Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SchroedingersHat

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. start of a config for realfuels: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Z4f0VPlFhzYU1ndVRITGgySG8/view?usp=sharing
  2. Looks consistent with everything else. I approve. Note that I may not be an entirely representative sample as I play stockalike configs/normal sized kerbin, and have slightly mixed feelings about the low densities and masses of everything in realfuels. Getting some rockets up seems a bit on the easy side, but I also like the consistent/coherent masses/densities of things so I don't want to change it -- maybe I'll just lower the Isp another smidge.
  3. They are much heavier than cryogenic or unpressurized tanks, but (once they get over a very small size) they seem to have mass ratios on the order of 8:1 or higher Another example from a satellite http://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files_legacy_files/NASA_White_Paper.pdf 1000lb of hydrazine and 100lb dry. Bearing in mind that these are modern-alloy, non-structural tanks, a mass ratio of 5-8 to 1 seems about right (like a stock LFO tank) -- even the stock mass ratio would make it a viable choice. As it is, there's this weird situation where servicemodule tanks are an excellent choice for a m
  4. Is it just me, or does the basemass for RCS tanks seem a little off? Example: A long RCS tank weighs 0.83t when full and 0.23 when empty for a ratio of around 3.6 (even worse than the stock ratios). This improves slightly with Hydrazine, but not by much. Real (modern) tanks range from about 4.5 for something tiny (http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/spacecraft-propulsion/propellant-tanks/39-litre-hydrazine-bladder-tank.html) to 9 for something about as big as the stratus V (http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/spacecraft-propulsion/propellant-tanks/177-litre-hydrazine-propellant-tank.html) Couldn't find a
  5. My point was that it seems like there should be some kind of limit to the receiver, perfectly understandable if this isn't in the mod (it's already so huge and complex) but still yields odd results when abused and this was enough to make me question whether it was intended or some bug/interaction between mods. A test using my setup with a single power plant to illustrate: I have a single 8GW power station, beaming to a 1.25m receiver. To confirm that it is indeed using most of the power: This nets 1800kN of thrust at a vacuum ISP of 519. p = mV or thrust = dm/dt * V where V is exhaust velocit
  6. I'm getting some odd behaviors or bugs (possibly interactions with realfuels, but I can't seem to find the relevant configs that cause these two mods to work together). Firstly, the vista always consumes 101.80 LiquidH2 per second no matter the throttle setting. I gather from the fluff that it is meant to consume constant power, D and T, but H2 should depend on throttle setting, the net result is it's merely an okay engine, a bit better than the chemical ones but that's about it. Secondly, thermal rocket + ground based nuclear plant + keosynchronous relay is giving me obscene thrusts for a the
  7. I think that, if anything, the monoprop or other hypergolic engines should have a higher TWR than ignited engines on account of simplicity -- although one has to account for the fact that most of the KSP engines have poorer TWR than real world ones. Matching them to the LV-48 seems about right though.
  8. One thought about an alternate/additional antimatter collection method: Make it manufactured rather than gathered and require gratuitous amounts of energy. This will make for some awesome low orbit solar collection arrays.
  9. It does help a lot for people trying to use multiple mods. Also I think I saw someone mention they'd done a modulemanager version of your configs over in the FAR thread at some point. I can't seem to find it at present, but if anyone else reading this knows of it, perhaps the person who did it would be amenable to you building on that to save some work.
  10. This mod keeps getting more and more awesome. Have you thought of adding doors to the fuselage? Or doing something like this for a reusable payload faring?It would probably have to eliminate the ability to surface attach things (unless you used or recreated mumechlib)
  11. I gather the intent is for H2/LOX to be more useful for upper stages. The reduced mass (and improved thrust and therefore fewer engines) of a H2 upper stage makes your first (liquid fuel) stage a lot lighter. I agree that the H2 tanks are somewhat absurdly heavy, but I also note that all KSP tanks and structural components are. I think my preference for how this is to be resolved would be for the non-cryogenic tanks to have a much higher boil off rate and be similar weight to the other tanks (for LOX) or even somewhat lighter (for H2). Also some kind of cube-squared benefit to larger tanks (yo
  12. Both of those are in mechjeb, and separately as kerbal engineer (which does a few other things, too) and I can't remember the name of the separate node editor. That said, more variety never hurts.
  13. Wow, looks fantastic. Re. poly count, 6600 sounds completely fine from my brief fiddling and looking at other models that work well. You'll want to keep the poly count on the colliders much lower, though (notice how the B9 stuff has straight lines and polygonal shapes where possible when there is an internal cargo bay). The RCS stuff requires setting up some empty transforms where you want the thrust, IIRC, but is quite doable. Re. Making it fly, I'd just make the model (I think the origin of your model will be at the CoM/CoL, again not sure) then use the masses as a degree of freedom to get i
  14. Things to try: Bring two things up and dock in orbit, or make things you can undock and rearrange in orbit, install novapunch for some massive tanks/engines and use procedural farings to make something even bigger than that (8m is doable). Put tail fins, or for larger rockets full sized wings, with control surfaces on the bottom end to stabilize. Install realfuels and use a H2+LOX first/second stage, then store the LOX at the top end of the stage to move your COM up -- If it looks like a dart, and balances like a dart, it'll fly like a dart. Quantum struts may be needed to stabilize it.
  15. What FAR is doing is inherently fairly performance intensive, and frankly I'm amazed at how little it impacts performance -- especially as it is a plugin written in a high level language. Once your craft are completely out of atmosphere it shouldn't be doing as many calculations and should not impact performance as much.
  • Create New...