Ksp 2 Exhaust and jet engine. I hope!

[Ethan Ng]

1.I hope ksp 2 have more jet engine like scramjet, ramjet , nuclear scramjet , nuclear ramjet , zip fuel jet engine, and zip fuel turbo ramjet engine

2.I hope ksp 2 have more types fuel like zip fuel, ethanol , Liquid Hydrogen + lithium + florine, Highly Refine Kerosene , Highly Refine Kerosene + triethylborane + liquid oxygen.

3.I also hope that ksp 2 have a better exhaust like this  jet engine afterburner , Nuclear jet engine , Highly Refine Kerosene + triethylborane + liquid oxygen exhaust

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, Ethan Ng said:

1.I hope ksp 2 have more jet engine like scramjet, ramjet , nuclear scramjet , nuclear ramjet , zip fuel jet engine, and zip fuel turbo ramjet engine

2.I hope ksp 2 have more types fuel like zip fuel, ethanol , Liquid Hydrogen + lithium + florine, Highly Refine Kerosene , Highly Refine Kerosene + triethylborane + liquid oxygen.

3.I also hope that ksp 2 have a better exhaust like this  jet engine afterburner , Nuclear jet engine , Highly Refine Kerosene + triethylborane + liquid oxygen exhaust

1. More engines would be cool 

2. Adding a bunch of fuels, IMO, adds unnecessary complications while adding little to no additional mechanics and would scare away anyone new as well as 1/2 of all the current ksp 1 base

3. Exhausts are pretty

[jimmymcgoochie]

1) These sound like engines for aircraft, not spacecraft. Unless career mode is structured so that aircraft play an important role early in the game before rockets are unlocked I highly doubt there will be many additional aircraft engines in KSP2. There might be a few, but it's Kerbal SPACE Program 2 and planes generally don't work well without air.

2) If you want realistic fuels, use Real Fuels. If you want different fuel types that still fit in the stock fuel system, there are plenty of options- liquid hydrogen for either cryo-fuelled engines or nuclear engines; liquid methane for methalox engines; xenon, argon and lithium-powered electromagnetic type engines; engines that run on nothing but air (they don't work in space for some reason ); engines that run on nuclear bombs... That's not even touching on KSP Interstellar which adds everything from fusion reactors to warp drives.

3) Pretty engine exhausts are confirmed for KSP2, at least as far as the metallic hydrogen engines are concerned. I expect the other engines will not be left behind, even if there isn't one with bright green fire coming out the end.

 

[harrisjosh2711]

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

1. More engines would be cool 

2. Adding a bunch of fuels, IMO, adds unnecessary complications while adding little to no additional mechanics and would scare away anyone new as well as 1/2 of all the current ksp 1 base

3. Exhausts are pretty

Why would fuels scare people away? Most new people, it seems, are calling for realism. Which makes sense from a science, space & engineering perspective. I got into this game because "rockets". If there were something more realistic, i would have never played ksp. Point is, i wasnt drawn in by green people, planets, or lack of SPEED that comes with playing on scaled down planets. I accepted that stuff because the engineering and rockets. Its not cool. Its acceptable.

[SpaceFace545]

12 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

1. More engines would be cool 

2. Adding a bunch of fuels, IMO, adds unnecessary complications while adding little to no additional mechanics and would scare away anyone new as well as 1/2 of all the current ksp 1 base

3. Exhausts are pretty

Okay I just want to ask a question why are you guys so scared of more than liquid fuel, what Ethan is saying is kind of an absurd amount of fuels but at least kerosene hydrogen and methane.

[Ethan Ng]

Ya, realism is number one first.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Ethan Ng

[Ethan Ng]

For extra realism heres the specifics impulse of the fuels:

Chemical Engine Specifics impulse:

Liquid Hydrogen + lithium + florine  | 500-550

Kerosene + liquid oxygen                   | 250-340

Liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen       | 380-470

 

ion engine Specifics impulse:

Propellant                                             Isp

liquid ceasium                                    | 6000-10000

Xenon                                                  | 1600-19700

Hydrogen                                             | 4900-6000

Argon                                                   | 1300-12000

iodine                                                   | 1400-1600

Edited May 4, 2020 by Ethan Ng

[SpaceFace545]

10 hours ago, Ethan Ng said:

For extra realism heres the specifics impulse of the fuels:

Chemical Engine Specifics impulse:

Liquid Hydrogen + lithium + florine  | 500-550

Kerosene + liquid oxygen                   | 250-340

Liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen       | 380-470

 

ion engine Specifics impulse:

Propellant                                             Isp

liquid ceasium                                    | 6000-10000

Xenon                                                  | 1600-19700

Hydrogen                                             | 4900-6000

Argon                                                   | 1300-12000

iodine                                                   | 1400-1600

you missed the all cancerous hydrazine

[Drakenred65]

Let’s be realistic, right now we’re seeing a general convergence in fuels to methane because we already have  three different ways to synthesize it in place at Mars and Venus that directly or indirectly relies on sunlight and one that uses waste heat from an RTG that I know of. That said

In the real world we have over 150 known liquid propellants that have been at least tested.

honestly how many realize that the early prototype rockets and at least one mass produced Missile used Alcohol. There’s been experiments or actual launches with every known burnable Hydrocarbon including diesel and butane. The whole question breaks down to Does that level of complexity actually add to the game when people don’t know why you would be better off putting a vacuum optimized  engine on a launcher on the mun, but not on Any planet with a real and or deep atmosphere.

 

hell Thunderhoof was ridiculed for saying a helicopter based mobile probe would be workable on Mars, even after he showed NASA footage of them successfully testing it in there own vacuum chamber at a simulated day night and pressure equivalent to mars.

 

Said pressure chamber is on earth. You know the planet whose surface gravity is 2.6 times what it would deal with on Mars.

Edited May 5, 2020 by [email protected]

[mcwaffles2003]

On 5/3/2020 at 4:24 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

Okay I just want to ask a question why are you guys so scared of more than liquid fuel, what Ethan is saying is kind of an absurd amount of fuels but at least kerosene hydrogen and methane.

On 5/3/2020 at 4:17 PM, harrisjosh2711 said:

Why would fuels scare people away? Most new people, it seems, are calling for realism. Which makes sense from a science, space & engineering perspective. I got into this game because "rockets". If there were something more realistic, i would have never played ksp. Point is, i wasnt drawn in by green people, planets, or lack of SPEED that comes with playing on scaled down planets. I accepted that stuff because the engineering and rockets. Its not cool. Its acceptable.

What does it add to the game? seriously. It just makes more logistical problems in a game that already gets bogged down by logistics by the time your setting up sats around other planets. 

It gives no benefit outside "realism" (yay! we labeled this thing something in the real world but it adds virtually no practical difference mechanically) and just makes keeping everything refueled and servicing all our space armadas far more complex to manage. We have mods for a reason, base game should simply be a malleable and stable platform for mod personalization. As far as  "Most new people, it seems, are calling for realism"... Most new people never even leave the kerbin system, someone new to kerbal in my opinion has no clue what they will end up wanting out of this game since the game in itself is a learning experience.

The actual "realism" in this doesnt come from labeling a tank... it comes from learning orbital mechanics, escape trajectories, hohmann transfers, aerodynamics, and other real physical systems. There is no simulation of CH4 burning with O2 in this game, that part is just labeling a thrust vector with an origin at the engine bell. This is why I really dont care much if metallic hydrogen ends up being real or not, its just a label to serve as a plot device to enable an engine with a certain trust/efficiency profile to exist in the game to better enable interstellar travel. 

In short, the less amount of different fuels (and other complicating abstractions) while maintaining a coherent "plot" the better. Add whatever you want on after.

[SpaceFace545]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What does it add to the game? seriously. It just makes more logistical problems in a game that already gets bogged down by logistics by the time your setting up sats around other planets. 

It gives no benefit outside "realism" (yay! we labeled this thing something in the real world but it adds virtually no practical difference mechanically) and just makes keeping everything refueled and servicing all our space armadas far more complex to manage. We have mods for a reason, base game should simply be a malleable and stable platform for mod personalization. As far as  "Most new people, it seems, are calling for realism"... Most new people never even leave the kerbin system, someone new to kerbal in my opinion has no clue what they will end up wanting out of this game since the game in itself is a learning experience.

The actual "realism" in this doesnt come from labeling a tank... it comes from learning orbital mechanics, escape trajectories, hohmann transfers, aerodynamics, and other real physical systems. There is no simulation of CH4 burning with O2 in this game, that part is just labeling a thrust vector with an origin at the engine bell. This is why I really dont care much if metallic hydrogen ends up being real or not, its just a label to serve as a plot device to enable an engine with a certain trust/efficiency profile to exist in the game to better enable interstellar travel. 

In short, the less amount of different fuels (and other complicating abstractions) while maintaining a coherent "plot" the better. Add whatever you want on after.

It’s just three different fuels, not that complex.

kerosene for jet engines and early rockets

hydrogen for nervas, fusion engines, and advanced rockets

methane for advanced rockets as well

splitting up Liquid fuel wouldn’t complicate anything other than needing a fuel switch for every tank what is really simple as there is already a mod for that, b9 part switch I think. 
mans for the newbie doesn’t want new fuels, the devs can just add a realistic fuels toggle in the settings.

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It’s just three different fuels, not that complex.

kerosene for jet engines and early rockets

hydrogen for nervas, fusion engines, and advanced rockets

methane for advanced rockets as well

splitting up Liquid fuel wouldn’t complicate anything other than needing a fuel switch for every tank what is really simple as there is already a mod for that, b9 part switch I think. 
mans for the newbie doesn’t want new fuels, the devs can just add a realistic fuels toggle in the settings.

If the only difference is the label on the side of the tank, what's the point?

If there's a difference in performance and you don't have overlapping engines, what's the point?

If there's a difference in performance and you *do* have overlapping engines, you're adding complexity that the user has to deal with.  Is that complexity adding anything to the game other than something that the user can fiddle with and confuse themselves?

[Mikenike]

On 5/2/2020 at 11:03 PM, Ethan Ng said:

 Nuclear jet engine

No, that is an F-15 engine on a mount............. *Inner Aircraft Enthusiast Is Dying Inside*

[SpaceFace545]

55 minutes ago, DStaal said:

If the only difference is the label on the side of the tank, what's the point?

If there's a difference in performance and you don't have overlapping engines, what's the point?

If there's a difference in performance and you *do* have overlapping engines, you're adding complexity that the user has to deal with.  Is that complexity adding anything to the game other than something that the user can fiddle with and confuse themselves?

It’s not that complex it’s just three. In ksp1 we have liquid fuel, solid fuel, and xenon. This would just add three more substituting for liquid fuel. So five in total. My 16 month old cousin can count to ten so I think you and everyone else could remember three more fuel types. This is as complex as remembering that ion thrusters don’t run on solid fuel.

[DStaal]

17 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It’s not that complex it’s just three. In ksp1 we have liquid fuel, solid fuel, and xenon. This would just add three more substituting for liquid fuel. So five in total. My 16 month old cousin can count to ten so I think you and everyone else could remember three more fuel types. This is as complex as remembering that ion thrusters don’t run on solid fuel.

I don't disagree that we could probably handle three - but still the question is what benefit to the gameplay does it provide?  LF, Solid Fuel, and Xenon all have distinct gameplay roles and clear costs/benefits in those roles.  If we're just splitting LF into three, what does that provide?

[SpaceFace545]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

I don't disagree that we could probably handle three - but still the question is what benefit to the gameplay does it provide?  LF, Solid Fuel, and Xenon all have distinct gameplay roles and clear costs/benefits in those roles.  If we're just splitting LF into three, what does that provide?

Just a bit more realism and it could help the recourse gathering system. We know we’re getting liquid hydrogen for fusion and metallic hydrogen so that would make liquid fuel kerosene what works in jet engines and some basic rocket engines. Advanced rockets like the vector what historically used hydrogen in real life. And if hydrogen is around methane would probably be added for other advanced rockets. The devs have only told us about future engine types but they will inevitably make changes and add more conventional rockets. Hydrogen could be collected from the atmosphere or with a Bussard ramjet and methane can be found on Ovin the super Kerbin and Laythe as a sign of life. Methane can be in an atmospheric sampling experiment. I think this would be good for new players as well, maybe you are a huge spacex geek and you think their engines are cool then the games methalox engines are there, if you like jet engines and archaic kerosene burning rockets of the past there would be kerosene, and if you like the space shuttle or SLS the game would have hydrogen for the vector engines. 

[shdwlrd]

Why do we need more liquid fuel types though? Just for realism? Because someone's brain is exploding because both turbine engines and rocket motors use the same resource? Why can't petroleum, alcohol, cryogenic based fuels be under the generic term liquid fuels? Why can't the thrust and ISP be changed to reflect the different fuel types? (I do agree the plume should reflect the fuel types that the motor should use.)

Squad did do that, scaled to the Kerbal universe and for game play. People are still complaining that it isn't real, or good enough. What is good enough at this point? The dozens of known fuel types used?

We know that KSP2 is getting different fuel types for the more advanced rocket motors, and Orion drive. Why do we need to complicate engine selection/fuel combinations even more for turbine engines?

[mcwaffles2003]

6 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It’s just three different fuels, not that complex.

kerosene for jet engines and early rockets

hydrogen for nervas, fusion engines, and advanced rockets

methane for advanced rockets as well

splitting up Liquid fuel wouldn’t complicate anything other than needing a fuel switch for every tank what is really simple as there is already a mod for that, b9 part switch I think. 
mans for the newbie doesn’t want new fuels, the devs can just add a realistic fuels toggle in the settings.

You read the fist sentence and addressed nothing else >.>

[Drakenred65]

3 hours ago, Mikenike said:

No, that is an F-15 engine on a mount............. *Inner Aircraft Enthusiast Is Dying Inside*

 Real RAM POWER

Sorry Dodge.

[SpaceFace545]

5 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 Real RAM POWER

Sorry Dodge.

Project Pluto 

[Drakenred65]

Yep, was referring to the Dodge Ram. 

[Lewie]

I don’t get the call for realism and real fuels...it’s a video game. It’s designed to be an escape from reality, not something that we should have to act as if it’s real. If we had all this real fuel, atmospheric drag and life support systems I never, ever would have gotten into the game. Just leave the realism to moddera, anything that’s not in the game can be added. I play console, and it would suck to have to deal with that stuff. Just make the stock game simple, modders will take care of the realism.

[harrisjosh2711]

6 hours ago, DStaal said:

I don't disagree that we could probably handle three - but still the question is what benefit to the gameplay does it provide?  LF, Solid Fuel, and Xenon all have distinct gameplay roles and clear costs/benefits in those roles.  If we're just splitting LF into three, what does that provide?

The ability to build a liquid hydrogen upperstage and kersone lowerstage like a large number of rockets are built. A few things from nasa- "the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical achievements". "liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant." 

Wow! It sounds like fuel types are a VERY important matter in rocketry.

I suppose what i find funny is i've rarely heard people complain over CUSTOMIZATION options they arent forced to use.

And this argument "it will be too hard". Do you guys realize how that makes you sound. Too hard???? You want a cookie?

[SpaceFace545]

31 minutes ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

The ability to build a liquid hydrogen upperstage and kersone lowerstage like a large number of rockets are built. A few things from nasa- "the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical achievements". "liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant." 

Wow! It sounds like fuel types are a VERY important matter in rocketry.

I suppose what i find funny is i've rarely heard people complain over CUSTOMIZATION options they arent forced to use.

And this argument "it will be too hard". Do you guys realize how that makes you sound. Too hard???? You want a cookie?

Finally a sensible person, people saying it would be too realistic for three real fuel- it’s a ******* game about building and flying rockets. With a new game about interstellar travel I hope to each and every god that it will be realistic, not unplayable without a physics degree, just realistic.

[KerikBalm]

18 hours ago, Mikenike said:

No, that is an F-15 engine on a mount............. *Inner Aircraft Enthusiast Is Dying Inside*

As an aircraft enthusiast, wouldn't you want to call it a Pratt and Whitney F-100?

But yea... that's clearly not a nuclear engine exhaust.It wouldn't look anything like that.

As for fuel types. I think KSP2 is going to have many more fuel types. They seem to say that we get metallic hydrogen (*vomits a little*) and water for an atmospheric engine, and cesium doped metallic hydrogen for a vacuum engine (*vomits some more*). Then we have orion nuclear pulse propulsion, some sort of fusion drive and collection of something from gas giants (He3?). The endgame torchship is probably an antimatter drive.

All of these will clearly have different fuel types - so KSP2 almost certainly is going to get more complicated in that regard... but given its future-tech focus, I'm not sure they are going to expand the chemical rocket fuel types. I have the impression that they are just calling it methalox and moving on.