lajoswinkler

Here are some things I'm kindly suggesting for KSP 2, most of which are very simple and have great consequences, something lot of people have been asking for years. Most of these have been made possible by mods, but now there is no reason to leave them behind. Let modders deal with fresh ideas. (Order of suggestions is irrelevant.) Cosmetic enhancements: realistic sound behaviour - gradual transition to muffled, deep sounds of rocket engines in low pressure, screechy rumble in IVA during chemical engine operation, Kerbal breathing on EVA with sounds they would hear in spacesuits in vacuum part explodiness inequality - lots of reactive fuel in tank, big boom. Little fuel, small boom. Parts without reactive components, no boom. pitch dark, starless sky in daylight conditions - do not underestimate the aesthetics of real space. Universe is a black void that reveals its beauty only in darkness, making such reveal special. Please don't paint the sky with brown-gray goop and splotchy stars. no convection in vacuum - gases and powders follow ballistic trajectories in vacuum. No swirling. It looks very interesting, it's easier to simulate and teaches you physics. illumination by engine action - simple and looks nice for screenshots planetary body shine - immersive and beautiful realistic engine plumes - looks amazing in screenshots and teaches physics of fluids reentry trails - it's time to use something beautiful that KSP already has, but has never been officially unlocked atmospheric scattering, simple clouds and weather - beautiful and can be done with little downsides visible partial damage for parts - squashed fuel tanks, bent wings, punctured fuselages? Immersive and fun. proper naming of astronomical objects - Kerbol, not The Sun. Mün, not The Mun. Ditch English vicissitudes and pay respect to old, recognized Kerbal goofy names. Gameplay enhancements: astronomical body tilt - it's time to implement it angular momentum conservation - make those RCS thrusters more useful and allow constant spinning. Immersive and useful for centrifugal ships. camera action in docking ports - way more useful than any indicators, immersive simplified thrust curve of solid rocket boosters - no need for complications, a nice neutral curve creates less stress for launches. radioisotope thermoelectric generator power decay curve - one radioisotope with fixed halflife is enough raycast ionizing radiation model - simplified, but powerful in its gameplay impact, just like this WIP; powerful when coupled with Kerbal mortality, makes ship designs elaborate atmospheric curves adhering to same physical laws - in KSP, they are not a balloon - has implications on taking measurements or types of launches cryo-sleep - necessary for interstellar travel if we want same Kerbals surviving Kerbal interaction - chatting, movements, EVA following thermodynamical model with reflectivity - stellar missions with sunshields make Kerbol an active body - Kerbol has been neglected since it turned from a glowing spot into an actual body; this would be great, coupled with Kerbal mortality new planetary bodies - I know it has been mentioned, but I need to remind about great concepts early custom planetary body designers envisioned (a periodical comet, a Vulcan-like sungrazing dwarf planet, ringed planet, binary planet) dangerous surface features - lava, geysers life support, Kerbal reproduction and mortality - it opens vast gameplay opportunities - colonization, difficulties for interstellar travel, etc. sample museum - displaying all the collected and returned items in a special building Kerbals adding mass to vessel when boarding it - immersion and mission planning opportunity - to leave Bob behind on Mün surface, or to strand the ascent crew in orbit? Kerbal EVA building struts and resource transfering - loads of fun playing ballasts - for both airflight and ocean exploration inline parachute - we've been waiting for this for years, come on realistic start of career mode - unmanned start that progresses into manned missions as reward variable sphere of influence - useful for comets At the end of everything, my best advice, and I see it has already been announced, is: no magic stuff, only physics - please, never give up on this crown rule of KSP

I just hope it won't be another case of "it's too hard, let's pander to the most inept of the players in order not to lose interest and forget about tilt".

I have great hopes for this and truly hope the game will go big in terms of realism many modders have been trying to implement in the original game. Let's not fool ourselves - modders are the ones who kept this project going. They have by far the most credit for it. Do not be afraid to dig into most popular mods for ideas, and don't settle for their mediocre version "because someone might find the thing too difficult". If you had listened to such people all the time, the game would wilt early in its development. Go big and bold.

Yes, I know about your raycast radiation and I absolutely do consider it vastly superior to Kerbalism's model, but Kerbalism got it ready in a fully functional mod and got it running and all that. The fact it has magnetospheres around some planetary bodies is pretty amazing and that's what hooked me up. However, your model is based on reality and can simulate and contribute to very interesting ship designs so I'd definitively prefer it when it gets finished.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1470-2 Data supports diffused core caused by ancient enormous impact of a protoplanet - diffusion remains to this day.

Kerbalism has a nice balance and offers one of the best things any mod ever introduced - ionizing radiation. It's probably the number one thing that makes me love it. However, I don't understand why it messes up with NFE nuclear reactors. It's not like it has its own reactors with their own mechanisms which need to exist to make the whole game balanced, and other mods break it. There's simply no need for this overly controlled behaviour. NFE doesn't break Kerbalism's mechanics or balance. Since Kerbalism imparts a constant strong drain on electricity (which is realistic; stock behaviour is... a comedy), NFE provides reactors that can take care of it, but are heavy and produce considerable ionizing radiation. IMHO these two mods could and should work together.

I've reported the problem on this thread, first. Nertea isn't sure what's going on.

I'd like to point out that Kerbalism disables Near future electrical's fission reactor menus and capabilities. No fine control is possible anymore, just starting and stopping the reactors. The menu button and temperature readouts also disappear. Upon removal of Kerbalism, NFE returns back to normal.

Well, one of the consequences of such policy towards outsiders, especially the West, is the degradation of value of facts, with its pinnacle observable today. However, why would anyone plant disinformation that is damaging to oneself? That makes no sense. They could've just kept their mouth shut. It's a country known for its perpetual lying and denying used as a weapon. It's a fact, not an opinion. Also, I've defined "them" - the military officials in charge. I don't make up "elites" or "lizards" and stupid stuff like that. People would notice nonetheless because some 16x background ionizing radiation, even though harmless, is impossible to hide. With over 180,000 people, at least few are bound to have a Geiger counter. I wonder what are the conditions at the site of the accident. Probably quite a mess.

And you believe that official statement? LOL Few days ago they claimed nothing happened, and later that nothing leaked out. It's an old Russian policy. Lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny. Even when faced with facts, denial. Rosatom is a Russian state company working on very important stuff for the country and, as such, is a subject to strict supervision of what information is being released. Yes, that's the assumption I used as an argument that begs the question of volatile radioisotope released, radon-222. I was trying to justify a hypothesis I don't endorse. But even with that idea it just doesn't work, as I've previously described.

Yes, I understand that now. I've even tried to remove Kerbalism's Near future configuration file but it doesn't work. Kerbalism has a tight grip on everything, it seems. For now, I'll remove Kerbalism because I want to enjoy NFE.

Whoever is in charge, with the blessing of you know who. Do you seriously think that in such country as Russia, with a topic sensitive as missile development, there wouldn't be a chain of command, even an unofficial one, with its links fearing for at least their job? Of course, some of the truth always leaks out (it's the nature of secret keeping involving lots of people, this is why nutters' ideas about large conspiracies are laughably impossible), so we got some details about ionizing radiation levels in Severodvinsk... and we got the information it has been swiftly removed.

There are many kinds of such engines but I don't understand the connection here. We're talking about reactors from NFE.

I'm just trying to avoid a wrong term that makes people think this, or Chernobyl, were nuclear explosions. That's it. I call it fission product contamination, radiological contamination, etc. Apparent level of radioactivity doesn't depend just on the halflife because it's not a controlled condition. It depends on the physical and chemical characteristics of the source and current environmental characteristics. With xenon-135, a noble inert gas, you get zero chemical reactions. If there is sufficiently fast air mixing, it's dispersed and dilluted very fast. No residues. Radioactive methyl iodide is vapor and mostly just has similar behaviour, and is easily carried by the wind. It is not inert so there will be residues (photochemical and other kinds of decompositions, giving radioiodine, radioactive hydroiodic acid, etc.), all very soluble in water. Aerosols of mentioned salts are very soluble in water. Some are even hygroscopic. Some will be deposited (later washed by rain into depths), some will get carried by the wind. The short spike means there were no residues and the contaminant has been easily dilluted by wind. That smells like a reactor structurally compromised by some explosion, landing into the sea seconds later. It's a perfect match. Sea would prevent direct release of volatile fission products, but some will find their way out as aqueous ions and I'm almost certain countries of the arctic circle will detect them as sea currents spread them. Although probably not radioiodine, as it will be gone fast on its own... Exposed RTG would only leak volatiles if the source was Pu-238, as one of the daughter radionuclides was Rn-222. Still, amounts of Rn-222 produced are small (there is an equilibrium in a closed system) and most of it is trapped in the matrix of PuO2. Cracking open such source would not cause 16 times elevated ionizing radiation 33 km away. It would be like that experiment where thorium compound is held in a closed bottle and then the air with traces of radon is puffed into a cloud chamber to see the decays. That's nothing. Plutonium, whether a ceramic oxide or a bulk metal, is not something that oozes radon like radium does. Otherwise it would be impossible to work with it using present safety protocols.

I've removed Kerbalism and it works perfectly, just like you intended. Please don't tell me NFE doesn't work with Kerbalism. They're two essential mods. Kerbalism actually makes a constant relatively serious charge drain. It makes NFE very useful.

I mentioned RTG for the sake of argument, playing the devil's advocate. I don't think it was an RTG. First, there is no fallout in radiological accidents. Fallout is exclusively calcinated dirt intimately mixed with atomic bomb leftovers and contains large amounts of extremely alpha-radioactive high transuranics, going even above lawrencium IIRC. It's highly basic due to Cao/MgO content, corrosive and falls as dust. Uranium fission products from a fission reactor stop at californium (present in traces). It's a very different beast, with most of the radioactivity contained in Xe-135, I-131, Sr-90 and Cs-137. The difference is not miniscule or unimportant and it's one of the reasons why fallout is a word exclusively used for nuclear warfare. And yes, if the event where the reactor's fuel rods are damaged and the reactor then immediately falls on the seafloor, there will be a short airborne release of Xe-135. which is present as gas dilluted in helium which is what fuel rods are filled with. Since it's inert, it won't form aerosols, won't stick to anything, won't dissolve in anything, and will just continue to be dilluted by wind. Other short lived radioisotopes are chemically very reactive and will form various compounds, emerging into the environment as aerosolized salts and in the case of iodine, also methyl iodide. Since there was a short spike of elevated ambient ionizing radiation 33 km away, that ceased after around 1 h, it suggests a copious amount of volatile, inert source. Nothing an RTG could offer.

Since I speak a Slavic language, I know of know what I'm talking about. Also I've asked one language expert who even speaks Russian about this and the comment was "they're talking crap", they being all you here who think that RTGs can be described with that word. If there is no fission occuring, there is no need for mentioning fissile material, even though the material might, in special circumstances, be fissile. It's enough to say radioactive material, and that is the case with Russian and my own Croatian language. I'm still waiting for the explanation how can a damaged or even destroyed RTG unit produce a temporary spike in ionizing radiation values, a telltale sign of volatile, highly radioactive fission products that are the most mobile in the environment.

The text you linked before all specified radioisotopes capable of reaching criticality. I think the whole "fissile" thing is not a problem of Russian language, but your interpretation. I don't believe Russia would have a language that doesn't make distinction between radioactive and fissile. But ok. I won't beat the dead horse anymore. RTGs are ceramic materials. If you blow them up with an explosive, you get that powder all over the area. You would not get powder falling into the sea and volatiles cruising around the area. There would not be a temporary spike. I mentioned radon because the only RTG material that has any radon (or anything volatile) as its daughter is Pu-238. However, due to the ceramic nature of the oxide, that radon doesn't get to seep outside. It's locked in a crystal matrix. Halflife is few days and there isn't enough time.

I don't know Russian, but if they don't have a clear distinction between "radioactive" and "fissile", then it's a very sad and weird thing. You'd think a former second superpower would have such distinction. And BTW, Pu-238 has a critical mass. Around 10 kg for a sphere of pure element. It is fissile with fast neutrons. If you blow up an RTG unit, you will get its dust and not a spike in radioactivity, but a new, elevated value that doesn't go away (ignoring the halflife). If you just crack the unit open, what happens? Pretty much nothing. Traces of radon-222 if the RTG is based on plutonium-238. You don't get around 16 times background dose 33 km away. The fact you guys take Russian official claims literally is hilarious. First they said nothing happened. Then they said nothing dangerous escaped into the environment. Then they say "isotopic power source, like a battery". Hilarious. They obviously blew up a faulty engine and damaged a very small fission reactor which fell into the sea. There was probably xenon-135 seeping out which caused a spike of ionizing radiation. It's painfully obvious.

If course there isn't. It's Russia, and it's the military. That combination alone should make some things obvious. I translated your link with GT and it says: 5. Fissile materials 5-C1. The definition is in accordance with IAEA-96 Rules, Clause 222. 5-C2. The fission chain is supported by neutrons. Since the chain reaction depends on the behavior of neutrons, fissile materials are packaged and transported in accordance with the requirements, the purpose of which is to ensure subcriticality and, thus, criticality safety during transportation. In the Rules, the term “fissile materials” is used from time to time either to fissile radionuclides, or in relation to materials containing such radionuclides. Users of the Rules should be careful about the context in which the term “fissile material” is used (paragraph 222.1 of TS-G-1.1). 5-C3. In most cases, radionuclides are capable of fission, but many of them are difficult to share and only in the presence of special equipment and special conditions. A distinctive feature of fissile nuclides arising from their definition is their ability to SCR under the influence of thermal neutrons (neutron energy less than ~ 0.3 eV) under the condition of accumulation of sufficient mass. No other special actions, mechanisms or conditions are required. For example, the Ri-238 is no longer ranked among them, because, although it is able to maintain a chain reaction of fission at fast neutrons in special laboratory conditions, in the form in which it is transported, it does not possess such properties. Under no circumstances can the Ri-238 support thermal neutron scr. It is more likely to be “divisible” than “fissile” (paragraph 222.2 of TS-G-1.1). 5-C4. As noted in paragraph 5-СЗ, the basic principle used in the Rules when selecting nuclides defined as fissile material is based on the easy accumulation of sufficient mass for potential criticality. Other actinides with the ability to create criticality are discussed in ANSI / ANS-8.15-1981 [4], where the limiting subcritical masses for isolated Np-237, Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-242, Am-241, Am- 242m, Am-243, Cm-243, Cm-244, Cm-245, Cm-247, Cf-249 and Cf-251. The predicted limit values for subcritical masses range from a few grams for Cf-251 to tens of kilograms. The lack of critical experiment results limits knowledge of the behavior of these nuclides under conditions of various moderators and reflectors. The uncertainty of cross-sectional data for many of these nuclides requires that sufficient attention (and an appropriate margin of subcriticality) be provided within those operations in which a sufficient amount of these nuclides can participate (or it can be obtained by decay before or during transport). The recommendations of the competent authority on the need and means of performing a criticality safety assessment can be found in the requirements set out in paragraphs. 671-682 of the IAEA-96 Rules for cases where significant quantities of these materials may be transported (Clause 222.3 of TS-G-1.1). Have you read it before linking it? It mentions fissile material and a nuclear chain reaction. Not spontaneous radioactivity. Fission and fissile are terms that are not used with RTGs. RTGs can be furiously radioactive, as a matter of fact they are just like that, but they are not fissile - they can not sustain a chain reaction. There is a reason why vessels transporting these things have a special label system that makes a clear distinction between radioactive and fissile. What would an RTG even do in a rocket engine? I see no purpose for it there. Also, the "small cloud that reached the land" would stay there. RTG material would not be gone because it's not volatile. It would be an aerosol covering the land and the ionizing radiation levels would stay the same, at some new, higher level.

What is next you're gonna tell us? Santa is real, and Tooth fairy leaves money in exchange for loose teeth?

They did not claim "RTG". The article says: "создание малогабаритных источников энергии с использованием радиоактивных делящихся материалов" Google translate says: "The creation of small-sized energy sources using radioactive fissile materials" Fissile. It was a fission reactor. They can downplay what they did there all they want, but this had to be a fissile reactor, likely with a material of very low critical mass. Temporary spike in radioactivity in nearby town suggests a volatile fission product escaping from a damaged reactor vessel. Dispersal of an RTG would not be temporary.

That method captures glow from a cascade made by a shower of cascading relativistic particles from a primary cosmic ray. Very different thing. Yes, the glow from the demon core accident(s) was not Cherenkov radiation because it is simply too weak. It is ionized air glow. It's a pretty basic nuclear physics thing, but I suppose one HBO series now made everyone accept one crappy disinformation as a fact.

It's not dubious, it's a fact. The glow is proportional to the refractive index of the medium (therefore speed of light in it) and flux. Vacuum has n=1, air n=1.000277, water n=1.33. By the time the Cherenkov glow in air is visible, the ionizing is already so powerful it not only makes it glow, but turns it into plasma that glows from the sheer high temperature.

You can't get Cherenkov radiation in air. Only ionized air glow. Yes, that does happen, but Keranokerman refers to the radiation spike. It's perfectly unrelated to such power excursions and a classical case of not understanding the difference between radiation and radiological contamination. No, reactors simply aren't able to perform a nuclear explosion. Not PWR, not breeders, not RBMK, nothing. If it was that simple, Manhattan project wouldn't be needed. It would be enough to just pile up lots of highly enriched uranium dioxide and watch the fireworks. But it's not how it works.