Download Space Engine 0.9.9.0

SpaceEngine is an interactive 3D planetarium and astronomy software[2] developed by Russian astronomer and programmer Vladimir Romanyuk.[3] It creates a 1:1 scale three-dimensional planetarium representing the entire observable universe from a combination of real astronomical data and scientifically accurate procedural generation algorithms. Users can travel through space in any direction or speed, and forwards or backwards in time.[4] SpaceEngine is in beta status and up to version 0.9.8.0E, released in August 2017, it was available as a freeware download for Microsoft Windows. Version 0.990 beta was the first paid edition, released in June 2019 on Steam. The program has full support for VR headsets.

SpaceEngine also has a built-in flight simulator (currently in Alpha) which allows for users to spawn in a selection of fictional spacecraft which can be flown in an accurate model of orbital mechanics and also an atmospheric flight model when entering the atmospheres of the various planets and moons. The spacecraft range from small SSTO spaceplanes, to large interstellar spacecraft which are all designed with realism in mind, featuring radiators, fusion rockets, and micrometeorite shields.[5] Interstellar spacecraft simulate the hypothetical Alcubierre drive, including the relativistic effects that would occur in reality.[6]

Download Zip 🔥 https://urlin.us/2y3AAr 🔥

SpaceEngine has a fairly large modding community dedicated to expanding on the program's current catalogues, improving things like texture quality, and even improving the program's terrain and cloud generation as a whole (See Rodrigo's Mod). Some SE add-on creators create fictional star systems for their worldbuilding project, others do 3D modelling for spacecraft add-ons, and some do completely different things. These extensions are all available for download from SpaceEngine's Web Forums.

Development of SpaceEngine began in 2005,[8] with its first public release in June 2010. The software is written in C++. The engine uses OpenGL as its graphical API and uses shaders written in GLSL. As of the release of version 0.990, the shaders have been encrypted to protect against plagiarism. Plans have been made to start opening them in a way that allows the community to develop special content for the game, with ship engine effects being made available to users who have purchased the game.[9]

I know hardly nothing about computers or how to use files or anything so I was wondering how to find the space engine file so I can then find the add-on file so I can finally download ships and planets and the like.

Our community includes astronomy and game enthusiasts who may be under the age of majority. As we wish to remain a safe and inclusive platform for space and SpaceEngine enthusiasts, please refrain from posts containing drugs or adult-themed content.

Something that i've done a lot of tinkering with over the 1.1k+ hours playing KSP is "What engine and type of fuel usage is best for a type of craft?"

And to preface, I'm not talking about air-breathing engines, and I'm not going to talk about ion engines, except by exception.

Now, for example, if you have a craft that shuttles cargo/fuel/passengers between a Mun base and an orbital Mun space station, the distance your craft travels on one tank of gas is not very far. If it's below 20 tons, A terrier would probably be better on efficiency over a NERVA, but maybe a few mono engines and the added weight of a mono tank replacing a LFO tank would be more efficient? What If it's 40 tons? What If you're hauling 30 tons of LF?

Here I call on my fellow engineers to share their experience not of preference and ease of use (although that's certainly a big part of craft design) but on experience and analysis of efficiency of engines in outer space (that is, no launch stage) and where they are most efficient based on size of vessel, utility of vessel, and distance for vessel to travel.

----

Experience based conclusions:

"Nuke engine is the ONLY practical engine in space unless you are below 10t. " (panzer1b)

For single use lightweight spacecraft then chemical engines become viable. There's a chart somewhere for this that shows what engine is best to use at a given TWR (ie the % of your craft that's engine determines which engine is best for most delta-V).

Exactly, the NTR is the best engine for carrying large* payloads in space applications. For lifting things off Kerbin, you generally want the highest-ISP engine with as much thrust as is required to give you a TWR of around 1.5. For landers on airless bodies, your best bet is generally those engines which have high fuel efficiency and decent thrust, enough to give you a sufficient TWR for landing, anyways.

Niche engines like the aerospike (ships which spend a lot of time in-atmosphere) and the tiny engines (probes, obviously) are used on those more rare applications, and as such are not quite as sufficient for transporting large payloads.

ill say right off the bat, that although i do not really like it, the NTR (nuke) engine is the ONLY practical engine in space unless you are below 10t. Unless you are either extremely impatient, or have some very niche role where TWR needs to be high to accomplish your mission, a nuke or even a cluster of nukes will always outperform anything LFO or monoprop based. Statistically the terrier (or even 48-7s) is better when vehicle mass becomes extremely low (say under 10t), but for anything heavier then 10t a nuke will near always get you more raw dV even if you remove 2.5t of fuel to make room for the 3t nuke (compared to a .5t terrier). 800 vs 350 is a major deal, ofc ions still put both to shame with 4200 ISP, but ions at least have their share of issues, terrible thrust (requires utter spamming for anything but a probe), require lot of batteries/solar panels, and well, they are just not useable with very large craft as youd need 100s of em.

Even if you look at the engine being rather heavy at 3t, it is still a known fact that nukes are the one and only practical interplanetary or space engine, and heck, they are so good that i even have a large amount of vessels that use nukes to land on other planets. Anything Mun or less gravity is perfectly doable with a single nuke pushing ~20t, and duna can be done with less provided you have wings for actual lift and dont need to land vertically.

This is one thing about KSP that annoys me, since well, there really arent any options if all you care about if pure efficiency/dV. Myself, i do use othyer engines when im designing for fun/looks and dont care that the craft is inefficient (made less problematic with IRSU and the seemingly endless supplies of fuel), but whenever i want maximum dV with minimum mass, its nuke or nothing.

I know this is a bit off topic, but i wish that stock game came with a larger ion engine (say 1.25m, with 10x scaling in stats, so 20kn thrust, and 10 times the fuel useage/electric needs). Also, a different nuke would be neat, perhaps a 2.5m one with at least 200kN thrust, and ofc heavier, and either a 0.6m one that is smaller and ~20kN thrust, and perhaps a half as light and 30kN thrust one but shorter then what we get now. Why the bloody nukes have to be so long and in my opinion ugly (well not ugly but just doesnt look right with my designs) is beyond me. If we have to use nukes and only nukes for efficiency, then at least give us larger and smaller ones for both massive ships and smaller vessels.

Even with the Mun the gravity is low enough that nuke powered craft's TWR is a non-issue. TWR is only an issue when you're dealing with world's like Tylo. Tylo's gravity is strong enough that you need a lot of thrust to safely land and take off, and here chemical engines start to look good again because of their much higher TWR.

Let's say out of this 10 ton payload, 2.5 ton is mission hardware, eg the reason why you're going into space in the first place, so you can't change this part.

You start with a nuke engine, which is 3 tons, this leave you with 4.5 tons to play with. This happens to fit two Mk1 jet fuel tanks perfectly. These two tanks weights 4.5 ton, of which 4 ton is the fuel.

KSP fuel tanks have a 9:1 wet/dry mass ratio. So a hypothetical 2.5 ton fuel tank will have a dry mass of 0.278 tons. Good thing bipropellent has the same combined density as jet fuel as this makes calculation easy.

So now, our chemical engined spacecraft has a dry mass of 2.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.278 tons, or 3.778 tons. We plug 10 tons wet mass, 3.778 tons dry mass and 345s ISP into delta-V calculator again and we get 3283.27m/s of delta-V. 2351a5e196