NathanKell

Looking great! Crew Manifest is as close to a "this is stock, isn't it?" mod as anything that ever existed. It exists for this sort of thing!

That's certainly a very fair way of looking at it. I tend towards the more-realism end myself (as if it wasn't obvious ) but I take your point. How about this: I help you set up a conversion package that will take my setup and convert it to the one you want? And if other people like it they can use it too. It really shouldn't be hard, just a replacement ResourcesFuels.cfg, RealTankTypes.cfg, and a some search-replace in Engines.cfg.

Except the densities don't come close to working, and N2O4 is already in the mod as itself, as is MMH, at their real densities. Whereas the densities are great for UDMH and H2O2. Look, I appreciate you hold this position strongly, and you're welcome to do this on your own end. And I am taking your advice and using MP as UDMH. But I'm not going to throw out all the work we've (and ialdabaoth before has) done for this set of fuels and restart with your new scheme. I mean, you don't object to LH2 and LOX being in, right?

Well, it was created the last time there was discussion in this thread about "we need a central location for all these scripts, and to not clutter the dev thread." And Payload said he'd create one and linked to it. So I thought that's what it was.

As I said there. HAHAHA. Nice.

HAHAHAHA. Finally ran out of patience?

Yeah, though AJ10 began its life as the upper stage of Vanguard (wowsers, it stretches from Vanguard to Orion...), it's been used as a restartable OMS/space-tug-engine since very near the start.

Centaur = RL-10. Two of them, usually, although 1 sometimes. The S-IV was the biggest Centaur of them all. Blok D is kerolox, hmm. Neat, not familiar with restartable kerolox upper stages. Is Proton third stage hypergolic?

Oh, right, regarding MonoPropellant. I'm considering it UDMH with a touch of stabilizer (the density fits that), so you could totally set up a MonoPropellant/N2O4 engine with a slightly lower Isp than MMH/N2O4. I mean, the Russians never used MMH, they just sacrified a bit of performance and went to UDMH. (And if we added Hyrazine, we could even simulate Aerozine-50 as a tripropellant engine with MP/Hydrazine/N2O4...) EDIT: Since Oxidizer is now (per ialdabaoth) used as Hydrogen Peroxide, here is the real-world equivalent of the MP/Ox combination: UDMH/H2O2. http://www.astronautix.com/props/h2o2udmh.htm

Wow, that's very cool info--thanks!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48428-Space-Computer-Brought-to-you-by-kOS-and-hopefully-many-nerds Search (these forums, or upthread) and ye shall find.

Carzum, thanks for catching that. The KW values are kinda bugged, apologies; they never got reset to stock from the modified values I'd been playing with. They'll all be fixed in the next patch. Also, it pointed out to me I had a bug in my thrust rescaling code (to lessen the pain of realistic sea level thrust I automatically upscale the thrust of lower stage engines so you'll retain your old TWR on liftoff, so the LV-T45, for example, has a max thrust of almost 250, so that you'll still get your 200 on liftoff.) Tiron, I'll install B9 and play around. Something sure doesn't sound right. sidfu, yup, it's the latest commits to the dev branch of MJ2 on r4m0n's github, which sarbian has uploaded the sarbian-branch fixes to.

Hey, that's clever! A good holdover until .22! malkuth--since when does revert (in the MCE settings menu) do anything but give you money back? IIRC, it specifically does _not_ change mission status, which screws you over if you (a) finish a mission ( revert (and lose the money) and then © want to do the mission again--you can't, because the mission stays completed.

I'm not saying it can't be a nozzle, just that it looks really weird and low-poly with that sharp edge there. If you really want that kind of drastic curvature on the outside (and a smoother one on the inside), at least chamfer the edge loop. IMO if you followed the curvature of the inner side of the nozzle on the outer side, it'd be perfect. And as to the inside not tracking the outside--why do that? It just adds unnecessary mass and uneven heating to the nozzle. (And higher drag, but this is a vacuum engine that will presumably be hidden inside a fairing in atmo). All that said, it is your model of course. I'm just offering opinion and suggestions.

Again, take it up with Squad. It's their low planet size that makes things easy. Besides, the same low drag that makes ascent easier (for certain values of easier) makes reentry harder (for _any_ value of harder). Assuming you're using Deadly Reentry, which if you care about difficulty as much as you say, you should.

Hurrah! Love the plans.

Van Disaster, MFS does that now, and it works on anything configured for MFS, including B9 engines.

One of my plans is to change it so all texture info is read from a cfg, to avoid just that. Yeah, just remove the whole section and models will use the textures they were designed for.

Tiron, yup, you can copy the PART[] block for the appropriate engine, save it in a new CFG, change what's in the [] to the right part, and that's fine. But put it in some other folder, just in case I later ask you to delete the ModularFuelTanks folder. KSP reads any .CFG file anywhere under GameData, you can put it where you like. In other news...some people might have to wait for .22, but I give it to you early: TECH LEVELS. Check out the info popup. Check out the Modular Engines GUI and the -/+ buttons. Coming soon. Now you can increase an engine's tech level for better performance.

Oh I take your point about the throat being hidden, that's why I said the last pic you posted had a fine throat width. I was just talking about the very discontinuous outer curve that makes it look both wrong for a nozzle, and low-poly--quite unworthy of the very pretty engine you have there!

Kommitz, thanks! Yes they can. However, if you make them hybrid rather than just configurable, they will also be switchable in flight. The modules are as follows: ModuleEngineConfigs = Modular Engine. Can choose config in VAB/SPH. ModuleHybridEngine = Same code style as MEC, but can alternate between configs in flight too. Check out the CFG for KSPX under RealFuels for an example of the new style. ModuleHybridEngines = the old Hybrid Engines module. Note the S at the end. This is for backwards compatibility.

dlrk, thanks! You'll be pleased to note that ialdabaoth added thermal fins for cooling your tanks. I neglected to mention that in the readme; fixed now. loss_rate works as follows. Find the loss_rate of the fuel in the tank (for LH2 in a cryogenic tank, it's 0.0000000002. Multiply that by the number of seconds in the trip. Then multiply it by the difference between the average tank temperature (right-click on your tank in flight if you have Deadly Reentry, and it will tell you the tank's temperature) and the desired temperature (-283). If your journey is 30 days (30*86400=2,592,000) then you will lose 0.05% * temperature_difference (let's say 100c, i.e. part temp = -183) = 5% of your fuel. I don't recall what the usual orbital temperature of a part is, so -183 was just a guess. Loss will be higher if temperature of the tank is higher.

Tiron, you might lose 1-5% of your DV? Dunno. The values were balanced so a tank of LF/LOX at their ratio will yield the same dV as a same-size tank of LF/Ox at the old 9:11 ratio, for an engine of the same Isp. Just up the volume of the welded part slightly (in the cfg and in the .craft) until you get the same dV. After each upping, go into the game, and MFS, and clear the tank of LH2 and LOX, and then autofill to your engine's ratio. ....Except in looking into this, I've found two problems. 1. A typo in my resource definition for LH2 (should be 36, not 40). 2. The ratios for the Hybrid engines are all wrong. In air-breathing mode, the real SABRE has a ox:fuel ratio by mass of 23 to 1, not 6 to 1 So the ratio should be 62.3% intake air, 37.7% LH2. That will lower your fuel use before switchover, and it should all balance out, despite the lesser volume of the tank, I think. Though you might need more intakes! Replaced the archive. Please regrab.

1. Ah, cool! 2. Long as you obey "center of pressure go BEHIND center of mass, grasshopper" I've never had problems. (Leave nothing attached to your RV; flip it upside down in VAB; check blue vs yellow). Although the drag of various reentry vehicles seems strange, (like the Mk1 having way higher Cd than Mk1-2 with shield) but I think all that will finally get fixed when ferram updates to the new section-based code. Let alone the weirdness of faired RVs!

If it's part of an incomplete subgoal, yes. If the subgoal has been completed, then the subgoal has been completed and will stay as such.