NathanKell

Yeah, that's actually already partially taken into account. All O-class engines are assumed to have many-restart capability, and pay the TWR price for that. But a MFSC GUI frontend would be neat, you're right. Throttle range limiting is planned--check some of the posts on the EI thread--but it would need some interesting coding to keep it compatible with MJ. Or some recoding of MJ. Because whenever you wanted 0 thrust you'd have to disable the engine, and then re-enable it to turn it on, which is a different case then EI currently handles. Ah, yeah. The exact opposite for me: since I still use the autopilot functions, I found KER to be needless duplication. Also, the MJ ascent stats window is super helpful, trying to optimize one's ascent and compare rocket aerodynamics.

Thanks! 1. HoneyFox did just that. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51880-0-21-Engine-Ignitor 2. Don't use KER anymore, but I'll take a look. Shouldn't be hard.

Nope, that means you need more engines. ferram: yeah, that's what I figured. And yeah, saw that code when I looked at the source when you released it. I'll push an update and give you the interface. Re: hybrid, it's done by forcing the module to reload from confignode, not creating a new module. So the pointer would still be the same and your code wouldn't trip, I think...

That looks very good! I'm working on the cost code today, btw. With MFSC mostly stable, need to get back to this...

sarbian, I did post my patch code, some days ago, on your thread. But here is the link again. https://www.dropbox.com/s/wl3nmfbylx6mgpg/MechJeb2_thrustscaling.zip Tiron, as I said above, I installed B9 and am taking a look. In v2 I tweaked the SABRE Isps slightly, and that might help a bit, but stay tuned. I do plan on keeping Source in the plugins folder--it's as good a place as any, a number of mods do it, it makes compiling and updating easy, and it doesn't do the game any harm to have CS files in GameData.

I think that question was more regarding Buran and Kliper. Rockets don't need FAR compatible versions of themselves, but IIRC those (as planes, with wings) don't fly so well. A while ago someone was trying to make them work in FAR, but FAR needs wing attach nodes to be in specific places IIRC.

Just a note. ferram's Isp Scaling doesn't work with this yet. We're working on compatibility.

So, I was writing this up, the long process I go through, and I realized I already have exactly the values you need (partly). I already _have_ IspV and IspSL multipliers per config. In each ModuleEngineConfigs there's a List<ConfigNode> configs. In that are multiple CONFIG nodes, and in each you should find IspV and IspSL. Multiply them by your appropriate scalar, if you haven't already already. When MFS nexts calls SetConfiguration, Isps will be updated. However, for engines that don't yet use the new TechLevel system (or use hybrid engines) it's a bit more complicated. New hybrid engines (ModuleHybridEngine) are easy: they use the same CONFIG system as modular engines. If you don't find IspV and IspL, you look in each CONFIG for an atmosphereCurve and change it. Old hybrid engines (ModuleHybridEngines) are basically identical to B9's HydraEngineController (which, I might point out, I think this also fails on). They have primaryEngine and secondaryEngine nodes under their module node, and atmosphereCurves in those. The real issue is how do you extend down the curve for TL-enabled engines, and here's the rub. I recreate the floatcurves on the fly whenever I call SetConfiguration, by examining some stored float curves and grabbing only their pressure(0) and pressure(1) nodes. So if you want to go above pressure(1) you'd have to run your change directly on the part, after each time I run SetConfiguration, I think, unless I add a handler?

Ooh, that'd be right kind of you if you would; I'd be happy to write an interface on my end if that would help. Yeah, actually, makes way more sense if I write a hook on my end. I'll add a receiving function (as I've already done so my Stretchy mod can change thrust in configs) that takes the two floats of yours. You sendmessage, and from that I'll read in the two floats and scale all my Isps by that. Not quite sure of a quick and easy way to handle the scaling at >1 pressure other than just copying your code and having you sendmessage a bool...

Wow, that looks amazingly useful! And unlike the nosecone SRB trick, you can even adjust the center of thrust for this!

Supernovy, nope, this just scales Isp. You need either Modular Fuels (sig) or Arcturus Thrust Corrector for that. Ampsterman, nope, all it does is scale Isp (sea level and vacuum) to values you set. Well, and it also lets pressure go above 1.0 and scales Isp to match. What's also provided are some presets to match real-world conditions, for both stock KSP (4.5km/s to orbit) and FAR (3-3.5km/s to orbit).

I don't make StretchyTanks. I just added a few fixes. AncientGammoner made ST, but he's been busy with school.

Editor's note. Both missions occur before some of the satellites featured in Part XVI. Also, you may note a few retcons. I've been meaning to redo the early missions for verisimilitude (what idiot deorbits their first satellite?--MC stock missions, I'm looking at you and your progency) and craft design wasn't up to snuff, either the probes or (now that I've added new textures and stuff) the LVs. When .22 drops and my mods are updated, I may do just that.

Mond 3, Meton 3 Munar Twins Mission: Mond 3 Program: Mond Programm Mission Control: Reichsraumfahrtamt (Imperial Spaceflight Office) Launch Vehicle: Langschiff-A4 Launch Site: Sternburg Raumhafen SR-2A, Deutsch-Ostafrika Objective: Image the far side of the Mun Intended Orbit: Low Munar (hyperbolic) Description: Launch the Mond 3 probe on an orbit to take it around the Mun's far side, return imagery by signal when in contact again. Outcome: Success Details: Mond 3 spacecraft features cone-shaped striped heat-diffusing body to account for differences in heating/cooling in long flight around Mun. Package includes large camera and electronics capable of transmitting images over the long distance to Kerbin. LV used is the Langschiff-A4 launch vehicle, standardized version of the ad-hoc Langschiff-A(M), with the small kerolox transmunar injection stage used for Mond 1 and 2. Mond 3 will launch to orbit then trans-munar injection; Repulsor IIM will fire twice to place Mond 3 and TMI stage into orbit, then on burnout and after guidance-set delay Mond 3 will engage its own final stage to complete injection into Munar transfer orbit. Once near the Mun, the stage will drop away and be observed to impact the Mun by Mond 3. Background: Third in the series of Mond probes, Mond 3 was designed to return the first photographs of the far side of the Mun. Since the Mun is tide-locked, only the near side is ever visible to Kerbin; a probe is necessary to gain imagery of the far side. Probe orientation would be tricky: in order for the photographs of the far side to be useful, Kerbol would have to be shining on the Mun's far side. However, that meant the near side of the Mun would be in shadow, precluding a light sensor as a method of orientation. RRA engineers instead created an orientation program that locked onto three bright stars to give a 3-axis fix, and a light sensor to detect when the far side of the Mun was visible. Once visible, the spacecraft would reorient, the TMI stage detach and be propelled via RCS thrust down and away from the craft, and the camera would start rolling. With luck, the impact of the TMI stage would even be caught on film, giving invaluable insight into the composition of the lunar surface. Results: Complete success. Mond 3 launched during the night in order to achieve Munar intercept. The trans-munar injection stage worked quite well, firing at precisely the right time in order to place Mond 3 into a transfer orbit with a Munar periapsis of 6.7km (desired periapsis was 3.5km, a quite acceptable error). At six minutes to periapsis the light sensor tripped, Mond 3 reoriented, the TMI stage detached, and the camera started rolling. The impact of the TMI stage was even caught on camera. After successfully transmitting its tiny, grainy, but invaluable images, Mond 3 continued out of the Munar sphere of influence on an escape trajectory; not long after its systems died and contact was lost, it became the first Kerbal-made object to exit the Kerbin-Mun system and enter a kerbolocentric orbit. Notable Flight Events T-00:08:00 Mond 3 in assembly building prior to rollout to Startrampe 2A. T+00:00:00 Liftoff! T+00:00:12 Pitch program begins. T+00:01:10 Armbrust-derived booster is staged away. Note limited exhaust flare as only one B7 is firing (second will fire to place stack in orbit). T+00:03:07 MECO #1, apokerb of 121km achieved. T+00:03:28 Mond 3 passes Karman line. Fairings jettisoned. T+00:14:21 Repulsor IIM fires second B7 engine, places payload stack in orbit. T+00:14:45 After MECO #2, Repulsor IIM staged away. TMI stage will now wait for ejection point. T+00:38:17 Mond 3 is properly aligned and E1 ignites, placing Mond 3 into a Munar transfer orbit. T+06:03:52 Mond 3 enters the Mun's "Sphere of Influence," where the gravitational force of the Mun exceeds that of all other bodies (i.e. Kerbin). Still on course. T+07:35:10 100km up. Light sensor trips, stage set to detach, camera running. T+07:36:10 TMI stage detaches, fires RCS to impact the Mun. T+07:40:09 TMI Stage can be seen about to impact the Mun. T+07:40:11 Impact. 1 minute to periapsis. T+07:41:15 Periapsis of 6.7km. T+07:44:23 After Kerbinrise, communication link finally established. Footage begins transmission. Mond 3 on escape trajectory. Mission: Meton 3 Program: Meton Program Mission Control: Kerbican Space Agency Launch Vehicle: Granite-Corinthia Launch Site: Canaveral Space Center LC-5, Union of Kerbican States Objective: Munar impact probe Intended Orbit: High then low Munar (impact) Outcome: Success Background: KSA, like the RRA, had its eye on the Mun. To investigate it, they began the Meton program, named after the Kellenic astronomer Meton of Athens who invented the Metonic cycle, very nearly a common multiple of the Kerbolar year and the Munar month. The Meton program envisioned munar impact probes, munar orbiters, and even landers. The Block I Meton spacecraft was designed to be light enough to be launched on a Koddard III, but the electronics and sensors could not be made rugged enough to withstand the rough ascent given by a solid booster. Thus KSA turned to the Granite booster, used by the KU Air Force. Using their experience in designing orbital maneuvering systems with hypergolic propellant, KSA created their own in-house upper stage for the program, called Corinth (in line with the usual practice of naming stages after Kellenic regions). It used a far smaller engine than the Bactria (still mired in development problems): the Corinthia's LR25R was a scaled up version of the LR11R NTO/MMH hypergolic bipropellant engine used by Explorer, Oracle, and the like, and produced a bit over three times the thrust. The Bactria, by contrast, had a design thrust of ten times what the LR25R could deliver. The LR25R would also be used (in a group of 3) as the Aquarius OMS, and so Meton would also serve as a way to test Aquarius Program technologies. The Block I Meton spacecraft included extensible solar wings, the first spacecraft to do so. These were needed, as it was quite power-hungry compared to the early Explorers and Oracles: it featured a low-gain omnidirectional antenna, a high-gain directional antenna (dish), two cameras (a wide-angle and a narrow-angle), and numerous sensors. Further, its guidance unit was much more complicated, since it would need to perform multiple attitude corrections and even course corrections. The Meton program ran into problems from the start. First, the Corinthia upper stage was far larger than any earlier hypergolic upper stage. Second, there were integration issues with the Granite booster, given the size difference and the desire (given how underpowered the Granite was) to minimize drag losses and thus go to with complexly-curved fairing. Finally, the environment of high cismunar space was as yet unstudied; no one was sure what complications might await the probe. Finally, however, Meton 1 was ready for launch. Sadly the problems did not end there: Meton 1 suffered an explosion in the Corinthia upper stage two minutes into flight; the spacecraft was a total launch. The backup, Meton 1A, was launched immediately afterward, but also failed: the solar wings failed to extend, and Meton 1A ran out of power only a few thousand kilometers from Kerbin. After going over the spacecraft design with a fine-tooth comb and finding that program error (a missing hyphen), as well as a few others, Meton 2 was pronounced ready for launch--but not before Mond 2 impacted the Mun. Up until the third hour of flight, Meton 2 appeared a complete success, but at that point attitude errors started accumulating. When Meton 2 fired its RCS for a correction burn, the burn took it away from the Mun rather than towards it; shortly thereafter all communication ceased. It would not be until Helios 1 confirmed KSA's supposition that there was some heightened form of radiation in high orbit by discovering the van Kallen belts that KSA felt ready to try for a third time. The Block II Meton featured much-increased radiation shielding and a further-optimized guidance program. Yet again, however, the Kermans had beaten KSA to the punch: Mond 3 returned pictures from the Munar far side. Thus the Block II featured another change: more film. Rather than being launched on a straight shot to the Mun, KSA decided to send Meton 3 far beyond the Mun and around its far side before a correction burn put it on an impact course. This way KSA could return pictures of the far side and pictures of the surface (since the impact site would be, just barely, above the horizon for the Oracle relay). In addition, it was hoped that by keeping the course correction until the last moment, Meton 3 might duplicate Mond 3's feat and take a picture of the Corinthia TMI stage impacting the Munar surface. Notable Flight Events T-00:05:00 Meton 3 atop Granite-Corinthia LV in Launch Complex 5 VAB. Note double-curve fairing for better aerodynamics. T-00:00:10 Meton 3 at pad LC-5B, ten seconds to liftoff. T+00:00:00 Liftoff! T+00:00:23 Pitch program begins. T+00:02:10 MECO, fuel exhausted. T+00:03:11 Passing Karman line, fairings jettison. Solar wings and antennae deploy successfully. Meton 3 coasts to 121km apoapsis. T+00:06:36 Corinthia ignition #1. Meton 3 circularizes at 122 x 122km orbit. T+00:07:33 Burn completed, stack reorients for ejection burn. T+00:43:14 Corinthia ignition #2: TMI burn. Kerbin apoapsis will be seventeen thousand kilometers. T+00:44:55 Burn completed. Corinthia will jettison, and Meton 3 will coast to far away from the Mun before falling back towards it. T+13:31:06 After small corrective burn from RCS, Meton 3 reaches apoapsis of 16,914km above Kerbin's surface. Note Corinthia upper stage is still quite close to Meton 3, and Mun is lit from the side; in order for good lighting at the impact site, far side lighting is less than optimal on the trip "up"--though the far side begins about a quarter in, so the lighting is not that bad (Meton 3 is approaching from the side). T+20:45:35 2,500km from the Mun, Meton 3 initiates second correction burn, pulls away from Corinthia upper stage. Transmission begins, first of the far side images, then in real time. T+21:37:41 Meton 3 is 400km up, Corinthia upper stage can be seen falling away. T+21:44:30 Final burn: Meton 3 almost exhausts its onboard propellant at 100km altitude in order to increase its "hang time" above the Mun. T+21:46:20 Contact lost. No image of the Corinthia upper stage impacting was received; either it impacted outside the field of view or Kerbican optics were sufficiently inferior to Kerman ones as to preclude the necessary detail.

No probs. :]

Heh, yeah, probably. Sorry for being snippy; it's just I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to get the Isps right. HAHAH no. I came to that same conclusion too, that's why all I tried to do was class engines based on my best guess as to what the nozzle geometry was or was supposed to be. That's why the Skipper is an upper stage engine, for instance, why the Mainsail is an L+, and why (given the bolded part) I sucked it up and counted the LV909 and Poodle as O. I put the classes and tech levels in my previous post in an edit, if you haven't seen them yet. So alas no, it's just "is this a boost engine, an upper stage engine, or an engine that doesn't care about vac performance and pays a penalty in TWR for being restartable" (the latter being the only way I could make sense of LV-1/LV-909/Poodle, let alone the fact that their nozzles are all wrong).

The engine Isps are based on real engines using those fuel mixtures. KSP has really weird Isps: way too high for normal propellants (kerosene/liquid oxygen, or a Nitrogen tetroxide hypergolic mixture) and too low for liquid hydrogen/LOX. As I said in the post _two above yours_: Note that hypergolic Isp is 0.95x shown, and Hydrolox Isp is 1.3x shown. Kerolox is the baseline. EDIT: As to what the tech levels correspond to: 0: WW2 to 1955 (pre-Sputnik) [note that rocketry didn't advance that fast then] 1: Sputnik and the early stuff (57-60) 2: Mercury/Vostok/first probes era (61-63) 3: Mid 60s (Gemini and early Apollo) (63-67) 4: Mid-late 60s (somewhere between Apollo and the F-1A/J-2S upgrades) (67-72) (end space race, so less development) 5: Apollo Applications (72-77) 6: Shuttle era (78-90) 7: Current/future

Yeah, though some of the real low thrust/high Isp vac engines have a longer, slighter-curving nozzle closer to the ideal nozzle; I guess the drag losses are outweighed by other efficiency gains. Your vac-optimized engine had a nozzle that looked close to the ideal shape (as does, say, the RD-0146 with its nozzle extended, or the RL-10 with nozzle extender) I was suggesting something like that, but forgot that reference page until today.

It tries to fix the fact that KSP rockets to LKO average 15% payload, whereas you'd be lucky to break 1% in real life. The Ariane V is amazing at 2%. It's because Kerbin requires less than half the deltaV to reach orbit that Earth does, and deltaV has an exponential relationship with rocket mass (Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation). KIDS? You know, the little folks who'll carry on the human race?

Wishful thinking on my part I guess. Blargh. Then it's all on you, I guess! For doing right by vacuum nozzles... Although the throat at least is properly narrower, you can see on the image, though the bell doesn't change. Which makes a little bit of sense, because there is an "optimal" bell shape... c.f. here: http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm

v2 is now live: You can now change an engine's tech level from its present tech level up to the max tech level (currently 7). Note when I say engine I include SRBs. The current TL (and available TLs) and type show in the info pane when selecting a part. You can modify the TL by going into the engine config panel as if you were changing its fuel supply. It has the KWR fixes, and I tweaked B9 SABRE Isp. Still playing with it ingame and I'll try to reproduce your problems, Tiron... All Isps are included in MFT/TechLevels.CFG as atmosphere curves and may be edited to taste. The types are as follows: O: Orbital maneuvering engine U: Upper stage engine L: Lower stage engine A: Aerospike S: Solid The versions with + in their type (like U+/L+/S+) sacrifice sea-level performance and gain in vacuum performance. So L+ engines are almost as good as U engines in vacuum, and almost as bad at sea level.

Yeah, they're supremely useful as boosters for 1.25m stacks, or for remaking small solid LVs. Also, just to be able to increase the burn time and decrease the thrust! Admittedly this is a _heavily_ modded campaign, as you can see. Every single engine I use, for example, let alone the more cosmetic stuff... OK, that's TWO fixes to XVI: the Langschiff-B/C goof, and also I guess I should call it kerbolocentric, not heliocentric...

there's a "max number of part" goal, yes. Set to 0. Must be held.

Or you could look at Mission Controller's code base. Does real similar stuff. What are you using to calculate the cost of parts?

Hmm, when I was going through KWR trying to class engines based on their nozzle, they looked different to me... I mean, see the pics here. Don't the nozzles of the, for example, Vesta VR-1 and Wildcat V look a bit different? I mean, all rocket nozzles (other than altitude-correcting ones, obv) will look similar, but these have: different area ratios different throat:height ratios (Vesta is clearly longer for its throat width) different curvature of the bell. I really like the changes you've made, although I'd argue that the nozzle in that last pic, as a vacuum nozzle, would be best served by a 0.625m base. Vac nozzles are WAY bigger than SL nozzles, partly because SL nozzles (as you could see from the Wildcat/Vesta comparison above) are sometimes truncated vac nozzles with the curvature changed a bit. Consider the Saturn V setup: the Apollo SPS (a class vac-optimized nozzle) had a nozzle about twice the width and length as the J-2, despite having only a fifth the thrust and weight. And the J-2 was mostly vac-optimized itself! The F-1, the booster, optimized for mid-atmosphere work, had a nozzle only about 75% wider than the J-2, despite having about 20 times the thrust! TL;DR: vac nozzles should be about 10x larger than their thrust would suggest. We're kinda numbed to this because the engine bells on Squad's engines make NO sense.