Realism, Fun, Nostalgia, and Quality of Life Features for KSP2

[JMBuilder]

Pretty straightforward list of desires for the game.

 

Realism

• Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH₂, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H₂O₂, N₂O, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures. Granted, this would be a complicated system, so I could see it as a difficulty setting.
• Ground effect simulation for proper hovercrafts and ekranoplans, possibly done via increased lift and perpendicular thrust values near surfaces.
• In career mode, available parts and skins would vary depending on what location's VABs and SPHs are being used. For example, the main KSC would have access to NASA-style parts, another would have Soviet-style parts, yet another would have European-style parts, etc. These restrictions could be bypassed with special international contracts and other deals. In sandbox mode, all parts are always available at any location.

 

Fun

• Explosive avenues of science. The player could use explosives to measure seismic wave travel through surfaces or, tossing regard for collateral damage out the window, even detonate nukes to study their effects on surfaces, atmospheres, or magnetic fields, similar to Operation Argus.
• HARP-like cannon facilities for testing the ballistics of reentry or making general low-cost studies of the upper atmosphere. In extreme cases, the player might be able to yeet small rockets above the atmosphere and guide them into orbit, although they would need to be built sturdily and within the confines of the cannon's barrel.
• A rocket sled facility.
• A mass driver facility.
• A V3-cannon-like facility.
• Similar to the NERVA, more experimental and/or abandoned engine concepts, such as Liquid Air Cycle Engines (LACEs; special intakes for otherwise normal rocket engines), the "big dumb boosters" of the Sea Dragon (no setting between “off” and “full throttle”), and coal granule ramjets.
• More older or "retro" engine types likes pulsejets and recessed rocket nozzles.
• Balloons and Airships (been begging for these for over eight years).
• Submarines and more in-depth (no pun intended) underwater exploration.
• Caves, caverns, and other complex geological formations.
• Soviet-style space cannons (yep, they actually fired one in orbit).

 

Nostalgia

• Legacy skins. All of the old KSP part models (from the earliest rocket parts and original plane parts to the intermediate updates) would be featured as color schemes, decals, and variants of parts (smoothed out a bit to keep up with the graphics).
• Legacy structures. Inland KSC (KSC2) would also return as a usable facility, featuring all of the original early-KSP buildings (including the old spaceplane hangar and runway) updated with climbable ladders and other EVA features (again with enhanced graphics). The player wouldn't just be able to use the launchpad and runway; they could even use the old interiors of the VAB and SPH to build their vehicles, surrounded by happy memories. In career mode, the old VAB and SPH would only have access to the Legacy skins and part variants and, on the flipside, would be the only space center with access to them.

 

Quality of Life

• A marker for a craft's center of buoyancy.
• A marker for a craft's center of drag (suggested by @KerikBalm).
• A launching area offshore in open water marked by buoys, facilitating the launch of ultra-massive rockets that would otherwise damage launchpads and eardrums with their intense propulsion (Sea Dragon, anybody?). Doubles as a seaplane and boat launching facility. Vehicles are deployed with their center of buoyancy at the surface of the water.
• A second runway spawn position that facilitates takeoff to the west.
• A perpendicular runway that facilitates takeoff to the north or south.
• Ability to choose between a fuel-oxidizer mix, fuel only, or oxidizer only for fuel tanks with no wasted space or extra weight (trading oxidizer for more fuel or vice versa).
• Ability to harvest liquids from oceans and gases from atmospheres and refine them into their corresponding fuels or oxidizers.
• A way to program vessels, probes, or reusable stages to land themselves or perform maneuvers while the player concentrates on piloting another vessel.
• Angle-locked docking ports for better symmetry while docking modules.
• Crew hatch parts for alternative entrances/exits on ships.
• Ability to prevent monopropellant from flowing to certain areas of ships.
• A stability assist mode for maintaining a specific altitude and speed (in air or underwater), adjusting by thrust, lift, and buoyancy.

Edited August 6, 2020 by JMBuilder

[PlutoISaPlanet]

2 minutes ago, JMBuilder said:

Pretty straightforward list of desires for the game.

 

Realism

• Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH₂, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H₂O₂, N₂O, halogens, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures.
• Ground effect simulation for proper hovercrafts and ekranoplans.
• Air compression simulation to facilitate the construction of custom ramjets or air-augmented rockets.
• Fluid pressure simulation. Parts not designed for deep diving in oceans or gas/ice giant atmospheres (mainly crew cabins and the like) would be crushed at certain depths.
• In career mode, available parts and skins would vary depending on what location's VABs and SPHs are being used. For example, the main KSC would have access to NASA-style parts, another would have Soviet-style parts, yet another would have European-style parts, etc. These restrictions could be bypassed with special international contracts and other deals. In sandbox mode, all parts are always available at any location.

 

Fun

• Explosive avenues of science. The player could use explosives to measure seismic wave travel through surfaces or, tossing regard for collateral damage out the window, even detonate nukes to study their effects on surfaces, atmospheres, or magnetic fields, similar to Operation Argus.
• HARP-like cannons for testing the ballistics of reentry or making general low-cost studies of the upper atmosphere. In extreme cases, the player might be able to yeet small rockets above the atmosphere and guide them into orbit, although they would need to be built within the confines of the cannon's barrel.
• A mass driver.
• Similar to the NERVA, more experimental and/or abandoned engine concepts, such as Liquid Air Cycle Engines (LACEs) and the "big dumb boosters" of the Sea Dragon.
• Balloons and Airships (been begging for these for over eight years).
• Submarines and more in-depth (no pun intended) underwater exploration.
• Subterrenes; large drill vehicles designed to travel underground.
• Caves, caverns, and other complex geological formations, some only accessible via mining or subterrene.

 

Nostalgia

• Legacy skins. All of the old KSP part models (from the earliest rocket parts and original plane parts to the intermediate updates) would be featured as color schemes, decals, and variants of parts (smoothed out a bit to keep up with the graphics).
• Legacy structures. Inland KSC (KSC2) would also return as a usable facility, featuring all of the original early-KSP buildings (including the old spaceplane hangar and runway) updated with climbable ladders and other EVA features (again with enhanced graphics). The player wouldn't just be able to use the launchpad and runway; they could even use the old interiors of the VAB and SPH to build their vehicles, surrounded by happy memories. In career mode, the old VAB and SPH would only have access to the Legacy skins and part variants and, on the flipside, would be the only space center with access to them.

 

Quality of Life

• A marker for a craft's center of buoyancy alongside mass, thrust, and lift.
• A launching area offshore in open water marked by buoys, facilitating the launch of ultra-massive rockets that would otherwise damage launchpads and eardrums with their intense propulsion (Sea Dragon, anybody?). Doubles as a seaplane and boat launching facility. Vehicles are deployed with their center of buoyancy at the surface of the water.
• A second runway spawn position that facilitates takeoff to the west.
• A perpendicular runway that facilitates takeoff to the north or south.
• Ability to choose between a fuel-oxidizer mix, fuel only, or oxidizer only for fuel tanks with no wasted space or extra weight (trading oxidizer for more fuel or vice versa).
• Ability to harvest liquids from oceans and gases from atmospheres and refine them into their corresponding fuels or oxidizers.

Some of these are pretty good.

[mattinoz]

In short you'd like to make a sea dragon and why wouldn't you?

[JMBuilder]

52 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

In short you'd like to make a sea dragon and why wouldn't you?

Well, that's certainly a big part of it, yes. 

I'm mainly in it for the nostalgia features, and the abandoned prototypes and airships feel so dieselpunk.

Edited July 10, 2020 by JMBuilder

[LittleBitMore]

Almoat all of these sound like a lot of fun to play, but most of them a nightmare to make. While I like these suggestions, I wouldn't say they're likely to occur

[DunaManiac]

10 hours ago, JMBuilder said:

• Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH₂, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H₂O₂, N₂O, halogens, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures.
•  

But what's the point? Every engine for different fuels would have different stats, so what's the point if the only difference would be in name (Although different fuels for more engines is a given).

[KerikBalm]

Realism:

11 hours ago, JMBuilder said:

• Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH₂, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H₂O₂, N₂O, halogens, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures.

Unlikely. I think they will have more diverse fuel types, but they are focusing on future tech and (*vomits*) magic tech like the PSM/purple space magic engine. I doubt we'll see a large expansion of chemical rocket fuel types. My guess is that they call it methalox, and move on from chemical into the higher Isp engines.

Quote

• Ground effect simulation for proper hovercrafts and ekranoplans.
• Air compression simulation to facilitate the construction of custom ramjets or air-augmented rockets.
• Fluid pressure simulation. Parts not designed for deep diving in oceans or gas/ice giant atmospheres (mainly crew cabins and the like) would be crushed at certain depths.

1 and 2: I doubt it. They won't even have FAR level aerodynamics, so forget about it

3: Isn't that sort of in KSP already, with the part pressure limits?

Quote

• In career mode, available parts and skins would vary depending on what location's VABs and SPHs are being used. For example, the main KSC would have access to NASA-style parts, another would have Soviet-style parts, yet another would have European-style parts, etc. These restrictions could be bypassed with special international contracts and other deals. In sandbox mode, all parts are always available at any location.

Seems more like this belongs in the "fun" section. This is fictional Kerbin, with Kerbals, why is it "realistic" that there isn't a worldwide pat distribution network in place, or that the parts aren't available everywhere because kerbals don't have local licensed manufacturing?

Fun

Quote

• Explosive avenues of science. The player could use explosives to measure seismic wave travel through surfaces or, tossing regard for collateral damage out the window, even detonate nukes to study their effects on surfaces, atmospheres, or magnetic fields, similar to Operation Argus.

You mean like the breaking ground seismometer surface experiment?

Quote

• HARP-like cannons for testing the ballistics of reentry or making general low-cost studies of the upper atmosphere. In extreme cases, the player might be able to yeet small rockets above the atmosphere and guide them into orbit, although they would need to be built within the confines of the cannon's barrel.
• A mass driver.

Such launch facilities would be cool.

Quote

• Similar to the NERVA, more experimental and/or abandoned engine concepts, such as Liquid Air Cycle Engines (LACEs) and the "big dumb boosters" of the Sea Dragon.

LACE is basically a more primative SABRE engine, which is the Rapier engine in game...

Quote

• Balloons and Airships (been begging for these for over eight years).
• Submarines and more in-depth (no pun intended) underwater exploration.

Balloons would be cool, submarines are doable now in KSP, but more dedicated parts would be nice. More detailed underwater features would also be cool (at least its easy to edit ground scatter to be underwater, and to mod in underwater scannable features )

Quote

• Subterrenes; large drill vehicles designed to travel underground.
• Caves, caverns, and other complex geological formations, some only accessible via mining or subterrene.

Would be cool, but not going to happen unless they move to some voxel system and away from a heightmap system, which I'm certain they won't do.

Nostalgia:

meh, I don't really have anything to say

Quality of life:

Quote

• A marker for a craft's center of buoyancy alongside mass, thrust, and lift.

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but also center of drag is also pretty important. Draggy stuff up front vs draggy stuff at the back makes a big difference in stability, but the indicators won't show it. 

Quote

• A launching area offshore in open water marked by buoys, facilitating the launch of ultra-massive rockets that would otherwise damage launchpads and eardrums with their intense propulsion (Sea Dragon, anybody?). Doubles as a seaplane and boat launching facility. Vehicles are deployed with their center of buoyancy at the surface of the water.

That could be nice.... but I suspect that there won't be much focus on facilities at KSC. Afterall, we're going to be going interstellar, building massive ships in orbit, harvesting from gas giants, etc. KSC facilities will be really far away. A higher priority to me would be the ability to make floating (or underwater) colonies, so that when on an alien world with an ocean, you can launch stuff in the ocean.

Quote

• A second runway spawn position that facilitates takeoff to the west.
• A perpendicular runway that facilitates takeoff to the north or south.

North-south runways for polar flights would be nice, but really, if a craft can't make a 180 turn, something is wrong. Different runway directions (N/S and E/W, with an option to start from either end) would be much more important if they implemented weather, and we had to deal with crosswinds on landing.

Quote

• Ability to choose between a fuel-oxidizer mix, fuel only, or oxidizer only for fuel tanks with no wasted space or extra weight (trading oxidizer for more fuel or vice versa).

Switchable fuel tanks would be great, and would help minimize the number of parts to pick from.

Quote

Ability to harvest liquids from oceans and gases from atmospheres and refine them into their corresponding fuels or oxidizers.

I suspect this will be present. Varied ISRU seems to be a big part of KSP2 and the colony mechanics

[Bej Kerman]

11 hours ago, JMBuilder said:

Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH₂, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H₂O₂, N₂O, halogens, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures.

What a rather pointless array of fuels that could just be one simple early game fuel.

9 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

11 hours ago, JMBuilder said:

• Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH₂, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H₂O₂, N₂O, halogens, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures.

Unlikely. I think they will have more diverse fuel types, but they are focusing on future tech and (*vomits*) magic tech like the PSM/purple space magic engine. I doubt we'll see a large expansion of chemical rocket fuel types. My guess is that they call it methalox, and move on from chemical into the higher Isp engines.

They're not "magic". Metallic hydrogen rockets aren't "magic" unless you just have a major phobia of the future.

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

They're not "magic". Metallic hydrogen rockets aren't "magic" unless you just have a major phobia of the future.

Metallic hydrogen is not magic. Its also not metastable, and won't stay metallic when pressure drops below something like 415 GPa according to latest experimental results. No theoretical prediction since the 1970's suggests metastability of MH. This relates to an inherent property of the material, don't tell me future tech will solve that, unless you're willing to tell me that future tech will allow pure fresh water to exist in liquid form in a vacuum.

Therefore you can't make a rocket using metallic hydrogen as the propulsion unless:

1) your tank mass fraction is ridiculous (containing a layer of diamond wrapped in carbon nanotubes), giving performance orders of magnitude worse than chemical rockets, also all your thrust comes in one explosive decompression (not what they showed)

or

2) you cast purple space magic to make a tank with a magically high strength to weight ratio(orders of magntiude more than needed for a space elevator on Earth) to keep the hydrogen compressed, that somehow doesn't apply to other parts in the game, also all your thrust comes in one explosive decompression (not what they showed)

or 

3) you cast purple space magic to put a magic force field around the metallic hydrogen so that it can flow into the engine to provide continuos thrust, and its stored in a normal container that is not obscenely strong and orders of magnitude stronger than what is needed to make a space elevator on Earth. - This seems to be what they've done.

 

Then on top of that, they have their ridiculous PSM^2 vacuum engine. They cast a different shade of purple space magic to allow them to magnetically confine the exhaust by doping it with Cesium, despite the fact that if the hydrogen were bonded to the cesium, the MW would be horrible and its Isp would be worse than the non-vacuum version that mixes the exhaust with water. Metallic hydrogen undergoing decompression and phase change would not get hot enough to ionize the hydrogen.

So the PSM^2 vacuum engine must first cast a purple space magic spell to make metallic hydrogen metastable, then cast a different shade of purple space magic to magically magnetically confine the hydrogen exhaust.

This last one is particularly eggregious, since they could get a high Isp "vacuum version" without adding another layer of space magic: just dilute the exhaust with liquid hydrogen instead of water, TWR is lower, but Isp is higher. Why do they need to add yet another layer of space magic on to the engine?

 

I don't have a phobia of the future, which is why I am only objecting to the PSM and PSM^2 engines, since we know they won't work. I'm all for Orion engines, gas core/nuclear lightbulb engines, starwisps, various types of fusion engines, etc. Those other engines (which happen to be the interstellar ones) are just difficult engineering problems, but the science says they should work (but how well, and how small can you make them- scale being particularly important for the fusion engines)... the PSM engines on the other hand, science indicates that these are a no-go.

Edited July 10, 2020 by KerikBalm

[Bej Kerman]

29 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

They're not "magic". Metallic hydrogen rockets aren't "magic" unless you just have a major phobia of the future.

Metallic hydrogen is not magic. Its also not metastable, and won't stay metallic when pressure drops below something like 415 GPa according to latest experimental results. No theoretical prediction since the 1970's suggests metastability of MH. This relates to an inherent property of the material, don't tell me future tech will solve that, unless you're willing to tell me that future tech will allow pure fresh water to exist in liquid form in a vacuum.

Therefore you can't make a rocket using metallic hydrogen as the propulsion unless:

1) your tank mass fraction is ridiculous (containing a layer of diamond wrapped in carbon nanotubes), giving performance orders of magnitude worse than chemical rockets, also all your thrust comes in one explosive decompression (not what they showed)

or

2) you cast purple space magic to make a tank with a magically high strength to weight ratio(orders of magntiude more than needed for a space elevator on Earth) to keep the hydrogen compressed, that somehow doesn't apply to other parts in the game, also all your thrust comes in one explosive decompression (not what they showed)

or 

3) you cast purple space magic to put a magic force field around the metallic hydrogen so that it can flow into the engine to provide continuos thrust, and its stored in a normal container that is not obscenely strong and orders of magnitude stronger than what is needed to make a space elevator on Earth. - This seems to be what they've done.

 

Then on top of that, they have their ridiculous PSM^2 vacuum engine. They cast a different shade of purple space magic to allow them to magnetically confine the exhaust by doping it with Cesium, despite the fact that if the hydrogen were bonded to the cesium, the MW would be horrible and its Isp would be worse than the non-vacuum version that mixes the exhaust with water. Metallic hydrogen undergoing decompression and phase change would not get hot enough to ionize the hydrogen.

So the PSM^2 vacuum engine must first cast a purple space magic spell to make metallic hydrogen metastable, then cast a different shade of purple space magic to magically magnetically confine the hydrogen exhaust.

This last one is particularly eggregious, since they could get a high Isp "vacuum version" without adding another layer of space magic: just dilute the exhaust with liquid hydrogen instead of water, TWR is lower, but Isp is higher. Why do they need to add yet another layer of space magic on to the engine?

 

I don't have a phobia of the future, which is why I am only objecting to the PSM and PSM^2 engines, since we know they won't work. I'm all for Orion engines, gas core/nuclear lightbulb engines, starwisps, various types of fusion engines, etc. Those other engines (which happen to be the interstellar ones) are just difficult engineering problems, but the science says they should work (but how well, and how small can you make them- scale being particularly important for the fusion engines)... the PSM engines on the other hand, science indicates that these are a no-go.

All that and no citation.

[JMBuilder]

On 7/10/2020 at 8:08 AM, KerikBalm said:

*snip*

Even if the fuels don't get so complex, I do think there should at least be a choice between LH₂ and kerosene. Kerosene could be heavier but provide more "oomph" for a first stage. Part of the suggestion was just out of the potential oh-so-Kerbal hilarity of a gasoline or alcohol-powered contraption with some nitrous oxide racecar oxidizer, while the main idea was to have several mixture options for collecting resources on different planets.

Even without FAR-style aerodynamics, I think there are ways to simulate ground and ram effects. For example, ground effect could be something as simple as a steep increase in lift and downward thrust values near a surface. The ram effect would be more difficult, but I'd be amazed if it couldn't be done.

For seismic experiments, yes, seismometers would be involved, but it would also be a good excuse to add explosive items in the game, including simple nukes. Operation Argus was a real-life scientific experiment of a nuclear detonation's effects on Earth's magnetic field, and there were plenty of seismic tests involving them, so the reasoning to include it in KSP is there.

The LACE is pretty different in operation compared to a SABRE and much simpler to operate. LACEs fully liquify air into a usable oxidizer. As such, a LACE in-game would be a special intake or fuselage part as opposed to a dedicated engine. Intake air would be converted to oxidizer (faster speeds, more oxidizer), and in turn would be fed into an otherwise normal rocket engine. The upside: it would be very efficient and save room for more liquid fuel. The downside: it would be a heavy part and would be dead weight if taken into space.

Subterrenes and tunneling, yeah, I can see that being nearly impossible or just not practical. It was just something to toss into the list. I was also thinking of a drill-submarine drone concept for a Europa mission that I had seen a while back (the craft would need to drill through ice to get to Europa's ocean).

The main idea behind the runways is a better system for rocket-powered spaceplanes so that they wouldn't need to waste fuel in a turn.

 

And yes, I can understand not wanting pseudoscientific methods of propulsion completely. It's a game about science and what-ifs, not space magic.

Edited July 22, 2020 by JMBuilder

[shdwlrd]

39 minutes ago, JMBuilder said:

Even if the fuels don't get so complex, I do think there should at least be a choice between LH₂ and kerosene.

I don't want more fuel types, but this is the most reasonable division for chemical rockets I've seen so far. In all reality, it looks like there will be stock tank switching, or the fuel type will be selected by what motor you decide to use.

[SpaceFace545]

6 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

But what's the point? Every engine for different fuels would have different stats, so what's the point if the only difference would be in name (Although different fuels for more engines is a given).

The point is realism

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

All that and no citation.

Do I have to cite the articles every time this subject comes up, I have provided citations for the pressures, predictions, and ionization temperatures of hydrogen on previous posts on these forums.

Do you really want me to come back with the appropriate citations, or are you just argumentative?

If I do show the proper citations, will you join me in calling it the PSM engine? Or will you just move goalposts? 

[Entropian]

.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Entropian
going through old posts

[JMBuilder]

13 minutes ago, Entropian said:

This may be useful for players that like more complex game mechanics, but as far as I've seen, the main player base does not want that.

How about as a difficulty setting?

[KerikBalm]

32 minutes ago, Entropian said:

All of these are good points, but all of them are based on current physics, and humanity's current understanding of the universe, which may change over time as we discover new things about the universe.  Also, not trying to be rude, but can @Bej Kerman and @KerikBalm please take this discussion to another thread?  This is kinda derailing the topic...

So you want to have the last point in the discussion and then end it? Your last point is going to be analagous to claiming that in the future, we can have pure, liquid fresh water existing in a vacuum... Anyway, there is already a thread about metallic hydrogen, I think in the science forum. I have plenty of posts there, with citations.

1 hour ago, JMBuilder said:

Even if the fuels don't get so complex, I do think there should at least be a choice between LH₂ and kerosene. Kerosene could be heavier but provide more "oomph" for a first stage. 

...

Even without FAR-style aerodynamics, I think there are ways to simulate ground and ram effects. For example, ground effect could be something as simple as a steep increase in lift and downward thrust values near a surface. The ram effect would be more difficult, but I'd be amazed if it couldn't be done.

I do think that they should split off lh2... For LVNs and such. So a hydrogen-oxidizer chemical rocket would fit. I could see 2 types of fuel, just because we should be getting liquid hydrogen tanks for the more advanced engines

For ground effect, in gliders im used to thinking of it as simply a better L/D, having a lower drag coefficient. I wouldn't make it so "steep", but some changes when close to ground

A ram rocket part is easy to model, using air intakes... I made a simple part mod for that. But having it model that natively, like as if you made a ring of engines with a hole in the middle... Not gonna happen

1 hour ago, JMBuilder said:

The LACE is pretty different in operation compared to a SABRE and much simpler to operate. LACEs fully liquify air into a usable oxidizer. As such, a LACE in-game would be a special intake or fuselage part as opposed to a dedicated engine. Intake air would be converted to oxidizer (faster speeds, more oxidizer), and in turn would be fed into an otherwise normal rocket engine. The upside: it would be very efficient and save room for more liquid fuel. The downside: it would be a heavy part and would be dead weight if taken into space.

 

...

The main idea behind the runways is a better system for rocket-powered spaceplanes so that they wouldn't need to waste fuel in a turn.

I see lace as less advanced than sabre, and ksp2 is clearly aimed at more advanced techs

As for the runways, if they keep the super flat area around ksc, its sort of irrelevant.

[Bill Phil]

Oxygen is really common, so you only really need one oxidizer.

To give you an idea of how common it is, it represents the plurality of the elemental composition of the lunar surface and is in every water molecule in the solar system. I think you can justify the use of one oxidizer: liquid oxygen.

As for fuels - a wider array could be more interesting. Liquid hydrogen, methane, and kerosene all fill different performance niches. But then again it may be possible to "gear down" a hydrolox rocket using water to those performance regimes, so really they're not necessary. Essentially injecting water into the propellant stream which alters its thermodynamic properties and reduces the kinetic energy per molecule. Though such a system would also require a water tank, but that shouldn't be a show stopper. 

You could add alternative propellants for NTRs and maybe even alternate NTR designs such as the DUMBO concept. But then again the same "gearing" concept could be used in the form of LANTR.

[JMBuilder]

6 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I see lace as less advanced than sabre, and ksp2 is clearly aimed at more advanced techs

Bear in mind that there will be a career mode. LACE would fit in nicely given R&D and price restrictions. It's also just fun to mess around with things like this. The more the merrier, IMO.

I'm also wondering if they'll have a way to simulate rough terrain without actually making it rough, similar to how it works in the IL-2 series (combat flight sim).

[Entropian]

2 hours ago, JMBuilder said:

How about as a difficulty setting?

That would be nice, but I think a toggleable option would still cause problems, such as in challenge rules and ranking.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Your last point is going to be analagous to claiming that in the future, we can have pure, liquid fresh water existing in a vacuum

It has been experimentally proven that water does not remain in its liquid form in a vacuum.  I also went to the MH₂ thread and found your citations.  I didn't know MH₂ had been experimentally proven to be unstable at lower pressures.  KSP isn't all about realism though.  Look at the density of Kerbin! 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Entropian

[Guest]

18 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

*snip*

Or:

"4) Metallic Hydrogen is metastable in the Kerbal Universe"

That would be a smaller suspension of disbelief compared to the one required to explain the 1/10 scale or the magical reaction wheels.

 

[KerikBalm]

Well, I'm hoping since @Nate Simpson reads these forums, that he will at least comment on it.

Going down the road of "ksp universe physics are different" is a slippery slope, such explanations should be used sparingly, and the deviation should be obvious so as not to promote misinformation to the public.

[afafsa]

Y'all need to relax. Torch ships would emit so many X-rays they'd turn any ship into slag after a few seconds, but I don't see much complaining about the realism of them. The assumption is we'll figure out something in the near-future that'll make high-thrust, high-ISP rockets possible, so we may as well start with concepts we know at least a little about. Assume there's some breakthrough in nano-composites that enables extremely light high-pressure resistant vessels, or a doping technique that makes it more stable at lower pressures, or some combination of the two. The space shuttle would have seemed pretty implausible to someone designing it with 1920s tech.

Besides, there's a metallic hydrogen rocket page on Atomic Rockets, which is pretty much the gold standard for plausible near-future rocket concepts.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Chemical--Metastable--Metallic_Hydrogen

Alright, can we move on?

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, afafsa said:

Assume there's some breakthrough in nano-composites that enables extremely light high-pressure resistant vessels, or a doping technique that makes it more stable at lower pressures, or some combination of the two. 

...

Quote

Besides, there's a metallic hydrogen rocket page on Atomic Rockets, which is pretty much the gold standard for plausible near-future rocket concepts.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Chemical--Metastable--Metallic_Hydrogen

Alright, can we move on?

Such a structural advance would be more impressive than an ICF engine, it doesn't belong in between. Its also very unlikely to be possible based on band strengths and such.

We've been doing doping to reduce pressure for a long time, it doesn't get us metastability.

The atomic rockets site:

1) mentions nothing about the PSM^2 engine, noting instead dilution with lh2

2) mentions its not useful if not metastable

3) mentions studies stating its unlikely to be stable

4) cites a study from the 70s to suggest that maybe it could be

5) has not been updated with studies that made it, and measure it, and show  it isn't?

[afafsa]

1 minute ago, KerikBalm said:

...

Bruh, I'm pretty sure you are the sum total of all the people that cares about this. I was trying to give you a hand-wavy explanation so you could move on with your life. It's a game about near-future rockets. If we knew exactly how to make a high-thrust high-ISP rocket, it wouldn't be a near-future rocket. It would be a now-rocket.