New engines in the conventional lineup?

[intelliCom]

I'm curious about the inclusion of new engines of the types that already existed in KSP1, such as LF-LOX bell nozzle engines and LF-Air jet engines?

I know we've grown used to the default lineup for a while, but it would be nice to see some fresh new additions side-by-side with the engines we're already familiar with. Nertea's Restock+ is a good example of something that solves this problem.
Besides this, there's basically only two engines in the 3.75m class. Surely it would be good to have more conventional rocket engines added to this field? Perhaps even 5m radial engines?

For 5m radial engines, I can suggest Sea Dragon and Nexus as good ideas, with the latter being a possible successor to the T-1 Toroidal Aerospike.
As far as planes go, there definitely should be more jet engines added to the game, such as more under-wing jet engines like the 2.5m Goliath, both in larger sizes and smaller ones. Larger versions of the RAPIER engine would be good too.

New SRBs would be nice. Perhaps a 3.75m one, and more control over the sizes of each SRB?

Does anyone else have ideas of new engines that should be added to KSP 2 of varieties we've already seen?

Edited March 29, 2022 by intelliCom

[Laxez]

since KSP 2 is set in a scenario that makes use of technologies of the near future it is logical to think that we will not see something exotic like warp engines, also because it has already been said that they will not be added.

I would like to have an engine that can run in any environment and that has the efficiency of a nuclear engine. at the moment all the models seen in the various videos are two types of engines:

1- chemical engines that work in all environments, but have a low ISP

2- nuclear / metallic hydrogen engines which have a high isp but only work in space

it would be handy to have a universal engine like those seen in TV series. even if it is technically you can build a vessel with both types of engine.

 

Actually, wait! i really want the linear aerospike engine, for no particulary reason, only because they look cool.

[intelliCom]

34 minutes ago, Laxez said:

Actually, wait! i really want the linear aerospike engine, for no particulary reason, only because they look cool.

Alongside specialised linear engine mounts, maybe having around 4 or so mounting points for engines, alongside a toggle for round mounts or square mounts, I'd love to see linear aerospikes in KSP.
Be nice to make a proper X-33/Venturestar replica without jamming toroidal aerospikes together and using flags while pretending it's a linear aerospike array.

In terms of stats, I can imagine the following, based on the original T-1 aerospike:

Cost: 5000 f
Mass: 2.25 t
Thrust_atm: 169.51 kn
Thrust_vac: 200.00 kn
ISP_atm: 284 s
ISP_vac: 335 s
Fuel consumption: 12.17 u/s (60.85 kg/s)

A slight boost in thrust over the original toroidal aerospike, with nerf to the mass and specific impulse.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Laxez said:

since KSP 2 is set in a scenario that makes use of technologies of the near future it is logical to think that we will not see something exotic like warp engines, also because it has already been said that they will not be added.

I would like to have an engine that can run in any environment and that has the efficiency of a nuclear engine. at the moment all the models seen in the various videos are two types of engines:

1- chemical engines that work in all environments, but have a low ISP

2- nuclear / metallic hydrogen engines which have a high isp but only work in space

it would be handy to have a universal engine like those seen in TV series. even if it is technically you can build a vessel with both types of engine.

 

Actually, wait! i really want the linear aerospike engine, for no particulary reason, only because they look cool.

@Angel-125 wants to know your location.

[sunnypunny]

Would love to see the Sea Dragon. At the worst, modders could probably add them.

More than this though, I want to see customisable engines, or like an engine designer extension. Something that allows us to select the combustion cycle, nozzle size, maybe a few different turbopumps, etc, and put our own designs into production. For me this would be a lot more fun than being constrained so a small number of set designs that can't be modified. The partupgrade system doesn't quite allow this level of customisation either.

 

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, Laxez said:

like those seen in TV series

No

[shdwlrd]

7 hours ago, intelliCom said:

As far as planes go, there definitely should be more jet engines added to the game, such as more under-wing jet engines like the 2.5m Goliath, both in larger sizes and smaller ones. Larger versions of the RAPIER engine would be good too

I can't agree more. There needs to be more variety for jet engines. More placement, size, performance options. True one piece nacelles for under wing, on wing, on fuselage. They also need to be tuned to better show the real performance of jet engines. Even the smallest turbo fan is rated to ~9.3km. (Most efficient altitude, not max ceiling.) Most commercial bypass turbo fans ceiling is 13.7km. Some military turbo fans with reheat can exceed 15.5km. (I'm not including the SR-71, A-12, & U-2 as they were specially designed to fly above 19.8km.)

[intelliCom]

6 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I can't agree more. There needs to be more variety for jet engines. More placement, size, performance options. True one piece nacelles for under wing, on wing, on fuselage. They also need to be tuned to better show the real performance of jet engines. Even the smallest turbo fan is rated to ~9.3km. (Most efficient altitude, not max ceiling.) Most commercial bypass turbo fans ceiling is 13.7km. Some military turbo fans with reheat can exceed 15.5km. (I'm not including the SR-71, A-12, & U-2 as they were specially designed to fly above 19.8km.)

Are these most-efficient-altitude numbers tuned for KSP, or Earth? Probably Earth altitudes. It's all good for RSS, but you've got to remember that KSP's atmosphere is scaled differently.

Maybe it would be better to turn these into air pressures instead of altitudes, so we can map it in KSP for Kerbin & Laythe more easily?

[intelliCom]

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

No

Universal engines? Absolutely agree with you on that. Bit too impossible, the player should use niche engines for niche uses. No 'one for all' engines please. Strong engines are less efficient, weak engines are more efficient. Thems the rules.

On the other hand, engines based on stuff in existing TV shows?

Yes, please. Thank you.

Spoiler

Fun trivia: Thunderbird 2's design was in Nertea's Near Future Spaceplanes.
Another fun trivia: ISV Venturestar isn't from a TV show, but it is infact from TV's cousin; cinema! Putting this out there before you go after me for it so we can stay on-topic.

[Catto]

Argon/Plasma engines? Hrmmmm?

[intelliCom]

10 minutes ago, siklidkid said:

Argon/Plasma engines? Hrmmmm?

Absolutely. I know I keep going back to Nertea's stuff, but KSP 1 modded with all Near Future technology basically turns KSP 1 into KSP 1.5.
Near Future Propulsion has specialised engines like that, and they're a lot of fun.

Although, I was more referring to types of engines we've already got. LF + LOX and LF + Air.

[shdwlrd]

22 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Are these most-efficient-altitude numbers tuned for KSP, or Earth? Probably Earth altitudes. It's all good for RSS, but you've got to remember that KSP's atmosphere is scaled differently.

Maybe it would be better to turn these into air pressures instead of altitudes, so we can map it in KSP for Kerbin & Laythe more easily?

These are for Earth, but if I remember correctly, the atmosphere for Kerbin is scaled directly off Earths' atmosphere. So turbo fans should have the exact same performance as the real life counter parts.

PS, just checked before posting, Yes, Kerbin's and Earths atmospheric pressure is the exact same.

Kerbin has a thick, warm atmosphere with a mass of approximately 4.7×10¹⁶ kilograms, a sea level pressure of 101.325 kilopascals (1 atmosphere), and a depth of 70,000 meters. The atmosphere contains oxygen and can support combustion.

Source: Kerbin - Kerbal Space Program Wiki

Atmospheric pressure, also known as barometric pressure (after the barometer), is the pressure within the atmosphere of Earth. The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101,325 Pa (1,013.25 hPa), which is equivalent to 1013.25 millibars (unit now deprecated),^[1] 760 mm Hg, 29.9212 inches Hg, or 14.696 psi.^[2] The atm unit is roughly equivalent to the mean sea-level atmospheric pressure on Earth; that is, the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 1 atm.

Source: Atmospheric pressure - Wikipedia

 

[intelliCom]

Just now, shdwlrd said:

These are for Earth, but if I remember correctly, the atmosphere for Kerbin is scaled directly off Earths' atmosphere. So turbo fans should have the exact same performance as the real life counter parts.

PS, just checked before posting, Yes, Kerbin's and Earths atmospheric pressure is the exact same.

Kerbin has a thick, warm atmosphere with a mass of approximately 4.7×10¹⁶ kilograms, a sea level pressure of 101.325 kilopascals (1 atmosphere), and a depth of 70,000 meters. The atmosphere contains oxygen and can support combustion.

Source: Kerbin - Kerbal Space Program Wiki

Atmospheric pressure, also known as barometric pressure (after the barometer), is the pressure within the atmosphere of Earth. The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101,325 Pa (1,013.25 hPa), which is equivalent to 1013.25 millibars (unit now deprecated),^[1] 760 mm Hg, 29.9212 inches Hg, or 14.696 psi.^[2] The atm unit is roughly equivalent to the mean sea-level atmospheric pressure on Earth; that is, the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 1 atm.

Source: Atmospheric pressure - Wikipedia

 

The problem with this is that Kerbin has absolutely no atmosphere when you reach above 70km. RSS' atmosphere extends as far as 164km.

This makes me think that there's slightly different mapping. Besides, Kerbin is 10x smaller.

[shdwlrd]

6 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

The problem with this is that Kerbin has absolutely no atmosphere when you reach above 70km. RSS' atmosphere extends as far as 164km.

This makes me think that there's slightly different mapping. Besides, Kerbin is 10x smaller.

Can't deny the physical traits of Kerbin. But as stated from the Wiki:

The atmosphere of Kerbin is patterned after Earth's U.S. Standard Atmosphere (USSA), though with the vertical height scale reduced by 20%. Kerbin's "base" temperature and atmospheric pressure can be very closely approximated using the equations of the USSA, where Kerbin's geometric altitude, z, is converted to Earth's geopotential altitude, h, using the equation: .

Since I'm no Math guru, I can't run the formula for both Kerbin and Earth. But looking at the graphs for both Kerbin and Earth, it looks like Kerbins atmospheric pressure is actually higher at the relative altitudes until 65km. But at that point, I can be wrong.

[intelliCom]

Just now, shdwlrd said:

looking at the graphs for both Kerbin and Earth, it looks like Kerbins atmospheric pressure is actually higher at the relative altitudes until 65km. But at that point, I can be wrong.

That's basically what I'm talking about. Some aspects of KSP are similar to Earth, but are tuned for better gameplay.

Although I didn't expect higher efficient altitudes for realistic engines either. Then again, the engines don't necessary have to be more realistic.
Then then again, Goliath shouldn't be stupidly efficient and output a literal nuclear reactor's worth of heat.

[linuxgurugamer]

36 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

The problem with this is that Kerbin has absolutely no atmosphere when you reach above 70km. RSS' atmosphere extends as far as 164km.

This makes me think that there's slightly different mapping. Besides, Kerb

There are no absolute altitude numbers in the cfg files.  They use altitude curves, based on a percentage of altitude, velocity curves and other various curves.  So if you change the altitude to be higher, the engines will work proportionally  higher as well

[intelliCom]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

There are no absolute altitude numbers in the cfg files.  They use altitude curves, based on a percentage of altitude, velocity curves and other various curves.  So if you change the altitude to be higher, the engines will work proportionally  higher as well

But as established by @shdwlrd, the specific most-efficient-altitude stats for realistic engines would be higher if they were on Kerbin, as atmospheric pressure is higher than Earth's until 65km.

When I say "mapping", I'm basically just referring to how the atmospheric pressure changes with height. There needs to be some data that decides how the atmosphere changes. In this case, it's a curve.

[shdwlrd]

5 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

That's basically what I'm talking about. Some aspects of KSP are similar to Earth, but are tuned for better gameplay.

Although I didn't expect higher efficient altitudes for realistic engines either. Then again, the engines don't necessary have to be more realistic.
Then then again, Goliath shouldn't be stupidly efficient and output a literal nuclear reactor's worth of heat.

Neither was I, but as I said, I could be wrong. There are other ways to nerf the jet engines, but limiting them to less than half of their theoretical max service ceiling is just wrong. I expected the jet engines in KSP to operate at 10km at differing efficiencies, but was sorely disappointed that most can't even reach that altitude. I mean their fuel efficiency already sucks, and their thrust is abysmal compared to their RL counterparts, at least what they can do is let us have semi-realistic service ceilings for the different engines.

20 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

There are no absolute altitude numbers in the cfg files.  They use altitude curves, based on a percentage of altitude, velocity curves and other various curves.  So if you change the altitude to be higher, the engines will work proportionally  higher as well

Thanks for mentioning that LGG, that's the reason I've never wrote a patch for the jet engines in KSP. I can't wrap my head around the whole curves thing for settings. The more I tried to learn about them, the more confused I got.

[Davi SDF]

I wish to see more LOX Aerospikes and even HydroLOX ones too. Perhaps more engines with the gickmick of Extensible Nozzles.

For Jet Engines though?  Larger TurboFans, larger Afterburner TurboFans, larger TurboRamjets... Everything larger! (perhaps a ScramJet too?)