Scottiths Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 So if you subscribe to space.com (I expect a lot of you do) then you know that NASA recently tested an engine that basically creates thrust without using any fuel at all. Is this something you would like to see in KSP, or would this just make the game too easy and never mind that its real Here is a link to one of the stories about the so called impossible engine.http://m.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0804/NASA-test-demonstrates-impossible-propulsion-system-video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whirligig Girl Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 In order to be realistic, it would be the WORST engine ever. Sure there wouldn't be any fuel, but to move much of anything, you'd need a couple months of free time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cydonian Monk Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I think there's enough fantasy tech in KSP already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottiths Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 Good point. However, Ion engines are in the game and they are scaled up considerably from a realistic ion engine. Also, it is not fantasy. This is a real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Ion drives offer much more thrust. For the distances within the Kerbal system there's really no need for a thruster that delivers less power but uses no propellant (IF and that's a big if such microwave devices do indeed work. NASA didn't say it worked; it said "we had a force we couldn't explain but so did the device that wasn't supposed to work")Such a propulsion system if it exists (IF! IF! IF!) would be great for exploring other star systems as it could run for years (and thus propel vehicles to great speed). KSP doesn't have other stars to visit (how awesome would THAT be) so... it would be without a lot of use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42_aerobrake_passes Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 It's not so much NASA saying "We have this cool new thing" as "Hmm, this is weird. Can anyone help us figure out what we're missing here?". A friend of mine pointed out that the thrust claimed is along the lines of what you get from one end being slightly warmer than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNM Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) So...i'm the first party puper here i see Guys...slow down with the horses...- results don't match (much less thrust by Nasa compared to others)- the control...did not control (both created thrust...), meaning the experiment...went wrong somehow.So...lets see what WENT WRONG in the experiment before braking the laws of physics... Edited August 5, 2014 by TNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackAdder128 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 So...i'm the first party puper here i see Guys...slow down with the horses...- results don't match (much less thrust by Nasa compared to others)- the control...did not control (both created thrust...), meaning the experiment...went wrong somehow.So...lets see what WENT WRONG in the experiment before braking the laws of physics... That's quite a sensible statement... hardly the Kerbal way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KasperVld Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 We have had a lot of threads about this engine type open up over the last few days already, so I'll direct you to [thread=79291]this thread[/thread] instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts