Jump to content

KSP2 Hype Train Thread


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I think I see a docking port just behind the solar arrays, why else would there be such shape and change in diameter.

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

After looking at the images, yeah, there does seem to be docking ports. 

pXUgvuG.png

Not only that, comparing their size to the spaceplanes' Mk2 parts, they appear to be 3.75m docking ports (!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

pXUgvuG.png

Not only that, comparing their size to the spaceplanes' Mk2 parts, they appear to be 3.75m docking ports (!)

Its 3.75 meter, the cockpit is also 3.75 m and seen in the VAB shots. Reminds me of expanded Gemini plan.  The two pilot seats and more rom below. 
And having the ship as two parts also match up with the two monopropellant tanks and their own sets of RSC thrusters.
In addition to making it easier to launch It also let you reuse the population module for other payloads, perhaps leaving the hab module as an space station around Duna. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who noticed the light on Ike is reflecting at a weird angle? Or that it almost looks like that craft is rotating? Also let me get this straight; I'm gonna be able to make near-future nuclear spacecraft like that from DAY 1?!?! :vallove:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 5m and larger docking ports. 

6 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Also let me get this straight; I'm gonna be able to make near-future nuclear spacecraft like that from DAY 1?!?! :vallove:

You wouldn't if Progression mode was in place, but since all we're getting at EA launch is sandbox, yes.

It appears we're only not getting update-specific parts. So no Daedalus engines or anything that's needed for interstellar travel, no colony/orbital construction parts, no sciencey-related parts.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Aziz said:

It appears we're only not getting update-specific parts. So no Daedalus engines or anything that's needed for interstellar travel, no colony/orbital construction parts, no sciencey-related parts.

If that's the case, I wonder if any of the interplanetary 'torch drive' engines will be included at EA launch? They're not enough for interstellar travel, and we know we're getting the non-impulsive maneuver planner out of the box, but given that some of them do use rather exotic propellants (particularly the metallic hydrogen engine), I wouldn't be surprised if they'll have to wait until resource management arrives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 5m and larger docking ports. 

You wouldn't if Progression mode was in place, but since all we're getting at EA launch is sandbox, yes.

It appears we're only not getting update-specific parts. So no Daedalus engines or anything that's needed for interstellar travel, no colony/orbital construction parts, no sciencey-related parts.

I pretty sure we get the even higher performance metallic hydrogen engines, not sure about pulse nuclear orion but hope so.  

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

If that's the case, I wonder if any of the interplanetary 'torch drive' engines will be included at EA launch? They're not enough for interstellar travel, and we know we're getting the non-impulsive maneuver planner out of the box, but given that some of them do use rather exotic propellants (particularly the metallic hydrogen engine), I wouldn't be surprised if they'll have to wait until resource management arrives.

I say they would be useful :) Now that might disappoint people a bit as you get spoiled in sandbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both nuclear pulse and torch drive engines belong in the "way too useful" category

1420100154_Usefulnessofengines.png.f9eab

(Unless the Orion lies at the very end of Nuclear Engines section), but it was said that whatever is there, is about to come at later date.

About MH, it was shown in some of EA footage (episode 6), buut I'd take that with a payload of salt. It is neither Methalox or nuclear, and the way it is described, it should be super extra efficient.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I think both nuclear pulse and torch drive engines belong in the "way too useful" category

1420100154_Usefulnessofengines.png.f9eab

(Unless the Orion lies at the very end of Nuclear Engines section), but it was said that whatever is there, is about to come at later date.

About MH, it was shown in some of EA footage (episode 6), buut I'd take that with a payload of salt. It is neither Methalox or nuclear, and the way it is described, it should be super extra efficient.

Not necessarily... an orion engine has the obvious drawback of being absurdly large.So it is completely useless  for sending probes, make a lander,  require  by itself a large mission  so it is like  killing  an ant with a cannon.. I have no clue how  big they will make torch ones although.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tstein said:

Not necessarily... an orion engine has the obvious drawback of being absurdly large.So it is completely useless  for sending probes, make a lander,  require  by itself a large mission  so it is like  killing  an ant with a cannon.. I have no clue how  big they will make torch ones although.

Firstly, not with that attitude you won't! 

Secondly, the Torch engine we've seen was about 3.75m I believe. Or 2.5m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tstein said:

Not necessarily... an orion engine has the obvious drawback of being absurdly large.So it is completely useless  for sending probes, make a lander,  require  by itself a large mission  so it is like  killing  an ant with a cannon.. I have no clue how  big they will make torch ones although.

You just need to balance how far you want to walk from your lander to the colony vs contaminating the colony. And the last nuke you send out of that orion drive should be well timed. ;)

Also I mentioned it before, Kerbals can have glasses now, so sunglasses are a good idea for most kerbals for some atomic mushroom gazing :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Firstly, not with that attitude you won't! 

Secondly, the Torch engine we've seen was about 3.75m I believe. Or 2.5m.

Just be realistic.. you are landing on an ice moon to take samples and you try to  touch down smoothly with an engine that uses NUKES.... does nto seems a good place to make experiments afterwards:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've seen at least 3 sizes of the Orion. Yes they're probably heavy, but they will most likely be used for hauling heavy cargo, not just some simple probes. It's where even old NERVs fall short I guess.

Also, you can make a lander with it, just use different engines for approach/liftoff. Even better, because you get a wide base to stand on, no landing legs required ;p

Come on, it's KSP, be creative.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tstein said:

Just be realistic.. you are landing on an ice moon to take samples and you try to  touch down smoothly with an engine that uses NUKES.... does nto seems a good place to make experiments afterwards:P

The real Orion would be able to select the yield of the bombs or have several different yields for different situations. 

Besides, it's got a giant hydraulic piston to cushion the landing, it's literally meant to take several 100 m/s impact speeds!

As for sample, well, your kerbals are going have to walk a few miles to get outside the radiation zone. SO probably best to land outside of the place you want to take your samples. 

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

We've seen at least 3 sizes of the Orion. Yes they're probably heavy, but they will most likely be used for hauling heavy cargo, not just some simple probes. It's where even old NERVs fall short I guess.

Also, you can make a lander with it, just use different engines for approach/liftoff. Even better, because you get a wide base to stand on, no landing legs required ;p

Selectable yield, piston, the Orion is already a good lander, no need for chemical engines.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Besides, it's got a giant hydraulic piston to cushion the landing, it's literally meant to take several 100 m/s impact speeds!

Oh damn! I never thought about that aspect. The "gamefied" crash tolerance should be really high for that matter at least on the plate. Lithobraking confirmed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snafu225 said:

Oh damn! I never thought about that aspect. The "gamefied" crash tolerance should be really high for that matter at least on the plate. Lithobraking confirmed? 

Orion, the only rocket that can Lithobrake and not RUD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

The real Orion would be able to select the yield of the bombs or have several different yields for different situations. 

Besides, it's got a giant hydraulic piston to cushion the landing, it's literally meant to take several 100 m/s impact speeds!

As for sample, well, your kerbals are going have to walk a few miles to get outside the radiation zone. SO probably best to land outside of the place you want to take your samples. 

Selectable yield, piston, the Orion is already a good lander, no need for chemical engines.

I always has secondary engines on my Orion ships, nice for adjusting trajectories and orbits or operate near other ships. 
HG5fkekh.png
Also do not fire now. 

Edited by magnemoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, magnemoe said:

I always has secondary engines on my Orion ships, nice for adjusting trajectories and orbits or operate near other ships. 

Also do not fire now. 

Okay, secondary engines for fine tuning trajectories is acceptable. But not using them for landing. You land by nuke, or don't land at all. :P :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GoldForest said:

Okay, secondary engines for fine tuning trajectories is acceptable. But not using them for landing. You land by nuke, or don't land at all. :P :cool:

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

I always has secondary engines on my Orion ships, nice for adjusting trajectories and orbits or operate near other ships. 
 

I'm already planning on using 3 to 4 smaller orion drives as landing legs and landing engines for one big orion drive :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, tstein said:

Not necessarily... an orion engine has the obvious drawback of being absurdly large.So it is completely useless  for sending probes, make a lander,  require  by itself a large mission  so it is like  killing  an ant with a cannon.. I have no clue how  big they will make torch ones although.

jokes on you, i WILL make a video using the orion drive to make a probe orbit around the mun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:

Oh damn! I never thought about that aspect. The "gamefied" crash tolerance should be really high for that matter at least on the plate. Lithobraking confirmed? 

ground breaking, forget lithobraking

 

i really would love to see "crash craters", skids etc sprites etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, xXIndestructibleEVAXx said:

I can already see all the "Orion only to x" videos

i think the hardest one will be (modded) is kerbin to kerbin launchpad

 

due to them saying you cannot build huge "ships" on the launch pad

Edited by Stephensan
Grammarly'ed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...