Search the Community

Don't you mean "original coders" or "people who were there at Star Theory"? Because I think people who came after are also real coders. But besides me ranting about semantics and assumptions you make on the code, the subject was about the AMAs. The last AMA was from Kristina Ness which join the company one year ago and it was pretty interesting. I have no doubt that engineers (even people that came recently) have a lot to tell. I mean by this time, they have learned what other people do or did, so they can answer things that they didn't code themselves directly. Even Mortoc who came a little before release seems like a very interesting guy. I don't know about you, but personally I have a lot of questions to ask them. I would also like plenty of dev diaries, even small features like orbital tesselation are so much interesting (maybe it's just me, I also liked the GDC talk).

JARVIS has emerged! I should note that the original Actively-Cooled Heat Shield System and Vehicle Including the Same patent by Stoke, establishing the concept of an engine which uses heat from an actively-cooled shield to circulate the coolant, was filed in August 2020 and claims priority to a prior filing from December 2019, and Stoke's Augmented Aerospike Nozzle, Engine Including the Augmented Aerospike Nozzle, and Vehicle Including the Engine patent was filed August 2021 and claims priority to November 2019. In contrast, Blue Origin's patent above was filed in July 2022 and claims priority to December 2021. So Blue Origin seems to be solidly behind the patenting curve here. Even Stoke's most recent Annular aerospike nozzle with widely-spaced thrust chambers, engine including the annular aerospike nozzle, and vehicle including the engine patent, despite being filed in April 2022, claims priority to April 2021, predating all priority by Blue Origin. I'll post more over in the Stoke thread, but I did note that their latest patent includes a depiction of a non-axisymmetric heat shield which would provide lift during re-entry at 0° AOA, although it's unclear how that would interact with the aerospike expansion in vacuum. One of the nifty things about BO's patent is the "plurality of scarfed nozzles" depicted around the heat shield: As Elon Musk has pointed out, one of the reasons that aerospikes suffer is that the primary challenge in rocket engine nozzles is getting the exhaust to go DOWN, and aerospikes aren't great at that. Actually angling and "scarfing" the nozzles into the heat shield like this will make the recessed nozzle surface present a more consistent surface against which the exhaust can expand, reducing intramolecular cosine losses, and it also protects the engines more directly than Stoke's design seems to. An element very similar to Stoke's design (and potentially grounds for a patent infringement battle) is that "The heat shield may be actively cooled [and] The heat shield may include a cooling circuit configured to dissipate heat encountered during reentry of the upper stage." They also suggest "secondary fluid injectors" which may eject fluid (presumably from an open/bleed expander cycle exhaust) along with the scarfed thrust nozzles to help shape the plume, which seems to be the configuration depicted here: Later on they contemplate that the heat shield would "be constructed of thin face sheets separated" by spacers and that "turbine exhaust gas is fed directly into the space between the face sheets and exhausted into the space . . . inside the annular engine exhaust stream through orifices in the outer sheet." Using some sort of base bleed in an aerospike design is a well-known way to improve efficiency (for example, here). It looks like they are considering both a closed expander design (using numerous BE-7 turbine units) and an open/bleed expander design (using one or more BE-3U turbine units), depending on whether they use the base bleed or not. The patent explicitly states that their design saves development time by "repurposing turbomachinery (e.g., powerpacks) and thrust chambers designed for other engines" and references designs being created "for use in other space vehicles." Later on, it gives the non-limiting example of using "two BE-3U powerpacks" to operate the nozzles but notes that as many as five or more powerpacks could be used. BO contemplates that they could "power down some number of powerpacks and/or nozzles to meet thrust requirements" for certain aspects of a mission; this would require that the various thrust nozzles be plumbed to alternating turbopumps so as to keep the thrust vector consistent. They suggest a 23-foot diameter vehicle and a 21-foot-diameter ring of engines which creates, effectively, a single 21-foot-diameter nozzle. They anticipate a specific impulse of 395-425 seconds in one configuration, 400-420 seconds in another configuration, and 405-415 seconds in a third configuration; these configurations are not clearly differentiated. They anticipate that for the two-BE-3U-powerpack configuration, only a single powerpack would be used for vertical landing, with sea level thrust of "about 100 klbf" and throttling capability down to as low as 20%. They talk about each thruster producing 2000 lbf in some configuration but it's not clear how many thrusters they are envisioning with that thrust level. Given that the BE-3U is expected to produce as high as 160 klbf in vacuum, this would imply probably thirty thrusters plumbed to each of the two powerpacks.

Yes, he's being sarcastic. And to not deviate from the subject again: It's just vacation time, maybe they have just been doing bug fixing and they have nothing more to share, we still have the bug update status which is a nice addition in my opinion (Some people don't like Nate talk so maybe they're happy about that?)

The minimum for any space station is; comms - have an aerial on there So we can talk to it power - batteries and solar panels So the comms works! Docking port You can EVA crew between craft but you can't transfer fuel with an EVA Remote control of some form Even if it's crewed have this then you can transfer the pilot off the craft and still have control RCS and monopropellant So you can manoeuvre to dock A high efficiency rocket and fuel To de-orbit at end of life or for large scale orbit changes If you want it crewed then you need to add; Crew compartment (or lab) Cupola or similar control pod Otherwise they're jut passengers coffee machine After that it is just a case of what do you want it to do. I tend to build everything with two 2.5m docking ports so I can dock craft but not lose a docking port in the process.

Wishing to make a little novella set a few thousand years in the future where interstellar travel is comon. In the hopes of using time dilation as a plot device, I want to make some ships capable of travelling at close to c with a constant 1g acceleration, while staying within the realm of possibility. I was hoping you guys could help to make sure that the propulsion concepts i was planning to use were still scientifically accurate, for the most part. To solve the "where did you get all that antimatter?" hole, I know that the collision of two specific kinds of white dwarves can generate lots of antimatter. Since fusion reactors somewhat replicate the conditions inside a star, it seems feasible that a very powerful, unstable fusion reactor could produce antimatter. So what if the reactor destroys itself in the process! You have antimatter! Let's just assume it's a very expensie fuel source. The only somewhat cheaty thing i plan to do is give humanity thermocouples that are close to 100% efficient. I'd prefer not to have to deal with hundreds of kilometres of radiators. Now on to the ideas: Antimatter- So i know that typical matter-antimatter collisions produce exhaust velocities of about 0.33c. Too low for me. I also know that pure electron-positron annihilation produces velocities closer to 0.56c, which is what i need. Is there any possible way to magnetically store electrons on their own, or to supercharge normal matter with hundreds of electrons apiece and store that? (don't mind if the magnetic storage takes crazy amounts of energy (thermocouples!) or if some of the fuel decays over the two-year transfer time due to quantum tunneling). Also, what are the actual equations that are used to determine the destructive capabilities of antimatter? Bussard Ramjet- I know that these supposedly have a "terminal velocity" of 0.2c, but this assumption seems to imply that the hydrogen is sped up to roughly the same speed as the ship before being fused. I was planning to use a series of magnetic wireframe nozzles a couple hundred kilometres across placed a few light minutes at maximum in front of the ship to ionize the incoming hydrogen (using beamed power from the ship) and nudge it into the ship's reactor. These nozzles could also use the ionized hydrogen to propel themselves at the same pace as the rest of the ship. Light Sails- Probably incapable of near-lightspeed travel, but maybe a cheap way to transport cargo at reasonable speeds. A ship could use an engine to get close to a star, and then unfurl a solar sail at perihelion. A quick calculation based on the amount of power the earth gets tells me that a circular 100km sail placed 6.4 million km from the sun (the closest we can get a spacecraft with our current technology i believe) would be hit with about 3.0*10^16 watts of energy (give or take an order of magnitude). Is this reasonable? Black Holes- Could a black hole be used as a gravitational slingshot to get ships close to the speed of light? Thanks for reading this.

Am I used to my worldview not being celebrated by popular culture? LOL Well, at least we don't have to worry about that for the near future. 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike Maybe if we're lucky they'll all get made redundant by AI. As a complete aside, I always LOL over the content filter here. My father fought the real pedants. The ones who almost conquered the world, not these lame posers that are prancing around these days. But for some reason I'm not supposed to talk about that. I could fill this thread with memes. But I like @Vanamonde, so I play nice.

For my money, the most useful/interesting IG content tends to be (in decreasing order): - Patch Notes - Bug status reporting and patch Predictions - Longer term dev work and roadmap development - Dev diaries for either of the above (far more interesting to have a deep dive but it takes more effort to create so typically covers less ground. Still more please if someone has the capacity and something really interesting to talk about) - Challenges and Community Highlights vaguely entertaining but I don't have much free time to engage with them ATM) - AMA (tend to be a bit short on new information)

So you can talk about KSP1, KSP2 is not so different from the first part This is easy to do when trained specialists bring the finished line, find suppliers, hire and train personnel. It's easy to hire Nertea and take a bunch of parts from him for the game You can learn a lot from squads in 6 years. I understand it is very difficult to add anti-aliasing, parachutes for kerbals and frame rate capping to the game. It would be understandable if the developers would have difficulty adding realistic physics, but even the banal things are still not done.

Lowell Etroublant, 1949 After the second world war, the Eastern European division of Lowell Cars, the Lowell Automobilwerk GmbH, came under communist rule and was nationalized. Soon (August 1945) the government ordered the design of a cheap family car to help the struggling economy and to satisfy the disgruntled, often defiant, population. The Lowell team started designing and had a prototype ready in February 1946. They invited government officials for a test drive. It was a disaster. The government rejected the proposal based on the used technology like standard suspension and wheels, gearboxes and the piston engine running on regular fuel (Normalbenzin). The argument was they needed the parts for building up military vehicles. Back to the drawing board. After many months of searching the team found parts they could use. From a terminated company (because the Soviets felt the fighter jets competed with their own designs, which made Stalin angry) they acquired jet engines and landing gear. At first the engineers wanted to use the landing gear as the main wheels but this idea went into the trashcan after they discovered the tires couldn’t handle the roads, which were in terrible shape. They had already made the landing gear units a part of the bodywork design and a redesign presented a problem because of the delay, they wouldn’t make it before the deadline. They eventually found, just in time, the final solution: elephant skateboard wheels. There was a huge surplus because a famine in early 1948 made the government order all elephants to be slaughtered for food. It looked funny but did work: they were compact to install, provided reasonable grip and a smooth ride. Plus the brakes were excellent because -as we all know- elephants are heavy. But because of the fact there was no gearbox and thus no way of driving the wheels, there also was no reverse. Drivers had to push their car if they had to back up. For the time, aerodynamics were excellent. The jet engine could propel the car to an amazing 90m/s at 100% power. It was decided to reduce the power to 18.5% though, partly because the weak suspension damping made the car dangerous at speeds above 35m/s but mostly because all government officials displayed a different colour of the rainbow during a demonstration. They couldn’t handle the idea that a cheap car for the plebs would be faster than their own state limousines. The population soon discovered how to remove the engine limiter but if the state police would catch you speeding, you’d spend the rest of your life in a gulag for instilling anti-socialist thoughts to the public, an act of high treason. After production started in 1949, the population soon discovered funny little levers labeled Einziehfahrwerk hidded away behind panels, which would lower the original wheels. They also discovered these wheels didn’t have bad tires like the design team claimed, in fact they were a lot better. After a short trial the design team admitted the lie because they wanted the car to look ridiculous and make a fool out of the communist government. They were hanged the next day. The name of the car was allegedly the name of the wife of one of the team members. It sounded French but no government official spoke the language of the former enemy. There was another way the team made the car ridiculous but this wasn’t spotted by the government nor the public. It was discovered in the memoirs of a widow of one of the team members, when she published those decades later. Tip for fun: Set the Juno to 100% thrust and disable crash damage, it’s fast and good for drifting. Download link

unfortunatelly i dont think i can talk about the Hows to do it here, come to the KSP2MS discord server! we're more then open to help you there! https://discord.gg/ksp-2-modding-society-1078696971088433153 but about the parts JSON configuration, that is not yet as simple as modifying a file, you'd need to repack the files in unity, We on the KSP2MS are developing a ModuleManager a like for KSP2 tho!

It was Ghostii, on the Discord in late April. yes it does! Nate is actually a huge fan of HOTAS, so it is something we talk about occasionally. I think it be after 1.0 though so that the majority of the issues are ironed out

I found the quote that @Turbo Ben was referencing on the Discord, from 24 April in the ksp2_general channel: yes it does! Nate is actually a huge fan of HOTAS, so it is something we talk about occasionally. I think it be after 1.0 though so that the majority of the issues are ironed out AFAIK while there have been other statements that full controller support is on the roadmap, this is the only one that has tied it to a specific point.

Let's talk about your other point about the KSP1 documentation being lacking. I happen to agree with you there and see both the existing KSP1 docs and what we've got going for KSP2 as a necessary but not sufficient thing. Can you elaborate on what you'd really like to see in addition to the existing KSP1 documentation? I'm asking because our KSP2 docs are themselves highly extensible via articles and your feedback here would be valuable in helping us move the ball forward! What kinds of articles do you think we should add to a site like that so we can better meet the needs of the modding community?

In the video you linked we see Nate Simpson talking about modding (and representing Star Theory, not yet IG). I played it multiple times and listened carefully, but did not hear where he promised documentation specifically. Scott Manley says things like "make it easy, not have to decompile, un obfuscate large parts of the code", and Nate is clearly nodding his head emphatically through that part. Nate answered by saying "That's one of the nice things about knowing exactly what you're gonna make when you start making it, so we can really make some core architectural decisions to make sure that it's highly moddable, highly stable, highly expandable, ... we wanna see a platform that has a life... I mean the original game's continued to evolve over nearly a decade..." That said, I've yet to hear anything from IG other than that they want to support modding. I'd be quite surprised if they don't deliver some sort of documentation at some point, but what I see and hear in this video is a clear articulation of support in general, not a specific promise of documentation. For that matter, I'd say based on what I've seen that they have, in fact, delivered much of what they said they want to do in this video. We do have a highly moddable game with a core architecture that reflects their design choices to make it so. In the three patches (4 counting the hot fix) that have come out so far there have been only very minimal impact to mods - though a good portion of the credit for that belongs to people like @munix and @cheese3660 wisely making design decisions at our end to ensure there's minimal impact. Let's talk about the other point you made where you seemed to be implying that we're practicing some form of piracy and may in fact be in violation of this forum's rules. Did you visit the site we linked? If so, did you happen to notice the long and detailed article I wrote there meticulously describing the process we followed? If not, then I'd like to encourage you to please read it. https://schlosrat.github.io/articles/HowMade.html The site we've got is made without decompiling the game's code. The information presented is the same as what you'd get from Visual Studio if you dropped an untouched copy of the Assembly-CSharp.dll in as a dependency and then wrote your own code to use it. All we've got is the publically available API interface that the code itself presents. There's not a single line of source code from the game. You might want to give that a gander before suggesting that piracy is a foot, my friend.

No, those two sentences are the exact ones they have to use when asked about stuff they can't talk about, by a myriad of reasons. In fact, those are the phrases they should've used when the community mentions "1000 parts" or when they were asked in the interview. Did you listen to the podcast? Since you ask about context, we can move a minute back, starting from around 1:12:00 and end after the full quote. Nate and Paul are (were, since Paul got fired) a team, and it seems to me you're assuming they went in blind and got assaulted with questions and were incapable of saying no to this one question in particular, or for Nate to be incapable of stopping Paul. Well, not only do I not believe any of that, but they're also a team representing the same company and product, so what one ways, unless the other interjects and denies, goes. Interviewer: You kinda touched on this earlier. Have any features from mods inspired features in KSP2? Answer (Nate): Yes, the easiest answer is visual fidelity, it needs to feel epic, and there've been a number of visual mods for KSP that have raised the bar regarding what's possible. [...] Eve and Scatterer [...] at least show what the minimum should be and we want to exceed that drastically. We talked about parts mods as well, and when you're making a game that has a bunch of interstellar class engines, Nertea has set the bar very high. We need to be about as realistic and detailed. Is there anything else that pops into your head Paul? Paul at 1:13:35: We're working with some graphics engineers not only to make our game more beautiful but again performant, we've got some numbers in this week for what our expectations are on machines and holy **** it looks great and performs great. [...] Interviewer: That's awesome, specially when you have these massive arrays of rigidbody parts. If you have a 1000 parts craft in KSP1 your computer is not gonna be having a good time, no matter what computer it is. Paul again: That's one of the big boulders we're breaking apart on the engineering team, making sure that framerate performance does not suffer, I mean look, the scale of KSP2 is so much larger than KSP1, with so many more orbital bodies and potentially so many more ships and colonies doing autonomous background systems there's so much more to maintain, there's so many more systems that are just living in simulation, so we've gotta make sure the thing you're seeing on screen is behaving in a physically accurate and interesting and educational manner that makes sense and is still fun gameplay, but then all these things in the background are still doing what they're doing, is something is in some geosynchronous orbit and you back to it a year later it has be in the right place considering where it is in time, no matter how many times you're timewarping, no matter how many other colonies you have, how many other ships you have or are being built. So making sure all of that feels consistent while the thing that you're doing right now: to have fun or explore or build or launch or blow up in some spectacular fashion is also also there and awesome and feels tactile and realistic, like that is the number one challenge for the engineering team right now. I mean if you just change my example to say whatever else, yeah, sure. That's not what happened, and you have the quote up there to read, and years of evidence of them promising a finished, performant product all over. Sony is not half as demanding as you make it sound though, even for first party titles (Bloodborne comes to mind), heck, even the KSP1 port on the PS4 was painful. Yes, but they've decided to not say anything happened, so since we're working with their textual words to discount "1000 part ships" promises and others, we can't quote them saying something happened, we can only quote them saying KSP2 will come out performant, or if you ignore the last year, a full product and performant.

The amount of "we can't talk about that" and "no comments", and the average (low) quality and seemingly improvised nature of most of Nate interviews makes me think otherwise. Here they're talking on a podcast that was new at the time, not CNN. Implies it's Nate talking. Implies it's only one person saying all of this, and that person being Nate. Conveniently you've also cut out all the discussion about the background simulation. That's misleading at best. There's a whole argument to be had about the gaming community making up Devs promises and then getting angry at things they've imagined while they over-hyped themselves to oblivion. A big part of it is that anyone trying to deflate hype and debunk fake lies is seen as an enemy twice at first then they don't blindly believe at everything the hype machine says, pointing out that nobody ever talked about something, or confirmed anything. And then after the game released when they say that the thing they where hyped about was never even mentioned by any actual dev. Then someone makes a list of lies on Reddit, or Crowbcat makes a video, both of which will be 90% wrong, but still saying it automatically puts you in a "you're the enemy" position. I'm still not saying that it's the case here, I'm more than open to receive a definitive piece of evidence, a recording or post from Nate saying "100000+ parts", but weirdly enough while everyone seems to agree that that was promised, the only examples are 2 interviews in which the devs clearly evade the question and are very careful at not committing to anything. Interviewer: "Mr. Dev, will your car have 5 doors?" Mr. Dev: "Well, doors, uh? It's a thing we're working on... You see, you can't have a car without doors, and we're working on this new type of hinges that will optimize the door utilization, allowing us to have a number doors on our car." The community: "You've heard that? They said the car will have 10 doors! And that hinges must be needed to flap the doors and fly, so fully autonomous flight capabilities too" The car releases, it has 3 doors, the community is mad because it can't fly.

I ban you right back to your starting point from my last ban, only now there are 500,000 times the mosquitos and 1 sentient gator that wants to talk to you about your cars extended warranty and an exciting time share opportunity. But wait theres more! He has an opportunity for you in his mlm! 011507082023

MUNAR 3: YEAR 1, DAY 200 Mysterious as the dark side of the mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon! Crew: Debo, Danfal, Albert Beyond has decided to do one the riskiest landing possible: a landing on the munar far side. With no communications back to Kerbin, Mission control will have no idea what the crew are doing. If something goes wrong, they won't be able to know at all. This will leave all of Kerbin on the edge on their seats, as well as the crew on board. The mission will otherwsie be the same as all the others, an equatorial landing, but on the far side. If all goes well, the crew of this flight will be the first Kerbals to land on the far side of the Mun. This could be important for interplanetary travel, when comms blackouts will become a regular with the rotation of planets. After Munar 3 enters LKO, the crew and mission control talk amongst themselves as to what the best course of action for the flight should be, and where they should land. It's decided that they will land in a giant crater on the Mun's far side. The farside crater, as it's called. We know it's there, as pictures of it have been taken of it from Munmun 3. The crew will prform normal EVA activities on the surface, and to tell if there was possibly an accident on the surface, the crew must regain contact around a designated time. With evrything decided, a course for the Mun is plotted out, and the crew sit back for all that awaits them. As the crew descend to the Mun's surface, contact with the KSC is lost. Mission control can now do nothing but hope for the best. Meanwhile, the crew a seeing a sight more alien than seeing Kerbin from the Mun: not seeing Kerbin at all. Descent goes smoothly, and before the crew know it, their vessel is standing on the surface of the Mun. Wow, the narrator isn't kidding! Debo standing on the Mun's farside surface. She says after the flight that it's eerily silent without constant blabbering from mission control. Danfal is now also on the Mun's surface. All of the crew posing for the flag shot. And yes, Albert is a woman. Maybe she's trans? Standard surface practices. Liftoff from the munar surface. Munar orbital insertion burn. As connection is re-established with the KSC, mission control bursts into cheers. Beyond has proven that thet can put something on the Mun's farside, without the need for relay. Will we do it again? Probably not, but also we're running out of room to place flags on the Mun's surface. With the mission over, the crew prepare to head home, where a fairly nice gift basket is waiting for them. Re-entry into Kerbin's atmosphere. Parachutes deployed. Splashdown! Munar 3 has returned home! The crew say that the Mun's farside is nothing to write home about. There's no alien civilizations, no magical forests of unicorns, and no giant supermarket filled to the brim with snacks (we wanted the snacks one). No, it's just the same gray surface. Still, the feeling of being out of contact on the surface of another world is exhilarating, and several other crews want to go there as well. Beyond is talking about maybe having Munar 6 be another farside, as that would be a good way to end the Munar Program with a bang (hopefully not literally), but we still have yet to talk about that. For now, the crew of Munar 3 will hold the glory of being the only Kerbals on the Mun's farside.

Talk about colony parts and other star systems has me excited. It means they aren't going "We all work on Stage One, then we all work on Stage Two". I know we've been told that already, but finding out about progress on the Roadmap gives me hope that the delays are in bugfixing the 'Foundation', so that the rest of the Roadmap will be faster.

If you talk about this: He mentions how some of the change that we'll see is disabling some graphics for low settings to allow even more people playing the game (alongside other optimization for everyone). We can already see some examples of these changes in the previous patches: No ETA on other optimization though (beside the occasional ones each patch), especially the new terrain system. I hope we'll get some news on this (I think it will take several months but I would like to know if their implementation is getting good results).

July 20th, 2029 For 7 years now, the Artemis Program has been going strong. Artemis Base Camp has been set up, the Lunar Gateway has grown considerably, and several more countries have joined the Artemis Program. Including China! This why today, on the 60th anniversary of the Moon Landing, NASA announced something ground breaking- the first mission to Mars. The media is unable to talk about anything else. The technology is proven, international relations are good, and the support is strong. It's time for humanity to make the next giant leap. Artemis 13 on the launchpad, a few weeks from launch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- People have done recreations of humans on Mars in the 1980s, people have done recreations of the Constellation program. But I'm doing an idea of what could be. Provided the Artemis Program goes well with 2 launches per year, and the U.S. and China get over their pointless quarrels, this is a future that can be! Expect the first post either tomorrow or a couple days from now, I need to smooth out a couple bumps with the SLS. Inspired by these threads: One Giant Leap | An Alternate History of Space Exploration by @track The Hyperion Program: Kerbalkind's Return to Space - It's Back (Again)! by @Autochrome Kānāwai: Ares to Mars by @Jay The Amazing Toaster The Integrated Program Plan | A reconstruction of NASA's follow up to the Apollo program from 1969 by @Beccab