Some future update mod ideas/wishlist

[The Astronomer]

You still haven't answered the problem of achieving a maximum contact area of a receiver and a laser source. That means to achieve the greatest contact area, the beam must be normal to the receiver surface, and we can't maintain it like that, as burning at an angle from the normal of the burn window would hurt the accuracy of the final orbit.

You have to take this into account when you plan your ship's trajectory.

So basically:
Pros: you don't have to carry propellant for getting your speed up to high interplanetary speeds of several hundred kilometers per second.
Cons: the station sucks lots of energy, and planning your trajectory is a pain in the ass, truly. How to make it into the game, I have got no clue.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

Pretty sure ablative laser propulsion, with the right propellant and beam, can have exhaust velocity approaching 50 km/s.

I'll tell you this, I don't like the idea of using solid fuel that uses ablation, this will mean that the fuel we carry will be very limited. I would say liquid fuel is much better, also turning liquid to gas requires much less energy than turning solid to gas. Also we can carry external detachable tanks that carry extra liquid fuel, and we can't do this for solid fuel.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

You have to take this into account when you plan your ship's trajectory.

So basically:
Pros: you don't have to carry propellant for getting your speed up to high interplanetary speeds of several hundred kilometers per second.
Cons: the station sucks lots of energy, and planning your trajectory is a pain in the ass, truly. How to make it into the game, I have got no clue.

This propulsion system is way too linear and complicated to be practical, to be blunt, I don't like this system.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

Hypergolic: the most durable
-- Low Isp
~ average density
+ engines using hypergolic fuel are lighter because it doesn't need an ignition mechanism
+ Very permissive throttle adjustment
+ Unlimited number of reignitions
+ stockable: doesn't vanish with time

@8bitCosmonaut may be interested in completing/correcting this

Hypergolic: the most reliable
-- Good Isp (It won't be low if your engine isn't garbage)
~ average density
+ engines using hypergolic fuel are lighter because it doesn't need an ignition mechanism
+ Very permissive throttle adjustment (very vague, depends on design)
+ Unlimited number of reignitions
+ stockable: doesn't vanish with time

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

Looks like he is working on a more dynamic aerodynamic system.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/454909046592372747/545055854223818752/Exposed_Surface.gif

 

[The Astronomer]

Hypergolic: the most reliable
-- Good Isp (It won't be low if your engine isn't garbage)
~ average density
+ engines using hypergolic fuel are lighter because it doesn't need an ignition mechanism
+ Very permissive throttle adjustment (very vague, depends on design)
+ Unlimited number of reignitions
+ stockable: doesn't vanish with time

- Expensive
- Slightly lower isp than other engines, though /shrug

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

- Expensive
- Slightly lower isp than other engines, though /shrug

Expensive? Really? Really?!
Can you then explain to me how the Proton-M rocket only costs 65 million per launch with a 23 tons payload capacity, while the Atlas V costs a 100 million with a 20 ton payload capacity? The Proton-M is hypergolic, and the Atlas V uses RP-1.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

It also doesn't make sense for hypergolic engines to be more expensive, their system is far simpler compared to RP-1 engines. I'd say hydrogen engines are the most expensive.

 

[TtTOtW]

Looks like he is working on a more dynamic aerodynamic system.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/454909046592372747/545055854223818752/Exposed_Surface.gif

We got that in Update Peeks

 

[The Astronomer]

Expensive? Really? Really?!
Can you then explain to me how the Proton-M rocket only costs 65 million per launch with a 23 tons payload capacity, while the Atlas V costs a 100 million with a 20 ton payload capacity? The Proton-M is hypergolic, and the Atlas V uses RP-1.

You wrote it as if you’re getting pissed off by it. Are you too into it or something? :/

 

[TtTOtW]

You wrote it as if you’re getting pissed off by it. Are you too into it or something? :/

The Proton is his dream wife

 

[The Astronomer]

The Proton is his dream wife

That explains a lot. Thanks

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

That explains a lot. Thanks

I don't think Cosmo'll ever forgive me for calling the Proton Fairings ugly.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

You wrote it as if you’re getting pissed off by it. Are you too into it or something? :/

No I'm actually laughing when I read that. I was more amused than offended, why would I get offended by wrong pricing? Sorry if I am giving you the wrong idea.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

I don't think Cosmo'll ever forgive me for calling the Proton Fairings ugly.

They are ugly. It's the bottom part that is gorgeous. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

The Proton is his dream wife

I am referring to the Proton since its hypergolic, which is fitting for the argument. Btw the Proton's fuel is corrosive, it eats flesh, that makes her a maneater.

And I will never marry a maneater.

 

[TtTOtW]

I am referring to the Proton since its hypergolic, which is fitting for the argument. Btw the Proton's fuel is corrosive, it eats flesh, that makes her a maneater.

And I will never marry a maneater.

And Cosmo, the toughest men can't live without the challenge of sharing life with a man-eater... else they'll die of boredom.

 

[The Astronomer]

No I'm actually laughing when I read that. I was more amused than offended, why would I get offended by wrong pricing? Sorry if I am giving you the wrong idea.

Yeah, it can be interpreted in many ways, especially when there is no emoji to make it obvious. There is a reason why I tend to use emojis in my replies

+ use spark plugs

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

Hey guys, you are missing out another important section of rocketry, solid rocket motors. I think in the game they should behave very very differently compared to liquid fuel engines.

Here are the basics of how it works, you'd all know that liquid fuel rockets obtain more fuel to burn by adding more fuel tanks, and liquid fuel engines produce the same thrust no matter the burn time. For solid fuel motors, its entirely different, you see:
1) The thrust of SRM's depends on the grain surface area, so the taller the tanks, the greater the thrust but the burn time remains the same.
2) The only way to increase burn time is to increase the diameter of the solid fuel tank, which increases the web burn back radius.
3) There is a limit to the amount of pressure (thrust) a SRM nozzle can handle, so you can't keep stacking solid fuel tanks, otherwise the nozzle will be destroyed upon ignition.

The next part is thrust behavior that will be affected by the grain geometry. SRMs have 3 basic thrust behaviors, they are:
1) Progressive
2) Regressive
3) Sustainer

Progressive
Progressive grain geometries increase in burn surface area throughout the burn time, which means the thrust increases as it burns. Simplest geometry, most unfavorable.

Regressive
Regressive grain geometries reduces in burn surface area throughout the burn time, which means the thrust reduces as it burns. Usually a star shaped geometry and usually used as boosters.

Sustainer
Sustainer grain geometry maintains burn surface area throughout the burn time, which means the thrust stays the same as it burns. Most favorable for any launch vehicle.

I will illustrate some visual aids and share them later.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

Yeah, it can be interpreted in many ways, especially when there is no emoji to make it obvious. There is a reason why I tend to use emojis in my replies

+ use spark plugs

Sparks plugs are very limited in application, they can only be used with hydrogen fuel rockets, since hydrogen requires very little energy to ignite. For RP-1 and Methane however, they need a lot more energy, so the spark plug won't do jack shit, instead you will need a physical flame in order to start it up. This is why for RP-1 engines, pyroforic agents are sprayed into the engine with the oxidizer first to start a fire, before the fuel is injected.

 

[The Astronomer]

Sparks plugs are very limited in application, they can only be used with hydrogen fuel rockets, since hydrogen requires very little energy to ignite. For RP-1 and Methane however, they need a lot more energy, so the spark plug won't do jack shit, instead you will need a physical flame in order to start it up. This is why for RP-1 engines, pyroforic agents are sprayed into the engine with the oxidizer first to start a fire, before the fuel is injected.

You mean the Raptor engines won't work?

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

You mean the Raptor engines won't work?

If you're using spark plugs, no.
[PS I changed the explanation, sorry. I mixed up a gas engine with a diesel engine XD]
The philosophy of car engines and rocket engines are very different, the reason cars can use spark plugs for gasoline (similar to kerosene) is because it atomized the fuel to gas which makes the ignition using a spark plug possible. For rocket engines however, fuel and oxidizer are sprayed into the chamber in a cold liquid state, this makes ignition using a spark plug impossible.

Hope you can understand, you could also ask your dad for more info about gasoline engines and how they work. Fun fact, do you know diesel engines don't use spark plugs at all? They use pressure ignition, by compressing the air-fuel mixture with the piston to generate enough heat and ignite it.

 

[The Astronomer]

If you're using spark plugs, no.
The philosophy of car engines and rocket engines are very different, the reason cars can use spark plugs for gasoline (similar to kerosene) is because there is a piston that compresses the fuel and air to high pressures, this high pressure greatly increases temperature, making the air and fuel mixture easier to ignite with just a spark. For rocket engines however, they don't have the luxury of such a piston, which means it can't pressurize the fuel and oxidizer great enough to effectively use a spark plug, so an open flame is used instead.

Hope you can understand, you could also ask your dad for more info about gasoline engines and how they work. Fun fact, do you know diesel engines don't use spark plugs at all? They use pressure ignition, by compressing the air-fuel mixture with the piston to generate enough heat and ignite it.

Last time I check, the Raptor engine is a methalox engine that uses spark plug, and it works.

 

[8BitCosmonaut]

Last time I check, the Raptor engine is a methalox engine that uses spark plug, and it works.

I never read up about the Raptor engine, but I do know it uses liquid fuel, so igniting the liquid fuel directly using a spark plug is out of the question. I guess that they first spray in an atomized gaseous version of the methane fuel ignited by a spark plug to induce a flame, before they spray in the liquid fuel.

 

[InSight]

I never read up about the Raptor engine, but I do know it uses liquid fuel, so igniting the liquid fuel directly using a spark plug is out of the question. I guess that they first spray in an atomized gaseous version of the methane fuel ignited by a spark plug to induce a flame, before they spray in the liquid fuel.

Yup, it will use spark ignition