sal_vager

As you can see here, yes of course an engine in vacuum will have more total thrust, but much can be lost if the nozzle is not designed to take advantage of it. Any expansion of the thrust plume past the end of the nozzle cannot push the rocket.

Balancing career and contracts/strategies will be focussed on in further updates, just getting them in the game was he focus of previous updates

There's been many experiments and papers written on this, and the answer has always been no. I do find my sleep is reduced though, but that's due to having to get up for work most mornings

Welcome to the community forums Mike, we'll be looking forwards to seeing your streams, have fun and fly safe

Closed for cleaning Edit: Cleaned, reopening, no more baseless arguments and trolling please, thanks.

I'll merge these, but yeah Lichbane, please edit your posts in future to add info rather than posting immediately after

I'd just like to remind everyone that career and contracts are not finished, pretty much no balancing took place, Squad just got the functionality in with basic values and intend to do the balancing in later updates. Yes it's currently an easy unbalanced mess, this is not the final form

That "someone" was the good Cap'n Skunky, he likened the moon to a pollen grain, and the name stuck

The KR-2L is just a bit silly really, something like that shouldn't be so great in vacuum as it is. As for dropping thrust, the idea is that the nozzles are designed for a specific atmospheric pressure, in vacuum some nozzle types are under expanded, so you don't get full thrust. Just like in real life

Currently, Kerbal rocket engines automatically vary their fuel flow to keep their thrust constant as atmospheric pressure changes, making the most use of their exhaust nozzles, and they are all most fuel efficient in a vacuum to a greater (LV909) or lesser (Mainsail) degree, but Human rocket engines don't do this. Our engines keep a constant fuel flow (depending on throttle of course) and, depending on atmospheric pressure and engine nozzle design, can be tuned to be most efficient at sea level or vacuum, or even somewhere in-between. So, what if Kerbal engines were more like ours? For a start, they wouldn't all be best in vacuum, why tune a Mainsail to be most effective in orbit when it's a first stage engine? And what'd be the midrange, second/third stage engines? Here's a very rough idea of how it could be and I didn't do them all, feel free to pick holes in it, make suggestions, let me know how mod engines might also fit in. [table=width: 500] [tr] [td]Engine[/td] [td]Usage[/td] [td]Sea level[/td] [td]Altitude[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LV-T30[/td] [td]Mid stage[/td] [td]185[/td] [td]215[/td] [td]185[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LV-T45[/td] [td]Mid stage[/td] [td]172[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]172[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LV-909[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]38[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]50[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Poodle[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]152[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]220[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Skipper[/td] [td]Mid stage[/td] [td]562[/td] [td]650[/td] [td]562[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mainsail[/td] [td]First stage[/td] [td]1500[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]1333[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Aerospike[/td] [td]Mid stage[/td] [td]174[/td] [td]175[/td] [td]174[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LV-N[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]60[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]24-77[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]20[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]48-7S[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]25[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]30[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]O-10[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]15[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]20[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]KR-2L[/td] [td]First stage[/td] [td]2500[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]1842[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]S3 KS-25x4[/td] [td]First stage[/td] [td]3200[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]2844[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]PB-ION[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mk 55 Radial[/td] [td]Vacuum[/td] [td]108[/td] [td][/td] [td]120[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RT-10 SRB[/td] [td]First stage[/td] [td]250[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]234[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]BACC SRB[/td] [td]First stage[/td] [td]315[/td] [td]-[/td] [td]289[/td] [/tr] [/table] I took the max thrust, divided by max ISP, times min ISP Update: NathanKell has revised numbers that actually model ISP properly, both for FAR and for Stock, check out his posts to see how Kerbal engines would look if they used a more accurate depiction of ISP

These look familiar......... Shouldn't that second craft have four wings?

There's no sound set to play at extreme distances from Kerbol, so barring bugs if you heard anything in-game it was the Duna SSTV signal. Record it and post it as a bug please, this thread's just going to confuse people, will close this one

Unfinished game is unfinished, news at 11

Try wings on structural intakes, stock ornithopter

Kinda hard to pull air backwards into your engines in real life, so see how that works for ya

Kulebron, you know the rules on reaction vide...oh... on topic, carry on. (Also, lol!)

Airhogging is intakes clipped in such a way they'd not even work in real life, such as on backwards, or inside other parts, or stacked ridiculously. There are real aircraft that deliberately use extra or extremely large intakes for high altitude work however

Can't see this ever being stock, , they would seriously struggle to lift their own fuel and oxidiser (no reason why they can't run on liquid oxygen).It'd be fun for small aircraft though, but I think this is one we'll have to ask the modders for.

It's stock for 0.25.0, HarvesteR made it, it's not built to be easy to fly so have fun

Squad aren't planning any paid DLC, like packs of rocket parts or Kerbal hats or whatever, but do want to revisit KSP later on and make an expansion pack or two. Being gamers themselves they don't like the current trend of trying to monetise a handful of cosmetic parts (looking at you EA and the Sims) Think of BroodWar for StarCraft, but with rockets and Kerbals instead of Zerg

Is this really an Easter egg? I don't want to have any of your eggs

Mouse over the node, or click it a few times to "pin" the readout Oh from your craft? Mouse over that!

I support the idea of using RCS mono-propellent for EVA fuel, I don't like the infinite fuel of current EVA, having that limitation would add an extra element of risk and resource management.

It'll get better over time yes as Unity improves their support for Linux and OpenGL, it's one of those things we just have no choice but to sit tight for.

Wow, I have seen that many times, though have never found reproduction steps, it seems to happen on scene change exclusively though. What you see there is Unity failing to load the appropriate resource, in this case it's the planets themselves, and all we get is voidspace like you see in the pic. Usually the only "fix" is a restart of the game, but if this is happening repeatedly then the resource may simply not be there. I expect your logs to be full of null references, and if a redownload of KSP doesn't fix this then there may be something wrong with the file permissions preventing KSP from loading them.