Northstar1989

My LV-T45 Drive Section made a successful launch to orbit: Yes, you read that right- drive section. That may leave you guys with a lot of questions- I know it certainly would leave me with some... First of all, what is it for? It's meant to serve as the main drive section for two upcoming missions- first of all, my manned mission to the Munar surface (to plant a flag and complete a contract), and second of all a probe mission to Duna. The probe mission will involve a return of Materials Study data from orbit of Duna, so the drive section will return to the Kerbin system after this mission. At that time I can decide on future uses of the vehicle, such as further manned missions to the Munar surface (depending on the drive section's track record from the first mission). I know a LV-T45 is far from the most efficient choice for a reusable tug: though with my current technology, I don't have access to a NERVA. I could have easily opted for an LV-909 for its higher ISP, or an LV-T30 for its lower mass. However the contract to test the engine in flight effectively paid for the engine, and it was the best choice for the ascent profile to orbit I made use of anyways, due to its thrust vectoring (which was highly necessary to maintain control under the strong aerodynamics forces acting on the rocket). Now a brief word about the ascent profile: what was THAT, some of you might be asking... What you just witnessed, was the full glory of body-lift with Ferram Aerospace Research. Although this was not an original part of the design, I quickly realized when running a few launch-revert "simulations" to determine what Thrust Limiter I would have to apply to my SRB's to reach the target speeds for my contracts at the target altitudes (a REAL space program would have talented engineers who would simply be familiar with the mathematical formulae to determine such frivolities, but *I* was left running "computer simulations" since I'm not an aerospace engineer) that the flattened shape of the vessel when turned with the axis the SRB's were placed on parallel to the ground was perfect for generating "body lift"- aerodynamic lift experienced by even relatively non-aerodynamic objects, such as rockets and the fuselages of jet planes (though normally speed has to be quite high- as with my rocket- or the fuselage well blended into the wings of a plane, for this effect to be significant). Thus, with sufficient speed, my rocket was able to hold much of its weight up with lift, rather than with gravity- enabling it to achieve orbit despite its rather shallow ascent profile. This was not the *optimal* ascent- but it allowed me to efficiently fulfill three separate contracts for testing rocket parts at low altitudes and high speeds. There was simply no way to achieve these speeds without a very shallow ascent and high TWR- any vessel ascending vertically would have either been moving too slowly when passing through this altitude range with a low TWR, or much too quickly by the time of reaching this altitude with a high TWR. And since I was using SRB's, there was no way to simply throttle down or turn off the engines of a high-TWR craft so as to reach the proper speeds/altitudes with a vertical ascent. A plane would have worked too- but I don't have the tech nodes necessary for supersonic flight with jet engines yet (some of the test speeds were supersonic), and the basic "Swept Wings" available to me at this point are not only rather unstable at supersonic speeds with their default sweep (though I could always angle them into the fuselage with Shift+Click- sacrificing some of the wing area and thus lift, for stability), but would really require a powerful rocket-plane to reach the desired speeds anyways. So, if I was going to use rockets for my propulsion, and I was going to be relying on lift to fight gravity, I figured why not do it in a badass and unconventional way? What's NOT to love about breaking Mach 5 (1710 m/s) before 27 km? None of this would have been possible without the Mach Effects of FAR (like in real life), of course (drag in the stock pea-soup atmosphere would have NEVER allowed speeds like in the image above, *and climbing*, at 12 km with a TWR of just 1.71) I'm just lucky the rocket (barely) held together at those altitudes flying at more than Mach 3.5... Regards, Northstar

Some ground-testing of equipment for contracts led to a useful contract for my continued Munar exploration efforts: And here's a sneak-preview of what's coming up next (I'd have this in orbit by now, but MechJeb's ASA function started acting up when I tried to access the Altitude Adjustment tab, and I need the precise control over heading to get the right ascent-curve for some contracts I'm completing in this launch... Regards, Northstar

The recovery of the second Rescue Rocket went smoothly... Paving the way for new science, and new contracts: Docking ports have been designed! Next stop: Heavier Rocketry! The larger SRB's should make for more powerful cheap launch vehicles. I bet I can lift useful payloads on nothing but a stack built on a single stock ultra-heavy booster... (and don't even get me started on what can cheaply be done using the 2.5 meter NovaPunch SRB's once that mod is up-to-date...) It seems the Ares I had the right idea in real-life. Regards, Northstar

My second Rescue Rocket proceeded on its Munar Transfer: And then began collecting !SCIENCE! Lots of !SCIENCE! As a side-note, I really need to consider installing a mod like "Science Alert!", because this constant spamming of the "EVA Report" function in the context menu is getting sickening- especially when my right-clicks (as well as my staging commands) are having trouble registering in 64-bit KPS 0.24 for some reason... And then, my brave Kerbal began his return-trip to Kerbin, transmitting a couple additional reports on the way: And, back at the Space Center, my Kerbals developed the Advanced Construction Techniques that will eventually pave the way for the development of docking ports- essential if I want to make use of advanced low-cost strategies like reusable landers for my exploration of the Mun and the farther reaches of the Kerbol system... If I keep it up, I should be able to set boots on the ground on Duna in no time. And, all the money I'm saving should come in handy for infrastructure development if I eventually install KSP Interstellar once it's up-to-date (and balanced) for 0.24 Regards, Northstar

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but aren't you constantly on the edge of stall when you are flying near altitude ceiling? That is, the thinner the air, the lower speed the aircraft, and the heavier the payload, the closer an aircraft operates to stall. Thus, thicker wings would allow flight in more marginal conditions, to higher altitudes in subsonic flight (which is what I'm interested in- especially with thick wings and relatively weak propulsion in the form of propellers, Flying Fortress style), etc. Also, thicker wings allow you to build in greater camber, and according to NASA: "In general, low to medium speed airplanes have airfoils with more thickness and camber. " http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/atmospheric/aerodynamiclift.html There is a lot of data out there on "The Effects of Airfoil Thickness on Lift Coefficient". See the charts in this one, for instance: http://itlims.meil.pw.edu.pl/zsis/pomoce/BIPOL/BIPOL_1_handout_8A.pdf Lift Coefficient hits a peak at a thickness of around 12-16% chord length (t/c = 12-16%) But, see the next page- it also has an effect on drag coefficient- though surprisingly some of the best Gliding Ratios were obtained for the thickest airfoils in this study... So, I wouldn't call the effect of thickness of lift trivial. Less important than wing area or camber, perhaps, but definitely important. It may be revealing to reflect on the fact that one of the reasons that biplane/triplane designs were abandoned is because advances in materials enabled the construction of longer, thicker, wider wings. Thickness was a consideration as well as size- and of course wings that are thicker at the base can support a greater maximum span if they gradually taper. I find the perspective of history and the evolution of aircraft particularly interesting. Take, for instance, this quote from a discussion )on Reddit) of the replacement of biplane/triplane designs with thicker-winged planes after WWI: "during WWI wings were thought to be most efficient when thin. This was logical since thin wings would simply slice through the air. It was not until later that it was discovered that thicker wings could actually create more lift with less drag by way of the Venturi affect (thicker at the leading edge, thinner at trailing edge). This negated the advantages of the second wing, and inadvertently created new uses for the wings such as fuel storage. " http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k5fjn/why_were_biplanes_the_preferred_method_of_early/ I've heard a lot of similar lines in historical documentaries on WWI-era aircraft, as well as on the History Channel (back before it went to Hell), etc. IMHO, Procedural Dynamics (aka Procedural Wings) SHOULD be a huge advantage and practically a requirement for any serious plane-builder in KSP who wants to build craft with low wing-load and high Glide Ratio. Of course, the utility of such craft is questionable- since KSP is a game about space exploration, and the best spaceplanes don't have the largest or thickest wings- as that's a LOT of mass to push to orbit... So I wouldn't call it unfair to non-Pwings players to include thickness in calculations of lift coefficient. As it currently stands, anyone using B9 Aerospace with FAR is unfairly penalized, as they have extra mass to haul around, and greater drag, but none of the increased lift that thicker wings generate (wihin certain limits- as I said the best lift coefficients were measured at t/c of 12-16%, with declining lift at greater thickness) Regards, Northstar

No I wasn't. Haven't you ever looked at the Mk 2-3 fuselage? It is very well known to have its Center of Mass far off from its center. Also, I know thickness affects total mass because I've played with it with the MechJeb vessel info screen open to confirm this. So, while I haven't confirmed if changing thickness on one end of a control surface changes the location of its Center of Mass, I *DO* know for a fact that thickness affects mass, and mass doesn't have to be at the center. That an asymmetric CoM might be causing my issues was just a theory. Doing a little more research, it actually looks more likely that the crashing was due to a bug with units flexing more/less based on the order in which they were placed, that has been around for years now (it's the reason so many spaceplanes end up in a flaming ditch on the side of the runway- because one wing flexes more than the other). My guess is that what was ACTUALLY happening is that the control surfaces were flexing awkwardly, and actuating them was exasperating the control issues- hence why disabling them fixed the issue. Stock/B9 control surfaces are smaller, so the flex is less noticeable- but I was using control surfaces the length of much of the trailnig edge of a wing (real life planes often have flaps and spoilers this long- but apparently trying to do that in KSP was a mistake). The thickness was varied to attempt to match the change in thickness of the wing itself (but was ending up asymmetric like shown), but the REAL cause of the crashes was the large control surfaces flexing like large wings do, and the SAS logic not being able to adapt to that... The asymmetric control surfaces are still a bug that needs to be fixed. And now that I'm running FAR, they actually *DO* affect the aerodynamic properties- since they will stick out causing drag at different places (even if FAR doesn't include thickness in its lift calculations, it uses a vector approach for drag calculations- which is part of why cargo bays and fairings work in FAR). Regards, Northstar

I see. So what's the cost at right now? Is it something that's at least reasonable for larger aircraft? Regards, Northstar

Where? A link to the post would be helpful... Since when does anybody describe KSP with Pwings as "in real life"? You'd have to get VERY obsessed with KSP to start thinking this was actually REAL... That wasn't MY plane- that was somebody else's. But any chance you (or somebody else) could actually check/confirm whether there's any difference in the meta-data Pwings passes along to FAR corresponding to wing thickness and root-to-tip thickness ratio? It wasn't placebo. I was using MechJeb for and stock SAS for the control- there was no human input (that could have been biased by expectations), so there was definitely SOMETHING going on there- my planes were consistently ending up in a ditch on the side of the runway whenever the asymmetrical control surfaces actuated. This didn't happen when the control surfaces were disabled, or replaced with non-Pwing versions. Could just be the mass-asymmetry, if wing thickness affects mass-distribution. Remember, this was with stock aerodynamics- which multiplies mass by lift coefficient to generate lift, and mass by drag coefficient to generate drag. So even without a change in the displayed Center of Lift, a change in Center of Mass off the centerline would actually generate an asymmetry in terms of not only gravity, but also lift and drag... There's no avoiding that, based on the way stock aerodynamics works- a difference in the loading of two outboard fuel tanks would have the same effects on drag, despite the incredibly unrealistic nature of this... My planes were VERY carefully-engineered, and even a small change is symmetry could cause them to lose control- so it's quite possible it was simply an asymmetry in the stock pea-soup drag model, and gravity, based on asymmetry of the mass distribution with the improperly-mirrored control surfaces, that was causing my issues... Where? A link to where you discussed how Procedural Dynamics is balanced for Budgets in 0.24 would be EXTREMELY helpful... Regards, Northstar

Ahhh. I just made a post about that on the FAR thread, actually. Any chance that you and DYJ and some other people experienced with the internal workings of FAR and/or Procedural Dynamics could get in touch with Ferram, and work that out? I would *REALLY* like to see wing thickness properly-modeled in KSP, since this is one of the most important parameters of a craft in real life. If thickness is in no way modeled, then thinner wings are strictly, 100% superior to thicker wings when running FAR, if Procedural Dynamics in no way alters the meta-data it passes on to FAR. This is in no way the case in real life, where thicker wings have superior lift, and are thus often preferable in subsonic conditions (in supersonic conditions, lift:drag ratio becomes more important- and thinner wings have the advantage there... A wing twice as thick might generate twice the drag, but only 1.5 times the lift, to use arbitrary numbers...) Even in stock aerodynamics, thicker wings have some advantage- since the stock aerodyamics model uses mass as a multiplier on wing lift (it in no way actually calculates the cross-sectional area of wings, and "lift rating" is actually a coefficient that mass is multiplied by) and thicker wings generally have higher mass than thinner wings of comparable size/shape, both in B9 Aerospace and Procedural Dynamics... It would be a shame to see stock aerodynamics actually have a realism ADVANTAGE over FAR on something so simple as wing thickness as it relates to lift potential... Regards, Northstar

@Ferram I was just wondering a little about how FAR calculates lift in relation to wing size/shape. Namely, I was curious if FAR accurately accounted for the fact that thicker wings generate more lift, though at the expense of lift/drag ratio. I'm sure you're already familiar with this, but for anyone else reading this, there's a mod called Procedural Dynamics that lets you design custom wings. One of the things you can customize is wing thickness. In stock aerodynamics, lift seems to just be proportional to mass (the way drag is), so thicker Procedural Dynamics wings only generate more lift because of their higher mass. But in a realistic aerodynamics system like FAR, my expectations are a little higher, of course. In real life, thicker wings generate more lift because they part more air, and thus are able to move greater volumes of air above/below the wing in differing pressure-ratios (using the model of lift where lift is due to differences in pressure above/below the wing) Of course, this is mainly of use in subsonic flight- since lift/drag ratio, rather than raw lift potential, becomes the dominant factor in supersonic flight. However in subsonic flight, thicker-winged aircraft tend to be able to lift much heavier payloads and fly at much slower speeds than those with thinner wings, due to their superior lift. I was wondering how well this was simulated in FAR (if at all). This is because I would like to build some large-winged subsonic propeller-aircraft for exploration around Kerbin using Procedural Dynamics, and I should be able to attain a higher altitude ceiling and lower liftoff speed (due to lower wing-load) for the same craft (if FAR does this part of the aerodynamics right) if I build the same craft with thicker wings of otherwise the same dimensions... By the way, there's also some stuff that goes on with root-to-tip thickness ratio that I don't fully understand: basically, aircraft with wings that taper more towards the tip have superior performance to those with wings that are relatively flat in terms of thickness. But I'll leave this to somebody with more experience with aerodynamic modeling like you to figure out, if you haven't already incorporated it into FAR... Regards, Northstar

After a quick bit of Launchpad !SCIENCE! I prepped the ground crew, hauled my Rescue Rocket out to the Launchpad, and... We have liftoff! I opted for a kind of oddly (and inefficiently) designed rocket for this mission so that I could rake in some !SCIENCE! for testing the TT-70 decoupler and BACC SRB "in flight over Kerbin"... Soon, my mission was well underway, and I was raking in even more !SCIENCE! And not long after, I had the poor Kerbal safe and sound aboard my rocket. Once again, after less than 6 hours in orbit (the estimated life support capacity of a real-world space suit when a stranded astronaut conserves Oxygen by moving very little...) I've been focusing quite a bit on the aerodynamic Science nodes, as some of you may have noticed- but I'm not sure that's going to pay off very well without mods. I forgot just how lousy the stock Spaceplane parts were- there's not even being a good way to attach more than two engines to the back of a spaceplane without making use of weak SurfaceAttach nodes (which have a great chance of failing under the aerodynamic loads of FAR) to attach three fuselages in a row... As such, I'll probably be throwing in some aerospace mods soon enough... My first choice would probably be Firespitter- as it's already in a preliminary 0.24 version, and the propellers should help enormously for low-speed fuel-efficient exploration of Kerbin's surface. I've also been eying TV's Aerospace and Pizza, Procedural Dynamics for its FAR-compatibility (which should let me design good supersonic wings- the stock wings all being terribly shaped for supersonic speeds...) And, of course, B9 Aerospace once it's updated for this 0.24... These mods should also be useful for attempting the Flying Duna challenge again in the future- though this time without all the clutter of a million other mission efforts going on at the same time (if I'm going to use the plane to support a Duna base, I'll have that base set up BEFORE I leave Kerbin. If I make it a one-off mission, I won't launch anything else until the mission is complete...) In short, I don't expect the stock+FAR+MechJeb state of my game to persist for long. But in the meantime, it's giving me good practice designing lean missions (from a budgetary perspective). I can't overemphasize enough how much more cost-effective Solid Rocket Boosters are than LFO rockets for non-reusable applications, for instance. Regards, Northstar

This made me crack up a little. But as pointed out, it's an awful lot of effort just to defraud the Kerbal Kongress (or whatever you want to call the legislating body of Kerbin) for a little money... And as your Reputation declines, the contracts you get offered become more and more meaningless and low-value... Regards, Northstar

OK, so your score is: +20 points for "Don't try this at home kids" +17 points for max altitude on Laythe +10 points for >3 km precision +6 points for 2 Kerbals = 53 points (tying your previous score, but with a cool Distinction) By the way, that was a really cool video. Could I have permission to use the video as the demonstration for how to complete the challenge? Imgur emptied all my earlier Albums when I choose to "Hide" the images (I wish it had warned me it would mess up my albums beforehand)- so I need a new demonstration of the concept, and my current save is in 0.24 Career Mode- which means I don't have KAS installed yet as last I checked it hadn't been updated/balanced for 0.24 (I would also prefer if I waited until Firespitter or KSP Interstellar were updated as well- as to save money I would probably use an electric propeller or thermal turbojet plane for the paradrop) Regards, Northstar

After some runway science tests with a jet fighter that, while impressive-looking, didn't actually lead to anything- as I determined planes were far too expensive and risky of a way to meet my current goals... I proceeded on to a ballistic launch of a jet engine into the bay near KSC for a contract to perform a splashdown test of a jet engine: [imgur][/imgur] Simple and cheap enough- and as you can see in the last image, I made a hefty profit from it (the reward was 1500, the cost after recovery was only 107.99) And... We have another Kerbal trapped in orbit to go and rescue. Hmmmm, I wonder if he wouldn't mind my taking a little detour to go orbit the Mun (and return) after rescuing him... By the way, these rescue missions are GREATLY aided by having the radial attachable MechJeb unit, which counts as a command module- so that I don't have to do the completely unrealistic looking stack-two-Mk1-command-pods thing in order to rescue stranded Kerbals at this point in the tech tree. I don't mind it- it's perfectly realistic to think that if my Kerbals could build a Stayputnik they could build a radially-attachable unmanned control unit as well (in fact, I'm pretty sure the historical Sputnik launches weren't controlled by the command systems in the satellite itself, but by control systems elsewhere on the rocket...) Regards, Northstar P.S. There's an even cheaper rescue solution than launching an empty capsule for those players running KAS, but not Deadly Re-Entry: launch a stock radial parachute to the stranded Kerbal. The rocket need only have enough Delta-V to reach him: the Kerbal can detach the parachute and hold it on his back using KAS, and use his jetpack to de-orbit himself and safely skydive to the ground from orbit... With Deadly Re-Entry, one needs to also send up some sort of useless part as a heat-shield, a ladder for the Kerbal to grab onto the "safe" side, and a couple Seperatrons to de-orbit the whole package.

Where do you see that? Because in real life thickness, and root-to-tip thickness ratio both affect the aerodynamic properties of a wing... I was of the understanding that this mod actually used some FAR-like math to internally determine the properties of wings and control surfaces based on size/shape (in fact, I believe the dev even said it somewhere). For instance, larger wings produce relatively more lift for their mass. If so, then anything that causes asymmetry on control surface thickness causes asymmetry in control surface lift/drag characteristics. There may have been some collision issues going on with the rest of the wing- as the control surface was clipping into it due to its improper thickness (like in the image below). But there was definitely something going on with control actuation as well- when I disabled the glitched control surfaces, my planes were capable of flying with just SAS and non-procedural control surfaces elsewhere- but when I activated those control surfaces, I would get unexplained yaw/roll that I could only reasonably attribute to the asymmetry of the control surfaces... Now what about the balance of this mod with Budgets in 0.24? Nobody's answered my inquiry about that yet... Regards, Northstar P.S. Please look at the picture from the post I quote (note this is NOT my own plane- and I didn't have FAR installed then), to make sure you know exactly what I am talking about: the control surface asymmetry on the forward wings...

AWESOME. Sorry about the slow reaction time on this. I'll add you to the Scoreboard shortly. Regards, Northstar

You made it this far! Time to witness my Kerbals' first Munar flyby (OK, I know I didn't keep you guys waiting very long- but I had some backlog on my posts due to the forum being down on my ISP for a brief while last night...) The launch stage was essentially a clone of the one from the previous mission, but with the 3 BACC SRB's clustered under a tri-coupler instead of individual nose-cones to save on cost. This actually increased vessel mass a tiny bit, but reduced drag (thanks to the rocket having a better ballistic coefficient, and FAR being a lovely realistic darling of an aerodynamics system), so it made it to more or less the same altitude as before. The rocket was also cheaper (even with the addition of tail fins)- which was my main consideration for the new design The rocket then embarked on a Free Return Trajectory to a low orbit around the Mun (which was planned from the start- hence why I burned *downwards* during circularization- I needed my apoapsis to be between 120 and 150 km to have a good shot at this). If you're not sure what that is, watch and learn... So, after the transfer burn, all I had to do was sit back and wait (hence why its a "free" return- no return burn necessary). Oh, and collect some Science in Munar orbit (I was hoping 195 km was low enough for "low orbit" data, so I could rack up some biome EVA reports, but apparently not- next time I'll have to check the SOI figures for "low orbit" on the Mun) And then coast on back to Kerbin... This rocket is STILL over-engineered for the purpose at hand, though- even with the heavy reliance on cheap disposable SRB's (with their low ISP). In fact, the rocket even has enough fuel to capture into Munar orbit (perhaps even a polar orbit) and return... Before any great endeavor comes !SCIENCE! though, and I felt it appropriate at this point to perform a little launchpad-testing on my newest science systems so that my Kerbals can develop a basic understanding of Aerodynamics. My next mission won't be to Munar orbit *just yet*- it'll be a bit of experimentation with flying planes around in FAR (should be FUN, especially with such a limited selection of parts) and knocking out a few of the contracts I currently have assigned (including one requiring me to test a splashed-down jet engine) so that I'll hopefully be offered some contracts more relevant to a Munar mission... Regards, Northstar

Apparently, my space program isn't the only one in operation. Somehow, Jergun Kerman managed to end up alone in orbit of Kerbin- which can only mean there must be other rocketry programs out there... Time for a rescue mission. All went smoothly, and I also managed to rack up some !SCIENCE! The rocket touched back down with plenty of spare fuel... But that's fine- because it's a rough test of some systems (the upper stage, for instance, will be re-used exactly the same) for a later mission I have planned... You'll have to read further though to see what it is Jergun Kerman, meanwhile, is busy enjoying a long debriefing from the "comfort of his quarantine cell" according to the game-text... He'll also be a new victi- I mean volunteer for my space program's future missions... Regards, Northstar

I was NOT using FAR back when I got the control surface bug in 0.23.5 (in version 0.7, as I said, I don't currently have Procedural Dynamics installed in 0.24). I am now- but I don't have Procedural Dynamics installed. It's a LOT MORE than "aesthetically annoying". If the control surfaces aren't mirrored properly, they cause the vessel to move in unexpected directions when activated (they throw off the center of lift/drag, and even slightly skew the Center of Mass). Try it for yourself with control surfaces with a very large change in thickness over their length (to exasperate the effects of the bug) if you don't believe me... Regards, Northstar

Also, any word on THIS bug? I was experiencing that in 0.23.5 as well, and it is clearly a game-breaker for using any of this mod's control surfaces (I also had problems with the wing parameters only adjusting on one side, but that can usually be fixed by removing/re-attaching with symmetry mode). Though I guess I could always just manually delete the files for the control surfaces from the mod folder (it's a sub-optimal solution, but I have no reason to keep a broken part installed and using memory) and stick with stock control surfaces (B9 not yet being updated) for the time being... Regards, Northstar

Any word on how the financial costs of procedural wings parts are adjusted in proportion with wing size/shape/thickness? I would very much like to eventually integrate this into my new career save (I'm trying to go mod-light, but the stock wings are one thing I simply cannot stand), having played with it extensively in 0.23.5, but one obvious concern I can foresee is the mod breaking the financial balance/realism for wing parts... Regards, Northstar

Ummm, if I'm not mistaken, you can simply harvest LiquidWater when splashed down in oceans (such as on Laythe) without electrolyzing it directly into LFO- and LiquidWater can be used in thermal rockets without needing to be further refined. The 2.5 meter Inline Refinery is also capable of reprocessing nuclear fuel without needing Kerbals, like the Science Lab- so there's that utility to it as well. And are you *sure* that the resources are both extracted and refined in the same step for ice/Uranium/Thorium? (keep in mind that Uranium and Thorium are NOT the refined forms of their respective resources) It's been a while since I've done any testing with the refineries, and I don't currently have KSP Interstellar installed (since I updated to 0.24), but I *thought* these resources were harvested in their raw forms (LiquidWater/Uranium/Thorium)- making it possible to extract them on a vessel with a meager power supply (say one powered by a Microwave Receiver only receiving from a single 2.5 meter reactor in orbit of the planet you're on), and then launch them to an orbital refinery with a greater power supply for further processing... (into LFO/UF4/ThF4) If it's not possible now, it might be again in the future- so it might serve as a placeholder... Regards, Northstar

So, you mean to tell me they actually re-scaled their own engine (with corresponding decreases in texture quality over designing it for the large size in the first place) to a less realistic and sensible size, rather than just leaving it at the better size in the first place? That's just sad... I want to see them change it back- not force players to mod configs to do so (which would DQ the part from many challenges) By the way, it's NOT just a matter of aesthetics- if you're running FAR (like I am), then the larger size actually causes it to generate more drag- making it strictly inferior to the 24-77. Regards, Northstar

They *DID* perform simulations before those launches though. And they weren't all tests. Of course, if you think MechJeb is cheating, per your signature (*chuckle*- silly gamer, we've been launching rockets on autopilot since the first Russian rockets- which people actually criticized for requiring "too little pilot interaction"), I can't imagine what you think of the revert button. Or even simulations... Regards, Northstar EDIT: Seems I quoted the wrong post. Fixed.

No, not exactly (puts on wise-ass hat)- a slightly *re-named* revert button. That you have to select to enable before you even leave the VAB/SPH (so reverting would no longer be enabled unless you selected "simulation") I actually kind of like the idea though *gasp* Regards, Northstar