Ignamious

Yeah, that's one thing I'm not to fond of, but I'm happy with the overall system. A few weeks here and there will be needed. They introduced a great deal of things in a small time.

I looked at 1.0's FuelCells, and they are far more powerful then what i have. My model was 13 hours and 2,285 total charge for one FL-T100, while Stocks are 37 hours and 198,000 total charge. I think thats a little high, considering modern progress, but perfect for stock (have you seen the solar panels?!) I still plan on working this, just can't find time (would rather play >.>) As for the bleed air, i don't know if i'll model that, not sure it's really needed in KSP. But if i ever get around to learning C# (Still fiddling with VBA for work) i thought about modeling a realistic power mod, where the jets would require X electric charge and an APU to start them, or X intake air speed (i think the A-10C is around 130 to restart after flameout, but i can't remember right now). i know others have modeled the solar panel drop off, but i think thats something else that i would like to have. One other thing, is the Stock fuel cells aren't generating any significant heat, at least in Kerbal atmosphere (on launch pad), i only see around 2 point increase in temp: vas Temp Ex: (Debug menu) in reality Fuels cells get HOT, so i would expect them to at least add 100 when at 100%, and the array was around 23 points (i would expect it to be 300+ min) (even though it's 12X more powerful for only 6x the cells). Don't get me wrong, RoverDude did a great job with them, i like the model he used on a gameplay stand point, they actually look like Kerbalized versions of some forms of fuel cells, not sure about the ventral fins for cooling in space but *shrug*. They also generate a good amount of power, 2x that of the RTG (rate = 0.75) (I want to update that too use the same module the Fuel Cells use, ModuleResourceConverter vs the old ModuleGenerator) so it has a life span (of 15 years) i'll have to play with them more, only had a few hours with 1.0 career, just unlocked Level two R&D so a ways off still.

It's not for Aircraft power, it's only for the centrifugal pump for the insecticide. http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/AIRBORN.html - - - Updated - - - I've done a great deal of research into this, Actually what started me on making this in KSP was that i was looking into making one for myself. Just for S&G. I even have a crude Hydrogen splitter. Just trying to do it without all the expensive components. http://www.fuelcellstore.com Would like to use it for camping or to make my electric buggy. Was also thinking that it would be fun to use in RC planes using FPV. There is already a long-distance radio to use. Sadly, most of this is DIY and VERY low budget, so all concept for now. Two more years.

For Aircraft thats correct, APC / tanks it varies, some use turbine, others use two stroke engines. if you look at big rigs trucks, they have an APU. Most are diesel piston, but some are switching to hydrogen fuel cell. there is even propane. Stationary objects can have them too. APU is a term used for the production of power not used in propulsion. The Space shuttle's APU was for hydraulic pressure for the flight surfaces. On STS-9, two of Columbia's APUs caught fire due to a hydrazine leak, but the craft landed successfully. Hydrazine is nasty stuff, but useful, word in the pipe is they found an alternative but we'll see. Also, on crop dusters RAT's are used to power the centrifugal pump so that the plane does not have to be modified so it can meet FAA standards. RAT's create drag and therefore are not used on anything else. I look hard to find any reference to it being used on any other type of vehicle but found nothing. all i found was references for APU's being used on everything, including trains, planes, automobiles, boats, spacecraft, and buildings.

The RAT is the one i'm having trouble with, as i haven't had a chance to sit down and really figure it out, early attempts failed, but i had an idea last week, now i just have to get some free time. i should just sit down and learn C# and make a plugin. i've been delving into VBA for work, and already know enough C to get into trouble.

APU is a Blanket term. Auxiliary Power Units is a device that provides power in vehicles for applications other than propulsion. In KSP stock, solar panels, and RTG's are APU's as long as they don't power the propulsion, so not on rovers or Ions. IF I remember correctly the APU's on the Apollo 13 where AFC's (Alkaline Fuel cell's) or Bacon cells. They used Pure Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce Water, Heat and Electricity. When both tanks blew they lost the use of the AFC's. Fun fact! that O^2 tank that blew was originally supposed to go on the Apollo 10. When a Plane is on the ground, and it's main engines are turned off and it's not connected to ground power, Most have APU's that can start the turbines. They are called JFS (Jet Fuel Starter) What Apollo really needed was an EPU. Not sure if Hydrazine was available, but a little of that with water, and pass it over an iridium catalyst to drive a turbine and you can charge the batteries. (Though the EPU's are generally to regain hydraulic pressure after them main gen on the turbine goes out, usually due to engine failure). Normally EPU's are seen on single engine craft, like the F-16C/D. the Fuel Cell APU is seeing more commercial use too. Delphi Trucks put them on in 2012. Normally you won't hear the term APU used for the only power generator. Such as the Apollo SM. As the AFC were the main source of power for the craft, they would be considered the SPS (Space Power Systems) or FCPP (Fuel Cell Power Plant). Sorry for the confusion or the terminology. I'll amend the OP to say that APU will be a blanket term used for all power generation not used for propulsion of a vehicle.

Added the MonoPropellent Fuel Cell POC. Not that great at modeling parts so that will take some time... I still would like to make them radial instead of inline, but i know that has fuel flow problems, hope to solve that for the Rocketfuel.

Sure, I'll add that, I Forget that not everyone lives in a world of acronyms like i do.

Added download link for POC Fuel Cell. the file is for an alkali fuel cell. it uses the RTG from stock as a model for now.

Over the course of the next few days i am going start making an APU / EPU / RAT. APU = Auxiliary Power Unit. An APU is a term used for the production of power not used in propulsion. So the Alternators on Engines of cars, or on rockets, are not APU's however Fuel Cells used to power life support, electronics, and Hydraulics would be. These are generators, they are used in most big vehicles, From Trucks to Tanks, Airplanes and Ships. The STS had many different kinds, the Apollo had 3. The LOX tanks that blew on Apollo 13 were for the APU (AFC's). EPU = Emergency Power Unit. Same as the EPU but as a backup. Many use Hydrazine. RAT = Ram Air Turbine These are mostly used in Airplanes. Think of it as a small wind turbine. These are the last things used when the Main Gen., APU, and EPU fail. Its enough to power critical systems. This mod will be for real world power units to augment those lacking in KSP. While the RTG is fine, i just find it lacking, as the heat is not modeled. (fuel attrition is moot.) and with deep space refueling coming, i think these will fit nice. They will be early in the tech tree to augment until the RTG. Part of a realism mod i guess. The APU/EPU/Fuel Cell(Auxiliary Power Unit / Emergency Power Unit) will be coming in a few different models and be the first ones out: A radial one similar in size to the PB-X50R Xenon Container A Tiny one similar in size to the PB-X150 Xenon Container A Small one similar in size to the FL-R25 RCS Fuel Tank Download 0.01 Change Log WIP 2 (0.01) [LIST] [*]Added MonoPropellant Fuel Cell [/LIST] WIP for Inline Fuel Cell. Colors are only to see detail. if there is demand for it, a Large Size one as well. I’ve been trying to come up with a plan of attack on the Fuel, and have come up with the idea of just following NASA, and use the KSP Equivalent of Monopropellant. These APU’s will be a realism replacement for the overpowered RTG. The APU/EPU will be self contained units, meaning they will have enough fuel in them for 6 Hours. They are only meant for use for accent, orbital insertion and decent. In the Space shuttle they used them for the Hydraulics. They can be used for other applications. Talk about the power generated by the Fuel Cell Vs APU The RTG used in the Voyager 1 at launch was 400W at 30VDC thats 13.3A Each or 40A for all three (it’s less now) assuming the unit of measurement for KSP’s power is 1 = 1A that would mean the Voyager 1 Probe at launch in KSP terms generated .01/s If we use the same for the RTG in game we get .75/s or a total Generation of 2700A at 30 V is 81000W. However if we assume that the Electric charge is in mA not A we get the KSP RTG is now 2.7Ah at 30V so 81W thats inline with the Apollo 12–17 ALSEP RTG. Voyager 1’s RTG (single) in KSP: E = 3.7/s ALSEP RTG in KSP: E = .65/s ok so i have a precedence for the amount of power an RTG uses in KSP, how do i use this for the Fuel Cell, APU and RAT. The Apollo Era Fuel cell was 30 VDC 1420 Watt with a peak of 2300 watt. Dimensions 3-D: 111.8 x 55.9cm, 111.1kg (44 x 22 in., 245lb.) Baseline established for Fuel cell in real life, so KSP terms its: 13.13/s (ignoring peak) Perfect now i need to scale this for KSP. Well, at 55.9cm wide we see that the apollo fuel cell is a kSP tiny. Now the Fuel. The cells were fed by two hemispherical-cylindrical 31.75-inch (0.806 m) diameter tanks, each holding 29 pounds (13 kg) of liquid hydrogen, and two spherical 26-inch (0.66 m) diameter tanks, each holding 326 pounds (148 kg) of liquid oxygen (which also supplied the environmental control system). (taken right from wikipedia, couldn’t find NASA source on this one.) so for the usage of fuel it should be (simplified a H=1 O=16) by weight of 1:8 so for each 1/kg of Liquid Fuel used 8/kg Oxidizer need to be used. but this won’t add up as in KSP it’s 8 units of liquid fuel per 11 units of oxidizer thats more like RP-1 and Oxygen, wile this type of Fuel cell has been created it’s runs Much to hot to be used, and is more expensive. to combat this we will fudge some numbers to make it work. As i don’t know C# to be able to do any major code, i’ll use the already implemented .cfg files to do what i want. So Fuel cell in KSP: Size: Tiny Output 13.13/s Fuel 8.6 kg Liquid Hydrogen / 68.8 kg Liquid Oxygen Won’t work. To powerful for KSP. So, Lets change it. So Fuel cell in KSP: Size: Tiny Output .0457/s Fuel Used: LiquidFuel = .0009 Oxidizer = .0011 This means with a full FL-T100 you can create: 2.285 Amps of charge or in KSP 2285 E units and will last 13H53M20S. While making this fuel Cell powerful, it also makes it semi-balanced. The other option is to decrease the fuel usage 10%, but this would make it be able to charge 22850 and last 138H53M20S Now this would make the timeline more correct for the Apollo Erra, and the charge balanced for KSP. Well, thats that taken care of. So, where to put it. Well, it will have to be in somewhere between batteries and Solar Panels for the first small one. Now, as the size increases so could the power output, but this would also scale the Fuel usage. Relatively easy. Now the APU is a different beast. It will use Monoprop at a higher rate, but also has an increased power output. for the Boing Dreamliner the APU will generate 235kVA 235VAC (guessing three phase) is 614.2A!! that would be a charge rate of 170.6/s. That kind of charge just isn’t needed in Stock KSP. as we don’t have to worry about using them to power all the lights on a plane, and the cabin avionics and sensors. KSP doesn’t model amount of current needed just to run a command pod (yet). “Put them at the end of the tech tree!†Why? Whats the point in that, by then you can have RTG’s. Besides fuel is a premium in the start. the RAT. Ok, this is a Ram Air Turbine, this is the last ditch to create electricity if both the Batteries are empty and the APU is out (in real life, this would be used if both engines are down, and the APU’s won’t start) and all planes have them (well not crop dusters) it’s a propeller that pops out somewhere on the planes and creates just enough power to run the critical systems. The faster you are gowing the more current is created. this would only work where there is an atmosphere (something to make the propeller spin) so Kerbin, Duna, Lathe, Eve. Will update when i have Proof of concept parts done and post them for Balance review. Right now i have the Fuel Cell complete, using the RTG, i’ll change this to the above objects later. This should fill a void in some of the Aerospace realism parts that are missing as all jets (that i know of) and planes (Militart and medium+ commercial) have APU/EPU and most space craft have Fuel Cells (the Space shuttle had them, as well as the Apollo CSM and Some Probes. and the RAT’s most commercial planes have them. Can’t find documentation on if the Space shuttle had one, but i don’t think it did. Air Transat Flight 236, an Airbus A330 used a RAT to perform a deadstick landing in the Azores. and in KSP many a time i have landed my plane, shuttle, SSTO deadstick, and 80% of the time, the reason for less then safe re-entry was running out of electrical charge high in the atmosphere. while a RAT won’t help me there, i could have used an APU/EPU until lower, and avoided a retrograde facing re-entry. FAR doesn’t like those. -Jeremy Found good read on Fuel Cells from NASA: The Fuel Cell in Space: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow by Marvin Warshay and Paul R. Prokopius http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900002488.pdf

If i remember from a Tuesday neb note a month ago, there is supposed to be another stage to the upgrade but they didn't finish it in time, and rather then delay the update or push a poor product the decided to hold it till the next beta patch. They may have decided to just nix the barn, and start at industrial stage. but have the currant visual stage 1 as stage 2 and adding in the barn series as the new stage 1 with current stats and adjusting the prices for 4 states would change the costs a bit. either way, i don't find the costs much, after only 5 missions i've upgraded 1/2 the buildings to T2 and am almost at the unlock point for the >100 science in the R&D. i have my Moon mission and am building a rocket and lander for it now testing out the different components and finish contracts (i got my first rescue mission after finishing my first orbit contract! Yeah for 60k.

YES YES YES!!! When i saw this on Facebook last week i have been hunting it. You sir are amazing!

Your Screen Resolution is too low. For some Reason on MAC OSX KSP defaults to the lowest screen size every time. This includes just going into the menu. That will fix your issue. set it to the highest it will allow if your playing on the laptop.

Yeah, if i remember that was also an issue with SP+ 1.3. strutting it helps... ads some rigidity to it. I use Remote Tech 2 in my game, and my SSTO's are launch vessels for them (cheap!) i have a 7% CMF rate on it, during LKPD - VII (Low Kerbin Payload Delivery) I think in my latest save i've used the my plane 15 times, 6 com sats for the moons of kerbin, 4 in geostationary 2 in polar LKO 2 at Duna (one landed) and then one lost when a fuel tank ruptured in flight (i blame the kraken) during the XST-2 trials, the gear were attached to the intake for the added hight, but found it unstable, with XST-3 the struts helped, but not enough, so XST-4 the plane had a redesign. sadly the suspension is not stiff enough, and when your landing deadstick you kit harder, and can break your engine off (typical landing speed is 140m/s-200m/s with FAR installed. But now that B9 is updated to .25 i can use the larger landing gear, and the LKPD mk3 can be born! (again)

It's a shame, this is one of my favorite mods for KSP. I usually always have this, and B9. Love making radial shuttles and i've even used this to make POT shuttles. I would also be happy to help with this mod. But only have time to really play with config files. It's actually one of the things i've been thinking of doing anyway, as to modify them to fit the stock tree a bit more. Shnoo if you are able to take it over let me know and i'd love to help where I can!!

I'm "aiding" a class at a local high school's Rocketry club. Each year there is a competition, this year, an egg to 750Ft, rocket separation to two parts, both must land on ground without damage in 48 seconds from liftoff to touchdown. the payload must survive. This is going to be better then last year, that one was 2 eggs to 850 ft, 48 seconds no damage, no separation. Both must be single stage only rockets too. we'll see what the kids come up with and how they work on the seperation. -J

The cubic strut is clearly a form of reinforced carbon nanotubes.

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktwtp.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_fraction Just add weight to it. you have MJ so you have a readout of ∆v you can add fuel tanks and see what the ∆v is after each one. 4500 is average to LKO i like 5000 for wiggle room. or the Kerbal way, and just push launch.

I'd like to see mk3 and maybe even a Mk4. Cargo bays would also be nice, that way we don't have to rely on B9 community fixes.

So, I was skulking the add-on release thread while waiting for my windshield replacement, and it hit me. You can always tell when a new build is eminent by the mod authors. See a few weeks before a new build you start noticing mod enhancement start to slow down, it's rare for new features to be pushed, and most are just bug fixes, there are less new plugins made as well. It's an exciting time for sure, and I think that explains observational point number two. People start getting angry at the developers. It's something I don't understand, you usually get one or two post about how Squad is "blah blah blah" and what I read into it is "hurry hurry gimme gimme" haha! What kind of calm before the storm have ya'll noticed? I wonder if this happens with real word things like the SLS, or a book release. Do people act like this when the see the pre-production studio review of a new Movie that they buy into? -Jeremy

I get rid of the fairings on docking ports by doing a quick save then quick load. Same with a few parts.

Amram, Great post! and your spot on, on almost everything! and your right, everything you said was pubic info... i had to double check with Barrage, but thats out there too. One thing to note. Its VERY VERY VERY hard to burn out passive systems... any engineer will build inhibiters into the system. Also, Phased arrays are pretty much the new system so you can't track a "Dish" anymore in space you will NOT!!! use a spinning object. Spinning objects in space create torque, and that creates forces that you must counteract. Assume in space you will only ever use phased arrays, with redundant backups, all hardened with safety shunts and inhibiters. as it stands now, you can get self attinuating devices to reduce the incoming gain. Dodging IR is easy. a "hot spot" brighter then you / your engines is all you need, both long wave and medium wave IR can get overwhelmed by it, and the IR missile with track it instead. Look at a flare. Who knows in 200 years we might have better IR but chafes are we'll have better targeting capabilities then that. ( i had to use so much google fu >.<)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program Nasa was going to do it. If this program goes back online sooner then later that would be great.

Actually the maximum rate of fire for the A10c of 4,200 RPM is not used anymore. Its fixed to 3,900 thanks to a TCTO in 2003. But your right, the barrel doesn't spin up. I was mistaken on that.

Plasma is electrically neutral as a whole, but its strongly influenced by EM fields. you Not much is currently known about heavy metals being turned to plasma. However high density plasma has magnetohydrodynamics suitability. also... you can't easily deflect something with your own magnetic field like that. 10km/s is fast, thats 22,270 MPH. and plasma is not a solid object. it doesn't have only one pole and it's not only positive or negatively charged. think of it more as ferro-fluid. Plasma is mostly neutral because it contains the same amount of electrons (negative) and ions (positive) but it is influenced by EMR, in 200 years who knows what we can come up with. Look at the last 20 years. Boeing is actually doing Plasma research right now for weapons in it's Phantom Works called DEW (Directed Energy weapons). There are a few different ideas. Yup! if you really want to **** some people off just go to an RC field with a 2.4ghz jammer and turn it on, most of the RC now uses that frequency. bu some still use the 72mhz (easier to jam) so you can do that too. a little math and the know how you can easily make a frequency jammer with radio shack parts, well... mostly radio shack parts.