Starwaster

A more likely configuration would be a compressor fan with bypass doors that close as the engine transitions to supersonic / ramjet speeds. Then later transitions to scramjet and then rocket. There are research documents proposing this. Having it also be a rocket engine might not be realistic or feasible, but I wrote up a config that does turn one of the OPT parts into a hybrid scramjet / rocket engine using the data from the research document for the Mach curve data. I'll post it later today. Edit: Ooops, I kind of skimmed over parts of your question because it was early and I had to go make breakfast, so I'm looking at it now and I'm not really sure what you were asking here... I could still post my config but I'm not sure it's what you're looking for?

Pro tip for anyone using Dropbox to distribute files: If you set the &dl=0 to &dl=1 then it will be a 1 click download. No opening a new page. Edit: Also, although the file says 'logs' in it, there's no KSP log or Unity player.log Those could be more helpful than the dxdiag that was in there. Probably a lot of exceptions in there . Just a hunch.

@cfloutier When braking for landing, does it give separate consideration to vertical velocity from horizontal velocity or is it just trying to null out the velocity vector as a whole? (A use case would be an Apollo style lunar module 'shallow' descent where maybe 90% of the thrust is cancelling horizontal velocity and the remainder used to manage descent velocity)

@garwel How would a 3rd party mod tie into this? For instance, a life support mod, or Deadly Reentry? (DR actually has a mechanic for damaging Kerbals that overheat outside of a craft)

Because they look at engines, not generators or converters (which is what the fuel cells are configured to be)

They're taken in alphabetical order, including the folder/subfolders they are in. So, within a given phase (FIRST, BEFORE, FOR, AFTER, FINAL), things will go from 0-1,a-z.

@Astra Infinitum alt-F11 reload database is the way to do it, IIRC. Except that there was an issue where it messed up R&D configs. And even some part's might not re-initialize properly. It was enough of an issue that personally I just restarted my game. It's been quite awhile though so maybe the issues were resolved. (they were stock issues, not MM issues)

What it looks like is this: A lower level of boiloff at the start of the mission ramping up to excessively higher boiloff over time. Time warps high enough to trigger analytical heat will make it happen a lot faster. Lower/higher being relative to before the changes were made (March 2022 IIRC). What happens is that the part has more thermal inertia than it should have and the cooling effect of boiloff is diminished. You're basically having to cool down not just the tank part, but the cryogens inside. Imagine that your LH2/LOX are being heated to around 172+ Kelvin. IRL that can't happen because they never go above their boiling temperature until after they've changed state into a gas. @RESOURCE_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[#vsp[*],#hsp[*]]:FINAL { @hsp = 0 } That will patch every resource to set specific heat to 0 if both specific heat and latent heat are present. (latent heat of vaporization should only be present for cryogenic resources)

It lacks certain changes that were made in the official branch. Some of it is just general: I feel that RF has become more and more bloated with features that were made to serve Realism Overhaul, which RF predates. RF used to be a much simpler mod introducing a variety of real resources + boiloff for cryogenic resources + normalizing real world volume units. But also, there have been specific changes that I have problems with such as to the Unmanaged Resources feature. The changes made break that feature as it was originally designed. (and I should know since I designed it) Another such change is adding specific heat (hsp) back into cryogenic resources. (I removed specific heat from cryo quite a few years back). Without going into too much detail, the net impact is that cryo resources will over time absorb more thermal energy than is realistically possible. That means more heat energy that needs to be removed by radiators/cryocoolers and it's energy that shouldn't be present. The full answer is a good deal more complex than that and more complex than I feel like dealing with here right now. (I will say this though: In terms of heat, there's sensible heat and latent heat and you should never be dealing with both at the same time. Cryo should only ever be dealing with latent heat. Never sensible because it is assumed to be at its boiloff temperature at all times.) That second item is something you will probably never notice if you only deal with cryogenic resources for launch and not long term storage, such as ISRU or cryo depots. If you play with either of those then you may have noticed that over time you built up more heat than you could easily get rid of.

@SpacedInvader I'll take a poke at it and see if I can find out what's happening, but I have to warn you, I'm not involved with Real Fuels development anymore and only use my own branch for gameplay. I'll have to install the current official branch and the other mods you mentioned. I can do that, but you might have better luck going into the Realism Overhaul discord channel and bugging them about it directly. I don't know if they even monitor these forums anymore. You could try making an issue on the github repository page but I don't think they really look at those anymore either. They definitely don't care about the last issue I raised.

I hope if they include resources in the thermodynamics system that they don't do it the way they did in KSP 1 and just merge it to part thermo as one monolithic thermal mass. Part + resource thermo needs to be separate.

When useRealisticMass is set to false, engines are scaled 4x and tanks are scaled 4.8x. If set to true then the part's configured mass is used as is. There is an implicit assumption there that engines are scaled realistically already and if useRealisticMass = true then don't touch engine/tank masses. It also assumes that they are set to 1/4th of what they would be in stock, so the simple answer to your question would be that if you're using a stock Kerbol star system then the setting should be set to false. A realistically scaled star system (Real Solar System, Kerbin 10x, JNSQ) should have the setting at true. BUT. (caveat time) This mod, while having scaled down engine masses, does not necessarily have engine masses at 1/4th of their stock sizes. For instance, MassiveBooster (I think that's the shuttle SRB styled one...) has a stock mass of 4. But this mod sets it to to 2.4. If you set useRealisticMass = false then you're going to end up with a booster that is 9.6 tons. YOU DO NOT WANT THAT. That's more than double the stock mass for that part. I'm not sure of the relevant config file's history, maybe the ratio between mod and stock used to be different. But I would set useReaiisticMass = true to avoid unnecessary headaches.

Yes absolutely. You could even do it like The Little Prince if you wanted.

Also, another thing to consider is that NERV is based on late 50s technology and SWERV represents technology that is still on the drawing board for us even now.

Could the failure be from something other than Kerbalism? (which is what that looks like it's from) For instance, Real Fuels engines can fail if they ingest vapor, which can happen due to unstable ullage. In orbit it might happen because the fuel drifted around and you need to settle it with RCS or solid fuel rockets. (ullage motors). Stage separation during launch can cause it. In which case you need to either delay ignition while ullage motors settle the tank or use hot separation. (where you ignite the next stage motor just before separation)

Not a question but: Please PLEASE for god's sake, don't combine part thermal mass with resource thermal mass. (if it's implemented at all) Resource thermodynamics should be separate from part thermodynamics with heat transferring between each other. Vitally important for boiloff mechanics, whether it's because you choose to implement boiloff or to allow mods to properly an realistically implement boiloff mechanics. That's been a pet peeve of mine ever since KSP1 implemented resource thermal mass.

You're taking a bare minimum design there which is not good for comparison purposes. You don't really have a payload except for the capsule. Nuclear isn't a PnP option that's going to be great for all designs and it's definitely not always better. It's going to be orbital only (or upper stage, at a minimum). It'll probably be assemble-in-orbit where you don't want to be transporting tanks of dense propellants into orbit. In the real world we'd be talking 8-10m diameter. Not sure what that would be for Kerbin. To give a real world example of where nuclear could have been used for an upper stage, it was considered for use in Saturn V's third stage, the S-IVB. It would have been less powerful than the J2 but would have ditched the LOX tank. The tank would have been lengthened a bit but would have been lighter overall because they would also have ditched the common bulkhead between the H2/O2 tanks. The end result would have been either greater dV because of reduced third stage mass or more payload. So there are times and designs you'd use nuclear, but you can't just drop it in any design and expect it to be better.

New official download link https://github.com/Starwaster/Stockalike-Station-Hubs/releases/

If you want to make a derivative work, the license allows for it. But there will be no ‘adoption’ or ‘takeover’ and it’s rude to suggest such a thing to the author.

@xelapis just having a list of your mods won't be enough. I need your ksp.log file from the main game folder and your ModuleManager.ConfigCache file from the GameData folder.

As far as that goes, it'll work but there were (IIRC) UI bugs due to changes that were made. Nothing that recompiling from the source wouldn't fix.

You're only providing information. Shouldn't be a problem. But if it causes any, that's on you to deal with. (Should be okay though. Probably.)

try Alt+Shift+F11

np glad I could help!

It's not that KSP or MM care, it's that ModuleScienceLab specifically cares. It doesn't try to locate a suitable container module. Instead it relies on being told what location (what index) the container is in. In this case, index 0, which is the first module. If it's pointed at a location and the module at that location is not a ModuleScienceContainer, then it fails. I think it also prints a warning or error in the log but I forget. I actually didn't look at the log yet. But I know from past experience that it will fail if given an incorrect index. Anyway, in your example, MPL-LG-2, yes, ModuleScienceLab is second module. That's not important. What's important there is that it's looking at index 0 for the container, and first container is ModuleScienceContainer It's (IMNSHO) bad and sloppy coding. (no offense to any KSP code monkeys reading this who might have been responsible for that module)