Search the Community

After some study of the history of rockets (and playing some RP0), I noticed that the most common storable oxidizer in the late 1950s through the early to mid 1960s seemed to be nitric acid. However, by the late 1960s and beyond, nitric acid had been supplanted in most applications by N2O4. Why did this switch occur? Was it motivated by ISP, corrosiveness, handling characteristics, density, boiling/freezing point, or something else entirely?

Hi! Just when you need that extra oxidizer on your spaceplane..... Spacedock:https://spacedock.info/mod/1778/Mkerb Inc. Oxidizer Tank This mod can be localized if you are a volunteer :-) More stuff follows :-) Just want to put it out there... Update: Added Licence text.

After numerous complaints from construction workers at the Kerbal Space Centre, the Kerbal Construction Union has successfully campaigned for a total ban on Oxidiser created on Kerbin. Despite the R&D Department's best efforts to convince the strikers that their recent breathing difficulties were simply due to a bad case of "The Sniffles," the workers believe that the abundant use of oxidizer in ascent stages has caused a lower oxygen concentration in Kerbin's atmosphere. Without the ability to create oxidizer using Kerbin's oxygen, the KSP has turned to a new source: Laythe. Your challenge: Design a craft capable of landing on Laythe, mining, and returning to Kerbin without using Oxidizer. Any other engine or form of propulsion (excluding Kraken drives) are permitted. Due to Jeb's short attention span, the mission must be completed in one launch in ten years or less. This challenge must be accomplished in a stock game, though Making History and mods that do not affect gameplay (Scatterer, TextureReplacer) are permitted. Scoring: You will gain points for every ore tank you fill with ore mined from Laythe. These tanks must be empty on launch, filled on Laythe, and returned to Kerbin to be scored. +1 point for each radial tank. +4 points for each small tank. +20 points for each large tank. Bonuses +25 for not using NERVs. +25 for not using SRBs. +25 for not using parachutes. Weight Categories (on launch): Ultralight - 25 tons or less Lightweight - 50 tons or less Midweight - 100 tons or less Heavyweight - 200 tons or less Ultraheavy - 500 tons or less Behemoth - Over 500 tons

Got a math question for those more intelligent than me. I am trying to transfer fuel from my refueling station to another vessel. I don't want to "fill er' up", I just want to transfer enough to get to where I am going. I also don't want to over or under estimate the amount of oxidizer I need compared to the liquid fuel. Can someone give me the math, or direct me in the right direction, to figure up the liquid fuel to oxidizer mix ratio?

I'm building an aircraft in Mission Builder that will fly on Laythe. I'm using the Fat-455 large wings. They hold a lot of fuel, but only liquid. Is there anyway, therefore, to have other tanks be oxidizer only? I realize I can drain liquid fuel out of tanks to save weight, but that still leaves me with a lot of bulk. I'd like to get the most oxidizer in the least amount of space--approx 1200 units--to match what the wings will carry. Also, it needs to be stock, because I hope to share this mission and want to make it simple for others to use.

If one simple part could be added to stock KSP to dramatically improve gameplay, it would be stock balloon tanks. Characteristics: Spherical 10:1 propellant to structure ratio Two varieties (LO and LF); no bipropellant tanks Ideally procedural/scalable; if not, then four sizes (tiny, small, large, and extra large) Only a single attachment node Low impact tolerance (~3 m/s), low heat tolerance (~1000K) Same skin as the ROUND-8 for the LO variety; zero-saturation grey skin for the LF variety Stock currently lacks any options for LO-only tanks, even though it does have options for LF-only tanks. Adding an option to have a tank with only LO makes a lot of sense. Plus, for any stages designed to operate completely outside of the atmosphere, having balloon tanks with a better propellant fraction than the rest of the stock tanks would mean a wider range of lander designs and transfer stages. However, the low impact tolerance and large cross-sectional area of these tanks would necessitate their inclusion in a fairing for ascents from Kerbin. You could also build more real-life-analogue stages and landers, since numerous real-world vehicles use spherical tanks.

Hi all in this forum. I search in Internet how config oxidizer and liquidfuel in commonresources.cfg but i don't find.I have question:What is name in CommonResources.cfg this 2 resources.I just want they to become lighter. Thanks

I have been toying around with different long range rockets in the Interstellar mod, and i just cannot for the life of me find a comprehensive guide to the different types of fuels and how they interact with the engines. I have seen notated here and there in the forums that things like Hydrazine provide extra thrust? But i also see some places that Hydrogen is used often for first stages, and most engines have "higher base isp" for Hydrogen; yet, when i compare hydrogen to LiquidFuel for example, i come out with FAR less dv according to KER. Unfortunately, i cannot find a definitive explanation and comparison between the types of fuels, and the Interstellar wiki seems to come up short. I have schooling experience with liquid water reactors, and i enjoy learning about high tech systems and the physics behind how they function, but like i said earlier. Just having trouble finding some kind of write-up with the niche uses of each type of fuel. OBVIOUSLY they would have a use if they exist in the game...right?

Good evening to you all. Hopefully I have a simple question here. I have built an early tech plane, and, in order to make it long range I added a Terrier rocket engine to it so I could get it off the ground with all the extra fuel it's carrying for the Juno engines that are on it. I set the thrust limiter on the Terrier to 20, just enough to get the plane off the ground, and then I shut it down once I have enough speed to keep the plane in the air. My question is, does the oxidizer burn at the same rate no matter what you have the thrust set at? When I do activate the Terrier in flight it seems that the oxidizer is still burning at the same rate it would if the Terrier was at full power. If it does, is there any way to limit the oxidizer so I can maximize the effectiveness of the Terrier?

So , my most recent creation was based off @lodger 's Xkos. https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/ASES-SP2-Xkos-Dual-Nukes It weighs about 30 tons, and it's a 3 holer. My rule of thumb is that you want one Rapier or Whiplash for every 30 tons and 60kn Closed cycle power for every 15 tons mass (if nuclear) or every 10 tons mass (if chemical). So, it's got about the right amount of jet engine power by my book. In rocket mode, we have an embarrassment of riches. With 120kn nuke power in a 30 ton ship, that is sufficient by itself. But it also has a Rapier producing 180kn in closed cycle mode. On it's own , that would also be sufficient. With both, it's already in LKO before I manage to burn all the Ox off. If I continue to run the nukes till our LF is gone, our PE ends up halfway out to Dres. It's carrying 2 tons of Rapier, 6 tons of NERV, 11.4 tons of LF and 2 tons of Oxidizer. I'm wondering what's going to work best here - 1. Fly it with full tanks as i have done so far. 2. Leave the oxidizer tanks empty, because we're wasting LF burning it at 305ISP in a Rapier when we could be feeding it into a nuke for 800ISP 3. Use configurable containers mod to swap the adapters to hold all LF and no ox, and don't use the Rapier's closed cycle mode 4. Drop down to a single nuke, saving 3 tons, and bring enough oxidizer to get us through the roughest part of the ascent (1 ton may be enough?). Now, how do you fit one rapier and one nuke to a ship that size and not have horrendous off-axis thrust probs?

Sometimes, specially with the "Mainsail" engine, I run out of oxidizer when there is a lot of liquid fuel remaining, so it is a waste of resources and increases weight. I couldn't find an oxidizer-only tank. Is it planned in development or something?