Morrigi

It is fairly clear that this IS a bug

I'm also getting much worse performance on this version than any of the previous ones.

...Dammit, imgur.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5g3l3x3at5rlod/output_log.txt

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5g3l3x3at5rlod/output_log.txt

Well, my game is completely broken, for unknown reasons. I can't launch anything, since everything totally freezes up and gives me some weird black/blue screen unless I go back to the space center. Wtf do I do?

I really hate to be That Guy, but... Is there an ETA?

For whatever reason you can't run the KSP Interstellar engines off LH2. Is this intended?

Will there be some kind of fix for the size issue? Everything being a different diameter is slightly obnoxious. Personally, I find this nearly unplayable due to the diameter changes on some parts but not others and the host of bugs regarding engine and fuel tank configuration, as well as linear quadcouplers entirely failing to feed engines, even with fuel lines attached.

The link to the realism overhaul release thread in the OP is broken.

Most efficient American-made hydrocarbon rocket, full stop. The 1D has an Isp of 311 in vacuum and 282 in atmosphere.

I dunno, sounds pretty Kerbal to me.

Ooo, fancy. Will it eat all of my RAM?

Never mind, I am noob. Haven't played for a bit and I didn't see it in the changelog. That said, it might be a good idea to have a list of compatible mods in the OP.

Are there plans to add compatibility with NovaPunch and/or KSP Interstellar?

That's what I figured, just making sure.

Is it possible to get one engine to feed off multiple reactors/generators? If so, are the improvements linear? EDIT: Also, what is the maximum stock electric charge provided by the generators? Or is it just not an issue?

Is there a particular benefit to using the monopropellent engines?

Indeed. You aren't accelerating when you use a warp drive, space itself is bending around you.

Can you do it at relativistic speeds?

Welp, looks like I'm going to get back into KSP this afternoon. Between this, Kethane, and KSP Interstellar or whatever it's called...

Cool. New space race, anyone? That would definitely jump-start the economy.

Why is it that so many posts in the "Science" section has such a habit of grotesquely distorting, murdering, and outright mutilating actual science? Come on, people.

Technically speaking, Moon dust is not chemically toxic or corrosive. However, the tiny size of the quartz particles can cause silicosis and gets all over everything. Because quartz dust is particularly sharp, white blood cells would kill themselves attempting to surround and neutralize it and it is practically impossible to remove from the lungs. That said, it's just dust. With proper filtration and cleaning systems, I doubt it would be a critical issue, though dust storms have caused problems with solar panels in the past. When this happens on a manned mission, I'm sure NASA will be able to develop some kind of Advanced Dust Removal System utilizing some fancy-ass magnetic field. Or, you know, someone could bring a broom outside.

The real problem with the VASMIR is its energy requirements. 200KW is a lot, especially considered that the ISS only has 90kw of power and the engine generates under 6N of thrust. The new ion engine in the OP is actually over a third more energy-efficient than the VASMIR, though possibly less fuel-efficient. For high-thrust ion or plasma propulsion to be viable, I see two options. 1. Nuclear reactors (already tested and operational on satellites during the Cold War) 2. Considerable, very expensive improvements to solar panels. Or we could just use nuclear engines of various types, some of which (such as the nuclear-thermal rocket) have been prototyped and tested by NASA, passing with flying colors. They have higher thrust and can theoretically have an efficiency of 3000-7000isp with a gas-core design but this isp is impossible with current technology due to the truly ridiculous temperatures exhaust temperatures necessary. However, even simple solid-core NTRs can reach 875isp which is far beyond the capability of chemical rockets. while a practical gas-core design could potentially reach 1500-2000isp. Liquid-core reactors could get up to ~1200-1500isp. NTRs are also capable of thrust comparable to chemical rockets in the range of hundreds of kN. NASA has conducted considerable research into NTRs to the point that an upgraded Saturn V with an NTR upper stage was proposed with a thrust of 334kN. Another 73kN thrust design was proposed to replace the Space Shuttle main engines as well. NTRs have a thrust-to-weight ratio large enough that they could in fact be used as a first stage, though this is probably a bad idea for multiple obvious reasons. Oh, and fission-fragment rockets. 'Nuff said.