Interplanetary liquid fuel tanks

[cptdavep]

With the LV-N now using liquid fuel only do we now need some more liquid fuel tanks? It looks odd making an interplanetary ship using aircraft parts, and it's a waste of space/mass using normal tanks without the oxygen.

What would be really cool would be if we had a few tanks similar to the orange hydrogen tanks from Near Future Propulsion, the spherical ones in particular are awesome looking for interplanetary craft. While we're at it it would be good to have a 2.5m version of the LV-N too so we can have engines inline rather than attached to the side.

LV-N really is the only engine worth using to go to Moho/Jool/Eeloo, so it would be good to have some more variety in the ships we can build for these trips. It'll be an even bigger deal when squad get round to that second gas giant...

[Vanamonde]

These are necessary, and the sooner the better. The LV-Ns are best used on big ships making long burns, and that means either big fuel tanks, or piles of small ones adding to part count.

[kiros]

it really is so super simple to add them your self, i just copied the rockomax 64 and changed its config file from

    
         RESOURCE    {
        name = LiquidFuel
        amount = 2880
        maxAmount = 2880
    }
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Oxidizer
        amount = 3520
        maxAmount = 3520
    }

to

    
       RESOURCE    {
        name = LiquidFuel
        amount = 5760
        maxAmount = 5760
    }

and you could do this with all the stock fuel tanks

[Sky_walker]

With the LV-N now using liquid fuel only do we now need some more liquid fuel tanks?

Use spaceplane fuel tanks. Or take regular fuel tank and remove oxidizer.

It looks odd making an interplanetary ship using aircraft parts, and it's a waste of space/mass using normal tanks without the oxygen.

It's "waste of space" only because you think it is so. You still get an outstanding amount of thrust out of the fuel tank volume comparing to regular engines.

What would be really cool would be if we had a few tanks similar to the orange hydrogen tanks from Near Future Propulsion, the spherical ones in particular are awesome looking for interplanetary craft. While we're at it it would be good to have a 2.5m version of the LV-N too so we can have engines inline rather than attached to the side.

IMHO - they aren't necessary - in fact LV-Ns have more options than any other type of engine.

And nuclear engines aren't the only option for interplanetary missions, you can make them just fine with regular engines.

LV-N really is the only engine worth using to go to Moho/Jool/Eeloo

No, it's not. It's the easiest and most lazy engine to use for these kind of missions, but certainly not the "only engine worth using".

so it would be good to have some more variety in the ships we can build for these trips

You already have that variety with existing fuel tanks.

[MacroNova]

There's really no reason not to include a couple of additional liquid-fuel only tanks for the LV-N. Players notice right away how silly it is to have to drain the oxidizer from a tank and have no way to refill it with liquid fuel, which means you need to use twice the tanks unless you want to change your design.

It's "waste of space" only because you think it is so. You still get an outstanding amount of thrust out of the fuel tank volume comparing to regular engines.

lol, no it's objectively a waste of space, since you are launching half-full tanks. Just because you think the amount of thrust/dV/efficiency is "outstanding," it doesn't change the facts.

No, it's not. It's the easiest and most lazy engine to use for these kind of missions, but certainly not the "only engine worth using".

Yeah, stay classy.

[POllik]

it really is so super simple to add them your self, i just copied the rockomax 64 and changed its config file from

    
         RESOURCE    {
        name = LiquidFuel
        amount = 2880
        maxAmount = 2880
    }
    RESOURCE
    {
        name = Oxidizer
        amount = 3520
        maxAmount = 3520
    }

to

    
       RESOURCE    {
        name = LiquidFuel
        amount = 5760
        maxAmount = 5760
    }

and you could do this with all the stock fuel tanks

Which config file are we talking about here? And how would it work if, say, you didn't want to convert Rockomax 64 to liquid fuel (which would make a mess of many of my ships, but wanted to create a new Rockomax LV64 instead?

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, please. The game really needs a 2.5m LF tank with non-awful mass ratio now that we have LF-only LV-Ns.

[Feradose]

Which config file are we talking about here? And how would it work if, say, you didn't want to convert Rockomax 64 to liquid fuel (which would make a mess of many of my ships, but wanted to create a new Rockomax LV64 instead?

Make a new folder for it, change name to Rockomax LV64 and voila, your LFO rockomax stays and you have your own Liquid fuel tank with the same model and textures

[Bogeyman]

Sorry to warm up this threat but to me the question is still up to date.

Are there any plans now as to come up with some additional interplanetary tanks for the nuclear motor?

[Vkihyone]

I'm in agreement here with most everyone here, we do need some more liquid fuel only tanks besides just the space plane tanks, if I knew how to make my own mods I would build them myself but I'm not that clever.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

I can only say what I said at the other thread about nukes:

Increasing the thrust of1m nukes could also be a solution. Once their TWR was lowered by increasing their mass and lowering their thrust. The 'worst' was that they started to consume only LF, making NERVA-powered rockets carry more than half-empty fuel tanks (but also making them realistic). Instead of lowering their thrust, I think something should be done like removing gimbal, power generation, and limiting its usage. For example, you can run them for <balanced value here> minutes only, before their reactor core is depleted. After that, you have to recover them. 2m version: a lot less effective than 1m versions, just like with any other engines, but having extras like gimbal and power gen, and longer life?

Having a right-click option for each fuel tank, to carry either LFO, LF, or nothing(structural) would also be nice.

[logan2611]

Here is a solution: Remove the oxidizer in the VAB. Won't get as much as fuel as you would, but it would make it lighter and thus you wouldn't have to haul around useless cargo.

[Wjolcz]

No. We don't need any more tanks. What we need is a tweakable to make them LF only.

[Hagen von Tronje]

No. We don't need any more tanks. What we need is a tweakable to make them LF only.

I like this idea best. Would make a lot more sense not just with NERVAs but with spaceplanes where you might want to tweak liquid/oxy ratios to suit missions without leaving a bunch of empty fuselage space, as well as control where mass is removed from during flight more effectively.

[fireblade274]

I would love to get more fuel tanks and adapters that that are strictly for liquid fuel, you wouldn't have to set oxidizer tanks to 0, and maybe they could be lighter then even setting oxi's to 0

[Kaos]

I would like a inflatable tank, that can only hold fuel in expanded mode, in which it has the best mass/fuel ratio but is extremely fragile then (at most 0.5g, do not even think about atmosphere with this tank). This would be an interplanetary tank. Currently we mostly have planetary stuff that happens to be suitable for space.

[Dante80]

Modular Fuel Tanks allows any supported tank to be filled with exactly how much or how little fuel you want, of whatever type you want (though different tanks may allow or disallow certain fuels; jet fuel tanks won't take oxidizer for instance).

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64117-1-0-4-Modular-Fuel-Tanks-v5-6-0

No need for new parts or stock tweakables.

[Red Iron Crown]

No need for new parts or stock tweakables.

...unless you don't use mods, like many (likely most) players.

[WinkAllKerb'']

yup yup some things have to be stock regarding the "player base" (ages, pgm, casu, younger ones, funny gamers, etc.) ...

... imho too ...

[Wallygator]

With the advent of stock procedural parts (Fairings), there appears to me to be no logical reason why stock tanks would not be completely procedural and tweakable - size, profiles, content, textures, and likely even more... sure, you could allow a paced unlocking of the various procedural methods/limits based on science nodes, ok whatever...

If implemented, players would benefit from reductions in part count, more flexibility in the design process, etc. Arguments in favour of retaining the current lego block stock part methods (AKA the ridiculous high number of specialised tank configurations) make me shudder just like when I recall lessons concerning the luddites.

[Wjolcz]

With the advent of stock procedural parts (Fairings), there appears to me to be no logical reason why stock tanks would not be completely procedural and tweakable - size, profiles, content, textures, and likely even more... sure, you could allow a paced unlocking of the various procedural methods/limits based on science nodes, ok whatever...

If implemented, players would benefit from reductions in part count, more flexibility in the design process, etc. Arguments in favour of retaining the current lego block stock part methods (AKA the ridiculous high number of specialised tank configurations) make me shudder just like when I recall lessons concerning the luddites.

As much as I would love to have more fuel tweakables I hate the idea of parts being procedural. And I know that it would allow for less parts per vessel, but it wouldn't be the same game anymore.

Call me crazy, but I actually really enjoy the LEGO rockets and toy solar system for ants.

[WinkAllKerb'']

some part could benefit from procedural, not all.

Fuel tank could => shape, max and min lenght (within current limit for exemple); max and min diameter(within current limit for exemple); texture applied related matter, optional procedural integrated module integration like battery and a few other things.

[Laie]

Call me crazy, but I actually really enjoy the LEGO rockets and toy solar system for ants.

"Procedural" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be scalable by the millimeter. It can as well be three distinct diameters and (say) six different heights. And yes, tweakable content would be highly desirable.

[tater]

I'm all for the tweakables, and they can be discrete values for lengths, this doesn't mean that fuel tanks cease to be "lego." Heck, just tweaking the contents, same tanks.

[Red Iron Crown]

Heck, just tweaking the contents, same tanks.

This would be my solution of choice. We have enough variety in tank sizes and shapes, just let us adjust what they hold.