Scripto23

Thanks, and yes the flames should be blue, but I don't know of a way to modify the flame color in HotRockets, and my unity modeling skills are not adequate to create my own .mu particle effects. The only currently available effects that are blue are the ones being used for the jet engines and those wouldn't look quite right.

I have a cfg already made up ready for download if you'd like. If you click on the link in my sig and go into the FalconBFR_RaptorEngine folder, download the cfg in there. There's a bunch of other parts in the cfg but you can delete those if you want, the relevant 10m fairing base part should be at the bottom.

Raptor powered Falcon BFR Heavy Falcon Heavy on the left compared to the massive Falcon BFR Heavy Stats: 489tonnes to LEO Gross mass: 9344t Dry mass: 440t (without payload or fairings) Thrust per engine- 4500kN (4711kN for vac version) ISP- 321(SL) 363(vac) ISP vac engine- 380 Sea level TWR: 1.17 2nd stage TWR: 0.50 Total DeltaV ~9450m/s Layout- 9 engines per 10m core; 1 on the upper stage Fuel: methane/LOx 100% fuel crossfeed (not entirely accurate at the moment)

Yeah I remember seeing the figure of ~80% for what the Merlin1D is currently using of its real max thrust. My guess is when they bring out the Falcon Heavy they will at the very least increase the thrust for single vac engine of the second stage. Hopefully by the end of today I can take a look at your config in depth so we can compare and contrast numbers and work together (also hoping to play around with FASA!). Also now that we've cleared up the previous misunderstanding regarding my ability to create realistic and accurate overhaul configs, I would like to share my WIP config for the SpaceX Raptor methalox engine (see the link in my sig for RaptorEngine.cfg, needs the newest version of HotRockets too and KOSMOS for the SuperDraco engine model if you want it). This engine has been announced by SpaceX to power the biggest rocket ever built for their eventual MCT (Mars Colonial Transporter). Using the most recent figures that have been released, it will be a 10m core setup with 9 2.4m engines in the octaweb arrangement, each engine capable of 4500kN with a vac Isp of 363. The single core variant will be able to put ~150t into LEO, and the inevitable tri-core Heavy will be able to put a whopping ~500t into orbit, though with the intended re-usability factored in, these numbers will be significantly lower. The stated goal is to send 100t to Mars, which combined with ISRU (In-Situ Resource Utilization) capability, will allow the MCT to manufacture propellant on Mars for the return trip. I am in the process of creating some ISRU part configs, which can essentially be thought of as a realism overhaul of Kethane. They will use the sabatier reaction combined with reverse water gas shift reaction to take mined martian water and atmospheric CO2, and convert it into methane and LOx. I'll share them as well once they are more polished. Here is the Falcon BFR Heavy compared to a regular Falcon Heavy:

You should look into some of the FAR tutorial to eliminate that as a possible source. Just to make sure your rockets are optimized. Here's one that is good, there's also others floating around at reddit and such places. Try the rocket with a dummy payload and fairings in place of the Dragon too.

Hmm, are you using FAR? The spinning is definitely the superdraco attachment issue I mentioned earlier, but not sure about the gravity turn.

I just want to say I think what you're doing here is great. I loved Nathan FASA rescale and I am really looking forward to using your updated version. Anybody who contributes the "greater good" of adapting mods to RSS is good in my book. As awesome looking as SpaceX's website is, it is just some superficial information in flash format maintained by the PR department. It's not like the engineers are posting that information there for reference. Many of the numbers they have posted there are outdated or are rounded up or down for convenience. Did you notice that the first stage thrust of 6672kN (the number you are using from the SpaceX website) just so happens to be *exactly* 1,500,000 lbf? So despite it being the SpaceX website, it is not a reliable source for exact numbers. Again, this source is by far the most comprehensive I have found in my research (though I have found errors even here). For the Merlin 1D thrust the aforementioned source has it listed as 716kN and wikipedia has it at 720kN with an "[inconsistent] reference". So while maybe not exact down to the kN, my numbers are not 20-30kN off. I'm not trying to convince you to use my pack, you can do what you like. I like it, if you don't that's fine (though it is usually nice to know why, so I can do everything in my power to make it better). But don't say my cfg is not realistic enough for you. I have done my research which why I was offended when you try call me out with incorrect information.

Are you referring to the superdracos engines that attach radially? If so, you need to rotate the dragon 45degrees (shift+Q 9 times) before you attach the engines. Or use RCSbuildaid to help you visualize the torque.

I've stated several times to contact me if somebody disagrees with a value in the config or finds more accurate numbers. And I wasn't "sore" until you said my cfg wasn't "realistic enough" without even citing specific examples. I put a lot work into making certain it was indeed "realistic enough" so for somebody to claim otherwise is insulting, especially when their version has inaccuracies. Where are you getting your burn time from? This source states 180s, mech jeb tells me my first stage burn time is at 182s. Anything else that is not realistic? When I have some time I'll take a closer look at your config, I would still be open to collaboration.

Sounds like you're running out of memory.

If you found something that was inconsistent with a real world value, I would have been happy to look into modifying it. I spent a lot of time making sure every value was as realistic as possible. Other thank EI and RealChutes integrations, what values are you using that you think are more realistic than mine? I only took a quick look through your config so I haven't had a chance to look at everything, but I noticed you didn't even modify the main tank length for instance, it is ~7 meters too short. It probably would have been better to collaborate on a single config rather than having separate ones.

This is great! But I already created a realism overhaul config for the Laztek pack (link in my sig), seems time could have been better spent on overhauling a pack that didn't already have an RO config. I also worry this might cause confusion with two realism overhauls of the same pack out there.

Click on the action group manager tab then click on the tank in question, you can fill it from there. Bonus, when you attach an engine and then fill the tank from the action group manager menu there should be a button at the very bottom (scroll down) that says something like "Configure for ___ engine 35% Fuel 65% Oxidizer"

Two quick questions. 1) Why are cryogenic tanks lighter than non-cryogenic ones? 2) Since cryogenic tanks are lighter, what is to stop someone from using them in place of regular tanks for all fuel loads?

I did the same thing you're trying to do with one of the radiators from NearFuturePropulsion. What you did looks right. This is the important bit: MODULE { name = ModuleHeatPump heatTransfer = 50 heatDissipation = 0.05 RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge rate = 0.5 } }

Excellent, thanks!

Thanks, found it. The relevant values were size = 1.0 1.0 fixedScale = 8.0

Ok. What do you mean by rescript? Is it just a cfg edit or something more complicated?

Is there a way to increase the width of an engine flame? I've managed to increase the length of the flame by setting energy = 1.0 2, but I can't figure out how to increase width. Also is there a way to offset the flame (like the old fxOffset)? I tried searching previous posts in this thread and the question has been asked, but I didn't really find an answer. EDIT: Alright, figured out the offset, but still haven't gotten the flame width yet

That would be cool. You could have an included cfg with a line like "debug = true" which will then display the "destroy" context menu to force failures on certain parts for testing

You are running out of memory. Try lowering in game textures to 1/2, deleting unnecessary parts, downloading texturereplacer, downloading active memory reduction.

You should use something like mechjeb or kerbal engineer to tell you your craft's deltaV, then compare that to one of the deltaV charts available to make sure that your ship's deltaV is equal to or greater than what is required. Laz did express interest in the Falcon 1. He mentioned (in post #310) that he was interested in creating some "historical" crafts one of which was the Falcon 1.

I think that's a good idea, but how could that be implemented? In other words, what will constitute a poor/over designed rocket?

If I remember correctly, wasn't there a problem with the mass of the sun being inaccurate for this calculator in RSS? Or was this incorrect/taken care of?

I don't understand, isn't it already like that? And that's why I was suggesting the failures be tweakable via modulemanager so you could set the severity and type of failure etc.