DareMightyThingsJPL

Turns out I've gotten myself into the grips of the Dunning-Kruger Effect again! Sorry, I don't think I'll be able to make configs for antihydrogen production in FFT's antimatter factory.

Unfortunately, I'm not the right kind of nerd you need! Propulsion is my specialty. Sorry, wish I could help.

There are downsides to the Nerva, too: - High mass means that it cuts into your payload mass, and with low amounts of fuel, it's high Isp is often offset by this. - It's prone to overheating when operating close to the sun: not good for solar oberth boosting. - It has a large vertical footprint, complicating lander design.

Ok . If I get some free time, I may actually see if i can make a config that patches this in, then after I sufficiently test it, I'll give it to you and then you can implement the patch in RR. End-game resource conversion... That sounds like stellar nucleosynthesis to me!

Yep, seems like antihydrogen is the way forward for SterlingSystems. Hello, just came back with a thought - If we are switching Sterling to use antihydrogen, won't it make sense to have either Sterling or RR add or patch-in antihydrogen production for the PK-50 'Nova' Antimatter Facility in FFT?

I've been adding tank types for CRP's fuels of NeonGas, LqdNeon, LqdArgon, KryptonGas, LqdKrypton and LqdXenon. If anyone wants them, here they are -- just put them in their respective .cfgs, at the right location as listed in the comments ( // ) Furthermore, if @JadeOfMaar wants to, he can add these into RationalResources and Rational Resources Companion, and he has full permission to do so. zTankTypes at RationalResources\TemplateDefault\CRPDefault TankTypes in RationalResourcesCompanion\CRPDefault

LinuxGuruGamer had a mod for finite jetpack fuel and switching said fuel. I was onboard with using Nitrogen (with reference to Kerbalism) but the mod broke when it became possible to unequip the jetpack. Aside from jetpack fuel where or how do you think this could settle itself in as a worthwhile gameplay element? Good point. We already have the much better performing monoprops, so apart from paralelling real world mssions, there would be no in-game reason to use cold-gas thrusters if they were added. Thanks for the proposition, but I'll decline - I don't trust myself well enough to write enough code for entire new parts and fuel-switching. Also thanks for pointing out RR's RCS Family!

I originally intended to only modify chemical rockets, since this is Chemical Propulsion after all. I also think that different propellants are generally best handled by constraining them to different parts, as Chemical Propulsion does. The exotic fuel and oxidizer switching are late game upgrades that serve as analogues of individual conventional propellants, and I may end up splitting them into a separate mod, since propellant switching is not really part of the core experience intended for this mod. With this in mind I consider ion engines a solved problem already and I won't do any noble gas switches for ion engines, I like Near Future Propulsion's bespoke argon engines. All of that being said, I have also added hydrogen/methane/ammonia switching for NTRs, with the latter options trading isp for thrust and propellant volume, so I'm not completely opposed to featuring non-chemical rockets. I've replaced the MonoPropellant in Supplementary Electric Engines with hydrazine, but I might also add an ammonia mode once I get FuelMixer to support the more complex propellant combinations. Yes, i think you have a good point with the ion engines. Have you thought about cold gas thrusters? I think the Isp is too low for serious consideration, although their commonality in real world reaction control systems is a good case for their addition plus literally any propellant can be used.

Yep, seems like antihydrogen is the way forward for SterlingSystems.

I'm not sure whether this fits the mod, but would fuel-switching for electric engines be a future possibility? You wouldn't have to add your own new resources, but you could - CRP has gaseous and liquid versions of neon, argon, krypton and xenon. But it doesn't have mercury, and early ion propellant. I imagine quite a bit of thought would have to go into this - both propellant mass and ionization energies would have to be factored in to keep realism.

Knew something was up. At first it thought it was an afterburner but then realized that it used excess antimatter, so i thought I'd bring this to you to ask whether it was intentional. I've always viewed the antimatter resource as representing antiprotons, as in SpaceDust (a dependency of FFT), you can harvest trapped antimatter from planets' magnetospheres. This is based on the IRL fact that antiprotons from cosmic rays get trapped insides Earth's magnetic field. As such, I believe that the two should be separate resources to represent two things, rather than just being ambiguous. That's just my two cents though.

Not sure whether this proposal should go in to RationalResources or in here, but, here it goes: 1. Currently the 10m BCAM engine uses an uneven mixture ratio of antimatter and hydrogen. Is this intentional, or does this have to change? 2. CRP has a resource definition for AntiHydrogen - it could be another resource that is held in the magnetic containment tanks in Sterling Tankage. Plus, it would make a nice distinction - AntiHydrogen for BCAM engines, and the general Antimatter resource used for antimatter-catalyzed or initiated fission/fusion drives.

Ah, ok. All good

Sorry for the necropost, but SpaceDock says that this mod was updated recently. Is this correct?

Nice, they seem to be looking well!