SQUAD

A "KSP Loading..." Preview: O-10 "Puff" MonoPropellant Fuel Engine Revamp

Recommended Posts

Well that's...a revamp, and will make faithful shuttle replicas look a little nicer (two of these gives about the right delta V and all, albeit a tad too little thrust). I guess the theme is the small, radial engines are getting revamped? I really hope we see something more to this update in terms of revamps or features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not the Puff! It already looks awesome!

This revamp is like the Small Nose Cone revamp.

Edited by Gapone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're complaining, Gapone, as like has been said already, the revamp has taken strong stylistic cues from the old one which is appreciated. 

Anyhow, it looks a damn sight better than the thing we got shown last week.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 1:13 PM, GrandProtectorDark said:

Interesting rework.
But to make Monoprop actually usefull, we would need a few more engines or even just an engine which ISP wasn't as bad as SRBs

Or remove magic torque machines from the game!

I've been playing Realism Overhaul for years now and haven't used reaction wheels in around a year. I've forgotten how. Please send help.

In a more serious suggestion, I'd maybe see about making the Puff very cheap (and possibly unlocked early) relative to the Ant, so if you have a small vehicle, the Puff may be your go-to, with the Ant as the expensive high-performance option.

On 2/5/2019 at 2:05 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

I question whether monoprop would actually get hot enough to cause the metal to glow red.

Other than that, I like the new model

To expand on answers to this: unlike most nozzles, hydrazine monopropellant is cool enough that you can conceivably skip any sort of active cooling and just have a bare metal nozzle. Without ablative or regenerative cooling, main engine nozzles should be an incandescent mess of rapidly melting metal, but hydrazine is relatively cool.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed an opportunity to replace the rounded butt the engine is attached to and have it interchangeable with a space shuttle OMS shoulder, or something more appealing than the current rounded shape.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

I've been playing Realism Overhaul for years now and haven't used reaction wheels in around a year. I've forgotten how. Please send help.

If not turning enough - add more. If turning too much - remove some. If running out of EC - add some RTG's and maybe a battery or two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole overhaul actually got me playing again after 2 years of absence... Looking forward to coming changes. You are doing an excellent job :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

Or remove magic torque machines from the game!

I approve this message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of OP torque either, and I never use it to stabilise craft. However, there is a place for it. For example, reaction wheels exist in real life, but their torque is much too low to be useful in a game. I don't want to have to add RCS to a satellite/telescope to change its orientation when a real one could do that with reaction wheels. 

As for this engine, I like it and I'd also love to see an in-line attachable one too, as others have said. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Deddly said:

I'm not a fan of OP torque either, and I never use it to stabilise craft. However, there is a place for it. For example, reaction wheels exist in real life, but their torque is much too low to be useful in a game. I don't want to have to add RCS to a satellite/telescope to change its orientation when a real one could do that with reaction wheels. 

As for this engine, I like it and I'd also love to see an in-line attachable one too, as others have said. 

To clarify: I'm not suggesting reaction wheels be removed, or even necessarily nerfed. I was attempting to humorously point out that there is another way to make monopropellant necessary.

After all, I did put reaction wheels on a whopping four probes for the 1977 Grand Tour alignment. What decadent luxury!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love some slightly bigger monoprop engines, 1.25m and 1.875m would be good, that way we can have more accurate space shuttle OMS and won't have to lug around those massive LfOx tanks or clip together loads of smaller engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now