Undecided

So it's roughly a 15% decrease. Not great, but nothing devastating either. Also, nice flag. Even a few pixels further to the right and someone might have reported you.

Did you mean megajoules? These are the pre-patch nuclear lightbulb outputs.

Awwwww man, I just built a 2000-ton ship primarily powered by nuclear lightbulbs. How much of a decrease in power did it get? I may have to resort to flying it home before updating Interstellar Extended otherwise it may be stranded on an alien planet.

In the mean time, any chemists around here able to slap on some ballpark figures on the wiki? Even simplified ballpark figures like [100 units of H2O] -> [12400 units of H2] + [6200 units of O2] would be far better than the current zero information, which leaves most of us non-chemists totally blind as to how much produce to expect from ISRU reactions. Even the vanilla ISRU has basic input/output ratios on what each process makes.

I've noticed that Hydrogen Peroxide has a near-identical ISP and thrust to Hydrazine. Given that hydrogen peroxide requires fewer steps to manufacture, and requires fewer resources (hydrazine also needs ammonia). Is there any real reason to use hydrazine over hydrogen peroxide? The only thing I can think of is that hydrazine gives you the additional water back, but even that benefit seems questionable given the additional effort required to go out and harvest ammonia for the hydrazine reaction. (Also, speaking of reactions, could you consider adding product ratios for the various ISRU processes in either the in-game tooltip or the github wiki? It would be really helpful for long-term planning if players knew how much of each product they could expect so they could choose storage tank layouts accordingly.)

I've noticed tweakscale is compatible with the KAS portable struts. Does strut strength properly scale with size? Do strut bases of different sizes add their strength together to average out, or does the weakest/smallest one dictate the total strut strength? And is there a way to place extra-large tweakscaled struts into inventories?

I was under the impression planets counted as separate objects, so you couldn't use struts to attach bases to them. And a follow up question, are winches also the preferred method of tethering structures to asteroids as well? I've tried using struts, which seem to totally eliminate all wobble, but are very easy to shatter (I typically have to run asteroid engines are <20% speed to prevent shattering). I was wary of attempting to use winches and hooks because I was worried I'd get amplifying wobble/oscillation if they weren't as rigid.

Bit of a newbie question here. Given all the tools placed at your disposal by the KAS/KIS system, what's the most effective way of securing structures to a planet's surface? My idea is to help prevent accidental shifting due objects due to them getting bumped, and the consequent clipping/collision explosions on load this can cause, and (hopefully) improve game performance by making large bases subject to fewer forces acting on it. Any ideas on which items (harpoons+winches, ground pylons+struts, grapplers) work best for this?

Just to continue from my questions from the other thread, what scanner(s) are supposed to be used to detect "rock" resource in asteroids? It may just be a case of me using the wrong scanner rather than the mod not working, since I can see things like the Mass Driver or Rock Tank in the tech tree.

I reloaded a previous save and it worked itself out. Must have just been a random bug. By the way, I've been wondering, is there any significant difference in terms of game mechanics between using KAS struts and harpoons to tether objects? I know struts are stronger and fixed, but what about attached harpoons? Do their cables function as structures that snap under stress, or do they have the ability to "give slack" rather than break if you pull too hard?

I'm having a bit of an issue, and wondering if anyone has encountered anything similar? I'm trying to tie a ship to an asteoid that it has already "docked" with using a grappler arm. The arm alone isn't sturdy enough to withstand the stress of engines pushing the asteroid, so I'm trying to reinforce it with KAS/KIS struts. The first strut I attach works fine. However, the 2nd one I attach seems to cause the entire ship to break off (the first strut pair unlinks, and the arm no long has an attachment to an asteroid and the ship floats away). The arm's strength is usually more than large to withstand the stress of the ship being idle. Anyone know what might be causing this use?

Freethinker, I figured out that spontaneous self-destructing issue I had with the nuclear turbojets that I originally blamed the Solid Core Nuclear engines for; it turns out it's related to movement speed. If the turbojets are throttled up and not moving, they will evidently overheat and self-destruct in about five seconds. However, if you can get the vehicle moving in the first five seconds or so, this will not happen... I'm guessing it has something to do with air intake speed, or convection rate for heat. The pre-coolers don't seem to prevent this, since in tests I've had air intakes without precoolers not overheat, and inversely, air intakes all attached to nuclear turbojets (and using the built-in pre-cooler) overheat from remaining stationary too long. EDIT: Nope, nevermind, it wasn't speed. My engines stopped self-destructing when I greatly reduced the vehicle's payload (which incidentally increased launch acceleration), so I assumed it was. I'll investigate further.

I just slapped together a basic rocket (Mk1 cockpit, stock fuel tank, and solid core nuclear engine), an had the same extremely under-performing problem with hydrolox fuel. I also tried out more alternative fuels, like water, and again they worked fine -- it's only hydrolox that's failing to perform for me. I also wanted to try out other hydrolox engines to help verify if the problem lay in the fuel itself, or only that specific engine, but AFAIK there aren't any others that can use hydrolox (unless I missed them?)

It seems so. Just did a test to confirm: Engines were not draining hydrolox fuel from the tanks. So did some tests to try and fix the issue. Liquid fuel and liquid hydrogen configurations worked just fine. However, then I tried to operate hydrolox in pure vacuum (100000m above kerbin) and finally got a very tiny amount of thrust: This is after burning the engine for about 30 seconds non-stop. Fuel flow rate is increasing about 0.001 units per second... meaning the engine is powering up very, very, very slowly. Liquid fuel and liquid hydrogen tests both produced a far more reasonable power-up cycle (fuel flow rate increased at least 1 unit per second) at this altitude. And since there is indeed fuel flowing to the engines in the hydrolox configuration, I suspect it may not be a fuel switcher issue, unless the fuel switcher has the ability to "bottleneck" and reduce fuel flow speed. Does hydrolox have a far higher burning point than my other two test fuels, or something? This is my first time working with KSPI-E's alternative fuels, so I'm not exactly sure what's a bug, and what's working as intended.

The turbojet operates perfectly fine aside from the Solid Core Nuclear Engines breaking it. I've used this exact configuration to reach orbit multiple times (just with other space-stage engines instead of Solid Core Nuclear Engines), with no overheating issues. Maybe the radiators compensate for the lack of precooler, or something. Also, another unrelated issue on this ship: I've set the Solid Core Nuclear Engines to use hydrolox propellant, and attached them directly to a hydrolox tank (LqdHydrogen + LqdOxygen). But the engines seem to get no thrust when I activate them at around ~25000m. Does Hydrolox have some sort of minimum altitude or maximum atmospheric pressure requirement to function?