Realism Mod

[lemon1324]

I both did not anticipate so much hate-trolling, and didn't bother thinking through the whole 'fuel compression' bit. I've read the above posts, and while it seems like elitism to me; they do make great points. Sure, the fuel cannot be stored under compression in liquid form, but why would you store the fuel in liquid form? The only thing a liquid fuel engine requires is that the fuel be liquid before it gets to the engine, not that the fuel actually be stored in a liquid.

Another great point is the heat in space, or lack there of. What is the ambient temperature of space exactly? Because I'm sure that too would increase the density of most liquids, even though liquids are technically 'compressible'. You'd still save... ~5% or something? Just a guess, but I remember from science classes that when a substance loses energy, its molecules stop repulsing each other as strongly; and hence would be 'compressed' to a definition.

Space doesn't really have a well-defined temperature, as the definition of temperature requires the presence of material. For the fuel to cool significantly, it would have to radiate its heat away, which is not going to happen on the timescale of most rocket launches. Coupled with the vacuum of space, I'd guess the net effect would actually be expansion of the fuel.

--

I don't think it's trolling so much as people reacting to the fact that this is labeled a 'realism mod.' Granted, it's just a game, so I don't think it matters that much what the parameters are, as long as you enjoy playing with them set that way.

[Jamespenny]

I think I remember that liquids CAN be compressed, but the only way we can get enough pressure at the moment is using lab equipment of some sort. If you compress them then they cycle between solid, liquid and maybe plasma. Apparently it's one of those 'thinking about it too hard will make your brain hurt' things like black holes. I'll exercise some google-fu and get back to you after the beep.

[Supraluminal]

I don't think it's trolling so much as people reacting to the fact that this is labeled a 'realism mod.' Granted, it's just a game, so I don't think it matters that much what the parameters are, as long as you enjoy playing with them set that way.

Exactly. I won't speak for Reflector, but I was neither trolling nor being hateful, let alone hate-trolling. More just being pedantic! By all means, mod away. Do whatever you think will make the game more fun. But if you say you're making the game more realistic, be prepared for some scrutiny.

[Supraluminal]

I both did not anticipate so much hate-trolling, and didn't bother thinking through the whole 'fuel compression' bit. I've read the above posts, and while it seems like elitism to me; they do make great points. Sure, the fuel cannot be stored under compression in liquid form, but why would you store the fuel in liquid form? The only thing a liquid fuel engine requires is that the fuel be liquid before it gets to the engine, not that the fuel actually be stored in a liquid.

Speaking of pedantry, I just can't let this one go! I'm also not an expert on this stuff, but some cursory Wikipedia skimming will clarify this for you. Naturally-gaseous rocket fuels are in fact stored in cryogenically-liquified form in the tanks, because they take up vastly less space that way. Liquid oxygen is 861 times more dense than gaseous oxygen, for example.

[Carl]

Fuels are stored as liquids because thats the best way to store them. Try carrying them as a gas and you end up with a much smaller mass to volume ratio. the preashures needed to match liquid forms are just too high, (hydregon is aproxmatly 1/24th a gram per liter density in gas form, Oxygen around 2/3 of a gram per liter density). Liquification increases densities a hundred times or more in most cases. A few others, like hyrdrazine are natrually liquids at room tempreture. Also storing somthing as gas for a liquid engine means it must be chilled before it goes in, that sues a lot of energy and utlimatly you end up using most of the energy generation for cooling instead of thrust.

And yeah it's more about this 'realisim' claim than any kind of trolling.

Don;t attatch a realism tag unless you actually intend it to be realistic. Otherwise people are going to step in and opoint out the flaws becuase that sort of things bugs some of us, it's sort of like an itch .

[Reflector]

I both did not anticipate so much hate-trolling, and didn't bother thinking through the whole 'fuel compression' bit. I've read the above posts, and while it seems like elitism to me; they do make great points. Sure, the fuel cannot be stored under compression in liquid form, but why would you store the fuel in liquid form? The only thing a liquid fuel engine requires is that the fuel be liquid before it gets to the engine, not that the fuel actually be stored in a liquid.

Another great point is the heat in space, or lack there of. What is the ambient temperature of space exactly? Because I'm sure that too would increase the density of most liquids, even though liquids are technically 'compressible'. You'd still save... ~5% or something? Just a guess, but I remember from science classes that when a substance loses energy, its molecules stop repulsing each other as strongly; and hence would be 'compressed' to a definition.

--

I don't claim to be a PHD in anything, I only have basic university level courses, everything else is still high school level; including math and science. So don't take my posts as fact, and don't think for a second that this is how I want them interpreted.

Also, if you compare my fuel values on liquid engines in the cfg to the originals, you will notice that mine are hardly compressed any more than the originals.

Common pieces of knowledge: Airliner fuel isn't stored under 'compression.' Automobile fuel isn't stored under 'compression.' They slosh in the tank.

Not so common: If you spent 15 minutes on the internet, you'd find out that liquid rocket designs can suffer from sloshing in the tank. If the fuel was under 'compression' like supersoakers have a rubber bladder, then they wouldn't need baffles in the tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-propellant_rocket#Disadvantages_of_liquid_rockets

'Liquid propellants are subject to slosh, which has frequently led to loss of control of the vehicle. This can be controlled with slosh baffles in the tanks as well as judicious control laws in the guidance system.'

Liquids are relatively INcompressible. Go try to compress water with steel for me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolock

(Before you argue this, I hope you realize if you want to put that fuel under compression you'll have to beef up the tanks, which in turn adds weight, which in turn adds more fuel needed to fly higher, which in turn adds more weight because you'll have to beef up the tanks. Suddenly your rocket doesn't fly anymore from being fat from an eating disorder.)

Temperature? Not so important when the atoms and molecules hitting you are so rare you'd only encounter one or two every often. In the atmosphere (Hint hint, 'atmosphere.') you're encountering a whole lot (Ever wonder what drag is? Maybe it might be related to the collision of 'a lot of' particles...)

Back to the problem of calling this realistic: Why did you say fuel was incompressible when you 'just assumed'/'didn't know any better.'

This isn't about opinion or facts, this is about just making a claim on a half baked idea. I divide the masses of everything by 10 and call it 'realistic' because 'oh yeah no they're using foam sprayed on cardboard for their building materials.'

1: Maybe they are.

2: Maybe they aren't.

3: Maybe if I scale the thrust and claim that because everything is made of foam, they use really mild rockets.

4. Maybe they use some form of superfoam that has incredible properties

It still happens to be a load of bullpuckey from me if I called it that. If I called it the 'foam rockets mod' then I don't think anyone would have a problem with my general vagueness there.

Education/Age/Hobbies/Gender doesn't matter when you're just making up reasoning to justify a relatively silly claim.

[Reflector]

I think I remember that liquids CAN be compressed, but the only way we can get enough pressure at the moment is using lab equipment of some sort. If you compress them then they cycle between solid, liquid and maybe plasma. Apparently it's one of those 'thinking about it too hard will make your brain hurt' things like black holes. I'll exercise some google-fu and get back to you after the beep.

Gases are considered fluids.

You can technically compress liquid water under extreme pressures into ice but theorectically speaking, you'd need to have a very large and thick walled cylinder with a very strong piston with very strong seals to achieve that. Said theorectical setup (And do not try to deride this by going 'but what if I use magical materials like carbon nanotubes.' You're still going to need 'a lot' of material to do this and it will not be light for the volume you're compressing) would weigh a lot and require a good amount of volume. Not something you'd use as fuel tanks.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/z-ice.html

If some of you still have your highschool or higher education books, please find the table that shows the relationship of pressure/temperature/state. You'll find specific states like 'supercritical fluids.' Those are so specific in the conditions they require I don't think you're going to attempt to store fuel that way.

Also this knowledge should be around 8th-9th grade and up. It doesn't make your brain explode from thinking about it nor does it give you a headache where the pressures go to the point where your grey matter liquefies.

[Reflector]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Converted_Russian_ICBM_Takes_German_Satellite_Into_Orbit_999.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_IV

Simple relationship:

If have a rocket platform that throws a certain amount of weight (Call it 400) into orbit at a certain altitude (Call it 75,000) and I were to reduce the weight, then I can throw it into orbit at a higher altitude. Inversely, if I increase the weight (Say I were to use it to throw a bunch of warheads) and I didn't care about throwing them into orbit then yes, that still works.

If you want to throw something heavier then a more powerful rocket would be needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZZV464z9g

http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

I'm sure that Jeb would love to ride a Nike Sprint, that is if he doesn't splatter from the acceleration.

Now find me a liquid setup with equal thrust relative the volume and mass of a Nike Sprint.

[Supraluminal]

Gases are considered liquids.

Eh, I think it'd be more accurate to say gases are considered 'fluids,' which also includes liquids, but that's semantics. However, there is an important distinction to make in that gases are generally highly compressible, unlike liquids.

[Jamespenny]

Woah Reflector, you got a spike up you arse or something? No need to be a condescending prick.

I said I couldn't remember exactly and nowhere did I mention using it as rocket fuel- no need to say it as if I was twelve. :

[Reflector]

Sorry, mindfart on the fluids/liquids, my bad, I'll correct that.

Last time I checked I don't have an aerospike up my ass but wouldn't that be a blast?

In reference to water, fuel would generally not be happy if you compressed it (Especially if it was a monopropellent like hydrazine).

Here we go, on compressing water into ice:

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

And to steal a post from another forum:

'You can make ices VI, VII, X and XI at room temperature. It takes a lot of pressure though.'

[Darrknox]

Hey Reflector, remember you're Charles's thread. Cut down on mixing trolling in with your helpfulness. This could potentially be a very good mod, but only if you don't stomp on it before it grows, more, curb the growth in a way that you think better suits it.

[Reflector]

It happens to be a great 'difficulty' mod, but it definitely IS NOT a realism mod in the values it gives. Additionally the parameters of the parts in KSP right now don't really give you enough information to make it 'realistic.'

I'm merely trying to convince Charles Broughton to reconsider renaming the mod or do some serious research and tweak his later versions so they can have a resemblance of 'realism.'

Perhaps my criticism is a bit abrasive for some but I'm genuinely trying to give useful information out.

[Darrknox]

I agree with the renaming, as we've previously discussed, and I also agree that KSP is not far enough a long to be 'realistic.' Keep giving good advice, and hopefully Charles changes the name after reading this.

[Supraluminal]

Perhaps my criticism is a bit abrasive

Yes, it definitely is. Your prerogative as to whether you want to be abrasive or not, I suppose. Just be aware that you are in fact coming across that way.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Can we all make an agreement to keep so-called 'realism' out of here? Go play Orbiter if that's what you want? KSP, as far as anyone can see is not 'realistic', so let's all stop trying to make it something it was never meant to be.

Also, as noted, OP seems to not even really have a clear idea as to what he's suggesting. I also suggest that one really needs to be able to define what 'realistic' is in the Kerbal universe. Otherwise you're only talking about Earth realism, in which case, again, go play Orbiter.

[Saint]

Woah Reflector, you got a spike up you arse or something? No need to be a condescending prick.

I said I couldn't remember exactly and nowhere did I mention using it as rocket fuel- no need to say it as if I was twelve. :

No, Reflector has a valid point, he's blowing stuff out his arse and just claiming it to be fact based off his opinion and partial thought.

Can we all make an agreement to keep so-called 'realism' out of here? Go play Orbiter if that's what you want? KSP, as far as anyone can see is not 'realistic', so let's all stop trying to make it something it was never meant to be.

Also, as noted, OP seems to not even really have a clear idea as to what he's suggesting. I also suggest that one really needs to be able to define what 'realistic' is in the Kerbal universe. Otherwise you're only talking about Earth realism, in which case, again, go play Orbiter.

I'm going to have to agree with this, the kerbal universe is created by squad and it's their ruling of if it's realistic or not. vanilla parts ARE realistic in the kerbal universe, it's THEIR universe. If you want a 'realism mod' it comes with the game.

[Rocket Surgeon]

I also want to echo Reflectors statments about this stuff being common knowledge. (At least it SHOULD be.) That the OP has a tertiary education (that he's proud of, no less) and still has so many wrong ideas is a sad indicator of the larger state of affairs.

Orbiter is more realistic than anyone could ever hope to make KSP with mods. I call again for this crazy talk to stop. Stop I say!

[DAL59]

On 7/18/2011 at 2:15 AM, cbroughton said:

Click a version number to download! The current recommended version will always be bolded.

v0.1

- Initial Release

v0.2

- Fixed an unintended result where the SRBs were basically rendered useless.

- Fixed an unintended result where the mk1pod was way too heavy to do much.

v0.3

- Finally fixed the SRB balance (hopefully)

- Lowered the weight on the mk1pod a bit, considering we don't know what it's made of.

- Optimized the parachute to deploy at the correct height for the mk1pod's weight and drag.

v0.4

- Balanced SRBs yet again.

- MK1Pod was too heavy for the parachutes, again.

- SRBs were too resistant to explosions.

- Removed hints and readme from archive, it's in the post now.

These links are broken.

[themaster401]

28 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

These links are broken.

Necropost from 6 years ago, are you kidding me?

[Galileo]

48 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

These links are broken.

I think it’s safe to say the dev does not care that the links are broken... please have some necro awareness and try to avoid it.

[DAL59]

Can this thread be closed, mods?

[DAL59]

I know normally you need OP request to close a thread, but since @cbroughton was only here for one day 5 years ago, can @Vanamonde or @Deddly please close this?

[Deddly]

23 hours ago, themaster401 said:

Necropost from 6 years ago, are you kidding me?

Please just report it next time instead of complaining about it in the thread.

 

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

I know normally you need OP request to close a thread, but since @cbroughton was only here for one day 5 years ago, can @Vanamonde or @Deddly please close this?

Sure, I think that should be OK: If @cbroughton comes back, we will be happy to unlock it at his request. Also, don't worry about the necro, it's a very easy mistake to make.