juanml82

Is there a way to add them to planet packs without modifying Squad's file? I'm assuming it would be through an MM patch, but does anyone know how? It looks like GPP won't be updated with them and I'd rather make a quick and dirty patch for myself than starting over a new career

This is an issue with Interstellar fuel switch, it has been reported in that thread

I'm having the same issue

I'd actually like this sort of intermediate option between RF / KSPI-E in one corner and Stock / one resource to rule them all. So I'd have a nuclear thermal (or chemical) engine with different options of propellants but not so many that it becomes so much of an issue. So I build a kind of generic big lander which I can still put in orbit because the mass fraction is larger than real life, and I may still have to choose a propellant based on performance, boil-off, density and available resources at the destination. So maybe the same basic lander will end up with different performance in different bodies due different fuels. But instead of a dozen different options, as in RF or KSPI-E, it's just narrowed to: LFO: standard, high trust, relative low isp, high density, no boil-off, maybe with a realistic name (aerozine 50?) instead of generic. If I got this right, a bit complex to manufacture in situ. LH2: lower thrust, high isp, low density (so huge tanks), boil-off. Needs water or actual hydrogen to manufacture, so having water at the destination matters. Methane: in between LFO and LH2 (right?), no boil off, bigger but no huge tanks. Available or manufacturable in certain destinations. Ammonia and CO2: different stats than LH2, easy to manufacture or just obtain in specific destinations. Would a CO2 liquefying kit be simpler and lighter than the whole LFO stuff, if someone was to make parts for that? So a Duna/Mars/somewhere-else biome hopper would be lighter if it uses CO2 than an LFO biome hopper? Monoprop: maybe rename to hydrazine and just have one monoprop to rule them all for simplicity. There is still variety and gameplay decisions to make, but it doesn't include cycling through dozens of similar fuels and wondering "what's the difference between RP1, MMH or UDHM and why should I care". But I don't know how mod authors would feel about other mods changing their fuel setups and, if I wanted to make a patch for my personal use, I'm not sure how to make it anyway

Wouldn't engine configs to be able to switch hidrolox engines to methalox made sense, specially before/if someone makes dedicated methalox parts? I don't know what mod authors would think though. Besides ISRU methane may (or may not?) fill a niche between the density of LOX and having a cryogenic fuel that isn't as bulky as LH2. Or maybe it doesn't have much of a performance difference with LOX and it's useful just for a more realistic ISRU? I really don't know. Nertea was against using methalox in his mods.

Well, the quick answer is to use SSRSS , which shrinks the solar system to kerbal proportions, but I'd also be interested in some sort of RSS Easy Mode

I have the same issue after downloading manually and deleting the old folder before unzipping the update

It looks like I had an older version still installed

Question/suggestion/feature request: could the cores contain monoprop instead of LFO if they aren't set for crew passage? With a few mods, I may not necessarily be using LFO to propel the ship, but it may still be nice to have a bit more of monoprop in a convenient storage for RCS in that case

I was trying to pick up NFP engines for nuclear electric ships yesterday and I've finally decided to make a comparison spreadsheet: basically, how much punch you can get for every given nuclear reactor. So instead of trying different combinations in the VAB and picking up the electric engines from a list in the VAB also filtered to include the cryogenic or monoprop ones (filter extensions/NFT category), I can just go straight to the engines I want. This spreadsheet has the max amount of engines you can fully power with each reactor, how much vacuum thrust you get with those engines and the reactor+radiators+engines total TWR (specially useful for nuclear-electric landers, and pretty much the reason I made the spreadsheet), plus of course the ISP. A few caveats: I'm comparing the engines assembled with each reactor, but only if the particular reactor can power the engine at full throttle. In other words, this comparison is for nuclear electric ships where you just toggle the reactor & radiators on, point towards the maneuver node and press Z. No solar panels for additional power, no capacitors, no trickle charging batteries. For instance, the GW3 Triplet (100 EC/s) could be paired with the Kerbopower reactor (60 EC/s) and either run at 60% throttle or capacitors could be added to provide the 40 remaining EC/s for shorter burns. That's not included, the GW3 doesn't show up in the Kerbopower comparison at all (on second thoughts, I should have included either partial throttle or a TWR calculation with the mass of enough capacitors for a 10 seconds burn). I've also added the stock Dawn and the MK2 Expansion ion engine to the spreadsheet I've included the nuclear reactors from KPBS and MK2 expansion, but not the ones from MKS, as I don't currently have it installed. If someone wants to add them, it's just a matter of copying the existing template and replacing the weight and EC production with those of the MKS reactors (plus whatever radiators are needed to cool them) For the Kerbopower, Garnet and the KBPS and MK2-E reactors, I've picked the stock radiators to cool them. The KBPS and maybe the MK2-E reactor should probably get better TWR numbers with the Heat Control mod radiators, as they do heat a lot (specially the KBPS radiator). For the heavier NFE reactors, I've used non-graphite radiators from Heat Control, since they produce a lot of heat. I've picked the non-graphite because they are earlier in the tech tree, so the TWR numbers would work best for people still unlocking the tech tree. The Inductor, Scintillator and Repulsor all have variable isp: by giving them extra power, their isp can be increased. I've only included the base values in this spreadsheet But for the Vasimir engines I included three values: one at 0% efficiency (more thrust, less isp), one at 50% and another at 100% (less thrust, more isp), and calculated all three values for both argon and xenon modes. I've added two variants of FL-T100 + fuel cell array combos: one with one fuel cell, the other with four fuel cell. They don't really hold their own against nuclear reactors (and they shouldn't) I guess that with the mass, TWR and the isp values someone could add them to any of the optimal rocket calculations, but I don't know which are the equations used for that, so that's not included Finally, here's the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AFlhwNe4LCb53UXWUNCosT0biLrFmLQm-J5pAa07jhE/edit?usp=sharing

I'm playing with comm net disabled, but the best way to do relays (if ground antennas are on) isn't to put three relays in equatorial orbit. It's to put two relays in very elliptical polar orbits, one going north, the other going south. That way, there is almost always a relay within line of sight, and both relays will have line of sight to the ground stations. So, you make a probe carrying two relays. In your example, you send it to Duna. You put the probe in a low circular polar orbit and detach both relays. Once a relay is at the North pole, you burn prograde to raise your Ap to the border of the planet's SOI. Then you set an alarm (use Kerbal Alarm Clock) to the time of that relay's Ap. Your second relay remains in a circular orbit. Near the time your first relay will reach Apoiapsis, you set up a burn for the second relay at the South pole, also raising the Ap as high as you can and execute. That way, both relays will zoom over the planet very quickly, so they'll be occluded by the planet for a very short while, and most of the time both will be in line of sight of the entire Kerbol system.

My issue with ion engines is that there isn't much solar power beyond Dres to power them continuously and, if you're going outwards from Kerbin, you'll have to burn from Kerbin's shadow anyway. That leaves Moho, Eve/Gilly and the Kerbin system to play around with solar powered continuously firing ions. But there is a lot of fun in figuring out ways to power them without using Gigantors receiving sunlight. As others said, you can limit the burn times to whatever batteries can provide, and slowly recharge the batteries with either rtgs or solar panels barely receiving sunlight. You can use fuel cells and a small amount of LOX, which also allows the usage of small chemical engines for added thrust during take off or landing. Or with mods (Near Future Electrical, MKS and even Mk2 Expansion), you can power them with nuclear reactors. NFE has a 0.625m reactor which weights less than one ton and delivers 60 EC/s which, IIRC, can power four Dawns at once,. That's perfectly fine for a light lander with the MK1 lander can instead of seats. And if we get into mods and nuclear electric ships, Near Future Propulsion adds a lot more electric engines, with greater thrust and isp, but also much greater power consumption. With NFP, I find the engines with a 400 EC power budget to be the sweet spot when building nuclear electric ships. Anything bigger than than and it's better to stick to the Nerv.

Electric propellers for use in Duna, Eve and any modded plane with non oxygenated atmospheres 2.5m Nuclear thermal engine 2.5m SRB 1.25m ion engine 2.5m Rapier 3.75m low profile lander engine - a scaled up Poodle, basically I think this completes the stock non-MH line up: the 2.5m Nerv for inline use in larger interplanetary ships, the 2.5m SRB to put below Mainsails for take off, the 2.5m Rapier for larger spaceplanes and the 1.25m ion engine because there is no easy stock way to cluster them while also keeping a decoupler below them. I'm not entirely sure about the 3.75m lander engine, because in the stock line up the 3.75m lineup is mostly for booster stages and there is little in the way of stock payloads of that size.

Both Extraplanetary Launchpads and Ground Construction (which, IIRC, changed its name when it allowed orbital construction) provide parts and game mechanics for this. I like it as long as it's a late tech tree goal. Mun launch sites allow you to disregard aerodynamics when building stuff while also cutting on the need for large boosters to put payloads in orbit. But I don't see the point on having that available from the start

I was quite literally missing the clouds folder

So, huh, clouds? I have the textures inside the relevant folder, EVE and scatterer, but there are no clouds and EVE's configuration indicates "No config! Please add a config with the content of "EVE_TEXTURE_CONFIG{}" to populate." So, what's missing?

I'm trying to use the smallest lift fan in non hover move and it ends up loosing thrust while flying straight and level. Is that expected behaviour? as in, they are for hovering rather than horizontal flight?

Nervermind, it was just the usual syntax, it's just that I had (somehow) copied and pasted it without keeping the caps (and it's caps sensitive)

I generally like the idea, but messing with the LF and oxidizer ratios will mess up not just stock but a lot of mods, which are also based in the 11:9 ratio. And, as for gameplay, for missions beyond Kerbin Nervs rule, so I don't know how much producing oxidizer helps missions. It's useful for landers, which may use LFO engines for the extra thrust, but the transfer ships for the interplanetary journeys are LF only. I guess, from a realism standpoint, that ISRU could produce LH2 + oxidizer. Kerbal Atomics already patches the Nervs to use LH2, so there is something for the transfer ships, but the player still needs to bring LF for higher thrust vehicles.

Is there a way for Filter Extensions to filter the parts and categories of this mod? Also, is there any gameplay difference between Aerozine and LFO engines?

The problem with starting at the Mun or Minmus and diving for a Kerbin pe is that it's very easy to make an inaccurate burn, because your Kerbin pe isn't that likely to coincide with the best place to do an interplanetary burn. Optimistically, you'll save about 500-600 dV vs refueling in LKO. Pessimistically, you'll miss the best spots to burn and you'll end up using more fuel to correct the burn. I think having a fuel depot in LKO, filled with tankers "based" on Minmus is more fuel efficient - though you really need to like docking to do that.

But apparently, there won't be any OFFICIAL far release in the future, only random forks by random people. So... that means RO is stuck in 1.3.1 for good.

So, huh, how is the cfg supposed to be used? Are the first numbers the celestial bodies in some sort of order and the second number the axial tilt of that body? So if I wanted to apply it to RSS*, do I need to figure out which planet/moon is 0, which one is 1, etc and then write the axial tilt. And if so, how do I figure out which one is which? *Stock Size RSS, TBH

I've been looking at this, but my procedural tanks end up overheating above 15,000 meters. Their maximum skin temperature is about 750°K, and they are already at about 600° at the runway, so it doesn't take a lot for them to blow up

There are differences in the aero model in 1.5.1 vs the one in 1.4.5 I've tested a single (larger) spaceplane, which made it to orbit ok in 1.4.5 and in 1.5.1 it's possible for its nosecone to blow up due overheating - and it's not due the thermal model, the plane flies higher and faster on air breathing mode. Not complaining.