[1.8+] Real Fuels

[teej9]

Is anyone having any luck using RF with Real Scale Boosters? I am having an issue where the upper stages only show the built in mono, the GUI doesn't allow for fueling the main tank of the upper stages. You can change the mono to any fuel but it has a tiny capacity (it just uses the small spherical tanks). Any ideas?

[Starwaster]

41 minutes ago, teej9 said:

Is anyone having any luck using RF with Real Scale Boosters? I am having an issue where the upper stages only show the built in mono, the GUI doesn't allow for fueling the main tank of the upper stages. You can change the mono to any fuel but it has a tiny capacity (it just uses the small spherical tanks). Any ideas?

Are you using them with stock sized Kerbin or RO/RSS?

[teej9]

I am using it with 64K and the stock a like configs for RSB

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by teej9

[Starwaster]

46 minutes ago, teej9 said:

I am using it with 64K and the stock a like configs for RSB

 

Ok, I did a little digging: The only real support for the tanks is in RO. RF does not have its own support for those tanks (and of course, none for pretty much any engine)

the RF Stockalike configs don't explicitly support RSB at all. Any support is via last ditch conversion where it looks for any LiquidFuel/Oxidizer resources and converts them to RF. Same thing for the engines and it defaults to Kerosene for both the tanks and engines.

The parts you asked specifically about I think it's picking up as command modules so it does them as Service Module types and only does support for the Mono tanks. (and those processes are mutually exlusive so because it already handled the part as service module it skips the other resources.

Final analysis is that the only reason they have any RF compatibility is because of RF Stockalike's fallback configs and it's not a really great or accurate conversion in part because of the way in which they were originally configured to begin with.

If you want to use those parts without installing RO then you should at least grab the RO configs for them:

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/204a4b30888e1df73f35c8cdef6d6a6c4d2d1d61/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/RealScaleBoosters

Easiest way to get them is to download RO then navigate to the RealScaleBoosters folder and copy the whole folder to your GameData folder. (downloading them direct from the Github repo means clicking each cfg link then right clicking the 'Raw' button and saving link as. Save them to a folder you create in your GameData folder to store them in.

 

[teej9]

5 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Ok, I did a little digging: The only real support for the tanks is in RO. RF does not have its own support for those tanks (and of course, none for pretty much any engine)

the RF Stockalike configs don't explicitly support RSB at all. Any support is via last ditch conversion where it looks for any LiquidFuel/Oxidizer resources and converts them to RF. Same thing for the engines and it defaults to Kerosene for both the tanks and engines.

The parts you asked specifically about I think it's picking up as command modules so it does them as Service Module types and only does support for the Mono tanks. (and those processes are mutually exlusive so because it already handled the part as service module it skips the other resources.

Final analysis is that the only reason they have any RF compatibility is because of RF Stockalike's fallback configs and it's not a really great or accurate conversion in part because of the way in which they were originally configured to begin with.

If you want to use those parts without installing RO then you should at least grab the RO configs for them:

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/204a4b30888e1df73f35c8cdef6d6a6c4d2d1d61/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/RealScaleBoosters

Easiest way to get them is to download RO then navigate to the RealScaleBoosters folder and copy the whole folder to your GameData folder. (downloading them direct from the Github repo means clicking each cfg link then right clicking the 'Raw' button and saving link as. Save them to a folder you create in your GameData folder to store them in.

 

You Sir, are the man. I am thinking about switching to RO, would it play nice with 64K?

[Starwaster]

15 minutes ago, teej9 said:

You Sir, are the man. I am thinking about switching to RO, would it play nice with 64K?

For the most part I think it should but I haven't used the 64k mod. RO scaling might be a little overpowered but not by too much? Maybe some other 64k users can sound off here on their experiences with RO + 64k?

Oh and I didn't say this before but RSB parts actually have too little propellant volume by about half the way you're currently using them (RSB + stockalike fallbacks)

Edited August 1, 2016 by Starwaster

[teej9]

20 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

For the most part I think it should but I haven't used the 64k mod. RO scaling might be a little overpowered but not by too much? Maybe some other 64k users can sound off here on their experiences with RO + 64k?

Oh and I didn't say this before but RSB parts actually have too little propellant volume by about half the way you're currently using them (RSB + stockalike fallbacks)

I was starting a new game anywho and went ahead and installed RO with 64K, thanks again for the help!

[NathanKell]

Note that career will not work, just sandbox. The only way to play career in RO right now is with RP-0 (which requires RSS not 64K).

[teej9]

44 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

Note that career will not work, just sandbox. The only way to play career in RO right now is with RP-0 (which requires RSS not 64K).

Good to know, that's ok though, I typically do a "create your own" career in sandbox.

[Starwaster]

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that either RSB or Stockalike Engines were deficient in their configs, it's more a case of them interacting in unexpected ways because the upper stages are configured with  command capabilities which confuses Stockalike's conversion process. (it actually makes sense that they should have remote capability on those stages)

Though RSB is a little spartan in its propellant quantities

[Nightside]

Oh wow, I just stumbled on the Real Fuels instructions! 

There is a lot of good information in there but I gotta say its not so easy to find, down there at the end of the change log in the readme. Maybe that information it could go on the OP or the github wiki. 

Otherwise thank you to those involved for this mod, I'm enjoying it.

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, Nightside said:

Oh wow, I just stumbled on the Real Fuels instructions! 

There is a lot of good information in there but I gotta say its not so easy to find, down there at the end of the change log in the readme. Maybe that information it could go on the OP or the github wiki. 

Otherwise thank you to those involved for this mod, I'm enjoying it.

Or KSPedia in-game.... maybe some graphically skilled person with decent image editing software might step forward to tackle that.... but probably not.

[westamastaflash]

So i just stumbled across this:

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

Any chance that we could get AF-M315E? It sounds all around better than Hydrazine - 45% denser, 50% higher ISP. Or is real fuels going to stick strictly to proven tech?

[ColKlonk2]

Maybe something to look at..

RO/Real Fuels treats the RD120 consumption ratio at LOH/LOX at 72.7/27.3.

I find I'm getting a ratio of around 72.9/27.1, and have to adjust my tank fuel ratios manually.

This is not a problem, but for the unwary you could end up up an excess of LOH around 30-50K for big rockets.

Edited August 7, 2016 by ColKlonk2
RO/RealFuels clarification

[Starwaster]

13 hours ago, westamastaflash said:

So i just stumbled across this:

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

Any chance that we could get AF-M315E? It sounds all around better than Hydrazine - 45% denser, 50% higher ISP. Or is real fuels going to stick strictly to proven tech?

I would say not so much proven tech so much as proven tech that was (historically) readily available mid-twentieth century. Even ion engines and nuclear rockets were undergoing actual physical testing back in the 1950s.

[raxo2222]

13 hours ago, westamastaflash said:

So i just stumbled across this:

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

Any chance that we could get AF-M315E? It sounds all around better than Hydrazine - 45% denser, 50% higher ISP. Or is real fuels going to stick strictly to proven tech?

@FreeThinker I think you could add this resource to your mod, as it is even better than Hydrazine.

[FreeThinker]

49 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

@FreeThinker I think you could add this resource to your mod, as it is even better than Hydrazine.

Hydroxylammonium nitrate sure is interesting stuff, only bad thing about it is that it chemical markup NH₃OHNO₃ contains significant amount of Oxygen, which make it a big no no for, Arcjet or Thermal nozzle, still it more compact method of transportation and can be stored at room temperature

Edited August 7, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Hydroxylammonium nitrate sure is interesting stuff, only bad thing about it is that it chemical markup NH₃OHNO₃ contains significant amount of Oxygen, which make it a big no no for, Arcjet or Thermal nozzle, still it more compact method of transportation and can be stored at room temperature

Can MPD or VASMIR use oxygen containing resources?

 

[Starwaster]

17 hours ago, westamastaflash said:

So i just stumbled across this:

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

Any chance that we could get AF-M315E? It sounds all around better than Hydrazine - 45% denser, 50% higher ISP. Or is real fuels going to stick strictly to proven tech?

Was curious about specific performance data after reading the linked article. Couldn't find anything to backup 50% increase in Isp over Hydrazine; more like 13%-25% (which is still an improvement to be sure)

Found some documents providing useful information on both performance and proposed usage for anyone interested:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150021510.pdf

https://www.rocket.com/files/aerojet/documents/CubeSat/GPIM AF-M315E Propulsion System.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140012587.pdf

[Raptor831]

On 8/1/2016 at 8:39 PM, Starwaster said:

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that either RSB or Stockalike Engines were deficient in their configs, it's more a case of them interacting in unexpected ways because the upper stages are configured with  command capabilities which confuses Stockalike's conversion process. (it actually makes sense that they should have remote capability on those stages)

Though RSB is a little spartan in its propellant quantities

Those "fallback" configs always seem to mess something up. I always seem to question if I should keep them, but it makes the game a bit more playable if you at least have that last-run config. Worse, in RSB's case, I don't think there's even a way to have that fallback run properly.  

[westamastaflash]

15 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Couldn't find anything to backup 50% increase in Isp over Hydrazine; more like 13%-25% (which is still an improvement to be sure)

I think they base the higher percentages on the fact that you need a lot less tank mass since the propellant is much denser, so you improve your ratio and gain 'implicit' performance. Wiki seems to have confused Isp with a generic 'performance' term given by "researchers".

This doc gives an overview from the AFRL

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA522113

And a cool PDF here

https://uppsagd.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/advanced_monopropellants_combustion_chambers_and_monolithic_catalyst_for_small_satellite_propulsion.pdf

Edited August 8, 2016 by westamastaflash

[Starwaster]

45 minutes ago, westamastaflash said:

I think they base the higher percentages on the fact that you need a lot less tank mass since the propellant is much denser, so you improve your ratio and gain 'implicit' performance. Wiki seems to have confused Isp with a generic 'performance' term given by "researchers".

This doc gives an overview from the AFRL

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA522113

And a cool PDF here

https://uppsagd.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/advanced_monopropellants_combustion_chambers_and_monolithic_catalyst_for_small_satellite_propulsion.pdf

It's more likely someone confused specific impulse with density impulse.

[FreeThinker]

On 7-8-2016 at 7:23 PM, raxo2222 said:

Can MPD or VASMIR use oxygen containing resources?

 

yes, for MPD the Isp would be 14.4% of Hydrogen and for VASMIR the ISP something similar to Oxygen. not that high, but the biggest advantage would be the high storage density.

Edit: at second view, this stuff is a solid, I don't think it will work in a MPD, which can only work with gases, you would need to convert in to gas first.

Edited August 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[GillyTheGhillie]

Hi, I was just wondering if there was any plans to introduce an ore converter for use with this mod, because currently there is very little one can do in the way of refueling on other planets.

[Starwaster]

7 hours ago, GillyTheGhillie said:

Hi, I was just wondering if there was any plans to introduce an ore converter for use with this mod, because currently there is very little one can do in the way of refueling on other planets.

Why not this?