CoolBeer

Sure, sounds fine so far. Well... If you want it more like reality(further down on your list) then a rocket engine is way more complex than a few pipes and a nozzle. (And very rarely are rocket engines cheap or simple). Gimbal range doesn't really make sense, a gimbal can be as simple as a swinging the thrust chamber with a hydraulic arm(or two if you need two axis motion, pitch and yaw), it's basically the same if you allow 1 degree or 10 degree motion. You could have the same engine, one with and one without gimballing, where the one without is lighter. This can also be solved with not gimballing, but the A-3/A-4(V-2) way with carbon tungsten jet vanes in the exhaust(first firing of the A-3 was in 1937), which results in basically the same thing, a deflection of the thrust to steer the rocket. Also, unlimited engine starts depends a bit, if you use the J-2 approach (engine used on the Saturn-V), you basically have unlimited firing with the Augmented Spark Ignited, which is basically a couple of spark plugs mounted in the combustion chamber. It makes no sense to limit the system to 1 or 2 firings. It also makes no sense to put this on an engine that will fire once only from ground, as anything you put on the rocket will mean less payload capability. (Granted, that's a much bigger deal in real life, where you need close to 10k m/s DeltaV for orbit). And then we have hypergolic fuels, which means that restarting systems are not needed, you just mix the two fuels together and magic happens. A thing to also take into account though is that most rocket engines are not rated for multiple starts, the few that were restarted are more of a rarity than anything. Sure, we already have something similar in RealFuels, where it is, as far as I can tell, already somewhat realistic(and overpowered for standard KSP, it's better in a real earth size system). First: Doesn't make sense, how come the engineering team comes up with great ideas suddenly after you pass 10km altitude? Second: Granted, does make sense. Third: Sooo, put the engine on the lauchpad, stap it down, connect LOADS of fuel to it and let it run for an hour or two while you afk in your bath? (Or if you want to do it realistic, static test firing of rockets are a real thing, just not for hours and hours). Needs more thought on how you want it to work in game, if "beating" the system this way is allowed. Please don't take this as "I hate your idea and want it to die!", it is not my intention at all. I have to admit I tend to go for realism over gameplay, which isn't always the right way. - Kolbjorn

But it does fly, as long as I don't use radial decouplers or liquid fuel engines everything works great. Staging works, SRBs fire and steering is locked and guided according to the code(even if I run a gravity turn profile). I was under the assumption(yes, I know, assuming things is a great way to kill kerbals) that the scriptable control system could work without a probe core, the only difference would be that I would have no control after liftoff (Which is great, if your program is without errors). If it is intended that you also need a probe core, I will of course adjust my rockets to that, it just puzzled me that some things work and some don't.

I THINK I have stumbled upon a bug... Let me explain. I have this rocket, it's basically just a capscule, CX4181 Scriptable Control System, fueltank, engine(LV-T45), decoupler and an SRB(BACC). If I empty the capscule(as in no pilot) the LV-T45 does not fire when staging occurs. It does fire when I have a pilot on board with the same code. lock throttle to 1. set mode to 1. lock steering to up. until 0 { set myspeed to ship:verticalspeed. wait 1. if(myspeed > ship:verticalspeed) { stage. } } Another thing I noticed, also without a pilot, is that the TT-38K Radial Decoupler does not eject at all when staged. Is this just me doing something stupid, did I not read the documentation? Miss a meeting? Link to craft - Kolbjorn

You could release a drop in very simple wedge model, say just an outer shell of a wedge, that people with crappy computers could use as a replacement if it became a problem. It could probably be done in less than 250 triangles and with some clever normal mapping you could even keep a lot of detail. This way the people that want a bit of extra performance of their 2000 part rocket could get it and the ones wanting bling gets that as well. - Kolbjorn

You can adjust all of those in the cfg file that is generated(GameData\ThunderAerospace\TacLifeSupport\PluginData\TacLifeSupport\LifeSupport.cfg) after you start up the game for the first time. 1. The EVA resource amount seems to be based on the EvaDefaultResourceAmount variable(looks to be in seconds). 2. Mod handles it fine as far as I can tell, the in-game settings is the one stuck at integers(as far as I can tell from looking at the code it is loaded from the cfg as a double). 3. Modulemanager handles parts only as far as I can tell, so that's out. At least we got a cfg to play with. - Kolbjorn

The stock radials burn up nicely as well. As I stated, I just tack on an extra heatshield on the bottom of the pod, it looks derpy, but at least I'll have chutes for landing. - Kolbjorn

Sure, but then the pod heats up and the chutes I tend to use(the radial ones) burn up, attaching an extra heatshield fixes that issue. (This is not an issue from LKO, it did happen to Jeb coming in from the Mun, may he rest in peace). - Kolbjorn

Hehe, kerbal engineering indeed (On the other hand, it's not like we have solar radiation in game anyway, I seem to recall someone taking a 2HOT Thermometer very close to the sun, and it still read very little. Hmm, seem to have found something here and here). - Kolbjorn

I like the look of it and the option for it, but I do seem to find the "realistic space station" comment a little bit funny, would you really want high-pressure tanks exposed to the heat from the sun? (I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but it does seem "ill-advised" from a realism standpoint.) I do love the option for it though, as I find myself putting these things inside of fairings where it wouldn't matter(not that I would see them in that case, but hey...). - Kolbjorn

It is the latest version from the GitHub repository at least, so unless TaranisElsu has un-pushed commits it should be the latest(0.8 was released 23/12/2013 according to *THIS*, latest git commit was 27/12/2013(appart from some TacLib changes up to 20/01/2014), so it may even be bleeding egde(and therefore experimental, which it were anyway)). - Kolbjorn

I did a pull of the git repository and replaced all occurrences of "this.Log" with "//this.Log", which should take care of the debug info, the "this.LogWarning" and "this.LogError" are still present, but those are probably nice to have. No testing have been done, just a straight recompile of the current git tree, so no warranties given, no changes made other than commenting out the logging calls. (Doubt it'll make a difference in speed, but at least you can check if it does). Replace the TacLifeSupport.dll file in GameData\ThunderAerospace\TacLifeSupport with *this* one. - Kolbjorn EDIT: Do note that this will naturally make debugging a much harder task, so if you need support for the mod you should absolutely change back to the official one before even asking.

While Kerbins atmosphere is certainly strange, the jet engines are as well, this forum post/mod tries to explain/fix the issues. - Kolbjorn

You need to do the gravity turn in a totally different way(not that the "10km straight up, yank it to 45 degrees" is anything you can call a gravity turn), I usually start to pitch over when I'm going between 50 and 100m/s, I try to make it so I'm around 45 degrees pitched over at 10km and fully pitched over when I hit 45km apoapsis(which is around when I hit 30km altitude usually). I also find it helps a lot with fins on the first stage and RCS thrusters on the last stage(I run my rockets without reaction wheels as I find them silly, but those can help as well). - Kolbjorn

As far as I recall it's not possible to make a pure electrical rocket in KSP, you can however have an engine with a moduleGenerator module that takes electrical charge and converts it into fuel that you can burn. It does not have any basis in reality though(which is a no-go for myself). (And yes, the nuclear jet engine basically sucked in air, compressed it, passed it over a reactor to heat it up(and therefore expand) before throwing it out the back. So yes, air was the reaction mass. *SOURCE*). - Kolbjorn

It matters if you want to exit the pod, which is nice sometimes(if only for planting a flag and grabbing a surface sample). - Kolbjorn

According to this site it were in a semi-liquid state based on temperature: The oxygen tanks are made of Inconel (a nickel-steel alloy) and are a little over 26 inches in diameter. Each holds 326 pounds of oxygen in a semi-liquid, semi-gas state. Operating temperature of the tanks ranges from 300 degrees below zero to 80 above. Oxygen must be maintained at 297 degrees below zero to remain liquid. Indeed, this kilogram system totally breaks down if you start looking at modular tanks that can hold different substances. Agreed, converting between these units would take a bit of care (and probably lots of breakages). I do feel that people take a bit lightly on the problem of compressing stuff to fit into tanks after one has generated it though. It is very easy to produce oxygen and hydrogen by splitting water, now compressing that oxygen to store in a tank is a totally different beast, it is one thing to do it here down on the planet, but bringing the equipment with you to do it on a space ship/station is a harder problem(it's not an impossible problem by all means, but just takes more equipment and a bunch of power). You know, I was thinking something when I woke up the other day(oh no, another crazy idea...). We could have the pod have its internal supply where we use liters at a known pressure/temperature(NTP for example), this would be roughly the internal volume of the pod(never mind that you can't breathe when the oxygen contents drops below a threshold). Then you have the oxygen supply tanks, where contents are specified at high pressure liquid state, and in the pod you have a converter you can use to fill the pod again(Basically a valve)(automatic system would be nice, unless you like crazy). The "valve" would be some kind of resource converter naturally, and it would be mandatory that it could run while the vessel was not loaded(kerbals tend to die otherwise). This would fit with producing oxygen from splitting water without going through a compressor to store it in a tank, as you can just dump it straight into the cabin(this is what ISS does for oxygen, they do have pressurised oxygen they can use(100 days worth according to this link)). ISS do not(according to my knowledge anyway) have the capability of compressing any of the oxygen they produce for storage(Well, you could store it at NTP uncompressed I suppose, but silly silly...), they rather get supplies from the ground. There has been work done on this for a Mars mission though, where you would need to store the oxygen for later, but as far as I could tell from the articles I read it was only for planetary purposes and not for the trip there. Another beef I have is the electricity system, which I would love to get into real values(volts/amps and the rest derived from those), I do hobby electronics so it's something I know my way around somewhat(I still shock myself silly at times though, safety first!), and the current system is very simplistic(basically treating electricity as a kind of liquid fuel). Granted, all this probably goes waaaay overboard with details/complexity than "normal" KSP players would like from a life support mod, but in my head it sounds awesome.(Complexity! Yay! \o/ ) - Kolbjorn

I don't know how major an issue this is, but KER messes up badly when it comes to RealFuels, as the thrust varies by ISP, and this throws off the TWR calculations at non-vacuum situations. Example: This engine(LV-909) has an ISP from 408.2(VAC) to 100.1(SL), it has a VAC thrust at 37.5kN, if thrust scales exactly following the ISP we are looking at 37.5/408.2*100.1 which equals 9.2kN at SL(which fit, as KSC isn't exactly at SL). (LH2/LOX is nice, though the tanks get somewhat big for the dV you get out of them, they are light though). (I actually don't know if it is a linear scale in real life or in RealFuels, it does look like it in the case of RealFuels anyway). I don't know if this is something to look into at all, it does add a bit of manual work on my part when designing(which in some way is a good thing, but in other ways it's a pain), and I'm not sure what the best kind of fix would be. It could even be that you know of the issue already and I'm just late to the party, but in the chance this is news, here it is \o/ (All tests were done with just RealFuels and KER(with latest dlls, 10/04/2014) installed). - Kolbjorn

This is because TACLS is using "1 unit = one day consumption" instead of liters, I did do a writeup about how to convert TACLS over to liters: *LINK*. - Kolbjorn

Yikes, glad you got that sorted. This is probably true(I really have no clue about STP/RTP or NTP). I do know that Apollo used a cabin pressure of about 5psi(or 0.34bar), which gives a wildly different liter volume. I do believe the 304 liter value is based on NASA number, which were given in kilograms(0.84kg per day) and converted around. Another thing is that oxygen usage would vary from person to person and very much by activity level, so it's also a very approximated number from the start. The Apollo Service Module spherical oxygen tanks for the FuelCell(s), were 26in in diameter(so 66cm), which gives a total volume of 0.15m3, which translates to 150 liter. One of those held 148kg liquid oxygen(well, it was semi liquid, bit dependent on temperature), which comes out at 104,000 liter at STP(wolframalpha gives me STP, therefore STP \o/ ). (The numbers are a bit screwed by not calculating wall thickness and internal component volume, so actual capacity would probably be bit less). This is one of the reasons I like kg for compressible gases, as 1kg oxygen is 1kg oxygen no matter what the pressure, and it's the unit I have seen NASA give out(0.84kg oxygen per crewmember, and for Kerbals roughly half is apparently the going rate). In the end(when all this is decided), if the units doesn't fit me I'd probably just use ModuleManager to whack the numbers into a format I like, one of the reasons I don't use kilograms at the moment personally is that the ModuleGenerator(it's the one Universal Storage use for their Fuel Cell) have issues with very small numbers(at least on my KSP), where it doesn't generate any power unless you timewarp 10x or so. (As shown, I'm a little torn between liters and kilograms, but in the end I don't really mind either way, as long as it's based around real units). - Kolbjorn

If you really want details, you could offset the CoM of the pod, it would make for interesting reentries, where you can steer the pod more easily(still, trying to hit a specific area would be hard). From wiki: The Command Module's center of mass was offset a foot or so from the center of pressure (along the symmetry axis). This provided a rotational moment during reentry, angling the capsule and providing some lift (a lift to drag ratio of about 0.368[4]). The capsule was then steered by rotating the capsule using thrusters; when no steering was required, the capsule was spun slowly, and the lift effects cancelled out. This system greatly reduced the g-force experienced by the astronauts, permitted a reasonable amount of directional control and allowed the capsule's splashdown point to be targeted within a few miles. It should be easy enough to implement(there is a CoM offset thing you can plop in the cfg as I recall), I have been meaning to write a modulemanager file to add it to the pods myself, but I get easily sidetracked and forget(till the next time I reenter and find out it would have been fun to play around with). Another thing I noticed is total lack of rotation control with the current RCS setup(I run all my pods without reaction wheels), which makes for very spinny reentries(weeee, carousel \o/ ). This is how the read pod had it's RCS setup: - Kolbjorn

This is an interesting report about liquefying oxygen: *LINK*. It seems to be a somewhat complex and power hungry procedure, but it could work as a basis for actual power numbers. - Kolbjorn

TACLS has a unit for converting water to oxygen/waste, I have no clue on how balanced it is though. One issue you would get is the power required to split water(quite a bit) and the complexity of compressing it down for storage(I imagine this to be non-trivial). Oxidizer is generally thought of as basically liquid oxygen anyway, so it could be used as is(with RealFuels it really can be LOX), but usually you don't hook those systems together, and LOX was usually not used for long term spaceflight, they would use a hypergolic mixture instead, because it's waaaaaaay easier to light, just mix the fuels and off you go. (Yes, they did use LH2/LOX on the Saturn S-IVB(third stage), and it got started twice, once for orbit insertion and once for TLI, but it's complicated to do). - Kolbjorn

With the Mk1 pod I have to put on a extra heat shield at the bottom, or else my chutes burn off because the pod heats up too much(or at least I think that's what happens). Do note that this tend to happen on return from one of the moons, I can't recall it were ever a problem from LKO, and it might also be because I favor the radial chutes(one on each side). (There are people arguing that one should go into an orbit around Kerbin before landing, but I'm not of that viewpoint, pretty sure Apollo had a direct landing without a parking orbit. If only I could find a way to pinpoint my KSC landing from the Mun, that'd be sweet). - Kolbjorn

You have to take into account that the fuel is not store in the whole volume of the tank, it's usually in spheres or a cylinder with rounded ends(this configuration is much much more resistant to forces). Here is an example from the Saturn V - S-IC (The first stage), you can see the RP-1 tank and the bottom of the LOX tank: So in my opinion 5 liter per unit seems to fit nicely enough. - Kolbjorn

The numbers fit perfectly(well, close enough, the math seems a tiny bit off), a Large Life Support Container does in stock TACLS contain 640 days of supply for a single kerbal, and a Large Oxygen Container contains 1920 days of supply for a single kerbal. (Do note I did not do any balancing, I just did a modulemanager file that multiplies the "1 unit per day" with the actual units(in this case liters)). - Kolbjorn