Requia

I can't find a download for the pruners (and really do not understand why you won't include them on CKAN), Is there even one? I don't really have the bandwidth to download this twice, I'm hours away from having all the other mods downloaded as it is.

What you're suggesting is way way harder than reality if the change is made in isolation. It is way way harder to get to an equatorial obit when distant from the equator than to get to an inclined orbit from the equator. Cape Canaveral launches to the moon are enabled by the axial tilt of the earth (something Kerbin lacks) which brings the cape very close to the moon's orbit once a day. Unless you meant to stick it in Russia anyway, in which case you need to deal with the more difficult method regardless.

Nope, that's what the CryoEngine J-2 is (at base, the J2X gets unlocked later) the SXT J-2 has a base of 1.6 something tonnes, and 800-something kN vacuum thrust.

The configs for the CryoEngines J-2 aren't the same as the SXT J-2 (more powerful and lighter). In the interest of not breaking my launch vehicles when this next updates, which is the correct version? Looking up J2 specs I can't actually find a version with a vacuum thrust less than 1MN, which suggests the newer CryoEngine config.

Fall into the gravity well, instead of setting a low PE set a high one then slow down enough well before it that your PE naturally drops, then make a normal capture brake at PE. It's a little inefficient but it worked out fine for me on numerous probes and one huge ship that's similar to what you're flying. Also similar to how real low thrust spacecraft pull it off. For the departure burn its the same thing, you have to eat some inefficiency by making a long departure burn, but the accuracy wasn't too much of a problem (first part of burn was angled between the horizon and node, then finished the burn on the node, then made a ~30m/s correction before leaving Kerbin SOI which was most of the inefficiency). Because Low TWR vehicles have huge dv capacity the inefficiency just isn't a big deal.

The stock tanks all have exactly the same wet:dry ratio to the nearest kilogram. The variations in percentages are just rounding errors.

Ok but that's not the question I'm trying to get an answer to, can I disable boiloff in just one fuel tank type?

how do I delete this...

Is there actually a way to fix it in config?

Then there shouldn't be boiloff loss. Given that this is a *realism* mod its a bug. Hmm, is there a way to disable boiloff for service modules only?

The other thing to consider is that for fuel cell purposes boil isn't loss, as long as it boils slower than what you need to make the gas for the fuel cells... that's more complicated than just thermal modelling though.

You don't have the right q if you don't consider the vacuum gap/air gap though (on the other hand even the cryogenic tanks used the vapor pressure system on the pad, so modeling everything as vacuum is mostly accurate). The magic material was apparently alternating layers of double aluminized mylar and nylon mesh, vacuum chamber tested at 6x10-6 BTU/Hr/ft^2*F@1 inch (I had to convert this one to metric should be 9x10-6 W/m*K, I can't find the actual insulation thickness but the tests were 1-2 inches). Not in NASAs insulation guide for some reason, but dug it out of a journal.

That was only done on the launchpad. Vacuum insulation is a freebie in space (assuming you keep hold of the aeroshell at least). It should be modeled on top of ordinary insulation.

That sounded like nonsense, but I checked the configs and it it has insulation of .0001m*K/W? What magic material is this? I'm guessing losses should be negligible for a lunar trip?

Is there any way to calculate how much hydrolox per day is lost in cryogenic tanks? Gotta resort to fuel cells for my moon trips and I'm not sure how much extra to pack.

The contracts reshuffle every 5 days.

I'm not 100% sure I'm reporting in the right place, but I'm getting contracts for interplanetary missions with complete by dates so short that its impossible to do it on a hohmann transfer window. Like right now it wants a mars flyby completed within 1 year 286 days, but the next transfer window has an arrival time of 2 years 187 days. It's possible by shoving enough dv down the throat of the thing of course, especially for flyby, but it still seems unrealistic to launch without the transfer window for anything but an emergency situation. If RP-0 isn't handling the contracts where should I send this?

Whenever I try to interact with a sicence part on EVA (both to try and run them and to take data/reset normally hard to reuse experiments) it tells me I need a scientist, even though I'm using a scientist? Bug/Scientist power removed deliberately or I need a scientist higher than level 1? (still on 1.0.4).

How much of Ven's Stock revamp do I actually need? Looking at trying out the release candidate, but Ven hasn't touched the repo in over a month, so a 1.5 update isn't exactly forthcoming, wondering if it might be a safer bet to only take the parts that RP-0 is dependent on.

Is there any way to get nosecone parachutes that are sized for RO command pods?

You end up needing both if you want to go anywhere manned farther than the Moon. No plan for Mars is actually less than 200t for habitat+transfer module, and making a huge number of launches is extraordinarily expensive, the ISS cost over 100 billion to assemble. And while people want to not include shuttle launch costs and instead say mid sized rockets are cheaper, we used exactly that any time it was an option. But those don't carry astronauts as well as loads, or have built in station keeping ability.

I know just enough to know that you need a nutrient bath that's fairly hard to make, and you can't grow potatoes that way. Pretty much every successful soil free setup just grows veggies, which don't have the calorie density.

You mean the 32$ article? Either actually post it if you're in Uni and have access or don't ..... at people who don't have access.

You should be aware that share alike clause in some CC licenses are generally considered to be unenforceable for the purpose of software because of substantial loopholes. If your goal is simply to create a culture of openness rather than actually enforce licenses you can ignore me.

The mass fraction of your mass fraction optimized rocket is worse than what I just said low dv rockets are capable of. Not to mention that it IS a low dv rocket if it really makes orbit (if it does we need to reassess how dv optimization works out). The optimized for cost rocket seems off too, though I've never done cost optimization for 2.5m rockets, I may have to do exactly that. I'm curious if you ever flew these? It shouldn't be possible to fly rocket#3 to orbit as far as I can tell, because thrust vectoring will drop your overall direction of travel thrust very slightly, normally that isn't a huge deal but at 1.03 dropping to 1.02 means losing a third of the dv that theoretically would have provided at launch, alternatively, can you verify that your simulation took it into account? You don't seem to understand the concept of dv optimization, you don't get a dv boost for having higher TWR on upper stages.