Northstar1989

Yes. The Delta-V to orbit would become far too low for a balanced and satisfying game experience if the atmosphere were fixed without somehow nerfing rockets or their fuel accordingly. The most sensible nerf to me seems to be to reduce fuel ISP or density, since then players will end up building BIGGER rockets- and bigger is BETTER in KSP because it looks more awesome... The whole point is to make these changes so as to alter the game balance to compensate for reduced Delta-V to orbit with more realistic aerodynamics. Nothing else would need to be changed besides the ISP of the engines that burn rocket fuel. Ideally, the devs would also take this opportunity to fix the LF/O burn ratio and make a major overhaul to the tanks/fuels system by allowing players to select how much of each resource they want in a tank (allowing players to place more of their Oxidizer at the base of the rocket so Center of Mass shifts upwards during flight, for instance). Better yet, they would also re-name the fuel resources to real world names and change their ISP/density to match- as some real fuels have approximately the correct balance the devs should be aiming for... Finally, the fuel tanks should be made tweakable as part of overhauling the fuels- this would allow players to change their distribution of fuel vs. oxidizer and even which fuel resources they carry (Hypergolcis vs. Kero/LOX, for instance) without new parts needing to be added. Several mods already have functional versions of this, including Real Fuels, Modular Fuel Tanks, and Firespitter. Maintaining a plausible look and feel for KSP. So players still have to build rockets that "look right" when KSP gets better aerodynamics. Also, it *DOES* satisfy the realists out there (such as myself)- and it's never a bad thing to improve the satisfaction of a portion of your player-base if it doesn't harm other players... Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! -Northstar-

Technically, that book was right. You can't use standard jet fuel in a Kero/LOX rocket because the quality of the Kerosene is too low. But you CAN burn rocket-grade Kerosene (such as RP-1) in a jet engine- and it would be too complicated to add different grades of Kerosene to the stock game... I agree. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! -Northstar-

The masses are approximately equal to their real-world counterparts: but their VOLUMES are much smaller- making them proportionally much denser. a 1.25 meter command pod would weigh much less than 800 kg, for instance. @EatVacuum As for the rocket scale, the 2.5 meter parts appear to be analogs of the 5 meter launch stages of the Atlas and Delta rocket families. The Rockomax64 is a near perfect replica of the cryogenic tank for the Delta IV rocket, for instance (strangely, many players think it's an analog of the Shuttle's External Tank, but it's not...) The Delta IV rocket is exactly 5 meters in diameter- making KSP exactly 50% scale (by diameter- half the diameter means only a FOURTH the cross-sectional area) for the 2.5 meter parts by this frame of comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV I can provide many more examples. The KSP rocket parts are typically only 40-50% the scale of the real world, and have much lower TWR and Thrust. Anyways, I hope this was informative. I say it because I want to inform you guys, not because I want to be right for the sake of itself. I hope you're having a wonderful holiday season, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Regards, Northstar

@Paul Kingtiger I used to think all of that too, but actually there are a few things wrong with those statements: (1) Stock parts are actually almost all *LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO* 50% the scale of real life parts. SLS has a 8.4 meter core, whereas the stock SLS parts have a 3.75 meter diameter (44% the size), for instance. The Saturn V was even larger (10 meters), but most mods that implement analogs use 5 meter scale. (2) Stock (and stock-like mods') rocket engine parts have a MUCH lower TWR, and much less thrust for their cross-sectional area, than real-life rocket engines. To give a couple instructive examples, the stock Mainsail engine has a mass of 6 tons and a thrust of 1500 kN (TWR 25.5 ; ISP 320 SL, 360 vac), and the stock K-2X engine has a mass of 6.5 metric tons and a thrust of 2500 kN (TWR 39.25 ; ISP 280 SL, 380 vac). The real life RS-68A rocket engine, on the other hand (an engine of 2.43 meters in diameter), has a thrust of 3,137 kN while burning LH2/LOX and a mass of 6.74 tons (TWR 47.5 ; ISP 365 SL, 412 vac). The real life Rocketdyne F-1 engine (the engine type that lifted the Saturn V's first stage; diameter 3.7 meters) had a thrust of 6,770 kN and a mass of 8.4 tons (TWR 82.24 ; ISP 263 SL). Are you seeing a pattern here? The *GREATLY* reduced TWR of stock engines even compared to LH2/LOX burning engines (which have a much higher ISP) as well as the reduced total thrust for the cross-sectional area (important for ballistic coefficient- meaning stock rockets cannot be built as tall off rocket engines at their base, and thus suffer increased drag) means that a KSP rocket of even the same diameter as a real-life rocket will under-perform it. Not to mention that the KSP rocket parts are LESS than 64% the scale of their real-life analogs (between 40 and 50%, usually). So, if you're aiming to maintain the relationship of rocket size to planet size, you should probably only be using a 5x-sized Kerbin (the stock Kerbin is 1/11th the diameter of Earth, not 1/10th, by the way). If you install Real Fuels + Stockalike, the mass of the stock engines is reduced to bring the TWR in line with real engines, and the ISP is adjusted to match real fuel mixes- but the total thrust is still much lower. So, even then, the engines still are greatly out-performed by their real life analogs. And, if you use FAR, then a 50%-scale rocket experiences MORE than 50% the total drag of the rocket it is based on, due to the Square-Cube Law. (3) Like mentioned above, Kerbin is actually only 1/11th the scale of Earth. so to get a 64% scale, you'd need to create a slightly larger than 7x scale Kerbin. PLEASE DON'T change the scale to make it even larger though- like I've already pointed out, the stock rocket parts are actually only 40-50% the scale of their real counterparts (which would correlate to a 4.4x - 5.5x sized Kerbin system). What I'm saying, in short, is that in *some* ways RSS 6.4x scale is actually HARDER than real life. The only thing that saves it from being a more challenging experience overall than full-sized RSS with Realism Overhaul is the beauty of the Rocket Equation: 70-75% the Delta-V to orbit (7.5 - 8 km/s in 6.4x Kerbin, vs 10-11 km/s in real life) with a 50%-scale rocket and under-powered engines is NOT as hard as 100% the Delta-V to orbit on a realistic-sized rocket. Think of it this way: you have to stack something slightly smaller than a rocket capable of making orbit on stock-sized Kerbin (3.5 km/s with FAR) on top of a rocket capable of making orbit in 6.4x Kerbin, in order to get a rocket that can make orbit in 100%-scale Earth. Even with under-powered Real Fuels + Stockalike engines, and Procedural Parts Real Fuels Tanks, this is *STILL* an at least slightly more difficult task. And you also need to lift more payload to orbit to go anywhere beyond LKO in the 100% scale RSS game... Just some thoughts really. I hope you learned at least a few valuable tidbits out of my monlogue. Honestly, I'm thrilled that somebody took up the mantle and made a all-in-one RSS 6.4x version: stock KSP is just *WAY* too small for me (I'd prefer the 3.2x scale config, actually, even if it's much easier than real life- but it does silly things I don't like such as giving Dres a rotational speed fast enough to completely eliminate all surface-gravity there similar to in Krag's "Inaccessible"...) And despite some of my personal play preferences for something a *little* smaller, I think it's GREAT work you've been doing with the 64K config, and I hope you'll continue it well into the future! Regards, Northstar

Actually, both Kerosene and Liquid Hydrogen can be used in jet engines. While Kerosene-jets are MUCH more common, hydrogen-jets CAN be built or at least designed (see the SABRE engine, for instance). I wouldn't mind having jet engines burn a different fuel than the standard rocket-fuel mixture. Honestly, when I first started playing the game, the only rocket fuels I was familiar with were hypergolics and LH2/LOX. I was *surprised* to see rocket engines and jet engines burning the same fuel resource. I think making MMH/N2O4 the default rocket fuel, and Kerosene the default jet fuel; but having Kerosene/LOX available as a viable (higher ISP, but lower-density) alternative for rockets along with LH2/LOX (and possibly LH2/IntakeAir for a jet engine alternative), would be the best solution. Regards, Northstar P.S. Yes, basically I think that making RealFuels stock, without all the weird alternative fuels, and with *either* MMH/N2O4 or UDMH/N2O4 (one, but not both) being the *ONLY* hypergolic fuel-mixture, and the default for EVERY rocket engine (regardless of this being unrealistic) would be the best choice... Fuel tanks should also be made a good bit cheaper in Career Mode, at the same time as reducing ISP, so as to not add *too much* to game difficulty- and this would also simultaneously increase the realism (fuel tanks are currently far too expensive in relation to rocket engines, especially compared to real life) and eliminate the need to adjust standard contract monetary rewards with the reduced ISP.

That's my hope. And, I think the devs should take the opportunity to simply re-name the fuels when they do so (LF/O --> MMH/N2O4 and LiquidFuel for jets --> Kerosene. The devs could also add Kerosene/LOX as an *alternative* fuel for rockets, as I think it actually throws newbies off more when they can burn jet fuel in rockets- I know it surprised me, even though it *can* be done with Kero/LOX rockets in real life...) Yeah, I don't think making Kerbin larger is the way the devs would go. That would be a much more substantial increase to difficulty- although honestly, I would rather see Kerbin 2-3 times larger than it currently is anyways, as it breaks immersion when I can clearly see the curvature of Kerbin from just a few thousand meters above the surface (it's not even necessary to make it to orbit- you can see it from a plane). By the way, rocket launches actually take less time with FAR installed (and hopefully would with the aerodynamics overhaul as well). The reduction in drag (with streamlined designs) from more accurate drag modeling means that rockets fly FASTER than they would in stock with the same amount of thrust, and thus end up taking less time to ascend to orbit (this is also part of the reason for the reduced Delta-V requirements to orbit with FAR: it's not just a matter of reduced atmospheric drag, reduced gravity-losses due to a faster ascent also play a MAJOR role...) Regards, Northstar

@MKI Re-naming LF/O to MMH/N2O4 or Kerosene/LOX does NOT make the fuel system more complicated- nor does changing the burn ratio to be realistic in terms of relative amonnts of fuel vs. oxidizer needed. If ANYTHING, it makes the system SIMPLER, because then we have a real-world analog by which to understand what the rocket fuels actually represent. Nerfing the ISP and/or fuel-density doesn't make it more complicated either (the TWR, on the other hand, is unrealistically low, and should be buffed to compensate a bit for the lower ISP and make the game more fun, if anything. I have no idea why you would want a 100 kN engine Bill Phil...) Adding ADDITIONAL fuel mixture ALTERNATIVE such as LH2/LOX (which there is currently no good analog for) wouldn't make the game any harder or more complicated for average players either. Players who wished to do so could simply *ignore* the non-standard fuel mixtures... It wouldn't be a real aerodynamics overhaul at all if they didn't change drag to be based on shape and size rather than mass. There is absolutely no question that it can't continue with a long, streamlined, full rocket and a short, empty lander falling at EXACTLY the same rate. That's the equivalent of dropping a bowling ball and a feather on Earth, and having them hit the ground at the same time. If they change the drag model to be based on shape/mass, they will *in effect* be getting rid of the soup-o-sphere (which exists not as a matter of Kerbin's atmosphere actually being any denser than Earth's, but as a result of how drag is modeled) and reducing the Delta-V to get to orbit to around 3.5 km/s. Raising the atmosphere height is one option (although they would also need to increase the scale height to something closer to Earth's for this to be effective), but it's unlikely the devs will decide to do that- so something else in KSP's rocketry needs to be nerfed to compensate. Reducing ISP or fuel-density to match one of the most likely real-world fuels (MMH/N2O4, which has much lower ISP; or Kerosene/LOX, which has much lower fuel-density) would be one way to accomplishing this. You're not listening. You're not paying attention. You're not actually looking at what's being suggested- you're only making assumptions about what you *THINK* a different fuel-system would mean. One more time. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING that is more complicated about MMH/N2O4 or Kersoene/LOX (without LOX boil-off being simulated) than with the current "LiquidFuel" and "Oxidizer" fuel-mixture. The ONLY difference is that the ISP or fuel-density (the amount of fuel that fits in a given sized tank) would be lower, and the name would be different- otherwise the fuels would behave EXACTLY the same, but with real-world names. Every great journey is taken in small steps. Nobody is arguing for TOTAL realism, but the devs can and SHOULD work to increase realism wherever it detracts ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from game-play, and *especially* when in enhances the game experience: as in this case. The reason that the fuel-density or ISP should be nerfed to match, and the fuels re-named to a real fuel, once more, is NOT realism for the sake of realism- it's because the fuels should be nerfed at the same time as the aerodynamics change, for the sake of game balance, anyways. Using a real-world set of ISP's, densities, and names in this case is simply a matter of convenience. The name-change helps queue players into the fact that something has changed (and ensure that they know to re-design their rockets, so they don't keep trying to use designs that no longer hold enough fuel), whereas the density and ISP for the real fuels are approximately what they should be aiming for, from a balance standpoint, anyways. Regards, Northstar

Like I said, advanced concept for advanced players. But making it part of the stock game wouldn't DETRACT anything from the experience of newbies (provided the fuel tanks came pre-configured with the fuels in the correct burn-ratio as the "default"), while it WOULD add to the experience of experienced players and particularly advanced newbies (personally, I was landing on Duna within a week or two of staring KSP- I would have loved more advanced content without having to install mods, which I was initially reluctant to do as I didn't know how hard/safe it would be to add mods- I had some bad experiences with modding in Minecraft back in the day...) Indeed. As for those getting super into discussing re-naming LF/O as hypergolics, keep in mind that while it *IS* true you can have highly reignitable cryogenic engines, and can theoretically even store cryogenics with little to no boiloff with the right equipment, the point was that it's the most *believable* replacement for LF/O as the "default" fuel (all the cryogenic fuels should be more advanced alternatives that players would have to know how to switch to via tweakables to use). Sometimes believability and ease of use is more important than realism (which is why I suggested making hypergolics the default, even though Kero/LOX is more widely used in real life...) Hypergolics have a lower ISP than the current LF/O mix, but the ISP of the default stock engines needs to be nerfed a bit anyways when they overhaul aerodynamics and it starts taking only 3.5 km/s to get to LKO with well-designed rockets... That hypergolics provide a convenient measuring-point to match up against with about the right ISP and fuel-density for what the new (nerfed) balanced should be is simply convenient and a great way to enhance realism without harming gameplay... Sometimes you CAN have your cake (realism) and eat it (balance/fun) too. Regards, Northstar

Shameless plug, but this should have GREAT synergy with my re-released and re-balanced (from the apparently dead Stanford Torus mod) Mass Driver mod... Who DOESN'T love shooting a craft up at 300-400 m/s (in FAR, of course) using a ground-based mass driver, with a first stage built to do little more than sustain that velocity (ideally, one with a lot of thrust but with an even heavier upper stage on top), and then recovering that first stage Space-X style? Regards, Northstar

I am of the opinion that with improved aerodynamics (which if implemented correctly, should get rid of the stock "soup-o-sphere" and reduce the Delta-V to get to orbit to around 3.5 km/s for a streamlined rocekt design) the devs should also consider nerfing the default rocket fuel mixture to have lower ISP and density values- *possibly* to match real-world hypergolics (MMH/UDMH/Aerozine + N2O4). Let it be said, I am a firm believer that the current stock fuel system is badly in need of overhaul anyways. The fuels don't reflect any real world burn-ratio (Oxidizer is almost always required in MUCH greater quantities than LiquidFuel- even Kero/LOX burns in a roughly 2:1 volume ratio...) and their ISP is similar to Kero/LOX whereas their density is superior to even the much denser choice of hypergolics... Why hypergolics? Because they have the highest density of any real-world fuel choice (and stock LF/O is already too dense- so this would require the smallest adjustment), their ISP is *inferior* to the current LF/O mixture (which is essential to nerfing the fuel mix so that getting to orbit still remains a challenge at only 3.5 km/s), and in real life they don't experience any boil-off (so it would put to rest any cries from realists that the fuels should have boil-off). By matching a real world fuel, the game would also have known values to work off (which, for hypergolics, already just *happen* to be well-balanced for KSP), and would even be able to re-name LF/O to real fuel names to make realists a bit happier... I would emphasize that the fuels should also be re-named, because that would open the door to including other fuel mixtures down the line. Such as Kero/LOX (which have better ISP but lower density than hypergolics) and LH2/LOx (which have incredible ISP, but *very low* fuel-density). Which could be eventually (or immediately, if Squad wanted to be particularly proactive) implemented as alternative fuels that force players to trade-off reduced fuel-density for higher ISP, and could even simulate boil-off (hypergolics should be the "default" fuel, though, so new players don't have to deal with boil-off unless/until they ever feel ready...). I know that everybody doesn't necessarily agree with me. Which is why I am trying to get people to discuss this- and this thread was started so as to facilitate such discussion. Please keep in mind that the main point is that ISP should be reduced, not that I think hypergolics would be the best fuel mixture to model the new (lower) ISP values off of. The bit about hypergolics is in some ways entirely separate from the need to nerf ISP when aerodynamics are improved- it just happens to be a convenient time to bring it up... Regards, Northstar P.S. On second thought, maybe the devs should include Kero/LOX at the same time. Basically, go with 2 different directions on nerfing the fuels. Players could choose either to take a smaller hit to their fuel-density but lose ISP (by using hypergolics), or keep current ISP but lose even more fuel-density (Kero/LOX). It also feels rather weird having jet engines burn UDMH, so it might be better to have all the jet and RAPIER engines (RAPIER is for more advanced players anyways) use Kerosene, for a number of realism and balance reasons (stock jet engines are already EXTREMELY OP'd due to their not losing thrust with altitude and a quirk of how IntakeAir figures into ISP calculations- having them burn with a less dense fuel would do more to nerf them than reducing the ISP a small amount without fixing the IntakeAir issue...)

I'm glad you see the value in being able to divide the duel mass unevenly. Note that I think the SIMPLEST and BEST option is to simply have the existing fuel tanks be tweakable as to whether they hold ONLY Liquidfuel (which should be re-named to MMH, UDMH, or Aerosize for the default fuel mixture), ONLY Oxidizer (N2O4 for the default- which should be hypergolics for their simplicity and lower ISP), or any arbitrary ratio of the two (assume the fuel tank is actually just an aero-shell with mutliple smaller tanks inside). Basically, something equivalent to the Modular Fuel Tanks mod. Players would start off with both fuels present in the burn-ratio as the default (like in current stock KSP), and be able to change it with right-click tweaking in the VAB/SPH... The simplest way to ensure new players have the correct burn ratio is simply to make the default fuel tank configuration the burn-ratio of hypergolics (which never boil-off, so even if boil-off were added, players won't need to add excess quantities of the more cryogenic component to maximize Delta-V), and force players who want to use anything else (such as Kero/LOX or LH2/LOX, or move the fuel-distribution around like we were talking about) to have to manually adjust the fuel contents through tweakables. So, players could place the heavier hypergolic in the nose and the lighter once in the tail through tweakable, switch over to Kero/LOX or LH2/LOX and do the same ting, or just stick with the default burn-ratios. I suggest if you've never played with RealFuels before, you go and download it as soon as it's updated for 0.90, as it has basically the system I am describing (although actually selecting the fuel contents there is overly-complicated due to a huge bloat of weird Cold War Era fuels that almost nobody ever uses except people with Real Engines installed...) Regards, Northstar

I hope you do! It's a great mod- and I've actually had some input into helping make it what it is today myself! (I helped get included new designs of Thermal Fin, and helped figure out the correct re-balance of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine for the "Stockalike" engine config I also helped guide the creation of the current RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar built-in integration config, which is vastly superior to the one they had packaged with the mod before...) Please see my other explanatory post. None of these features increase the learning-curve: as long as Squad is careful to set the easiest/most intuitive options as the "defaults" (even fuel-distribution before tweaking, in this case). What they do is add additional options for players who want to play around with alternatives to the default, so as to squeeze higher performance out of their rockets- thus making the game easier for curious players who take the time to learn about the advantages of the more complex alternatives (uneven fuel distribution being used to improve arodynamic stability). The stock ISP values are currently centered around Kero/LOX, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, the current values might be OP'd with a more realistic aerodynamics system (which would mean only 3.5 km/s to LKO). It would probably be better to "nerf" them to those appropriate for hypergolics, so as to maintain game balance when revising aerodynamics. In fact, Squad *could* (and probably *should*) re-name LF/O to that of a known hypergolic mixture (either MMH, Aerozine, or UDMH fuel; and N2O4 as oxidizer) and not add any other fuel mixtures for the moment, while reducing ISP levels to those appropriate for hypergolics. This would both pave the way for adding additional fuel mixtures in later updates, AND satisfy the realism-junkies (such as myself) without actually making any change to the gameplay that they didn't need to make anyways (reducing ISP to compensate for improved aerodynamics making getting to orbit cost less Delta-V). Regards, Northstar

Great thoughts from you, oh but they do! Consider the following... The two aren't mutually exclusive, first of all (uneven fuel tank distribution is a feature of the VAB/SPH, a fuel balancer utility is used in-flight to pump fuel around withing those tanks. Personally, though mods, I already use BOTH). Second, there's NOTHING forcing players to utilize this feature. If a player doesn't feel comfortable changing around the distribution of fuel and oxidizer within their fuel tank sections (so that, say, the bottom fuel section in a 2-tank stage is all LH2, and the top section holds the remaining LH2 and all the LOX) they could leave it alone and stick with the "default" configuration for the fuel tank, where the fuels are present in their burn-ratios in equal amounts in all fuel tanks, without being any worse off for their decision than they currently are in stock KSP (which, admittedly, is not as well of as they *COULD BE* if they took advantage of this new, beneficial feature...) Being able to tweak fuel-distribution would also open the door to a lot of cool gizmos or visuals in the VAB, or at the very least be aided by a KER-style informational screen where you could at least see your Delta-V, so you know if the fuels are still present in their burn-ratio (otherwise, your total Delta-V decreases as you have excess fuel or oxidizer all the way to the end of that stage's burn...) But once again, there would be nothing forcing less advanced players to utilize any of these features- they wouldn't harm players who ignore them, just make the game easier for players who learn how to use them! (which can already be said of a lot of features in KSP- admin strategies, anyone?) The ISP *could* be increased, but having a set of 3 different fuels with different densities and ISP ratings gives players more flexibility in their rocket-design. Hypergolics are the most dense, LH2/LOX has the best ISP, and Kero/LOX falls somewhere in the middle. Once again, these choices could be safely ignored by any player who wishes to- just set hypergolics or Kero/LOX as the default for all engines and fuel tanks (depending on whether Squad decided to simulate boil-off!), and leave it to players who are curious and want to play around to optimize their designs to discover how to use the other fuel modes! Setting hypergolics as the "default" would also allow Squad to "nerf" the default rocket performance a little to make up for the reduced Delta-V to orbit by revising aerodynamics to get rid of the "soup-o-sphere" (a realistic aerodynamics model with the current size of Kerbin would mean 3.5 km/s to orbit instead of 4.5 km/s), as real-life hypergolics, while extremely dense, have inferior ISP to the current stock engines (which currently fall somewhere in an ISP range loosely centered on Kero/LOX levels of efficiency, but with densities more similar to hypergolics...) Delta-V to orbit would go down (with improved aerodynamics), but so would ISP by making hypergolics the "default" (thus preserving the current stock balance)- and players looking to get better performance could switch to Kero/LOX or LH2/LOX, at the cost of fuel-density and possibly having to mitigate boil-off... Absolutely. But would Squad want to make this resource collectible in as many places as you can find Oxygen in the real solar system? I think not. Right now, there's talk about them just limiting it to asteroid-mining, in fact. Having realistic fuels would make it more useful and believable to have places where you can obtain just LOX, but not other fuel components, for instance... (such as from ordinary Munar regolith, or from skimming the edge of Kerbin's atmosphere from orbit) It would also provide a guide (reality) on where to locate additional ISRU opportunities as time went on and the devs inevitably felt led to expand the ISRU system... We're talking about adding a new feature, that currently doesn't exist (there is no stock ISRU system- yet), in a more realistic manner because a more realistic system is actually more useful/interesting. It opens up possibilities like Propulsive Fluid Accumulator satellites, Regolith electrolysis, or Sabatier Reactors on Duna (if Methane/LOX were added as a 4th fuel-mixture), that wouldn't really make sense with the stock resources. Since ISRU is an entirely optional feature, *nothing* about this would make the game harder. And the complexity? Most of it you don't actually NEED to understand- for instance, you don't need to know WHY you can skim LOX (that is useful because it comprises 8/9th's of your fuel mass with a LH2/LOX rocket) off the top of Kerbin's atmosphere or extract it from almost any Munar regolith- only that you can. The chemistry behind it may be complex, and interesting to some players, but for most, having the fuels called "LH2" and "LOX" instead of "LiquidFuel" and "Oxidizer" is an *entirely superficial* difference- and only *necessary* so that you can differentiate several different usable fuel-mixtures, and allow them to share components (for instance, a Kero/LOX and LH2/LOX engine both use LOX...) Not at all. Most engines in stock KSP are DRASTICALLY underpowered in terms of Thrust. It wouldn't be that hard to set the current thrust values as the sea-level thrust values, and simply have the thrust climb higher as you ascend. The rocket engines would thus only become MORE powerful compared to their current state, making the game easier (especially when combined with realistic aerodynamics reducing Delta-V to orbit)- but balanced by a reduction in ISP by a switch to ISP levels and naming accurate for hypergolics for the default fuel mixture (with Kero/LOX and LH2/LOX available as higher-ISP, lower-density alternatives). Regards, Northstar

As soon as 0.91? That's GREAT news- I just hope they don't do a rush-job of it. A GOOD ISRU or Aerodynamics system takes a LOT of time to design to be player-friendly, fun, and at least semi-realistic... (yes, *all* of these goals are achievable with enough thought- just look at how KSP Interstellar does ISRU...) The are other options, you know... That's a DRASTIC overstatement of what FAR is like. FAR is realistic, *NOT* intentionally harsh/unforgiving. You'd be AMAZED just what you can actually get to orbit in FAR with enough nosecones, control surfaces, and reaction wheels. Whackjob creations are *NOT* out of the question with FAR- they just become substantially harder. Procedural Fairings is the best implementation of fairings. Period. There's no reason to make it any harder on players than it has to be by forcing them to try and cram their oddly-shaped payloads inside one-size-fits-all fairings. I can already anticipate enough players whining about *realistic* aerodynamic features (my rockets flip over after launch now- I only have all the mass at the bottom and all the drag at the top!) without forcing them to put up with unnecessary restrictions of the types of fairings they can use... Regards, Northstar P.S. ANY major change inevitably produces its share of whiners and complaints. But, a more realistic aerodynamics system will ultimately be for the best- especially for new players who aren't used to the weird stock aerodynamics and are EXPECTING a system where a bowling ball will at least fall faster than a feather (due to the way stock aero is implemented- if you could create a bowling ball and a feather part, they would actually fall at the same rate inside an atmosphere- as drag is proportional to mass instead of surface area in stock aero...) P.P.S. A realistic set of basic rules inevitably leads to more advanced features. There's no need to go out and create advanced rules for them. For instance, if drag is proportional to surface area and shape instead of mass, then the twin concepts of ballistic coefficient and aerodynamic stability necessarily arise. Craft with less surface area relative to mass will ascend faster as they have a better ballistic coefficient, and craft will naturally tend to rotate towards the end with more drag relative to mass (which is why it's important to have the mass at the top of a rocket and the drag at the bottom- like an arrow. More realistic fuel mixtures and tweakable tanks actually could HELP in this regard, by letting players store the heavier/denser fuels closer to the nose of the rocket- which isn't possibly with equally-dense LF/O...)

This probably isn't something you hear very often, but the stock "Liquidfuel/Oxidizer" system actually makes the game HARDER than a set of realistic fuels (hypergolics, Kerosene/LOX, and LH2/LOX). This is for 3 reasons: (1) Realistic fuels aren't all the same density, and aren't required in equal or nearly-equal proportions (like stock LF/O). This means that you can adjust the Center of Mass of a spacecraft or (especially useful) spaceplane by changing the relative distribution of fuels. Craft too tail-heavy? Move the Liquid Oxygen up to the nose and the Liquid Hydrogen down towards the tail (LOX is 16 times denser than Liquid Hydrogen). Mass-distribution EXTREMELY important for aerodynamic stability with an aerodynamic system realistic enough that a full fuel tank falls faster than an empty fuel tank (and as the devs have already confirmed, the stock aerodynamics system *will* be getting an overhaul). Of course, to really take advantage of this, you need fuel tanks that hold just one fuel component of a bipropellant mix (like LH2/LOX, Kerosene/LOX, any hypergolic-pair, or yes even LF/O), either through tweakable tank configurations (so you can say this tank up here just holds LOX, and this identical tank down here just holds Liquid Hydrogen...) or dedicated parts. I suggest the tweakable fuel tank configurations. (2) Some realistic fuels are capable of higher Specific Impulse (ISP) than the stock LF/O mix. Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) plus Liquid Oxygen (LOX), in particular (which can reach ISP values of 480 of greater with the right engine in vacuum). Sure, LH2/LOX is less dense than Kerosene/LOX, hypergolics, or the current LF/O- but you can always add BIGGER fuel tanks (especially if they're much lighter due to the reduced fuel density), and bigger rockets just look cooler anyways. Bigger rockets also have better ballistic coefficients (an aerodynamic feature measuring relative drag- that will necessarily show up in even the most basic aerodynamics overhaul- it's 100% of the reason a bowling ball falls faster than a feather in real life, but its absence is why that doesn't hold true in KSP...) (3) Realistic fuels open up more interesting/intuitive In Situ Resource Utilization possibilities. Not only will it be more IMMERSIVE if you are mining ice from an asteroid to refuel your LH2/LOX fuel tanks than if you are harvesting some generic, imaginary resource- realistic fuels also open up types of ISRU that would be INCONCEIVABLE or INEFFICIENT with the stock LF/O system. In particular, any ISRU system that produces Oxidizer but not fuel in real life is EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT in stock, because LF/O burn in a nearly 1:1 mass ratio- whereas in *any* real fuel mixture, the Oxidizer component (LOX or N2O4 being the most common, and the only ones worth representing in KSP) is the MUCH more massive of the two (at an extreme, with LH2/LOX, Oxygen comprises roughly 8/9'ths of the total fuel mass)- meaning it becomes worthwhile to set up an ISRU system that can only harvest one. If you can set up a system that skims Oxygen off the upper edge of Kerbin's atmosphere, for instance (via a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator system), or electrolyzes it from Munar regolith (most Lunar regolith is comprised of Aluminum Oxides in real life...), it won't really be worthwhile unless you have a realistic mass burn-ration between your fuel and oxidizer. It's also worth mentioning, though not strictly a part of having realistic fuels (although DEFINITELY part of a propulsion overhaul) that having a more realistic relationship between rocket TWR/ISP and atmospheric pressure (such that Thrust increases with decreasing atmospheric pressure, and Fuel Flow remains fixed, like in real life) actually makes efficient ascents to orbit easier, since you can build a craft with low TWR in the thickest part of the atmosphere, and have its TWR increase much more quickly as you ascend and get to the point where a higher TWR is ideal due to decreasing drag from the atmosphere (technically, a TWR of 2 would always be ideal over an infinitely-long ascent, but with any kind of a realistic climb-rate your TWR has to go higher and higher to keep up with terminal velocity as you ascend into thinner atmosphere...) This thread is to discuss these concepts, NOT to suggest an overhaul of the current fuel-system to something more realistic (which I believe has been suggested many times before, even though I didn't immediately spot it on the "Already Suggested" list...) Regards, Northstar P.S. The topic of boil-off of realistic fuels, which actually makes the game a *little* harder (it's not that hard to assume the fuel tanks are all insulated- their mass rations are already terrible even for insulated fuel tanks, and a simple active-cooling part could eliminate boil-off entirely at the cost of ElectricCharge), is also a slightly separate topic- as it's entirely possible to imagine a set of 3 realistic fuels in KSP (LH2/LOX, Kero/LOX, and one hypergolic pair) without the inclusion of boil-off. Of course doing so would eliminate the main advantage of hypergolics- that they experience ZERO boil-off at most normal operating temperatures... (in real life, Venus or Mercury would be hot enough to cook off uncooled hypergolics)

No, that's less than a tenth the performance. What?! You must think I'm crazy, obviously 35 is 70% of 50. But once again, it's not that simple... First of all, in stock's favor, a half-diameter SLS is actually only a QUARTER of the size of a full-diameter SLS. It is also about half the height. And actually, the SLS can carry 70 tons to LEO in its relatively anemic Block I configuration, and 130 tons or more with the heavier configurations down the line that KSP actually imitates. So, comparing 130 tons to 50 tons, you already have only around 40% of the payload capacity. However, the Delta-V required to get to LKO (4.5 km/s in stock) is LESS THAN HALF that in real life (10 km/s). That means, the stock KSP SLS could only get 40% of the payload less than halfway to orbit on Earth, which is a LOT less impressive... And since the Rocket Equation says that fuel requirements increase exponentially with Delta-V requirements, 40% of the payload to 45% of the Delta-V gap is less than a tenth the performance of the real life rocket. My point was that the stock-sized KSP rockets are MUCH lower-performance that real-life rockets, not that the game is ultimately harder because of it. The greatly-reduced Delta-V requirements to orbit somewhat make up for the reduced performance. The greatly-reduced Delta-V requirements from orbit to any other destination make up for the rest (unless you're trying to launch a massive LKO space station- in which case you need more than TWICE as many launches with the KSP analogs, as the payload components generally have the same mass as in real life, but equivalent rockets less than 40% the payload capacity to LKO as real rockets to LEO...) Regards, Northstar

I said this before, but you either didn't see the post before the one you quoted, or it didn't sink it. These unrealistic features of KSP actually make for a HARDER game. If you had access to 460-480 second (vacuum ISP, typically 400-420 sec at sea-level) Hydrolox rocket engines, things would be *MUCH* easier. If you had realistic aerodynamics, then you could reach orbit with less Delta-V (especially with larger rockets). If you had realistic rocket engines, your rocket engines would have MUCH better thrust for their mass and size. If you had multi-body physics (somebody's actually making a mod for this, so it *IS* possible with KSP's engine) then you could have things like LaGrange points that would actually open up more exciting possibilities for Mun missions and orbital fuel depots. If you had the ISRU options that are being considered in real life, rather than just the "asteroid mining" Squad seems to be leaning towards, well you get the idea... Even realistic-sized planets/moons, one of the few features that would make the game significantly harder, actually makes landing easier by increasing atmospheric scale-height (so you can rely on atmosphere to absorb more of your velocity) and making the landscape flatter (the planets/moons in KSP are far too hilly even in the "flat" areas compared to their real-life counterparts, as a result of the devs wanting to create sufficiently dense elevation maps that they look good from orbit). KSP is a *harder* and *less* fun game for its lack of unrealistic features, not the other way around. It's like Squad went through a list of real-world principles, and decided to strip out of the game half the ones that would actually make the game easier and more interesting, at times. Regards, Northstar P.S. I know there are *some* features that would make KSP harder, such as larger planets/moons (which would increase Delta-V requirements to make orbit), re-entry heat (although it's still one of the most-requested features, for immersion reasons), and aerodynamic failures. But these features are actually in the *minority* of realistic features.

The mass ratios are based on real-life fuel tanks. If it's laughably light compared to stock tanks, that's just because stock tanks are insanely heavy compared to real life tanks. There's a REASON that space-grade fuel tanks are so expensive- they are built to extremely exacting standards so as to squeeze every bit of Delta-V possible out of a rocket. That being said, they're still much cheaper than space-grade rocket engines typically (which is why they need to be so cheap- to have the right cost relation to the engines. Use Difficulty Options to turn down your monetary rewards from Contracts if you think it makes the game too easy...) Regarding mass of the fuel tanks, compare the mass of the Centaur upper stage, to that of the Rockomax-32 tank. Both have a dry mass of about 2 tons (this includes payload fairings, guidance systems, RCS, and a lot of other things on Centaur). But the Rockomax-32 holds only 16 tons of propellant at fuel-densities many times higher than than of LH2/LOX (or any known fuel mixture for that matter), whereas the Centaur upper stage's total mass (payload fairings and all) is about the same and yet it holds over 20 tons of LH2/LOX, which has a *tiny* fraction of the fuel-density of stock LF/O- meaning you have a MUCH superior volume-to-mass ratio (and the mass ratio would be much better if used to hold denser fuels like, say, Kero/LOX or hypergolics). As for the "can be filled to 100%", do you mean that they can launch completely full (all tanks can do that), or that they can have 100% volume utilization? While the latter might be *slightly* inaccurate, it's not as much as you think. The capacities in Procedural Parts are based on the actual dimensions of the tanks, and assume 1 atmosphere of pressure. However most rockets make use of *pressurized* fuel tanks, which can hold significantly *more* fuel mass for their volume (what would equate to a greater volume at lower pressures). Since pressurization isn't implemented correctly in the Procedural Parts RealFuels tanks (i.e. a "pressurized" Service Module tank holds *exactly* the same number of units of fuel as an "unpressurized" Balloon Tank- when Service Modules can be found pressurized to 20 atmospheres or more in real life), having 100% utilization isn't that unrealistic. Even the least-pressurized fuel tanks in real life (such as the Balloon Tanks in the Centaur or early Atlas rockets- which can't withstand high internal pressures due to their extremely thin-skinned design, or the Space Shuttle External Tank- which operated at a pressure of "only" 1.5 atmospheres) make up for it by having very high utilization percentages (96% for some of the Balloon Tanks used on Atlas, if I remember correctly), which aren't all that far from 100% really... Regards, Northstar

@RocketScientistsSon This is probably going to run completely contrary to what you'll hear ANYONE else tell you, but since you're just starting out, start with the mods FAR and MechJeb2 installed: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-90-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-14-5-12-16-14 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/12384-PART-0-90-Anatid-Robotics-MuMech-MechJeb-Autopilot-v2-4-1 This is for two VERY good reasons for each: - You'll thank yourself later if you play with FAR now. The devs have officially confirmed that they will be overhauling the aerodynamics system before KSP reaches version 1.0 and if you get used to more realistic aerodynamics now, you'll have less adapting to do when Squad introduces their own improved aerodynamics model (though I doubt it will be quite as comprehensive as FAR, you'll have a *MUCH* easier time adapting from FAR than from the stock model if Squad does even a teardrops' worth of respect to how aerodynamics work in real life...) - FAR is actually the more intuitive aerodynamics model in many ways, when it comes to building planes. IF you know what a real life plane looks like, you can expect it to work in FAR. Many designs that would NEVER fly in real life WILL fly in stock aerodynamics, on the other hand (I've literally seen a flying box), and many things that fly GREAT in real life won't work nearly as well in Stock Aerodynamics (for instance, one key effect is that Center of Lift shifts backwards as you break Mach in real life or FAR- meaning that real/FAR hypersonic aircraft can be built a bit more tail-heavy than in stock KSP aerodynamics...) - MechJeb2 provides the two EXTREMELY useful features for Spaceplanes. The first is an ASAS system, similar to the one now part of Stock KSP, except that it *ALSO* allows you to set a specific Angle of Attack relative to your prograde vector or the horizon when in Surface or SVel+ relative modes... This will also take a LOT of the human error out of flying your plane (pulling too hard back on the flight stick/ S-key when trying to gain altitude, for instance), which will not only save you enormous amounts of headache, it will make it easier to figure out which plane design really flies better, and just wasn't tested when you were having a really good or bad day in KSP... - MechJeb2's second ENORMOUSLY helpful feature is the informational readouts. Specifically, the Kerbal Engineer Redux-derived data screen in the Spaceplane Hanger, and the Surface Info screen when flying. The SPH readouts were actually originally taken directly from KER, and provide you with important figures like how long your engines can burn in the atmosphere, and what your TWR is (it even adapts to Sea Level vs. Vacuum TWR if you are running RealFuels- where Thrust varies with altitude instead of Fuel Flow, like in real life!) The Surface Info screen, which is only available when flying/orbiting/landed and not in the VAB/SPH, will tell you a number of key pieces of info about your plane's situation: such as the climb or sink-rate (how fast you are gaining or losing altitude) much more precisely than the stock logarithmic altimeter, your precise heading and Pitch/Roll (which is EXTREMELY useful if you are near maximum cruising altitude, and know your plane starts to stall above a certain Angle of Attack), and just how far you actually are above the ground (rather than sea-level)- which is IMMENSELY helpful when you are landing a spaceplane and coming in low over the mountains west of the KSC... You'll thank yourself (and me) later, if you install and get accustomed to these two mods now... Regards, Northstar P.S. DON'T try to use MechJeb2's Spaceplane autopilot features to get to orbit or land. Not only are these particular autopilots virtually useless, and will crash you more often than get you where you want to go successfully- they're also going to rob you of a lot of the learning of actually FLYING your spaceplane to orbit. P.P.S. Flying with an ASAS is still flying- you need to know what Angle of Attack to set, how much to throttle your engines and when to activate your rockets, etc. Sometimes, you will even have to deactivate the ASAS and fly 100% manually, because *no ASAS system is ever perfect*, and there will be times where you can do it better on your own (although at other times, ASAS will improve precision and reduce human error).

Hey Geschosskopf, This thread needs some love. How come nobody seems interested in the challenge anymore? Don't worry- I haven't given up yet! In fact, I just keep getting reasonably close (as in, having most of the necessary parts unlocked) to being ready to attempt this Challenge before another update comes around, and I start over! A lot of that has been due to my attempting it in Career Mode, and also simultaneously trying to run a Fan Works thread documenting my progress. Fear not, though! Given the choice between a Fan Works thread, and awesome challenges like this, I've opted to shut down my Fan Works thread and just focus on having !FUN! (that's a Dwarf Fortress reference, by the way) This challenge should be EVEN MORE relevant with the introduction of Aerial Survey contracts (I haven't found out yet- can you get those on Duna???) Even if players just use the skills/techniques they develop for high-altitude exploration aircraft on Kerbin, to build something on Duna, I would expect a lot more entries in the near future if I were you... If you're not up to maintaining an eye on the challenge, of course, I'm more than happy to open up that alternate version of this challenge I've been talking about for a while (one with significant rules-tweaks: particularly so as to not reward players for spamming Kerbals, or building 200-part behemoths... *cough* "Last Dancer" *cough*) If you're interested, I'd LOVE to have you design a cool badge for those who complete the challenge, whenever I one day get it started- after I submit a complete entry here of course. I'll ask you about that again when I submit an entry of my own. Regards, Northstar

I did it again! I've decided to succumb to the insidious urges to go and induce a "Supernova on 0.90" to start over in the Beta. I love having readers, and you guys are awesome, but partially, I found that having an organized Career progression thread has left me feeling a little too tied-down to doing things that actually *make sense*, rather than just messing around in KSP. This *IS* a game, after all, not a job (although, with my only current job being that I recently signed up with a temp agency while I look for longer-term work, you wouldn't know...) I would have a nerd-gasm if space exploration *could* be my actual job, of course (NASA, you reading this? *chuckle*), but unfortunately I've not the necessary degrees in Aerospace Engineering, or the incredible athleticism necessary to get into Flight School with the military these days (which is the other main route to becoming an astronaut- working as a Test Pilot... Right now, competition is *fierce* for aviation slots in the Air Force/Navy/Marines, so only the best athletes with 4.0 college GPA's get in...) My sky-high IQ and innate tactical genius (which a ROTC instructor once even confirmed, back when I was a Cadet before I ran into a ridiculous medical-clearance issue that took too long to clear up), apparently, counts for nothing next to somebody with top grades who can run a 16:30 three-mile... Anyways, tangent aside, I'll still be posting around the KSP forums like mad. Just don't expect me to necessarily start up an organized Career Mode game right away again. You can still follow me on Twitch though- I intend to live-stream as time allows once I get back from visiting family for the holidays... I'll also be completing that darn Flying Duna challenge *hopefully* in the near future (I'll need a bunch of mods up-to-date for 0.90 first), and attempting various other Challenges as I feel inclined. I might even start a few more of my own, now that I won't be so tied-down reporting my mission-progress. In short, I've got plans. Look out for me on the forums! Regards, Northstar

NOTES ON USE OF THE MASS-ACCELERATOR PART: - The Mass Accelerator does not unlock until you reach Advanced Construction in the tech tree. It should always be available in Sandbox mode, however. - The vessel accelerated by the Mass Accelerator part MUST be a separate vessel. The easiest way to position something appropriately on the launchpad is to launch the mass driver + rocket as a single craft with a separator-style decoupler between (one that doesn't remain attached to either craft), then fire the decoupler to break the two apart. - The Mass Accelerator will only work on a craft within about 10 meters of the loading end of the device (unlike a real Mass Driver, it can't work in either direction by reversing the direction of the electric current), and must be "Armed" via the context menu before it can be set to fire. The craft must remain in range after the Mass Accelerator is armed, until it fires. - The Mass Accelerator will tend to explode quite violently if the craft is not lined up straight, due to the vessel slamming into the interior wall of the Mass Accelerator during acceleration. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. - The Mass Accelerator only can accommodate vessels up to about 2.8 meters in diameter, although I wouldn't risk anything much over 2.5 meters if I were you... (these things are EXPENSIVE to replace) - The Mass Accelerator part obeys Conservation of Momentum! It *WILL* recoil if fired without being firmly anchored to the ground! This is actually a VERY USEFUL feature, though- you can set up a system of realistic Momentum-Exchangers in Low Kerbin Orbit, if you want, that steal the momentum of craft or debris you're de-orbiting (by firing them Retrograde), and transfer that momentum to other craft you're trying to boost to a higher orbit... - Although not required, I recommend installing FAR with this mod, as it will allow a streamlined rocket to preserve more of its velocity from the Mass Drivers on the way up. A tall and well-designed 2.5 meter single-stack can EASILY have a terminal velocity of 700 m/s or more... (terminal velocity is normally the most efficient speed to ascend at from a Delta-V perspective) - Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is also recommended. The stock KSP physics engine has a tendency to randomly shake large craft when they are loaded into physics (it's a fault of stock KSP, *not* this mod). This can be DEVASTATING to a 70-part stack of networked mass drivers weighing hundreds of tons held in place by Launch Clamps- so I recommend KJR to help prevent random launchpad explosions. Regards, Northstar

This is a development thread for the re-release of "'Mass Accelerator" parts. These parts originally come from the Stanford Torus Mod, which reached version 0.6.1 for KSP 0.90 on Curse on February 20th, 2015 before apparently having its development dis-continued (you can find the old forum thread here). I thought it was *excellent* work with a lot of potential, and worth re-releasing to continue the parts' legacy (Stanford Torus' updates were already coming less and less frequently by the time I created this) and make them available to more players. The mod was released under a CDDL-1 license, which allows anyone to "use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute" the content with or without author permission. The license requires that I credit the original author, and re-release the original source code: which is provided below... However, this isn't just a cut-and-paste re-release. While the Mass Accelerator parts do achieve a purpose never realized before in KSP (a functional, part-based Mass Driver), they aren't very realistically balanced... The original parts can only accelerate a 2.5 meter 12.5-ton rocket at roughly 2 g's, whereas the Mass Driver designs for the real-life Star Tram proposal could accelerate a 40-ton 2 meter wide, 13 meter long rocket at 30 g's... The original parts are also darn expensive, heavy (30 tons/piece), and have weak attachments to each other which tend to cause Mass Accelerator stacks to break apart under the acceleration they create... Thus, from the first day I got my hands on the Mass Accelerator part, I went into the config and started making some modifications to make it more realistic. ORIGINALLY: - I increased the acceleration to 11760 kN/s (30 g's on a 40-ton rocket), and increased electricity consumption proportionally (this still needs some re-balancing: the original author states in config-file comments that he aimed for 1 MW per 100 kN/s- which equates to 10% efficiency, but it actually came out to 1 kW per 250 kN/s, if 1 EC = 1 kW). This performance is based on the real-life StarTram gen-1 designs... - I decreased part cost to a more reasonable+realistic level (12,500 funds per part instead of 185,000 funds per part- the new cost equates to the still astronomical figure of $92.74 million/section in 2015 dollars, using the convention of 1 Fund = $1000 1965 US dollars), and reduced the part mass to 10 tons/ring (reasonably accurate for real-life aluminum-based Mass Driver coils). - I also increased the toughness of a stack of Mass Accelerators in various ways (such as by increasing the node size from 2 to 3- as the rings are roughly 3.75 meters in outer diameter, raising the Crash Tolerance from 7 to 9, and tripling BreakingForce/Torque values...) The part-balancing has changes somewhat since (I'm sure you can find the math errors I made above if you look carefully), but anyways, the result is this: a functional Mass Driver part, that, while it still has a few bugs/quirks, works realistically in KSP. Version 1.3.2 is now LIVE. Changes from 1.3.0 include the addition of a readme, NEW SIZES of the Mass Driver part (with internal diameters sized for crafts from 0.625 to 5 meters!), and adjustment of tech node assignments (moved back in the tech tree). https://spacedock.info/mod/1227/Netherdyne Mass Driver Mod [Official] I would like players to let me know how the mod works for them. Let me know if you have any issues- I am still in the process of tweaking this version before "release". Like the Stanford Torus mod this comes from, these parts are released under a CDDL-1 license: so there's nothing stopping you from modifying them and re-releasing them yourself as desired. And, here are some more images of a mission I launched using the Mass Accelerators a while ago... NIGHT LAUNCH in 0.25: (For the curious- the rocket pictured above also utilized a parachute-assisted Space-X style recovery of the launch stage, and travels all the way to the Mun with its payload... The engines produce less than 1 g of acceleration at max throttle when the fuel tanks are full- hence why the rocket has gained barely 3 m/s of speed after climbing more than 3 km...) Regards, Northstar

Spaceplanes are challenging, but their economic advantages are hard to resist. Thus, I built ANOTHER spaceplane, using the previous one as a model. This one burns Kero/LOX, and thus is capable of carrying heavier payloads to orbit (due to higher fuel-density) and remaining in orbit for longer periods of time (due to reduced boil-off). This ascent went more smoothly than the last, due to some minor design refinements... After arriving at orbit, however, I realized that I forgot to attach a MechJeb core to the ion tug I was lifting as payload! I was still able to test the engine while the tug was undeployed, but I haven't decided yet whether to release the tug or return it to the surface so I can retrofit it with a MechJeb core... For most spacecraft, the lack of an autopilot wouldn't be a huge issue. But for an ion tug- even one equipped with an ion engine set to "High Thrust" mode (RealFuels Stockalike provides three alternative configs for the ion engine with more realistic TWR/ISP combinations), the lack of an autoopilot could be crippling. I don't want to perform 5 minute burns manually- especially when even the slightest mass-imbalance due to where I grab with the "Klaw" will cause constant torquing... I'll come to a decision soon enough on what to do. Regards, Northstar P.S. I'm still looking for more input on my mission-planning thread for this career game. Other than a suggestion to build a surface-base on Eve, which is still somewhat beyond my current level of infrastructure and progress (I want to be able to return from the surface before I build a base there), I haven't heard much on the thread for a while...

I know it's more of the "if you give a mouse a cookie" sort of thing- but if 3.75 meter command pods were added, having more than 3 Kerbal professions would be nice. Why will there just be a single "scientist" Kerbal in 0.90, for instance? Why not have a handful of science classes (the categories that immediately come to mind: physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist), each with different experiments they're best at? Instead of a single general-purpose scientist Kerbal, each type of scientist could give a larger bonus to a particular science part or situation. Biologists and geologists could get large bonuses for surface samples, for instance, whereas chemists and physicists would have large bonuses for Materials Studies. Chemists and biologists might share an interest in Mystery Goo, whereas a geologist would have no use for it. No two professions would have the same experiments they were best at, and the bonuses could stack and even vary by planet and situation- for instance a biologist would expect little of interest in surface samples from Moho or Gilly, but might look for evidence of current or past life in surface samples on Duna, Laythe, or Vall... This would encourage players to visit the same location again with different crew, or to send missions with a larger crew complement (which is a balance factor the devs really need to work on). Until 0.90, the only reason to ever send more than 1 Kerbal on a mission is to work the Science Lab. Once 0.90 is released, there will never be a reason to send more than 3 Kerbals- unless you're sending extra crew members solely to level them up... (and there are probably easier/cheaper ways to do this than sending them on interplanetary missions...) Additional professions (or sub-division of the "Scientist" profession) would also add greater immersion to the game, and pave the way for a more advanced/interesting Science system in the future... Regards, Northstar