Deredere

Oh, right on. Thanks. I can probably manage a few spare parts. One thing I'll miss from EPL (which was a nightmare, I'm not super sad it's gone) is being able to make tiny things, like an one-man shuttle pod, or a KIS box with a small part in it, without having to orchestrate a shipyard. Would be cool if things like that could be completed inside the assembly space. I should probably post this in your thread but I'm lazy and stupid. Anyway, thanks.

Did this never happen? Did I just spend 2 hours trying to figure out how to build off-world to no end except "install EPL"?

So, uh, no chance of a change to advanced resource prices to make extraterrestrial manufacture worthwhile? I mean, it was fun building antimatter collection supercomplexes in Jool orbit, but now I might as well just send an matter powered antimatter freighter made of antimatter now.

Any plans to add metallic hydrogen chemical rockets? I feel like if the EM drive works and exotic matter is gamable we can suppose metastability is possible

Okay I realize this is two years old but I really must object to tritium costing - by my math, anyway - 340 times less on Kerbin than on Earth. If you took all the tritium in human nuclear weapons - which wouldn't exist without the demand for those weapons, but whatever - and put it on the market, the price would not come down anywhere remotely close to 340 times. Math: a liter of liquid tritium in Earth prices is 6.4 million dollars. Assuming that 1√,=1000USD, it's $18,800 on Kerbin. This makes producing your own tritium super, completely pointless just because people didn't like not being able to buy their way into a fusion rocket program with money they found under their couch. And antimatter is a hundred thousand USD a gram? What? Even if we sold antimatter at Earth grid electricity prices, it should be 6 million dollars (6000√) a gram. (49929066 KW*h/gram at 12 cents per KW*h). Realistically it should be thousands more than that given its utility in space propulsion and significant cost and inefficiency of manufacture/storage. Please change, I want to make some money and have an actual reason to have antimatter creation infrastructure instead of buying it in infinite quantities from Antihydrogen R Us. I realize I could change this easily in the config but I could also change the Isp of liquid fuel to 7 billion seconds. That would be unrealistic. I think this is realistic, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But please have a thought for people who like realistic economics. I don't begrudge you your realistic physics when my radiator is bigger than my spaceship.

Found the problem, I needed to use the Interstellar scoops, which for some sick reason were set to "no technology required" and thus never showed up.

Why won't this thing produce nitrogen? Or CO2. Or Oxygen. Or anything besides compressed air and He4? After a considerable search of this thread I read somewhere that scoops aren't even necessary anymore, yet it still says "scoop is not deployed". Despite there being a scoop. Which is deployed. Atmosphere extraction is enabled. I was wondering about that.

You are the hero we needed and deserved.

The atmosphere does have a considerable impact on efficiency, but fortunately this is not Kerbal Truck Simulator 2014, and you can leave the atmosphere. Launch thrusts using beamed power are still more than possible, however, especially if you have a ground-based generator.

I haven't played KSPI since .24, but you can overcome the heating problems by using a thermal receiver in conjunction with a generator, powering a plasma engine. Your power input is cut in half by the generator inefficiency, but you need only small radiators for any amount of power and you can simply double the network power to generate nominal thrust. I was rocking a terawatt network, at which point I was getting maximum thrust out of even the large plasma engine using hydrogen reaction mass, even at semi-oblique angles.

A virtual certainty, although be sure to back up your save before attempting to load it, because if you've forgotten a mod - or a mod has discontinued a part that you've used - any ship with the missing parts will be erased from the space-time continuum.

That's... odd. What kind of fuel do you have that's that much denser than water? Liquidfuel should be 20% less dense or so assuming it's kerosene. Or 92% less dense if it's liquid hydrogen.

I think probably 60 at the very least, so two mass-balanced tanks can freeze a Kerbal. Volume wise, that monoprop tank in stock looks to be about bathtub sized, which would be around the 120 liters needed to do one Kerbal; but if you wanted to keep it lower to game-balance, you could pretend it includes bulky heating equipment to keep the Glykerol liquid. Or just scale it like you said. So I'd say 60 or 120.

I'm months late, but what planet do you live on where 100 liters of glycerin is 1.2 tons? It would be 120 kilograms on earth. Which would make your weight a lot more reasonable. But you've probably fixed this months ago. Oh, and this system is awesome. I should say that too.

So I have these extra EPL parts in the beginning of my part list: http://i.imgur.com/9pNeYVH.jpg A lot of them are untextured. The same parts appear later, all textured, in the list. I can't figure out where these are coming from. I've deleted and reinstalled EPL and the whole mod build is fresh. I suspect Active Texture Management might be doing it, since these parts are somehow in front of B9's, but I can't figure how to fix that, if that's even the case, and only EPL is affected.

It's designed with the assumption that all air combat will be BVR, a role that stealth fighters dominate completely. And that assumption works just fine for the USAF, because there will never not be hundreds of F-15s, F-18s, or F-22s in the theatre to screen the F-35s. If I was a country looking to replace my entire air force with F-35s, I might be a little more concerned about the possibility of pursuit or visual range combat. But so far as I know, there is no such country. It's a civil discussion, not a rant.

Single-engine F-16 is the single most reliable and popular modern fighter ever made, and it's still in production. No match for most 4th gen fighters, but you get what you pay for. You can get three block 60 F-16s for the price of one F-35 or Eurofighter. Another? I'm sorry I missed the first.

I'm not going to point-by-point debate the abilities of the F-35; nobody screaming about it on the internet has ever flown one, so it's all nonsense. I'll just say this: The F-35 is predicted to put every other western fighter manufacturer out of business. The only countries that haven't already placed orders for it are the ones that either can't afford it or aren't permitted to purchase it. You can repeat all the garbage you want from internet pundits, but the reality seems to be very different. The Su-27 is still for sale. So is the F-15. And the Eurofighter. Yet country after country is lining up to buy F-35s, despite it being the most expensive fighter on the market today. Why is that?

Even pretending your first point isn't completely laughable, the Su-47 and T-50 have one major problem: Russia will never have enough money to get them out of prototyping.

Oh, right, I forgot about air breathing stuff. Muh bad.

Yeah you're making a number of logical but incorrect assumptions. First, that two inline receivers will receive the same power. Whichever receiver has the superior orientation will soak up almost the entirety of the power in your network. The other receiver(s) will only get what the primary receiver cannot due to orientation, which is usually a small fraction of the total and will never be anywhere close enough to equal to give you balanced thrust. Since the thermal receivers can absorb an infinite amount of power, you can't count on saturating one to fill the others either. You can use onboard reactors, but for the most part you will be extremely disappointed in the thrusts provided in comparison to microwave power. Antimatter is an exception but fueling a spaceplane with it on the ground is either a logistical nightmare or a bit cheaty, depending on how you get antimatter. One thing you can consider doing is using plasma rockets. These use megajoules to run and can actually be saturated. The smallest ones I believe use around 3 gigawatts max. You should be able to get 6+ gigawatts from a microwave network easily using either receivers or a thermal receiver paired with a generator. Excess power that one plasma engine cannot handle will be shunted to the other, and as long as you have enough to fill both you won't have asymmetric thrust problems. However, this is finicky. It isn't something you want to try in an atmosphere. One engine has a habit of flaming out before it realizes that there's enough power in the system for both it and its brother, among other such problems. This can easily spin you out in the atmosphere.

Um... no. KSP masses are in tons.kilograms. With KSPI, you can reasonably launch around a thousand tons into low orbit with a powerful microwave network and a plasma thruster running on Xenon. You're talking about 600 times that.

I use all of those, and they work great. I'm also a fan of extraplanetary launchpads. To be honest, TAC life support isn't as interesting as I'd imagined. There really isn't much management involved, it's just extra weight. Put in your oxygen/water/food and let the recyclers do the rest for the next 3 years. One thing KSPI does is obliterate any need to think about energy management; even the smallest basic nuclear reactor will run all sorts of life support, drills, and refineries and never exceed its minimum output. Be aware that Kethane basically nukes any need to use KSPI's ISRU capability.

Man, if you're trying to imply I want to make KSPI easier, you totes didn't read a thing I wrote.

Totally did, somehow!