Search the Community

NOTICE: This thread is no longer countined. Please go to the link below. All submissions here will be transfered. How far can you go on monopropelent? Well lets see. To gain pionts you ahve to land on the planet or moon and return to kerbin. You may use propellers but no jet engines. You can only use electric and monopropellent (no ion engines). Maned 20p Robotic 10p Mun 2p Minmus 1p Duna 10p Eve 15 p Moho, Jool- 20p each Laythe-25p Tylo-30p Pol and Bob- 15p each Gilly and Ike- 15p each Eeloo- 35p Asteroid or Comet (Docked)- 40p Once your done please post a picture of you rocket or pictures of it landed. thanks and have fun! (No mods but yes to docs.) P equals point and post number of pionts

I came across an odd event last night and wanted to see if anyone else has seen it. I believe this was the first EVA since starting 1.11.2; I had a kerbanaut run out of monoprop only moments after starting EVA. I restored and tried again, and this time checked the monoprop level immediately after sending her out. The resource showed only 0.26 units, instead of the usual 5. Boarding and returning to EVA didn't change the amount of monoprop in the pack - I had to change out her EVA pack with another kerbanaut on board. I confirmed that there was plenty of monoprop available for the entire ship, including the Lander Can that she was exiting from, as well as electrical power. And as I recall, using the new pack, when I had her board (after jetting around a bit) and exit again, the monoprop resource showed it was full again (5.00 units). My impression was that EVA packs refill the moment the kerbanaut boards the vessel. Am I wrong? Or did this just change with 1.11.2 and I can't find it in the notes?

So I was in sandbox mode test out, how to setup Satellite array I noticed that my Rcs ports on my launch craft where pulling monopropellant from my Satellites tanks first and not the one nearest to them (they changed it to this in 0.23.5 and I did not notice) and yes I know you can disable the tanks so that fuel can not be pulled from them. I when't back to the VaB and did some testing using This and found out that 1. Monopropellant is pulled form the upper stages first 2. Even though you can do so, changing the fuel flow priority on monopropellant tanks, does not change any thing and 3. Monopropellant does not obey the crossfeed rules on decouplers. So I had some ideas for a mod that would change this and if knew how to do so I would make it myself, but I do not, so I throw myself upon the tender mercies that are the great mod makers in this community. (these ideas are listed in what I believe would be the most useful to the least useful) Idea 1. For stock decouplers create an option in the right click menu, i.e when you right click a decoupler there would be an option below crossfeed, that would say Monopropellant Crossfeed and when you clicked it, it would enable/disable monopropellant crossfed and would prevent any rcs ports below the decoupler from being able to pull fuel from the tanks above the decoupler, forcing the rcs port to pull fuel from the neatest tank it can. Idea 2. Make it so that the fuel flow priority system works for monopropellant tanks. i.e you could set, for example, a satellites monopropellant tanks to -1 and set the main crafts monopropellant tanks to 0 and it would pull fuel from the main crafts tanks first. Idea 3. Change how monopropellant works back to how it was pre 0.23.5, which in and of it self has some problems and can annoy you just as bad, why am i even listing this one, oh well. I am not sure how difficult this would be, but I do hop someone takes up the challenge, if anyone has any questions leave a comment. Thank you for reading this far , Kage Sendo.

The title says it all, I'm looking for 0.625 Radially Attached Tanks that work in 1.2.2. Hope the KSP Forums can help xD

I'm asking this in the right place, correct? In my course of conquering colonizing the solar system, I have discovered that my O-10 "Puff" monopropellant engines no longer function. Checking the VAB, it appears that they have no right-click menu, only displaying "No more info". My mods, in order, are here: -AB_Launchers -B9PartSwitch -BetterBurnTime -CommunityResourcePack -EngineLight -FAR -Firespitter (.DLL only) -HGA (Proton-M) -InterstellarFuelSwitch -JSI (RasterPropMonitor) -KerbalEngineer -KJR -KVV -MakeItSmall (probably going to remove) -ModularFlightIntegrator (came with FAR) -NavBallsToYou -NavyFish Docking Alignment Indicator -NearFutureConstruction -NearFutureSolar -PlanetShine -RCSSounds -RealChute -RealPlume (configs included) -REPOSoftTech (DeepFreeze) -scatterer -SmokeScreen -SpaceXLegs -SpaceY-Lifters -Squad -ThrottleControlledAvionics -Trajectories -ModuleManager I have already attempted to remove the Puff manually and reinstall it, as I have KSP via Steam. However, it does not work, so one of these mods must have damaged the game code, as removing any of them doesn't change anything. It should also be noted that the O-10 once worked fine with all of these installed, so I'm not sure what changed. Log file is here (should be the correct file): https://goo.gl/MD1ura EDIT: Wrong link! Should be fixed.

As you've probably heard by now, liquid fuels used in spacecraft fall into one of two categories 1) cryogenics - those relying on hydrogen or methane as the fuel, and oxygen as oxidizer. Best ISP but can only be used for launch due to boiloff. Mid course corrections, return journeys must be fuelled by 2) storable propellants - stuff that's liquid at about room temperature. Apart from the Kerosine/Hydrogen Peroxide combo used by the UK in the 1960s, this generally means really nasty stuff. Hydrazine, fuming nitric acid and derivatives - corrosive, carcinogenic, toxic - and don't forget to put "highly" in front of each of those adjectives. Technicians working with the stuff are more or less dressed in a full spacesuit down on earth, it's that bad. Along comes the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Propellant_Infusion_Mission which uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylammonium_nitrate instead of hydrazine. ISP is a percent or two higher, and it's significantly (40-50%) denser. It's also less volatile and far less toxic - either this woman is very brave or it really is ok to swill about in an open beaker Now, in KSP we have just 3 fuels Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer, and Monoprop. Given that there is no boiloff, and given that ISPs given seem a low compared with state of the art, and the high densities, i am guessing that LF/O are both meant to be storables. LF cannot be Kerosine, because it wouldn't work in a NERV long term (after a while, soot would clog the heat exchanger). Hydrazine or this new HAN fuel must be what we are dealing with. Then again, RAPIER engines require a cryogenic to work, so that's a bit of a mess. Anyway, second question. Anyone who knows a bit more about chemistry able to speculate if this new HAN can be used with an oxidizer rather than just as a monoprop for better ISP, and are there any oxidizer candidates with similarly friendly properties? Are there any house rules you can use to try make KSP more realistic with regards to real world fuels? 1. treat LF/O as hypergolics. That means no use of the RAPIER engine as a house rule. 2. treat LF/O as as cryo. That means, any LF/O used to power a rocket engine or RAPIER must not be stored in a wing/strake tank and any fuel in that tank must be jettisoned shortly after making orbit to simulate boiloff. LF stored in wings or used to power whiplash, panther or LV-N is assumed to be Hydrazine or HAN.

A cursory examination of rocket engineering rapidly identifies LH2/LOX rocket engines as the gold standard for efficiency. It's hard to beat 450+ seconds of vacuum specific impulse, even though hydrolox rockets don't always have the greatest T/W ratios and require very large fuel tanks which eat into mass fraction rapidly. I think I can beat that, though. Hydrogen peroxide is not a very good monopropellant. It has only 161 s of impulse. Hydrazine is a bit better, as far as monopropellants go; it boasts upwards of 220 s. And together, they're not much improved; a hydrazine/peroxide bipropellant rocket can't even break 300 s in a vacuum. Put them together in the right way, though, and I think I might be on to something. This is a fairly basic, no-nonsense linear aerospike engine. There's just a single difference: instead of using small bipropellant combustion chambers, it uses staggered monopropellant combustion chambers, alternating between hydrazine and high-test peroxide. The peroxide thrusters and hydrazine thrusters produce flows which, after beginning to expand against the aerospike, are already moving very fast. High-test peroxide's 161 seconds of specific impulse corresponds to an exhaust velocity of around 1.58 km/s while hydrazine's 220 seconds corresponds to an exhaust velocity of around 2.16 km/s. At a molar mass ratio of 3:2 (peroxide:hydrazine), the mutual flow is traveling down the aerospike at an average velocity of 1.83 km/s. But it doesn't stay that way. As the two compressed supersonic flows mix, they ignite with each other: Decomposed hydrazine contains 4 grams of diatomic hydrogen per mole; decomposed peroxide contains 16 grams of diatomic oxygen per mole. At the previously-mentioned 3:2 molar ratio, the oxygen and hydrogen will burn with a vacuum specific impulse of 430-450 seconds. Of course, the reactants compose only one third of the mass of the flow, so the net increase in propellant flow speed will be about 2.49 km/s. However, because that increase takes place in a flow which is already moving at 1.83 km/s, the speeds stack. This staged combustion results in a total exhaust velocity of 4.32 km/s, for a specific impulse of 441 seconds. Because monopropellant thrusters are being used, the thrust-to-weight ratio will be fantastic, a major advantage over other linear aerospike designs. Moreover, both fuels are dense and liquid at room temperature, allowing small tank volume and a smaller launch vehicle.