Jump to content

[1.8+] Real Fuels

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Warringer

Warringer

Posted
Posted
Why is it called the Cold War nightmare? What do you mean under scary resources?

I am currently not at home to actually see it for myself but it sounds just too interesting not to ask.

The config files allow you to use Liquid Fluorine and some other very nasty things that are theorized to be used as oxydizer. I for one am glad that it doesn't include FOOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrandom

jrandom

Posted
Posted
The config files allow you to use Liquid Fluorine and some other very nasty things that are theorized to be used as oxydizer. I for one am glad that it doesn't include FOOF.

Oh god... FOOF rockets would be the most kerbal thing ever! WE NEED FOOF ROCKETS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
The config files allow you to use Liquid Fluorine and some other very nasty things that are theorized to be used as oxydizer. I for one am glad that it doesn't include FOOF.

FOOF would have been incredibly hard to handle, even in KSP. It is a solid at -163C and starts decaying at -160C at a rate of 4% per day. Furthermore, it apparently reacts with pretty much everything; even ClF3 forms a metal fluorine shell to ensconce itself in, which makes handling it (in KSP) at least reasonably plausible. That is pretty much why I left FOOF out of the resources.

Oh god... FOOF rockets would be the most kerbal thing ever! WE NEED FOOF ROCKETS!

lol so we can blow up KSC even moar tiems, amirite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrandom

jrandom

Posted
Posted
lol so we can blow up KSC even moar tiems, amirite?

You better believe it! Hell, if we can get a new procedural tank type (heavier) with a lining that can sorta handle FOOF, I vote that it gets added to the fuels. I want to know what a FOOF rocket would be like!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
You better believe it! Hell, if we can get a new procedural tank type (heavier) with a lining that can sorta handle FOOF, I vote that it gets added to the fuels. I want to know what a FOOF rocket would be like!

If you can find data on its performance, let me know and I'll look into it. Even RPA doesn't have it listed as a usable oxidizer, while having things like ClF3 and FLOX. It's a highly theoretical fuel oxidizer that was probably never seriously considered (even to figure out the performance) for the reasons I've given.

E: Failing that, probably the closest thing that's in Real Fuels right now is FLOX88, but that's a Fluorine/Oxygen mixture and not actual F2O2.

E2: Also, let it be known that if people are seriously missing things like lithium, berylium, and aluminum-based fuels, I can potentially add them. This first iteration was mainly to standardize fuel names while adding a bunch of '50's-era weirdness for fun (also because I wanted pentaborane for an eventual manned all-hypergolics to Saturn mission).

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrandom

jrandom

Posted
Posted
If you can find data on its performance, let me know and I'll look into it. Even RPA doesn't have it listed as a usable oxidizer, while having things like ClF3 and FLOX. It's a highly theoretical fuel oxidizer that was probably never seriously considered (even to figure out the performance) for the reasons I've given.

I'd have to calculate it myself, and I'm not a chemist. No idea how... I wonder if we should ask this guy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
komodo

komodo

Posted
Posted
I'd have to calculate it myself, and I'm not a chemist. No idea how... I wonder if we should ask this guy. :)

Derik's a busy guy, I wouldn't bug him :P

I am a chemist and I wouldn't know how to begin... :P If ever I get a free chance, I might look into it. All... ok, some of the data is available. I wrote a paper on it once, though; conflagrate is a useful word. Detonate is another good one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Well it's simple, you just calculate the reaction enthalpy of the stagnation pressure at stochastic temperature! (I read those words in a book!)

You also forgot stoichiometric and adiabatic. (the last one means you can't catch diabetes from riding on the rocket)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrandom

jrandom

Posted
Posted
Argh, I actually know what all those words mean now (thanks, modeling piston engines and RealHeat). Why am I making myself into an engineer? I was a *philosophy* major for crying out loud.

HAHA! Awesome. I'm struggling through learning the required math at the moment, but I picked up those terms (or some approximation of them) from "The Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion", which is by far the best engineering text I've ever read. When was the last time you saw a textbook that was gripping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyrador

Tyrador

Posted
Posted
It seems that Real Fuels and Soviet Engines are currently incompatible as loading freezes on the NK33 (the first engine). How can it be fixed? Or is it a problem with engine cfg files themselves? Thank you.

Sorry to repost my question again, but how do I solve the issue? Thank you for helping me!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Also patiently (or trying to be) waiting for Raptor to update this.
So, does tedach's attempt at a quick fix in this post not fix it?

It does. Just tried it.

It seems that Real Fuels and Soviet Engines are currently incompatible as loading freezes on the NK33 (the first engine). How can it be fixed? Or is it a problem with engine cfg files themselves? Thank you.

Tyrador, the problem is some resource names changed. I don't use the Soviet Pack so I'm not sure where the configs for it came from. If they came from the Stockalike configs from Raptor, then the link above should fix it. Otherwise you need to wait until its configs are updated. (by whoever made them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
braininator

braininator

Posted
Posted
If you can find data on its performance, let me know and I'll look into it. Even RPA doesn't have it listed as a usable oxidizer, while having things like ClF3 and FLOX. It's a highly theoretical fuel oxidizer that was probably never seriously considered (even to figure out the performance) for the reasons I've given.

E: Failing that, probably the closest thing that's in Real Fuels right now is FLOX88, but that's a Fluorine/Oxygen mixture and not actual F2O2.

E2: Also, let it be known that if people are seriously missing things like lithium, berylium, and aluminum-based fuels, I can potentially add them. This first iteration was mainly to standardize fuel names while adding a bunch of '50's-era weirdness for fun (also because I wanted pentaborane for an eventual manned all-hypergolics to Saturn mission).

so FOOF is F2O2? Based on what I remember from AP Chem... If you ever use that, warn me first... I want to be on Mars first... It's less of a health hazard O_o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Padishar

Padishar

Posted
Posted
so FOOF is F2O2? Based on what I remember from AP Chem... If you ever use that, warn me first... I want to be on Mars first... It's less of a health hazard O_o

Indeed, just google FOOF and click on the link to "things I wont work with". A really cool blog if you're at all into chemistry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...