Ryaja

Debris shields beat micro meteors

The place with a giant slab of salt next to a salty lake.

N 64

Yes, but a specialized bell nozzle is better for metallic hydrogen, it is easier to cool.

N 66

You are correct @Melontime

Nvm I think it would be a better addition if you had to do research on the planets to get and optimized engine for that planet.

Yes, I am saying you start out using a basic Kerbin atmospheric engine but once you establish permanent residence on a planet you get engines optimized for its atmosphere(If it has one)

With your logic I can use any atmospheric engine in the center of jool.

Or, Kerbal spores.

Again, all atmospheres are different. Just because it works in one atmosphere does not mean it works in all atmospheres. For example, I cannot fly a rocket engine rated for sea level at Kerbin at sea level on Kerbol.

C 48 I will just do it randomly

SCAN Hatch cassette ie the floaty us kat simulator of Vall prime ()

SCAN Hatch cassette is the floaty bus kat simulator of Vall prime ()

"I don't need to turn on snap while putting my 2 boosters and 4 fins on my rocket."

@ColdJ so like C N 46

You know how hard it is to escape Eve? With a optimized engine for Eve's atmosphere it would be much easier to escape.

Well what I am thinking is since they are having drop down menus in the vab the atmospheric nozzle one would have a sub category for each planet or moon with an atmosphere.

That is correct, and in the opposite direction they get worse and smaller expansion ratio engines get better and the higher the pressure the smaller the optimized expansion ratio is.

It really is not that simple. In thicker atmospheres you need a smaller expansion ratio, because of the pressure of the exiting gas a better optimized engine or an engine where the gas exiting is closer to the atmospheric pressure is more fuel efficient and makes more thrust because it is all going down not out or in.

Not all atmospheres are created equal, adding this would increase realism.

Yes in ksp 1. For example Eve's atmosphere is thicker and more dense than kerbin's. So a shorter nozzle with less expansion ratio would result in more fuel efficiency throughout the atmosphere. A planet's atmosphere is not "magically different" it has to do with how it was formed it has more gas hence a higher pressure therefore an engine nozzle with a smaller expansion ration would work better in said atmosphere but at higher or lower altitudes the atmospheric pressure equalizes. For example Eve has more atmospheric pressure at its sea level than Kerbin.

Unless they make over expansion a thing. both sides of this argument have insubstantial evidence. But yours has evidence from KSP 1. but that might change.

Yes @SkyFall2489

No engine beats entry burns