View Single Post
Old December 14 2012, 03:13 PM   #56
Asbo Zaprudder
Rear Admiral
Asbo Zaprudder's Avatar
Location: On the beach
Re: Kerbal Space Program

I agree - improving the aerodynamic and re-entry models is sorely needed. There are iffy things like the model for solar-power generation drop off not being inverse square law and the multibody problems discussed earlier, but they're not big issues given the somewhat cartoonish nature of the Kerbal universe.

I'm currently thinking about how I can modify existing parts to simulate an Orion project nuclear pulse engine with an Isp of 10,000s and a thrust of 4 MN. For comparison, each F1 engine on the Saturn V S-1C stage had an Isp of 263s and a thrust of 6.8 MN. So I guess it would be like a _very_ powerful ion drive. Perhaps I can modify a decoupler to keep going bang. For the Earth, I'd need 800 140-tonne yield bombs each weighing 0.5 tonnes to put 1,600 tonnes into orbit. Going to need to recalculate for Kerbin...

ETA: As I don't know how to use Blender, I scaled up the mini Oscar fuel tank (as the nuke dispenser), the xenon tank (as a large gas bag shock absorber), and the ion engine (as the pusher plate and mechanical shock absorbers) by a factor of 16 in each linear dimension, made a new resource "Nukes", and set the engine parameters to Isp = 10,000s and thrust variable between 0 and 6 MN. The engine is tuned to destroy itself if you go higher than 4 MN for too long. Goes like a bat out of hell (pulling max 7Gs with a tiny payload), but as its mass is several hundred tonnes, it's a bugger to steer. I think I'll have to use large chemical rockets as vernier thrusters.

Last edited by Asbo Zaprudder; December 15 2012 at 03:12 PM.
Asbo Zaprudder is offline   Reply With Quote