Clamp-o-Tron

I think he means the simulation he claims we might live in... (on a more philosophical note, how would we know? Why would we care, especially if there is no difference between a simulated and “real” world?)

ModuleManager.log and KSP.log, please. EDIT RE: @Spaceman.Spiff's hidden resource idea is possible, it's just hidden very deep in the RESOURCE_DEFINITION parameters, the boolean isVisible will do the trick. Something called UnusableLiquidFuel with that flag = True and a standard density should work!

Go to GameData/StockalikeHypergols/Patches/Optional and remove the .disabled extension from LOX_Boiloff.cfg.disabled. On windows, there might be a setting somewhere that you have to toggle before it lets you change file extensions.

The CryoTanks implementation of boiloff actually allows for my vision, you can have boiloff produce resources. The goal of this is to reduce dV even more by keeping the weight. It would have to have tanks for storage of the gelled propellant, which is a bit clumsy, but could work.

Not sure if I like the fact that people are snooping about the GitHub dev branch... (totally fine and encouraged, in fact) The scope has in fact changed since the last real update, this is what's on the table: * Bug fixes * H2O2/RP-1 fuel mixture, instead of the only H2O2 propellant I had earlier. * Ethanol/LOX fuel mixture, what you saw the resource definition for. This is experimental at the moment. I haven't asked yet, but I plan on consulting with @Nertea to add a feature to the boiloff code of Cryo Tanks: RP-1 gelling. There's a reason kerolox isn't used much in space probes, aside from slight LOX boiloff: if kerosene or RP-1 gets too cold (as it does in deep space ), it will start to become unusable as it becomes solid or wax-like. So what I'm proposing if Nert would like to help out is basically a reverse of the CryoTanks code; if a propellant gets too cold rather than too hot, it is transformed into another resource that engines can't run on. If this doesn't pan out, there's really no reason to have ethalox in addition to the other stuff we have. * RCS switches will finally come, with hypergolic bipropellant, HTP monopropellant, ethalox bipropellant, and nitrogen cold gas thrusters. * ISRU for H2O2, upon review, it's the only reasonable one of these you could get with ISRU. I've also got an aspirational goal of low-detail standardized engines, modeled by someone else, with options through B9PS to run in kerolox, hydrolox, methalox, monoprop, HTP/LOX, and ethalox configurations. If anyone has the talent and time to do some of these, please PM me! I'm especially looking for 1 kN, 10 kN, 30 kN, and 100 kN engines in both sea level (except for 1 kN) and vacuum variants, but basically anything will go.

This is a fine place to ask. 1. Since those engines don’t have waterfall configurations and you don’t have RealPlume installed, they’ll go back to stock plumes. https://gist.github.com/Clamp-o-Tron/d59175b24d43434f7ac1be71809756fb Will fix it by adding waterfall configurations to that engine, just copy/paste it into a new .cfg file somewhere in GameData. 2. I’ve experienced the same problem a lot, with or without the ET-SRB decouplers. Curiously, the Photon Corp nose doesn’t work on either reDIRECT or its own SRBs, and the reDIRECT nose doesn’t work on Photon Corp. Personally, I would not fire the nosecone separation motors and just use a lot of stock separatrons.

Okay, I've got a lot of progress done. Most of it required some plugin work, and I must say I am proud of it. 0.3 will now make the following changes: * ISRU will be available, but only within 500 meters of the Bop Kraken corpse. * Fuel cells now produce ore (coking) as a byproduct. * A dialogue from the ghost of Sergei Korolev will now appear when loading hypergolic propellants, urging you not to. * New fuel mixture: alcolox. Crew will have their stupidity increased by 1% every day they spend with alcolox on board. * New fuel mixture: hydrogen peroxide/ RP-1. In-game, they will be called Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer, but are not compatible with the other Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. There is no way to tell them apart, but any attempt to fix this will cause crashes. * New fuel mixture: ethalox. Frankly, these are the same as alcolox, as multiple clinical trials showed. * Orange clouds of smoke are bland and not unique to hypergols, so purple pigments will now be required for the firing of hypergolic engines. * Removed Waterfall and RealPlume. * To ensure a proper "real-life" look, all plumes will now be generated from data taken from real-time tetris matches taking place online. * Users now must make their own sound effects, for performance reasons. * The ocean has been replaced by more atmosphere with pressure high enough as to cause buoyancy. * Removed hypergolic B9 tank switches, users will now have to have the infinite fuel cheat on at all times when using these engines. * Fuel ratios are now procedurally generated every physics frame, adding an element of risk to the game. * Notable compatibilities added include Scott Munley and Big Chungus Planet Pack. * Bees. Changes can be seen here: https://github.com/Clamp-o-Tron/KSP-Stockalike-Hypergols

Angara A5 has already flown, it doesn't look too outlandish. A5V is just replacing the second stage with a new hydrolox variant, which in theory could get about 15 tons to trans-lunar injection. The Power and Propulsion Element, alongside with the Cygnus-derived Habitation and Logistics Outpost is to be launched by Falcon Heavy, and appear to require it, weighting 8-9 tonnes for the PPE and presumably about 7 tonnes for the HALO (it's a stretched Cygnus, which is 6 tonnes). So maybe technically possible, politically unlikely, and definitely a magnificently well-done April 1st joke, but really not going to happen because A5V is essentially cancelled.

Do we know that it's the FTS? If it was, some of the chunks seem a bit larger than I would imagine, but I'm not a pyrotechnics expert or qualified to know what they should look like.

You can go back and watch these:

The fog in Boca Chica this morning reduced visibility a lot, so ground tracking and even pad cams couldn't pick up anything, and the only source of footage was from cameras in the aft skirt and on the nose. As for the freeze after the first engine light, that could be explained by a loss of comms, or (more likely IMHO) some kind of Rapid Unplanned Destruction that destroyed that part of the vehicle. The landing wasn't necessarily worse than before, the explosion just happened in the air so the debris spread out farther. Nobody got hurt, we would have heard about it, and nobody is anywhere near the launch/landing site anyway.

Still relevant for mods that haven’t packaged a variation yet.

Blue Soyuz.

It won't, the changes to parts are just cosmetic (except for a few drag cubes which won't matter). The locations, velocities, rotations, attachments etc. in the persistent.sfs will be unchanged between restock and pure stock.

Those structural beams?

Try going to the GUIDANCE tab and turning “booster pitch rate” to 0.1-0.3, which should serve you well in almost all situations. You can also manually override the pitch down, PVG will fight you but you can keep the attitude good enough until the atmosphere has thinned out. I would also caution against using PVG in anything lower than JNSQ scale, because it literally won’t have enough time to execute the proper maneuvers with a small Kerbin.

I have arrived here, on the power of slightly ugly screenshots, mod troubleshooting, questionable opinions on SLS and Starship, and unfinished projects. Nice to be here, I’ve somehow already got imposter syndrome .

Another ((very)screenshot-heavy) peek into my career save. This was a very busy transfer window, as I prepare to send crew to Gilly it would be nice to know what exactly is out there. 5 rockets in total were launched in about 3 days, which is a lot when KCT is installed and boosters take time to build and roll out.

@SpaceFace545 what you posted in the BDB topic is a known bug, but unfortunately not one that I believe can be fixed. Looking at other B9PS configuration for other mods, I can say that this crops up from time to time, and that nobody has found a way to stop it. A solution coming either in 0.3 or 0.4 which will allow you to switch your RCS to using more fuels, including HTP and hypergolic bipropellant, which means that a single tank will work for RCS and main engine fuel.

Looking at the top left, could it be ion thrusters? Ballistic capture into lunar orbit and then long firings to move to NHRO and rendezvous?

Uhhh.... HG-3 and this... thing? http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnlcb-storable-140.html

Thanks for the link. The article raises the interesting possibility that SpaceX bid SSTO Starship (no Super Heavy) for a tiny launch of a cubesat cluster. It certainly seems like an Elon thing to do, and Starship probably has the dV to reach orbit, if not return. It’s just that 3 Raptors don’t have enough thrust to lift full tanks without RVacs helping out, especially without a semi-steep trajectory from Super Heavy. If they went ahead and solved this by adding 3-4 more SL engines, it could prove an interesting test with orbital operations and high-velocity reentry, though I wouldn’t expect them to have enough propellant to land, instead ditching the vehicle in the ocean somewhere. Given that Super Heavy is taking a while (as expected) and Raptor production is (as far as we can tell) still to low to supply an orbital booster, I can see an anxious and impatient Elon deciding to just throw caution and patience to the wind and just give orbit a go.

Yep, that’s M-1. It’s looking excellent.