What is the liquid fuel and oxidizer in KSP? And is it cryogenic?

[thadisjones]

Well, the key thing to remember for me is that the Kerbiverse doesn't follow the same physical rules as our world, such as Kerbol being a physically impossible star under our physics. So it's almost certain that chemistry is different as well. Maybe light kelements are stable with half the neutrons as ours, resulting in a denser electron probability cloud, tighter/closer atomic bonds- therefore allowing a denser level of energy storage in stable molecules than would be allowable in our rocket chemistry.

I would very much not like to force Fuel to conform to the real-world physics of any particular compound, since they all have horrific disadvantages in particular areas and then you've have to mod that into the game as well, and then you're not launching rockets, you're agonizing endlessly over different fuels and oxidizers and calculating reaction products and performance and where I come from that is called CHEMISTRY which is WORK.

[Bill Phil]

The RS-68 has a visible exhaust...

[r4pt0r]

Well, the key thing to remember for me is that the Kerbiverse doesn't follow the same physical rules as our world, such as Kerbol being a physically impossible star under our physics. So it's almost certain that chemistry is different as well. Maybe light kelements are stable with half the neutrons as ours, resulting in a denser electron probability cloud, tighter/closer atomic bonds- therefore allowing a denser level of energy storage in stable molecules than would be allowable in our rocket chemistry.

I would very much not like to force Fuel to conform to the real-world physics of any particular compound, since they all have horrific disadvantages in particular areas and then you've have to mod that into the game as well, and then you're not launching rockets, you're agonizing endlessly over different fuels and oxidizers and calculating reaction products and performance and where I come from that is called CHEMISTRY which is WORK.

precisely my view. I play the game for fun, not to do math or chemistry. keep it reasonably simple.

[zxczxczbfg]

Clearly, all the rockets run on Kerbosene.

[Brotoro]

Well, the key thing to remember for me is that the Kerbiverse doesn't follow the same physical rules as our world, such as Kerbol being a physically impossible star under our physics. So it's almost certain that chemistry is different as well. Maybe light kelements are stable with half the neutrons as ours, resulting in a denser electron probability cloud, tighter/closer atomic bonds- therefore allowing a denser level of energy storage in stable molecules than would be allowable in our rocket chemistry.

I would very much not like to force Fuel to conform to the real-world physics of any particular compound, since they all have horrific disadvantages in particular areas and then you've have to mod that into the game as well, and then you're not launching rockets, you're agonizing endlessly over different fuels and oxidizers and calculating reaction products and performance and where I come from that is called CHEMISTRY which is WORK.

All you need is a very dense state of matter (perhaps made with heavier quarks in its baryons that are stable in the KSP universe) that resides in the cores of the celestial bodies to increase their average densities to what is observed in the game. Then the exteriors can be normal matter (which matches the observed masses and sizes of the parts in the game). The dense matter in the center of Kerbol would increase the density and pressure there allowing thermonuclear fusion to occur in a star of that small mass.

precisely my view. I play the game for fun, not to do math or chemistry. keep it reasonably simple.

Nobody is asking you to do any math (although you might want to use some thrust-to-weight ratios and delta-V numbers to make more efficient rockets...but it's not REQUIRED). I'm sure there are volunteers who would provide Squad with any numbers they need about fuel mixes to take into account when they do their Great Rebalancing to fit in the new aerodynamics, etc....and you can just go on flying ships ...there would be no need to be unhappy just because the numbers would then make more physical sense, because it won't make a difference to how you play.

[NecroBones]

Personally I don't mind having completely fictitious/magical fuels for the sake of simplicity and/or gameplay. But in my mind, it's at best only an approximation of certain aspects of both RP-1 and liquid hydrogen systems.

KSP fuel tanks have a mass ratio closer to real world hydrogen rockets than to kerosene based rocket stages (for instance, the first stage of the Saturn V was 95% fuel/propellant by mass, and that includes the engines), and that's just looking at the KSP tanks without including engine mass, which is quite high. Additionally, the ISP of most of the stock engines is quite a bit lower than most real world hydrogen engines, and yet well above the sea level ISP of many RP-1 engines (such as the 263s at sea level for the Saturn V F-1 engines).

Just some observations, for what it's worth.

[TeeGee]

OK I agree but the properties of the fuel we have IN LORE are still unclear... is it stored cryogenically or at room temp? How does it work? How do kerbals ignite it? How is it processed?

I don't care if it's based on real life or not, I just want an in game/ in lore explanation for the properties of the LF and oxidizer in KSP.

[TinfoilChef]

I find some of the fuel choices in Real Fuels greatly enhance gameplay. Some, but not all. And you can still play the game using a single fuel-oxidizer combo if you want, with the stats making more sense.

I figure the stock game uses some version of RP-1 and LOX. The fuel tanks are so heavy because they have unobtainium-derived insulation technologies, so good that they appear magical to us poor ignorant earthlings. And the engines' ignition systems came from an offshoot research branch from that same unobtainium project.

I've seen Scott Manley make the same assumption in a number of his videos, that "liquid fuel" is most likely Kerosene RP-1.

As for things like Real Fuels, I once played with it off camera and found that I don't know near enough about the various fuel /oxidizer types to be able to make intelligent choices about what to use. I ended up dropping it because I didn't have the time to devote to learning enough about it.

[Bill Phil]

Personally I don't mind having completely fictitious/magical fuels for the sake of simplicity and/or gameplay. But in my mind, it's at best only an approximation of certain aspects of both RP-1 and liquid hydrogen systems.

KSP fuel tanks have a mass ratio closer to real world hydrogen rockets than to kerosene based rocket stages (for instance, the first stage of the Saturn V was 95% fuel/propellant by mass, and that includes the engines), and that's just looking at the KSP tanks without including engine mass, which is quite high. Additionally, the ISP of most of the stock engines is quite a bit lower than most real world hydrogen engines, and yet well above the sea level ISP of many RP-1 engines (such as the 263s at sea level for the Saturn V F-1 engines).

Just some observations, for what it's worth.

If say it's Methane of some other simple hydrocarbon.

[Eilifein]

@ OP:

I wouldn't want to sound harsh or be misunderstood, but. Frankly, the game has so many "weak" spots, including the "lore" you speak about. However, if you go through the "Confirmed updates for 1.0", would you rate "lore" above ANY of the ones written there? TL;DR lore is really down the essential updates at the moment.

[Alizerin]

I always assumed Kerbals did use real fuels analogous to what we have in our world, and they just "do the math" to make the ships, fuel tanks, engines, etc. work how we see them work in-game.

[SlabGizor117]

I would love to have some silly Kerbal style names for LF/Ox like Explodium. SQUAD has done an amazing job with the style of KSP and I love what they've done with female kerbals for example. Like some people say, you can't apply chemistry to KSP. Rocket science is too much for these poor kerbals already. Specifically though, I don't know if, instead of LF/Ox in the resources tab, it should be called its humorous name, I feel like that would be shoving stupidity down the throat of some people who may not appreciate unrealistic things like that. The other extreme though, would be having Wehrner(Sp?) Von Kerman say in the tutorials, we like to call the LF Explodium, Oxidizer *insert funny oxidizer name here*, and RCS fuel maneuverodium. The best would be to find a balance of seeing that often enough to perhaps sway community discussion to call them by that name in the same way people use "Rapid unplanned disassembly", but not to be forced to see it that way ALL THE TIME.

- - - Updated - - -

OK I agree but the properties of the fuel we have IN LORE are still unclear... is it stored cryogenically or at room temp? How does it work? How do kerbals ignite it? How is it processed?

I don't care if it's based on real life or not, I just want an in game/ in lore explanation for the properties of the LF and oxidizer in KSP.

Why must you ask so many frivolous questions? To be honest, most engineers don't even know how it works. Rumor has it that prisoners are used to fill the fuel tanks of toxic fuel with 5 gallon buckets and that prisoners on death row are selected to walk up to the engine with a match. Fatality rate is 90%, if they don't die from the blast, they jump off the edge of the landing pad and the exhaust coming out the side of the pad chokes them. A dark side of Kerbal Space Program that gives the question the reputation of frivolous for a good reason. It also cuts down on needless equipment such as remote ignition and automatic gantry fueling.

- - - Updated - - -

@ OP:

I wouldn't want to sound harsh or be misunderstood, but. Frankly, the game has so many "weak" spots, including the "lore" you speak about. However, if you go through the "Confirmed updates for 1.0", would you rate "lore" above ANY of the ones written there? TL;DR lore is really down the essential updates at the moment.

Dang it, this is the KSP forum! Get out of here with your redditisms!

Edited February 21, 2015 by SlabGizor117
A word

[jlo96]

regex was just saying it could be a gameplay consideration. Not that it it completely necessary for everyone

- - - Updated - - -

disregard that, I was on the wrong, wrong page