smartdummies

Just using RF's thrust curve feature

I expect it is compatible as Nathan pointed me in this direction. I will have to play around some more to find out what I am doing wrong.

I too am attempting to edit the thrust curve for my SRB (Real Fuels + Procedural Parts) and while I can get to the editor I have no idea what the x and y values stand for. I have attempted to put in some meaningless values and the do a test launch with MechJeb to see what my thrust looks like and it is the same every time regardless of what I put in. I have come to the conclusion that I am doing something wrong but can't seem to figure out what it is. Any help would be most appreciated.

Sweet! Now I need to do more research to get some values. Now the question I wanted to ask was - can this be made tweakable in the VAB?

Question - Will you also allow for various burn configurations for solids as well to adjust thrust during the burn? I know that this is accomplished by the bore pattern in the fuel and do not know if KSP will allow you to modify this.

This is not math. The relevant entry from the ResourceFuels.cfg file is @RESOURCE_DEFINITION[SolidFuel] { @density = 0.00178 } This should replace the density of solid fuel to be .00178t per unit - which is liters for RealFuels, but for whatever reason MM 2.3.3 was not loading this. Strange, absolutely. Fixed? Absolutely in 2.3.4.

Found my issue - ModuleManager 2.3.3 is not pulling in the override for the solid fuel density and so is weighing 7.5kg/L. Switching to ModuleManager 2.2.2 solid fuel weighs 1.780kg/L EDIT: Just checked 2.3.4 and it is loading the correct density for the solid fuel.

No hot rockets. This happens using only the mods listed.

I believe that there is an issue with the SRB calculations (using RSS 7.3, Procedural Parts 0.9.18, and useRealisticMass is set to true). Looking at the stats for the Space Shuttle SRB, they were: 12.17 ft diameter (3.71 m) -> call this 3.75 for Kerbal purposes 149.16 ft length (45.46 m) -> call this 45.5 ISP 2424/268 (sl/vac) Thrust 11MN/12MN sl/vac roughly (seen varying sources ranging from 10.5 to 14 soo.... 11/12 is decent midrange here) Dry Weight ~200,000 lb (90.7t) Propellent 1,100,000 lb (499t) Burn Time 120 s I see that the stock SRBs are almost useless (values pulled using a TR-2V decoupler with MechJeb on top and the SRB underneath, tech level set to default for SRB) RT-10 Thrust 250kN Dry Mass .76t Wet 14.4t Burn Time 126s TWR 1.76 BACC Thrust 315kNDry 1.22t Wet 28.08 Burn Time 209 s TWR 1.14 SRB-KD25 Thrust 650 kN Dry 2.4t Wet 91.46 Burn Time 430s TWR 0.72!! Pulling in the Procedural SRB (tech level set to 4 for 245/268 ISP) I need a 5m diameter SRB to get the thrust comparable to the Shuttle (11.3MN/12.4MN using maximum nozzle size) and a length of 4.5m for a burn time of 121s. With these settings the weight is fairly comparable (20.29 dry / 590.2 wet) with a final TWR of 2.14. Using the dimensions of the Shuttle SRB (3.75m diameter) I end up with with thrust of 6.41MN/7.01MN and the TWR drops below 1 at 10m length (25.36t/737.7t dry/wet mass) and has a burn time at that point of 267s. The only SRB that are useful are short ones otherwise you get horrendous TWR. Look at things I saw that solid fuels burn from the center of the cylinder outward and not bottom up (this made me think of the model rockets built as a kid where the solid engine was hollow in the center so I think this would be correct). Extrapolating here (I am certainly not an expert) this would make a taller cylinder provide more thrust as the surface area exposed for burning is increased and a wider cylinder would increase the burn time as the liner dimension of the burn is increased. And then based on the dimensions and weight of the Shuttle SRBs I think that the weight of the solid fuel is too high. (http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm has information on the density of the fuels but I am too tired right now to do that math)

I think you vastly overestimate me. FAR was my first mod and I still need multiple launches due to rapid mid flight disassembly. Based on some vids of rockets I've seen, what I really need is imagination for my builds. Tall classic rockets is about all I can build. I fully expect that I will get the full RO at some point, but I need to go one step at a time. The Real Fuels + Procedural Parts + Stockalike config is working well for right now. I can say that RF and PP are wonderful. I really should have gotten these earlier.

I am a mediocre mission planner and pilot. I will often need to return to Kerbin without an orbital insertion burn, and I also have a tendency to rely entirely on areobraking for my orbital insertions when an atmosphere exists. So DRE does tend to make my Kerbals nervous. As for the rest, thanks for the suggestions. I will try the Procedural Part + RealFuels + Stockalike combination. I tried the 6.4x config but it lacked the awe and scale that I get from the full size.

Can anybody recommend a mod that has a balanced fuel tanks and engines for this. I am not read to go full RO yet and am looking for something where it is balanced for the full scale and not the stock scale. If not a mod than at least some guidance for the math to rescale the configs. My current mods are: FAR KAC KJR KW Rocketry RealChutes Blizzy's Toolbar MechJeb Docking Port Alignment Indicator NavBall Enhancement RSS (Note the lack of DRE. I am not ready for that much realism yet as I rely very heavily on it to reduce my fuel requirements)

I have a question the Petal adapter. It currently only supports one configuration for the lander and I would prefer a bit more flexibility. Would it be possible to have it be similar to the fairing nose cones? What I am thinking is you would have the base, the petals would replace the cone and then you would have the sides. The functionality of it should be able to stay as it currently is, but this would allow for a taller lander. I don't know if this is possible, just thinking out loud here.

Unfortunately they only have one top node. I tried setting the top bottom node as the explosive node but it would stay attached to the upper stage at the top node if the top node was attached. Using the cfg file settings from 2.5b did not give me the behaviour from 0.23.5 so I have to assume that one of the 0.24 changes is what caused this new behaviour. If you want the decoupler to stay attached to the spent stage, you would need 2 variants of the decoupler - one with the explosiveNodeID set to top and one with it set to bottom2 to cover everything. Seeing as I don't care if it does not stay attached I am using isOmniDecoupler.

You can have more than one node, that's how the Petal adapter works, but I chose to go the isOmniDecoupler route as it is only one action to decouple rather than a decouple for the top and a decouple for the bottom.

The interstage decouplers are not working if the top node of the decoupler is not attached. I have worked around this on my install simply by changing the eplosiveNodeId in the cfg files to be isOmniDecoupler=true for all the interstage parts so that they act like the stack separators and eject from both top and bottom.

I removing the explosiveNodeID and setting isOmniDecoupler=true as using just the top or bottom2 nodes did not work correctly in my various tests and I prefer having only one Decouple option in the dialog instead of two for having both nodes hooked to the ModuleDecouple. Now I can create my RCS powered Mun lander and have it shielded it so FAR won't decide to reduce my structural integrity. Just a thought, a 2.5 to 3.75 petal adapter would seem to be useful for a Mk 1 lander vehicle for early exploration.

The interstage fairing adapters no longer decouple if the part they are shrouding is not the same size as the adapter. I used to use the 2.5 interstage for the LV-N on the 2.5 tanks, but because it is slightly shorter the interstage fairing no longer decouples properly.