Voqk

I feel like this gets to the core of the issue - a deep feeling of false advertising. This debate has been going on since launch: 'this game is not worth $50 and should not be called early access' vs. 'early access means you can't complain if it's bad' - but I think both sides are talking past each other. The issue was in how the game was advertised vs. what was delivered. The pre-launch hype and public messaging - especially for those not in the Forums or Reddit - was disingenuous as to the state of the game. So I don't know that it's fair to say 'well, it did say early access, so you get what you pay for'. That's true, but if a large majority of your clients feel you misled them it ultimately doesn't matter what your labeling and disclaimer says - you're abusing public trust and you're going to get backlash for it. If Dr. Oz heavily promotes a weight loss pill that will "make you lose 100 pounds", and 70% of the people that buy it attempt to return it because it didn't work and they felt he misled them, it doesn't really matter if the disclaimer says 'may not lead to weight loss'. They can still go after Dr. Oz for willfully misrepresenting the product to make sponsorship dollars (this was a specific case, btw. It settled out of court so no culpability was formally assigned - but Oz did pay out 5.25MM) . If on the EA landing page they clearly outlined the current bug list (or top ten bugs), this launch would have gone wildly differently. "Well, they did say that the rockets were wobbly, frame rate was bad, orbits decayed, maneuver node planning didn't work, Kraken was still an issue, large builds would not work due to scaling issues and there was no heating system but I did choose to buy it anyway!" So... 'it's early access and you get what you pay for' does need the addendum: 'as long as a reasonable person would say that the developer represented the current state of the game accurately'. P.S. The way this was handled in 2000-2010 was you'd get a free demo level. If KSP2 had launched a 'demo' build with only one set of parts and one planet (Mun) for people to try before they bought, the developers could get feedback to aid in development and people wouldn't feel like they'd been sold a bill of goods.

Thanks for the responses both. I had originally observed this drag when flying directly to prograde, so I pitched up to see if I could ping the drag to a specific part (I have some mods installed and wondered if the drag box was incorrectly configured. However, eyeball comparing the locked-to-prograde drag to the pitch, I think I was incorrect and that there is a single (albeit large) drag on prograde, and the multiple drag sources at a higher AoA is not related. I've got plenty of thrust to make orbit actually (KSPIE Closed Cycle Nuclear Turbojets and Krusader rocket nozzle) so didn't really bother with more lift from wings. But will play around with with more wing surface to see it's affect on drag - I wasn't aware of 'profile drag'. Thanks!

Hi all, I think I've found a small bug. The MK3 Chines seem to have inverted angles when used in symmetry mode: I've used alt to attach the rear chine to the forward chine. You can see that the rotation is inverted on each side, so if one is facing correctly the other is rotated 180 degrees

Hi all, self explanatory but I cannot get the Mk3 parts not to generate a ton of drag. You can see examples below - but no matter how I terminate the stack (engine mount, Mk3 to 2.5m adapter, etc) the body parts all seem to *each* generate drag. Is this intentional?

Ah - yes I do. I see this covered in it's support thread, moving this there.

[EDIT] This is a Parallax issue, not Scatterer. I first noticed it when installing Scaterrer so misclassified the issue. Moving to Parallax support thread.. Hi all, could someone comment on a pixelation issue? You can see it in the distance in this picture. I have both Scatterer and EVE [edit] and Parallax - not sure if that's related, or if I need to fix my Scatterer config. Thanks!

Looked into Brachistochrone - this would work, although I wonder about the maths for a two-burn hohman transfer for more delta v efficiency. Will see if I can figure that out and make a new post.

Hi all, I put together a 'KSPIE for dummies' (like me) / practical guide on this forum. If anyone is interested it's here. Lots of sample crafts and 'how tos' on everything from power relay set up, bandwidth selection, launch vehicle stats, etc. would appreciate any feedback - feel free to leave comments and I'll update when I can.

Thanks! Yeah, I think I was getting carried away with the 'Look at all that thrust!' and noted that precoolers would reduce it. But I guess letting a thermal engine heat up to the point it explodes may be good for thrust, but not for Jeb's lifespan.

Hi all, I'm a KSP intermediate (500 or so hours) with about 80-100 hours spend with KSP Interstellar Extended. While there is a decent amount of documentation out there, I tend to learn best with specific examples of how something functions, since then I can start with a working model and see what small changes do to the overall system. As such, the documentation was a bit hard for me to work through. This guide attempts to approach this mod from a different perspective - how to build working networks and crafts for specific goals: LKO Shuttle (for ferrying to my casino or hotel at 360km) LKO Launch Vehicle with 120 Ton Capacity Interplanetary probe Nuclear Engines Power Relay Setup I'll provide a lot of comparison such as: 1. How to build an efficient power relay network for the above - the tradeoffs of different generators, transmitters, and wavelengths 2. Onboard power vs. relay power craft comparison 3. Practical implications: TWR, Cost, Fuel type selection, Transfer planning Feel free to ctrl-f for the topic you're interested in. There's also three Appendices: Debugging Power Issues Rocket Power Data Beamed Power Data To offer more information on those topics. Note that I use a 3440x1440 ultrawide, so the screencaps are big. View on imgur and zoom in - there's tons of metrics in the screencaps. I've copied the most relevant information into this post body. Finally - I'm only a beginner with this mod. I can now build all of the above, but I cannot say at *all* this is the most efficient way to do it. @FreeThinker may double facepalm reading this. But I hope this helps some people that learn like me get up and running with a rich, interesting mod! 1. LKO Shuttle Target - 32 kerbals to 360km Orbit Topics covered: SSTO Build Engine Selection Mark 1 - Inline Power Generation First off, I started by building this with inline power to make the shuttle completely self-contained: Cost: $850,268 Weight: 83.34T Heat Generation: 51.72MW Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/Voqk/CasinoShuttle2 First stage: 3.75M Pebble Bed Reactor (for thermal power), "Phoenix" Thermal Aerospike Engine fed by two shock cones + precoolers Orbital stage: Inline Fission Fragment Reactor and Charged Particle Genertor (for energy), two 1.25m ATTILLA thrusters for use in space. Fairly Straightforward - you attach a thermal engine (the aerospike) to a thermal generator (Pebble Bed). Scale the pebble bed based on craft weight (start low, try to launch it, if there isn't enough thrust then scale up the reactor). Quite frankly I just opted for this size because it fits the Mk3 stack decently well. This generates tons of thrust so it's quite easy to make orbit even with my limited experience with SSTOs. You should be able to get into space with the "Phoenix" on open cycle (using atmosphere) pretty easily - and if you pitch down at about 20km altitude and build speed, you get pretty close to orbital velocity before entering space. Note: to circularize the orbit, you can't use the Aerospike natively as there is no air in space. So I switch to close cycle (does not use air) and feed it Liquid Fuel. Inefficient, but it works. Pros: No relay network required. Self container. High ISP in space. Cons: Somewhat range limited in atmosphere as the "Phoenix" needs some liquid fuel to run. Not really a practical concern. Bad TWR and ISP on closed-cycle "Phoenix" for circularizing orbit, so you have to start circularizing a bit sooner and the fuel burns quickly. High ISP in space but brutally low thrust. Transfers take ages. Mark 2 - Beamed Thermal Power Second, using beamed power. And this is a big topic, so there'll be further subsections. Cost: $398,612 Weight: 61.2T Heat Generation: 40.01MW Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/Voqk/CasinoShuttle-Thermal2 First Stage: Two Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet fed by two Shock Cones with precoolers Second Stage - 2.5m Thermal Receiver with 2.5m "Krusader" Thermal Rocket Nozzle First stage runs purely on atmosphere. This is awesome - unlimited range in atmosphere. Plenty of thrust to fly easily. Boost up at 15 degree pitch until thrust on the thermal nozzles run out, then activate the thermal rocket engine to easily make orbit with tons of delta-v to spare. Pros: Way more thrust in space using the thermal nozzle, with fine ISP and delta V. A lot easier to fly around. Way lighter too, so reaction wheels turn it fine. Cons: None, other than needing to set up a power relay network. See Section 4. Engine Selection Appendix Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet I found this is my preferred in-atmosphere engine. It generates less thrust than the TORY, but I kept having the TORY explode (more details below), so this was just easier to work with. You'll get more thrust without the precooler, but the engines may explode. Consider that these engines all function by heating up the propellent - so more heat is more thrust, but it also leads to explosions). Pros: Easy to use. Infinite range in-atmosphere. Plenty of thrust Cons: Not as much thrust as TORY TORY Nuclear Ramjet Engine Tons of thrust, but kept exploding. I tried closing the build in air intakes and feeding it cooled air (like the direct cycle), but that just made the build uglier. I tried reducing throttle and/or output to reduce heating, but it didn't seem to help much (still blew up) - but then, what's the point? Finally, I've been told that adding more inline cooling can help with this to reduce the engine (not the propellant) temperature. I did have some luck with this, so might be worth pursuing. But I prefer the Direct Cycle's mounting, and it works well in my builds - I like to mount inline while direct cycle mounts radial, so I found direct cycle easier to work with. Look, I know I don't like this because I can't figure it out. Not a bad engine, just a lack of knowledge. Just wanted to note that I found the direct cycle easier to work with. Pros: Infinite range in-atmosphere. Tons of thrust Cons: More considerations for cooling to prevent overheating to achieve that tremendous thrust. Balancing air intake cooling vs. thrust generated was more tricky for me than with direct cycle. YMMV. "Phoenix" Thermal Aerospike Turbo Ramjet Hybrid Works similarly to the other two in-atmosphere, but needs a trickle of liquid fuel to keep running. However, it needs to be attached to a thermal generator, so it's not an all-in-one solution Pros: Easy to use. Great range in-atmosphere. Plenty of thrust Cons: Needs an attached generator. 2. LKO Launch Vehicle Target 120ton capacity Topics covered: Inline vs. Beamed Power Sizing Engine and Power requirements Cost Comparison Fuel Comparison Mark 1 - Stock Chemical Engines Cost: $199,390 Weight: 793.675T Heat Generation: 0 Purely for comparison. Not a great rocket, just threw this together as an example. First stage: 4+5 Mastodon Engines with fuel coupling to second stage. Second Stage: 5 Mastodon engines Pros: Stock Cons: Expensive, heavy. Mark 2 - Beamed Thermal Power Cost: $123,665 Weight: 226.284T Heat Generation: 2.7GW Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/Voqk/120TonLauncher I started by throwing 120 tons of ore into tanks for something to work off of, then used a matching thermal inline receiver (mk1) + "Krusader" rocket nozzle, tried to launch it with ever increasing beamed power to size it. I found that a 3.75M receiver/rocket was overkill - I get plenty of thrust with 2.5M. Also, it seemed to want about 280MW of power, total. I didn't do this in small increments - I started with 50MW, it wasn't enough, so I sized up the generators and found that at 280MW got this to orbit cleanly, but without wasted power. This works nicely with the way the reactors scale. The ground power is much higher - 280MW KA-band on the ground and 50MW?Near Ultraviolet (details in section 4) in orbit. As you get further from the ground based power (2KM from the KSC, offshore), the power from that declines linearly. The power from my space network increases slowly - so the TWR decreases the higher you climb (see below). However, this balance worked totally fine. The TWR was a comfortable 1.65-1 the whole flight. Also note that the "Krusader" is much higher thrust/ISP in space - so the higher you climb, the better the engine performs - offsetting the reduction in power received. Final note - size your receiver based on your power requirements. I seemed to need about 280MW of power, and the 2.5m inline receiver can receive 270MW, so increasing the size does *not* increase thrust. First determine power requirements, then pick the smallest receiver that can handle that power. Some other details in the appendix. Pros: Lower cost once relay is in place. Cons: Cost of setting up and maintaining network Cost Comparison The chemical rocket costs about $200K, and the thermal only $125K. So it's far cheaper per launch. *However* - the relay network I have costs $1.15M (yes, million) for the ground generator with a runtime of about two years. The space network is three installations costing $700K (plus launch costs). So the power network total is $3.25 million for a year. Breakeven point is 43 launches. But with Interstellar Fuel Switch installed (and it really needs to be), you can add more fuel (or refuel later). An IFC Radioactive Fuel Container RFC2500 set to Uranium Nitride with 3000 units onboard costs $496,500 and adds 27 years of runtime. Adding these makes the launch cost $4,939,500 total, with a runtime of 28 years. Breakeven point is 66 launches - so if you can do 66 launches in 28 years, you're just saving money past that point. *Also*, your running cost can become effectively free with ISRU processing (for example, from the Mun). Fuel Comparison The "Krusader" defaulted to LH2, and I was shocked with the low delta-v (742 m/s in this build). I then played around with switching the fuel types, and found that was the 'problem'. Here's a comparison: Liquid Fuel: 4471 m/s, 1.67 TWR, $123,665 vessel cost LH2: 742 m/s, 2.45 TWR, $113, 954 vessel cost Hydrazine: 4189 m/s, 3.16 TWR, $255,281 vessel cost LFOx: 2812 m/s, 5.32 TWR, $114, 435 vessel cost I believe this is due to the relative densities of the different fuels? Not sure. Regardless, in practical terms, pick the right solution for you. With hydrazine you get an excellent thrust and delta/v at a high cost. With LFOx, you get a huge amount of thrust (so you could reduce the engine size, or power requirements) and small cost with lower delta/v. Liquid fuel seemed a good balance - low thrust (but plenty, in my application) and best in class delta/v with low cost. 3. Interplanetary Probe Target >6000 Delta V for all stock science parts Topics covered: Electric Engine Use Cost: $353,782 Weight: 12.613T Heat Generation: 0 (non-retractable panels) Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/Voqk/ScienceProbe_IonDrive This was actually my first use of KSPIE - how to build a high delta-v probe. I wanted to use electrical power, and I wanted it to be self-container (no power network set up yet). I think the trick here is using a cluster of ion engines - this uses nine IX-8219 "AFTER" Ion thrusters). It has a reasonable TWR of .17, so orbital transfers are simple enough. Just put it in orbit, deploy the solar panels, and go wherever you want. 4. Nuclear Engines Target huge ship to Jool. Topics covered: Nuclear Engine Use Cost: $1,234, 741 Weight: 520.434T Heat Generation: 97KW This is a big boy - meant for long term study of the Joolean system. It consists of a command and habitation section for 24 kerbals, advanced science module, 'Explorer' craft and ISRU craft. Explorer Transfer stage: ~7300 m/s delta V in a transfer stage consisting of a single NERVA Solid Core Fission engine Lander Stage with 2000m/s delta V. It attaches to the middle of the main vessel and must be docked together for interplanetary transfer. ISRU 5280 'native' delta V - but this is meant to land, fuel up, come back to the main vessel and dump fuel in the large orange holding tanks then return to the surface and do it again. This holds 16200 units of liquid fuel (and subsequent oxidizer) - it takes three trips to fuel up the main vessel completely. Nothing special here. Main 4623 delta V for the whole combined package. Build in three launches - main core used the four "Timberwind" engines as the main body of the second stage and launched unfueled, ISRU and Explorer also launched unfueled. Then fueled it up and was off to Jool. There's a good amount of thrust here - I didn't have to do multiple burns to make my transfer, for example. But it is *heavy* and *expensive*. General Nuclear Use Appendix I was having trouble make nuclear engines work for me. Their relatively low thrust (NERVA, for example) made timing transfer windows a pain in the ass, and capture burns (to Moho, for example) a bit scary as it took so long to decelerate for capture. Note that making a burn over 5 minutes for transfer is pretty much impossible, you very easily end up burning into kerbin's atmosphere as your manuever node at the start of the burn may be radially in to make sure you're resulting trajectory is correct. If you're having this issue, plan to make two burns - one to get to a higher orbit with a period of about 4-8 hours, then a second burn to transfer. The reason I say a 4-8 hour period is that if you burn further - such as burning to the edge of SOI on your first burn, and the remainder on a second burn, your orbital period may be too high to time your transfer effectively - you may be waiting twelve days to get back to your maneuver node and find yourself in a poorer transfer window. I found this to be just not fun, so I just used more engines on this craft to provide sufficient thrust and eliminate that necessity. 4. Power Relay Network Target 50GW continuous coverage in Kerbin system (LKO out to minmus) and 200GW of ground power for heavy launch vehicle. Topics covered: Wavelength Selection Orbital Height Selection Orbital Placement Ground based Wavelength and Placement Generator Comparison Orbital Wavelength Selection / Orbital Height and Placement First off - check the wiki for ideal orbital heights for continuous coverage of a body. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Setting_up_a_CommNet_system. 600km orbital height gives continuous *ground* coverage. Push that out a bit for LKO coverage (for example, a shuttle at 80km elevation will not have good coverage with a relay network at 600km. Shoot higher - 800km or 1Mm for the relays, for example. This is the first thing to determine - what orbit height does your relay need to be at to give coverage to the orbit heights your shuttle/receivers will be at. Now that we have that baseline, consider the application. The larger the wavelength (Microwave is big, X Ray is small), the better efficiency you get, but the shorter distance it will be effective. For example, a Ka-Band microwave in LKO is a very big wavelength - 8.5mm vs. Near Hard X-ray 100pm. Beams spread out as the travel - so if you start at 8.5mm in LKO but then go to minmus, that beam may become tens of meters (or more - I didn't calculate this) wide. Think about a flashlight. If you point it at something close, it's a very small circle. If you point it at something a few meters away, the area that's light will be much larger, but much less bright. Same concept. This is what's meant by Spot Size - if you look in the Power Receiver interface on a shuttle you're trying to run on thermal power, you'll see how much that beam has spread out. You can combat this two ways: Use a smaller wavelength. If I want to send power a long way, the beam will spread out a lot before getting to the target. So I need a smaller wavelength. X-Ray, for example, can provide power over many millions of miles, while microwave only provides good power over a few KM. NOTE: the tradeoff is efficiency. Near Hard X-Ray is about 32% efficient - so if you have 100MW generator and send out Near Hard X-Ray, you'll only have a maximum of 32MW in your network. Ka-band microwave is 94% efficient, but only provides power over tens of kilometers. This is really important - beaming power a long way requires a smaller wavelength, which will be less efficient. So, you design your network based on this. Larger transmitters. A 5M transmitter will generate a larger spot size than a 20M one. I'll show an example below. That's a bit dense. There's specific data in 'More data in 'Appendix - Beamed Power Data', but time for some practical examples. Again, I want coverage throughout Kerbin, so I placed my relays halfway between Minmus and Kerbin. Thus, the *worst* power is in LKO or at Minmus, but it gets no worse than that. So that's the minimum power I get anywhere in the system. Here's some examples. Note that the shuttle/receiver is at an orbital height of about 50 Million meters - 45 million meters from the LKO generators. Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/Voqk/85MW_Gen_ShortInfrared_Launcher Spot Size Examples Bad: I have two 85GW generators in HKO at an orbital height of 5.286Mm - million meters , both with 85GW generators. One uses Near Infrared (1.05um wavelength) and one using Short Infrared (700nm wavelength, larger). You can see the effect of spot size here - Near Infrared has a wavelength of 1.05um - really small! But 45 million meters from it, my spotsize is 12.75 meters because the beam has spread out. My receiver is 2.5 meters, so only 1/5th the size of the power beam - thus I only get about 17.92% efficiency on that beam. The Short Infrared (wavelength 2.2um, larger) has a spotsize of 26.73m and efficiency of 8.55%. OK: I have three generators at an orbital height of 20Mm - again, about halfway between Minmus and Kerbin. So my vessel is about 25Mm from these generators - closer than the ones in HKO. One is broadcasting Near Ultraviolet - a wavelength of 400nm - and a 3.75m transmitter. I see a network efficiency of 58.45% here, not great. This is because the spot size is 3.9m - bigger than my receiver (2.5m). This can be fixed two ways - I can use a smaller wavelength OR a bigger transmitter. Either will reduce my spot size, thus making my receiver able to use more of the power. Using a smaller wavelength will be less efficient (covered earlier), using a bigger transmitter is just going to be a heavier/harder launch. So... Best: My generator at 20Mm using Red Visible (700nm wavelength, so a larger wavelength than the Near Ultraviolet in 'OK'). On it's own, this would mean it was less efficient - again, larger wavelength = bigger spot size. However, I'm using a massive 'Inline Wrapped Phase Array) transmitter which is 50M big once deployed. As such, my spot size from this larger wavelength is actually smaller - 512mm - for a 99.17% network efficiency. So, I get the benefit of a larger wavelength being higher efficiency (Red Visible is 66% efficient, vs Near Ultraviolet is 56%). So - I get the best of both world. A 10% more efficient wavelength, still with a really tiny spot size. You'll even note that my spot size is 512mm - way tinier than it needs to be. So I could change this Generator/Transmitter combination to an even larger wavelength like something in the infrared spectrum (76% efficiency) and still have a tiny spot size. More data in 'Appendix - Beamed Power Data' Finally, check out my 120 ton launcher on the ground at the KSC, to see the ground based transmitter: Here, I'm receiving two beams: one from the 85GW generator orbiting Kerbin at 20Mm (the same one from above) and one from my ground based generator. You can see I still get decent power from my 85GW generator - the spot size is only 719mm, add some atmospheric absorption and you see a 66.835% efficiency. Not bad! Ground based Wavelength Selection and Placement Craft File: https://kerbalx.com/Voqk/200GWLandGen-KaBand_Launcher Finally, to get my 120 ton launcher off the ground, a moderate efficiency from an orbital network isn't going to do it. A lot of that power is absorbed by the atmosphere, for one thing. For another, I just need a lot more power to get into space than to move around in space. So I build a ground based generator producing 200GW. In this case, I don't need the power to go very far - it's only meant to get me to space (70km). So I can choose a really large wavelength (again, because I'm not worried about the beam spreading out over long distances). I compared the various microwave bands (X, Ka, W, D) and found Ka to be a good balance. It gave a high enough efficiency to get the rocket off the ground, but spot size was still workable when high in the Kerbin atmosphere. Other details in the 'Appendix - Rocket Power Data'. Generator Comparison and Cost I haven't played around with this as much, to be honest. I didn't look at early game generators, for one. I did compare the Stellerator to the Dusty Plasma Fission Fragment. @FreeThinkercan probably add more here if he wants, I'll update if so and do a further comparison to assist in early game stages. The tradeoffs were: Stellerator Pros: Earlier in the tech tree. No actinide production = no need to reprocess fuel. Cons: Heavier. More Expensive for given power. Shorter lifespan (I was only seeing 167 days of usage) Dusty Plasma Fission Fragment Pros: Lighter, cheaper, longer lifespan (1.8 years). No actinide production = no need to reprocess fuel. Cons: None that I know of. This is not a fair comparison *at all* - I'm comparing maxxed tech tree versions of two generators, one is later in the tech tree and one isn't. I only bring this up to note that when picking a generator, consider both the power, the cost, the weight (if launching to space) and the lifetime. From the above launcher cost comparison: The relay network $1.15M (yes, million) for the ground generator with a runtime of about two years. The basic space network is three installations costing $700K (plus launch costs). So the power network total is $3.25 million for a year. But with Interstellar Fuel Switch installed (and it really needs to be), you can add more fuel at launch (or refuel later). An IFC Radioactive Fuel Container RFC2500 set to Uranium Nitride with 3000 units onboard costs $496,500 and adds 27 years of runtime. Adding these makes the space network cost $4,939,500 total, with a runtime of 28 years. *Also*, your running cost can become effectively free with ISRU processing (for example, from the Mun). No need for fuel reprocessing with Dusty Plasma, it doesn't generate actinides. Appendix - Potential Issues: My TWR is too low with thermal power!! Open the thermal receiver, open the power receiver interface. Check these: Are you connected to the generators? Make sure that you enabled the transmitters on them if you don't see them - it doesn't default to being on in the VAB, so you might have launched a generator, have power onboard, but forgot to turn on the transmitter. Do you see the generator, but have very low power in 'Available Power'? This is a combination of wavelength, spot size and your generator's efficiency Make sure you selected an appropriate wavelength (see section 4). You can tell this by looking at 'spot size'. You want this to be smaller than the receiver size - so, for a 2.5M receiver, you want this to be less than 2.5M. If it isn't, see section 4 on wavelength selection. Also note that spot size is based on the size of the transmitter - a 20M transmitter will have a much smaller spot size than a 5M Phased Array Transceiver. See Section 4 - I outline this a bit more there. Check the 'Facing' metric. If your receiver is not facing your transmitter, you're going to get bad power reception. On my 120 ton launcher tests, I'd have 98% facing my ground generator at launch, trailing off to 20-30% facing in space. At that point, I'd have 80-90% facing my space based network, so I'd have good coverage throughout. If you're on the ground and getting <80% facing at launch, you need to move your ground generator. If the network power is far less than what you know the generator is capable of (the generator produces 9GW, but your available power is 1MW) you need to check the generator. Do you have enough heat dissipation? Use the Thermal Helper in the VAB to check. Is your Convertor sized appropriately? If you scaled up your generator to 5M, but left the convertor at 2.5m, you aren't converting all of that power to useable energy. They need to be scaled appropriately. Make sure your transmitter can handle the power the generator produces. A Phased Array Transceiver only transmits 5MW, while an inline wrapped phase array transmits 1GW. Make sure your transmitter is sized appropriately. The bigger the transmitter size, the smaller the spot size - a 20M transmitter will have a much smaller spot size than a 5M Phased Array Transceiver. See Section 4 - I outline this a bit more there. Check your fuel type (outlined in section 2) - for example, Liquid Fuel gives a lower TWR than LH2 (but more delta V). You might be able to fix this by changing your fuel Size up your receiver and generator. A 2.5M thermal generator and 2.5M "Krusader" can put 120 tons in orbit with 27GW of power. If you have that much power in your network, but your receiver is tiny, it can't convert all of it. Check 'Max Power Capacity' on the receiver in the VAB. Appendix - Rocket Power Data: Here's a lot more screencaps that I used to pull the above information. First off, using the same generator and transmitter, comparing D-band Microwave to Ka-Band Microwave at 10Km and once target Apoapsis of 80km is reached (not at the apoapsis but once the speed to reach it is achieved, while still in atmosphere). Also comparing 2.5m receiver to 3.75. All using liquid fuel. Takeaways: Atmospheric/water absorption can kill you. D Band is bad for that. Bigger receivers are only necessary if you need to receive more power. 2.5M can receive 270MW, so a 3.75 receiver is unnecessary here. Height Receiver Wavelength Facing Spotsize Network Efficiency Available Power Thrust 10km 3.75 D 48.127% 144mm 80.23% 216.6MW 4134kN Ap 3.75 D 35.491% 3.2m 2.98% (*absorption) 8.057MW 71kN 10km 3.75 Ka 70.124% 719mm 92.22% 251.2MW 3856kN Ap 3.75 Ka 31.658% 6.87m 27.75% 74.92MW 121kN 10km 2.5 Ka 49.510% 528mm 92.45% 249.6MW 3673kN Ap 2.5 Ka 36.405% 5.48m 31.07% 83.89MW 448Kn D Band at 10KM, 3.75m Receiver: Facing: 48.127% Spotsize: 144mm Network Efficiency: 80.23% Available Power: 216.6MW Thrust: 4134kN D Band at Ap, 3.75m Receiver: Facing: 35.491% Spotsize: 3.2m Network Efficiency: 2.98% (*note the high water/atmospheric absorption here) Available Power: 8.057MW Thrust: 71kN Ka Band at 10KM, 3.75m Receiver: Facing: 70.124% Spotsize: 719mm Network Efficiency: 92.22% Available Power: 251.2MW Thrust: 3856kN Ka Band at Ap, 3.75m Receiver: Facing: 31.658% Spotsize: 6.87m Network Efficiency: 27.75% Available Power: 74.92MW Thrust: 121kN Ka Band at 10Km, 2.5M receiver: Facing: 49.510% Spotsize: 528mm Network Efficiency: 92.45% Available Power: 249.6MW Thrust: 3673kN Ka Band at Ap, 2.5M receiver: Facing: 36.405% Spotsize: 5.48m Network Efficiency: 31.07% Available Power: 83.89MW Thrust: 448kN Appendix - Beamed Power Data: This information shows the impact of wavelength selection on spot size and network efficiency for relays set up at 686km orbit height and 6,876km orbit height. Generators all produce 85GW natively, all using Phased Array Transceiver (Sphere). Receiver shuttle is orbiting at 86km or 72km (forgot to standardize but it doesn't skew the results too much. Takeaways: Pick an appropriate wavelength based on your relay positioning and craft orbit heights. This illustrates that. You can see that if I set up a close to kerbin / HKO relay network for LKO use, I get a huge efficiency with Near infrared - but practically, Long/Short/Near all work as they cap out the available power (42.11MW) due to receiver size, etc. For a higher orbit relay to provide deeper space coverage, Red Visible and Near infrared are both fine options. Orbit Type Wavelength Spotsize Transmit Power Available Power Network Efficiency 686km Ka 8.5655mm 160.37m 67.11MW 1.041MW 1.55% 686km Far Infrared 33um 6.06m 61.4MW 25.18MW 41.01% 686km Long Infrared 11um 1.96m 57.83MW 42.11MW 99.92% 686km Short Infrared 2.2um 378mm 54.26MW 42.11MW 99.89% 686km Near Infrared 1.05um 204mm 50,69MW 42.11MW 99.97% 5286km Red Visible 700nm 1.31m 47.12MW 42.11MW 99.46% 5286km Short Infrared 2.2um 4.11m 54.26MW 31.08MW 57.29% 5286km Near Infrared 1.05um 1.96m 50.69MW 42.11MW 99.44% 686km Transmitters 6876km Transmitters

Question for any: Trying to use TORY Nuclear ramjet. It keeps exploding. I've tried three things: 1. Stock engine - hits ~1100kn thrust and explodes 2. Add a bunch of titanium radiators for in-atmosphere conduction (Titanium Convector Radiator Inline, tweakscaled to 1.25m). These go to full heat and the engines still explode - although the max thrust the ramjet provides is much lower.(810kn) 3. Throttle down - doesn't matter. Still heats and explode As this engine is supposed to heat up air intake for thrust, I understand the increasing temperatures being correlated with thrust - as in #2. However, right now these only seem practical as boosters - they can't be run for more than a minute or two without needing to turn them off. Is this the correct expectation? These engines are meant to be run hot and short, then disabled? Thanks!

Hi all, thank you @FreeThinker for such a comprehensive mod. I'm unable to find any storage containers that store PVC (rocket fuel tanks, holding tanks, logistic modules, etc). Are there any known interactions with other mods that could be hiding the required components? Or where is this expected to be stored? Thanks!