Northstar1989

No, you absolutely fail to understand. Energyia in its "Vulkan" configuration was SUPERIOR to SLS, and developed under a shuttle program that cost a fraction of SLS. It was capable of operating WITHOUT Buran- this is what the "Vulkan" configuration was- you stripped off Buran and multiplied the number of boosters to 8. Thus, you got a 175-ton capable HLV for a FRACTION of the cost of SLS (which can only lift a 170-ton payload in its Block II configuration- which is still many years down the road from even Block IB). The plan was to use Energyia "Vulkan" for space station construction and an eventual manned mission to Mars... (which, even using Energyia "Vulkan", would have required multiple launches to lift sufficient payload for a round-trip mission) Regards, Northstar

I never said that the USSR didn't have plenty of reason to self-destruct, as it in fact did. Not that it's a heck of a lot better in many parts of Russia even today (proving that capitalism FAILED to rebuild the country just as much as Communism failed to run it- Russia is a screwed up place). However, the CIA *did* give it a bit of push to hasten its decay/self-destruction, which also eliminated any possibility of the USSR evolving into a democractic-capitalist state of a loose "confederation" of republics nominally still part of one nation (but in practice mostly independent), as Boris Yeltsin (President of the USSR at the end, possibly on the CIA payroll, and once again, son of an anti-communsit rebel) envisioned. The CIA played many different high-level officials against each other, and even had a small handful on payroll. The Coup that resulted ended any chance of democracy in Russia before it was even born. This isn't conspiracy-theory: rather it's standard CIA practice. The CIA regularly plays with the internal affairs of other countries- just look at its history of interference in South America and Southeast Asia in the 1970's/1980's if you don't believe me... The most screwed-up part of the whole thing is that the US President at the time (George Bush Sr.) by all accounts didn't actually WANT the CIA to mess with Russian politics on the level it did. Rather, he wanted to give Yeltsin (whom he considered a personal friend) some breathing-room to see if he could actually reform the USSR into a free market democratic society like he planned to. The CIA had other plans, however, and as often happens, acted relatively independently of presidential imperative, by continuing to attempt to sabotage Russian affairs as they had been doing for decades. Regards, Northstar P.S. Just to be clear, the KGB worked just as hard to mess with American affairs across the globe. Even as Yeltsin was attempting to reform Russia, the KGB was still hunting down American spies wherever it saw the opportunity, and attempting to frustrate American international relations in places like Africa...

In summary, just look at the numbers... DEVELOPMENT COSTS STS (Shuttle) Payload Capacity: 30-40 metric tons Program Development Cost: specific numbers unavailable, but estimated at $7.45 beforehand ($43 Billion 2011 USD), drastically overshot SLS (Space Launch System- HLV) Payload Capacity: 70 tons (Block IA), 100 tons (Block IB), 130-155 tons (Block II- final capacity not yet determined) Program Development Cost: $12 Billion (2011 USD)- $10 Billion for SLS, $2 Billion for launchpad upgrades Buran Payload Capacity: 30-40 metric tons (Buran), 175 metric tons (Energyia + "Energyia-M" "Vulkan" configuration, 8-boosters) Program Development Cost: 14.5 Billion Rubles (1988 Rubles)- includes facility upgrades and "Energyia-M" upper stage

In Elon Musk's own words, propellant is 0.3% of launch costs. The extra propellent costs are negligible. Being able to reuse a portion of the tankage, all of the upper stage engines, the guidance systems, and the crew cabin WAS economical, on the other hand... The difference between Buran and SLS is that Buran wasn't gold-plated: its development, cosntruction, and maintenance costs were MUCH more reasonable. Its Thermal Protection System was much more durable (only 7-8 tiles lost per launch), and much cheaper to repair/replace. SLS also threw away the SRB's- which turned out to be *INCREDIBLY* expensive to recover/reuse (make the economics very marginal- though possibly still profitable). More importantly, the whole thing was built to INCREDIBLY tight engineering standards, and VERY thin engineering margins- which led to high maintenance/repair costs in the long run. Buran was significantly larger and built to less stringent engineering standards and structural margins (its larger size was a big part of the reason for its higher payload capacity), and thus MUCH more cost-effective... No, it wasn't. Buran could lift a 30-40 ton payload into orbit, like the Shuttle. SLS Block IA has a capacity of 70 tons, IB of 90-100 tons, and Block II a capacity of 130-155 tons. So Buran was a heavy lifter in its own right, not directly comparable with SLS, but still impressive, and built using 1980's technology... On top of that, as Energyia was capable of functioning as an independent, disposable heavy launch platform, and developed as part of the same (relatively) modest 14.5 billion Ruble development budget... Energyia could lift 175 tons into LEO- outclassing even SLS Block II! http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/energia_-_buran.html The Russians had no serious plans to reuse Zenit or Energyia. They KNEw such propositions would be difficult and expensive. Instead, they developed a 30-40 ton Shuttle (directly comparable to the American Shuttle, but MUCH more cost-effective) and a MASSIVE 175 TON LIFTER for a "mere" 14.5 billion Rubles. Keeping in mind the development cost of the American Shuttle Fleet (STS), which has absolutely no capability for independent use as a HLV, and the staggering development costs of SLS, I think Buran was a much more economical deal all-in-all. Regards, Northstar

There is nothing "cheap" about a rocket upper stage. Just because the upper stage is less expensive than the lower stage doesn't make it "cheap", and doesn't mean it's uneconomical to reuse. There's a REASON that Space-X is working on re-using their upper stage as well as their lower stage. Payload isn't cheap either- though none of this is talking about re-using it. The Russians largely stopped ALL government-funded space launches in the time period Buran was stuck in a hanger, not just Buran. If they had the funding, they probably would have used it to launch government-funded scientific payloads. They simply didn't have the funding for large government-funded projects, and the thought never occurred to them to try and license out Buran launches for commercial satellite launches. This DOES NOT mean it made no economic sense. Regards, Northstar

The CIA had moles in the KGB: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/13/usa.russia What makes you think they didn't in the rest of the Russian government as well? Most of this is still classified, but a while back some records pertaining to this were declassified that revealed several high-ranking Russian officials had been on the CIA payroll. Unfortunately, there's so much unfounded/baseless junk on the internet about the USSR and CIA that it's hard to actually dig up hard facts like that even jsut a handful of year later... Also, although this has never been conclusively proved, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Boris Yeltsin himself may have colluded with the CIA to help break up the USSR (by antagonizing Gorbachev, weakening the power of the Kremlin and central government, and encouraging the Republics to revolt). Of course, he may just have well been playing the CIA in order to advance his own career, and he certainly wasn't an actual CIA agent in any sense. Do bear in mind that his father was an Anti-Soviet, however, so he did harbor some lingering hatred for the USSR and pro-American sympathies... Regards, Northstar

First of all, Ferram, I just wanted to say I highly respect your mod, and I'm glad my thread attracted your attention. Have you considered approaching SQUAD directly to see if you might be able to work with them to improve their aerodynamics model, since FAR has already been so successful? It was just a first idea of a simple and easy-to-understand (for most players and SQUAD) way to calculate life and drag. Thanks for pointing out its drawbacks. How would you suggest SQUAD implements it if they improve the aerodynamics model? I'm talking about friction along a smooth solid surface (like the walls of a rocket), where there are no irregularities to disturb it or cause mixing. I don't have a perfect understanding of fluid dynamics (after all, I'm a biologist, not an aerospace engineer), but isn't laminar flow the type of floe that will be experienced in this situation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow More broadly, though, I was using my terms a little loosely. I was referring to drag along the exposed surfaces of a rocket running parallel to the direction of movement, rather than based on the cross-sectional area exposed to drag. Skin friction drag might be the correct term for it... I was sub-dividing the aerodynamics model into smaller sub-features. After all, it's possible to have an aerodynamics model which penalizes exposed surface area and cross-sectional area, but doesn't create any penalties for abrupt transitions in diameter... I'm aware that most *complete* aerodynamics models account for both considerations... (shape and exposed area) I think we're both in agreement about that. For planes, if KSP keeps its overpowered jet engines, this will also be rather unnoticeable.

That is DRASTICALLY oversimplifying Buran. It was a lot more than just a reusable upper stage. For one, not only could it return to land on the runway- it could do so completely unamnned. And how many rocket upper stages do you know of that can re-use not only the upper stage engines, but also the payload fairings (which the cargo bay basically acted as an analog to) and the crew facilities... On top on all that, its payload capacity was of course higher than STS. As was its crew capacity (which was a massive 10 cosmonauts). And its projected operating costs were lower. As was the projected cost-per-ton to orbit. The main problem was the the Soviet Union was simply falling apart (this was not entirely unrelated to the fact that several major Russian officials were on the CIA payroll and sabotaging the USSR from the inside, as was only recently declassified...) when Buran was commissioned, and didn't have the funding to launch the kind of major space missions it would have been capable of... Buran *WAS* actually built though, and it DID make a successful orbital flight (even if it didn't carry a payload) before being decommissioned for financial reasons. For some BASIC information on Buran, simply consult Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29 Regards, Northstar

Not much, at least with just the stock aerodynamics model (I'd need to install FAR to have any real use for them). They need to implement Aerodynamic Shielding (so parts inside Cargo Bays don't experience drag) first for them to be truly useful... Speaking of which, I *strongly suggest* popping over to my thread on what aerodynamic features SQUAD should make part of the stock aerodynamics model when they FINALLY get around to updating it (which some devs have hinted *might* be coming up sometime in the near future...) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95480-What-Aerodynamic-Features-would-you-like-to-see-added Regards, Northstar

DISCLAIMER TO MODERATORS: This thread is NOT an attempt to suggest "realistic aerodynamics", as has been prohibited on the already-suggested list. Rather this is an attempt to solicit player opinions on *which* improved aerodynamics features would be a good fit for the update aerodynamics model SQUAD has hinted might be coming in the future. I don't believe SQUAD has seriously begun work on this (if at all), so it should not be too late to perhaps have them notice this thread, and to let if influence the direction of their development. There have been whisperings that SQUAD might start working on improving the aerodynamics model soon. Apparently some of the devs have even hinted on it on Twitter of something... So, the question is, what aerodynamic features would you like to see added to the model? Personally, I'm a big fan of realism and there are quite a few features I would like to see added, but some of you may not agree with me on specific features. Thus, I wanted to break this down into a feature-by-feature discussion of what YOU want to see added that might be enlightening to SQUAD. Note that this is NOT the place to just shout "Full Realism!", or "I don't want to see ANYTHING added!". Instead, you should discuss *particular features*, and why you want to see them added... So, to start off this discussion... Ballistic/Aerodynamic Shielding: This may not be the correct term for this, but basically the idea is that part will not experience lift or drag when they are inside of other parts, such as Cargo Bays (which will be released in 0.25) or fairings (which SHOULD get added whenever SQUAD updates the aerodynamics model, IMHO- besides fairings just LOOK COOL when they break apart to expose a payload...) This will add to both realism and fun, and I can't possibly see a downside to adding this, aside from players being unable to hide wings inside cargo bays to illegitimately improve the lift of their spaceplanes... (most players consider this a "cheat" anyways...) Cross-Section Based Drag: This is really not as big or scary a change as it sounds like. Basically it means that a rocket two fuel tanks high will only experience *SLIGHTLY* more drag than a rocket one fuel tank high (most drag is based on cross-sectional area in the prograde direction, rather than laminar drag), when flying in the prograde direction. When spinning about randomly, the rocket/plane will experience much more drag- but this will actually make the game EASIER by tending to slow down such spins, and isn't exactly the normal state of such things anyways... (if you're in a death-spin to begin with, why does it matter to you if you're experiencing extra drag?) This feature is also necessary for features enabling nosecones to have functionality. (without it, how will you know that they are between the rocket and the airflow?) Skin Friction Drag: This is mainly a balancing factor to complement cross-sectional drag. Without it, a rocket two fuel tanks high will experience *EXACTLY* the same atmospheric drag as a rocket one fuel tank high when flying in the prograde direction. This creates a bit of extra drag based on the increased exposed surface area, but does NOTHING to destabilize a rocket. Basically, it helps prevent the game from becoming "too easy" based on changing the basis of drag to ray-casting, while simultaneously increasing realism and making the game more intuitive (most people would EXPECT a taller rocket to still experience more drag, in absolute terms). Drag based on just these first three features will still be MUCH less than in stock. Shape-Based Drag: This is the BIG one that would really change how rockets are designed in KSP. It would cause nosecones to have function by rewarding more gradual transitions in cross-sectional area, while simultaneously working to destabilize/penalize pancake-rockets. It will make the game a bit "harder", but not unreasonably so- and with just this feature alone you can still get pancake rockets to orbit. This is the reason nosecones are useful in real life! It is also one of the reasons fairings are useful (and fairings just look COOL!) Mach Effects on Absolute Drag: In isolation, and without combination with some of the "harder" aerodynamic features to follow, this doesn't actually make the game significantly harder. In fact, in many ways, it makes it "easier"- rockets and planes capable of breaking the sound barrier can travel at MUCH faster speeds with the same TWR than in a drag model lacking this feature. What it means is, in a nutsehell, rockets/planes tend to gain very little velocity for additional thrust in the "transonic" regime (from about Mach 0.85 to Mach 1.2), but gain a LOT MORE velocity for their thrust in the "hypersonic" regime of speeds greater than this. It's the *other* mach effects (to follow) that have actually scare many players off of mods like FAR... Should be configurable/able to be disabled on the Difficulty Levels screen at starting a new game, and probably only enabled by default on the higher difficulty levels... Mach Effects on Stability: This is the mach effect that scares many players away from mods like FAR. What it basically means is that, when crossing the sound barrier (the "transonic" regime between roughly Mach 0.85 and Mach 1.2), planes tend to experience wobble and some loss of control authority, that can potentially lead them to crash. Since these effects are directly related to exposed surface area and shape, they don't tend to affect rockets very strongly. They can also be delayed (so they start closer to, say, Mach 1.00 instead of Mach 0.85) by sweeping the wings back into a "Delta Wing" configuration- and in fact the majority of planes designed in stock already tend to follow this configuration. All in all, with a bit of thought into design and perhaps some extra reaction wheels to dampen the wobble, it really isn't all that hard to manage and deal with these effects. It also would be MUCH easier to minimize or avoid them altogether if SQUAD would consider adding a FAR-like informational display that could optionally be toggled in the SPH/VAB (paraps configurable as to whether even be available as an "Advanced Option" on the Difficulty Level screen when starting a new game...), which would also be a GREAT place to display information like the available Delta-V of a plane/rocket... Should be configurable/able to be disabled on the Difficulty Levels screen at starting a new game, and probably only enabled by default on the higher difficulty levels. Aerodynamic Failures: This probably shouldn't occur nearly as easily as in FAR or real-life, but explosions and rockets breaking apart are !FUN! in KSP, and there should be a couple ways to cause them, based one aerodynamics. I'll leave the exact details of which types of aerodynamic failure (high G-loads based on lift/drag, localized pressure spots, localized overheating, etc.) should and should not be included up to debate, and in my opinion this is is something SQUAD could best determine through play-testing and user feedback in Experimentals (which team I *STILL* wan to join... sigh). This one should *DEFINITELY* be configurable/able to be disabled through the Difficulty Level screen on starting a new game (and, should only be enabled by default on the higher difficulty levels...) Body Lift: This feature gets an unfairly bad rep, and honestly I don't know why. What it basically means is that rockets and the fuselages of planes generate a certain amount of lift. With a properly-designed rocket (one that is wider at the bottom than at the top) this tends to actually *STABILIZE* rockets (making flying them easier), and this only makes flying planes EASIER as the lift generated by the plane becomes greater and slightly more intuitive to the shape (you don't have to distinguish between what is and is-not a "wing" part- it all generates lift based on shape...) The ONLY downside of this feature is that it makes it significantly more difficult to lift large, draggy payloads (such as a section of a space station) to orbit without a payload fairing- which should be added to the game in whatever update improves aerodynamics anyways, if only for appearances... (fairings just *look* COOL) It absolutely SHOULD be part of the default difficulty level if made part of the game, and perhaps it is even not worth making it tweakable in Difficulty Levels at all. Re-Entry Heat: This isn't really a traditional aerodynamic feature, per-se, but it is so closely associated with aerodynamics that I felt it was worth including. Basically, the question here is whether the update that adds aerodynamics should also add re-entry heating. I waver on this question myself- and would be perfectly happy to see SQUAD delay it to an even later update... (so they can do a better job with focusing on just aerodynamics, especially from the coding/stability standpoint) Note that I have INTENTIONALLY left out features many players of FAR, or real-life aerospace engineers, might be familiar with such as aerodynamic instability leading to things like "Dutch Roll" and stalls. This is because I think such features are a little too advanced for most players (even experienced ones like myself tend to struggle with them occasionally), and should intentionally be left out of any initial aerodynamics update, perhaps to infinity (I would much rather see SQUAD focus on things like adding a difficulty option to upscale Kerbin 2-3x, or finally adding a basic ISRU system- either of which players could choose *NOT* to play with if they didn't like them, but ought to be part of scope-completion IMHO...) Regards, Northstar EDIT: I re-named "Ray-Cast Drag" to "Cross-Section Based Drag", and "Laminar Drag" to "Skin Friction Drag" to more accurately capture the concepts I was trying to describe with the terminology. Also, thank you for enlightening me that they are really caused by the same thing, but I'm leaving "Mach Effects" and "Re-Entry Heating" as separate features, as it IS possible to simulate one but not the other... Some of you aerospace types are so picky about your terminology.

I run x64 without any increase in crashes over x32, and haven't looked back since x64 was released. Notice I said *increase* in crashes- I still get quite a few crashes, but almost all of them were ones I experiences for exactly the same reasons (usually after a lot of reverts and visits to the VAB) as in x32. Clearly, the problem is at least partially specific to particular system configurations. I have a Lenovo/IBM laptop (IBM's are known for their quality and stability), if that helps... Regards, Northstar

I present, my Reusable Space Infrastructure Nuclear Tug (RSINT). A methane-fueled spacecraft with a large fuel capacity, RSINT can hold over 12 km/s of LiquidMethane when fully-fueled: giving it a large range- and is meant to be paired with my Reusable Orbital Methane Infrastructure Tanker (ROMIT, which has not yet been revealed) or future surface-based Karbonite-mining infrastructure. As usual, I have both video and screenshots of the launch: The recovery of the Lower Stage went smoothly, but it turns out the Upper Stage was unrecoverable for this launch profile due to it consistently burning up in the atmosphere... I *KNEW* I should have packed more fuel into the payload (the tug launched mostly empty to save on mass) or decoupled the Upper Stage sooner... Also, the latest redesign of the Medium Reusable Launch Platform solid rocket boosters led to their being almost impossible to recover in practical terms (the impulse of the retro-rockets was too high, and would cause the SRB's to jump back up into the air without parachutes...) I fixed this issue for future launches (by limiting the retro-rocket TWR through tweakables), but incurred a significant financial penalty for it in the meantime... I know I promised video of the recovery of the SRB's and Upper Stage in the video, but I decided not to do that as I made many, many quicksave/quickload attempts to try and safely bring the Upper Stage and SRB's to the ground intact, only to eventually discover it was impossible... So the video ends with making orbit, and you guys will just have to make do with the screenshots of the attempted US/SRB recoveries... It might be a while until I upload more screenshots, but I hope your enjoy what I posted got for the moment. Regards, Northstar

This is a little bit of a hybrid of a suggestion and a discussion, regarding adding more science experiments to the stock game. First of all, I would like to suggest a few specific experiments that I would like to see added to the stock game. Second, I would like ask for specific suggestions of additional experiments that other community members would like to see added to the game as well. The science system is currently a little bland and uninteresting, and I think adding a wider variety of real world-inspired science experiments to the game would make it more interesting. This could be used to make the game easier (by not reducing the value of other experiments)- which I would prefer- or could be coupled to a decrease in the value of other experiments. I think the science system should be made easier with more experiments (and no decrease in value of existing experiments) so as to give players more freedom in their play-style, and the game made harder in *OTHER* ways (such as the addition of re-entry heat, and a difficulty option to upscale the Kerbin/Kerbol system 2-3x from its current 1/11th scale compared to Earth/Sol). Players who think this makes science too "easy" can always set the science rewards higher through the difficulty sliders in 0.25, which it was just revealed are going to include a science rewards multiplier slider. Note that these experiments are heavily inspired by the DMagic Orbital Science mod- which adds more science experiments to the game. without further adieu: Solar (Kerbolar) Particle Collector- A science experiment which would only be usable in orbit. Allows players to sample the solar (Kerbolar) wind for !SCIENCE! Adds to the currently measly number of experiments (gravity and temperature scans) which can be performed in orbit. Should give the highest Science yields when in orbit of the Sun or Jool, due to the lack of interfering planets or the strong magnetic/gravitational fields which trap solar particles around Jool, respectively; slightly higher yields at Moho, due to proximity to the Sun; and MUCH higher yields in "Near" Sun orbits... Gamma Ray Spectrometer- A science experiment which would only be usable in orbit. Like the real-world GRS experiments, allows the player to scan for the elements indicative of water (Hydrogen+Oxygen), even in the form of subsurface ice (this is one experiment that was used to prove there is ice on Mars and the Moon). Could possibly give snarky text bits about how "Snacks" is not an element, and *maybe* even provide a part for locating deposits/concentrations (of numerous different elements) for an ISRU system if the devs ever change their minds about Resources... Science Note- Some players will, incorrectly, argue that GRS cannot be used to find water. I would like to respectfully inform them that they are wrong. Gamma Ray Spectrometers can be, and in fact have been, used to find high concentrations of Hydrogen and Oxygen (as well as over 20 other elements)- which can be indicative of water/ice when found together in large amounts. (Citation) Anomaly Scanner- One thing that has *ALWAYS* bothered me about the stock game is that the anomalies are scientifically useless. Personally, I think the discovery of a monolith or an ancient spacecraft should be of scientific interest to the Kerbals. An "anomaly scanner" part could give large science yields when used in proximity to any of the anomalies. DMagic Orbital Science mod has already figured out a good way to code for this, so clearly it's possible... As I was saying, I would welcome further input from the community on other experiments they might like to see added. Please don't post if your response is just something along the lines of "No, that's stupid" or "I don't want to see that added, because, reasons". Regards, Northstar

Welcome! It sounds like you have bee playing longer than msot of us (I've only been at KSP for 15 months myself) You might want to consider changing your username from ":D" to something more identifiable, just saying... Regards, Northstar

This is a very Kerbal question- but how many Spaceports did you manage to get set up in your region in SC4? I only managed one myself, and of that was extremely proud... Regards, Northstar

Today, after installing the DMagic Orbital Science mod, I performed some basic rover tests around the KSC: Nothing too exciting, although some of the animations were pretty cool, and the science texts quite snarky. I spent most of my play time today simply uploading/formatting images and video from yesterday, and checking mods and threads on this forum for updates (one reason I wish Squad would make more mod features stock- I *HATE* having to constantly update mods... Already, the latest version of ModuleManager broke Real Solar System so I can't use the alternative launch sites again...) Also, I've been working on a slightly heavier version of my Medium Reusable Launch Platform for heavier payloads with their own engines- such as my Nuclear Tug... Regards, Northstar

Yesterday I launched the first component of my Orbital Tug System with a Methane Fuel Depot. As has become the norm, I took video footage of the launch as well as screenshots. I apologize that the resolution is poor (it will be better in future launches) but the audio quality is leaps and bounds better than before: The launch was Space-X style, with the addition of some Shuttle-style reusable SRB's. Using Flight Manager for Reusable Stages, I started with the recovery of the Lower Stage. I also broke the video recording in two at this point... I then proceeded to recover the SRB's: The Fuel Depot now waits in an elliptical orbit with a small partial fuel load, still attached to the Upper Stage (which I have yet to recover). The next launch will be of the Reusable Nuclear Tug, which will dock to the Depot and carry it to a higher orbit. After that, I will be launching a Mun Lander, and as many Methane Fuel Tankers as necessary to fill up the Nuclear Tug for its Mun mission... Regards, Northstar

I regret to report that ModuleManage 2.4.5 has broken the alternative launchpads function AGAIN. It seems another MM update is in order. Regards, Northstar

Another mod to add to the list: DMagic Orbital Science I'm looking forward to performing science a little more interesting and varied than just the handful of stock science experiments. Now if only SQUAD would get a clue and work on expanding the number/quality/variety of science experiments available... Regards, Northstar P.S. I installed this mod AFTER the next launch I'll be posting about- but it takes a lot less time to write up about than a long, complex launch...

Makes sense- but do you think you could add a small MJ storage capacity to the solar panels or MJ-consuming equipment (such as electric engines and ISRU refineries) so that there wouldn't be the need to add useless equipment like generators? Or maybe add an extremely lightweight "transformer" part with a small MJ storage capacity (similar in size and mass to a radial battery), as EC is supposed to be DC power whereas MJ represents AC power? Other than that, a great and exciting feature that I'm looking forward to trying out soon myself (I'm currently holding off on installing KSP-Interstellar in my Career Mode save until I'm a little further in my tech tree, as I will be adding it to a stock tech tree game. Will it work without issue with the stock tech tree aside from balance issues?) Regards, Northstar

The stock radial engine bodies. You know, the ones that act as both intakes and fuel tanks, and were added in 0.24 The currently only carry "LiquidFuel", and are not edited by RealFuels Regards, Northstar

This may be a problem with the base RealFuels mod, or it may be related to the Stockalike config... Currently, a number of the stock parts aren't configured for RealFuels. Specifically, I'm referring to the new engine body parts (that combine intakes and fuel tanks), the radial monopropellent engine, and I think a couple other parts... Also, +1 on the integration of Life-Support systems with propulsion. Personally (and probably like many players who use RealFuels) I use TAC Life Support- and would very much like to see the ability to turn Water into LH2 and LOX (this would be a more long-term way to store Hydrogen), and recycle CO2 into LiquidMethane and Water through the Sabatier Reaction (currently part of KSP-Interstellar and a couple other mods). Speaking of which, what are the chances we could see a MM file release for KSP-Interstellar. Specifically, I would like to be able to integrate the Methane-burning chemical engines from that mod with the LiquidMethane I am already launching to orbit for my Nuclear Tug (uses an LV-N engine), be able to produce LH2 and LOX through the Water Electrolysis or Alumina Electrolysis (LOX only) reactions in that mod without having to go in and mod the configs for compatibility myself, and be able to use the same Ammonia resource for KSP-Interstellar and the RealFuels version of the LV-N... This is mostly to minimize the number of potential resources and conflicts in the game- as I am likely to switch over from RealFuels LV-N engines to KSP-Interstellar nuclear rockets in the long run. But the ability to use Methane produced from my TACLS CO2 resource (via the KSP-I Sabatier Reaction) in my KSP-I metha/LOX engines would also be awesome... Regards, Northstar

Wait, so this update will break all my existing craft using RealFuel tanks? Also, NathanKell, are you aware that a number of the stock parts still are not RealFuels compatible? Specifically, I am referring to the radial engine body parts, the radial monopropellent engine, and I think one or two other parts... Would this be something that needs to be fixed with the main mod (perhaps a conflict with one of the modules on the new radial engine bodies, for instance), or in the Stockalike config? Regards, Northstar

AWESOME! This is something I had been hungering for a long time! But why isn't such a big improvement listed in the changelog??? Regards, Northstar

Another major bug to report- often, when switching back to the main vessel (either manually, or automatically after recovering a dropped stage) it will be endowed with a random rotation (not so serious for a spacecraft most of the time, but likely fatal for a plane). On top of that, the game occasionally doesn't remember the joint positions of the main vessel- leading to the vessel imploding/ partially self-destructing when switched to. This seems to occur more often after a large number of dropped stages have been recovered in a single launch (4 in my save where this kept happening- 3 radial SRB's and a lower stage.) Regards, Northstar