This unfortunately doesn't scale down well- nuclear reactors become less and less efficient in terms of power output per kg of mass the smaller they become, but DOES scale *UP* extremely well. So the NTR is actively producing a *HUGE* amount of Thrust (but TWR is still poor as it weighs so much) in the atmosphere when in airbreathing mode (at very low Exhaust Velocity: but since almost all the Working Mass is from the atmosphere, at high Effective ISP), rather than being deadweight all the way until rocket closed-cycle Thrust is desirable. The main advantage though (because none of that would nearly justify use of a nuclear reactor inside the atmosphere, from a PR/safety perspective) is that this doubles as a Nuclear Thermal Rocket when you reach the point where airbreathing propulsion is no longer viable (however with an internal Scramjet, rather than Ramjet, this wouldn't be until at least Mach 7-12). The Thrust per unit of cross-sectional area (important for spaceplane design) is also much higher than any jet. This is basically a type of Hybrid airbreathing/rocket engine, much like the SABRE, except that the TWR is actually much better than many jet engines (which typically range from TWR of about 1:6 to 1:12), and the airbreathing Effective ISP a bit lower than some high-end jet engines. But Effective ISP is much, much higher (in the range of a jet engine just for the ducted rocket performance, 3500-4200 sec Effective ISP, depending on mixing-ratios of LH2:air). To use a Mk3 (which is really meant for use as a Shuttle fuselage, and is terribly-shaped for horozontal takeoff spaceplanes- meaning I'd probably use a Stail fuselage from OPT instead of not playing Stock-only.) I'd have to be lifting a payload MUCH bigger than that- at which point I would need the extra engines I just talked about.Ī lot more than a comparable rocket (TWR is at least, 1:20 to maybe 1:24, with the mixing chamber ramjets also active).
SPACEPLAN SATURN WONT CODE
This will get you to orbit for much less fuel, as the Mk2 is a Lifting Body and more aerodynamically efficient (in FAR and especially in Stock- which lacks the FAR code that creates Body Lift from ALL fuselages to some degree) than the Mk3 for payloads in that size range.
If I were going to lift a payload of that size to orbit, I'd use a long Mk2 fuselage, with 1.875 meter fuel tanks on the payload. Yours is a grossly suboptimal design: if you're going to use a Mk3 fuselage, it should only be for much larger payloads than that (or MULTIPLE payloads in that weight range).
SPACEPLAN SATURN WONT MODS
Mainly, though, it'll minimize complaints of their being "overpowered" (Gosh I hate those people- when they're complaining about things feasible in real life! Compared to the primitive tech of a Saturn V rocket ANYTHING New Space or even slightly futuristic is realistically overpowered!) if you can point to their advanced tech node (in the custom tech trees) and very high part unlock costs and simply ask players if they were using a custom tech tree and had part unlock costs enabled.Īlso, what ARE the most popular custom, advanced tech trees (those going into future tech, used with mods like NearFuture pack and KSP-Interstellar Extended) nowadays? I'm still only really familiar with a couple of them, and Community Tech Tree remains my old standby favorite.ĭon't just automatically assume you know better than another player more experienced than you and post a Craft File: that's just rude.
SPACEPLAN SATURN WONT DRIVERS
By the way, one thing that may need to be considered (and rarely is in mods) for balance and realism: tech node and unlock cost (that one-time fee you pay to unlock parts with the right difficulty option enabled.)īoth should probably be somewhat higher than where I had them before: for gameplay purposes, too many mods cluster parts about where they were (especially in Community Tech Tree), and the unlock cost needs to reflect their high utility.Īnd, for realism I did more reading since setting these parameters in my mod: and it appears that while Mass Drivers like this can ABSOLUTELY be built, there are more obstacles to cost-effectively upscaling some of the needed electrical systems for them than I originally expected (meaning the technology still probably wouldn't reach full tech readiness for at least another 10-20 years if we really invested in researching it today.)