Northstar1989

@Regex Thanks for adding in the Novapunch2 tanks! However, I won't be able to update until the new KSP-Interstellar/RealFuels integration config is added in. Dreadicon thinks the current version is as ready as it's going to be (except for some issues with ammonia fuel-density/ conversion, which he wants to put off until later), although neither of us have had the chance to test it in action AFAIK... I'm also trying to bug him to add a send a fix for the Meth/LOX engine's TWR/ISP over to Raptor86 in the "Stockalike" engine config, although he seems reluctant to do any more (and I don't have the first clue how to create a MM engine patch myself...) Anyways, I hope you and NathanKell don't mind the status-report. Also, I found some more tanks that need fixing for RealFuels- these ones are in Firespitter mod, and have been around for quite a while actually: The stock volume for the Oxidizer Tank might seem a little high, but as I understand it, it's supposed to be highly-compressed. Regards, Northstar

@FractalUK Since this thread seems to move fast, and you'll probably miss my last post by the time you log back on, I just wanted to remind you that the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX chemical engine lags *significantly* behind the real-world "Raptor" Meth/LOX engine design on which it's clearly based, in terms of both TWR and ISP: Interstellar's "Deinonychus 1-D" Thrust 1425 kN (thrust does not vary with atmospheric pressure in stock engine module) Mass 3500 kg (for the record- what TWR is that?) ASL ISP 309 s VAC ISP 368 s Space-X's "Raptor" ASL Thrust 6900 kN VAC Thrust 8200 kN Mass Unknown- but TWR predicted likely to exceed 120 ASL ISP 321 s VAC ISP 380 s Any fixes to this would definitely be appreciated. I've already begun an effort to fix this with the RealFuels "Stockalike" engine config installed, but simply correcting the TWR and ISP values in the base mod would obviously be far easier (and eliminate the need for another ModuleManager patch- keeping load times from getting any longer as a result...) The Raptor engine is actually designed to be *EXACTLY* 2.5 meters in diameter (so that 9 of them can fit on the bottom of a Mars Colonial Transporter), so the Thrust values are too low for its size as well as its mass being too high for the thrust it *does* currently produce... Currently, the Deinonychus is best used as a mid-stage engine, but the *ACTUAL* Raptor engine is designed as a first-stage heavy-lifter engine, which is why its thrust is so high (the technology that goes into it is also extremely advanced). *IF* it were being designed as an orbital engine, its Vacuum ISP would be *even higher*, as its engine nozzle would be designed for better performance in vacuum... Not the best source, but good enough for engine diameter (the ISP/TWR values come from elsewhere, but are the same on Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29 Regards, Northstar

How's this for research on electrolyzing human wastewater (urine). Apparently, it's a rather common solution to reclaim the hydrogen from urine- in the Urea itself (the primary component of urine- the other compounds in it are very minor, aren't corrosive, and don't interfere with electrolysis), and not just in the water component. I'm afraid you're missing the main point of that post, though, which is that the ISRU refinery already has a water filter capable of usage for Eve's (likely heavily chemical-contaminated) oceans- so it should be able to work fine for human (Kerbal) urine, which isn't really all that nasty (or chemically-contaminated: I don't know why you would think any chemical in a mammal could be "corrosive" in the concentrations excreted- if it were it would eat through the bladder long before making it out of the body...) I'm a biologist in real life, and one of the things biologists study is the human excretory system. So you're speaking to somebody with training in the subject you want to know about. The whole point of the Stockalike configs (besides simply converting the resources used) is to implement realistic TWR and ISP values. Almost beyond a reasonable doubt, he simply missed the Raptor-analog engine (hey, play on names!) in KSP-Interstellar. It should probably be a relatively simple task to draw up the ModuleManage patch for the Deinonychus, considering I already provided all the numbers needed in several different places... (the real ISP and TWR values, thrust need not be changed in "Stockalike" as long as the TWR is corrected...) Once again: Interstellar's "Deinonychus 1-D" Thrust 1425 kN (thrust does not vary with atmospheric pressure in stock engine module) Mass 3500 kg (for the record- what TWR is that?) ASL ISP 309 s VAC ISP 368 s Space-X's "Raptor" ASL Thrust 6900 kN VAC Thrust 8200 kN Mass Unknown (but TWR predicted likely to exceed 120) ASL ISP 321 s VAC ISP 380 s There's *only one* traditional engine in KSP-Interstellar (despite my attempts to convince FractalUK to implement a smaller, lander-style version of the Raptor/Deinonychus- which wouldn't actually have a real-world analog besides some investigation into using one for the Altair lander infrastructure...) so it shouldn't be all that hard to implement such a small fix if you understand Module Manager. I *don't* however, so I can't really do it too well myself. I've already posted about it several times on the "Stockalike" engine config about the Deinonychus/Raptor, but it seems Raptor86 is far too busy to get around to it. Since we were already engaged in creating a KSP-Interstellar/RealFuels integration config, and the integration won't by any means be complete without this one last fix to the engine-mass (Stockalike fixes TWR values by altering engine mass rather than engine thrust) and ISP values of the Deinonychus to match the Raptor, I would *strongly* suggest you work it in with Raptor86. I would do it myself, but once again, I don't understand how to write ModuleManager engine patches... (so as to overwrite engine mass and ISP with new values) Other than that, it's just a matter of breaking up and organizing the configs where possible/appropriate (I understand you re-used some wildcards, but this didn't seem to be the case for *ALL* the mods fixed in the config last I looked at it), and then sending them over to NathanKell (for the main config fixing fuel tanks) and Raptor86 (for any changes to engines, including the resources consumed- we don't need to preserve the error of fixing the Meth/LOX engine resources in the base mod any more...) as appropriate. And, of course, I'll let you know if I spot any more problems that still need to be fixed for integration. Regards, Northstar

OK, so I know I promised I wouldn't show you guys any boring Contracts missions, but this one was technically an orbital launch, and helped to dictate the mission profile for my Munar Flyby mission (which I'll be showing you guys screenshots of in just a second) I present, my "Mini Orbiter" So-named because of its rather small size, this rocket was not my cheapest or most efficient launch yet by far, but it DID allow me to complete a contract to test a pair of large radial boosters in flight (which I wouldn't have gotten to for a LONG time otherwise- I'm not nearly pushing the limits of rocket height enough yet to need the extra thrust...) It also had a rather interesting and aerodynamic shape that might have potentially produced a fair bit of body-lift, although the demands of the contracts meant that I didn't actually pitch over while the SRB's (which gave it a plane-like shape) were still attached... Anyways, after that was in orbit, and a few more short contract missions around the KSC (which I won't bother showing you guys- they weren't very interesting), I launched my largest rocket yet- a Munar Flyby! The actual mission vehicle was a lot larger than it needed to be for a Munar flyby Delta-V wise (or at least it was designed to be), as I'd also like to take this vessel by Minmus before returning to Kerbin. That, and, I'm hoping to leave the majority of the mission mass in Kerbin orbit for future re-use: which will take a lot more fuel than just dumping the various parts in Kerbin's upper atmosphere... This was a Space-X style launch, and this time a bit more efficient that before, as I had a heavier payload (I'm still over-engineering the launch stage a bunch: it landed with several thousand m/s Delta-V to spare after detaching from the mission vehicle). It also doesn't hurt that I actually remember to switch back to the launch stage and fly it back to the ground this time around: After the launch-stage was safely landed again, saving me THOUSANDS of Funds over a disposable mission profile, I rendezvoused with the Kerbal who was stranded in orbit, and brought him on as the mission's pilot... Precise Node came rather in handy for this, as I haven't unlocked the MechJeb Maneuver planner yet (and in fact, I can usually do a better job than MechJeb when I really try), as did Kerbal Alarm Clock (which I added to my game earlier today- and will add to the mods list shortly...) Finally, I mentioned that the Mini Orbiter launch dictated the mission profile for the Munar Flyby in some ways, and next this is where that comes into play... I launched with so much extra fuel partly because I planned to swing by the Mini Orbiter and pick up its scientific data if it turned out it couldn't successfully re-enter (via an F5/F9 "simulation" of re-entry possibilities, of course). I also launched at such a time that I wouldn't have had to wait too long to stop by the craft after picking up the stranded Kerbal, if it should have become necessary. Fortunately, no rendezvous or quick-load was necessary. I switched to the Mini Orbiter first, and it indeed was quite capable of re-entering as planned: with the engines and one of the fuel tanks being dumped in the ocean east of the KSC; but the science lab, guidance systems, and a couple of the fuel tanks making a successful soft splashdown on a parachute... The one thing that DIDN'T go as planned here is that I messed up the staging a little, and dropped the heat-shield before deploying the parachute (fortunately, at this point I had no more need of it) where I meant to keep it attached so as to recover it (I had more than enough drag from the parachute that I could have kept the heat shield and still landed safely). But, no point crying over spilled milk- and it did LOOK rather cool seeing the heat-shield fly off towards the ocean below... Anyways, that's all for major mission progress at this point- I'll be swinging by the Mun and Minmus a bit later (it's 4 AM on a Sunday night here). But, I thought I'd share just a couple screenshots I took at various points during these missions of the tech tree (I tend to stop by the Space Center whenever I fulfill a contract, to see if there aren't other contracts I can pick up and complete on the same mission that I didn't plan for originally- and so I often take the opportunity to spend my hard-earned science points as well...) just so you guys know just what kind of missions are possible at this point: These screenshots weren't taken at precisely the same time, but they were both taken during recent mission progress. As you can see, I've already unlocked all the way through Very Heavy Rocketry (with the mod-heavy nodes Nuclear Power and Experimental Rocketry looming just tantalizingly out-of-reach due to unfulfilled co-requirements for those technologies), but have a LARGE number of parts that haven't been purchased yet within unlocked nodes. So, while research progresses somewhat apace, I seem to be substantially limited by the availability of funding... (It probably also doesn't help that I'm exchanging a good amount of Funds for Science via a low-level commitment to the Outsourced R&D administrative strategy) I'm happy with the progress I'm making though- and honestly, I'd rather have a lot of nodes available without purchasing all the parts in them, over just a few nodes with all the parts unlocked. It allows me to leap-frog parts that are currently useless to me, like many of the various decouplers (Procedural Parts gives me a one-size-fits-all decoupler, which makes finding the right one for the job a LOT easier- and with some foresight would have probably led me to deleting some of the other mod decouplers to save memory), ladders (Kerbals can use their jet-packs to board landers on the Mun and Minmus- I won't need them until I reach Eve, Laythe, or Tylo), various fuel tanks (once again, ProceduralParts offers a one-size-fits-all that I can customize *exactly* to my needs- I only wish the mod were stock...) Last, but not least, I an always get some of the parts I need via experimental-access contracts, such as one I already have for a turbojet (which should be useful for mopping up leftover high-altitude science, working towards eventual spaceplane designs, and even pioneering the way for Thermal Turbojet designs someday- TTJ's behave mroe similarly to chemical turbojets than standard jet engines...) Feel free to suggest future missions after the Mun (and Minmus, if fuel allows) fly-by's over on the discussion thread. By advised, the next mission I'm looking for will probably be a probe mission (those can be rather ambitious however- for instance a Materials Study return-mission from solar orbit- and I may also be installing DMagic Orbital Science soon, since it makes probes MUCH more useful...) Regards, Northstar

I'm not using the MechJeb utility tab because I haven't unlocked it yet. That being said, I wouldn't actually need it anyways. I'm running FAR, so the terminal velocity of large, aerodynamic rockets (like my own) is MUCH higher than in stock. Like in stock KSP, the most efficient velocity to ascend at, more or less, is terminal velocity, as it minimizes the combined losses to gravity and aero drag during ascent. Actually, to be precise, the ideal ascent velocity is a little above terminal velocity- as you want to get out of the soup of the lower atmosphere quickly to improve your ISP. I was going nowhere near terminal velocity for that rocket shape/size and orientation... I *DID* lose some Delta-V in my ascent profile though: by not pointing more along the orbital prograde marker (i.e. by not starting my gravity turn earlier/sharper) - however that was a necessary evil as I didn't want my lower stage to have to perform too large of a return burn to the KSC... (this is the main reason Space-X's Falcon 9 would have a lower payload capacity when in reusable mode- not because the return fuel actually weighs that much, but because you have to follow a suboptimal ascent trajectory to allow for lower stage recovery...) Anyways, stay tuned, because in just a second (I'm uploading the pictures to Imgur now), I'll have screenshots of the launch of the Munar Flyby to Kerbin orbit, as well as rendezvous with a stranded Kerbal from a rescue contract (he'll be the pilot for the rest of the mission). Regards, Northstar

Jebediah Kerman launched atop the KSC's first ever rocket this save, netting another altitude record and some additional funding: And then turned right back around, and became the first Kerbal to launch to orbit: The launch platform for this mission was EXTREMELY robust, so I also packed in a payload for future missions. You'll notice my dropping it off in this next album: This payload was comprised of a Science Jr. and two Mystery Goo canisters, with NovaPunch2 docking ports (designed for the Odin) on either end... After dropping it off, Jebediah then returned home to the KSC with little incident: I hope you guys enjoyed the screenshots! By the way, some of you may notice I made a MAJOR mistake in this mission- I forgot to switch back to the lower stage and recover it (to be precise, I did a quicksave/quickload before trying to switch back to it, only to discover that doing so had eliminated my chance to switch back and pilot it using Flight Manager for Reusable Stages...) That's going to cost me in the long run, although I guess it's actually somewhat realistic, since I will probably only be re-using that launch platform a few more times- and technically there would be no value in recovering a reusable launch stage on its final launch in real life... My next major mission will be a Munar flyby (via a free-return trajectory if possible), per the suggestion on the mission suggestions thread. After that, I have some contracts for probe-sized engine, so I'm soliciting your guys' ideas of where to send a probe in/around the Kerbin system (the choices are the Mun, Minmus, and solar orbit- and the surfaces of either moon...) Regards, Northstar

Sounds good to me (and Eeloo is out of the question this early on- I could do it, but it wouldn't be cost-effective yet...) I've also developed an extremely robust heavy-lifter to do it. Take a look at the first orbital launch I made in the mission reports thread to see it in action (it's even recoverable Space-X style, although I forgot to fly it back to the launchpad on that launch)... Regards, Northstar

Can do. I'll keep posting the ones I come across (it should be easier to locate the parts if you also know their descriptions and tech nodes), and will release a list if it gets to be a lot to keep track of... Regards, Northstar

So then logically, the KSP-Interstellar ISRU system should just be able to go straight to work on electrolyzing WasteWater without needing a separate TAC Life Support filter part to do this. If you're not going to change "LqdWater" to "WasteWater" with KSP-Interstelalr installed (and want the Kerbals to actually be able to DRINK what the KSP-I ISRU system takes in without further filtration), then clearly the ISRU refinery's filtration system should be able to handle a little Urea in Kerbal WasteWater... So I suggest adding a MM patch to allow the ISRU refinery to also utilize WasteWater for electrolysis, if that's possible... Whatever works then. As long as NathanKell and Regex will accept it into the RealFuels base-release as an integration config... Don't forget about what I pointed out regarding the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine though- it really should have a higher ISP and better TWR so as to match its real-life analog (the Space-X "Raptor"). Since NathanKell/Regex won't accept this into the base release of RealFuels, though (they want to keep engine tweaks in the engine configs), it needs to go in the "Stockalike" config as a separate file... If you're confident that having two separate files with MM patches to the engine won't cause a problem, then just go ahead and make the file nothing but a fix to that engine. But if it's going to cause issues, then I suggest stripping any mention of the Meth/LOx engine out of the base config, and kicking everything (including the changes in resources consumed) over to the "Stockalike" engine config (and possibly the other ones if they're Interstellar-friendly?) Finally, don't forget that NathanKell decided to delete the old/outdated RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar integration config from RealFuels v8.1, and is waiting on the newer one we are working on. So the config you eventually send over (I'll try and help test it, by the way) needs to have all the fixes that were in the old config as well, such as using LiquidH2 instead of LiquidFuel in the Hydrogen NTR and electric engine fuel settings (don't forget there are TWO types of thermal rocket nozzle in Interstellar now- a conventional one and a magnetic version: each will need its own MM patch AFAIK), and the fixes to the Interstellar Meth/LOX fuel tanks to be modular or hold the RealFuels equivalents of their resources... One other thing- a brief tangent unrelated to everything else. I have begun a community Career Mode playthrough (where players give their input on what mission I should attempt next). Feel free to stop by the discussion thread and drop some ideas- the link to the main thread can be found by clicking on the text at the top of the discussion... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97427-Announcing-Northstar-s-Collaborative-Kerbal-Career-Campaign-Where-to-first Technically that's not *ENTIRELY* unrelated, because I am playing with both KSP-Interstellar and RealFuels installed on that game. But it only uses Release 8.0 of RealFuels and my patches from earlier, until we can get a better integration config finished which I can use (and which will allow me to update to RealFuels v8.1) Regards, Northstar

Just another part in NovaPunch2 that isn't configured to hold real fuels rather than LFO when RealFuels mod is installed... I point this out to emphasize there are a number of parts that aren't currently configured to hold real fuels yet. Especially in NovaPunch2, but I doubt it's the only mod affected. What are the chances somebody could do a roundup of those parts anytime soon? I wouldn't be able to do it myself, as I'm going to spend any modding time I allocate just trying to learn ModuleManager (not an easy task for me- I suck hard at coding) and working on proofreading the KSP-Interstellar integration config Dreadicon's been working on... Regards, Northstar

Greetings fellow Kerbonauts! Have you ever wanted to partake in a Community Game of KSP? Help make the decisions for where a budding space program should go with each major mission? Well now's your chance! Announcing... Northstar's Collaborative Kerbal Career Campaign (Clicking on the text will direct you to the main thread where progress reports can be found.) The idea is this: I have started a new Career Mode game, and will be soliciting community opinions about where to go next with each major mission (I will still be performing relatively minor missions in the background, such as contracts and Kerbin biome-science...) You the players get to decide where each successive mission will head off to, BUT only the first two responses for each new mission will be considered (in addition to my own ideas- so I always have SOMETHING to work off of even if you guys don't respond). In order to keep at least the first couple pages of the missions thread clear, I would prefer if responses for the first mission or two were made here. After that, I will be evaluating whether it is worth the time to keep a separate thread open here, vs. simply having people post on the main thread, based on the quality and volume of responses... (as well as how easy I find it to monitor this thread) So... Without further adieu, I *HIGHLY* suggest you bop on over to the main thread, see where things lie right now, and start deciding on ideas for the next major mission for my space program outside of simply reaching Kerbin orbit... Regards, Northstar

Here are my first two flights (yes flights- not launches), to fulfill early altitude contracts and gather some !SCIENCE! around Kerbin: By starting off with flight instead of launches, I was able to get offered some of the altitude contracts not normally available (reach 11000 meters, reach 22000 meters) if you just go straight for breaking the atmosphere right off- which is nice, because I expect I'll need the Funds for some of the early mission you guys will suggest (Funds are going to be short in this save early on, period, as Entry Purchases are not disabled). So, next I begin work on a jet plane (propeller planes can't fly high enough) to meet the next altitude contract of 22km... And thanks to the two flights, was able to unlock solar panels: I'll soon begin constructing my first orbital and suborbital rockets, but in the meantime, the question for you readers is this: where to first? The Mun? Minmus? Should I focus on constructing an LKO fuel depot for more ambitious missions down the line? (although I'd prefer to wait on this until I have more cost-effective rockets) Or would you guys find it more interesting if I continued to fly around Kerbin, collecting biome science? The question is for you guys to answer- remember, the early bird gets the worm here, only the first two responses will be considered in addition to my own opinion. It would be HIGHLY PREFERABLE if responses were made on the separate thread I created for responses (I'll use it at least for the first mission, perhaps later ones as well if it seems to work as intended), so as to keep the first couple pages of this thread focused only on progress made. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97427-Announcing-Northstar-s-Collaborative-Kerbal-Career-Campaign-what-to-build-next Regards, Northstar

Here are the starting difficulty settings: And here are the tech nodes I started things off with: Note in particular that NovaPunch2 makes a single type of docking port available with the Space Exploration node. This means that I should be able to perform MUCH more advanced missions early on than otherwise... Regards, Northstar

Welcome aboard Lichbane! Not exactly. Bulgaria is further to the north than historical Macedonia (NOT the same as the "Republic of Macedonia" - which is actually north of where Macedon was...). which is where Alexander the Great came from. Regards, Northstar

Hi Agent. Nobody WANTS you to leave the forum- people were just a bit confused when you randomly started posting pictures in the "Welcome Aboard" thread. If you'd like to share pictures, the best place to do it is in the Fan Works or Spacecraft Exchange section. If you just wanted people to greet you, this is the place for that. Regards, Northstar

Welcome! Glad to have you here on the forum! This is a shameless plug, but if you're looking for something interesting to do here around the forum, I've just began experimenting with a "community game" of KSP in Career Mode, where community members get input into the next mission objectives (and perhaps even execution, I haven't decided on that yet!) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97408-Northstar-s-Collaborative-Kerbal-Career-Campaign Regards, Northstar

Hey guys, I'm at it again- with ANOTHER Career Mode playthrough (after the save for the last one was accidentally corrupted I had to start over). THIS TIME, I've decided to do something DIFFERENT! I'm going to make this a Career Mode playthrough where YOU, THE COMMUNITY have a say in my upcoming mission-objectives. To keep this simple, here's how it's going to work: any time I solicit idea for a new mission (which won't be all the time- otherwise this would drag on forever), the first two people to post will get to make an argument for two possible mission ideas. I will then choose between those ideas, or a third idea of my own (which I may or may not post about). For the time being, I prefer if you guys post your ideas HERE (click "here" for the link). Generally, I will give serious consideration to ideas posted, but they need to be PLAUSIBLE. That means, no suggesting a Jool-5 type mission when I've barely made it to orbit this time around. If you suggest such an idea, it will be ignored (or replied to telling you why I think it's beyond my current means- depending on how far out it is), and I will only compare the other community idea and my own for the next mission. *HOWEVER*, I will be starting with a lot more Science/Funds than the default (focused mostly on plane parts, for realism), so it won't be as long as normal until I get to attempt some more challenging missions... I will also be open to occasional ideas for new mods (suggest them, and I might install them). Here are the mods to begin with: Mods (subject to change/addition) Active Texture Management Ferram Aerospace Research Deadly Re-Entry: Continued Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Kerbal Attachment System TAC Fuel Balancer Kerbal Alarm Clock Atmospheric Trajectories Flight Manager for Reusable Stages Standford Torus mod (science, solar panel, SRB, docking, and mass-accelerator parts ONLY) NovaPunch2 (fairings deleted) RealFuels + "Stockalike" config Procedural Parts Procedural Fairings Procedural Dynamics (aka. "Procedural Wings") KSP Interstellar Near Future Solar Precise Node Firespitter (biplane wing and cokcpit parts, and "Le-Pt battery" deleted) MechJeb2 Regards, Northstar

Unfortunately, this save had to end in the worst possible way. While attempting to delete a contract from the persistent file involving a NovaPunch2 payload fairing bulkhead (as I decided to delete the NovaPunch2 Fairings folder to save memory- Procedural Fairings is MUCH better), I accidentally created a parsing error. I had saved a backup of the persistent file beforehand, and loaded that back up, but KSP refused to recognize the save as no longer being invalid after the first time... As such the save was corrupted beyond reclamation, and I had to delete it. Thus ends this Career Mode story- but I will be starting another one soon. Also, to avoid much of the initial grind, I will be starting with a large amount of Science and Funding, so as to simulate all the progress I've lost from *several* deleted saves by this point... Regards, Northstar

But didn't you just say that with MetaMaterials the tank size-limits become infinite??! Also, while we're discussing ProceduralParts, there needs to be the ability to store KSP-Interstellar LdqWater in ProceduralParts tanks even w/o RealFuels installed. Although this is something that is MUCH more useful with RealFuels installed as well (as it allows players to, realistically, circumvent boil-off while storing Hydrogen and Oxygen in water form), it still has its uses in KSP-Interstellar+ProceduralParts WITHOUT RealFuels installed... Once again, I have no idea how to go about playing with ProceduralParts to add this integration functionality. And I don't know if Dreadicon would be interested in this, since his efforts mostly center around getting RealFuels to work. But perhaps somebody else reading this (or yourself NathanKell) would like to work on fixing this? Regards, Northstar

Awesome. Ahhh, but you *could* set the boil-off rate to be related to the tank volume for the particular resources that experience boil-off, i.e. based on a simple 4/9 power relationship between tank volume and boil-off rate (as I stated before, the Square-Cube law gets factored in TWICE when determining rate of boil-off: once to determine the rate of Heat Leakage driving the boil-off, and once to determine the amount of Surface Area through which the liquid could leak) no knowledge of total part size and shape necessary (although technically tank shape does affect boil-off, boil-off rate is still affected to the 4/9th power by volume compared to a smaller tank with the same shape...) Regards, Northstar

I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to describe, but I send a link to your post to Dreadicon, so hopefully he'll be able to figure it out. Also, would this work with ProceduralParts+RealFuels installed? The ideal solution would make LqdWater available in all ProceduralParts+RealFuels procedural tanks, when both of those mods are installed... (it might also be wise to have a fix to add LqdWater for just ProceduralParts w/o RealFuels, but that is obviously a bit beyond your scope...) Regards, Northstar

Four issues I spotted in the config file so far: (1) Ammonia, like Methane, also gets a density-change going from KSP-Interstellar to Interstellar+RealFuels. There might need to be a MM patch for that, like with Methane. (2) If integrating TAC-LifeSupport and KSP-Interstellar water resources, the parts using "LqdWater" for elecrolysis, NTR propellant, etc. in KSP-Interstellar should use "WasteWater" instead of "Water". This way, water you just got from Eve's oceans is NOT immediately drinkable without purification... (TACLS includes a Water Purifier part) It would also allow you to electrolyze your grey-water for fuel without bothering to purify it first (the process of electrolysis removes any common contaminants, as it involves a liquid --> gas phase transition) (3) If integrating TAC-LifeSupport and KSP-Interstellar, you need to do a bit more work on the TACLS side of things. Namely, the Sabatier Reactor in TACLS should produce "Water" and "LqdMethane" rather than "Oxygen" and "Waste". The Electrolysis unit should produce "LiquidFuel/LiquidH2" and "Oxygen" instead of "Waste" and "Oxygen" (depending on whether RealFuels is also installed) so that the hydrogen produced can be cycled into KSP-Interstelalr Sabatier reactors. (4) I would suggest breaking the configs up by the mods they integrate. I.e. KSP-Interstellar+NearFuture should be in a different config file than KSP-Interstellar+RealFuels, or KSP-Interstellar+RealFuels+TACLS. This way, you respect the organizational conventions already in place of having a separate config file for each integration in the RealFuels configs files... I'll also PM you these points to make sure you see them. Regards, Northstar

Great! Awesome man! By the way, did you get a chance to take a look at what I've been posting here about a RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar integration config? It appears that the base RealFuels mod already contains some engine-altering MM patches to 3 of the KSP-Interstellar engines, that ought to be removed from the base RealFuels config and migrated over here (and possibly to the other engine configs as well). Also, the TWR and ISP of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine need some up-rating if they are to match the real-life TWR/ISP values, as I posted about earlier... Regards, Northstar

Affirmative. I posted again on the integration-config thread, so go and take a look at that. Basically, in a nutshell (and I promise I'll do my best to make this the last thing I say about it on this thread), the MM patches that affect the KSP-Interstellar engines which are part of the base RealFuels config ought to be removed from that config so that the individual engine configs can alter both the resources and ISP/TWR of those engines in one go... Also, Regex, I hope you feel better! (I'm actually sick too at the moment) Regards, Northstar

How? That's the information I'm still trying to find out... Dreadicon says he already came up with a solution that adds LqdWater storage capability to any tank that can hold Kerosene, but I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that- and if he means he went and modified each and every individual stock and mod tank currently made to work with RealFuels, it sounds like a particularly inelegant solution (and won't work as new tanks are added, such as the NovaPunch2 K1 Heavy Lifter Tanks...) Also, on this note, and given the other posts and some of my discussion with Dreadicon (who is also working on a Realfuels/KSP-Interstellar integration config, and in fact now has an early, not fully-tested version out on his dev thread...), now looking at this at a not 3 AM hour, I think the simplest solution to the problem of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine is that the MM patches to it (and the other KSP-Interstellar engines) need to be *REMOVED* from the base RealFuels integration config, and migrated over to the individual engine configs. There are three KSP-Interstellar engines that are currently altered by the base RealFuels (no engine config installed) file: the Al-Hybrid Rocket (it's like an SRB- both engine and tanks in one part), the Meth/LOX engine, and the DT-Vista engine. All of these should be REMOVED from the base config, and migrated over to individual engine configs so that these configs can also alter things like their ISP and TWR to be more realistic (generally this actually means lighter/ more efficient) rather than balanced against stock... Regards, Northstar