Jump to content
[[Template core/front/profile/profileHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Posts posted by DunaManiac

  1. 10 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

    Well, mmH is a substance claimed to exist with certain properties. Or you can say it is a claimed property of mH.

     

    Yes, but the phrase "Red Mercury" is usually used in support of a substance that magically makes nuclear bombs work or more powerful. More than that, it's non falsifiable unless we have a nuclear bomb and was able to actually pull it apart and look inside it. There's also no evidence that it could be reliable used in rocket propellant, and neither can other kinds.

    mmH however, is falsifiable, even though there is some debate within the scientific community whether it exists or not, and it may, just impossible to create, and it has shown evidence of if it were to exist, it would be able to be used as a rocket propellant.

     

  2. 12 hours ago, RobertaME said:

    Trying to get caught up on everything after 9 months away from the game, but I saw this and had a thought...

    What if it's NOT a placeholder or them just being silly and we're just not seeing the connection?

    Q: What is Uranium primarily used for?

    A: Power generation.

    Think of it this way; every part has a resource cost, but not all resources are materials that go into the product. Creating steel requires carbon, iron, and a crank-ton of energy. If instead of measuring electricity in KJ or watt-hours though, it can be expressed a different way... such as tons of coal, acres of solar panels, therms of natural gas...

    ...or kg of Uranium. :D

    Since the power density of Uranium is pretty constant, it makes a good standard when you want to measure a large amount of energy. Sure, you could use more traditional values, (KJ, w-h, etc.) but KSP 2 appears to be going for a "totally unique viewpoint" kind of esthetic. Look no further than the part description for the nosecone in question... the one they call a "big hat"... then making references to "obsolete engineering manuals" referring to it by an another name? Plus the overall "look and feel" of KSP 2 is very different than KSP 1, which held a lot of inspiration from our own various national space efforts. (Staypunik = Sputnik; Mk3 parts = Space Shuttle; Mk2 parts = X-15, etc.) By comparison, the stuff we're seeing in the early release photos and videos are very different and don't hold much inspiration from human space equipment. (the rockets in the editor previews for example look very unique in style and not reflective of any real designs)

    Just a few thoughts.

    I think it is a placeholder, because the mass numbers are "1.11" and "11.1", which clearly indicate placeholder numbers, at least, but it may be a coincidence though.

  3. 4 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

    Could we also include a "red mercury" rocket in the game?

    The difference between Metallic Hydrogen and "red mercury" is that it does have some roots in reality. And that's enough for me. 

    Anyway, that aside, I can agree with @KerikBalm that it probably cannot exist, but as long as it has some root in reality that's fine with me.

  4. I have a variety of standard launchers, but I use this one most often to launch payloads, the Donkey II.

    tX1fhIy.png

    And this is my standard crew transfer vehicle, the "Hawk" Cargo and Crew Spaceplane, or the "Cargo N' Crew". I've yet to master spaceplanes, but I've gotten short range SSTO's down. The most annoying thing is that it can only carry 2 kerbals, so which means in order for a spacecraft to have a 3 crew I need to send up 2 missions instead of one. The other annoying thing about it is that in order to get kerbals to get into the craft without a spare docking port, they need to EVA, and since the pod does not have a hatch, that means that they need to go into the cockpit, so the pilot needs to EVA too. I'm working on replacing it, but it's still the most reliable spaceplane I have.

    a1ep93I.png

    5CcISJX.png

  5. 20 minutes ago, Relonsk said:

    Dres is sweet for scientific experiments, Eeloo is also good for experiments, and Dres needs a low amount of DV to get there, soo in my opinion both are very cool planets, and i wouldn't want them to be in the Scp Foundation Site,  because it would take a lot of work to contain a PLANET 2, actually, and there isn't any anomalous thing happening in these planets except for the fact that they're very sad to go there because the nearest planets are far.

    Dres? Eeloo? I'm sorry you're not making sense.

×
×
  • Create New...