intelliCom

Why introduce an engine you can't even use yet? Just for the sake of making the tech tree more akin to if we didn't have the test ban treaty? KSP introduced the Nerva at the end of the tech tree, so nuclear power in general- nuclear reactors, nuclear pulse propulsion- shouldn't exist before this point. Also, having the pulses being too strong for the ship itself is just counter-intuitive. Orion might need a small debuff to be balanced alongside all the new engines, but there's no good reason to put it earlier than NERVA in the tech tree.

I know this isn't quite an aerospike, but the idea is similar; Convair Nexus plug nozzle, 7.5m wide.

The fact that they're considering launch dates across an entire year is just too funny to me. They lack so much confidence in being able to get it up within a month, not even within 3 months. Yes, I know it's just preparation, but the idea is still funny to me.

Still, in a gameplay perspective, making Orion engines come first would make Ion feel really out of place. Considering how the NERVA equivalent was put at the end of the tech tree anyway, Orion should be after that.

It was more of a rhetorical question for discussion's sake. I love Orion myself, just wanted to see what others thought about it, get some criticism of it going too.

Thanks, Jim. At the very least, we hope you could consider a thing or two said in this thread, even if none of it is to be responded to or even implemented. Food for thought, really.

KSP 1 did just fine without a story, though I will admit that it was a little too empty in some parts. Barely any personality going on with the Kerbals except for the splash screen images and confusing Kerbal 'emotion system'. However, the descriptions for parts and celestial bodies add way more to the game's lore than you realise. Here's two examples to demonstrate what I mean: 'Pol' was originally thought to be a piece of pollen stuck on a telescope until the kerbal using it decided to track the 'pollen grain' and found it to be a moon. Demonstrates that Kerbals make discoveries on accident. The XL3 rover wheel was built in total secrecy. When revealed to Kerbal Motion LLC's chairman, he died of a heart attack. Proves that corporations exist in KSP's lore and that Kerbal Motion LLC has some crazy engineers in it. I think what KSP 2 really needs is a decent abundance of subtext, (i.e., descriptions of parts and celestial bodies, experiments, unique anomalies) but no explicit story being told like "The kerbals went for interstellar travel because Kerbol was going to explode" or "The kerbals went for interstellar travel because Jeb lost his sandwich". Coming up with your own ideas may not 'build' KSP's world, but fan-made ideas can flourish so much more without the restrictions of a main story. Take Brad Whistance's "Odyssey by Bill" series. It's probably the best window into KSP's world even though it isn't canon, but it not being canon means no one else's ideas get invalidated. It's the perfect solution. We're talking about KSP here, not Hamlet. It's really not that serious. Whatever story ends up being told will have no influence on my experience or yours whatsoever. I just know that a lack of an explicit story will allow fan works to flourish more. Minecraft being the biggest example of this; the amount of good fan works with their own stories is ridiculous. The only restriction they have is their voxel artstyle and objects/creatures should be shared. That's it.

We may have invented nukes at the same time as jet engines, but we weren't anywhere near utilising it for pusher plates. If Kerbal technological advancement is the same as Earth's, then Orion comes sometime after Ion propulsion. Maybe after Nuclear propulsion or nuclear reactors. We're still not sure how the tech tree is going to work in KSP 2, so it could be entirely unexpected.

I can't wait for wet dress rehearsal #6 coming this Saturday, yet one more step forward to finally launching!

Sorry for making more work to sort out. I will remember that thread when I can.

You're right. I've turned it into a post on science & spaceflight, we can continue there.

Is Orion really a good rocket engine? Discuss here.

There is a negative to be said about subjecting a pusher plate to so much stress over a prolonged period of time. A quick fix is to turn the plate into a sail instead, like Medusa. That being said, efficiency losses with rocket engines are not new. Dude's really complaining about engines not being 100% efficient at all times like that's the norm. Hell, Vista (See image below) only uses 25% of the potential fusion energy released for thrust due how it is designed, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

Absolutely agree. Especially to that last point, since that's the entire point of this thread.

Well, if that happens, SpaceX's Starship will likely demonstrate the true advantage of private industry, and NASA might go from being a rocket-launching company to exclusively being a 'space study' company. They'd still make probes and rovers, since those work beautifully thanks to JPL's decent team, but say goodbye to the days of Saturns and Shuttles. At least ULA is doing amazingly, but they're unfortunately a mostly military-focused launch provider to my knowledge. They probably wouldn't have much interest in supporting Artemis, especially given how none of their rockets have the kind of payload capacity that SLS theoretically has.

Again, not canon, we're all just making stuff up here. Problem with this lore is that it's a little too human and not enough kerbal. Kerbals do not seem war-like or territorial whatsoever like humans obviously are. There's no implication of any geopolitics or military existing whatsoever. Not to mention that an apocalypse wiping out most of civilisation is quite dark. Cool concept for a science fiction work, but not for kerbals. I suppose it explains the lack of buildings, but there aren't even proper urban ruins around besides the few abandoned launch sites on Kerbin.

Should I have not put a poll on this? Because most people are talking about the poll instead of making up their own lore about things. With the exception of Jeb, who was originally creating BBQs using a junkyard. These BBQs had a 'special' design; they were essentially giant blowtorches. He was approached by [INSERT NAME OF YOUR SPACE AGENCY HERE] to an engineer. He instead agreed to sell them his blowtorch-BBQs at a 10% discount on the condition that he gets to be a pilot for them. Jeb used the huge influx of money gained from selling his BBQs rocket engines to create and manage "Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts Co.", while being a pilot on the side. As for everyone else, that should trial off.

Apologies. I will move the concept of KSP's backstory and lore to another post now. Here's a link to it for anyone interested.

In this thread, we make up our own lore for Kerbal Space Program. When posting, add a title to your post in bold to summarise your lore. I'd recommend making your lore explanations at least somewhat comedic. The typical way of doing it is something profound or revolutionary sprouting from something very trivial, but don't be restricted to this kind of explanation; it'd make everything sound too similar to a point of being formulaic. Here's some prompts to help. Feel free to use any of these, or make up your own: The Creation of the First Rockets The Reason for Interstellar Travel The Squad Monoliths The Invention of the Telescope The Kerbal Snack Industry If you're not so keen on writing KSP lore, feel free to also suggest your own prompts and either I or someone else will come up with suitable KSP lore for it.

True that. I suppose Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon don't have this problem because either the mass is too small to matter, or they're too far apart. That being said, a sulfur-yellow planet is still really cool to me. Like Pol but rounder, with way more activity than Pol.

Charr is just a hot Mercury from the looks of things. As for Rask-Rusk, I'm pretty sure their damage is due to them being a double planet, so I'm not sure if there's Io levels of volcanism going on there.

Only because congress allowed them to be. The biggest problem has always been funding, something that private companies bypass entirely (if they have the money, that is.).

True. Honestly, I don't like the way SLS is designed nor the way it's managed, but I appreciate its purpose. This is going to sound kind of strange, but SLS getting cancelled would hopefully teach NASA to try and look toward the future instead of reusing tech like they tried in previous attempts (i.e., Jupiter DIRECT, Constellation). If NASA keeps being stuck in the past, at least private companies will have a chance to truly shine and demonstrate what not being on Congress' leash looks like.

Best comparison is Space Shuttle, since it shares the most technology. Interesting trivia: STS-1 (the first Space Shuttle flight) had a launch attempt halted and re-done two days later. Mind you, this was for a computer problem instead of an engine problem, but regardless, not even the space shuttle aced its first launch attempt.

Should've made this the post title. Io. Volcanism. Extreme heat, and learning how to deal with such heat.