Man, I hope the LV-N heating doesn't get nerfed...

[Mister Dilsby]

I'm using Stock Fuel Switch, the tanks are entirely LiquidFuel.

Really hope we get a good set of stock LF-only tanks in the next release, or soon-ish. It seems an oversight to have a stock rocket engine but no tanks that match it other than the ones meant for jet fuel. I know I can use mods to change that. In fact I've modded some parts in the Mk2 family from LFO to LF-only myself, but I still feel like a dirty cheater for doing so.

[Guest]

In fact I've modded some parts in the Mk2 family from LFO to LF-only myself, but I still feel like a dirty cheater for doing so.

I wouldn't. We've already got proportional LF-only tanks in KSP (they just make your spaceship look like an airliner) and it's not like LF is LHyd or anything else with boil-off to worry about; it's basically Aerozine 50.

[Red Iron Crown]

(they just make your spaceship look like an airliner)

Pfft, just put stuff together a little differently and don't be afraid of a bit of clipping:

[Mister Dilsby]

Pfft, just put stuff together a little differently and don't be afraid of a bit of clipping:

First modding, now clipping? Aahhh! *clutches pearls*

[Red Iron Crown]

First modding, now clipping? Aahhh! *clutches pearls*

The same look can be achieved with no clipping at all, there would just be a thicker black band between the tanks (and it wouldn't fit in a 3.75m fairing). I rationalize it by thinking the fuel tank section of a Mk2 tank being the cylinder in the center.

[waterlubber]

The heating is manageable. I would prefer if it had a m higher heat tolerance, but got other parts hot >

[Brotoro]

The heating is goofy. I've had my whole ship (engines, structure, propellant tanks and the propellants inside the tanks, capsules containing kerbals) at well over 1500 Kelvin from soaking up the heat from goofy NERV engines. Do you think the propellant tanks wouldn't explode? Do you think kerbals wouldn't bake in their capsules-turned-to-ovens? It just massively goofy.

[Guest]

It's not goofy if you build the craft to avoid it. I mean, sure, if you put a hab module on top of the nuclear engine you're going to EZ Bake Kerbals, but otherwise it's just like managing an actual high-heat engine. Maybe try building like those proposal craft.

[Brotoro]

No. Expecting your propellants to soak up heat until you have your "Aerozine" at 1500 Kelvin in a rocket propellant tank is goofy.

[Guest]

No. Expecting your propellants to soak up heat until you have your "Aerozine" at 1500 Kelvin in a rocket propellant tank is goofy.

Well, since I don't have liquid hydrogen tanks, the Aerozine will have to do. Or any other large thermal mass with a few radiators.

[Brotoro]

You'd run into the same problem even if you DID have liquid hydrogen tanks. If you try soaking up heat from your engines and storing it in the thermal mass of the propellant, the propellant will boil and your tank will violently explode.

[Tankman101]

Do you think the propellant tanks wouldn't explode?

They wouldn't, fuel explosions need oxygen and tanks are built for extreme pressures.

[Brotoro]

They wouldn't, fuel explosions need oxygen and tanks are built for extreme pressures.

No. Boiling the propellant in a tank will cause the tank to explode simply from the pressure increase -- you don't need any combustion. Rocket propellant tanks are built for light weight -- they are NOT built to withstand extreme pressures.

[Starwaster]

They wouldn't, fuel explosions need oxygen and tanks are built for extreme pressures.

Sorry but that's wrong on multiple counts

• You don't need oxygen for an explosion. You may be thinking of combustion. (which is also not necessary for an explosion)
  
• The tanks are NOT built for extreme pressures. Example: Apollo 13's exploding oxygen tank was rated for an absolute maximum of 69 atm. Shorting wires ignited their insulation (in the tank) and the resulting pressure from boiling liquid O2 far exceeded the tank's pressure limits.
  
• And that wasn't even the entire tank that heated up to those temperatures. When you see a part being reported at 1500 Kelvin, that's the entire tank AND its contents. Let's take the previously mentioned hypothetical of Aerozine 50 boils at 343.15 K. NTO boils at 294.25 K. So really, the tank would never have even GOT to 1500 K because it would have exploded long before.
  

[Guest]

You'd run into the same problem even if you DID have liquid hydrogen tanks.

If I had liquid hydrogen tanks I'd be worrying about boil-off and not heating because the devs would have put realism first.

[Brotoro]

If I had liquid hydrogen tanks I'd be worrying about boil-off and not heating because the devs would have put realism first.

I don't know what tangent you want to head off on with this...but I prefer to continue talking about the heat mechanic which I think is goofy and you say is not. Because Squad chose the have the NERV produce unphysical LOLHEAT, we have to deal with it. Having to soak the heat up in propellant mass to the point where parts of our ships reach ludicrous temperatures so that inefficient parts can act as radiators should result in tank explosions. The whole thing makes my Physics-sense squirm. All because of a bad decision about NERV heat production.

Yes, I know how to build ships to get around this...I figured that out right after 1.0 came out (and it's easier in 1.0.2). But I find having to do so distasteful.

I know you enjoy it...but it's all a negative for me.

[Guest]

Doesn't matter how goofy the LV-N heat is, arguing for ~realism~ without addressing the elephant in the room is what's goofy IMNSHO.

[Justicier]

Seeing these posts... the only thing that comes to my mind is that I so do not envy SQUAD having to balance the new aero and heating system in a way that will please everyone.

[Tankman101]

Sorry but that's wrong on multiple counts

• You don't need oxygen for an explosion. You may be thinking of combustion. (which is also not necessary for an explosion)
  
• The tanks are NOT built for extreme pressures. Example: Apollo 13's exploding oxygen tank was rated for an absolute maximum of 69 atm. Shorting wires ignited their insulation (in the tank) and the resulting pressure from boiling liquid O2 far exceeded the tank's pressure limits.
  
• And that wasn't even the entire tank that heated up to those temperatures. When you see a part being reported at 1500 Kelvin, that's the entire tank AND its contents. Let's take the previously mentioned hypothetical of Aerozine 50 boils at 343.15 K. NTO boils at 294.25 K. So really, the tank would never have even GOT to 1500 K because it would have exploded long before.
  

Yea I derped.

That's what I get for doing forum things while tired.

[FlowerChild]

Sometimes I find it amusing that an unrealistic element that provides an interesting gameplay consideration results in a call to nerf while things like magically strong reaction wheels get overlooked. It's like people only want the easiest of rocket science.

Hear hear. You're onto something there man, that is a key commonality between our ideologies

[Guest]

Seeing these posts... the only thing that comes to my mind is that I so do not envy SQUAD having to balance the new aero and heating system in a way that will please everyone.

They'll do fine. All they really have to do is provide some level of danger to reentry and adjust drag.

As for the rest of the "discussion points", now that 1.0.x has hit and we're in "Release Land" I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that modders will have to correct the major flaws in KSP. Stock KSP has all the realism it really needs and 1.0.3 should hopefully correct the aero drag and reentry heating, and we'll probably see the LV-N heating nerfed which means I'll once again have to turn to modding to make the stock game fun. C'est la vOv

[SciMan]

Personally, I'm fine with the LV-N creating as much heat as Squad wants it to create, whatever that value is.

Here's what I'm not fine with. Part count of ships being forced upwards.

Why? It starts effectively balancing parts by how much extra lag they cause.

With the game's severe performance bottlenecks, balancing can't depend on just the part's "hard stats". It has to take into account how many OTHER parts those hard stats make the player add to the ship.

Examples of where I think the game could reduce part counts of ships, therefore making the processing demands of the game less, without making it any less difficult to actually design and fly rockets:

- ISRU converter should have a drill attached that comes out the side (converter mass increases to account for added drill). Ore tanks stay separate, drill is still available separately as well. Why would you ever truck ore around when ore tanks have exactly the same (or worse) mass ratio as fuel tanks, unless you are sending ore somewhere for a contract.

Reduction: minimum 2 parts saved on a basic mining ship (needs minimum 2 drills for radial symmetry).

- LV-N could do with a model update, adding some radiator panels that can be extended to reduce (NOT eliminate) the heating problem. LV-N mass stays the same because the mass nerf is part of the changes intended to stop the "In space? Use LV-N" overly simplistic design choice process. It would still eventually overheat if run continuously, even with the radiators extended, but that would take 15-20 minutes. With the radiators retracted, it would act EXACTLY as it does now.

Reduction: minimum 3 parts saved per LV-N

- Heat shield parts integrate decoupler on bottom node. Should be pretty easy to understand. When do you NOT use a decoupler under your heat-shields? Ok, something something LV-N heat something, but the example directly above this one already takes care of that.

Reduction: Minimum one part saved per heat-shield

- Fairing bases integrate decoupler on top node. Similar to previous example, fairings are almost always part of the core or upper stages of a launch vehicle, and if the decoupler is not needed, don't use it.

Additionally, this helps prevent #lolsokerbal noodle rockets that happen when multiple short parts are stacked.

Reduction: Minimum one part saved per fairing base.

- Hydraulic detachment manifold incorporates integrated separation rockets. Idea blatantly stolen from the SpaceY heavy lifters pack. Gets rid of larger boosters (really the only place appropriate to use an 0.4t decoupler) without usually having to put sepratrons on them.

Reduction: Minimum 2 parts per side booster assembly.

And for those of you saying "use the openGL or D3D11 command line force tags", I'll say this:

Why should I have to? Shouldn't the game run at an acceptable framerate without the user needing to muck around with command line options?

This isn't the 1980's when you had to tell the game what IRQ the sound card was on, after all!

[lajoswinkler]

Let the engine create lots of heat, but then add radiators.

[Guest]

Here's what I'm not fine with. Part count of ships being forced upwards.

Totally. That's why I support joint strengthening and procedural parts. On the depicted craft I could eliminate eight parts with procedural fuel tanks (there are also like, six struts I could eliminate that I put in for aesthetic reasons) and the launcher could have eliminated another eight.

[Deddly]

Brotoro, what if you ignore the temperature reading of 1500k on the fuel tanks/command pods etc and pretend it's a much lower number? You've used your imagination for the sake of realism before, like when you built heat shields to protect the exposed tyres of your BirdDog rovers on Laythe, and when you planned your landing trajectories to minimise reentry heating - all of this before reentry heating was even confirmed for the game.

On another note, this thread is a wonderful example of how to put your argument forward in a way that doesn't make anyone else upset or angry. Great job to all involved and rep to you all from the Positive Forum Movement!