InfinityArch

He might be talking about the Raipier engines.

@Fractal: Wait, do you seriously have some sort of on rails acceleration working? That solves basically every issue with implementing low thrust engines in KSP and for accelerations to high fractions of light speed for high fraction of light speed interstellar travel. Hell, even with pre-warp KSPI tech, you could get delta-v's on the order of about 10% of light speed with the fusion engine at low throttle and at a mass ratio of 10, which would entail a interstellar travel speed of 2.5% of c for a manned interstellar voyage or return probe, 5% of c for a probe intended to actually land somewhere, and 10% of c for a flyby. At kerbal scales (1/11 of real life), a flyby to a hypothetical Alpha Centurai analogue would take just over 3 Earth years discounting the acceleration period (which would probably be on the order of several months I grant you), a probe that needs to slow down would get there is about 6 years, and a manned mission would take 12 years each way, which is completely feasible for someone to wait through with 1,000,000x time acceleration. Really the limiting factor on interstellar travel in KSP has always been the insane acceleration periods required to reach suitable velocities, and from the sounds of things your well on the way to solving that. Great job man! Also, is there any chance this "on rails" acceleration could be used to simulate orbital perturbations and/or exoatmospheric drag? Maybe even an alternate means of simulating N-body interactions by guesstimating the perturbations that would occur from such interactions based on the orbit's characteristics compared to the universal time (which can be used to extrapolate the relative positions of any celestial bodies in the kerbin system), and applying them in the same manner. Granted I have no idea whether that's even possible to do given how many calculations this would add to mantaining "on rails" objects positions, or whether it would be accurate enough to provide a reasonable approximation of actual multi-body dynamics, but I would really like to think it would work, given that pretty much everything else Squad said was impossible to do for technical reasons (multiplayer is the big one) has been accomplished by mods. In fact, if this solution could be shown to work, I'd hope Squad would adopt it for the vanilla game and implement "true" n-body physics when the simulation is off rails, given that the "on rails" part was the limiting factor.

Damn that was fast. Works perfectly to as far as I can see, though I think it could be even better if the in flight buyoncy control used the tweakables sliders, or at least if there was some readout the displayed the amount of buyoncy a particular float was currently exerting.

Hey, is there any way to automatically change the buoyancy of the seaplane floats without having to click "increase buyoncy" 100 times for each float with relatively heavy seaplanes?

Hey, does this mod still cause odd behaviors in the landing gears from B9 aerospace?

Out of curiosity, would anyone happen to know if there's a fix for the landing gears in this pack being ridiculously prone to spazzing out with Ferram Joint Rigidizer installed?

Brachistochrone transfers to the moons of Kerbin and back.

I see, never mind then.

So I'm experiencing a rather unusual issue with my KSP right now: every so often (haven't been able to reproduce it reliably, it just happens on rare occasions), vessels will randomly duplicate when not focused on, leading to spontaneous explosions if you try to fly said vessel, and, given that I'm playing a heavily modded game, my first response has been to start removing mods one by one and seeing whether or not the issue persists. It's starting to look like either KSPI or remotetech is causing it. If it does get narrowed down to KSPI, how would you prefer I report this bug?

Yes, given that those radiators aren't upgraded, they can't radiate enough heat to cool the reactors.

Well, my experimental Eve hybrid thermal jet SSTO project is going reasonably well. I've been able to achieve LKO in it with ~1600 m/s of delta V to spare not counting RCS on the first test, and it seems as if the 12 radial graphene radiators are enough to keep two of the four reactors running in space.

@Shad0w: I suppose it helps, though for nuclear turbojets I imagine the issue would be loss of thrust at high air speeds rather than the engine overheating.

On a side note Fractal, is it realistic that you still need precoolers for intakes feeding thermal turbojets, especially ones using intertial fusion or gas core nuclear reactors to heat the atmospheric intake? That's so far been the biggest barrier to my attempt to make an Eve SSTO.

Quick question: Will a radial intake attached to a precooler benefit from said cooling unit?

So I'm trying to calculate whether it's possible to build a SSTO spaceplane on Eve using KSPI technology, any idea what top speed I could expect to get using thermal turbojet in atmospheric mode, and what TWR I'd need to get into orbit after switching said jets into LFO burning mode? I'm planning on using the unupgraded fusion reactors, given that even with a generator attached to give them power, they weight significantly less than fission reactors thanks to their fuel being the lightest element in the universe. I'm going to be using FAR by the way. I've already calculated that trying to get a TWR greater than 1 in LFO mode on Eve would give me slightly less than 1 ton per engine (including fuel!), so a TWR>1 design in rocket mode (which would, in an ideal ascent, be activated when the maximum thrust of the atmospheric mode rockets dropped below that of the LFO mode) is out of the question.

Okay, I've got a small issue: for some reason the remote_tech settings CFG doesn't appear to be generating, idk what's wrong, it's just not there. (I'm using the latest version btw)

@Camacha: Mid-air refueling. While it's hardly a trivial matter, the ability for both craft to maneuver does wonders.

For long term, fully self-sufficient habitation, Laythe is really the only option in the kerbol system; it has an atmosphere which contains oxygen, radiation will be a serious concern on any body besides kerbin, and it's already been calculated that, even if Laythe doesn't have a magnetic field of its own, the radiation dosage at sea level would only result in a minor increase in cancer risk in humans. Even if the water has ammonia in it (which, given that the temperature system is far from complete, is not necessarily true), it still has easily renewable water.

Absolutely nothing, and honestly, any "contact" with interstellar civilizations would probably consist of them picking up radio waves from a nearby star system, and sending a relativistic kill vehicle our way to wipe us out. Or the hypothetical "deadly probes" offered as a solution to the Fermi Paradox finding us and doing the same thing. As much as I'd like to buy into the line of thought that any civilization capable of interstellar travel would be above violence, the only real requirement is that one civilization out-competes all the others, and evolution naturally favors the most ruthless *******s out there, so I feel like we'd probably be killed off just because, some point in a million years, we could be potentially threatening to said civilization. Or because they created deadly probes to kill all other life in the universe.

How about antimatter engines? They wouldn't be able to harvest fuel in situ, but they'd be about as efficient given that antimatter annihilation is just about the most efficient way of converting matter to energy we know of, and can be shut off and, if you don't mind frying the atmosphere with gamma rays, theoretically use it in an atmosphere.

@Fractal_UK: Will we also be able to mine Helium-3 from certain areas on the Mun and possibly other similar bodies?

Ah, thanks.

Ah, thanks. That said, I'm not sure where, if anywhere I can find the value for what Sentar are normally; I'd rather not put it on some lolrandom orbit.

@Wheffle: Nobody is suggesting that it would be easy to modify something like a Saturn V first stage tank to carry only fuel or oxidizer, but it would be doable, and to be completely honest, I don't particularly like the whole "put together from scraps" notion that many people seem to emphasize about KSP. Furthermore, any complaints about "oh it would be difficult to code" are more or less invalidated by the fact that a mod has done this since before 0.23 was in development, and quite possibly since before SQUAD even started working on it. Now, while it's conceivable that doing it the way modular fuel system does it might be an issue on the dev's end for reasons to do with the game's architecture that wouldn't apply to a modder, but unless a mod or developer wants to confirm that's the case, I would assume there's no technical barrier to tweakables working like this, meaning SQUAD chose not to implement the ability to remove a tanks ability to carry liquid fuel or oxidizer to make more space for the other. Hopefully they're just not interested in diving into procedural modifications to parts just yet, and we might see something like this show up in an update with procedural fairings, heat shields, and so on.

Hey Krag, do you think it might be possible to add an option to reduce the inclinations of the new planets' orbits and moons to something more realistic? At least for Sentar and its moons, which are the most problematic in that regard. To be honest, I'd prefer a full fledged "true to game" setting that would, in addition to bringing down the inclinations of Sentar and its moon to something reasonably close to what we see in the real solar system/ksp solar system, would also lower the masses of the body which have densities inconsistent with the rest of the KSP universe. Or I suppose for real solar system maybe.