Search the Community

v1.1.0 (10 June 2022) Full Screenshot Gallery Currently the mod adds 12 different engines. You can read about the engines in the Wiki. You will notice that they run on a variety of fuels. These fuels provide advantages and disadvantages compared to stock Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer, having different efficiencies, thrust ranges and storage volumes. You can check out my roadmap of engines that potentially could be added. DOWNLOADS Spacedock Github Wiki Bug Reports Dependencies (included in download, check for latest versions!): ModuleManager (4.1.4) B9PartSwitch (2.17.0) Community Resource Pack (1.4.2) DeployableEngines (1.3.0) Installation: Merge the GameData folder in the release .ZIP with the GameData folder in your KSP installation, by placing the GameData folder in to the 'Kerbal Space Program' folder. All of the dependencies come included with the mod. The "RocketMotorMenagerie" folder, as well all dependencies, should appear alongside the "Squad" folder within 'Kerbal Space Program/GameData'. To install the Extras, place any or all of the subfolders within 'Extras' into 'Kerbal Space Program/GameData'. Recommended Mods: The following mods are strongly recommended for an enhanced gameplay experience: CryoTanks (1.6.0) - This provides a set of patches provide fuel-switching features for the most basic LF/O tanks as well as orbital fuel tanks specially designed to contain cryogenic fuels Waterfall (0.6.3) - A cool way to create and drive engine effects more effectively. If you want cool engine plumes, get this mod. Frequently Asked Questions How are the parts balanced? Parts are balanced against stock KSP parts, which means the launch vehicles might seem overpowered. The parts are best suited for a 2.5x~ system rescale or JNSQ. Will you add feature/part xxx? I certainly accept pull requests. Please target all such things to the dev branch though! Or, you can make a constructive suggestion on the forum thread. Please check the roadmap above before asking. Licensing

Future Technologies Expansion This mod series introduces new futuristic parts that expand the options of the mid-late game techtree. Right now there is one small mod ready and a larger one nearing imminent release. The core principles behind this are: Aesthetics that don't look too out of place next to restock-quality parts Gameplay benefiting from various other mods including CTT and SystemHeat Fitting in and expanding on features and part rosters from other mods, mainly Nertea's outstanding PKMC mod suite which inspired this project Frontier Aeronautics [Version 0.3 - first public release - July 26, 2021] First mod in the series (and currently the only one released) this introduces the J-F755 'Petrel' - a 3.75m bimodal fusion thermal jet. This large engine is best used in late game SSTO designs for use on any atmospheric planet. Pictures and notes: Current Features: Planned Features: Dependencies (required to run): Module Manager CommunityResourcePack Waterfall - to be moved to recommended section soon, currently running the mod without it will lead to NREs) Recommended mods (for full intended gameplay - highly recommended): CommunityTechTree Far Future Technologies Heat Control Download: Available through CKAN SpaceDock: https://spacedock.info/mod/2815/Future Technologies Expansion: Frontier Aeronautics Known Issues: All models and textures are under the All Rights Reserved License; all cfg and dll files are under the MIT License. Metallic Hydrogen Rocketry [WIP, release inbound soon] This second mod in the series introduces a selection of mid-game level engines that use metastable metallic hydrogen to acheive performance similar to nuclear thermal rockets. Most require a mixture of mH and liquid hydrogen and radiators if SystemHeat is installed. Pictures: Planned Features:

I'm annoyed by the lack of aircraft, especially airliner parts and many mods are discontinued or don't have the parts I want. So I will make my own! (Click on the images for full-size) Boeing 737, 727 and 787 View inside the 737 cockpit Taking a look at the 737-800 engine Parts Boeing 737 (Max) inspired Cockpit with detailed IVA Boeing 737-800 Engine Boeing 787 Dreamliner Cockpit with detailed IVA Note that I will probably not add complete airliners, this is supposed to improve your creations with custom-built, specific parts, which drastically improve the visuals of your aircraft! I will add parts as I desire, and do not have any specific roadmap in mind. I'm open to suggestions though. Download coming soon!

Announcing the 0.1.0 alpha release of Simple Procedural Engines. Aerobees too small for you? F-1 slightly too big? Agena more thrust than you need? Then have we got solutions for you! S. P. Engine allows you to create procedural engines from several real-world-inspired families, by setting the thrust and ignition count within the supported range. After tooling a design, you can follow its upgrade path as you unlock further techs, saving many many funds as compared to a brand new design. S. P. Engine is built for use with the Realism Overhaul suite of mods, and in particular has a hard requirement for RealFuels. (That's why I'm releasing for 1.3.1 rather than something more recent; the various Realism mods are still back there.) Currently supported engine families (with mnemonics): A: (Aggregat) Ethanol/LOx booster. B: (Bees) Small aniline/furfuryl/nitric acid sustainer. D: (Delta) Pressure-fed hydrazine/nitric acid upper stage. F: (F-1) Huge kerosene/LOx booster. G: (aGena) Pump-fed hydrazine/nitric acid upper stage. J: (J-2) Large hydrolox upper stage (and later aerospike sustainer). K: Kerosene/LOx booster up to about 1MN thrust. (Like LR79, H-1 and Merlin1.) L: (Lr105) Kerosene/LOx sustainer. Matches nicely with K-class to make Atlas-style stage-and-a-half. M: (M-1) Massive hydrolox upper stage (later also sea-level). Q: Small, throttleable hydrolox upper stage engine. (Like throttling RL10s developed for Lunex.) R: (Rl10) Small hydrolox upper stage engine. S: Small staged-combustion kerosene/LOx upper stage. (Like S1.5400/11D33/RD-58 family.) Several more are planned. Read this far? Download S.P.Engine 0.1.0 and give it a try!

MEV Heavy Industries (MEV) Daedalus, Bussard and Epstein drives for Kerbal Space Program. Daedalus drive requires KSP Interstellar Extended By zer0Kerbal, originally by @Cyne adopted with express permission and brought to you by KerbSimpleCo Preamble by Cyne See more YouTube review by Kottabos Gaming Help Wanted Localization Installation Directions 1 Dependencies Kerbal Space Program 2 Suggests On Demand Fuel Cells (ODFC) GPO (Goo Pumps & Oils') Speed Pump (GPO) Supports Either 3 Module Manager /L Module Manager KSP Interstellar Extended (KSPIE) Interstellar Fuel Switch (Core) or Interstellar Fuel Switch TweakScale (TWK) Tags parts, config red box below is a link to forum post on how to get support Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date Credits and Special Thanks @Cynefor creating this glorious parts addon! see Attribution.md for more comprehensive list Legal Mumbo Jumbo (License provenance) DONATIONS: How to support this and other great mods by zer0Kerbal Connect with me Release Schedule this isn't a mod. ;P↩︎ may work on other versions (YMMV)↩︎ Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date!↩︎

SPARK Technologies is proud to present the latest in electric rocket engines. These Ion engines deliver exceptionally high specific impulse (Isp), with credible (actually measurable) thrust. Just add a wee bit of Xenon (and more EC than you ever thought you'd need) and you'll be off to the races... Sort of... I mean, we'll get you there... Eventually... You weren't in a big hurry, were you? NOTE: This mod aims to be the KSP2 spiritual successor for Nertea's KSP1 Near Future Propulsion mod. No code or meshes are reused from that mod, but the intent here is to fill the same basic need, delivering moderately realistic electric propulsion engines based on real-world designs and theories. The thrust has been "kerbelized", but the Isp, weight, and power consumption are intended to be fairly realistic. Compatibility Tested with Kerbal Space Program 2 v0.2.0 & SpaceWarp 1.8.0 Requires SpaceWarp1.8.0+ Requires Lux's Flames and Ornaments (LFO) 1.0.0+ Requires Patch Manager 0.9.1+ Requires Community Resources 0.2.1+ Optional, but highly recommended: The Nuclear Option 0.3.1+ Optional, but highly recommended: Kesa Solar1.0.9+ Optional, but highly recommended: Lux's OAB Extensions 1.0.0+ Source Code: GitHub Repo SpaceDock: SPARK Technologies Installation Download and extract BepInEx mod loader with SpaceWarp 1.4.0 or later (see link above) into your game folder and run the game, then close it. If you've done this before, you can skip this step. If you've installed the game via Steam, then this is probably here: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program 2. If you complete this step correctly you'll have a BepInEx subfolder in that directory along with the following files (in addition to what was there before): changelog.txt, doorstop_config.ini, winhttp.dll Install Lux's Flames and Ornaments (LFO) 0.9.0 or later (see link above). From the zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\LFO. Install Patch Manager 0.9.1 or later (see link above). From the zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\PatchManager. Install Community Resources 0.2.1 or later (see link above). From the zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\CommunityResources. Download and extract this mod into the game folder. From theSPARK-x.x.x.zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\SPARK. Optional: Download and install The Nuclear Option (see link above). From the zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\TNO. Optional: Download and install Kesa Solar (see link above). From the zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\kesa. Optional: Download and install Lux's OAB Extensions (see link above). From the zip file copy the BepInEx folder on top of your game's install folder. If done correctly, you should have the following folder structure within your KSP2 game folder: ...\Kerbal Space Program 2\BepInEx\plugins\LuxsOABExtensions. Hall Effect Thrusters and Nested Hall Thrusters These engines employ strong magnetic fields to create a Hall Effect current in a stream of Xenon gas, ionizing the gas and propelling the resulting ions out at great speed. They are characterized by an annual ceramic channel with an anode down inside it and a centrally located cathode, which serves to neutralize the plasma exhaust. SPT-100: If you need a really small (tiny! 0.3125m-class) low thrust/high ISP electric engine, then the SPT-100 is the part to pick. Weighing in at a mere 0.075t, it's one of the smallest engines you can find anywhere, yet it delivers a whopping 0.3 kN of thrust with an incredible 2,200s of Isp. X2: What's better than a Hall Effect Thruster? A Nested Hall Thruster! Why settle for just one chamber when you can have two with a modest increase in size, weight, and power consumption? The SPARK X2 packs terrific thrust and high Isp into an Extra Small (0.625m-class) package without needing as much power as a small town just to operate. X3: Seeing what they can do with two nested thrusters, the engineers at SPARK Technologies decided to one-up themselves and go for three! Turns out, this required moving up a size category to Small (1.25m-class), but that didn't stop them. The SPARK X3 delivers high Isp along with nearly 2 kN of thrust! However, it does need a lot of power... X4: The SPARK Technologies X4 is the pinnacle in Small (1.25m-class) Nested Hall Thruster ion engines. Seriously, we just couldn't fit any more nested thrusters into an engine this size. Providing best-in-class thrust (for an ion engine) with superb Isp, the X4 can take you far. Just be sure to bring lots of power because it's notoriously hungry... Gridded Ion Thrusters Gridded ion thrusters employ multiple differently charged grids to ionize a gas and accelerate the resulting ions out at terrific speed. Generally delivering higher Isp than a Hall Effect Thruster, they are characterized by even lower thrust. The stock Ion engine in KSP2 is an example of such an engine. However, recent advances have proven that even more performance is possible, albeit at a terrific cost in terms of power consumption. DS4G-1: Other gridded ion engines may have just two or three grids, but why stop there? The DS4G-1 has four grids, and knows how to use 'em! On the plus side, it delivers best-in-class Isp with superb thrust (for an ion engine). On the minus side, it requires a staggering amount of power... Get it? Minus side? Electrons? Why are you not laughing? Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters use the Lorentz force to accelerate negatively charged ions. Also known as Lorenz Force Accelerators, these engines can run on a variety of different fuels, but work best when fueled with Lithium. They produce very high thrust for an ion engine, however they have less Isp than some other types and consume staggering amounts of power. If you need more thrust, but want it in a high Isp package and you don't mind packing a nuclear reactor along for the ride, then an MPD thruster may be the option for you. Even their low-for-ion-engine Isp is much higher than you'd get from a chemical engine, and their thrust is on part with a small chemical engine. You may be surprised just how handy one of these actually is. MPD-1: The MPD-1 started out as a proof of concept Lorenz Force Accelerator in a Plasma Physics lab where an aspiring graduate assistant noticed that it kept nudging the coffee table to the left whenever Dr. Kasperov Kerman ran his experimental apparatus. How it found its way from there to the SPARK Technologies factory is an ongoing mystery. MPD-2: If you're looking for an ion engine with some serious thrust, then look no further! This little engine produces an impressive 96.4 kN at full throttle only demanding 1000 EC/s (and a trickle of lithium vapor) in return. There are chemical engines this size that produce less thrust! Of course, they don't need a fission power system to run... MPD-3: The MPD-3 is the pinnacle of high-thrust ion engines. Topping the chart at a whopping 242.2 kN of thrust, you'll be going places fast with this engine behind you! You may need as much power as a small metropolis to get there, but hey - that's just the cost of playing! Lithium "Tanks" Made of the finest materials other than lithium, these "tanks" (more like over-engineered cubby boxes) are designed to hold ingots of metallic lithium which they convert on demand to a (caustic) lithium vapor for use in the magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. LT-XS-05: A handy little 'tank' designed to hold ingots of metallic Lithium. It's really more like an over-engineered cubby box than a tank, but it can deliver a caustic vapor suitable for use in magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. The vapor can also be used to rid your house of unwanted pests. LT-XS-10: A slightly larger 'tank' with twice as many lithium ingot cubbies for even more storage versatility. While the doors do look like they might be watertight, it's probably best that you avoid submerging it. LT-XS-20: The LT-XS-20 (AKA Tall Boy) provides even more lithium ingot cubbies for double the capacity over the LT-XS-10. With this much lithium on board, you're fairly sure a small probe could get to the Mun and back, provided it's got an engine suitable for using lithium. LTR-XS-05: A clever radial variant of the popular LT-XS-05, this 'tank' holds ingots of metallic Lithium provided they've been properly rotated by 90 degrees. Does not float. LT-SM-060: Small (1.25m-class) Inline Lithium Tank - 0.6t capacity LT-SM-120: Small (1.25m-class) Inline Lithium Tank - 1.2t capacity. Kinda like two LT-SM-60's joined together, but better. LTR-SM-050: Small (1.25m-class) Radial Lithium Tank - 0.5t capacity LT-MD-470: Medium (2.5m-class) Inline Lithium Tank - 4.7t capacity LT-MD-940: Medium (2.5m-class) Inline Lithium Tank - 9.2t capacity. Kinda like two LT-MD-470's joined together, but better. Argon Tanks Similar to Xenon tanks in most regards, these tanks hold the noble gas Argon at high pressure for use in ion engines designed for consuming argon - of which there are currently none. This begs the question of why you would even need such a thing. A very good question, indeed! AT-XS-05: Cobbled together from spares leftover from a competitor's product, this handy tank will supply argon gas for your ion engine. If filled with Helium it can also be a lot of fun at parties, but your Isp is gonna suffer...

Given the extreme environment of Eve, I’ve always wondered what effect this has on engine performances. The Vector, Dart and Mammoth are often recommended for Eve, but I never really saw any quantitative numbers backing them up. Fortunately, the staging interface in the VAB lets us set the environment to Eve at sea level and it’s only a matter of using math to derive Isp values from the deltaV values. As expected, I found that the Vector, Dart and Mammoth do pretty well while most other engines suck. Interestingly, the Thud also performs pretty okay. The highest Isp values for Eve are: Dart: 267; Vector: 152; Thud: 101; Mammoth-II: 97; Mainsail: 96; Spider: 74. All others are below 50 (except possibly the Rapier; I forgot to test that one). The Isp values translate to the highest thrust values: Mammoth: 1332; Mainsail: 501; Vector: 411; Bottle-Rocket: 230; Clydesdale: 228; Dart: 142; Kickback: 115; Thud: 92. Using Eve’s gravity of 16.68 m/s2 (1.7x Kerbin), the highest TWR values are: Dart: 8.5; Vector: 6.2; Hammer: 5.6; Mammoth-II: 5.3; Mainsail: 5.0; Thud: 3.5; Kickback: 3.3. Optimal launch configuration While the Dart has the highest efficiency and TWR, it lacks absolute thrust and an efficient engine is useless if it can’t get its payload off the ground. Since the delta-V calculation doesn’t account for gravity pulling the rocket down, I find that instead the most useful quantity for a launch is the total change in momentum (or impulse) that an engine can deliver, which is equal to the net upward force integrated over time: J = integral (F - g*(mpayload + mengine+ mfuselage + mfuel - R*t)) dt Here F is the engine thrust, g is the local specific gravity and R is the fuel burn rate in kg/s. We can assume that for most cases mfuselage = 0.125 * mfuel . The total burn time can be calculated from t = mfuel /R. The equation then results in: J = (g/R) * ((F/g - mpayload - mengine)*mfuel - 0.625*mfuel2) By solving for dJ/dmfuel = 0, we can find the amount of fuel for which the maximum impulse is achieved: mfuel = 0.8*(F/g - mpayload - mengine) Interestingly, this means that for every ton of payload, you need to substract 800kg of fuel to keep the impulse maximized. From this, we also get the optimal launch TWR: TWR = 1 + (F/g - mpayload - mengine) / (9*F/g + mpayload + mengine) This means optimal launch TWR is always <1.111, getting lower with increasing payloads and gravity, depending on the engine. By adding the optimal fuel mass to the impulse equation, we find the maximum impulse: Jmax = 0.4*(g/R)*(F/g - mpayload - mengine)2 Since g=16.68 m/s2 for Eve, and F, R and mengine are constant for each engine, the only remaining free variable is mpayload. Engine comparison As you can see, the Mammoth-II can potentially deliver the most impulse by far for any payload. In second place is the Vector for payloads below 12t, but above 12t the Mainsail would be a better second choice. Without any payload, the Dart has almost as much maximum impulse as the Mainsail, but that quickly drops off. However, to get the most out of the Mammoth, you’d need an enormous amount of fuel. Without local production, this would all need to be brought in from Kerbin and you would need to manage to land it on Eve without burning up in the dense atmosphere or smashing too hard into the surface due to the high gravity. So, maybe the best value to look at would instead be the maximum impulse per kg of starting mass. The math becomes a bit more complicated at this point, but the Dart would now become the best choice for payloads below 2.5t. Between 2.5t and 5.3t the best choice would be the Vector and for payloads above that the Mammoth-II brings the most impulse per kg: Now, do keep in mind that these are the values per engine. Given the LG size of the Mammoth-II, you could argue it should actually be compared to 7 SM or 3 MD engines for similar footprints. In that case, the Mammoth becomes completely inferior to 7 Vectors and would only be better than 7 Darts for impractically heavy payloads of over 40t. It would perform about the same as 3 Mainsails or 36 Thuds: 7 Vectors would however require much more fuel for maximum impulse than a single Mammoth. So yet another way is to compare the amounts of engines that need a similar starting mass to achieve their optimal impulses. For very large payloads, that would be the case for either 7 Darts, 3 Vectors or 1 Mammoth-II. For smaller payloads, the 7 Darts would deliver far more momentum, followed by the 3 Vectors: Staging configurations For a final comparison, I considered a payload of about 3t (a command pod, a Terrier, sufficient fuel for a circularization burn and some appendices) and an asparagus staging configuration. Using 7 Dart engines would require 3.6t of fuel for the center engine and 13t of fuel for each of the 3 outer stages (so 6.5t per engine), giving a total of 24,000 kNs of impulse and a starting mass of 58t. Using 3 Vectors would require 14t of fuel for the center engine and 34t of fuel for the outer stage (so 17t per engine), giving a total of 22,500 kNs of impulse and a starting mass of 70t. A single Mammoth-II would require 50t of fuel for a total impulse of 18,300 kNs, with a starting mass of 74t. Again the Dart comes out on top, but I do have to note that I used sea-level values for all stages. Performances of the Vector and the Mammoth would especially improve a lot while gaining altitude, while the Dart would only improve a bit. You could consider using a Vector at the center stage with 6 Darts on the outer stage, but the additional fuel for the Vector would then count as a higher payload for the prior stages. This makes the Darts much less effective and it would only result in a total of 19,300 kNs of impulse, while having a starting mass of 74t. In fact, since the Dart suffers so much from higher payloads, asparagus staging is probably not even the most efficient way to use it. Just using 7 Darts without staging would give us a much larger impulse of 43,200 KNs, for a starting mass of just 55t. Using drop tanks while keeping all the engines would be even better. Of course, this doesn’t account for the effects of drag as a result of the wider rocket and the increased acceleration, so the best results might actually be achieved by an in-between solution. Conclusion Given all these results, I would at least have to conclude that the Mammoth-II and the Mainsail are never good picks, at least not when they have to be brought in from Kerbin. The optimal choice would be to use Darts. For larger payloads the Vector is a viable choice to lower the amount of engines, or when stabilizers aren't enough and you really need thrust vectoring (which the Dart doesn’t have). The only advantage that the Thud brings is that it’s radially attachable, but you would need a lot of them to make them work. This was pretty interesting to work out as preparation towards the Under Pressure mission, but it's all just theoretical. I don't have a lot of actual experience with Eve, so I'm wondering how this all corresponds with your experiences.

Type your favorite engines out of the listed: Nerv Atomic Engine Mammoth Liquid Fuel Engine Rapier Jet Engine Mainsail Engine Vector Engine Clynsdale Solid Fuel Also (hopefully without breaking any rules) please like my thingamajig to improve my credit. ~Cheers

This is my first post here. I was convinced by some friends to post the results of one of my investigations on this forum. It will be partly a question about things I have yet to fully discover, a bit of an explanation of how jet engines work. I will tell this investigation in chronological order explaining each step so if I have an error anywhere in my understanding feel free dear reader to point it out. I started this little investigation because of an unrelated efficiency calculation I wanted to do however it quickly spiraled into a bit of a rabit hole. I wanted to mathematically determine the most efficient jet engines for each flight regime but for this I needed a way to create a function for the thrust multiplier given the flight conditions(pressure and mach). To my understanding at the time the thrust was simply a function of two values those being the mach multiplier and the pressure multiplier. In other words: Thrust = mach_curve x pressure_curve Nice and simple right? The wiki shows these two curves as looking as follows for the whiplash: The data for these two curves are easy enough to find in the game files and look as follows (for the whiplash at least): velCurve { key = 0 1 0 0 key = 0.2 0.98 0 0 key = 0.72 1.716 2.433527 2.433527 key = 1.36 3.2 1.986082 1.986082 key = 2.15 4.9 1.452677 1.452677 key = 3 5.8 0.0005786046 0.0005786046 key = 4.5 3 -4.279616 -4.279616 key = 5.5 0 -0.02420209 0 } atmCurve { // definite 'kink' to the curve at high altitude, compared to flatter BJE curve key = 0 0 0 0 key = 0.045 0.166 4.304647 4.304647 key = 0.16 0.5 0.5779132 0.5779132 key = 0.5 0.6 0.4809403 0.4809403 key = 1 1 1.013946 0 } The way in which this is stored is not entirely obvious but through some googling i figured out it uses a technique called Cubic Hermite spline also known as Cubic Hermite interpolation [source for the curious reader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_Hermite_spline#:~:text=In numerical analysis%2C a cubic,of the corresponding domain interval.]. Each point (represented by a key) is defined by 4 properties which are the x, y coordinates and incoming and outgoing tangents in that order. To do this numerically in the program I was using(aka MATLAB) I had the option to either implement this interpolation from scratch or use one of the preexisting interpolation methods available to me. The functions that MATLAB had available were: spline() pchip() makima() I first decided on spline() and through that I aquired functions that produced the following curves: and: These curves look good but they differ slightly from the ones found in the wiki. This error could be through a number of reasons, it could be that i used the wrong interpolation function, it could be that the wiki is wrong or it could even be that both I and the wiki are wrong. I tried googling for which interpolation the devs used or which interpolation unity would use by default however very predictably this gave no results (Like many things in ksp odds are they implemented a custom interpolation method). Unable to find the answers I needed online i then proceeded to look at the functions themselves available to me. Each giving ever so slightly different behavior. If i am to show the difference in the interpolation method i am going to borrow an example from the online documentation for these functions:[image source: https://se.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/spline.html?searchHighlight=spline&s_tid=srchtitle_support_results_1_spline] As you can see from this image each interpolation method does it ever so slightly differently (though granted makima and spline are almost identical). The pchip() method seems most similar to the one used in the wiki however at this point I was through taking peoples word for it so i decided on a different course of action. To determine which of these methods I should use for my function I decided to conduct a little experiment. I slapped together a tiny test rig which would help me (with the aid of the autopilot mod) determine the properties of such a curve. The vehicle is seen below but there is not much to say about it: This vehicle flew on 100% throttle with infinite fuel turned on to limit the variables. The autopilot mod used was atmospheric autopilot [link: https://spacedock.info/mod/683/AtmosphereAutopilot]. This autopilot held 200m above sea level and flew only in the ocean east of the KSC. It held the speed asigned to it in mach and i confirmed the mach number both with the ingame aero data in the gui setting and through atmospheric autopilot. Then i sat down to record the data I needed. Here is a table (oh and since this whole journey started with efficiency I decided it could not hurt to record the fuel consumption as well). I did a little tweaking to the PID parameters mid flight to ensure zero steady state error and also a fast enough response. Here is the raw data: Raw experimental data Mach Thrust [kN] fuel drain [u/s] 1 292.2 1.372 1.2 297.6 1.487 2 350.2 1.785 2.2 357.2 1.821 2.4 363 1.852 2.6 368.4 1.878 2.8 371.8 1.89 3 375.6 1.915 3.1 375.4 1.914 3.2 374.8 1.910 3.3 374.2 1.908 3.4 372.8 1.901 3.5 371.1 1.89 3.6 368.8 1.88 3.7 365.8 1.865 3.8 362.1 1.846 3.9 357.6 1.823 4 352.0 1.795 I would have sampled higher but this is where my poor slapped together craft reached its maximum velocity and at any rate I had enough data to work with. I took extra readings in the top of that "hump" to check if it is flat or curved. Something else stood out about this though which became all the more apparent when this data was subsiquently graphed: There seems to be quite a bit of thrust missing from this. In other words we have a mystery multiplier at play somewhere in the code. It is less simple than the equation for thrust I stated near the beginning. That said from the smoothness of this curve especially around the mach 3 region i can at the very least conclude that the interpolation method in the wiki is wrong. To Investigate the thrust discrepency further I decided to plot the theoretical data divided by the experimental data and the result looks as follows: The results of this show that our mystery multiplier is nonlinear making life difficult. That said I have tracked down the identity of this multiplier. It can be found in a seemingly unrelated spot in the data for the engine. The parameters section for this engine is as follows: // Jet params atmChangeFlow = True useVelCurve = True useAtmCurve = True flowMultCap = 2.0 machLimit = 2.5 machHeatMult = 6.0 Can you spot it? well it may not necessarily be obvious at first glance but looking back on the raw data it is curious that the fuel flow never goes above the flowMultCap set by the game. That is because this is our culprit. The specific impulse is tied to both thrust and fuel flow rate. The equation for which looks like this: Isp = T * (dm/dt)-1 *g-1 where: T is "thrust" expressed in newtons, dm/dt is the mass flwo rate of the fuel into the engine expressed in kg/s g is the gravitational acceleration at the surface (9.81 m/s2) The equation for Isp Ties the two values together and since the thrust can't rise without an increase in fuel flow rate and the fuel flow rate can't rise due to the limiter the end result is a situatuation where the thrust is effectivly capped at low altitudes. Just to show this equation is accurate i am going to take a random set of values (say, @mach 3 ) and confirm the fuel flow rate from the thrust value and Isp: For the whiplash at this point Isp = 4000 T = 375.6 [kN] = 375600 [N] Rarranging the equation for the specific impulse gives: (dm/dt) = T * Isp-1 *g-1 substituting in the values gives: dm/dt = 375600 / (4000*9.81) => (dm/dt)theoretical = 9.572 [kg/s] To convert this to u/s we need to know the density which can be found on the wiki [https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Liquid_fuel] to be 5kg/unit so: (dm/dt)theoretical = 9.572 [kg/s] / 5 [kg/u] => (dm/dt)theoretical = 1.9144 [u/s] this value is similar to the experimental value: (dm/dt)experimental = 1.9148 [u/s] The discrepency in the last digit can be ignored due to me doing this calculation with values with up to 4 significant figures and the limiting value (g) has 3 significant figures. Thus the experimental and theoretical values can be seen as equal and thus the equation works. When I went in and changed the flowMultCap to a much higher number then the whiplash behaved as expected reaching its full thrust multiplier so it iscertainly the culprit here. When looking at the KSP API [source: https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/ksp/api/class_module_engines.html] the description for this is: This quote does not provide any actual details of how this tapering off multiplier is implemented or how it works in detail. I did a little more digging around this but found no actual answers so this is where this investigation of mine ends for now. For anybody still reading this i thank you for your time. I also shall ask the question I mentioned at the beginning but never actually asked throughout the entire text. Does anybody how this flowMultCap curve is implemented? maybe you have decompiled the code somewhere and you have it handy and can share? maybe you instantly know from the shape of the functions i have presented? maybe you are a dev and have the actual code infront of you? no matter how any answers to this are appriciated and would also appriciate the feedback to any errors you have seen me make during this investigation. Thank you for reading.

Are there any mods that allow you to create custom engines? I Know Juno: New Origins has a custom engine feature, but do any KSP mods let you do that?

Especially during launches and landings, engine plumes should emit nice coloured (and flickering) lights on the (somewhat close) terrain, buildings and even clouds. Examples: Video from Space X (Falcon) Light from plume at 0:05 seconds of the video Light from plume on the drone ship at 8:28 of the video (

Hello there! I'm working at KSP mod that allows a player to upgrade parts. How to increase engine thrust by 15% or set a new value? Same with electricity generator. At the same time, also reduce fuel flow by 10% or set a new value. Here's an example: Basic engine Improved engine Thrust (kN) 200 230 Fuel flow (u/s) 16 14.4 EC generation (u/s) 10 12 Hope this information will be enough. Thanks in advance for your reply!

Behold, the completed Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicles - UpScaled, or NERV-US (thanks for the name suggestions)! This engine's nozzle retracts when the LH2 engine switches to its O2-injecting afterburner mode. Model by Jonathan Cooper.

Ever since we first got footage of KSP2 people have been complaining that the vacuum plumes don’t look realistic enough, and that they are expanding too much. I disagree with this because 1: most of the photo/video evidence that is used to argue this has the rocket in the upper atmosphere, not in vacuum. And 2: there are photos and videos of rockets in a vacuum where the plumes look similar to the ones we see in KSP2. There were some good ones posted by a fellow in the latest dev update: And there is a video from a SpaceX fairing showing an engine plume similar to the ones we see in the game as well: I am by no means an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist so I am open to being corrected if I’m wrong.

Seems to me that methalox engines have one placeholder plume. If you look at it straight on, it's kind of transparent. Anyway, I think the atmospheric plumes from KSP1's waterfall look better for smaller engines. Hope they'll be improved in KSP 2 also.

Space Shuttle Engines (SSE) Space Shuttle Engine (SSE) pack by Klockheed Martian Engine Manufacturer - for Kerbal Space Program. By zer0Kerbal, originally by @dtobi and then by @sarbian adopted with express permission and brought to you by KerbSimpleCo About the pack by @dtobi Parts: eleven (11) engine parts X0, X2 and X3 Space Shuttle Engines X4 Linear Aerospike Engine Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) Engine Double - Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) Engine Shuttle Shoulders attachment point for OMS Two big 2.5m engines. One can rotate (check action groups and context menu) sixteen (16) tank parts Four tank shapes in four different sizes (16 parts in total) six (6) other parts Two fuel controllers for controlling fuel lines' flow Radial mount for shuttle engines Example Craft The example craft are supposed to give you an idea how to setup the engines, fuel controllers, tracks, etc. Atlantis and Endeavor require Procedural Wings and B9 Part Switch. Explorer requires B9 Part Switch. See More See our Parts Catalog for part pictures For more images, see our Marketing Slicks Discussions and news on this mod: See Discussions or KSP Forums Changelog Summary for more details of changes : See ChangeLog Known Issues for more details of feature requests and known issues : See Known Issues GitHub Pages : See Pages See full Imgur Album This is a tutorial series about building and handling your own space shuttle in KSP Help Wanted Localization Installation Directions 1 Dependencies Kerbal Space Program 2 Klockheed Martian Ltd (KM/L) Suggests other addons by Klockheed Martian Ltd (KM/L) Space Shuttle Engines Asteroid Cities (KM/AC) Special Parts Division (KM/SPD) Addons that benefit Space Shuttle Engines (SSE) GPO (Goo Pumps & Oils') Speed Pump (GPO) Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (KJR) On Demand Fuel Cells (ODFC) TweakScale (twk) Supports Procedural Wings B9 Part Switch Either 3 Module Manager Module Manager /L Tags parts, control, graphics red box below is a link to forum post on how to get support Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date Credits and Special Thanks @dtobi for creating this glorious parts addon! @sarbian for picking up where @dtobileft off see Attribution.md for more comprehensive list Legal Mumbo Jumbo (License provenance) Connect with me Track progress: issues here and projects here along with The Short List Release Schedule this isn't a mod. ;P↩︎ may work on other versions (YMMV)↩︎ Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date!↩︎

Is there a mod that adds bigger ion engines and is compatible with 1.12x? Thanks for your replies!

Hi, any ideas how to add/implement animation module that works only when certain condition is met? Like parachute deploy - only in atmosphere, but for engine - animation toggle in gui works when engine is shut down?

Try to get to each moon in the Jool system by using maximum 3 rockets/spaceplanes. Rules: Use all types of engine you have eg. [LFO, Jet, Nuclear, SRB, Ion, Monopropellant OMS, Multimodal] If you have mods that add new types of engines like Cryogenic Engines, use them in your craft. Mods Allowed Gravity Assists, Aerobraking and Aerocapture allowed. Parachutes, Heat Shields and Lander Legs allowed (except any Comfortable Landing Parts) Once done, upload kerbalx craft files with one video to prove that your craft works and must feature up to 3 craft. ~~~~Engines not required~~~~ Reaction Wheel Motorised Wheel Helicopter propeller (KSP Breaking ground expansion) Deep Space Explorer engines (example FFT and MEV Heavy Industries) ~~~~Engine blacklist~~~~ Ultra efficient engines (Isp at least 100k) Warp drives of any kind Even though it is not an engine, AFK harvesters are not allowed. Good Luck!

Hello guys, I've decided to include many realism mods in my current career playthrough and was wondering if any of you knew of any mods that make stock jet engines more realistic (you know, turbofans not magically becoming more efficient above Mach 1...)?

Elephant Engine The Elephant Engine is effectively a 75% "Mammoth". It consists of three "Vectors" in a single 3.75m housing, for when a Mammoth is just overkill. As a side-bonus, mode switching in-flight will allow you to emit a plume of elephants, instead of fire. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Download: SpaceDock -or- ksp.necrobones.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change Log: 0.2 (2015-05-06) - Initial Release. 0.1 (2015-05-06) - Internal Test. Inspiration:

WIP Track here. Issues here. Discussions here. Download prerelease from CurseForge (or use their app). BURGER MOD! Now with RADIALLY-ATTACHED BACON! "Launch it Your Way!" -Frank_G --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Download From: CurseForge.com or SpaceDock --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Manley: Overview by Kyle Kidd: @KyleKidd --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Thread.

I love putting the RE-M3 "Mainsail" Liquid Engine in my rockets, but since it's the heaviest are there any best liquid fuel engines for first stages out there? (no mods please) I use the 'Skipper' Liquid fuel engine for my second stage.

EDIT: I find a way to remove it from non RO section. There is 1 side question below. So I'm trying to add engine and reuse the model from RO Engine but I faced some problems. If there is a guide please link it. So it still show in non RO section it. Here is the engine part cfg file. And here is the engine file . 1 side question How to calculate the fuel needed for a given mixture ratio of the engine ?

Hello, I play Kerbal Space Program with Real Solar System for two weeks now and I always have the same problem: It's really hard to reach the delta-v required to put something in orbit. I never have more than 10 000 m/s of delta v(I know it's enough for an orbit but if I want to send something to the moon or a other planet that's a problem). Did I need something for my engines to fit the mod ? Or did you have any advice to build rockets please ? Thank you for your answers.