New scramjet engine, and easy-to-fly RAPIER. Now with mod!!

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Using RAIPER engines is more effective than using ramjets+rockets after 1.0, wich is disturbing:mad:. Setting up and running a space plane with ramjets & rocket engines is a lot harder than using RAIPER engines, but also less efficient. I think it would be more appropriate to enjoy more efficiency from the harder setup, while also giving some need for unlocking RAPIER from the very end of the tech tree. In my view, the difference should be increased between ramjets and the CR-7 RAIPER Engine, so that they will have their advantages over each other. The J-X4 "Whiplash" is an engine that most people like, and modifying it so that combined with rockets, it's stronger than the RAPIER is not appropriate, as it's a lower-tech engine. Instead, I suggest a new, only ramjet/scramjet item, to be a high-tech alternate to the RAPIER, wich should have its new advantages too. Also, crafts with complex engines should be superior. Making those engines more realistic could solve the problem. Here are my ideas:

A scramjet engine is a very simple type of jet engine, that is miserably unefficient and weak at low speeds, but efficient and strong at high speeds. The faster you go, the more thrust and Isp you have. Their performance, determined by your speed, is extreme, as you can reach incredibly high speeds with them, witouth the worry of overheating, while they produce no thrust at low speeds. They can operate at medium speeds, with a poor efficiency. They also consume a lot of fuel. With scramjet engines, you can reach incredible speeds, a vast majority of orbital speed, still in the atmosphere, but they consume much fuel.

On the other hand, RAPIER engines are supposed to be SABRE engines, wich are ramjet-rocket hybrids. In the air-breathing mode, they are mostly different from a single ramjet in complexity, and that it can use the heat to power its pumps. They are not so good ramjets in air-breathing mode, but they are excellent rockets in rocket mode. However, in the game, they function as a super-strong, overpowered ramjet in air-breathing mode, and nearly the worst rocket in rocket mode. Either this should be changed, or add to the diversity of the game, by making it work with a whole new,different mechanism. I think they could be conventional rocket engines in air-breathing mode, relying on intake air. (If you look at it's texture, it has rocket thrusters, but no ramjets.) This would not only make them appropriate, the only VTOL choice, the game diverse, but it would help a lot those starters, who can't drive jet crafts to orbit. Also, they shouldn't stand the extreme conditions at high speeds, meaning that they have limited abilities in the atmosphere, due to the major overheating. Just like in real life. Even with spamming precoolers, you should hardly be able to reach the atmospheric performance of scramjets. On the other hand, RAPIER engines aren't such fuel-waster monsters like scramjets. So with the air-breathing mode of RAIPER engines, you could gain a lot less velocity in the atmosphere, as the faster you go the more heat you will have-->overheating-->lower performance, but you will be more efficient there. The engine itself is quite simple, so that it shouldn't cost 6000. However, precoolers should be more expensive, and should only cool down the air, instead of giving fuel, and plus air from nothing. Precoolers should be more expensive, also because they determine the atmospheric performance of RAPIER engines. The more precoolers you have, the more velocity you can get in the atmosphere. Also, precoolerless RAIPER engines could be used as an effective and cheap air-consuming lower-stage rocket booster, where there are safer conditions. This would also make its name fit it (<...> for Rockets).

Conclusion:

Additional heat of intakes:

• Air intakes apply an additional heat, to the engines.
  
• This heat is caused by the high-speed air.
  
• Higher mach number, more of this special heat.
  
• A lot stronger than heat caused by drag. It's a very strong extra heat, that can easily overheat your engines, if you go with a high mach number.
  
  
• Altough it's a lot of heat, adding precoolers can lower it. Precoolers only decrease this special heat, but more effectively, than radiators.
  
• The more precoolers you have, the higher speeds you can reach, witouth overheating.
  
• Precoolers no longer giving fuel and extra intake air, but lowering this heat of intakes.
  

New scramjet:

• more speed-->more thrust and ISP;
  
  
• Low overheating by intakes, high Max. temperature;
  
  
• High fuel consumption, with the expection of high-speed usage; Tweaking fuel consumption can compensate the increased performance.
  
  
• Ability to reach very very high speeds in the atmosphere (maybe 1400-1700 m/s if properly utilised?);
  
  
• No thrust at low speeds. Tweaking minimal speed can compensate the increased performance.
  
  
• You could gain most of your orbital velocity in the atmosphere, so you will need less LFO, but due to the high fuel consumption, more LF.
  
  
• Reaching a reliably high atmospheric speed needs proper piloting skills for a proper horizontal acceleration, as well as a proper engieneering skill to build a craft that can stand the extreme conditions, and has enough TWR in all phases.
  
  
• If my ideas are implememnted, adjusting the Aeris 4A craft to be an optimal scramjet+rocket combo powered SSTO.
  
  
• Down in the tech tree. An alternate to the RAPIER.
  
• Planes with very complex propulsion (Basic jet+Scramjet+Rocket) are more efficient than RAIPER-powered ones. (But it's also hard to build and pilot them)
  
• Gimbal? Gimbal-less engines are even harder to use. Maybe play with gimbal & power gen for balancing.
  

RAIPERs:

• Rocket-like air breathing mode (you won't gain huge thrusts at high speeds--> Lower thrust at high speeds, higher thrust at low speeds than the current values. Have them nearly identical.)
  
  
• Cheaper engines, more expensive precoolers
  
  
• You can gain less velocity in the atmosphere (maybe 800-1000m/s with 1 precooler and 1300-1500 with 3-4 precooler per engine if properly utilised?) than with ramjets, but you also need less LF for it--> More LFO; less LF
  
  
• Good efficiency in air-breathing mode. Tweaking the efficiency and TWR can compensate the change of performance.
  
• Orbiting is easy, as you only have to ascend, witouth the problematic horizontal acceleration phase. Of course, by spamming precoolers, you can have some of that one too.
  
  
• A stock sample craft. A Mk.2 cargo plane, using the new RAPIERs.
  
  

You would need a lower atmospheric phase for RAIPER-powered planes. Scramjet powered planes have the opportunity of a longer atmospheric phase and horizontal acceleration, wich is known to be hard. In the hands of a skilled pilot, who could perform a better horizontal acceleration, spaceplanes with complex propulsion could be more efficient than the RAIPER powered ones.

For taking-off with scramjets, because you need a minimal speed to operate, you should either assist with SRB-s, or use your rocket engines until you have enough speed, or add Basic Jet Engines. Using them would also solve the problem of mid-speed inefficiency, but on the other hand, that would mean you have to use 3 types of propulsion.

So using complex propulsion should be harder to manage but also more efficient. I made a sample mod, including 2 new engines, based on the suggestion. These are not suggesting final values, just demonstrating how it would work. And that it would work. Giving exact and balanced values should be the job of squad. I balanced my engines with the spaceplane 'foremost'. You can download a package, conaining the 4 types of this plane here. This needs the mod that includes the new engines. You have to download it from here, to try the balanced planes, or for your own testing. If you Don't want to download or test anything, have a look at my results.

My test: The task is to deliver a 3.7 ton Orbital Refreshing Point onto an orbit above 80.000 m, using variants of the plane Foremost. Each plane has the same ammout of fuel in them, that I measure in tanks (Mk.2 short fuselages). Each tank has the sam ammout of fuel in them, and the long adapter has the fuel of 2 tanks in it. There's no fuel in the small rocket fuel tanks at the engines, I just used them as radial attachment points. Each plane has the fuel of 5 tanks in them. I'll analyse the 3 main phases of orbiting: 1:Ascending to 10.000m wih the jet engines; 2:Using the jet engines to get as much speed as possible, while still in the upper atmosphere; 3: Orbit with the rocket mode.

Type 1: regular ramjets, and an aerospike rocket.

This is a basic plane, with 2 regular 'Whiplash' engines in it. It has 1 tank of jet fuel, and 4 tanks of rocket fuel in it. (Totally: 1120 LF and 880 Oxidizer)

Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m.

Regular take-off, and ascending. No issues. Because I have good TWR, and really large wings, I can ascend in a steep, 35° angle. 141 units of liquid fuel was consumed, as jet fuel.

Phase2: Horizontal acceleration.

I level off and start to gain speed, to gain even more thrust, and get as much speed as possible, before I flame-out due to the high atmospheric curves. (low thrust). At flame-out, I have a speed of 1200m/s, at an altitude of 22.800m, and with my apoapsis at 25.700m. 248 units of LF was consumed during the process.

Phase3: Rocket mode.

This flight was a close one. I right managed to do it, with 11 units of LF left, as jet fuel, and 9 units of rocket fuel (5 Ox; 4LF)

Type 2: Regular RAPIERs.

This RAPIER plane consumes a bit more jet, and a bit less rocket fuel. I wanted to have a tank with half jet, and half rocket fuel in it. Instead of further modding, I made a tank with half rocket fuel in it, and inserted a new tank with half jet fuel in it. In the end, it has the same ammout of fuel in it. It has 3.5 tanks of rocket fuel, and 1.5 tanks of jet fuel. (Totally: 770 Ox; 1230 LF)

Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m.

Ascending is a bit harder than type1. 174 units of LF was consumed, as jet fuel.

Phase2: Horizontal acceleration.

RAPIERS are much better ramjets than the ramjets. I managed to get 1400m/s with them, at an altitude of 25.800m, and with my apoapsis at 32.300m, while I used up 380 jet fuel. Flame-out due to low thrust.

Phase3: Rocket mode.

As my jet stage was stronger, I had to use up less LFO (rocket fuel) for orbiting. In the end, I had 46 units of jet fel left, and 40 units of rocket fuel left (22 Ox; 18 LF)

Type 3: Scramjets, and an aerospike rocket.

My pure scramjets were meant to be engines for high altitude, high speed flight. When I increased their atmospheric curves, to optimize them at high speeds, they become so powerful, that even by crippling their other stats, they could do the job. As most people will compare them to the Whiplash engines, I decided to leave their atmospheric curves nearly identical, and play with all other stats, such as ISP, thrust, and vel.curves. As thism plane has stronger jet stage, it has more LF, and less LFO. It has 3 tanks of rocket fuel, and 2 tanks of jet fuel. (Totally: 660 Ox; and 1340 LF)

Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m.

As I press space, my engines go boom, as these scramjets can only operate at higher speeds.

So I already have to use my rocket engine, to accelerate the plane to a proper speed. I had less rocket fuel, and I have to use from it, even before leaving the runway.

My scramjets start working (but still, on a limited performance) from 90 m/s. When I reach that speed, they start working, and I can finally turn off my rocket engine.

At these low speeds, my scramjets have a very low performance. That's why I right have to start accelerating after taking off, to gain enough thrust for the ascending.

I still have a low thrust, and I can only ascend in a lower, 25°angle. Not only I have problems with low thrust, my ISP is low too, so I consume much fuel. (I should have low ISP at low speeds, and higher ISP at higher speeds, but I couldn't mod that. Instead, there's lower ISP at lower altitudes, where you mostly fly with lower speeds, and higher ISP at higher altitudes, where you mostly fly with higher speeds) During this ascend, 301 units of LF was consumed as jet fuel, and 163 units of rocket fuel during taking-off. (85 Ox; 78 LF)

Phase2: Horizontal acceleration.

As I start to accelerate, I get so high thrust that I start getting low on intake air, and I have to lower my thrust. After that, I can achieve very high speeds in the atmosphere. At these high speeds, overheating becomes a great problem. As I have no radiators, my plane overheats dangerously, but in the end, nothing explodes. As I have nearly identical atmospheric curves with the Whiplash engine, I can only get even higher by momentum. Engine flame-out due to low thrust, at 32.800m, with the speed of 1619 m/s, and with my apoapsis at 55.500m. 422 units of jet fuel was consumed.

Phase3: Rocket mode.

As I had such a strong atmospheric stage, I need less LFO to finish orbiting. But I had less at the beginning. Anyway, finished orbiting with 79.5 units of jet fuel left, and 165.5 units of rocket fuel left. (91 Ox; 74.5 LF). Of course, it could have been stronger, If I had a Basic Jet Engine stage.

Type 4: My new RAPIERs

One thing to note: I couldn't mod the intakes' heat, so instead, I pretend that my engines are being destroyed at higher mach numbers, and that my precooler only cools the air, allowing me to fly at higher mach numbers. I have 1 precooler per engine, and it's totally disabled and blocked. I pretend that it's abled for me to fly below 3.5 mach. I won't go over that with my jet stage. And because this plane has a lower jet, and stronger rocket stage, I use half-tanks, again, to have 4.5 tanks of rocket fuel, and 0.5 tank of jet fuel. (Totally: 990 Ox, and 1010 LF)

Phase1:Ascending to 10.000m.

These rocket-like jets have a good TWR here, so not only I have a good ISP, I can ascend in that steep angle again, and I can do it with reduced thrust, so I use even less fuel again. 74 LF cunsumed.

Phase2: Horizontal acceleration.

It's a very simple manouver, a lot more simple than the others. I just simply put my plane in a 25-30° angle, and pro-ceed until I flame out. When I am about to exceed 3.5 Mach, I lower my thrust. It's similar to planes before KSP1.0. I can climb to 35.000m, until I flame-out, due to the lack of intake air. I have a speed of 1140m/s there, with my apoapsis at 38.300m. 154 units of LF was consumed, as jet fuel. (I frogot to take screenshot here, so I use the original RAPIER one's) Of course, it could have been stronger, if I used more precoolers, resulting a higher mach limit.

Phase3: Rocket mode.

As I needed less jet fuel, I can have more rocket fuel here. Not only the rocket phase's longer, but the jet phase also works like a rocket. It's friendly for those dozens of people, who excel with rockets, but suck when it comes to planes. And for everyone else, who wants to fly easy spaceplanes. LF left:26 Ox. left:67.6. (frogot screenshot again)

So, new RAPIER planes are easier to fly, but have a little lower performance than scramjet-powered planes. On the other hand, altough scramjet planes are a bit more efficient, they are a lot harder to drive. The REAL difference comes with the upgraded variants. Upgraded ramjet-planes recieve a basic jet engine stage, meaning that they become even more complex and hard to build. Upgraded RAPIER planes recieve additional preccolers, but they become even more costly. So, if you upgrade these to have even more performance, you can either choose complexity and cheaper-ness, or simplicity and higher costs.

Awaiting replies.

Edited August 1, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[Murph]

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed, as there is no pure ramjet in the game. The J-X4 is equivalent to the SR-71's hybrid turbojet+ramjet. It functions as a normal low bypass turbojet with optional afterburner at lower speeds, converting into a high bypass turbojet with the afterburner becoming effectively a ramjet at high speeds. We don't need a pure ramjet, as it would be a horrible engine for most practical purposes, for the same reason that the SR-71 uses a hybrid engine, the need to operate at relatively low speed during takeoff and landing. At mach 3+ supercruise, most of the thrust from the SR-71's J58s comes from the afterburner functioning as a ramjet, and the turbojet relegated to basically just being a pump to keep the active intake alive and contributing very little thrust. I.e. for the last 50 years, it has been very possible to have the best of all worlds, of turbojet, afterburning turbojet, and ramjet, in a single package. It is old, proven, reliable, and relatively simple tech (by today's standards); and that is what the J-X4 is emulating.

Beyond that, I don't see any problem with the RAPIER beating the turbo-ramjet in certain situations. I don't see anything broken here, so I think your complicated attempt at fixing it is not needed.

[clivman]

If they added something between the BJE and the Turbojet this would be okay- they need one anyways.

[pincushionman]

Remember that the RAPIER is further down the tech tree. This is meaningless in Sandbox mode, but in Career and Science, it's a very real step up. There's nothing wrong with an option being objectively better in such a context.

[Guest]

The turbojet should not be a pure ramjet, but I think it should give a bit more thrust than the Rapiers since it's a pure jet engine, without part of the space being taken up by the equipment for LF+O operation. At the moment the peak thrust is a bit lower, so even thouugh efficiency is a bit higher it suffers in comparison to the Rapiers as far as maximizing thrust goes. With turbojets being a bit more powerful, they could afford to lift the extra mass of a separate rocket engine too in SSTOs. Sounds fine, right?

[Kuu Lightwing]

wait, what's the reasoning for RAPIER to have lower thrust? I'm pretty sure that rocket engines don't have low thrust compared to jets, so I don't buy "this is a rocket engine" argument. If I'm not mistaken, SABRE in airbreathing mode would work close to turboramjet since it has an axial flow turbocompressor as well as shock cone compressor.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Updated:the Wiplash engine could remain as a middle-path, and a new ramjet could help hardcore engieneers:wink:

- - - Updated - - -

Updated: if a new pure ramjet was added, it could be a high-tech alternate to the RAIPER.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't mean lower thrust. I mean its thrust shouldn't depend on your speed. It should be (relatively) constant as a normal rocket engine. Currently, it has a thrust of 105 normally, and a thrust of 892 at mach3. It should have something like 180 at sea level and 200 in vacuum. (yeah, that would mean a buff compared to the rocket one) It's enough to look at its stats.

[Whirligig Girl]

Jet Engine mechancis need an overhaul so that the nozzle isn't the only thing producing thrust. Interestingly they changed the CoM to be in front of the actual engine to simulate having an engine machiney bits in the fuselage.

[NathanKell]

Ramjets only produce thrust up to Mach 5.

The RAPIER uses Witchcraft to work past Mach5.

Balancing multimode engines for KSP is hard, because jets have 2x the TWR (or more) of real jets (and even in 1.0.4, about 1.5x the Isp of real jets), but rocket engines have 1/4 to 1/8 the TWR of real rocket engines. So how should the RAPIER behave? If you make it balanced against rocket engines, it'll be horrible as a jet. If you balance it against jets, it'll be the most insanely OP rocket engine ever. Or you can balance it against both, and have the rocket mode produce comparatively pitiful thrust.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

What I described is balancing the jet mode to behavie as a rocket engine, and increasing its efficiency in that air-breathing mode, and also, it could have better thrust at low speeds than a jet, due to behaving like a rocket, so it wouldn't be a horrible jet.

[Guest]

What I described is balancing the jet mode to behavie as a rocket engine, and increasing its efficiency in that air-breathing mode, and also, it could have better thrust at low speeds than a jet, due to behaving like a rocket, so it wouldn't be a horrible jet.

I think the rapier needs to give a thrust curve almost as good as the turbojet has so that it can work for space planes- if it has too low of thrust, it just won't be able to go fast enough to be worth it. The point of space planes is to use jets to do most of the acceleration before ever using oxidizer.

Also, if jets are to have their center of mass fiddled with, they can't put it a set distance forward because they might be put a short part and have a center of mass in empty air. So do what I heard was done to the formerly physicsless parts and add their mass to the part they're attached to. Maybe move some mass from engines to intakes. You'd have to fiddle with everything that way though to keep it right, and it's not really a game-breaking issue is it?

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

I think the rapier needs to give a thrust curve almost as good as the turbojet has so that it can work for space planes- if it has too low of thrust, it just won't be able to go fast enough to be worth it. The point of space planes is to use jets to do most of the acceleration before ever using oxidizer.

Also, if jets are to have their center of mass fiddled with, they can't put it a set distance forward because they might be put a short part and have a center of mass in empty air. So do what I heard was done to the formerly physicsless parts and add their mass to the part they're attached to. Maybe move some mass from engines to intakes. You'd have to fiddle with everything that way though to keep it right, and it's not really a game-breaking issue is it?

What you quoted is only describing why it would be a good jet engine: Good thrust, good efficiency. If you have red the main topic, you might also know that by adding precoolers, you could be able to reach higher speeds using the efficient air-breathing mode.

I still didn't get the point in that center-of mass issue. As a spaceplane expert, I know how important the balance of CoM and CoL is. By implementing my suggestion, nothing irregular would happen to masses. I totally skipped modifying masses, as they might be the key to balance things.

[austincurr]

What you quoted is only describing why it would be a good jet engine: Good thrust, good efficiency. If you have red the main topic, you might also know that by adding precoolers, you could be able to reach higher speeds using the efficient air-breathing mode.

I still didn't get the point in that center-of mass issue. As a spaceplane expert, I know how important the balance of CoM and CoL is. By implementing my suggestion, nothing irregular would happen to masses. I totally skipped modifying masses, as they might be the key to balance things.

I'll grant you you've edited the first post since I first read it, but I had already seen your precooler idea and I don't agree with it being made necessary, although I'm fine with it having some kind of benefit. Regardless of whether it's realistic in real life, Rapier engines need to keep their one trick intact or they'll be pointless. They need high jet thrust at high speed, high altitude flight. No plane I've made that can do suborbital hops is incapable of takeoff from the runway so in my mind there's just no need for low end thrust that I can see in a spaceplane. If it's not possible to build a spaceplane with only rapiers, I won't see the point of using them, because I could just use two turbojets and a aerospike or something like that rather than two turbojets and a rapier.

The center of mass thing was something Gregrox mentioned, not you.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

I'll grant you you've edited the first post since I first read it, but I had already seen your precooler idea and I don't agree with it being made necessary, although I'm fine with it having some kind of benefit. Regardless of whether it's realistic in real life, Rapier engines need to keep their one trick intact or they'll be pointless. They need high jet thrust at high speed, high altitude flight. No plane I've made that can do suborbital hops is incapable of takeoff from the runway so in my mind there's just no need for low end thrust that I can see in a spaceplane. If it's not possible to build a spaceplane with only rapiers, I won't see the point of using them, because I could just use two turbojets and a aerospike or something like that rather than two turbojets and a rapier.

The center of mass thing was something Gregrox mentioned, not you.

You are wrong. It could work PERFECTLY. Evidence: the old aerodynamics. There were only engines with constant thrust. And we all made functionaling spaceplanes. Anyway, I am trying to mak a mod with the new engines, and also make some new demonstration crafts.

Edited July 9, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[austincurr]

The old engines worked with the old aerodynamics. Interesting.

Post release, planes don't have to be built like they used to in order to go 1400m/s on jets, and they can accelerate faster and at lower altitudes. I'll go see what top speed I get on constant thrust nowadays.

Okay, by constantly changing the throttle to keep the thrust at around 130 on each turbojet of the Ravenspear Mk1 I got up to 700m/s or so at 20k or so altitude level flight. I imagine a tiny plane like I used to use could do a reasonably good speed like that, but so can a regular sized craft now. Then when I maxed out the throttle, dove for air, and came back up once I had enough speed to ram the air in better at high alt, I got up to 1200 at a 45* angle, and did it much faster than the first time. The higher thrust lets you keep breathing air longer and it's less speed to need to make up with rockets. Space jets go boing boing.You just can't go as fast with low thrust, and it isn't like you can't set the brakes while the engines spool up if you have a particularly heavy aircraft, so thrust at low speed isn't an issue either, the regular engines can take off and accelerate to operating speed on their own generally. Shall I mention again that if the rapiers need turbojets to go with them you might as well use some other rocket engine?

[TronX33]

The problem with Ramjets and Scramjets is: the new default re entry heat. Sure you can use some cheats, but At high speeds in the atmosphere, parts start overheating and die. Basically the only way to get into space is pack on really powerful engines on light craft, go at a 45 degree angle, then use rockets to circularize, to avoid heating problems. Squad they give us a variant that is heat resistant with either ablative shielding ( like Space Shuttle), or really high heat tolerance (like the materials used on the SR-72 Drone thats in development. It goes at mach 6 at i think 4000 degrees either Celsius or Fahrenheit.)

[austincurr]

The problem with Ramjets and Scramjets is: the new default re entry heat. Sure you can use some cheats, but At high speeds in the atmosphere, parts start overheating and die. Basically the only way to get into space is pack on really powerful engines on light craft, go at a 45 degree angle, then use rockets to circularize, to avoid heating problems. Squad they give us a variant that is heat resistant with either ablative shielding ( like Space Shuttle), or really high heat tolerance (like the materials used on the SR-72 Drone thats in development. It goes at mach 6 at i think 4000 degrees either Celsius or Fahrenheit.)

Yeah, that seems to be the way at the moment. It's fast, but not convenient if your plans involve flying around kerbin, rather than going to orbit. I find that with the current system it's best to let yourself get a suborbital arc and shut off your engines until you reenter and then do it again if you are trying to circle Kerbin. Oh, as for the shuttle and sr-72, the shuttle used insulation not ablation- the tiles were reusable if they didn't get damaged AFAIK. Ablative heat shields are like what capsules use, and they get used up because the material they are made of actually comes off to carry away the heat, whereas the shuttle just tried to insulate from it long enough to reenter and the jets are built to operate while hot since they are flying around like that not trying to slow down.

I'm thinking maybe make the ram air intake and the shock cone intake have even better heat tolerance, and do that to the nosecones too, and it might just be enough.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

These issues are invalid now. If you find something, with my mod, that'd be a problem, that prevents this from being implemented to the stock game, feel free to tell it to me, so that I can fix it.