gm537

To add to the whole NTR or not to NTR discussion: I think the issue here is that in Real Fuels w/o Realistic masses H2 is too light (and tanks are too heavy) to get mass ratios like those mentioned by SRFirefox. If I fill a standard tank with 100% H2 the mass ratio of just the tank turns out to be around 1.75 which gives dV = 4,390 at 800 ISP. For a tank filled with MMH/N2O4 you get a mass ratio of 11.1 which gives dV = 8,030 at 340 ISP. So yeah I think that in just Real Fuels w/o Real Mass it is best to just avoid the NTRs. (Note my version is 3.1 or 3.2 so slightly old and I apologize if this has somehow been changed) I don't know how this changes with Real Masses but I suspect it brings it more in favor of the NTRs. Hope this helps all!

Yeah I think I found some missing entry options as well. I think Kerbin has landed for each of it's biome's. I am adding some Seismic data (which you can only log while landed) and noticed that while you have "FlyingLowMountains" you don't have the landed option. Also I don't think all the kinds of entries need to be equal. I mean that I know of there are only 5 planets on which Barometer and Atmosphere scans can be done. So of course there will be fewer of those. Just my two cents. As a whole love the project. I kinda wish the graph was growing faster though. Oh also I was wondering if there was a way to know if my contributions were getting approved? I want to write a lot of logs but don't want to waste time if I'm running a low approval rating. And yes I have read the rules and am doing my best to follow them but some are a bit subjective.

Interesting design... As a point of reference the 4-way structural piece is also kinda heavy so that adds even more unnecessary mass which reduces dV. Which I suspect the docking ports do as well. A better design would be to do this: As opposed to: I know it only says you gain 29 m/s but the first design allows easy drop of two of the engines while maintaining symmetry. You could even adopt a 5 engine design which would allow 5,3 or 1 engine operation. Basically to address the original question the less non-fuel mass you have the better your dV; and engines are lots of non-fuel mass. Here is that design with just one engine: As a note if I simply add the 4way structural piece and keep one engine dV goes down by 75m/s.

Yep pretty much what my thoughts were... But what I've read on Scramjets says they can do more like 4,000 or 5,000 m/s: Mach 12-15 (kinda a theoretical value but conservative). Which is still not 7.66 km/s so either way the idea is the same.

So this a fairly complicated issue (as are most things related to Rocket Science). So if you want a mod to go full realism check out Nathan Kell's re-scaled solar system and his Modular Fuel System in Realistic Mass mode. Basically on earth getting into orbit requires traveling at over 7 km/s rather than 2.3 km/s. So even if we take the stock KSP turbojets and put them on Earth they only get us to about 1/3 of orbital velocity. (They will stop producing power at 2400 m/s regardless of number of intakes) From that 1/3 you would still need quite a bit of rocket to get you to orbit. Additionally the KSP turbojets are wrong. Real world turbojets pretty much stop working around Mach 2.5 or 3 aka about 900m/s. However in the real world there are things called Ramjets which have some similarities to turbojets but also some pretty big differences that allow them to work up to Mach 6 or 7 (2300 m/s) but true ramjets basically don't work below Mach 1. The SR-71 Blackbird for example used a special engine that operated like a turbo jet at low speeds but became more like a ramjet at high speeds to allow it to go above Mach 3. Also in reality there are things called SCRAM jets which are even more extreme. They can operate up to speeds of over 5000 m/s but don't really work until you get them up to 1200 m/s. I'm guessing you've realized by now that in real life you can not build an SSTO turbojet engine. Even if you could build a ramjet that got you to 2,000 m/s you would still need over 5,000 m/s of dV which would be a LOT more than simply circularizing. Regardless lots of people have asked these kinds of questions and considered designs to do something along those lines, mostly because air-breathing engines are much more efficient than rocket engines, but to date no truly effective design has been made. As a final point the B9 Saber's are indeed more realistic than the stock turbos. So if you want to get a decent idea of what it takes to make an SSTO stick to those not the turbojets. Obviously Squad has done many things for the sake of play-ability not realism but there are a lot of modders out there who are doing things to allow a more realistic experience if you want it. (Disclaimer: I am not a rocket know it all so for sure some of my numbers/ data is probably a bit off but I am just trying to convey the main idea. Also I wrote this before the two guys above me posted so sorry for some repeat info...)

Yeah I've recently been doing this sort of a thing as well but I've been trying to go to the Mun with a probe. It's not easy that's for sure... I've also modified my modular fuels a bunch though so it's probably not something I can post here... The launchers look beautiful regardless!

Well looks like I have chosen the "unnesseccarily hard" method. Using the external seats saves a bunch of weight and makes the whole ship a lot smaller but no... I decided to try and land a Mk2 Landercan on every moon. Well I guess I shall see if it's doable! I have almost finished construction of my craft just need the engines and probably some more fuel. Does any one know how much dV is needed to navigate the whole system? (Including the transfers to and from Kerbin) My current craft: Another album showing some of the intermediate steps and a bunch of failed launches trying to get that fuel pack into orbit. http://imgur.com/a/QIgPw#0 Everyone's designs are looking pretty awesome!

Yeah I think I found some missing entry options as well. I think Kerbin has landed for each of it's biome's. I am adding some Seismic data (which you can only log while landed) and noticed that while you have "FlyingLowMountains" you don't have the landed option.

Well unfortunately I had my first victim. During the testing of a possible single stage to orbit crew transport plane I messed up a landing and Bob died... But his sacrifice shall not be in vain! The mission shall continue! We will save our space program!

The 4 materials labs are meant for collecting data from orbits around the Joolian system. I am trying to have 3 of each for each moon that way I can do one high, one low, and one landed. Including Jool this means I need 17 labs, 17 goo cans, and 17 Gavioli detectors in all. (I might also be able to get data from Jool's upper atmosphere during aero-braking.) As of for image posting in order to post you always need to upload the images to a file sharing site. I use imgur (as do many others) you can then post them right in the post or make a link to an album. The thing I don't know how to do is post an album in thread so that you can just scroll through them. I've also technically lost my 100% survive rate but it was on a weird glitch where my lander legs got stuck in the ground... So I'm not really counting it since it wasn't cause by poor flying or a bad design but rather some game artifact.

Piece two has been added. It will be my Tylo lander. For the sake of balance and mission differences I decided to make two major landers. One for Tylo and one for Laythe, the core of either should be able to manage the other 3 moons. http://imgur.com/a/u9DtR Again some testing difficulties and the landing was on the side of a mountain but no deaths yet!

To help keep myself sane I will post the challenge in pieces. The first one is complete! I have launched my primary core section. The first try was unsuccessful but thankfully Jeb survived! And was successful on the second attempt. http://imgur.com/a/uH0Hp#0 On to part 2!

I'm also going to try for a 100% survival rate with no reverts/quickloads... Not sure if it will work out but that's what I'm going for. (I suspect that Tylo and Laythe will each force at least one revert...)

I think I will be giving this one a go! It seems like a very challenging challenge, but also very fulfilling if you can pull it off! The idea of interchangeable science modules is very good! I didn't even think of that, but I think I will go for it!

I took a slightly different approach to this idea and tried just orbiting at lower than orbital altitude. At around 60km your orbital period is just under 30 min. Orbit Time: 29:56 The first and last image show me at nearly the same angle to prograde (which I believe is a good way to define an "orbit") the middle image is there to show that I'm not doing anything too crazy. Basically this method requires small inputs of thrust through out the orbit in order to maintain orbital velocities since there is still a small amount of air resistance.

Okay thanks! That's pretty much what I figured.

The rules pretty clearly state "using nothing other then mono propellant tanks and RCS thrusters" so if you could I'd be impressed... Regardless you are correct that the rules could use a little clarification as it seems decouples and some structural parts are reasonable. But it is true that this is likely to devolve into a "most parts" kinda thing. Maybe an added rule could be a part limit of say 500? or 1000? Something that most computers could at least survive.

Good that's how I was designing! You may want to post your attempt to give everyone a comparison.

You may want to note that the in-flight shot shows resource tab with nothing but Monoprop. Also does the Kerbal need to survive this journey?

Yeah that about summarizes it! Your's is good for sure and by no means do I think the looks were not amazing but as I mentioned once before in this competition it's not about being able to design an 8 or 9 you need a 10 to win and the Ensoku is just the complete package. Attractive looks, long range, and some of the best control I've EVER seen in a KSP craft. And hey for next time you know to get in a bit more testing time!

Okay guys I am back with another fun question which is I am trying to make a configurable jet engine from the standard jet engine in KSP. I've got it mostly figured out but the atmosphere curve isn't working quite right. Basically I have it holding a fairly high Isp through 0.2atm but in game it is just a 'linear' drop from sea level to vacuum. I suspect it's related to trying to use tech levels which specify SL and Vac isp multiplier. At the top of the new engine config I do: @atmosphereCurve { @key,0 = 0 1250 @key,1 = 0.2 2050 @key,2 = 1 2400 } And then in the specific config for LiquidFuel I do: atmosphereCurve { key = 0 1250 key = 0.2 2050 key = 1 2400 } velocityCurve { key = 900 0 0 0 key = 750 0.8 0 0 key = 0 1 0 0 } IspSL = 1.2 IspV = 1.25 And finally I have modified Real settings to include: ENGINETYPE { name = J TLISP0 { key = 0 1000 key = 0.2 1500 key = 1 2000 } TLTWR0 = 35 TLISP1 { key = 0 1000 key = 0.2 1500 key = 1 2000 } TLTWR1 = 43 TLISP2 { key = 0 1020 key = 0.2 1530 key = 1 2040 } TLTWR2 = 54 TLISP3 { key = 0 1040 key = 0.2 1561 key = 1 2081 } TLTWR3 = 63 TLISP4 { key = 0 1061 key = 0.2 1592 key = 1 2122 } TLTWR4 = 69 TLISP5 { key = 0 1082 key = 0.2 1624 key = 1 2165 } TLTWR5 = 73 TLISP6 { key = 0 1104 key = 0.2 1656 key = 1 2208 } TLTWR6 = 76 TLISP7 { key = 0 1126 key = 0.2 1689 key = 1 2252 } TLTWR7 = 79 } The problem is that the 'middle' key doesn't seem to be doing anything. So I am wondering what you guys thoughts are or if you've seen / tried to do this before? I've also double checked my braces this time. Also do you know if it's accurate for a Jet engine's thrust to scale off Isp? And would there be a way to make SL Isp be used as the base for thrust rather than Vac's?

So if you just want to make monoprop like a standard fuel you should be able to go into the RealFuels/Resources folder and open the ResourcesFuel.cfg and in the monoprop definition section add the line: "@flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH" that will cause the monoprop to act like a normal fuel. The problem may be that I don't know how that will affect actual RCS use, see currently RCS isn't "crossfeeding" it is being drawn equally from all tanks in the craft regardless of location or even if crossfeed is possible. Alternatively you can add this to a new cfg document (or at the end of the existing aforementioned resources one): RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = UDMH density = 0.004 flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH transfer = PUMP } That will create a new resource called UDMH which you can then burn in standard rockets to your heart's content without changing how Monoprop works. That's probably what I would do.

Haha yeah Binary search is a good idea! Haha I've programmed it before but didn't think to apply it 'by hand'! And spelling ftw! 'IspSP' doh! Thanks bunches for all the help! I will now leave you in peace to continue your awesome modding while I go back to adding ridiculous fuel configurations that only Kerbals would use! (Basically everything with Fluorine has awesome performance!)

Yep that worked! Thanks guys! Good catch on the '{'. I am still noticing that when I change the tech level on my LV-909 the Isp does not change for the custom fuel configuration, but does change with MMH+N2O4 and the LiquidH2+LiquidOxygen. Any thoughts? Also what text editor are you guys using? (aka how did you catch the brace imbalance?)

Or maybe the breaks matter a lot... Hehe Yeah I guess just making a new file would be better rather than editing existing. Hmm it doesn't seem to be the engines.cfg that's causing the problem though let me try the linebreaks to see if it changes.