Kerbal Komparisons to Humies

[CorBlimey]

I am in no way related to this but I saw it was posted a year ago and I thought it deserved an interwebs bump for being so well done, so all the Kerbal noobs like me can see it.

Picture comparisons of Earth, Kerbin, Saturn V and so on (apparently, Saturn V first stage was about 67 jumbo oranges and 26 Mainsails)

http://imgur.com/gallery/ckadxCa

The most incredible reminder I think is that, only 66 years before humans were landing on the moon, the Wright brothers were setting out with a few bits of wood, some canvas and a glorified bicycle for the first flight of mankind.

Edit: as some commentators have mentioned, this of course in no way captures all the differences: indeed, some RL features are advantages (higher TWR, customisability etc). But still, this helps to put things in comparison, for the most important elements.

Edited February 5, 2015 by CorBlimey

[rabidninjawombat]

An oldy but a goody! i like that one. (though it needs to be updated since we have a budget now

[Norpo]

And this is why after i'm done with Scorched Kerbin, i'll go back to 6.4x scale Kerbol. Nothing like a good challenge just to land on the Mun.

[quasarrgames]

And that brings up the question...

WHY DID NASA NEVER USE NERVAS!?!

Seriously! We could be at mars by now if it wasn't for that stupid decision!

I Know they cancelled the nerva program because they didn't want the engine to blow up and radiate the atmosphere in the event of a mishap, but Realistically, if we're going to get anywhere in space in the next hundred years We're going to need to do some things dangerously!

Besides, the chances of a nerva blowing up would be so slim!

[Torquemadus]

WHY DID NASA NEVER USE NERVAS!?!

With the demise of the Saturn 5, NASA lost the ability to send astronauts beyond Low Earth Orbit. The nuclear rockets needed for interplanetary departure stages were orphaned. The political decision was made to keep NASA ticking over in idle mode. The Space Shuttle Program was conceived to give NASA something to do. The Space Shuttle lacked a clear role, so Space Station Freedom was conceived to give the Space Shuttle something to do.

Check out the

plan.

[GoSlash27]

And that brings up the question...

WHY DID NASA NEVER USE NERVAS!?!

Seriously! We could be at mars by now if it wasn't for that stupid decision!

I Know they cancelled the nerva program because they didn't want the engine to blow up and radiate the atmosphere in the event of a mishap, but Realistically, if we're going to get anywhere in space in the next hundred years We're going to need to do some things dangerously!

Besides, the chances of a nerva blowing up would be so slim!

Politics. Placing nuclear reactors in orbit was not popular with the public and it's still not popular today. That matters when they're the ones paying the bill.

Best,

-Slashy

[Renegrade]

It actually kinda misrepresents the difficulties encountered.

KSP advantages:

- #lolintake / #loljet

- #lolmassless

- #lolreactionwheel

- Tiny astronauts with unlimited life support endurance (which transcend thermodynamics entirely by having an infinite endurance closed-loop system that requires NO energy input) and infinite radiation resistance

- Tiny system

- Position is known absolutely (er, kinda). Also quantities are too.

- Contracts are lucrative

- Parts never fail spontaneously (barring bugs~)

- (Almost) Universal fuel

Real life advantages

- Custom built parts / UI / software

-- custom rocket engine sizes / tank sizes

-- custom rcs engine/tank sizes (not everything=1kn)

- Can put components inside craft (ex. service modules, etc)

- Insanely better mass ratios

- Better specific impulse

- Triple or better rocket TWR

- No SOI glitches~

- No flexibility bugs

- SRB profiles

And for now:

- Better aero

- ISRU possible without mods~

(Off the top of my head)

I found RO to be a lot easier than 6.4x scale RSS as the human equipment (even without procedural advantages) is significantly better in the ratios and TWR department.

[zekes]

i've actually made a rocket bigger than the Saturn V - it can put a good payload into RSS LEO, or about 800 tonnes to LKO.

Its first stage uses 40 KR-2L engines (67 Mainsails or 2.5 Saturn V first stages).

https://www./?8j35l61x6gy726c

Edited February 2, 2015 by zekes

[RAINCRAFTER]

Yay, shameless self promotion!

Anyway, it is kind of amazing we've gotten this far in reality.

[magnemoe]

Politics. Placing nuclear reactors in orbit was not popular with the public and it's still not popular today. That matters when they're the ones paying the bill.

Best,

-Slashy

More an lack of missions, like in KSP nerva is not very useful for probes who is all we has sent out from LEO, its needed for large manned missions, primarily mars, also heavy unmanned payloads like an Europa landing and sample return.

The Soviet/ Russia never used it either and they have no issue with nuclear power.

More important is that nerva is not so fantastic, for optimal effect it need hydrogen for fuel that restrict it to the same role as the centaur upper stage for probes or more relevant the 3rd stage on saturn 5.

Current high performance engines has far higher ISP but low trust, they also need lots of power to run as in a nuclear reactor.

- - - Updated - - -

It actually kinda misrepresents the difficulties encountered.

KSP advantages:

- #lolintake / #loljet

- #lolmassless

- #lolreactionwheel

- Tiny astronauts with unlimited life support endurance (which transcend thermodynamics entirely by having an infinite endurance closed-loop system that requires NO energy input) and infinite radiation resistance

- Tiny system

- Position is known absolutely (er, kinda). Also quantities are too.

- Contracts are lucrative

- Parts never fail spontaneously (barring bugs~)

- (Almost) Universal fuel

Real life advantages

- Custom built parts / UI / software

-- custom rocket engine sizes / tank sizes

-- custom rcs engine/tank sizes (not everything=1kn)

- Can put components inside craft (ex. service modules, etc)

- Insanely better mass ratios

- Better specific impulse

- Triple or better rocket TWR

- No SOI glitches~

- No flexibility bugs

- SRB profiles

And for now:

- Better aero

- ISRU possible without mods~

(Off the top of my head)

I found RO to be a lot easier than 6.4x scale RSS as the human equipment (even without procedural advantages) is significantly better in the ratios and TWR department.

Well for the massles parts, they don't add much mass unless you abuse it like building ion crafts with only small octagonal struts and static panels.

One benefit in RL is that other stuff than landing legs, solar panels and antennas can be folded up. Yes this might create fails but its useful.

[Renegrade]

Well for the massles parts, they don't add much mass unless you abuse it like building ion crafts with only small octagonal struts and static panels.

One benefit in RL is that other stuff than landing legs, solar panels and antennas can be folded up. Yes this might create fails but its useful.

Yeah, that's a good point too. Reality has IR installed by default, KSP doesn't

[AbacusWizard]

Reality is insanely difficulty because we use the RSS mod.

[SkyRender]

There's quite a few factors not mentioned in that infographic, of course. Like the fact that Kerbal materials are hyperdense for their size in order to help balance out the fact that Kerbin is a little over 6 times too small. It's not a perfect conversion by any means, but it is important to consider. Also important to consider is that, at least in stock, atmospheres in KSP are close to split pea soup in density and eat up a huge amount of the delta-V budget when taking off in them (going by FAR vs. stock numbers, around 800 to 1000m/s of that 4500m/s orbital budget is eaten up solely by the atmospheric model's shortcomings).

[CorBlimey]

i've actually made a rocket bigger than the Saturn V - it can put a good payload into RSS LEO, or about 800 tonnes to LKO.

Its first stage uses 40 KR-2L engines (67 Mainsails or 2.5 Saturn V first stages).

http://i.imgur.com/2SpFjn6.png

https://www./?8j35l61x6gy726c

hahaha, your payload is about the total mass of one of my largest rockets

- - - Updated - - -

And that brings up the question...

WHY DID NASA NEVER USE NERVAS!?!

Seriously! We could be at mars by now if it wasn't for that stupid decision!

I Know they cancelled the nerva program because they didn't want the engine to blow up and radiate the atmosphere in the event of a mishap, but Realistically, if we're going to get anywhere in space in the next hundred years We're going to need to do some things dangerously!

Besides, the chances of a nerva blowing up would be so slim!

in a hundred years we should have fusion reactors (call it 20 years for terrestrial generation + a generous 80 for miniaturisation), or matter-antimatter reactors (for use in space where mass is at a premium - no point on Earth), where the side effects of failing are much less hazardous than heavy radioisotopes being thrown around. It is worth pointing out, I suppose, that none of the fission reactors contemplated going into space were massive enough to turn critical - it was only ever about radioactive dust/debris. If one could create a reactor in such an incredibly strong shell that it was impervious to a few hundred m/s impact then perhaps fission can have a second swing of the bat.

Edited February 5, 2015 by CorBlimey

[Jarin]

i've actually made a rocket bigger than the Saturn V - it can put a good payload into RSS LEO, or about 800 tonnes to LKO.

Its first stage uses 40 KR-2L engines (67 Mainsails or 2.5 Saturn V first stages).

http://i.imgur.com/2SpFjn6.png

https://www./?8j35l61x6gy726c

Do I spy someone actually using RT-10s as sepratrons? I thought that was just a whackjob joke. o.o

[Torquemadus]

In a hundred years we should have fusion reactors (call it 20 years for terrestrial generation + a generous 80 for miniaturisation), or matter-antimatter reactors (for use in space where mass is at a premium - no point on Earth), where the side effects of failing are much less hazardous than heavy radioisotopes being thrown around. It is worth pointing out, I suppose, that none of the fission reactors contemplated going into space were massive enough to turn critical - it was only ever about radioactive dust/debris. If one could create a reactor in such an incredibly strong shell that it was impervious to a few hundred m/s impact then perhaps fission can have a second swing of the bat.

There have been fears voiced in the past that in the event of a launch failure, nuclear material would be released into the atmosphere. Compared to the amount of material released during nuclear bomb tests, civil nuclear accidents, the accidental sinking of various cold war era nuclear submarines, the release of radioactive substances found naturally in many types of coal, and so on, the amount of material present in an RTG is quite negligible. In the event of an actual launch failure, an RTG would remain intact and sink like a brick into the ocean downrange of the launch site, burying itself deep in the subseabed.

The amount of material used in a Nuclear Thermal Rocket or a small space nuclear reactor would be more than an RTG, but would still be quite small. As long as it can be ensured that the material will remain intact and sink, there shouldn't be a problem.

[NecroBones]

Picture comparisons of Earth, Kerbin, Saturn V and so on (apparently, Saturn V first stage was about 67 jumbo oranges and 26 Mainsails)

http://imgur.com/gallery/ckadxCa

Just as a note, that image has at least one glaring mistake:

The Saturn V first stage used five F-1 engines, not J-2 engines. The thrust is about right though. It's probably a copy/paste error from the second stage info.