blowfish

Okay, so what you actually want is a three segment adapter, with adjustable bottom, middle, and top radii.

KSP always writes the log, it's just in a different location. Just follow the first link in my signature, it explains how to get it.

Ehh? Both the top and bottom radii and the length are adjustable.

@Azrael the Sorrowful please post your output logs after loading KSP with B9 installed. Instructions are in the first link in my signature.

For oblique shockwaves, if the deflection angle is constant, than the shock angle will decrease with increasing mach number. The problem with your hybrid scramjet scenario isn't the compressor per se, it's the fact that there's empty space around the ideal flow path (which includes the precooler). Supersonic flow would expand into this space, then be forced into pressure-reducing shockwaves (oblique vs normal depends on the exact geometry) as it reached the end of that space.

Sure (and I think I intended to say as much), but my point is that it doesn't mix with the main flow immediately.

Dynamic Texture Loader is a likely suspect. @rbray89 any chance that there's an issue here?

There's no way to change it currently. Decreasing the area will mostly just decrease thrust. Well, response speed should be changing too, but maybe it's already hit the 5% clamp on response speed.

Sorry, but you still have yet to demonstrate that turborockets can even approach the efficiency of turbojets, let alone high bypass turbofans Not really. Even at subsonic speeds, you need an exhaust mixer to get the flows to mix efficiently. At supersonic speeds, you're not going to get much mixing (except maybe a small layer), and ultimately you're just going to cause shockwaves which cut your total pressure. In fact, many rocket engines rely on flows not mixing at supersonic speeds - many gas generator rockets use turbine exhaust to cool the nozzle extension, creating a thin layer of cooler gas between the nozzle wall and the hot main exhaust. If these layers mixed immediately, then this method of cooling would be completely ineffective. Based on heating glow I've seen on some engines, it looks like the streams to start to mix near the end of the nozzle, but the exhaust layer is very thin so that's not surprising. My point is that you would have to close off the paths leading through the precooler. The walls of the flow path have to be completely straight. Also, you're going to have trouble with an intake geometry like that - the intake lip shockwave has to be reflected several times to get good pressure recovery, which means that you want a flow path which is very narrow in the radial direction and long along the engine's axis. You also have no spilling at any mach number, which seems fine at first, but actually results in the engine taking in way more air than it can possibly accept at most flight conditions - there's a reason why supersonic intakes are shaped the way they are (either cone or ramp). 2000s is less than most turbojets on afterburner. Modern high bypass turbofans are in the several thousand s. How much you slow down the air doesn't matter - if you're putting it through a compressor, then it's has to be subsonic anyway, and the compressor really only accepts air in the mach 0.3-0.5 range. And once it's subsonic, it doesn't really matter exactly how fast it's going - flow is mostly isentropic. This is why most jet engine calculations deal with total (stagnation) pressure and temperature rather than real pressure and temperature - these are quantities that don't care how fast the air is going at any particular point. If you have no total pressure loss, then you can accelerate it back up to the same speed without adding any additional energy. Of course, flow through a tube will have some pressure loss, but at supersonic speeds, most of the loss is in the intake.

The basic cycle makes sense, but there are a few components I can't identify - any idea what 1, 8, and 15 are?

Well fewer mods isn't the only option. You don't have a huge number of mods so any of the other options should work too.

It's on Github with everything else. Just download the HX pack. It comes with all the dependencies it needs.

I usually just download it anyway. It looks like KSP ran out of memory and crashed. You have a few options for reducing memory usage: Use fewer mods. Downside: fewer mods. Run KSP with the -force-opengl -popupwindow options. Downside: Decreased graphical performance and no antialiasing. Run KSP with -force-d3d11 option. Downside: Occasional graphical glitches, especially text rendering. This is what I use. Get Dynamic Texture Loader. Downside: Longer load times and pauses in the editor as textures are loaded and unloaded. Wait for 1.1. Downside: waiting.

@Shadowmage I found this schematic and this fuel flow diagram. There's a lot on the fuel flow diagram that I don't understand (especially since the text is in Russian and it's an image so I can't paste it into a translator), but basically it's a single shaft gas generator engine with the exhaust being directed to the verniers. Re: balance - most of the stuff I've been doing has been in a 3-3.2x system which yields much more reasonable payload fractions. I agree that stockalike balance is always going to look ridiculous as far as payload fractions go, but this is the case even with stock parts. I like the idea of realistic Isp values but scaled masses - stock Isp values are already basically correct for modern hypergolics (~95% of what you get with kerolox) according to NathanKell. Keep in mind that hydrolox will inevitably result in higher payload fractions, and there's nothing wrong with that - hydrolox stages should have other tradeoffs (more tank volume and more expensive engines).

It's just based on area (compressor+bypass), but clamped at a minimum of 5% per second. Depending on what source you use, the static thrust of the SABRE is somewhere in the range of 600-800 kN/nacelle. How much air the compressor requires depends a lot on mach number. Just before switching to rocket mode, all the air is going to the compressor, but at other flight conditions the intake admits more air than the compressor will accept. The ramjets offer an alternative to a highly complex movable intake geometry as on the SR-71 (but worse, since the required mach range is larger). The SABRE does not liquefy the incoming air. That's LACE. Even in an engine like the SABRE, the majority of the flow is air, not fuel, which means that combustion chamber pressure is going to be roughly proportional to ambient pressure and TPR losses are going to affect Isp a great deal. A jet is not the ideal model but it's better than a rocket for now.

Dropbox or Google Drive are good options. Be sure to actually share the document and use the link it gives you.

More thrust on the Soyuz engines? Longer booster tanks? Well, I guess upper stages are overrated anyway. @Jimbodiah Did we ever figure out what was different between your setup and mine?

I believe so. I haven't tried, so not 100% sure.

First link in my signature.

What you're looking to create is probably a separate compatibility DLL, like the FAR one. The field is called propellantStatus and it's on ModuleEnginesRF, so to access it you either have to use reflection or build against RealFuels.

The Experimental Rocketry node existed in previous versions of KSP but has since been removed. The community fixes should probably be updated for this, but in the mean time, there is a workaround - install Community Tech Tree, which adds that node back in.

Well it's hard to say since no one has encountered the issue before. Post your output logs and we can see if they reveal anything unusual - instructions on how to do that are in the first link in my signature.

I think there's a setting in RF Stockalike to bring things to stock mass fractions.

It doesn't matter how close the terminal shock is to the compressor. If anything, you want some space for the flow to diffuse between the inlet throat and the compressor face because the compressor usually accepts air at mach 0.3-0.5. This is also where you would put a precooler if you had one. The only way to eliminate the terminal shock is to open up the throat such that the flow doesn't choke. My understanding of scramjets is that efficiency is very sensitive to internal geometry - you can't just redirect flow around the compressor - the path between the inlet and the nozzle has to be dead straight - any deflection will result in additional pressure loss. So you have have moving parts to close off all other flow paths. I'm still not sure what you're going on about with this "inside out" engine. The radial arrangement of components inside the engine isn't terribly important. E: Oh, and the term "scramrocket" is pretty meaningless. If the flow is already supersonic by the time you mix, then it's really not going to mix much. You basically just have a scramjet and a rocket.

A scramjet doesn't have any compressor, except for passive ram compression (no moving parts). My point is that if you want to actually have an actual turbocompressor, you need the flow to be subsonic (again, barring theoretical supersonic compressor designs).