KanneRyo

Hi. Are you interested in sound enhancements? I'm wondering if you would produce a mod for it after completing RVE. I'm an audio engineering student, and willing to help if needed. Thanks.

Why is there Pluto instead of Neptune?

Just set it 9000kN, it will be fine.

IIRC there's a binary value that describe the presence of the atmosphere where 0 means no and 1 means yes. You can use external album and URL them.

In fact, rocket engines have nearly constant Isps at any speed simply because they don't aspirate/suck air. So for this mod, it's not a problem at all. But we do have a way. KSP varies the thrust according to the velocity, but your throttle (although it's not, let's call it so) is not varied. So, it means KSP varies thrust per fuel flow, thus Isp.

You're welcomed. I understand your concept now. It's kinda like an hybrid engine which incorporates normal rocket engine principle but uses electricity to ionize and boost exhaust gas. Am I right? Well, if so, it's in fact high-tech. This kinda engine is still under develop in the real world. I think it IS a pretty good idea to have it inside KSP bro, great thoughts. For this kinda engine, the weight won't bother much cuz the exclusive electric boosting system consists only some wire and metal polar board. But you don't need big nozzles or altitude compensation for this. The gain is massive so the extra weight pays off well. Let's say, about 70%-80% the weight of normal rocket engine for the same amont of thrust, which will give it a perfect TWR number. The unit cost should be a little bit higher due to high-tech (something like 150%). Since it still uses rocket science to fly except some new tech, the max thrust thing should be (but not dramatically) higher. The nozzle limit (underexpansion) is well eased in this design because electric field has the abiliy to redirect ionized exhaust gas, thus fuel flow can be very high. Max thrust should be about 30%-50% higher than normal rocket engine that has the same size (aspect ratio) of nozzle. For Isp, the usage of electricity makes the fuel comsumption pretty good at the cost of massive battery charge. For liquid fuel and oxidizer, the Isp should be pretty high over normal rocket engine, depending on the energy rate of electricity. maybe higher than hydrocarbon turbojets. 2000 sec is a good starting point. Electricity usage can be something like 10 unit per sec at full thrust. Or other reasonable value. The usage of electric field not only benefits the nozzle size but also improves thrust vectoring. So it should have more angular ability to redirect thrust. For cooling, I recommend using fuel itself rather than air that creates drag. You can have a small size of intake to work as a radiator that cools down fuel, and let the unused fuel cool the engine. Here's my thought: For hyper, max thrust 7500kN (sea level, cooled by fuel with radiator) 9000kN (vacuum, cooled by fuel), Isp at sea level 2000, Isp in vacuum 2500 (lower exit pressure, vacuum permittivity), mass 15 tons, electricity energy rate at full thrust 18 unit per sec. Radiator size: massive, Coolant: Liquid fuel/Redirect air (some flaps around the engine before the nozzle). Jettison seperator max thrust 100kN powered by solid fuel.

Thanks for the information. For the balancing thing, if the main goal is to make them more powerful and fuel efficient, then there's really no need to 'balance' it, just set the thrust and Isp values ridiculously high and make sure it doesn't collapse. On the other hand, if the main goal is to make the engines work like realworld engines do, there're some approaches. First, max thrust should be set reasonably considering the size of nozzles and the physical/chemical limit of it. It means, smaller engines are normally not as powerful as those bigger ones are due to smaller nozzle size (which means that it can't redirect too much flame thus can't achieve a high fuel flow rate because of the underexpansion of nozzles). Also, engines that burn woods should have less power than those burn LH2/LO2/Hydrocarbon (xD). And when it comes to the Isp, well, things are getting complex now. Various categories of engines have different characteristics, but any kind of engines do have a natural limit of Isp. See below. The limit varies with engine type and mach number. Also, design and production process play much more important roles. That's just said, what if we use new type of engines, like those driven by electricity and have way higher Isp. The main idea is to first work out the certain principle (i.e. how your engines are gonna work), then set the numbers while referring to useful information for given design. FYI, O2/H2 burners do have higher Isp over HC burners, but no higher than 9000 sec (ASL). There's an exception, the GE CF6 turbofan which powers the Boeing 747s/767s can deliver an Isp of 11700 sec at sea level using hydrocarbon fuel (Jet-A1). PS: I'm not a programmer, so I don't have an idea on the feasibility of having the Isp gradually reduced as mach number increases in this game. If it is practical, then it's gonna be the best engine mod ever (already is though, lol, nice work bro). Also, you need to set the mass/cost properly to make it more realistic. Normally (but not necessarily), powerful engines weigh more. But this only applys when same type of engines are compared. Rocket engines are the lightest (TWR, thrust-weight ratio) due to the lack of fans, compressors and shafts which weigh the most in a jet engine, whereas jet engines (turbofan/turboprop/turbojet) weigh much more. Ramjets and scramjets are between that two. Unit Cost:...um, whatever. When you put more technology (read: metal) into it, it costs more. More discussion is welcomed and appreciated. Will be happy if I can help.

If you can tell your thoughts on the basic principle of your engines, maybe I can help balance the things.