MatterBeam

I think the entire tourism discussion is a focus on a side-show while the main drive for large-scale space presence is going to be commercial exploitation. Super-heavy rockets can cheaply deliver all-in-one robotic kits for building automated mining colonies on the moon, then cheaply deliver the first loads of propellant for in-orbit refuelling. Then, they won't be needed, because bulk items will start falling down orbits rather than climbing up them. If we have ISRU propellants and spaceships made out of asteroid/moon-mined materials, then we can build entire space stations and orbital vehicles without needed anything except high tech machinery from Earth.

The rocket-fans spinning at Mach 1.5 while pushing superheated hydrogen through them sounds like pure engineering hell... and that's before you even start encountering supersonic airflow. I think this rocket design's weakest point is the transition to scramjet mode. Even pure scramjet engines haven't been made to work reliably after decades of research, so something that can just switch to scramjet mode as part of four modes is like another circle in Dante's Inferno. If we use a hydrogen turbojet up to Mach 3 then an air-augmented oxygen afterburning rocket up to hypersonic speeds, then just switch to rocket mode and exit the atmosphere, we can get the Isp savings needed for a rocket that has 5-10x better payload fraction than chemical rockets. That's revolutionary enough. Although the entire concept does not address the main issue with nuclear designs: the fact that they're nuclear.

I think it will have higher efficiency, since you are getting more air with a smaller inlet area (drag). The Isp will be higher, since you are moving more air for little extra fuel, as is the case for turbofans. I'm not so sure about the thrust though. Your external atmosphere will be at a higher pressure, you'll need a lot of overpressure in the combustion chamber to generate positive thrust. .

Its more to do with the fact that you only need to retain the fusion reaction for microseconds instead of hours on end. I'm glad to hear that! Feel free to ask me questions here, on the blog's comments, by email or by personal message

Nice overview of fusion propulsion systems. VISTA is actually easier to develop than Tokamak or other continuous fusion designs: in fact, all pulsed designs are easier to develop than continuous designs.

I really like the graphics quality. I see you're using Nertea's Cryo Engines pack. Are you also using other Near Future mods?

Hi. Is there a way to make airbrakes or control surfaces 'stageable': you hit the spacebar and airbrakes deploy.

In which way does this make them adjustable? More specifically, what is being adjusted here?

This is amazing work. I love lifting bodies and I find those in photo/ in KSP comparison shots quite impressive. Keep it up guys!

This is quite fun to read!

This is my favourite thing. Small tweaks through MM patches that shave off hours of grievances in the long run. Here's my small contribution: //All engines surface attachable, except SRBs. @PART[*]:HAS[#category[Engine],!RESOURCE[SolidFuel]]:FINAL { @attachRules = 1,1,1,0,0 } Pro: Less structural parts needed to stick rocket engines where they shouldn't go. Cons: Jet engines models are messed up, I need help excluding them. Will an !PROPELLANT[IntakeAir] work?

I got scatterer and clouds from EVE working.

I have had no problems so far using the 1.22 RSS files, plus the latest Kopernicus for 1.3 and the patch fix.

Thanks @Galileo and @Gordon Dry, the patch fix works and I can play RSS in 1.3.

Good work.

Hello. How do I unlock or increase the current size limits on procedural wings?

I would be very interested in the mod's revival, especially since the two vessel/one switch after uncoupling bug has been fixed.

Isn't including launch clamps in the design a sure-fire way to spawn your rocket above ground?

Incredible work! Do you have an idea of how Kopernicus changes the way colliders load?

Hi! My RSS 1.2.2 install of B9 Procedural Wings has parts limited to 16m in size. Sometimes, I need to extend the wings to even greater sizes. How do I do this? I cannot find any setting in the .cfg files that might affect the maximum part size... Thanks!

Hello guys! This is a general question - I'm not hunting down bugs or reporting errors. The Balloon tanks + SMURFF + Procedural Parts mods allow for extremely lightweight propellant tanks. I'm talking mass ratios of 300+. Are these realistic? Or are these the result of SMURFF acting upon the procedural part masses after RealFuels has already modded their masses? Thanks!

I've been inspired to re-start a stock career game, remove all part mods and performance modifications just to participate in this challenge. My entry for STS-1 a/b: Album: I hope to continue the remaining progression challenges.

Holy hell, I went from a calm wonder at the space-station design to gripping panic that reminded me of the early days playing KSP, when my space-planes spun tail-first through the upper atmosphere on re-entry. Applause.

Well, if we set hoop stress to 5.8GPa (Zylon's tensile strength), P the hydrogen pressure, and have r/2t the variable, I can work out some stuff. We want to maximize the pressure but minimize the mass. Overall, we want the maximum mass ratio for the tank. A few excel tables later, I get: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kbxzPTB-eqJMTytXSQei22H6sHF_-RwdA5kvpKO10zA/edit?usp=sharing Points of interest: -Tank mass ratio is independent of radius and wall thickness, only tensile strength counts -I used 90K temperature, which means liquid oxygen can be kept as coolant. -Ideal gas law gives 2.668kg of hydrogen per pascal per cubic meter at 90K. With A-36 Steel, mass ratio is 0.63 With Zylon, mass ratio is 6.27. With monocristalline silicon, mass ratio is 8.12 With carbon nanotubes, mass ratio is 73. With graphene...... mass ratio is an incredible 150. Thoughts on this method?

Understood. What what about working the other way around: finding the maximum tank pressure a material can hold?