Jump to content

i dont know how to forum

  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by i dont know how to forum

  1. I'm not seeing any docking port. Here, bumped up the exposure for anyone who wants a better look.
  2. Looks to me like a HECS (0.625m), some cylindrical part(s) that I can't identify (could be batteries?), an antenna, two solar panels, a 0.625m xenon container, and an ion drive. Nice to see the gold foil on the probe core actually. Seems to imply we will still have skins available for some parts, which I've been wondering about given the new painting system. No new parts here though as best I can tell.
  3. Whether they're enabled in the dev build used for this particular screenshot or not is irrelevant. This particular shot was likely achieved simply by cheating the craft into Duna orbit, but more importantly, it's been confirmed that everything currently being shown will be buildable at EA launch, so the question of getting craft like this into orbit is still a valid one.
  4. Fair enough. I mean, if you have enough thrust, who even needs fairings? Just Mars-94 that thing straight into orbit.
  5. There's what appears to be a pair of coupled 3.75m docking ports just behind the solar arrays, but launching the rear section here still seems like it would be quite a challenge. This particular craft was very likely cheated into orbit and was not launched at all, but I do wonder how we're going to get craft using parts like the spherical tank here into orbit at EA launch. Maybe we'll get a 5m fairing? That would help at least partially, though you'd need some very heavy launch vehicles. I doubt they'll be available at EA launch, given they're likely tied to orbital colonies.
  6. This also seems to confirm that the spherical tank here has 3.75m attachment points. I wonder if we'll get different sized inline spherical tanks; maybe there will be an even bigger 5m one. We've seen much larger radially attached spherical tanks on interstellar ships as well, but I doubt we'll see those at early access launch. Edit: Actually, now that I look again, they might even be 2.5m attachment points. Raises the question of why there's a 3.75m adapter attached to it... it looks like maybe there's some other 3.75m part in there? Can't quite tell.
  7. Huh, you seem to be right. Here's a more straight on view to confirm. Very interesting...
  8. The adapter appears to be 5m to 3.75m, to me the engines look like either one 3.75m part or five 1.25m engines.
  9. Yeah, this seems the most likely option. I still think it looks more like a traditional chemical rocket than an NTR, but that's just because it doesn't look like what I'm used to for an NTR. Very curious about it either way. Are we looking at one engine with five nozzles, or five engines clumped together? The structure makes it look like it might be all one part, but it's hard to tell.
  10. Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that it could be a tank designed to contain both liquid methane and liquid oxygen (as most KSP tanks are), but with all the methane removed leaving only the oxygen. I highly doubt boiloff will be in the game. As for spherical tanks, I've mostly heard of them used for theoretical extremely large craft that would be built entirely in space (Project Daedalus for instance), since you would want to minimize the dry mass as much as you possibly there. I'm just curious if that advantage still exists if you're storing two different fuels in the same tank, though I suspect that it doesn't.
  11. Personally I doubt it's a LOX tank, it would be odd to have such a large LOX-only tank in the game given its only real use would be for afterburner NTRs. It could perhaps be a methalox tank with all the methane removed, though it would be a bit disappointing if the only way to use the NTR afterburner is by using a half-filled methalox tank, hence the desire for fuel switching. Actually, I'm curious, does it make sense to have a spherical tank containing two fuels? To my understanding, the benefit of a spherical tank is that is has the smallest surface area and therefore the lowest dry mass, but is this still true if the tank has to be bifurcated to store two separate fuels?
  12. Correct me if I'm wrong (my understanding of rocket science is extremely limited), but doesn't the super low density of liquid hydrogen mean that, even running the engine oxygen rich, you would still want a higher volume of LH2 storage than LOX?
  13. What makes you say the white tank is LOX? Could be, although I think it would be strange for the craft to have more volume dedicated to LOX than LH2. I have been wondering about how NTRs with afterburners like the SWERV will work, since they would require some oxygen storage but not methane.
  14. Ooh, those Duna shots are gorgeous. What do you all think these engines are? Hard to tell due to the low resolution, but they don't look like nuclear engines to me. We've seen those big gold tanks used for nuclear engines before, but if these are Methalox engines, things might be looking good for fuel switching.
  15. What's that long part making up the center of the lander? Looks like we've got a lander can, reaction wheel, battery, then... some form of crew module? Looks like it has windows, could be a 3.75m Hitchhiker equivalent. I'm glad we're finally getting a 3.75m command module, lander can, battery bank, crew module, etc. in KSP2. We've seen some 5m fuel tanks in screenshots, so maybe we'll see a full selection of 5m parts somewhere down the line too (seemingly not at launch given the VAB screenshots we've seen). I know we saw another new command module on some massive interstellar ships in some much older footage, could be a 5m module?
  16. I think life support should be encouraged, but not required, still allowing the kinds of insane bare-bones missions we saw in KSP1. The idea of an interstellar craft consisting of just an external seat strapped to an engine was mentioned earlier in this thread. In keeping with the Kerbal spirit, I think this should absolutely be viable for interstellar travel, but it should never be the most efficient method. Reward good life support planning rather than punishing players for not packing enough food. Pthigrivi brought up productivity as an impact of life support, and I think that's a great idea. Kerbals arriving in a new solar system after spending a hundred years in an external seat aren't going to be very productive; science and mining yields and ISRU speeds will be low, but the player won't be locked out of anything or have their efforts wasted, they'll just have to work harder to recover. Kerbals who have been given proper life support for the entirety of their journey, on the other hand, could give bonuses in these fields, making science collection and colony building much more efficient. This encourages players to put in the work and planning ahead of time, but still allows them plenty of leeway if they underestimate what they need, or even overlook it altogether. Personally I wouldn't even support the hibernation idea, except possibly on hard difficulty. In terms of the actual form the life support system would take, I like the idea of players striving towards a perfect closed loop system, but realistically settling on something that can maintain full life support for a long time without needing huge stores of some life support resource. These systems could also require a significant amount of power, encouraging the need for things like nuclear reactors on long-term missions, as electricity in KSP1 is mostly just needed during actual maneuvers rather than passively during long periods on the float. Personally I think most life support should be self-contained in crew modules, rather than requiring external parts. Crew modules could have various levels of life support that can be toggled on the fly, in case a craft needs to conserve power or has a greater life support capacity than is necessary for the mission. Crew capsules on their own would provide sufficient life support for missions within Kerbin's SOI, while interplanetary missions and beyond may require larger or additional crew modules. Some modules, such as the centrifuge we've seen in older KSP2 videos, could be significantly more efficient, to encourage their use for long-term and interstellar missions. This could also potentially lend itself well to hydroponics modules and the like. I feel like there aren't many reasons to need lots of crew space in KSP1, and I'd love to see more benefit for large craft with more than just a single crew capsule.
  17. A minor thing, but life support is mentioned at 10:46 (though the captions say "mod support"). We still don't know if that applies to ships or just colonies, but it seems to at least be hard confirmation that some form of life support will be included down the line, which I don't think we've heard directly before.
  • Create New...