In which we discuss thrusters.

[Coyote27]

To start this off, how many of you would love to see a streamlined 4-way or 5-way Vernor heavy thruster pod in stock? Wouldn't it be useful?

[clivman]

"Vernor Engines" Should be removed from the game and replaced with real verniers and 5 way rcs. LOX needs to boil off too (not LF ) maybe 10% every 15 days.

[Red Iron Crown]

There's no LOX in stock KSP. There is oxidizer, which by its stats is closer to NTO than LOX.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

It would be overpowered. Vernor engines are already overpowered, as they not only proide a VERY high thrust with an insane efficiency, but they lack the need of a different fuel, meaning no headaches when counting ÃŽâ€V, and no additional micromanagement. However, a heavy-duty RCS thruster could be nice.

Also, the Puff Monopropellant engine is kinda useless. Worse efficiency than rocket engines. In real life, RCS engines are the only accurate enough engines for orbital rendzevous&attitude control. In KSP, the big orbiter rockets, or even SRBs produce a constant thrust, so in KSP, we wouldn't need monopropellant engines.

5 way RCS? I am up for that, if it's heat resistant and aerodynamic. I hate that I have to clip RCS engines into the fuselage, and than clip radiators with them. It fels like cheating...

Edited August 22, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[Red Iron Crown]

I thought vernors had the same efficiency as monoprop RCS thrusters.

Edit: Checked it out, the vernors are marginally more efficient, 260s of vacuum Isp versus 240s for the monoprop ones.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Coyote27]

Would it make people happier to just have heavy-duty monoprop RCS thrusters instead of Vernors?