What Real Fuels would you Expect the Stock Engines run on?

[Gaarst]

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The fuel tanks themselves remained intact throughout until impact which forced the hyperglolic materials into a small area which is more likely to explode, I'm referring to in flight explosions which is less likely unless it's a self oxidizing propellant or a liquid propellant.

Have you seen that Delta II video where it is self-destructed in flight ? Not hypergolic but still a pretty nice boom you had there.

[Red Iron Crown]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The fuel tanks themselves remained intact throughout until impact which forced the hyperglolic materials into a small area which is more likely to explode, I'm referring to in flight explosions which is less likely unless it's a self oxidizing propellant or a liquid propellant.

I'm struggling to understand how a hypergolic combination is somehow less likely to explode than some other propellant mix and coming up blank, the whole point of hypergolics is they ignite easily. And most hypergolics *are* liquid propellants! Even monopropellants are safer as they usually require a catalyst to begin combustion.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Oh, we're talking in-flight explosions?  The picture you posted was a ground impact.  How often do you get in-flight explosions?  Are they fuel-related or something else, like reentry heat-related?

Likely staging errors or some other structural failures. Typically when I think of "explosions in KSP" I imagine ones in mid flight.

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

Have you seen that Delta II video where it is self-destructed in flight ? Not hypergolic but still a pretty nice boom you had there.

Still not of the KSP kind.

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I'm struggling to understand how a hypergolic combination is somehow less likely to explode than some other propellant mix and coming up blank, the whole point of hypergolics is they ignite easily. And most hypergolics *are* liquid propellants! Even monopropellants are safer as they usually require a catalyst to begin combustion.

It's because they're stable compounds individually, but when forced apart by explosions and other structural failures which may choke the chemicals ability to come into contact of each other and therefore not explode.

[Gaarst]

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Still not of the KSP kind.

I don't understand what you are looking for exactly ?

KSP is a game, you're not going to find exact and real behaviours there. KSP engines using pressure-fed Az50/NTO is pretty much the best you can get.

[ZooNamedGames]

4 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

I don't understand what you are looking for exactly ?

KSP is a game, you're not going to find exact and real behaviours there. KSP engines using pressure-fed Az50/NTO is pretty much the best you can get.

The explosions in real life are large and are generally in plumes, whereas the KSP explosions are more... C4 like. 

[Red Iron Crown]

16 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

It's because they're stable compounds individually, but when forced apart by explosions and other structural failures which may choke the chemicals ability to come into contact of each other and therefore not explode.

And this is different from non-hypergolic combinations how? Plus the oxidizers used in hypergolic combos are usually incredibly reactive, some of them need special containers as they forcibly try to oxidize almost everything.

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The explosions in real life are large and are generally in plumes, whereas the KSP explosions are more... C4 like.

See my earlier comment about the plumes. They are not meant to be realistic, they're meant to be cartoony #lolsokerbal slapstick.

[ZooNamedGames]

13 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

And this is different from non-hypergolic combinations how? Plus the oxidizers used in hypergolic combos are usually incredibly reactive, some of them need special containers as they forcibly try to oxidize almost everything.

See my earlier comment about the plumes. They are not meant to be realistic, they're meant to be cartoony #lolsokerbal slapstick.

I see.

Still, I want to find a realistic explanation behind the plumes and the explosions. Give science to the cartoons.

[Gaarst]

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I see.

Still, I want to find a realistic explanation behind the plumes and the explosions. Give science to the cartoons.

Well good luck finding one. KSP is not realistic when it comes to the way engines actually work, get over it.

The Vector has a totally different plume than the Mammoth which is supposed to be a 4 Vectors cluster, there's nothing else to say...

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gaarst

[GarrisonChisholm]

6 hours ago, Frybert said:

Liquified pixy dust.

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Well good luck finding one. KSP is not realistic when it comes to the way engines actually work, get over it.

The Vector has a totally different plume than the Mammoth which is supposed to be a 4 Vectors cluster, there's nothing else to say...

Well I don't want to. So I'm going to rationalize it.

Just overlooked by the developers.

 

[specialopsdave]

Wait... LiquidFuel, Oxidizer and Monopropellant is always the same thing, as is proven when you try any combo of engines attached to one fuel tank, and they work. Of course, that's what the game says. As for what the engines should be fueled by, the creator of the post has good points, but the jets need more precision. I think Juno (Basic Jet - Tiny) is simply powered by gasoline, explaining it's low efficiency, Wheesly (Turbojet - Small) powered by Aerozine, Panther (Afterburning Turbofan - Small) and Whiplash (Turbo Ramjet - Small) by RP1, and Goliath (Turbofan - Medium [2.5m]) by whatever conventional commercial airliners use.

Or, perhaps, they use a fuel that we haven't discovered yet, and the Kerbals have. How else would one explain the ability to make LF+O and Monopropellant from Ore extracted from ANY solid celestial body in KSP?

Edited July 21, 2016 by specialopsdave

[Tyko]

This WIKI says that Aerozine50 and N2O4 are highly corrosive and references this link:

" According to the Science Channel's documentary Moon Machines, the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive that the engines had to be rebuilt after each firing. This meant that each ascent from the Moon was performed with an engine that was not tested prior to flight.^[8] "

They are simple though and (with my limited knowledge) sound like they may be able to start and stop like Kerbal engines can. Maybe our Kerbal friends have figured out how to protect the engines from the corrosion

[Temeter]

Can't be that bad with the correct eqipment. Aerozine50/N2O4 are a very popular (because efficient) propellant for orbital engines, including RCS thrusters which are being fired over and over again over a large time frame. And you don't have a margin for error on something like the Apollo Service Module.

Although I am not aware of large scale AZ50/NTO engines that were restartable, to be fair.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Temeter

[NathanKell]

@regex and @Red Iron Crown are correct, I designed the revised 1.0 stats around Aerozine and NTO (although I was a bit optimistic on sea level specific impulse in some cases). If you're looking for a real match, there you are. The LV-N runs on pixie dust, and Aerozine being rather more energetic than kerosene can help explain jet Isps and TWRs being too high.

 

Let's not talk about the ion engine.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, NathanKell said:

@regex and @Red Iron Crown are correct, I designed the revised 1.0 stats around Aerozine and NTO (although I was a bit optimistic on sea level specific impulse in some cases). If you're looking for a real match, there you are. The LV-N runs on pixie dust, and Aerozine being rather more energetic than kerosene can help explain jet Isps and TWRs being too high.

 

Let's not talk about the ion engine.

And what of the explosions? Bit energetic for rocket propellant. Behaves more like C4 (and yes I know it's supposed to be cartoonish but I'm rationalizing beyond that).

[NathanKell]

Yep, that's pixie dust again.

If memory serves, storables tend to burn more than explode when in contact. That's why they thought it was safe to just use ejection seats on Gemini rather than a full-up abort tower.

[Rune]

5 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

And what of the explosions? Bit energetic for rocket propellant. Behaves more like C4 (and yes I know it's supposed to be cartoonish but I'm rationalizing beyond that).

I'd say rather underwhelming, actually. Rockets pack a lot of energy in a highly condensed form, no matter their propellant. On a RUD, the results are bound to be spectacular. Especially if the tank is a giant pressurized bladder.

 

Rune. Now, if you are asking why non-fuel tank parts explode just the same... that's the pixie dust.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Rune said:

I'd say rather underwhelming, actually. Rockets pack a lot of energy in a highly condensed form, no matter their propellant. On a RUD, the results are bound to be spectacular. Especially if the tank is a giant pressurized bladder.

 

Rune. Now, if you are asking why non-fuel tank parts explode just the same... that's the pixie dust.

Catch is rockets tend to creates big plumes with slower speed explosions than seen in KSP.

[foamyesque]

14 hours ago, String Witch said:

What would happen if you shot xenon+oxidiser out of a regular rocket engine? Would be interesting if there were a mod that let you combine any fuels in any engine and enjoy the (probably underwhelming) results.

Not much, unless your oxidizer is something really crazy. Xenon's a noble gas and pretty non-reactive; you need something capable of oxidizing oxygen to get it to form compounds.

6 hours ago, NathanKell said:

@regex and @Red Iron Crown are correct, I designed the revised 1.0 stats around Aerozine and NTO (although I was a bit optimistic on sea level specific impulse in some cases). If you're looking for a real match, there you are. The LV-N runs on pixie dust, and Aerozine being rather more energetic than kerosene can help explain jet Isps and TWRs being too high.

 

Let's not talk about the ion engine.

Y'know, I really wish that stock had tweakable fuel-use/storage settings like RealFuels uses, so that you could, e.g., fill a kerbodyne tank up with 100% LF, or implement multiple fuel types without needing to add specific parts for them. It'd also help cut down on the clutter of spaceplane parts :v

[Archgeek]

I'm convinced that the fuel tanks are painted with a mixture containing hydrogen peroxide and C4.  It's the only way to explain how angrily the xenon tanks explode, considering they should be largely pressurized bladders of noble gas.