Northstar1989

Sorry to reverse so quickly, but I changed my mind after a little more thought. Basically, it comes down to this: I'd like to take advantage of some of the Difficulty Level settings, and to do that requires a new game. So, I will be closing this thread, and starting over AGAIN. Next time, though, I'll have a pipeline set up to convert PNG images to JPG right from the beginning, as well as better audio quality for my videos (which I'm also going to save for my more important launches- no need to film launchpad science, for instance...) I enjoyed the learning experience of this thread, and regret to be closing it; but look forward to seeing 0.25 Regards, Northstar

I think you mis-interpreted what I wrote by not reading it carefully and precisely. I said this is the Mach effect that scares many players away from FAR. Aerodynamic Failures, while they interact with and can be caused by Mach Effects, are not Mach effects... (and can easily occur even at subsonic speeds) There's nothing "random" about Aerodynamic Failures. It's cool if you don't want them, but I feel the need to say this: If you try to fly your rocket with a 45-degree Angle of Attack, you're going to get them. If you follow sane/rational principles of flying your rocket, you probably won't have to deal with them at all. Sure, they'll abolish the advice "Straight up until you hit 10 km, and then bank hard to 45 degrees", but IMHO that's a GOOD thing... In short, Aerodynamic Failures are something you only have to deal with if you do something wrong. And, after all, explosions are !FUN! Regards, Northstar

I like that idea. That captures what I was trying to describe perfectly. Glad to see such a vibrant discussion about this thread. Maybe the devs will take notice... Regards, Northstar

I'll be sticking with 0.24.2 for the meantime. I would have to restart my save in order to upgrade to 0.25 with changes they instituted in how parts scale that break many of my mods... Speaking of progress, I've been working on getting KSP-Interstellar and RealFuels working together. I now appear to have reached a working state for the two, so I now announce the next mod on my list for this career: KSP Interstellar Also, DMagic Orbital Science gave me a cool contract to complete around Ike: Regards, Northstar

Uhhhh, OK. I'm not sure what *that* tangent with NAO and roots and all that was about, but anyways, back to the main topic... I decided to see what I *COULD* do with my current level of understanding, and the .CFG file already available to me as a reference, and came up with the following fixes for using LqdAmmonia and Meth/LOX in KSP-I NTR's, and making the KSP-I radial Ammonia tank hold LqdAmmonia instead: @BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Methalox] { @guiName = Methalox @PROPELLANT[LqdMethane] { @ratio = 0.443 } @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 0.557 @DrawGauge = False } } @BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Ammonia] { @guiName = Ammonia @PROPELLANT[Ammonia] { @name = LqdAmmonia } } @PART[FNAmmoniaTank] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks volume = 10731 type = Default } } Tested it, and it works in Sandbox mode with KSP-Interstellar installed. For the Meth/LOX combustion ratio, I just copied the ratio NathanKell was already using for the KSP-I chemical Meth/LOX engine- although I think it may burn a little too Methane-rich for the real-life analog (Raptor). For that matter, the real-life Raptor engine is also supposed to have better ISP than the KSP-Interstellar one, and since RealFuels already reduces the density of its fuels, it might be good to replace its stats with those of the real-life proposed design (321s ASL, 380s vacuum) to buff it back up closer to realism. Also, the shortcut I took for converting the Ammonia tank was just to give it exactly the same volume as it had capacity in Ammonia. This might be a flawed assumption- I think it leads to too low of a fuel fraction for the tank... Regards, Northstar EDIT: For anyone trying to use these fixes as-is, I have updated the code here to use the new resource name for liquid oxygen introduced in RealFuels v8.0: "LqdOxygen" instead of "LiquidOxygen". Remember, this only solves a couple of the NTR fuel issues in KSP-Interstellar and makes the Ammonia tank modular- you'll still need the other fixes in the KSP-Interstellar/RealFuels integration config present in RealFuels v8.0 and before... (RealFuels v8.1 removed the config while myself and Dreadicon work on an updated one)

As I've already put forth, I don't have the faintest idea how to go about generating a ModuleManager patch. And if I made this my first attempt, I'd likely end up screwing a lot of things up- which would be really bad for such an important integration config as RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar. Plus, just as importantly, I have (almost) no experience in programming and no idea how to do things like Pull Requests to integrate the new config into the next RealFuels release... TBH, though, I'd be most interested in seeing NathanKell take up the mantle of this, as there is already an (outdated/incomplete) config for KSP-Interstellar in the RealFuels release; and he has a LOT more experience working with his own mod than I do...

For reference, the current resource densities in RealFuels, as of the last 0.24.2 release: name = LiquidOxygen density = 0.001141 name = LiquidH2 density = 0.00007085 name = LqdAmmonia density = 0.000604 name = LqdMethane density = 0.00042262 Their counterparts in Stock/KSP-I (assuming LiquidFuel = LiquidHydrogen, as this is the assumption KSP-Interstellar makes for ISRU purposes) as of the last 0.24.2 release: name = Oxidizer density = 0.005 name = LiquidFuel density = 0.005 name = Ammonia density = 0.000681 name = LqdMethane density = 0.00186456 Regards, Northstar

@Regex Just to make sure you're aware, there already is a config file in the RealFuels release for KSP-Interstellar integration. The problem with it is, it's outdated, and doesn't apply all the fixes that are necessary for full-compatibility (fixes to ISRU, or use of Methane, Meth/LOX, or Ammonia for Nuclear Thermal Rockets, for instance) NathanKell EDIT: It appears I might have been wrong about the mass-ratios produced by the resource-converters in KSP-Interstellar. They MAY actually be smart enough to correct for changes in resource densities, like was suggested on the RealFuels thread. However the ISRU *extraction* rate of Ammonia (when being harvested raw from the environment, as on Jool/Eve, rather than produced via the Haber Process) is still not fixed in KSP-Interstellar without a MM patch; nor is the use of Ammonia, Methane, or Methane/LOX in NTR's changed to use the RealFuels equivalents either... There are ISRU reactions to produce Ammonia (from atmospheric Nitrogen deposits, and LiquidFuel- representing the Haber Process), Methane (from atmospheric CO2 deposits, and LiquidFuel- representing the Sabatier Reaction), and LiquidOxygen/Aluminum (from Mun/Ike regolith- via "Alumina Electrolysis"- likely representing electrolysis of aluminum-oxide rocks/sand/soil via the Hall-Heroult Process) in KSP-Interstellar... It appears that the KSP-Interstellar converter modules that perform these reactions are smart enough to auto-adjust for changes in resource density, but this should be double-checked to make sure everything is working right... The extraction rate of Ammonia in the ISRU refineries (when being harvested directly from the environment) needs to be increased by 1.12748:1 to reflect the reduction if resource density in RealFuels... (basically, increased by 12.75%) The EXTRACTION modules, unlike the converter modules, do NOT auto-adjust for changes in resource density. Regards, Northstar P.S. This careful analysis revealed that the resource density of LiquidMethane *might* be too low in RealFuels. It appears it should be approximately 35% denser to achieve the correct mass-ratio with LiquidOxygen... Of course, this analysis is based on molecular masses rather than the actual densities you can pack the fuels into liquid form in real life...

MUCH easier said than done. That requires a knowledge (and preferably experience) of how to create ModuleManage patches- of which I have no idea. Based on your posts on the RealFuels thread, it sounds like you already began to tackle this before. Maybe I could convince you to start work on an "official" patch that could be permanently posted on the RealFuels release thread front page in the future? Uhhh, yeah. Outdated, and more importantly, incomplete. The patch in the latest release of RealFuels doesn't address Ammonia, Methane, or Meth/LOX as NTR propellants. Nor does it address the KSP-Interstellar tank specifically designed to hold Ammonia, or the rate the refnieries harvest Ammonia at (the reduction in resource-density means they need to harvest Ammonia at an increased rate). Regards, Northstar

A link would be appreciated. Regards, Northstar

Yeah, I'm looking for statics. Deployables won't work while flying in the atmosphere, and tend to (and realistically should) weigh more for their generation capacities... From what I can gather on the NearFuture Solar album (I haven't played with NearFuture in a while, mostly since switching to 0.24.2- I'm still waiting for an additional set of cost-balancing fixes/tweaks to it before I add it into my main Career Mode save) the static ones there are either curved, or solar trusses. The trusses are the closest thing to what I'm looking for, but still not exactly it- I'm looking more for a large squarish (though slightly rectangular would be preferable to completely square) static panel that I could slap on the top of large B9 or Procedural Dynamics wings for airplanes powered by Firespitter electric propellers... Nertea, if you wanted to do something REALLY cool, that would get me and a lot of players to love you even more, though, you could generate a thin-film solar array version of the Procedural Dynamics wings that unlocked when both Procedural Dynamics and your mod were installed, and kick it over to the Procedural Dynamics thread/mod author. Basically, this would be a Procedural Dynamics wing with a thin-film solar array (thin-film solar arrays have low mass, low power, but excellent power:mass ratios, and need to be coated onto a static surface to work right) on the top surface. For that matter, anything you could do with thin-film solar arrays would be AWESOME (they also have MAJOR utility on surface bases and the skins of Hooligan Labs blimps- basically anything with a lot of surface area that doesn't work well with deployables...) Regards, Northstar

I'd LOVE it if you and maybe Regex could attempt this. I don't have the first idea how to go about generating a ModuleManager fix myself, but could help you guys with play-testing whatever you're working on (and pointing out anything that doesn't appear to be working right) and maybe even try taking a look at the config revisions you're generating to see if I can learn anything about how to attempt something like this myself in the future (or MAYBE if I learn really fast, help maintain and keep updated whatever you two come up with). Regards, Northstar

I was vaguely aware of the old RF/KSP-I config, but yeah, last I checked (which was quite a while ago) it was already dated and not working right from what I heard. It *might* be a good place to start with a more recent fix, though (perhaps one that could make the RF front page so that it *stays* updated, with people taking it over as needed?) Could you provide a link to it, since it seems you located it again? Regex, it sounds like you already have some experience trying to tackle a RF/KSP-I fix. I don't suppose I could convince you to tackle an official integration config that might keep permanent residence on the front page here? I don't have the first idea where to begin with something like this... As I understand it, though, the only resources that actually need to be *changed* or fixed in any way are those with duplicates (or resources that represent the same thing) in KSP-Interstellar and RealFuels. Which means LiquidFuel/LiquidHydrogen, Oxidizer/LiquidOxygen, Methane/LiquidMethane, and the two Ammonia resources... Ahhh, I hadn't actually *tried* to get these two mods (B9 and RF) working right. I took the entry on the B9 Aerospace thread front post stating that RealFuels was currently broken with B9 Aerospace at its word... Regards, Northstar

@FractalUK Karbonite mod introduced a "Particle Collector" part the allows players to collect atmospheric resources (just Karbonite with the mod, but should work equally well with He-3) from *just above* the atmosphere of a planet (by a couple hundred meters) as well as within it. This allows players to use MUCH higher time-warps if they are willing to go through the hassle of setting up a stable orbit that close to the atmosphere- with the possible risk of loading bugs causing the orbit to eventually decay into the atmosphere if they're not careful. This would seem a realistic way to simulate atmospheric accumulators (proposals for which on Earth generally worked ABOVE the Karman Line) in KSP-Interstellar. Perhaps the Atmospheric Scoop parts could be endowed with the same functionality, so that players didn't have to sit for hours of 4x time-warp to accumulate the resources they desire? If the scooping function could even be made to work when the vessel were unloaded, then this would truly allow for low-hassle (and more realistic) He-3 collection... Also, Fractal, I thought I should re-post this, so you know where might be a good place to start with fixing the node sizes in KSP-Interstellar: EDIT: It seems the link I re-posted only links to the top of the appropriate page. Here is a link to the exact post with the fix. Regards, Northstar

I don't know how many of you remember it, but there used to be a "Megapanels" mod on the old Spaceport website. Basically, what it was- a mod that introduced scaled-up versions of the OX-STAT solar panel. The idea being, it added larger stationary solar panels than the OX-STAT. This was useful because the OX-STAT solar panel had the single best mass-to-power ratio of any of the solar panels even BEFORE it was given no PhysicsSignificance. Such larger scaled-up panels were *EXTREMELY* useful for large electric UAV's (using either ion engines or Firespitter electric propellers) where atmospheric conditions meant that moving solar panels COULD NOT be deployed, as well as to save mass on larger ion-powered spacecraft (those with a large array of stock ion engines, or larger more power-hungry ion engines such as those in NearFuture mod) and Microwave Beamed Power solar farms (constructed in KSP-Interstellar) if the player was willing to turn the entire spacecraft to face the sun rather than having the solar panels auto-adjust... They also looked cool, and were much harder to break, on surface bases. I was hoping that somebody might be able to release+maintain such a mod- preferably one with nicer textures/models than simply up-scaling the stock OX-STAT solar panels. I know I could just go and create a such a part for myself by up-scaling the OX STAT, but I have no idea how to create textures/models (so I would just have to use the stock texture- which looks ugly when re-scaled to huge sizes due to the size of the base), and it would be helpful if it were an actual mod as then it would be available to other players and could be used in challenges like the Flying Duna challenge (the mod author himself got around the problem of producing lots of power for his entry by using the Uzbor Welding Utility to weld a bunch of OX-STATS onto the upper surface of a wing as a single part, but the Welding Utility no longer works correctly with current versions of KSP...) Finally, the larger solar panel would need to have its cost adjusted appropriately in proportion with its size and energy production (although maybe with a 1 or 2% discount for "buying in bulk" when it came to PV cells, or something like that for balance. Remember, unlike the OX STAT, it *WOULD* have PhysicsSignificance, and thus would add mass to rockets/planes unlike the OX STAT...) Regards, Northstar

@FractalUK Two questions/comments: First of all, I think SeventhArchitect might have made at least one good point. Many of the parts in KSP-Interstellar still seem to be using the smaller node sizes last I checked. Since the devs reformed the joint system and made rockets less floppy, this is a REALLY, REALLY, BAD thing. To get realistic stability for parts of the larger sizes, you really need to switch all the nodes over to the larger-sized nodes (size 2/3 nodes, rather than just using size 1 nodes for everything). They have a MUCH higher strength than the size 1 nodes now, and should be used on 2.5m/3.75m sized attachment surfaces, respectively... Second, what are the chances of getting a KSP-Interstellar/Realfuels config released? I went and bugged NathanKell (the creator of RealFuels) about it, and now I'm also bugging you again. There are more than just LiquidFuel --> LiquidHydrogen and Oxidizer --> LiquidOxygen that need to be re-named: Ammonia and Methane also both have differently-named counterparts in RealFuels (and are used for the RealFuels Stockalike-config LV-N's), and the densities of ALL of these resource pairs are different between RealFuels and KSP-Interstellar: so the engine fuel flow rates and fuel tank configs need to be significantly tweaked in order to work properly with the RealFuels densities It makes more sense to change the KSP-Interstellar parts with ModuleManager in the alternate config, rather than the RealFuels parts, since there are *FAR* more parts in the three different RealFuels engine configs using LiquidHydrogen/LiquidOxygen alone than in KSP-Interstellar using *all* of the resource-pairs combined... Other than a few engine-config and tank-capacity tweaks to bring KSP-Interstellar Ammonia/Methane/LiquidFuel/Oxidizer in line with RealFuels, the other major issue is the conversion rates for ISRU. Since LiquidMethane in RealFuels has a different density than methane in KSP-Interstellar, the Sabatier Reaction needs to produce it in different amounts, for instance... As an addendum (I know I said only two comments/questions, but I can't help mentioning this as well), although this is lower on my list, if you ever get around to it, an integration config for TAC Life Support would be nice as well. Specifically, I am thinking of the issue of KSP-Interstellar water and TACLS water not being the same thing. But I also see no reason why the TAC Life Support Sabatier Reactor couldn't produce KSP-Interstellar or RealFuels methane... Regards, Northstar

Thermal Rocket Nozzles don't use electricity, and aren't supposed to. Instead they use "ThermalPower", which is one of two things: EITHER the heat produced by an attached nuclear reactor, OR the heat produced by a Thermal Receiver, which connects up to a Microwave Beamed Power network. In either case, they don't run off electricity, they run off heat... If you put a Microwave Beamed Power infrastructure in place (that is, you have a Microwave Transceiver connected to a power-source somewhere in line-of-sight of the Thermal Receiver set to "Transmit" mode) you would be able to run a Thermal Rocket Nozzle with nothing but an attached Thermal Receiver. Certainly you wouldn't need any electricity (although you WOULD need a bigass reactor or solar farm somewhere transmitting to the Thermal Receiver). The Rocket Equation would still apply- it's not cheating, it's actually a real-world technology. (and besides, all you do with normal chemical rockets is attach an engine to fuel tanks to get thrust...) However, you don't seem to have any Thermal Receiver OR reactor attached, and the Fuel Mode is showing up blank, so it DOES appear your installation is borked. Regards, Northstar

Personally, I'm stoked about the magnetic nozzles! (it's something I started arguing for back when Interstellar-Lite came out, as it didn't make sense for the Thermal Rocket Nozzles to be so expensive) I think you're missing the single most important feature about them- which is balance. With the Magnetic Nozzles, it will now be possible for the Thermal Rocket Nozzles to be realistically cheap, while still having expensive Magnetic Nozzles for the super-hot gasses that would probably melt a traditional Thermal Rocket Nozzle anyways... The creator of Interstellar-Lite, on the other hand, made the (entirely inaccurate) assumption that ALL thermal nozzles were magnetic- and thus made the nozzles unbelievably expensive- even when used for Microwave Beamed Power... (which operates at LOWER temperatures than conventional chemical rocketry, and DOESN'T require magnetics in the rocket nozzle) Regards, Northstar

@NathanKell I know this probably isn't the highest of priorities at the moment, what with still trying to get RealFuels to play nicely with B9 Aerospace (currently many fuel tanks show up duplicated with both installed, or not at all) and TweakScale, but is there any chance you could release a RealFuels + KSP-Interstellar Integration config, or somebody else here could take up the mantle with your guidance? (I don't really have the programming knowledge, or understanding of how RealFuels works w.r.t. its modular fuel system under-the-hood to do this myself) It's not just a matter of renaming LiquidFuel to LiquidHydrogen and Oxidizer to LiquidOxygen- there's also the matter of Methane/LiquidMethane and the two different "Ammonia" resources (which I think have slightly different names). Keep in mind that ALL of these pairs have different densities- and as such there needs to be some sort of attempt to release alternate configs of the KSP-Interstellar engines and fuel tanks that account for the different fuel densities if all the KSP-Interstellar fuels are simply re-named to the RealFuels fuel names (which are much more logically named). Also, there would need to be a config to give the KSP-Interstellar fuel tanks RealFuels style modular-tweakable capacity (so you can choose *precisely* how much Ammonia a KSP-Interstellar ammonia tanks holds, for instance), or to disable them altogether. I hope it goes without saying that this config would need to not only include tweaks to fuel tanks, but tweaks to the KSP-Interstellar engine parts as well, to make them work with RealFuels resources... Regards, Northstar

This is a thread to work on a better RealFuels + KSP-Interstellar integration config. Basically, the idea is rather simple. It would re-name the KSP-Interstellar fuels as RealFuels where appropriate (for instance Methane at LiquidMethane, and LiquidFuel as LiquidHydrogen), and adjust the fuel consumption rates, conversion/production rates (for instance in the products made by Water Electrolysis) and tank capacities to account for the new resource densities and equal the same masses as before where re-naming changed the resource density. There would also be an attempt to up-rate the Interstellar Meth/LOX engine to realistic TWR/ISP levels for the RealFuels "Stockalike" config (which updates stock parts to realistic TWR and ISP values without changing their thrust...) Regards, Northstar

Actually, the downmass capacity was used quite frequently to recover scientific experiments from the ISS, as well as several experiments that were performed on the shuttle itself... And I wouldn't call them "not worth the price or risk" when one of those experiments might actually be about to lead to a bioengineering-based cure for Diabetes in the next 10-20 years... (let me know if you want articles on this- I first came across links on that experiment a while back on the Space Labs section of this forum...) Regards, Northstar

There *IS* demand for frequent payloads beyond LEO. It's called Geosynchronous Orbit Communication Satellites. Beyond that, having an orbit fuel depot would open the door to reusable orbital tugs (which could operate off Nuclear Thermal Engines or Microwave Beamed Power Thermal Rocketry, and thus serve as *much* more cost-efficient to GEO and back...), "atmospheric accumulators" to skim propellant mass (especially O2) off the edge of Earth's upper atmosphere (real-world proposals relied on using Nitrogen-fueled electrical engines for station-keeping), and the launching of manned exploration missions with empty fuel tanks... Regards, Northstar

Your numbers are incorrect. While there are various numbers out there, STS had a cargo bay rated at 29 tons (its nominal capacity was 30-40 tons, but in practice 29 tons was the limit due to its cargo bay). Buran weighed over 80 tons (and could carry its nominal capacity of 30-40 tons, thanks to its heavier cargo bay) and Energyia could lift 175 tons to LEO in its "Vulkan" (8 SRB's + Energia-M upper stage) configuration: the 90-100 ton figure is for its STANDARD configuration (4 SRB's and NO UPPER STAGE). Here are just two of the many, many articles that prove these figures: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/did-the-soviets-actually-build-a-better-space-shuttle-16176311 http://www.k26.com/buran/info/a_comparison/a_comparison.html I'm not disagreeing that the shuttles were wasted capacity. Based on the ability of Energyia to lift 90-100 tons to LEO *with no upper stage* (i.e. as a Two-Stage-To-Orbit with its SRB's, rather than a 3-stage rocket with SRB's), certainly Buran didn't make much economical sense in terms of lift-capacity. Where it REALLY shined, though, was in its cargo return-capacity: up to 15 tons of cargo could safely be returned to the runway by Buran (much like STS). This meant that scientific experiments could be recovered beyond just what could be stuffed into a tiny crew capsule: real life isn't KSP- you can't stuff an unlimited number of experiments into a 1-man pod... Too bad the Soviets didn't have enough money for a space station program that could really make Buran shine... I don't disagree. The Russian motivations were a bit messed up, and they did cancel quite a few more promising programs to fund Buran. All I said is that it was a superior shuttle system to STS (especially due to the versatility of Energyia)- not that it was a good idea. Saying Russia could not afford Buran is the same as claiming the USA can't afford its space program today. It's a highly-inaccurate representation based on claiming that space exploration is nothing but an exercise in futility... The fact is, Buran could have had hefty scientific benefits for the USSR (if it were used to recover payloads from orbit) the same way STS had hefty scientific benefits for the USA (research performed on STS may soon lead to a biological engineering-based cure for diabetes, for instance). The problem was that the USSR was too inefficient in *OTHER* sectors of its economy to survive, not that Buran was by any stretch of the imagination a waste of money... Regards, Northstar

Simply amazing music.

Two words: propellent depots With the development of orbital propellent depots, it should be possible to launch large amounts of fuel in giant tanker launches more efficiently than using smaller tankers (if done RIGHT- i.e. with a large number of small rocket engines instead of a single large engine, like with the Falcon9; then larger rockets should be able to carry large payloads to orbit more cost-effectively than smaller rockets due to their better ballistic coefficients and consequent reduced drag-losses, without any of the loss of efficiency normally entailed by larger rocket engines...) This also reduced the docking-hazard to the fuel depot, as there will be fewer docking events each year with larger fuel tankers... Thus, you could launch fuel to Low Earth Orbit, and have satellites bound for Geosynchronous Orbit rendezvous with fuel depots there before proceeding to GTO... Of course, it doesn't make economic sense if you are designing entire new lines of heavier rockets purely for fuel launches (it makes more sense just to rely on a larger launch volume of smaller designs), BUT if you are developing the larger rockets for eventual Mars/Moon-base missions anyways... The fuel-depot infrastructure would also come in handy for the same Mars/Moon missions... Of course, at the opposite end of the spectrum, huge numbers of identical rockets with tiny payload capacities (something like Aquarius- which is a Big Dumb Booster making use of amphibious launches, that can nominally only lift 1 ton to orbit per launch...) can also lift that same volume of fuel to orbit even MORE cost-effectively than heavy launch vehicles, as you start to reap some of the benefits of mass-production at this kind of launch frequency... Regards, Northstar