zekew11

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

1 Follower

About zekew11

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yep, liquid hydrogen is not installed by default. If you're really anti patch manager, which I would understand, you can enable the patches manually by copying the ones you want or of the plugindata folders that are nested in the mod. I'll improve this situation next release so it works with cryotanks out of the box
  2. If you're at all into code, Kos is a must. It allows you to, with relative ease, program a flight computer for your rockets, allowing you to automate some tasks without feeling cheaty (rather, you feel quite accomplished) If you're playing on career mode, Kerbal construction time and oh scrap are must haves. Ckan is the "mod manager" of ksp. It does some things very very well. It also has some really annoying things. Up to you if you use it.
  3. In the upcoming update, 1) I will switch to a new resource harvester module that will make removals like this unnecessary and 2) I will use patch manager to make the changes this mod applies highly configurable. If you want to talk about potentially collaborating shoot me a PM.
  4. 0.2.0 Alpha Lots of polish put on the mod here, along with a scope change... The mod intends now to offer the user a meaningful choice between 3 fuel types: liquid fuel, liquid methane, and liquid hydrogen. (CryoEngines recommended but not required). This is accomplished by adding engines where appropriate, as well as modifying existing engines (in a non craft breaking manner) that would ballance better with a different fuel type, or replicate an existing engine of a given fuel type, to use said different fuel type. For example, the SSME analogue in stock is changed via an optional patch to use liquid hydrogen and oxidizer, with stats reballanced accordingly. The mod will tie in nicely with the (also in alpha but being worked on) Coherent Resource System Mod, where varied ISRU options will create incentive for propellant diversity.
  5. I'll pm you a zip in a few hours
  6. Not a bug per say, but a comment on the default behavior. By default, patch manager stores active patches in the patch manager directory, as opposed to nested within the parent mod. Three problems. 1) There is no warning to a user who is used to uninstalling a mod by deleting its folder that part of its functionality has been copied out of said folder. This would puzzle and frustrate me for a while before I figured it out. 2) Some module manager patches make use of their directories alphabetical position. This is probably bad practice, but one that is totally broken by the default behavior. 3) For whatever reason, some of my patches, which are not dependent on alphabetical position, work when nested in my folder but fail to apply when nested in yours. My best guess is that a file name length limit is getting exceeded when you append data to the front end of the file name. Regardless, it was annoying to figure out. For now, when I push the dev release of methane rockets, I'll have to instruct users to change their patch manager settings to nest my patches in my folder. I'd perfer not to have to do that kind of thing on a real release though.
  7. I would like to make an engine with two variants, one with a large nozzle and one with a small nozzle. I can change the mass, cost, and appearance of the engine using B9 part switch. I can change the isp and thrust of the engine by selecting an appropriate gti multi mode engine mode. However, there is no way, currently, for me to unify these behaviors and enforce a certain B9 part variant for a certain engine module. The B9 part switch code has public strings for the selected variant. Is it possible to make a modified gtimultimodeengine module that can read these strings and set the selected engine module accordingly, according to definitions in the part config file?
  8. Gosh, this was one of my first mods, way, way back when. I would love to see it brought back to life.
  9. I'm working on a certain project for which a feature might be useful. That feature is to allow some parts to be "grouped" into "families" where the reliability of one part affects that of another. The stock example is the LV-T30 and 45. In the proposed feature, these would have, say, 45% commonality, and thus 45% of reliability gains from flying T30's would transfer to the T45's. Stock tanks of a certain diameter would also benefit from some sort of commonality system. I'd envision a simple cfg that says "these parts are a group with x% commonality". Up to you weather that seems like more trouble than its worth. Second question: I use fuel switch configs, specifically for going from liquid fuel/ox to liquid methane/ox as in my WIP methane engines mod. As I understand it, currently, a Jumbo-64 is a Jumbo-64 in either configuration, even though in actuality these would be very different tanks. I honestly don't see an easy way to address this, but if you can see one it would be a nice bit of polish. Perhaps that's a scrapyard issue though.
  10. The good news is that the methane mod is mostly working now that B9 part switch is up to date. The bad news is that It'll be a week until I'm home to really work on things. Posting over there now...
  11. I am extremely disappointed that I won't be getting back to my desktop for another week. Vacation is over rated.
  12. Right now its a little rough around the edges and in no way guaranteed compatible with 1.4.1. Once MKS and Cryogenic Rockets are both updated to 1.4.1, and I get a chance to update Liquid Methane, and I get a chance to essentially re-write this mod to use patch manager and make various other improvements. Then there will be a 1.4.1 pre-release
  13. Very happy to help. PM me if you have questions, aesthetic or functional.
  14. I'll contribute... In order of development, Merlin Engines: Heritage Engine - FASTRAC or MC-1 (Development Engine 1998-2001?) 1998. Open cycle gas generator. Ablatively Cooled. Drawings Here. Mass: ~900kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): Unknown/270kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): Unknown/314s Throat diameter: 0.22 m Nozzle Diameter: ~1.22 m Area Ratio: ~30 SpaceX Merlin 1A (Flown 2006, 2007) Open cycle gas generator. Ablatively Cooled. Video Here. Key Evolutions: Upscale. New turbopump. TWR Optimized. Turbopump exhaust can be steered for roll control. Retained Features: Power Cycle, Turbopump supplier. Cooling Type. Mass: Unknown. Ballpark 500 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 325kN/370kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 253.7s/288.5s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~.91 m Area Ratio: 14.5 SpaceX Merlin 1B (Canceled 2007?) Open cycle gas generator. Ablatively Cooled. Key Evolutions: Improved Turbopump to Merlin 1C Spec. Retained Features: Everything but the Turbopump. Turbopump Exhaust Steering. Mass: Unknown. Ballpark 550 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 380kN/420kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 261s/303s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~.91 m Area Ratio: 14.5 SpaceX Merlin 1Ci (Flown 2008-2009) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Visible nozzle cooling hoops. Key Evolutions: Switch to regenerative cooling. Larger Nozzle. Retained Features: Turbopump, combustion chamber geometry. Mass: 630 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 350kN/395kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 265s/303s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~.96 m Area Ratio: 16 SpaceX Merlin 1C (Flown 2010-2012) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Visible nozzle cooling hoops. Key Evolutions: Thrust Structure Adaptations. Changed Turbopump exhaust to fixed system. Uprated for higher Thrust. Retained Features: Pretty Much Everything Else. Mass: 630 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 423kN/483kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 267s/305s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~.96 m Area Ratio: 16 SpaceX Merlin 1C-Vacuum (Flown 2010-2012) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled Combustion Chamber & Initial Nozzle. Radiatively Cooled Nozzle Extension. Key Evolutions: Steerable Turbopump exhaust. Vacuum Optimized Nozzle. Retained Features: Combustion Chamber Geometry, Turbopump. Mass: ~650 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/520kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/336s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~2.5 m Area Ratio: 117 SpaceX Merlin 1C+ (Canceled 2012?) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Channel-Wall nozzle cooling. Polished Nozzle. Key Evolutions: Turbopump Evolution. New Nozzle with Channel Wall Cooling (smooth) Retained Features: Turbopump Hardware, Combustion Chamber. Mass: Unknown. Ballpark 525 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 545kN/617kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 275s/311s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~1.08 m Area Ratio: 21.4 SpaceX Merlin 1D-Early(Flown 2013-2015) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Polished Nozzle. Key Evolutions: Brand new turbopump. New Mounting Structure. Retained Features: Combustion Chamber. Mass: 470 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 654kN/713kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 282s/311s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~1.08 m Area Ratio: 21.4 SpaceX Merlin 1D-Vacuum-Early(Flown 2013-2015) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Film Cooled Nozzle Extension. Key Evolutions: Film-Cooled Nozzle. Retained Features: Combustion Chamber. Mass: 490 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/805kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/345s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~2.5 m Area Ratio: 117 SpaceX Merlin 1D-Mid Life(Flown 2015-2018) [Black Paint for Test Article Only] Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Unpolished Nozzle. Key Evolutions: Sub-cooled Propellants ---> Higher Mass Flow. Retained Features: Almost Everything. Mass: 470 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 763kN/825kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 282s/311s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~1.08 m Area Ratio: 21.4 SpaceX Merlin 1D-Vacuum-Mid Life(Flown 2015-2018) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Film Cooled Nozzle Extension. Key Evolutions: Sub-cooled Propellants ---> Higher Mass Flow. Retained Features: Almost Everything. Mass: 490 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/805kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/347s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~3.08 m Area Ratio: 165 SpaceX Merlin 1D-CrewRated(Flying NET April 2018) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Unpolished Nozzle. Key Evolutions: Evolved Turbopump ---> Higher Mass Flow. Retained Features: Almost Everything. Mass: 470 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): 845kN/914kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): 282s/311s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~1.08 m Area Ratio: 21.4 SpaceX Merlin 1D-Vacuum-CrewRated(Flying NET April 2018) Open cycle gas generator. Regeneratively Cooled. Film Cooled Nozzle Extension. Key Evolutions: Evolved Turbopump ---> Higher Mass Flow. Retained Features: Almost Everything. Mass: 490 kg Thrust (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/934kN ISP (Sea Level/Vacuum): NA/348s Throat diameter: ~0.24 m Nozzle Diameter: ~3.08 m Area Ratio: 165 Of course, there's no expectation that you model all of these. However, this lineage does contain a huge variety of engine performances, and a couple representations out of the group could be really nice.
  15. The biggest things that feel missing from the mod are failure modes for 1) SRB's. 2) Antennas. and 3) Probe Cores. Redundant Avionics and Communications are a given on real spacecraft, becasue they break sometimes. The early game doesn't feel very balanced when liquid rockets break all the time with engine and tankage failures, while SRB's work every time. I think that SRB's should represent a more generally reliable option - they're much less complex, but they're also an option that holds potential for pretty much unrecoverable catastrophic failure. Down in the details, decoupler and fairing seperation failures make sense for eventual implementation. A possible failure mode for both liquid and solid engines is failure to ignite on startup, in both destructive and benign varieties. I know some things about how rockets break. I don't know how many things you know about how rockets break, but based on your progress here it would seem you also know a fair bit. I'm happy to share knowledge, have conversation in PM's, if you're interested. I hesitate to do so without you soliciting such: I've developed a game before, and there was a fine line between constructive feedback and people projecting their vision on me and expecting me to do the hard work implementing it. I want to stay respectful of your effort, ownership, and vision.