Northstar1989

Glad to have you aboard astrovall321! It's a great community we've got here, revolving around a great game! I hope you enjoy being a part of it!

Welcome aboard Finox!

Glad to have you aboard MI53RE!

OK, good. Surprisingly I haven't really had the chance to play around much with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators yet (even though it was my #1 most wanted feature to get into KSP-I in the first place), as I've been busy doing research on and testing other aspects of the Extension Config... Indeed. I just didn't want players downloading the Extension Config to get the wrong idea and start asking why certain aspects of the two mods still don't work together... I tried to install TAC Life Support this morning to see how well the existing code is working for that, but it turns out the latest version of TAC Life Support (released a month ago) is not compatible with Modular Fuel Tanks (which is a part of the code of RealFuels and I have installed). Is it possible you could test this one? It should be a simple matter of installing TACLS and trying to do a few things like running a KSP-I ISRU refinery off the life-support water added to a crew capsule through TACLS, or seeing if Kerbals can use Water stored in a KSP-I water tank for life-support... [Removed bythe Moderation Team] But if you'd like to give it a shot, maybe you could try working with him to see if it would even be possible to migrate *all* the functions from ORS over to Regolith without requiring too much custom coding for different resource-densities of LiquidFuel/Hydrogen, for instance? Regards, Northstar

Also, the Changelog for 0.7.12 says: "Added Support for TAC Lifesupport" But right now it's more like *PARTIAL* support for TAC Life Support. We still don't even have the simple/intuitive ability to use CO2 respired by Kerbals in our Thermal/Electric Thrusters (or in a KSP-I Sabatier Reactor that works outside the atmosphere off stored resources, for that matter- whereas TACLS already includes a Sabatier Reactor for life-support reasons that works on somewhat unrealistic chemistry...) You can store the CO2 in tanks, separate it from the manned craft entirely (or dump it overboard with TAC Fuel Balancer), but not use it for anything in KSP-Interstellar yet... We'll probably need some way of converting the resources for that, or changing the rate at which Kerbals produce it, though- as the TACLS Carbon Dioxide had a different/arbitrary density than pretty much any other mod last I checked... (although that might have changed) Regards, Northstar

KSP-Interstellar Extension Config (which FreeThinker is the author of, and I am a major contributor to) uses Liquid Nitrogen for thermal rockets and plasma thrusters. It is important to distinguish Liquid Nitrogen from IntakeAtm for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that IntakeAtm is theoretically a whole-air mix that is meant to be used only for Thermal Turbojets and should differ in composition from planet to planet... Besides that, though, players can launch thermal rockets right from the launchpad with Liquid Nitrogen aboard- it is not just purely an ISRU resource. Due to the fact that thermal rockets obtain more Thrust per Megawatt of ThermalPower when using propellants with higher molecular weight, but at a lower ISP (this is the same trend as expected in real life), players have a lot to gain from ordering the densities of their Thermal Rocket propellants (and the size of their Thermal Rocket Nozzles) in decreasing levels, like in the following example: Stage 0: Liquid Nitrogen launch-stage (high Molecular Weight propellant confers high fuel-density and good Sea-Level ISP: Vacuum ISP ratio) Stage 1: LOX-Augmented Methane upper-stage (LOX-augmentation confers additional Thrust and fuel-density) Stage 2: Ammonia orbital/transfer stage (with relatively larger ExitArea nozzle than Stages 0 or 1 for better Vacuum ISP... Ammonia is dense and easy to store...) Stage 3: Pure LH2 return-stage (Hydrogen confers the highest possible Specific Impulse, but is low-density and difficult to store) Using progressively lighter propellants allows you to get the most Delta-V for a given quantity of ThermalPower (which is important as nuclear reactors are heavy, and Microwave Beamed Power is expensive...) Note that I used "LH2" as the Hydrogen-resource name, as KSP-I Extended has built-in RealFuels-compatibility, and is toying with the idea of switching the Interstellar-specific engines to require RealFuels LH2 instead of stock "LiquidFuel" for balance reasons... (because, with the new/improved modern reactors and better Thrust/MW from Thermal Rockets to match real-life NERVA data of 0.3 kN/MW at 850 seconds with Hydrgoen, "LiquidFuel" is too powerful due to its combined high density *and* ISP...) If players did not have each of these gasses (which can all be found and separated from planetary atmospheres- a rocket like this could launch from Duna just as easily as Kerbin (Duna's atmosphere contains small amounts of Nitrogen, like Mars, and players can manufacture Ammonia from Nitrogen and Hydrogen via the Haber Process in KSP-I Extended...) they could not stage the density of propellants in their rockets. Simply using "IntakeAtm" is unrealistic (as atmospheric composition varies by planet) and inefficient for a Thermal Rocket... Regards, Northstar

@FreeThinker Just a concern that came up- how are we currently handling whether the Propulsive Fluid Accumulators should produce "Nitrogen" vs. "Liquid Nitrogen" or "CarbonDioxide" vs. "LiquidCO2"? In short, how does the Atmospheric Scoop know whether to produce the gaseous or cryogenic version of a resource? (not really sure why we even have a gaseous CO2 resource though, other than the fact that it was already in CRP and we started with it before adding cyrogenic CO2- the gaseous Nitrogen is at least already used by RealFuels for RCS, but the CarbonDioxide resource seems fairly useless compared to LiquidCO2...) I'm worried about a potential issue like with IntakeAir/IntakeAtm, where you can potentially *double* your resource-intake by having storage for BOTH... (the issue with IntakeAtm/IntakeAir is that you can potentially run a conventional jets and a Thermal Turbojets at full throttle in parallel off the same intake, at an altitude/speed where there should only be enough airflow for one, as the intakes produce equal amounts of both resources...) Regards, Northstar

1 unit = 1 liter is highly desirable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the way KSP internally handles resources (which makes it desirable to have less resource per unit). Currently, the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config myself and FreeThinker have been working on is making every effort to use realistic resources. We've added Liquid Nitrogen, for instance, which matches the real density of LN2 and is used as a propellant for thermal and electric rockets. We use an identical definition of Nitrogen to RealFuels for its gaseous form. We also have LiquidCO2- which is once again based off real-world densities. It would be nice if CRP would move to match realistic resource densities, honestly. Not only would using real densities allow automatic compatibility with mods like RealFuels if the same name were also selected- it would make it MUCH easier for the community to agree on densities for new resources by simply citing real-world densities instead of making arbitrary and subjective arguments about what is "balanced". Realistic densities would also be more intuitive for players- as the most plausible/believable thing is always going to be real life... Regards, Northstar

Not sure why this was necroed, either, but all this is obsolete anyways. With the new drag-model coming out it 1.0, terminal velocity *should* be so high on the launchpad with a large and streamlined rocket that it's virtually impossible to catch up to. Thus, your main aerodynamic concern becomes maintaining stability and a dynamic pressure that is manageable (shape-based drag will now make the Angle of Attack and dynamic pressure on a rocket a lot more of a concern...) Regards, Northstar

If you mean the integration-config found in the current rendition of RealFuels, then yes, hopefully only temporarily. Because the development-cycle of RealFuels is *much* slower than of KSP-Interstellar Extension Config (and perhaps because of a personal grudge against me) NathanKell has went and removed the RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar integration-config from the latest dev version of RealFuels, supposedly to be replaced when we've got a final version ready of it over here (we'll see if NathanKell actually follows through on this- he seems to have an issue with me, so he might refuse to do this when the time comes, especially if it's me making the pull request...) Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - Also, FreeThinker, just wanted to be *sure* you saw this. Here is the code again that Dreadicon wrote up for better TAC Life Support and KSP-Interstellar integration (basically it fixes the name-differences between the Water resources, and just needs a config file of its own in the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config folder to call home... ) //Configs for TAC Life Support & KSPI @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]] { @resourceName = Water } } @WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[WarpPluginSettings]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @WaterResourceName = Water } @TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene]&!TANK[Water]]:NEEDS[RealFuels&WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[TacLifeSupport] { !TANK[LqdWater] {} //just in case +TANK[Kerosene] { @name = Water } } @PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @RESOURCE[LqdWater] { @name = Water } } @BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @PROPELLANT[LqdWater] { @name = Water } } @PLANETARY_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:FINAL { @resourceName = Water } @OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @resourceName = Water //LqdWater } @WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[*]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @WaterResourceName = Water //LqdWater } Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - Removing the integration-configs from *which* mod, specifically? IF you're talking the engine configs for RealFuels+Stockalike, I *highly* recommend leaving them in place, since *each* of the three engine-configs for RealFuels should ultimately have its own take on the performance of the "conventional" KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX and Aluminum-Hybrid Rockets (the only ones affected by RealFuels+Stockalike if I recall correctly). For instance, the RealEngines config would want to use the ACTUAL Thrust of the real-life Raptor engine- which is *MUCH* higher than the Stockalike version, where I was only able to convince Raptor831 to improve the TWR for the most part, and the Thrust remains more or less the same... Having multiple different integration-configs for the different engine-configs of RealFuels would *NOT* work out well on our end, especially as it would require multiple parallel integration-configs that each separately look for the presence of a different engine-config (and the engine-configs don't have their own folder, but are instead part of the main RealFuels folder, so it would be *VERY* hard to identify their presence). Bottom Line: Please *don't* remove the integration-configs from RealFuels+Stockalike. The integration-config for the *MAIN* RealFuels mod, which only affects tank types and fuel-names, could equally well be located here or in RealFuels and work just as well (although I recommended to NathanKell keeping the KSPI/RF integration-config in the meantime because NOT all players use the KSP-I Extension Config, and the base KSP-I port doesn't have an integration-config... Par for the course, he didn't listen to me...) but the integration-configs that modify the Thrust/ISP/TWR of the conventional (Meth/LOX chemical and Aluminum-Hybrid) engines in KSP-Interstellar do NOT belong in KSP-Interstellar itself, due to the different take each of the three RealFuels engine configs has on engine-performance... Regards, Northstar P.S. For the record, the performance of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX chemical engine is *NOT* based on reality. Rather, it is balanced against all the other stock engines, and has much lower Thrust, Thrust-Weight Ratio, and ISP than the real-life Raptor engine design off which it is based as a result. I *prefer* to play with more realistic performance for all my chemical engines, which is why I use RealFuels+Stockalike (in fact, I have it installed *right now* in my GameData directory, and use it for all my saves), but many players prefer the stock balance! Making the default balance realistic would NOT work well, as it would bring it drastically out-of-balance with the stock engines, which was not the intention for that part. Additionally, fully-realistic balance is even better than in RealFuels+Stockalike, as the real engine has a Thrust rating *nearly an order of magnitude* greater than the version used in RealFuels+Stockalike (which is itself up-rated vs. the original in KSP-I to more or less match real-world TWR and ISP) although with the same TWR (in short, the engine is much more powerful but heavier than in RealFuels+Stockalike...) P.P.S. Note that there are now *TWO* different versions of the Raptor engine under development in real life. One, which is optimized for vacuum-performance (mainly, it has a much larger nozzle ExitArea for higher Vacuum ISP) and would have a Vacuum ISP of 380 seconds, and another which is optimized for use as a launch-stage (meaning it is optimized for performance about 10-12 km off the ground) and has a sea-level ISP of 321 seconds, and a Vacuum ISP of 363 seconds. The RealFuels+Stockalike version was balanced against the Vacuum Version, as the data for this one was more widely-available at the time of the creation of the KSP-I engine config for RealFuels+Stockalike... The data on Wikipedia is a little messed-up as it lists the Thrust data for the vacuum-optimized version, but the ISP data for the sea-level version. You can confirm this if you divide Vacuum Thrust/ Sea-Level Thrust, which yields a value of 0.8415, and an expected sea-level ISP of only 305 seconds instead of the 321 seconds listed... (either the listed Vacuum Thrust is too high, or the Sea-Level Thrust too low, for the Vacuum Version. Likely a combination of both, as having a smaller nozzle reduces your Vacuum Thrust but raises you Sea-Level Thrust...)

On a different note: Freethinker, you mentioned earlier wanting the mass-fractions for the Haber Process and the Sabatier Reaction to allow both to be performed outside of atmospheres with the stored resources (particularly useful/important if you are collecting the resources with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators and shipping them to a centralized refinery...) I saw in the Changelog that you implemented the Haber Process this way, but I never saw/heard anything about the Sabatier Reaction... How are we doing for that one? Do you think you'll be able to get it out soon (perhaps in the 8.0 release) if you haven't implemented it already? Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - 304 metric tons of graphite moderators alone? Hardly sounds like a space-grade design to me. Most likely it's designed for long-term usage on the ground for cities and such... Also, I would have you note that Thorium is quite clearly listed as a possible fuel for the reactor. I don't know why you removed Thorium as a possible reactor fuel in the latest releases, but this change really should be reversed. Thorium is a resource that is available in different locations and densities in the solar system than Uranium (and would actually be significantly easier to extract in real life, as it is not located as the deposits tend to be more shallow than for Uranium...) and was/is realistic in how Fractal_UK implemented it in that it produces more ThermalPower/cubic-meter of reactor, but requires significantly more maintenance to operate correctly... (making it inappropriate for unmanned probes, for instance) Thorium Reactors already exist in real life- the problem is that Molten Salt Reactor technology, as a whole, is not mature enough that you regularly see them for anything beyond experimental usage. However the technology in KSP-Interstellar extends into the future, so it's perfectly realistic to think that if we could develop Antimatter Reactors and Alcubierre Drives that we could develop a working Thorium Reactor! Regards, Northstar

I already provided some MM config script for that in the "code" section of this post, which contains code myself and Dreadicon worked together to create (much like you and me now) several months ago... Some of the other types of integration I could use your insight/opinion and expertise on... For instance, I'd like to include code to replace TAC Life Support CO2 with KSP-I LiquidCO2 or CRP CO2 (both of which have more realistic densities than TACLS' arbitrary density for CO2...) However, in TAC Life Support, Kerbals produce CO2 at a constant rate/day, and I would need to replace this rate with a rate adjusted for the new density of the resource they would be producing via MM patch... Similarly, to implement urea electrolysis would require an ISRU reaction, similar to the Haber Process you already implemented. Since ISRU reactions are coded in the DLL rather than ModuleManager, I have no idea how to go about actually coding this. I could give you the volume and mass-ratios of the products and reactants, but I would be worthless in trying to actually implement the new reaction... Finally, last but not least, there needs to be some kind of code to integrate TACLS "Oxygen" and RealFuels "Lqd Oxygen" as they are fundamentally the same resource... (this would relate to KSP-I because we are able to do things such as scoop LOX with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators...) One way to do this would be to simply overwrite the TACLS definition of Oxygen, but then you potentially get into issues with burning all your breathing-Oxygen in your engines when you have an excess of Liquid Hydrogen or Methane, or having to shut down your breathing-air during (potentially long) burns in order to prevent this... A better alternative would be to give certain parts (such as the TACLS Air Scrubber) the ability to inter-convert the two at-will via ModuleManager, but once again I have no idea how to implement this... Regards, Northstar

FreeThinker, You should also see the following code that Dreadicon originally wrote up to improve the compatibility between TAC Life Support and KSP-Interstellar. We should *EASILY* be able to add these as another compatibility-config file in KSP-Interetellar Extension Config (much like the "RealFuelsFix" file) if we want: //Configs for TAC Life Support & KSPI @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @MODULE[FNModuleResourceExtraction]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]] { @resourceName = Water } } @WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[WarpPluginSettings]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @WaterResourceName = Water } @TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene]&!TANK[Water]]:NEEDS[RealFuels&WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:AFTER[TacLifeSupport] { !TANK[LqdWater] {} //just in case +TANK[Kerosene] { @name = Water } } @PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @RESOURCE[LqdWater] { @name = Water } } @BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @PROPELLANT[LqdWater] { @name = Water } } @PLANETARY_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Water]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport]:FINAL { @resourceName = Water } @OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[#resourceName[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @resourceName = Water //LqdWater } @WARP_PLUGIN_SETTINGS[*]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin&TacLifeSupport] { @WaterResourceName = Water //LqdWater } The changes are all geared at making sure TACLS "LqdWater" and KSP-I "Water" are recognized and used as the same thing as you can see, so there is still a lot of room for improvement to add additional forms of compatibility- such as being able to electrolyze WasteWater into Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and Carbon Dioxide like I mentioned before... Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - As Fractal_UK implemented it, and it works in KSP-Interstellar, that is indeed how it "should" be. As it works in real life, there's nothing accurate about it at all. Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - @FreeThinker Further, but not least, it would still be nice to see replacement of the Monopropellant produced by the Monopropellant-production reaction in KSP-Interstellar with Hydrazine (the resource Fractal_UK assumed Monopropellant to be, and based all the chemistry off of- so all that is now needed is a name-change) when Module RCSFX (the RealFuels module to replace Monopropellant with Hydrazine and other realistic RCS fuels) is installed... Note that it's possible (and often done) to install RealFuels without the Module RCSFX folder as well, so this fix needs to only activate as a ModuleManager patch when it detects the Module RCSFX folder installed in GameData... (this kind of mod-recognition is *routine* stuff for ModuleManager, and in fact is already used in a lot of our existing RealFuels-compatibility code...) Also, since Monoprop is currently produced by mixing Ammonia and Hydrogen Peroxide (also how it is done in real life) it would be nice to see a balanced equation (currently the ENTIRE mass of both reactants is converted into Monopropellant, instead of some by-products also being formed...) Hydrazine (N2H4) can be produced as follows in real life: 2 H2O2 + 2 NH3 --> 2 N2H4 + H2 + 2 O2 Currently, in KSP-Interstellar, 100% of the mass is converted into Monopropellant/Hydrazine (N2H4) and no Hydrogen or Oxygen are produced as by-products... (which, see below, could then be cycled to make more Hydrogen Peroxide- but with a net surplus of Oxygen left over, as Hydrogen contains no Oxygen atoms!) Finally, the ability to produce the Hydrogen Peroxide from Hydrogen and Oxygen instead of Oxygen and Water would be GREAT! That's how it's actually done in real life (>90% of all Hydrogen Peroxide is produced via the Anthraquinone Process from H2 and O2 gas, according to Wikipedia... Note that the name "Anthraquinone" refers to a co-catalyst that is *NOT* consumed by the reaction...) This would allow us do things such as launch Hydrogen to Kerbin orbit and then combine it with Oxygen from a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator, to produce Hydrogen Peroxide for RCS (Hydrogen Peroxide is a usable but low-ISP RCS fuel on its own, even without being processed into Hydrazine, in RealFuels with Module RCSFX... ) Or make Hydrogen Peroxide from Hydrogen and Oxygen scooped from Laythe and Jool orbits, without ever having to descend to the surface of Laythe to get actual Water... Regards, Northstar

-deleted- WHOOPS! Wrong thread!

Never used them personally. It was one of the last things Fractal_UK implemented before he went away, and I'm not quite sure exactly how he made them to work. A *REALISTIC* implementation would basically use ChargedParticles as the only propellant. That is, it would (SLOWLY) convert Uranium into propulsion, at an ISP of over 50,000 seconds! However, the Thrust for this would be DEATHLY low- as in, on the order of magnitude of Solar Sails. So, I'm not quite sure how Fractal_UK *ACTUALLY* made these to work... Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - Also, FreeThinker, I was thinking about if we couldn't include a config to allow greater integration with TAC Life Support. This was something Dreadicon began work on before, but never really finished... Here's one reaction that I think would be *particularly* useful to include in KSP-Interstellar Extension Config for use with TAC Life Support, re-posted from the explanation I made over on that thread below: I was wondering what ever happened to implementing WasteWater-electrolysis in TAC Life Support, as I described HERE. Basically, the idea would be to filter out and electrolyze the Urea (CH4N2O) the main non-water component of WasteWater as described in THIS link: CH4N2O + H2O --> N2 + 3 H2 + CO2 All it requires is a low-voltage power source (only approximately a third the voltage is required as for electrolyzing water) and a cheap nickel catalyst... The products (N2, H2, and CO2) are *all* currently useful propellants in the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config I have been working on with FreeThinker... Additionally, if you couple this reaction with a Sabatier Reaction (CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O) and Water Electrolysis (2 H2O --> 2 H2 + O2) you get the *NET* reaction: CH4N2O + H2O --> CH4 + N2 + H2 +O2 Once again, the products are *all* usable propellants in KSP-Interstellar Extension Config. I would VERY MUCH like to see this reaction implemented in TAC Life Support. The Hydrogen produced could be coupled with the Sabatier Reaction (which as it is currently implemented in TAC Life Support consumes water instead of Hydrogen- but it should be possible to use this reaction math to create an integrated recycler that recycles CO2 and Wastewater with a single part...) As you can see, this reaction would also be *HIGHLY* useful in KSP-Interstellar, as ALL the products (Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Methane, and Oxygen) are usable propellants in KSP-Interstellar. Basically, your Kerbals would turn a portion of the mass of the Food they eat in TAC Life Support into propulsion for your rocket! Regards, Northstar EDIT: Went back and fixed the molecules of Hydrogen required for a balanced equation using the Sabatier Reaction. Thanks Yemo for catching that!

@TaranisElsu Hi Taranis. I was wondering what ever happened to implementing WasteWater-electrolysis in TAC Life Support, as I described HERE. Basically, the idea would be to filter out and electrolyze the Urea (CH4N2O) the main non-water component of WasteWater as described in THIS link: CH4N2O + H2O --> N2 + 3 H2 + CO2 All it requires is a low-voltage power source (only approximately a third the voltage is required as for electrolyzing water) and a cheap nickel catalyst... The products (N2, H2, and CO2) are *all* currently useful propellants in the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config I have been working on with FreeThinker... Additionally, if you couple this reaction with a Sabatier Reaction (CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O) and Water Electrolysis (2 H2O --> 2 H2 + O2) you get the *NET* reaction: CH4N2O + H2O --> CH4 + N2 + H2 +O2 Once again, the products are *all* usable propellants in KSP-Interstellar Extension Config. I would VERY MUCH like to see this reaction implemented in TAC Life Support. The Hydrogen produced could be coupled with the Sabatier Reaction (which as it is currently implemented in TAC Life Support consumes water instead of Hydrogen- but it should be possible to use this reaction math to create an integrated recycler that recycles CO2 and Wastewater with a single part...) Regards, Northstar EDIT: Went back and fixed the molecules of Hydrogen required for a balanced equation using the Sabatier Reaction. Thanks Yemo for catching that!

Lots of cool development over on the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config by FreeThinker and myself while you've been gone... (which now has its own thread) We've actually expanded the mod in a few ways, but also implemented a number of bug-fixes. We're eager to merge it into the main 0.90 port once it's ready... Regards, Northstar

Yeah, but the barge is just for testing. That's not how they're planning on recovering the boosters. Weather won't create delays when landing on land. They were able to successfully hover over stormy oceans with their last attempt- the problem was just that the barge didn't make a stable landing platform. On land, that's not an issue. Any weather that's good enough to launch during is good enough to pilot the launch stage back to the launch pad in 15 minutes later... Regards, Northstar P.S. As a side-note, why are you always so cynical about any possibility for advancing the state of spaceflight Nibb31? You've took the altitude that nothing can be improved, and every new idea is worthless on at least 3 or 4 other threads like this I've posted on in the past month...

Precisely. If there's a surplus of Hydrogen on the planet/moon, you can have LOADS of Water without there being any O2 to be found *anywhere*. Titan can't have free oxygen- it would interact with the Methane seas. Just because the activation energy is high enough that you don't get explosive combustion doesn't mean you don't get a very *gradual* reaction over the course of thousands or millions of years... Regards, Northstar

What level is the course at? What are the prereqs, if any? If you provide more info in the OP, this will probably get a LOT more interest and discussion... Regards, Northstar

Hi OtherBarry, NathanKell, whoever else is currently maintaining Procedural Parts, A concern of mine that I have had for some time now- the tech-limits are *FAR* too restrictive on the size of RealFuels Procedural Fuel Tanks in Career Mode... Currently, the size of the fuel tanks are limited to 3 meters in diameter even once you have unlocked Very Heavy Rocketry and would normally have access to 3.75 meter parts (not to mention mods such as NovaPunch2 and KW Rocketry make 3.75 meter parts available earlier, at Heavier Rocketry). Before you unlock Very Heavy Rocketry, you're limited to a volume of only 20 kL, such that it's not even possible to build a 2.5 meter tank as tall as the Rockomax-64 (which is available at this tech-level) due to both volume and length-limits... To not even be able to build as wide as the SLS parts at Very Heavy Rocketry, or as great a total volume as the Rockomax-64 at Heavy Rocekry, once you would normally have access to *both* at these tech-levels seems excessively restrictive... This is a MAJOR issue for me because I have taken to deleting all static-sized fuel tanks (except for a couple oddly-shaped ones such as the Toroidal...) from my install, meaning I am limited to much *SMALLER* fuel-tanks for the same tech-level using Procedural Parts. Considering this both ruins the game balance, and is already extremely unrealistic (stock rockets are only 40-50% the scale of real life: for instance the DeltaIV rocket, which the Rockomax-64 tank is clearly modeled after the main tank of, is a full 5 meters in diameter...) I would very much like to see these limits relaxed. The file controlling the tank-sizes is in the ProceduralParts folder, under "Parts" and "ZOtherMods", and is called "RFTank". The volume, length, and diameter limits simply need to be relaxed a bit to at least allow fuel tanks as tall and wide as in stock for a given tech-level (so, the diameter-limits need to be increased to match the widest stock tank available at that time at the very least, and both the volume and length-limits need to be raised for *most all* tech-levels: such that tanks with the same volume as the largest stock tanks at that tech-level can be built... The problems of excessively-small limits on fuel tank size start *long* before Heavy Rocketry) Regards, Northstar

Realistic performance isn't nearly THAT overpowered. For instance, even modeling a Particle Bed Reactor's performance after Project Timberwind (which is what the reactors are clearly based off of), it would only have a Vacuum TWR of 30 with 100% realistic implementation (and FreeThinker seems to want to leave the mass a bit higher). Most of the stock chemical engines that are good for launch stages have a TWR of 20-30, and a much higher TOTAL Thrust, so it's actually still an inferior option for a launch engine in most cases, despite the higher ISP (just as the Timberwind was inferior to most chemical engines). Can you get something to orbit with it? Yeah. Can you do a stock SSTO with it? Yeah (though it would never work in Real Solar System). Can you do both more efficiently+cheaply with a chemical rocket engine- absolutely. The point of implementing a close to realistic balance for it was so that players would have the OPTION of using an NTR for a launch engine- not so that it would actually be a better choice than chemical launch engines (which are still superior to nuclear thermal). Where the new "Mk2" particle bed reactor REALLY shines is an extra-atmospheric upper stage engine (much like a better and more modern version of the stock NERVA)- doubling the ISP really helps more in upper stages, as it means the launch stage doesn't have to lift as much mass above the atmosphere... I do prefer to play with RSS 6.4x, and RealFuels, but those two mods =/= Realism Overhaul. RO has a *HUGE* list of required mods, including ones I have no personal taste for, like Advanced Jet Engines (mainly because AJE's author has a *very* nerfed idea of realism, and insists on balancing all jet engines to mid-1960's standards, ignoring the fact that 1960 was only 15 years into the development of jet engines, and there have been more than 50 years of design and materials improvements since...) So a warp drive or an antimatter reactor isn't cheaty, but a fission nuclear thermal rocket with a reactor+nozzle TWR of 30 is? If you're already playing with FAR, you should TOTALLY install RealFuels. The Kerosene/LOX fuel mode acts much like stock LFO (except that the LOX will slowly boil off if not insulated- though not nearly as fast as Hydrogen or Methane), whereas Hydro/LOX provides a higher-ISP but less dense alternative, and hypergolics a denser but lower-ISP alternative. 90% of the time you'll just end up going for Kero/LOX most of the way up, and hypergolics on landers (much like in real life), so it doesn't really change your gameplay experience THAT much... As for your worries about part-count with Real Solar System, I have three suggestions for you... One, get the mod Active Texture Management if you haven't already, because it will reduce your lag just generally-speaking. Two, install Procedural Parts and maybe TweakScale. The ability to build a rocket fuel tank as large as you need it (in Career Mode, only once you unlock Metamaterials for unlimited size) instead of having to stack 5 tanks on top of each other will help your part-count IMMENSELY. Instead of building rockets with tons of radial boosters, get in the habit of building a single monolothic stack, like in real life (FAR will also *LOVE* your for it- you suffer drag not just due to cross-sectional area but also due to total surface-area, and larger tanks have proportionally less surface area due to the Square-Cube Law...) Procedural Parts will also allow you to delete most fuel tanks from stock and mods from your GameData folder, as you can re-create the same shape+capacity (or any other one you like) at-will... Three, get Procedural Fairings. I know you may like having 20 different fairing options and *only* those options with KW Rocketry, but the reduction in the number of parts your game has to load (in the catalog and memory, even if not currently in-use) and in the part-count on your craft will help IMMENSELY. This is why I would have been VERY angry if Squad hadn't gone procedural with the fairings- fairings are especially CPU-intensive (the calculations for aerodynamic shielding aren't free), and the performance of KSP is already bad enough as-is... I wasn't too fond of where WaveFunction eventually went with KSP-I Lite either (nerfing the performance of many parts/systems beyond belief, when they were laready much worse than in real life). Don't worry, I have no intention to go in that direction- or to cook the baby in rocket fuel. I've thought about asking RoverDude to do that, but I really have quite a lot of other things I'd like to see implemented either here in the Extension Config (for instance, fixes to the Monoprop production reaction so it produces Hydrazine in RealFuels, and to the Hydrogen Peroxide production reaction so it runs off Hydrogen and Oxygen rather than Oxygen and Water...), or in other mods (for instance, I really need to go and nag to try and get the Procedural Parts tech-limits on size relaxed a bit: they currently limit you to 3-meter diameters and short heights at tech-levels where you would normally have 3.75 meter parts available... It's not until Meta Materials that those insane limits are actually removed...) Regards, Northstar - - - Updated - - - I personally play with RealFuels, but this is one of the changes I'm not so sure about for the Extension Config- as I don't think many players will take kindly to it, and will over-react without realizing they can still use LF/O for their chemical rockets as always.. (as long as you make sure to use a stripped-down version of the RealFuels mod that *only* includes the tank-types and resources you need, and none of the ModuleManager code to replace LF/O with RealFuels equivalents, for instance...) Still, if you're going to do it, make it CRYSTAL CLEAR to players that this will *only* affect the fuels they can put into their plasma thrusters and KSP-I thermal rockets, not their normal stock or mod LF/O engines... I'm not a fan of LF/O myself, and think it was silly of Squad to ever implement these resources with arbitrary ISP and density in the first place, but since most players seem attached to them, you will need to make sure players understand they will still be able to use them as-always in their other parts... Regards, Northstar

Hey FreeThinker, Since you're currently checking this thread, don't forget about the code-changes to the RealFuelsFix file (KSP-I/RealFuels compatibility file) I posted here. Regards, Northstar

I'm listening... We're basing values off real-world mechanics for the same reason Squad is finally taking a more realistic approach to its aerodynamics system- because real life provides an inherently intuitive and balanced solution on how to model+code things... The performance for *almost EVERYTHING* is receiving a substantial buff with the more realistic values, from Thermal Rockets (which are getting better Thrust) to plasma thrusters (which are gaining the ability to operate off propellants you can scoop from the edge of atmospheres and drive Propulsive Fluid Accumulators)... To be honest, that's never been a strain of logic I understood very well. How could *improving* the performance of parts to match real-world specifications hold people hostage to RSS/RO-like gameplay. As far as I can tell, the only way to hold people hostage to RSS/RO-like gameplay is to actually force them to install RSS or RO (which I would never do). Having better part performance makes the game easier, and actually makes the game *less* restrictive in terms of what you can build and what you can do- which is the opposite of what RSS/RO tends to do to players (where the high Delta-V requirements force more optimal/ well-engineered spacecraft designs...) Having better part performance actually moves things *away* from restricted gameplay- and moderates the difficulty even if you have RSS/RO installed... Nothing about this work on furthering KSP-Interstellar forces or even suggests to players that they use Real Solar System or Realism Overhaul. I especially wish you'd stop saying it encourages Realism Overhaul- because personally even I don't play with that mod and wouldn't touch it with a 20-yard stick... (because I have no desire to play a 100% scale solar system in a game engine with as many inherent limitations as KSP...) KSP-Interstellar was *always* balanced against real life, to a certain degree. The mod has long had a reputation for being "overpowered", even compared to real life- simply because players did not understand that real rockets simply perform a lot better than what they're used to in KSP, and Interstellar has always leaned in the "realism" rather than the "gamey" direction. That being said, you'll find that most of the re-balances improve the fun of gameplay. Where else can find a nuclear thermal rocket you can use as a LAUNCH ENGINE? (like the real world Timberwind design we balanced the Particle Bed Reactors against was meant to do) KSP-Interstellar fundamentally exists to allow players to do thing MUCH more powerful than they could do in the stock game, but that are or might someday be possible in real life. Warp-drives, for instance: which were the only feature the mod was originally released with back in the day... You're free to play with parts as futuristic or near-term as you like. Personally, I never play with anything much beyond first-generation fission reactors and Microwave Thermal Power- and a 1st generation fusion reactor here and there if I'm feeling REALLY adventurous... Nothing about KSP-Interstellar forces you to play with any mods that add extra difficulty (like Real Solar System or RealFuels- although I strongly recommend the latter with the new aerodynamics system that will be coming out anyways, as it allows you to build MUCH more stable rockets by playing with the fuel-density and mass-distribution of different stages...) but you can always impose your own limitations if you wish. Oh yeah, and if you still want performance in the range of the original parts- play with the Community Tech Tree. The "Mk1" first-generation fission reactors still have performance highly similar to the original balance, whereas it's not until the "Mk2" parts that you start to see realistic performance. The "Mk1" parts are also available at an earlier tech-node as I understand it, although I've never actually played with Community Tech Tree... How are we taking anything away by *adding to* the mod? All the original parts with the balance you know and love are still there with the "Mk1" or "experimental" versions of each reactor (maybe FreeThinker was onto something by leaving them in there- I wanted to remove them entirely). We're just adding essentially a new upgrade-level with more realistic performance. Changes like raising the Thrust/MW of the Thermal Rocket Nozzles do improve the performance of the "experimental" parts, but only a little. Regards, Northstar

That's pretty basically correct for how a first-generation fusion reactor should behave. The really high net ThermalPower production levels should come from upgraded versions... With temperatures of "millions" of degrees, the ChargedParticles could *easily* yield an ISP of 50,000 seconds or more. This is a propulsion system that you could use for *INTERSTELLAR* travel due to the mass-fractions it allows... All sound great to me... I never understood why the reactors had to operate at 25% standby power anyways... Looks like a good solution to me! Don't forget Ammonia ALWAYS breaks down in a 1:2 molar ratio (1 mole of ammonia --> 2 moles of Nitrogen and Hydrogen gasses) at the relevant ThermalRocket temperatures- so it should have pretty much double the Thrust/MW you would expect for its ISP as well... Regards, Northstar