How we feel about the new Panther engine.

[GoSlash27]

Setting "checkForOxygen" in the intake configs to false would let plane parts start pulling their own ram and part clutter weight easily

passinglurker,

Thanks, but I'm not interested in non- airbreathing jets and I only play 100% stock installs.

Best,

-Slashy

[passinglurker]

passinglurker,

Thanks, but I'm not interested in non- airbreathing jets and I only play 100% stock installs.

Best,

-Slashy

Air's still air even if there is no oxygen in it, but wait there is oxygen in CO2 so boiled down to the core engineering issues you first need a sufficiently reactive fuel in real life, but in kerbal propellants and materials are abstracted so there is no need to dwell on those just like how we don't dwell on what we use in our nuke engines.

Anyway even if you don't make the change it's a trivial one for squad that resolves the majority of issues concerning the utility of plane parts, but through the time I've tried to make a logical case for this it's become very clear that unfortunately players are naturally greedy and just cry "more parts! more parts! more parts! No mods I only use stock! more parts!". nothing wrong with that I suppose the game's getting a better UI and more efficient all the time it just seems a waste to me if we honestly needed custom engines for every atmosphere.

[GoSlash27]

passinglurker,

Thanks, but I've heard your rationale for this proposal before. I'm just not on board with it.

through the time I've tried to make a logical case for this it's become very clear that unfortunately players are naturally greedy...

That, or we just don't regard the proposal as highly as you do. *shrug*

Best,

-Slashy

Edited September 7, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Bill Phil]

For some reason the imgur site doesn't work for my phone, but the app does. How can I get to the album on the app? Can I?

I would like to read the descriptions of the pictures...

[passinglurker]

That, or we just don't regard the proposal as highly as you do. *shrug*

I'm sure thats the case with many for example some want absolute realism where propellants and materials matter, but in what I've encountered the most common have essentially been "no add an electric prop" or "no add a nuclear ramjet" instead. you have to admit it conveys a certain tone after a while though I suppose I wouldn't have heard it that long if I gave up long ago.

[Camaron]

I like the design of the engines but I'm sure they won't even come close to the performance of the real shuttle main engines. Also, Squad now has a complete listing of shuttle parts, I think they should include a space shuttle with the stock installation of the game and a tutorial on how to fly it for all the new gamers.

JR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

Holy hell, you weren't kidding. The real one's putting KSP engines' specs to shame! 1,859 kN, with ISPs of 452 vac and 366 asl. Later upgraded and capable of producing 2,280 kN. Only weighed in at 3.5 tons to accomplish that. That's roughly four times the power of a Skipper!

Edited September 7, 2015 by Camaron

[GoSlash27]

I'm sure thats the case with many for example some want absolute realism where propellants and materials matter, but in what I've encountered the most common have essentially been "no add an electric prop" or "no add a nuclear ramjet" instead. you have to admit it conveys a certain tone after a while though I suppose I wouldn't have heard it that long if I gave up long ago.

passinglurker,

I've had my share of suggestions that never gained traction, from hobbling the thrust of the RAPIER and TRJ so they're useless as vertical lifters to including a pure ramjet (doesn't work at all below Mach 1 but gets up to nearly orbital speed).

They can't all be winners.

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

Holy hell, you weren't kidding. The real one's putting KSP engines' specs to shame! 1,859 kN, with ISPs of 452 vac and 366 asl. Later upgraded and capable of producing 2,280 kN. Only weighed in at 3.5 tons to accomplish that. That's roughly four times the power of a Skipper!

Camaron,

Yeah, but it has to be that way. Engines that good in KSP would break the game.

I have a working shuttle orbiter for 1.04 and it's really pretty useless beyond the experience gained from making it. Vertical staged rockets can get the payload up there cheaper and spaceplanes are much more efficient, cheaper, and easier to make.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited September 7, 2015 by GoSlash27

[passinglurker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

Holy hell, you weren't kidding. The real one's putting KSP engines' specs to shame! 1,859 kN, with ISPs of 452 vac and 366 asl. Later upgraded and capable of producing 2,280 kN. Only weighed in at 3.5 tons to accomplish that. That's roughly four times the power of a Skipper!

They make them denser to hold you back in our toy sized solar system though perhaps that train of thought should be given a second look when you consider how all that mass in the back is making rockets flip happy in the new aero? Perhaps lower isp and lighter engines would be better for flying rockets.

passinglurker,

I've had my share of suggestions that never gained traction, from hobbling the thrust of the RAPIER and TRJ so they're useless as vertical lifters to including a pure ramjet (doesn't work at all below Mach 1 but gets up to nearly orbital speed).

They can't all be winners.

Best,

-Slashy

unfortunately to gain traction you need to compromise and appeal to as many as possible like how they funded the space shuttle by spreading the work around, but my idea flops because simplicity and efficient use of assets only carry you so far. To gain real traction you need to add things on everyone's wish lists that means carving niches in the balance for what is already an narrow aspect of the game. I can't say I'd be happy with even more low performing specialized engines that are only useful in two places (though the ram jet solves the carbon fouling problem people like to bring up with co2 jets because there is no moving parts to foul which means if it was implemented there is even less of a reason it should be clean oxygen only.)

[More Boosters]

The nuclear lightbulb is a bit OP though....

I would welcome the LANTRn though

I'd like to hear more on that as I've been unable to make a craft that actually makes sensible use of the Nuclear Lightbulb at its 20 something tonnes of mass on top of the cost.

LANTERN is by far my favorite engine in KSP among the mods I've tried though.

[passinglurker]

I'd be ok with the nuclear lightbulb simply as some end game science goal to spend a load of science on

[More Boosters]

I'd be ok with the nuclear lightbulb simply as some end game science goal to spend a load of science on

As I said the one from Atomic Age seems to be very balanced by its massive cost and horrible, horrible TWR.

[Coyote27]

OMG OMG OMG OMG.

This will make me actually use aircraft. Or at least jet engines. I'm seeing a jet launchpad; big turbofan engines to get the rocket up as high as possible, pick up some speed, then you light the rockets and dump the wings and jets.

What about making a Pegasus-like rocket that's launched from a cargo plane at high altitude? It's like having a reusable first stage/booster, but slower and more complicated!

[KerikBalm]

I'd like to hear more on that as I've been unable to make a craft that actually makes sensible use of the Nuclear Lightbulb at its 20 something tonnes of mass on top of the cost.

LANTERN is by far my favorite engine in KSP among the mods I've tried though.

The LV-N produces 60 kN with a mass of 3 tons - 20 kN/ton

The Lightbulb produces 450 kn with a mass of 20 tons - 22.5 kn/ton

A better TWR than the LV-N, nearly double the vacuum Isp... way over double the sea level TWR.

That thing still gets over a 1:1 TWR at sea level, and 850 Isp at sea level.

That is a majorly powerful and efficient engine.

Granted its only really usefull for large payloads, it makes a great Tug or engine for a large ship with lots of hab space (if you want to give that to your kerbs/use TAC)