simonh
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by simonh
-
-
It's a tough question. The problem is that in sandbox mode, FTL would trivialize everything else; if you've got an engine capable of carrying you several parsecs in an instant, then what's the challenge in flying to Duna?
I think it's already been mentioned in this thread a couple of times that the plan outlined by the devs was that FTL would only work far away from any star's gravity well, so it would have no effect on travel between planets in the same system.
Simon Hibbs
-
....Let’s assume for the moment that FTL comes in after launch and that at launch Kerbol is part of a trinery star system – so you’ve got three full solar systems to explore all at sub-light speeds.....
Er, you do know what FTL stands for, right?
Simon Hibbs
-
Hmm. In the introduction they say a propulsion system with an Isp of 30,000s and above would be essential, then they select gas Core as their preferred propulsion system. I don't think they ever say what the theoretical Isp of a gas core reactor would be. Turns out optimisticaly it's about 3,000s. Ten times too low by their own numbers. They're also right about the problems carrying or obtaining enough Hydrogen reaction mass. Scooping it is one option, but it's fraught with problems. You'd need to generate the scoop field, and collecting the hydrogen will slow you down so you'd cut their suggested cruise rates down to at least half, probably a lot less. Then of course if it does work we've now got a hyper-rocket that breaks the in-system game, so it's back to square one again.
Simon Hibbs
-
I wish something special would happen if people go this fast...
It would be nice. But I suspect the universe collapsing into a 2 dimensional plane from Lorenz contraction and your ship's mass reaching infinity might be a tad outside the scope of the PhysX engine's design parameters
Simon Hibbs
-
"for example, the antimatter engine could take days or months to reach a speed faster than any normal rocket could achieve in the game, while the normal rockets in the game can take a few seconds to achieve the speed. making the antimatter inefficient for interplanetary distance burns and trajectories"
In other words, you would need a "big runway" for it to work...
That's an interesting idea, but if this is the only way to travel to other star systems, you'll want to be able to transport a lot of material with it - enough to explore the whole system, and perhaps other systems beyond. It will need to be able to transport accommodation modules, landers, probes, bases, rovers and resource collection equipment. It needs to be able to carry all that stuff within a reasonable time frame.
Which means that if you use this propulsion technology with a much smaller payload, it will transport it proportionally faster. If it can do e.g. 0.1G with a heavy payload, it can do 1G with a tenth of that, or 2G with a twentieth. Even just 0.5G over an extended period adds up to a heck of a delta-Vee.
I think you're going to have a hell of a time trying to cook the numbers to avoid this. If it can carry heavy payloads long distances in a reasonable time, it will also be able to carry smaller payloads over a shorter distance a lot faster.
Simon Hibbs
-
Einstein has been proven wrong about FTL, because there are sub-atomic particles capable of traveling faster than the speed of light.
No there aren't. Not for any sane definition of 'faster than the speed of light' anyway. Although if you understand then Lorenz transformations, the phrase 'faster than the speed of light' doesn't actually mean anything anyway. It's like saying you believe in circles with a circumferance to diameter ratio bigger than Pi, because why not? Numbers can be bigger than Pi, so why can't circles have bigger circumferance to diameter ratios?
Comparing relativity to vague best guesses made hundreds of years ago doesn't cut it. Relativity made numerous provable predictions that have been shown since to be correct. It's earned it's right to respect the hard way.
Nevertheless I'd be fine with an FTL system in KSP that only works well outside the bounds of any planetary system so the current feel of the game is preserved. My understanding is that this is the plan..
Oh yes, and Bussard Ramjets. Turns out they make better brakes than engines. The magnets you need to contain the fusion process for a CNO Cycle would have to be so powerful they'd tear the ship apart. Also the theoretical top speed for a BR, assuming perfect efficiency and no lost energy, is 0.119C because you have to first speed up the protons you're collecting to your current speed before you ejects them as exhaust, and there's a limit to the net energy they get from the fusion process. In practice, your top speed in likely to be a small fraction of that.
The other problem is that the collector scoop systems for a BR would have to be huge, on the order of the diameter of the moon. Good luck assembling that in KSP. It's several orders of magnitude bigger than the physics simulation range anyway. Light sails have the same problem. It would likely take you hundreds of years of game play to build one and the even huger solar arrays and laser focusing systems.
Me, I like my KSP as close to the way it is as possible. The ideal would probably be to have other systems just be a long way away but still reachable. Say put the outer planet of the nearest systems 5 or 10 times further away than the orbits of the outer planets round Kerbol. That would be unrealistic, but a decently playable compromise. However it might cause problems for the simulation engine. The way I see it, a hyperdrive that only works far away from a star is essentially just a loading screen for entering another game context for the new planetary system. If it solves some tricky technical problems for the devs, that's fine by me. I'd rather they spent their extremely valuable time providing fun things to do in the game rather than solving overly complex simulation engineering problems that don't actually add to the in-system exploration game play we all love.
Simon Hibbs
-
Assuming you are using a mac, you can fix this by going to your username's folder, then to Library, then to Saved Application State. Find the folder called unity.Squad.Kerbal Space Program.savedState and delete it. The Library folder may be hidden. If so, you will need to open terminal and enter "chflags nohidden ~/Library".
Alternatively in Finder, click on Go in the Finder's menu bar while holding Option key, and the Library will appear.
Simon Hibbs
-
Bear in mind that when resources get added to the stock game, we will need a way to find them. At that point I expect probes and satellites will become a whole lot more useful, as per the ISA Mapsat and Kethan mods already mentioned.
-
Thanks for the tips. I've got it sort of working. I can see the attraction of using the jet engines as they're pretty efficient for gaining altitude, but it's a bit of a nightmare to steer and manage the two types of engine. He used some solid boosters on one launch, I think I'll try that config when I've got some time. It might help even out the atmosphere stage without needing to mess with the mainsail.
-
I'm trying to recreate the booster in Scot's videos and can't do it. I've looked at the screenshots very closely and I think I've got all the right parts, but the eight turbojets just aren't powerful enough to maintain velocity. I can see he's using the mainsail to get up to speed at launch, and occasionally during the flight but even doing that I can't get a moderate payload even close to orbit.
Here's my .craft file: Booster Core X1
I'm using Custom03 to toggle the main engine. It's not an ideal control setup, but should be good enough. Also my parachute setup needs tweaking, but before worrying about any of that I need to get this thing viable as a launcher.
Without a payload it can make it into orbit ok, but with as little as a hitchhiker module, some RCS and a probe core there's no way I can get it to orbit.
Any ideas? I wanted to do this myself, but can't get anywhere with it. I've looked for a .craft of the original but no luck. Any help appreciated.
-
Skylab itself was essentially a prototype. It probably would have been allowed to de-orbit anyway even in the absence of the shuttle programme, but keeping the Saturns around or developing a successor would have allowed the basic principles Skylab demonstrated to be used to put up successively better and more useful station modules.
As it stands NASA does do some very good work. Their robotic solar system exploration programmes are a huge success. I think for now this is where they should be devoting their resources. Even if we do eventually send people to Mars or beyond, we will need to use robotic missions to very thoroughly chart out their path and test the technologies such a mission would rely on.
-
Kinda sucks about the engine part. Is there no other engine capable of this? Even modifying it to better support faster PCs would make a difference. defs would be better for sales too
Rewriting the game for a completely new technical base would likely take years just to get it to the point he game is at now. It's just not worth it, and in reality another set of game engines are likely. Ave their own limitations and disadvantages too. I'm sure Unity was chosen for its own benefits.
Simon Hibbs
-
If we follow that line of thought, we should have stuck to launching Saturn 1Bs; by now the price would be significantly lower.
Yes. Yes we should. By now we could probably have manned bases on the moon and a Skylab derived space station programme for less than the cost of the shuttle programme. The shuttle was a death sentence for manned space development beyond LEO.
Well, you would because I'm a Brit and thankfully not a single one of my tax dollars went towards the shuttle because I don't pay American taxes, and the taxes I do pay aren't in dollars anyway. But still....
Simon Hibbs
-
>Why do you want to send 100 tons to LKO?
Why would you not want to send 100 tons to LKO?
Simon Hibbs
-
I was born in 1966 and still remember looking up at the moon as a 5 year old and thinking that there were people walking on it's surface at that very moment. I remember Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz docking mission.
No, I don't miss the shuttle program. It killed any hope of the kind of space program kids like me dreamed about back in the 70s. We could have had a continuing lunar exploration program and a space station construction program based on Skylab for less than the cost of the shuttle. Even back in the late 70s I was reading articles about how thoroughly crippled the shuttle design was, and they were right.
Sure it was pretty, and the technology that went into it was impressive, but even as a child I clearly remember thinking that this thing was setting us back a generation at least. My generation.
Now I'm 46 and at last, at long last, SpaceX is developing the kind of rocket technology we need. At last there's a real prospect that within my lifetime the US might have a strong, affordable, technically sound space program.
Simon Hibbs
-
Never mind, let's continue talking about 0.20! Career mode. Period.
Except career mode is more than just a single checkbox item, because they'll first need to add all the features to support the objectives you need to achieve in career mode. I suspect that's why resource management is such a high priority right now. I think it's likely to play a major part in career objectives, and also may require a bit of playtesting and tweaking for balance so getting it out early is a must.
Simon Hibbs
-
It's my personal theory because different measurement systems have been proven to exist, whereas different laws of physics haven't.
You haven't played very many computer games, have you?
Simon Hibbs
-
Nice, I'm designing my own utility vehicles at the moment so insights into other people's design process like this are extremely valuable thanks.
Simon Hibbs
Will we get to other stars?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
I don't think the event horizon that affects hyperdrive in Known Space has anything to do with differences in the laws of physics in Einsteinian space (IIRC that's the term Niven uses for 'normal' space), it's just that the local curvature of space (gravity field) has to be very low to be able to make the shift to hyperspace.
But yes, Niven's stories were the first thing I thought of when I heard this may be how it will work. He's easily my favourite SF author, and it's not even close.
Simon Hibbs