KSP 2 getting from eve sea level more difficult now

[Jeq]

Left side we have KSP 2: 20tonne vessel from sea level, right side we have same vessel in KSP 1

Calculator uses same info as ksp and ksp 2 provides in tracking station and part info at VAB, planet gravity, asl pressures, engine vacuum isp and asl isp for kerbin, then asl isp for eve can be calculated using this parameters.

I have no opinion is this better or worse, just bringing facts here, no one need to get offeded. Like escaping from Venus, it would be impossible for our current tech in real life if i estimate it right, it has Earth gravity but multiple times bigger airpressures would make any engine not make thrust at all. Eve escape was ultimate achievement for ksp players, it still can be done in ksp 2 but its way harder.

 

On the other hand, when colonies arrives Eve escape comes lot easier than in KSP 1 if you don't have to land your whole rocket first.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Jeq

[Guest]

Very cool! I’m glad they’ve rebalanced the engines so it’s harder.

[HebaruSan]

What are you calling out in that image? I see two identical top parts (both say EVE, both say 2600 m/s, both say 1.6 TWR, both say 21 cargo weight), which makes it look like nothing has actually changed...?

Edited December 13, 2023 by HebaruSan

[Jeq]

20 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

What are you calling out in that image? I see two identical top parts (both say EVE, both say 2600 m/s, both say 1.6 TWR, both say 21 cargo weight), which makes it look like nothing has actually changed...?

Top part is user input.

Lower part is results for suggested engines for that vessel. It show at ksp2 most light weight setup for 1.6twr and 2600dv from eve surface would be 35 dart engines and it would weight 152.83t.

For ksp most lightweight setupf for 1.6twr and 2600dv from eve surface would be 1 mammoth engine and it would weight 100,1t.

For other engines, things gets even worse. You need 11 vector engines 180t or 5mammoths 271t or 11 rhinos 180t.

Upper stages weight would look almost identical for ksp1.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Jeq

[The Aziz]

And at what are you going to accept that this isn't KSP1 and never was? Things can be rebalanced if that's where you see the problem.
By the way it's just a calculator, have you actually tried it? And the aerodynamics aren't quite there yet so there's that.

[Jeq]

Yes

Edited December 13, 2023 by Jeq
Portions redacted by moderator

[Gargamel]

Some content has been removed.  Please do not make personal comments about others, nor tell them how they should be posting.    Making logical arguments is fine, and everybody is allowed to post their opinion, wrong or not. 

[Gargamel]

Thread temporarily locked.   If you have an issue with moderation, contact one of us directly. 

[Vanamonde]

Thread re-opened. Play nice. 

[TwoCalories]

I'm not sure I understand. The two graphics are using different engines...?

[Superfluous J]

37 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

I'm not sure I understand. The two graphics are using different engines...?

It's apparently some sort of "here's the best engine(s) to use" mobile app. Presumably, if you used the KPS1 suggestion in KSP2 it would not work correctly and vice-versa.

[MechBFP]

At 2600 DV you aren't getting very far away from sea level anyway.

[Jeq]

59 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

It's apparently some sort of "here's the best engine(s) to use" mobile app. Presumably, if you used the KPS1 suggestion in KSP2 it would not work correctly and vice-versa.

They are both my personal apps, one is configured for ksp 1 and other is configuree for ksp 2.

54 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

At 2600 DV you aren't getting very far away from sea level anyway.

Ofcourse not but its most important and heaviest stages, upper stages seems to be optimazed at ksp1 and ksp 2 to result almost equal weights, and rest of dv for orbit can be pinned into 21t if original cargo of 3 stage rocket is 1t

1 hour ago, TwoCalories said:

I'm not sure I understand. The two graphics are using different engines...?

Yes because ksp 2 and ksp 1 has slightly different engine selection, on left and right you see best of best engines for both games at same situtation 

[MechBFP]

8 hours ago, Jeq said:

Ofcourse not but its most important and heaviest stages

Not even close to being the most important. The most important is the first stage, then the 2nd, and so on because of the nature of the rocket equation. 
 

The size of the lifter you need to get that entire thing off Kerbin in the first place is going to see that extra weight as a drop in the bucket. My Eve Lander lifter barely cares if I set all the fuel tanks on the lander to full VS empty because of the overall dry mass involved, and that is way  more weight being added and removed. 
 

So I would say the difficulty is the same. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by MechBFP

[kdaviper]

9 hours ago, Jeq said:

They are both my personal apps, one is configured for ksp 1 and other is configuree for ksp 2.

Ofcourse not but its most important and heaviest stages, upper stages seems to be optimazed at ksp1 and ksp 2 to result almost equal weights, and rest of dv for orbit can be pinned into 21t if original cargo of 3 stage rocket is 1t

Yes because ksp 2 and ksp 1 has slightly different engine selection, on left and right you see best of best engines for both games at same situtation 

Out of curiosity, how does your app extrapolate for conditions other than asl and vacuum?

[Jeq]

1 hour ago, kdaviper said:

Out of curiosity, how does your app extrapolate for conditions other than asl and vacuum?

I don't have accurate formulas for different heights of planets with atmospheres, if you ask that. I wanted to make this happen but it seems formulas that exists in Wiki are no longer valid and i don't know where to get correct formulas for atmosphere heights other than sea level and vacuum. I would need to have Function of how atmosphere pressure changes between these two extremes at each atmospheric planet to make it happen.  Currently this would be useful for me only at Eve because it has thicker atmosphere and multistage rocket would be needed, but it would be interesting to nail.

I might end up with using natural or common logarithm to use "close enought" approximation.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Jeq

[Jeq]

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Not even close to being the most important. The most important is the first stage, then the 2nd, and so on because of the nature of the rocket equation. 
 

The size of the lifter you need to get that entire thing off Kerbin in the first place is going to see that extra weight as a drop in the bucket. My Eve Lander lifter barely cares if I set all the fuel tanks on the lander to full VS empty because of the overall dry mass involved, and that is way  more weight being added and removed. 
 

So I would say the difficulty is the same. 

Most important when talking about KSP 1 and KSP 2 comparison at Eve escape situation, i calculated that rest of 5000dv ends up being same weight for both games vessel versions, even while they uses different vacuum engines. First stage is the pain, rest is easy compared to that.

But, as colons arrives Eve escape will not be as much of an trouble when you can build your vessels at Eve surface. And IF propeller parts comes you may find a way to lift your rocket for better altitudes before launch, which would end up surprising light weight rockets to be lift off from Eve.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Jeq

[MechBFP]

31 minutes ago, Jeq said:

Most important when talking about KSP 1 and KSP 2 comparison at Eve escape situation, i calculated that rest of 5000dv ends up being same weight for both games vessel versions, even while they uses different vacuum engines. First stage is the pain, rest is easy compared to that.

But, as colons arrives Eve escape will not be as much of a trouble when you can build your vessels at Eve surface. And IF propeller parts comes you may find a way to lift your rocket for better altitudes before launch, which would end up surprising light weight rockets to be lift off from Eve.

Metallic hydrogen engines will definitely make it much easier as well. 

[Jeq]

18 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Metallic hydrogen engines will definitely make it much easier as well. 

Do you have information about these engines further? I assumed they will be mostly vacuum engines. But indeed thinking about how they balanced engines now, weaken at atmosphere and better at vacuum, it feels there might be coming improvement engines for both ASL and VAC to fill missing pieces for heavier vessels ASL and interstellar traveling at VAC. Tho i dont have any idea how much interstellar DV amount is required, currently i think i can pull out 37k DV from kerbin with engines we have.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Jeq

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jeq said:

Tho i dont have any idea how much interstellar DV amount is required, currently i think i can pull out 37k DV from kerbin with engines we have.

That should be enough for a (slow) interstellar trip!

Which engines were these by the way? If they're ion engines, did you allow for power generation without sunlight? I think that could pretty seriously cut into the mass ratio!

[Jeq]

 

1 hour ago, Periple said:

That should be enough for a (slow) interstellar trip!

Which engines were these by the way? If they're ion engines, did you allow for power generation without sunlight? I think that could pretty seriously cut into the mass ratio!

1,1 ton cargo.

1 swerv stage. Mass 30t

1 swerv stage . Mass 105t

5 swerv stage . Mass  413t

5 mammoth II. Mass 1300t

Only cargo would be command pod tho

[Guest]

Wow, impressive! That would work as an interstellar probe! You can fit a lot of science payload in 1 ton. You'd have to have an autonomous probe core though.

I wonder how much dV you could squeeze out of ion drives powered by a nuclear reactor? How long would the fuel in the reactor last?

Edit: LOL I had an order of magnitude error when I read your post, I somehow thought you meant 37,000 km/s, not 37,000 m/s. So 37 km/s isn't anywhere near enough for interstellar travel. If it's still scaled down to 1:10 scale I think you'd need maybe 100 times more dV than that to get anywhere and even then it would be really slow! Like, 0.05c would be 15,000 km/s, so with 30,000,000 m/s of  dV you'd be able to get to that speed and slow down again. If the universe is 1:10 scale, it would take you only a few decades to get to the nearest star!

Edited December 15, 2023 by Periple

[Jeq]

20 hours ago, Periple said:

Wow, impressive! That would work as an interstellar probe! You can fit a lot of science payload in 1 ton. You'd have to have an autonomous probe core though.

I wonder how much dV you could squeeze out of ion drives powered by a nuclear reactor? How long would the fuel in the reactor last?

Edit: LOL I had an order of magnitude error when I read your post, I somehow thought you meant 37,000 km/s, not 37,000 m/s. So 37 km/s isn't anywhere near enough for interstellar travel. If it's still scaled down to 1:10 scale I think you'd need maybe 100 times more dV than that to get anywhere and even then it would be really slow! Like, 0.05c would be 15,000 km/s, so with 30,000,000 m/s of  dV you'd be able to get to that speed and slow down again. If the universe is 1:10 scale, it would take you only a few decades to get to the nearest star!

Thanks, that ion engine idea is great, o have to give it a think when science update comes and i start to investigate it further. I notice they did reduce ion engine thrust to 0.2kn, it used to be 2kn. 

And indeed 37km/s sounds very slow in that aspect.

 

Didn't  wait for science update:

Smaller nuclear reactor seems to last 274 days once activated. bigger nuclear reactor is allways on and decays at 21313days/53years. so xenon burntime must be lower than 274 days or bring additonal reactors, or xenon burn should happen before 53 years.

Just Xenon 12 stages for 300,000dv without launcher would weight 7,045t without any nuclear reactors. Adding 3 tons of reactors would multiply this weight to 14,045t. I don't think i am able to get that to orbit

As i did this i figured out too that monopropellant and xenon tanks are upgraded to be lightweight now so optimal dV for these engines are now significantly better  than they used to be.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Jeq