. But if we're just purchasing pre-built engines then all the fuel tank is doing is adding a check mark and nit picking what color the check mark comes in adds, in my view, little to nothing to the actual gameplay.

4 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But adding a few more won’t hurt anyone. And it adds more gameplay challenges, I think a real fuel option would be best as people are kinda split between lfo and real fuels.

What gameplay does it add other than "realism"? What are these challenges you refer to?

Just seem like more logistical slowdowns all to just add titles