Exosphere

I'm new to RO (I took a break from playing KSP prior to it being released and I'm just starting again now), so I was wondering -- which parts packs will be supported by the mod? I've got FASA, LazTek (the SpaceX parts mod), KW Rocketry, and AIES. Are any of those mods supported? And I've been trying to get by with non-RO parts as well -- I just tried to do a lunar landing mission (with RSS) using nothing but stock engines. My rocket ended up looking just like the N1.

Not to sound impatient or anything (I'm just curious), but is there an ETA for a 0.25 compatibility update (even a kinda-sorta vague one)? Again, I'm not demanding you guys release anything soon, and if it's going to take a while/you're not really sure when it'll be done/you've got a lot of other work to do, that's totally fine -- but I was curious to know if anyone knows when it'll be up. This is a really awesome mod, BTW -- along with RSS and the other realism mods (DRE, TACLS, etc), it's made KSP more challenging and immersive. I tried playing the game stock today and the experience seemed... strange. The game just doesn't have the same feel without the mods.

Yeah, I ran a few calculations on the thrust of a theoretical GALCIT end burner, and came to that conclusion. Even assuming a propellant density unrealistically close to theoretical, an unrealistically high Ve, and a burn rate much higher than I'd be likely to achieve (even after doping the propellant with Al/Fe2O3/other burn rate enhancers), the thrust produced by such a motor would not be great enough to propel a rocket larger than about two or three inches in diameter without resorting to a very short motor, which would significantly reduce the propellant fraction of the rocket. The problem is that even with no burn rate enhancers, GALCIT burns at about one inch per second. In a cored design, this would tend to give a very short burn time (relative to an r-candy rocket). This would indicate a very high TWR, which would cause pretty significant drag losses. Because of this issue, I figured it would be better to either stick with r-candy or APCP. Since the former is less expensive than the latter, I think I'll just stick to r-candy.

I've managed to find a place to conduct static tests, and I've tested a few r-candy motors I've made. I've decided to try out a GALCIT end-burner, but I've come up against a minor problem -- the acquisition of bitumen. I've found plenty of places to buy asphalt cement, but that's mixed with chunks of cement, so unless I can extract the bitumen, it's of limited utility. A friend of mine had a bucket of partially used asphalt cement he was willing to give to me, and I've tried extracting the bitumen by boiling it in water with hydrogen peroxide as a solvent (a technique that's kinda-sorta similar to a method of extracting bitumen from tar sands, which is why I decided to use it), and I've managed to get a small amount from that, but the procedure is rather long and inefficient and it would be easier to just buy pure bitumen. Does anyone know where I could get some? Also, does anyone have any experience with asphalt/KClO4 rocket motors? I'm thinking about using them because the high regression rate might allow me to make an end-burner and because it's got a specific impulse higher than r-candy propellants, but any other information regarding that type of propellant would be greatly appreciated.

After conducting a few tests with motors using an r-candy propellant, I was thinking about making a batch of asphalt-based propellant (i.e. GALCIT) to test its properties, as it provides an alternative to r-candy that is more dense, has a higher specific impulse, and has a much faster burn rate (potentially making moderately sized end-burner rockets possible). Does anyone here have any experience/advise on the use of this fuel for amateur rockets? Also, where would be a good place to acquire asphalt for a reasonable price?

I would if I could -- I'm currently in an apartment, and everyone I know in the area either lives in an apartment or a dorm (I just recently moved in from out of state, so I don't know that many people yet). The closest thing I have to a "backyard" is a parking garage under the apartment building, and I get the impression that my neighbors would be a bit unhappy if I tested my motors there. Thanks for the advice about trying landfills though -- I guess I'll try that option out.

Out of curiosity, how difficult was it to get permission? There are a few landfills and similar locations I could get to, but I'm not entirely sure how they'd react to getting a random phone call from someone that wanted to fire home-made rocket motors on their property.

I know this might not be completely on topic, but I'd rather not start an entirely new thread for this. I've recently gotten back into model rocketry, and have decided to start doing some basic amateur/EX rocketry stuff. Luckily, I found a pretty good site that gives instructions for how to construct a relatively small PVC rocket motor: http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/pvcmot4.html I've also found some basic information about the construction of a static test stand, and have already hooked up a load cell to provide me with a thrust curve. So far, I have but one major problem: Where should I test the motor? I live in the Bay Area, so I'm not exactly in a remote area, and neither my friends nor I own any kind of rural property. This would seem to limit my options with regards to doing static tests, never mind actual launches (I haven't even really thought about how I could get the required permits to launch rockets, as it would seem like it would be very difficult to do so in my area). I know lots of people launch/test model rockets in parks and the like, but I'm not entirely sure I could do the same with an "experimental" rocket. Furthermore, I've heard that a lot of parks require permits to launch even model rockets. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable conducting tests in areas where there are likely to be other people, due to the risk that would be posed if the rocket CATOs (I'm planning to install a relatively sturdy barrier around the test stand to catch any shrapnel if the casing ruptures, but I still don't want to take any chances). Does anyone have any advice on how I could go about finding a place to conduct static tests?

I've read that the failure rate for rocket launches is in the low single-digits percentage -- a very high rate compared to other "transportation" systems (i.e. commercial aircraft). Early rockets in particular had a high failure rate: While watching that video, I was reminded of a statistic I had heard in a Project Mercury documentary stating that, at the time of John Glen's orbital flight, the Mercury-Atlas booster had a failure rate of 50% -- something like two out of four launches had failed catastrophically. What kinds of failures occur that cause that high of a failure rate? I know hard starts and combustion instability are two major problems, but what are the other most common rocket failure modes, and what kinds of steps do today's rocket designers use to prevent them from occurring? In particular, what causes rockets to have a drastically higher failure rate than, say commercial aircraft? I'm assuming it's the high energy requirement for achieving orbit vs just flying and the fact that most rockets have a production rate similar to test aircraft, but I'm not sure. Is there any way to further reduce the failure rate of orbital rockets to bring it closer to that of most standard aircraft?

Well, after digging through the previous pages in the thread, I found out that the experimental mod is only stable if any other version of OpenResourceSystem is uninstalled. Since I also have the Modular Kolonization System mod installed, I had those files merged with the Interstellar files in the ORS. After replacing my Franken-ORS with an Interstellar-only ORS, the mod does run stably, as far as I can tell, even in the 64-bit game. So, basically, just ignore my last post -- I neglected to read through the installation instructions before commenting On a side note -- I guess that means the MKS mod and the experimental Interstellar mod are incompatible as of now? I'd rather play with both of them, but I guess if I don't have a choice, I'd rather use Interstellar.

When using the experimental update, my game keeps crashing. There doesn't seem to be any similar event that prompts the crashes -- I've had them happen about a dozen times now while doing everything from clicking a tech node in the R&D building, to building a rocket in the VAB, to setting up a maneuver node in orbit, etc. I'll update this post with a crash file the next time it happens. Again, there doesn't seem to be any single thing (i.e. part, action taken, etc) in common between the crashes. I'm using the 64-bit version -- any idea if using the 32-bit game would fix this problem? Is the experimental update more stable with the 32-bit version? Also, all of the other mods I'm using have been officially updated to .24.2, and my game runs perfectly fine without the experimental update installed -- I don't get any crashes (at least not any more often than I normally do). EDIT: And right on cue, my game just crashed about a minute later. I was putting together a rocket in the VAB this time around, although I must stress again that I haven't been able to find any commonality between crashes, so that may or may not be a determining factor. Here's the crash file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7qbiTeKMai6ZmtmX0czZm9aQkU/edit?usp=sharing As an aside, is anyone else experiencing really frequent crashes with the experimental update downloaded (as in once per ten minutes or so)? I understand that all games crash, especially games that are under development that are running mods, but my game seems to be crashing way more often than normal, even with a load of mods installed. I guess it's some sort of bug in the Interstellar mod. EDIT #2: And here's the error log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7qbiTeKMai6RDZOVmpjdnd1eVE/edit?usp=sharing And the output log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7qbiTeKMai6QXpweXc5d2tjRGM/edit?usp=sharing While looking at the error log, it appears that the problem was a memory access violation. Also, I've tried Interstellar in the 32-bit game as well, and it's just as buggy. I managed to crash the game twice before finally being able to put together and launch a rocket, and the game crashed a third time when I attempted to recover the rocket after launching it. Either I'm doing something wrong and experiencing way more crashes than the other people posting here, or the experimental update is pretty darn buggy.

Well, if that's your definition, I know of a company that's building one hell of a model rocket... That one'll get fifty-three metric tons to orbit. Seriously, though, I'd agree with lajoswinkler that a "model rocket" is a tiny cardboard thing that you buy from a hobby shop. One of those simply can't get to orbit, simply due to the low fuel fraction, abysmal specific impulse, and massive drag losses associated with launching a tiny object with a thrust to weight ratio of 10:1+ (drag losses are reduced by increasing launch vehicle size and launch TWR). An amateur rocket, on the other hand, is a different story -- "amateur" is usually defined to mean "built by someone not associated with a professional company or space agency." A group of amateurs already did launch a rocket into space -- the CSXT team launched their "GoFast rocket" to above 100 kilometers, which is the usual definition for the beginning of "space." They didn't get to orbit, but they did get into space.

So, you're saying we should not focus on space exploration until the cost of getting to LEO is $10/kg... which is apparently going to happen in a "century or two," even if we don't focus on space exploration during the interim? Wait, wot?

Is there any information about how well that kind of pump scales to engine size? That's about a ten kN motor, which is both very small for commercial orbital (or even suborbital) uses, but extremely large for amateur biprop applications. Would that kind of design be feasibly scalable to a larger or smaller rocket?

Well, like I said, I'm not even remotely an expert on the subject, but I think that's what I've heard about how SRBs work. I may be totally wrong, though, so don't take my word for it.