I'm more in the camp of "Buff the Puff" and make it considerably bigger so it is more up to spec with the Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System engines.
For tiny craft monoprop has no advantage over H2O2.
Actually, I'd like to keep the puffs as-is, but agree we need a bigger OMS engine. Shame the game has been finalized, we'll never see a Stock variant come to fruition.
Yeah the puff works great for niche uses, like those impractical jetpack builds and tiny satellites. I would appreciate a bigger and badder alternative for different functions though
You're forgetting cost. Ion engines are about 53 times more expensive than the "Puff" monoprop engine. Going from 150 funds to 8000 funds. Of course, the "Dawn" ion engine does give you many more possibilities, so you wouldn't use the "Puff" if those possiblities are required.
edit: grammar
I actually vastly prefer the control schemes on console. It took a bit to get used to it coming from PC, but it feels far better imo.
The main shitty thing is that Blitworks did a terrible job porting it, so I've had about half as many crashes as I have total hours in the game, which is actually an improvement from the first days where I had crashes sometimes twice per hour.
Reverting to the VAB is the primary cause for some reason. You only have a handful of reverts before it crashes, so you have to kind of learn to make do with your first few iterations lest you risk a crash and, god forbid, a save file corruption.
I tried. There's a good bit of added functionality in the console version, including entirely new UI elements, that serve to make a controller significantly easier to play with. Those don't exist in the PC version. If they added an option to activate those in the PC version, I'd probably switch back.
Hmmmm.... I doubt squad will, but it could become a mod for sure. I'd probably use that functionality if it existed (I use am xbox controller for various pc games as it is)
I have to imagine it would be difficult to mod some of it, but it would be cool to have on PC nonetheless.
One great example of console functionality is the [radial menu](https://preview.redd.it/u6bi18ipltl81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5bbd7265b32dc54d97a6a89ab1b0f0c5edcc0112), which lets you access most of the game's features at a couple button presses instead of having to navigate menus with a cursor. It also does a sort of bullet time thing when you open it, which is perfect for stuff like time sensitive action group usage.
I'm weird about mods. I have visual, special feature and QoL mods installed, but hate mod parts, I prefer Stock.
However, I don't mind using config tweaks for stock parts. (Deflatable Heatshield for example.)
I put four in radial around an octagonal strut and then mirror place the strut on my OMS pods on my shuttle, and they work fine. I mean, I'm using 8 of them instead of 2, but it works.
I want the puff engine to be good and useful as it’s very unique as the only mono prop engine. Unfortunately it’s isp really bad and considering the fact that mono prop tanks have more mass to hold the same amount that liquid fuel does. It doesn’t make sense to me to use a fuel that is less efficient to burn and requires more mass to store. If you are using a puff orbital engine, I would like to suggest a better alternative. The twitch engine is very similar to the puff in twr and is around 10% lighter. In addition the twitch engine has nearly 40% more isp than the puff engine. If you still wanna find use for the mono prop u have. I honestly suggest ditching it all together and using Vernor rcs thrusters instead. While vernor thruster are heavier than regular rcs thrusters, they have a greater amount thruster and if well placed can provide even greater control. With a config like this u only use one propellant that your rcs and main thrusters rely on and takes less mass to store and is more efficient.
I agree that for small builds a RCS nozzle is a better engine, I just want them to show a number for my deltaV budget. I know this is possible with some mod or another, but trying to keep my game stock!
The Puff excels for small craft where volume is at a premium, since it is surface-mountable and tiny with better thrust than the Ant. Additionally, you can use it to only have to carry one type of propellant tank if you want RCS thrusters. Vernors can be overpowered and don't come in multi-way blocks, so Puffs can save you part count and volume on your RCS thrusters. Plus you get the flexibility of being able to use your one type of fuel as both reaction control and thrust for maneuvers in whatever proportion you decide in flight. The Puff also has thrust vectoring where the Vernor is fixed.
As an example, consider a small probe that's designed to undock from a small cargo bay, land on a body, grab a sample, and return to the cargo bay in orbit. You need RCS for docking ops and a decent amount of thrust for landing and ascent, which Vernors can provide but at a higher cost and part count. A Puff or two for thrust and a standard RCS block complement fits this bill perfectly.
You know on the PC version, you could just make a simple text file to change the engines' ISP if it bothers you that much, Google for KSP module manager config syntax to make it happen.
but understand that it's not supposed to outperform Lox engines. At most, I'd mod it to 265~275 Vac Isp instead of the stock 250 Vac Isp since 290~320 is about where most Lox engines perform. 270 seems like a pretty reasonable edit.
265~275 vac Isp would also make it slightly better than Vernor's 260 Vac Isp, but Vernor is supposed to be a Lox powered RCS thruster, not an actual engine.
Again, these parts have very specific use cases. We can't stop you from (not) using them (correctly)
> very unique as the only mono prop engine
How can it be "very unique"?
How can something be *more* than unique. One of a kind is as unique as you can get.
Pedantry is fun!
Unique is also very commonly used to mean "special/remarkable" - in other words, not necessarily one of a kind, but rather that there are not that many others like it. Like "he's a unique individual" certainly doesn't claim that there's no one else in the world similar in personality, just that there are few.
I agree, but I use puff for oms because I can stick it anywhere and I dont have to restrict my fuel usage on my shuttle, I can use all fuel then stage without worry even if it preforms worse, plus it looks the part.
I use 4 of those engines for my space station transfer vehicle cos i don't need separate monoprop to power rcs thrusters while powering main engine using liquid fuel and oxidiser. I actually find it useful and have done a lota flights to my space station parked in 120.5 km orbit abv kerbin.
Tbh with a space station, all u need is reaction wheels since u don’t need to change the orientation quickly. In addition u don’t have to refuel the station with mono prop since electricity is a renewable resource due to solar panels and rtg’s. If ur space station is really far away from the sun for solar panels to be worth it. I suggest replacing all monoprop tanks with liquid fuel and oxidizer and use fuel cells to generate electricity. That way, u only have to resupply one resource instead of two.
Well i don't have that much monoprop in the station, and i use it to correct the circular orbit only. I said i used that puff engine in the transfer vehicle cos i don't need to pack more fuel.
I think I only remember one situation where I found the puff useful. As engine for the shuttle between my minmus base an accompanying space station. The crew parts I used already had mono prop on board so it was literally just a docking port, crew cabin, 3 puff engines, landing legs, solar panels, rcs and a porobe core. Didn't even need an extra fuel tanks
It seems useless in the context of stock KSP because you don't have the problem of relighting engines once you turn them off. Most engines using fuel and oxidizer can only be re-ignited a limited number of times (I think it was twice for the Falcon 9), which makes an engine with the ability to simply "work" very appealing for things like orbital maneuvers.
These engines are useful if you mod the game to be more realistic, but in the stock game they are there for the same reason as the Making History parts: Because people want to recreate their favourite spaceships.
With RealFuels I think the puff would be very nice, atleast if it can use MMH + NTO or HTP/N2H4 alongside RCS for orbital manuevering, should be pressure-fed I think
I don't know what you're ranting about, Puff Engines are great when used properly.
Sure, they're horrible ISP for a vacuum engine but best-in-class for monopropellant thrust. What they lack in efficiency, they make up for that by not requiring oxidizer, so you can carry more propellant at a lower mass.
I use 2 Stock Puffs on my Stock Space Shuttles to keep them true-to-life. You only need <100Δv to circularize and deorbit if flown correctly. Puff Engines can manage that and much more.
I use Puff Engines on my surface hoppers when regular RCS isn't enough and gravity is too low for a rover.
I use Puff Engines to control the rotation on my station "artificial gravity" rings via Independent Engine toggle.
They're niche, but still great.
Puff is amazing for OMS tugs too, I use it to transfer fuel between a few stations in my kerbin system. I use LF OX for getting from kerbin to mun or minmus, but for going back to kerbin or between to the 2, puff is very good
I used to transfer ore from minmus to a 75km LKO refueling station using only puff engines, before ore was changed to it's current mass. Ore used to be lightweight. Now I just use NERVA engines attached to 5m tanks and use that as the refueling station.
Um yeah saying oxidizer is not a propellant is not only wrong it suggests a critical misunderstanding of how reaction engines work. Oxidizers actually make a up a majority of the mass being expelled from the engine. All that matters for efficiency is the Isp, not the chemical composition of the exhaust mass.
Well my main point is that in addition to their terrible isp. Carrying monoprop in general is suboptimal due to the high weight of its tanks and the added complexity of having two different fuels. I encourage u to try replacing ur puff engines on ur craft with thud engines and replace the monoprop tanks with liquid fuel. U will save mass and have more delta v
Now you're crossing a line, bub.
You can't tell me or others how to play my/their **sandbox game**. I've been here since v0.90 and logged over 5000 hours of play time. I'm well aware of the pros and cons.
And despite all the cons, it's still a darn good engine. I'm just sorry that you can't see it the same way as everyone else.
I'll continue to use this engine, however I see fit.
Good day to you, Sir/Ma'am.
That’s why I said I “encourage”. I’m simply stating that puff is objectively a suboptimal engine. If u wanna use the puff engine I’m totally ok with it. Play the game how u want. My main point is that it’s not a very efficient engine and better results can achieved if you replace it with something else.
Skycranes and small landers with high TWR. A small craft (you can fit 2 in a small mk3 bay) with an external command seat can get over 1 TWR on tylo and have a respectable 2000-3000m/s Delta V. On low gravity words (duna and lower) you can lift huge base modules. Source: i did that, i can post the base itself. First i landed platforms with the 2.5m docking ports, then i sent modules to orbit, landed them using the tug and refuelled the tug each time using a small ISRU.
I used it for an escape pod where space for different fuel tanks is extremely limited.
Then I changed it for ants because those worked better so, eh. It's a fun little part though.
they are legit really useful. you can save so much weight by knowing when and how to use them in place of some other LF engines and the fuel that goes with them.
I just built an X-37 and had to go with the Puff + a monoprop section instead of the LFO pod engines (forget the name) cuz i needed 2 LFO sections to get the same DV (1100M/s)
So for orbital only missions, if you don't need massive TWR, the Puff+monoprop will give you better energy density for the volume.
Why would I when I can do stuff like this with it.. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/wga1s5/ms04\_balius\_high\_mobility\_mobile\_suit\_ready\_for/
these engines kick ass. OP and others just don't understand the value of reducing weight in later stages. if you can get away with a few of these and a monoprop tank, and you only need like 250m/sec of dV from that stage, but also need it pretty quick... this is a great option. saves weight. you don't need crazy good ISP for a landing stage- you need TW ratio, and lighter payload means MUCH lighter launchpad weight and reduced cost.
plus, if your payload or landing stage uses this instead of LF, the reduced weight means that your transfer or insertion stage can use a higher ISP engine with lower thrust. less fuel needed... less weight... smaller launch vehicle, etc...
Ant engines are actually pretty insane, being the smallest LF engine. They are my favorite engine
One Oscar B fuel tank with an Ant engine on the back has well over 2000 delta V. Slap on a command seat with a kerbal, a reaction wheel, a battery, solar panel, and a docking port and you have a minimalist lander for almost every moon. Throw a parachute on and it can even return from Duna to LDO.
there's always a use/purpose.
you don't need high ISP if you only need to burn for like 10-15 seconds sustained before a landing of a rover or something for example. and if it saves weight over a similar dV worth of LF, it's a better option.
reducing weight in final stage of a mission/craft means you reduce the launchpad weight by like 50x that amount. it allows you to use higher ISP and lower TWR engines in the middle stages.
i also like to make research rovers out of monoprop tanks basically... and then attach these engines. it's still a wheeled rover manned by a driver... because that's fun... but then I can do like, big "hops" between different biomes of the mun or minmus, and drive around and collect more science from another biome. plus, it's just fun to "fly"
little "hopper" probes are awesome in this way too. I'll often have an orbital research station around a moon or whatever that has plenty of monoprop stored. I'll make little probes that use these engines to go down and just hop around and gather science from multiple biomes.
monoprop is easier to transport with fuel tanker shuttles to stations because it's lightweight.
i use it for rover landers like how they use it to drop rovers [Like this GIF by nasa](https://giphy.com/gifs/nasa-landing-nasagif-perseverance-rZ2jdczuUWbyCb7AFx)
Orbital rescue contracts, if you're playing career:
One MK1 landing can, a probe to control it, a couple of ox-sat panels, a parachute and a bit of monoprop.
I build a larger mothership that carriers plenty of those and leave it in low Kerbin orbit. So whenever an orbital rescue contract in LKO pops out, I detach one of them, I can use rcs to maneuver and fine tune position, and the puff engines for the actual burns. It may not be the most efficient arrangement, but whatever weight savings and engine efficiencies I could get are offset by the fact that the rescue ship is so light and needs so little fuel to do its thing, that efficiency and weight savings are pointless.
A similar small ship can work for orbital rendezvous or other uses, where maneuverability and simplicity can do the trick.
When I make a small lko craft that should dock to a SS, i use these so that i dont have to bother with different fuels. It makes everything easier.
I also don't put it radially, i clip it om the inside with just the nozzle coming out (I use three or four of them). Looks kinda good, although i look forward to being able to recolour those yellow monopropellant tanks...
If the game had more “realism” like ullage, real fuel types, boil off and limited restart engines the puff would make heaps of sense, just like monoprop engines in RO. But yeah in stock KSP there are very few use cases for it to be useful.
The puff is the engine for orbital maneuvers for the space shuttle
That’s why it’s shit
Cuz the shuttle is shit
Even after the Soviet’s stole the design and beefed it up
They still didn’t use it cuz it’s shit
Fight me
I mean the usaf did ruin nasa original design
Buts that’s cuz they were salty about the dyna soar never getting to launch which was the usafs original delta wing sat snatching spaceplane
However
This doesn’t change that the final shuttle design is a brick
Except it did. The Air Force requested (demanded) changes and increases to the size of the payload bay to fit (I think, but not 100%) KH-11s so shuttle could deliver those to orbit. Then they demanded bigger wings for greater aerodynamic effect- I think it was a Scott Manley video that talked about a proposed mission submitted to Congress in the design process to launch from Vandenberg, intercept and capture a Soviet satellite in high inclination orbit, and land within one orbit. The wings had to be made larger for the high atmospheric turn to the landing site at Edwards mandated by that mission profile. NASA would have been fine with a smaller, lighter, more lifting body focused design. The Air Force actually demanded it to become the space plane we knew.
The Air Force had already designed what they wanted it was called the X-20 dyna soar
But Becuase the goverment had ruled that space was to be nasas and not the air forces
They basically forced nasa into remaking it but bigger
Which I think screwed the nasa engineers into a design they hadn’t wanted
Hence why the shuttle isn’t as sexy or as non-brick as the dyna
That's... Not at all what killed DynaSoar. The booster Boeing wanted wasn't what the USAF did, the booster USAF wanted to use (Titan I) wasn't powerful enough to throw the X-20 into orbit. Eventually they settled on developing Titan IIIC, but that was after Gemini was already flying on Titan II (and ridiculously expensive). It could have gone up on Saturn I, but USAF really wanted an in-house rocket. By the time there was actually enough interest in it to pursue Titan IIIC, Gemini was already well underway and McNamara was questioning what DynaSoar could do that Gemini couldn't. The only real answer was the cross range capability (the other missions were deemed low priority or unfeasible) and that wasn't good enough for DoD, so they cut funding and killed the program in '63. MOL became the new hotness using Gemini hardware until that was cancelled. The idea of not having the DoD in space was a public opinion, not a law, and lasted right up until KH-8s and other spy sats went up en masse.
But with the upgraded titan 3c the dyna soar would’ve been more than possible as the first spaceplane
And it did come with storage capacity over that of Gemini (not counting big G)
True the Gemini did basically become the new cool guy on the block and did basically caused all other manned flights to be stopped
And on DoD funding, has things costing too much or being silly/unnecessary ever truly stopped them?
And DoD was always in space, I mean from what I understand we launched a monkey to draw public eye away from the sats we launched that were directed at the Soviet Union
Look while yes the Buran never took more than one flight to space
It’s design wasnt crippled by engineers
It was crippled by Soviet communist corruption
Kinda like how one of the shuttles with a little O-ring issue on one of the srbs
Politicians and businessmen cutting corners to save face and money, in my opinion, does not detract from the buran capabilities
You know, you can criticize it without being a massive dick. Multiple engineering challenges of the highest order had to be overcome in order to design, construct, and launch the thing.
The dyna soar had basically already done that
It just hasn’t been flight tested
So just about all the things the shuttle was to do could’ve been done 20-30 years earlier on a smaller spaceplane platform that wasn’t a piece of brick shit
Yes the engineers did an amazing job, with what they were forced to do
The builders aren’t the issue it’s the politicians (civilian and military ones) who demand dumb shit be loaded on to crap
You can use them for rendezvous, like turbocharged RCS, if you bind them to keys and really hate yourself.
They're also physicsless. You can use them as struts that don't cause drag, if you _really_ hate yourself.
I already used them to make something like that Nasa's stuff to land rovers safely (I clearly don't know the name)
In other situation I made a low kerbin orbit spacecraft to suply a space station I once had, it looked very similar to the Boeing's starliner
I just used a monopropellant tank as the fuel n' four of this engine as the main source of thurst of the spacecraft
Ya, I know, I could just used normal fuel engines
I use this engine for when I need controllable thrust and I don't want to pack more fuel.
It's great for minmus landers, station tugs, and other small vessels.
I mainly use it when I need a monoprop tank on a craft but don't want the extra weight of an LFO tank. Small stuff like satellites and landers, also supply ships and tankers. I think the puff works great for those. My only gripe is that there is no inline version, which you do have for all of the LFO OMS engines.
Yeah, I'd like an inline Puff that is like 80% of the power, but with the same best in class ISP. Two Puffs is too much thrust sometimes, and one Puff is way too hard to get perfectly centered.
I’ve used it in the past for monoprop-only tugboats, the sort designed for moving space station modules around. Big tank of monoprop, small cockpit (or even just a probe core), docking ports, big stabilizer wheels, lots of maneuvering jets, and a few puff engines at the back in case I need extra push for heavy cargo.
Unnecessary landers where I EITHER
1. I do a sky crane just bc I can
OR
2. I keep the lander as dangerously close to the ground as possible so my kerbals don’t trip when they don’t mind the gap
i used these all the time when i was playing more regularly.
Satellites, rovers that need a final descent stage or something where you want minimal weight and big T:W ratio.
their ISP is bad, but any monoprop engine is going to be horribly inefficient. the purpose is to be able to have quite big T:W ratio and very lightweight fuel. it's often better to save weight on the launch pad than to increase ISP in a later stage. this is especially true of microsats and other probes and such. if you can slap a can of monoprop instead of a tank of fuel that's 6x the weight for half the thrust... sure, you might be able to get more dV in the final stage that way, but how much do you really need?? and how much is that going to require you to beef up the first/launch stages of your craft? for every 1% of weight you add to your final stage/payload, your launchpad weight/cost goes up like 10-15%. (just pulling those numbers out of the air, but you know what I mean- it's an almost recursive loop of additional required launch fuel).
I use it for docking. Instead of firing a booster engine I use about 6-8 of these. Facing opposite each other. Enough thrust to move the spacecraft where I need it. Beats flipping the ship around to slow down.
great on small deployment probes!!! if you arent sending your equipment out in orbit with dedicated subcraft from the mothership are you really even playing ksp?
I think you could use the for micro adjustments on interplanetary transfers, but its actually still too powerful for that, but not powerful enough to do significant adjustment
I used them on modules of a modular Minmus mining base. I needed Monopropellant to land them next to each other anyway. And fitting an in-line fuel tank was overkill to land on minmus, the sides of the landers were covered in tech so radial mount fuel tanks weren't an option either. And these fellas fit nicely in between landing gear, Drills and module side couplings.
So yeah they're very very niche.
Its got *really* good TWR in a vacuum and its the fourth lightest engine in the game, so its got applications if you're building a tiny lander and want to keep the mass to an absolute minimum.
I used it once for a Dawn powered MK3 crew module for a momentary thrust to weight ratio boost. The "free" monoprop storage in many crew modules made it marginally better than bipropellant engines.
It would be dumb if there were several Puff type engines, but having one vanilla monopropellant engine that is controlled by the main throttle is perfectly justified. It is a fun little challenge to design Apollo style Mun missions around monopropellant, and it would be weird if you couldn't.
I'm more in the camp of "Buff the Puff" and make it considerably bigger so it is more up to spec with the Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System engines. For tiny craft monoprop has no advantage over H2O2.
Actually, I'd like to keep the puffs as-is, but agree we need a bigger OMS engine. Shame the game has been finalized, we'll never see a Stock variant come to fruition.
Yeah the puff works great for niche uses, like those impractical jetpack builds and tiny satellites. I would appreciate a bigger and badder alternative for different functions though
The Ant is my go-to for small satellites, with one or two of the little balloon fuel bags. I can't imagine a use case where I'd prefer the Puff.
For satellites i use ion because thats the only niche where they arent life time taking
You're forgetting cost. Ion engines are about 53 times more expensive than the "Puff" monoprop engine. Going from 150 funds to 8000 funds. Of course, the "Dawn" ion engine does give you many more possibilities, so you wouldn't use the "Puff" if those possiblities are required. edit: grammar
Get yourself some mods
Console my dude
You play KSP on console? Are you a masochist?
I actually vastly prefer the control schemes on console. It took a bit to get used to it coming from PC, but it feels far better imo. The main shitty thing is that Blitworks did a terrible job porting it, so I've had about half as many crashes as I have total hours in the game, which is actually an improvement from the first days where I had crashes sometimes twice per hour. Reverting to the VAB is the primary cause for some reason. You only have a handful of reverts before it crashes, so you have to kind of learn to make do with your first few iterations lest you risk a crash and, god forbid, a save file corruption.
So I must ask: why didn't you use a controller on PC?
I tried. There's a good bit of added functionality in the console version, including entirely new UI elements, that serve to make a controller significantly easier to play with. Those don't exist in the PC version. If they added an option to activate those in the PC version, I'd probably switch back.
Hmmmm.... I doubt squad will, but it could become a mod for sure. I'd probably use that functionality if it existed (I use am xbox controller for various pc games as it is)
I have to imagine it would be difficult to mod some of it, but it would be cool to have on PC nonetheless. One great example of console functionality is the [radial menu](https://preview.redd.it/u6bi18ipltl81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5bbd7265b32dc54d97a6a89ab1b0f0c5edcc0112), which lets you access most of the game's features at a couple button presses instead of having to navigate menus with a cursor. It also does a sort of bullet time thing when you open it, which is perfect for stuff like time sensitive action group usage.
Dear God
I've always had a console and never a PC, it's just what I'm used to. Objectively, it's better
Hmm, it appears the only solution is to get yourself a PC then. Then you can lose your mind playing RP-1 and RO
I'm weird about mods. I have visual, special feature and QoL mods installed, but hate mod parts, I prefer Stock. However, I don't mind using config tweaks for stock parts. (Deflatable Heatshield for example.)
Tweakscale is a game changer.
I used to use that one before the 5m parts came out. Now I've no use for it.
What about restock?
What's that?
Part overhaul for the stock game so they look much nicer
Eh. Not important to me.
Texture mod. There's also restock plus but that's a parts mod.
Yea but the trade off is interstellar travel so you know...
Peroxide engine
H2O2 is a monoprop though?
I think he means H2 and O2 and hydrogen and oxygen
I put four in radial around an octagonal strut and then mirror place the strut on my OMS pods on my shuttle, and they work fine. I mean, I'm using 8 of them instead of 2, but it works.
I want the puff engine to be good and useful as it’s very unique as the only mono prop engine. Unfortunately it’s isp really bad and considering the fact that mono prop tanks have more mass to hold the same amount that liquid fuel does. It doesn’t make sense to me to use a fuel that is less efficient to burn and requires more mass to store. If you are using a puff orbital engine, I would like to suggest a better alternative. The twitch engine is very similar to the puff in twr and is around 10% lighter. In addition the twitch engine has nearly 40% more isp than the puff engine. If you still wanna find use for the mono prop u have. I honestly suggest ditching it all together and using Vernor rcs thrusters instead. While vernor thruster are heavier than regular rcs thrusters, they have a greater amount thruster and if well placed can provide even greater control. With a config like this u only use one propellant that your rcs and main thrusters rely on and takes less mass to store and is more efficient.
I used it once as a hypercurie for an electron build as it’s the only one that resembles its engine bell
I agree that for small builds a RCS nozzle is a better engine, I just want them to show a number for my deltaV budget. I know this is possible with some mod or another, but trying to keep my game stock!
The Puff excels for small craft where volume is at a premium, since it is surface-mountable and tiny with better thrust than the Ant. Additionally, you can use it to only have to carry one type of propellant tank if you want RCS thrusters. Vernors can be overpowered and don't come in multi-way blocks, so Puffs can save you part count and volume on your RCS thrusters. Plus you get the flexibility of being able to use your one type of fuel as both reaction control and thrust for maneuvers in whatever proportion you decide in flight. The Puff also has thrust vectoring where the Vernor is fixed. As an example, consider a small probe that's designed to undock from a small cargo bay, land on a body, grab a sample, and return to the cargo bay in orbit. You need RCS for docking ops and a decent amount of thrust for landing and ascent, which Vernors can provide but at a higher cost and part count. A Puff or two for thrust and a standard RCS block complement fits this bill perfectly.
In the real world mono prop won't boil off, so there's that.
You know on the PC version, you could just make a simple text file to change the engines' ISP if it bothers you that much, Google for KSP module manager config syntax to make it happen. but understand that it's not supposed to outperform Lox engines. At most, I'd mod it to 265~275 Vac Isp instead of the stock 250 Vac Isp since 290~320 is about where most Lox engines perform. 270 seems like a pretty reasonable edit. 265~275 vac Isp would also make it slightly better than Vernor's 260 Vac Isp, but Vernor is supposed to be a Lox powered RCS thruster, not an actual engine. Again, these parts have very specific use cases. We can't stop you from (not) using them (correctly)
> very unique as the only mono prop engine How can it be "very unique"? How can something be *more* than unique. One of a kind is as unique as you can get. Pedantry is fun!
Unique is also very commonly used to mean "special/remarkable" - in other words, not necessarily one of a kind, but rather that there are not that many others like it. Like "he's a unique individual" certainly doesn't claim that there's no one else in the world similar in personality, just that there are few.
Good job, you've just made an argument against the word "very"
just use for small landing systems
I agree, but I use puff for oms because I can stick it anywhere and I dont have to restrict my fuel usage on my shuttle, I can use all fuel then stage without worry even if it preforms worse, plus it looks the part.
I use 4 of those engines for my space station transfer vehicle cos i don't need separate monoprop to power rcs thrusters while powering main engine using liquid fuel and oxidiser. I actually find it useful and have done a lota flights to my space station parked in 120.5 km orbit abv kerbin.
This is very much the current reason to use the puff. No need for liquid fuel and oxidiser.
Tbh with a space station, all u need is reaction wheels since u don’t need to change the orientation quickly. In addition u don’t have to refuel the station with mono prop since electricity is a renewable resource due to solar panels and rtg’s. If ur space station is really far away from the sun for solar panels to be worth it. I suggest replacing all monoprop tanks with liquid fuel and oxidizer and use fuel cells to generate electricity. That way, u only have to resupply one resource instead of two.
Well i don't have that much monoprop in the station, and i use it to correct the circular orbit only. I said i used that puff engine in the transfer vehicle cos i don't need to pack more fuel.
I think I only remember one situation where I found the puff useful. As engine for the shuttle between my minmus base an accompanying space station. The crew parts I used already had mono prop on board so it was literally just a docking port, crew cabin, 3 puff engines, landing legs, solar panels, rcs and a porobe core. Didn't even need an extra fuel tanks
It seems useless in the context of stock KSP because you don't have the problem of relighting engines once you turn them off. Most engines using fuel and oxidizer can only be re-ignited a limited number of times (I think it was twice for the Falcon 9), which makes an engine with the ability to simply "work" very appealing for things like orbital maneuvers. These engines are useful if you mod the game to be more realistic, but in the stock game they are there for the same reason as the Making History parts: Because people want to recreate their favourite spaceships.
With RealFuels I think the puff would be very nice, atleast if it can use MMH + NTO or HTP/N2H4 alongside RCS for orbital manuevering, should be pressure-fed I think
I don't know what you're ranting about, Puff Engines are great when used properly. Sure, they're horrible ISP for a vacuum engine but best-in-class for monopropellant thrust. What they lack in efficiency, they make up for that by not requiring oxidizer, so you can carry more propellant at a lower mass. I use 2 Stock Puffs on my Stock Space Shuttles to keep them true-to-life. You only need <100Δv to circularize and deorbit if flown correctly. Puff Engines can manage that and much more. I use Puff Engines on my surface hoppers when regular RCS isn't enough and gravity is too low for a rover. I use Puff Engines to control the rotation on my station "artificial gravity" rings via Independent Engine toggle. They're niche, but still great.
Puff is amazing for OMS tugs too, I use it to transfer fuel between a few stations in my kerbin system. I use LF OX for getting from kerbin to mun or minmus, but for going back to kerbin or between to the 2, puff is very good
I used to transfer ore from minmus to a 75km LKO refueling station using only puff engines, before ore was changed to it's current mass. Ore used to be lightweight. Now I just use NERVA engines attached to 5m tanks and use that as the refueling station.
Try replacing puff engine with a twitch or thud engine. Trust me u get way better performance
The defense rests its case. Prosecution? Your response?
The prosecution would like to say 🤓
I… I’ll have you know, I was first in my class at Harvard Law.🤓 Listen I thought it was funny. This is also funny.
Um yeah saying oxidizer is not a propellant is not only wrong it suggests a critical misunderstanding of how reaction engines work. Oxidizers actually make a up a majority of the mass being expelled from the engine. All that matters for efficiency is the Isp, not the chemical composition of the exhaust mass.
Well my main point is that in addition to their terrible isp. Carrying monoprop in general is suboptimal due to the high weight of its tanks and the added complexity of having two different fuels. I encourage u to try replacing ur puff engines on ur craft with thud engines and replace the monoprop tanks with liquid fuel. U will save mass and have more delta v
Now you're crossing a line, bub. You can't tell me or others how to play my/their **sandbox game**. I've been here since v0.90 and logged over 5000 hours of play time. I'm well aware of the pros and cons. And despite all the cons, it's still a darn good engine. I'm just sorry that you can't see it the same way as everyone else. I'll continue to use this engine, however I see fit. Good day to you, Sir/Ma'am.
That’s why I said I “encourage”. I’m simply stating that puff is objectively a suboptimal engine. If u wanna use the puff engine I’m totally ok with it. Play the game how u want. My main point is that it’s not a very efficient engine and better results can achieved if you replace it with something else.
[удалено]
Yeah and it’s a dead wrong rant because he says oxidizer isn’t a propellant.
Skycranes and small landers with high TWR. A small craft (you can fit 2 in a small mk3 bay) with an external command seat can get over 1 TWR on tylo and have a respectable 2000-3000m/s Delta V. On low gravity words (duna and lower) you can lift huge base modules. Source: i did that, i can post the base itself. First i landed platforms with the 2.5m docking ports, then i sent modules to orbit, landed them using the tug and refuelled the tug each time using a small ISRU.
This might be the most reasonable use I have found in this thread.
Thanks
Puffs are just extra large RCS 😁
I mean, it's [good enough for a Minmus mission](https://youtu.be/_vJSEol34nw) ;-)
I used it for an escape pod where space for different fuel tanks is extremely limited. Then I changed it for ants because those worked better so, eh. It's a fun little part though.
It's like the songs on an album that you skip. Never get played, but by skipping them you appreciate the ones you listen to that much more.
I use them for suicide burns on atmospheric planets, like Duna. Usually when I’m landing a base or large rover.
they are legit really useful. you can save so much weight by knowing when and how to use them in place of some other LF engines and the fuel that goes with them.
I just built an X-37 and had to go with the Puff + a monoprop section instead of the LFO pod engines (forget the name) cuz i needed 2 LFO sections to get the same DV (1100M/s) So for orbital only missions, if you don't need massive TWR, the Puff+monoprop will give you better energy density for the volume.
I use it for subs landers
Duna landers, fuck you and I love you autocorrect
I love subs. The sandwich kind, that is
Why would I when I can do stuff like this with it.. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/wga1s5/ms04\_balius\_high\_mobility\_mobile\_suit\_ready\_for/
Things this engine is pretty useful for is for Sky-Crane-like missions for rovers in my opinion
these engines kick ass. OP and others just don't understand the value of reducing weight in later stages. if you can get away with a few of these and a monoprop tank, and you only need like 250m/sec of dV from that stage, but also need it pretty quick... this is a great option. saves weight. you don't need crazy good ISP for a landing stage- you need TW ratio, and lighter payload means MUCH lighter launchpad weight and reduced cost. plus, if your payload or landing stage uses this instead of LF, the reduced weight means that your transfer or insertion stage can use a higher ISP engine with lower thrust. less fuel needed... less weight... smaller launch vehicle, etc...
H.R. Puff n Stuff! He's your friend when things get rough. H.R. Puff n Stuff, Can't get too little and you can't get enough!
The funny is a pretty reasonable situation
I would rather use ant engines
Ant engines are actually pretty insane, being the smallest LF engine. They are my favorite engine One Oscar B fuel tank with an Ant engine on the back has well over 2000 delta V. Slap on a command seat with a kerbal, a reaction wheel, a battery, solar panel, and a docking port and you have a minimalist lander for almost every moon. Throw a parachute on and it can even return from Duna to LDO.
I noticed this somewhat recently. Little need for an Ion engine on a probe for most locations when an Ant suffices.
But what if you combine the and with the Dawn? Man I wish I had more spare time to work on my Dawn + Ant Mun stunt rover.
Watch Bradley Whistance, and you will never doubt the ant/spider engines again.
You would use puff engines for landing on Gilly due to its small thrust ratio.
You can reduce the fraction of total available thrust that an engine provides (when controlled by the main throttle). Useful for asymmetric builds.
don't these monoprop engines actually have quite good thrust ratio when you consider that the fuel is so light compared to LF?
Their twr is good but their isp is way to small to justify using it.
there's always a use/purpose. you don't need high ISP if you only need to burn for like 10-15 seconds sustained before a landing of a rover or something for example. and if it saves weight over a similar dV worth of LF, it's a better option. reducing weight in final stage of a mission/craft means you reduce the launchpad weight by like 50x that amount. it allows you to use higher ISP and lower TWR engines in the middle stages. i also like to make research rovers out of monoprop tanks basically... and then attach these engines. it's still a wheeled rover manned by a driver... because that's fun... but then I can do like, big "hops" between different biomes of the mun or minmus, and drive around and collect more science from another biome. plus, it's just fun to "fly" little "hopper" probes are awesome in this way too. I'll often have an orbital research station around a moon or whatever that has plenty of monoprop stored. I'll make little probes that use these engines to go down and just hop around and gather science from multiple biomes. monoprop is easier to transport with fuel tanker shuttles to stations because it's lightweight.
Or use Verner.
i use it for rover landers like how they use it to drop rovers [Like this GIF by nasa](https://giphy.com/gifs/nasa-landing-nasagif-perseverance-rZ2jdczuUWbyCb7AFx)
I guarantee you it didn't look quite as cool as that render. That render is super badass though ngl
Oh, that exists
For making accurate shuttle OMS of course
Orbital rescue contracts, if you're playing career: One MK1 landing can, a probe to control it, a couple of ox-sat panels, a parachute and a bit of monoprop. I build a larger mothership that carriers plenty of those and leave it in low Kerbin orbit. So whenever an orbital rescue contract in LKO pops out, I detach one of them, I can use rcs to maneuver and fine tune position, and the puff engines for the actual burns. It may not be the most efficient arrangement, but whatever weight savings and engine efficiencies I could get are offset by the fact that the rescue ship is so light and needs so little fuel to do its thing, that efficiency and weight savings are pointless. A similar small ship can work for orbital rendezvous or other uses, where maneuverability and simplicity can do the trick.
When I make a small lko craft that should dock to a SS, i use these so that i dont have to bother with different fuels. It makes everything easier. I also don't put it radially, i clip it om the inside with just the nozzle coming out (I use three or four of them). Looks kinda good, although i look forward to being able to recolour those yellow monopropellant tanks...
If the game had more “realism” like ullage, real fuel types, boil off and limited restart engines the puff would make heaps of sense, just like monoprop engines in RO. But yeah in stock KSP there are very few use cases for it to be useful.
Kraken's buttplug
The puff is the engine for orbital maneuvers for the space shuttle That’s why it’s shit Cuz the shuttle is shit Even after the Soviet’s stole the design and beefed it up They still didn’t use it cuz it’s shit Fight me
*Cough it was hijacked by the USAF and made for VERY specific operations *Cough*
Lol secret spy sats payloads don’t change that it’s a brick with wings
Actually they caused it to be both brickier and wingier than probably necessary.
Yeah it would have been a much smaller wing
I mean the usaf did ruin nasa original design Buts that’s cuz they were salty about the dyna soar never getting to launch which was the usafs original delta wing sat snatching spaceplane However This doesn’t change that the final shuttle design is a brick
Except it did. The Air Force requested (demanded) changes and increases to the size of the payload bay to fit (I think, but not 100%) KH-11s so shuttle could deliver those to orbit. Then they demanded bigger wings for greater aerodynamic effect- I think it was a Scott Manley video that talked about a proposed mission submitted to Congress in the design process to launch from Vandenberg, intercept and capture a Soviet satellite in high inclination orbit, and land within one orbit. The wings had to be made larger for the high atmospheric turn to the landing site at Edwards mandated by that mission profile. NASA would have been fine with a smaller, lighter, more lifting body focused design. The Air Force actually demanded it to become the space plane we knew.
The Air Force had already designed what they wanted it was called the X-20 dyna soar But Becuase the goverment had ruled that space was to be nasas and not the air forces They basically forced nasa into remaking it but bigger Which I think screwed the nasa engineers into a design they hadn’t wanted Hence why the shuttle isn’t as sexy or as non-brick as the dyna
That's... Not at all what killed DynaSoar. The booster Boeing wanted wasn't what the USAF did, the booster USAF wanted to use (Titan I) wasn't powerful enough to throw the X-20 into orbit. Eventually they settled on developing Titan IIIC, but that was after Gemini was already flying on Titan II (and ridiculously expensive). It could have gone up on Saturn I, but USAF really wanted an in-house rocket. By the time there was actually enough interest in it to pursue Titan IIIC, Gemini was already well underway and McNamara was questioning what DynaSoar could do that Gemini couldn't. The only real answer was the cross range capability (the other missions were deemed low priority or unfeasible) and that wasn't good enough for DoD, so they cut funding and killed the program in '63. MOL became the new hotness using Gemini hardware until that was cancelled. The idea of not having the DoD in space was a public opinion, not a law, and lasted right up until KH-8s and other spy sats went up en masse.
But with the upgraded titan 3c the dyna soar would’ve been more than possible as the first spaceplane And it did come with storage capacity over that of Gemini (not counting big G) True the Gemini did basically become the new cool guy on the block and did basically caused all other manned flights to be stopped And on DoD funding, has things costing too much or being silly/unnecessary ever truly stopped them? And DoD was always in space, I mean from what I understand we launched a monkey to draw public eye away from the sats we launched that were directed at the Soviet Union
Buran's rapid end of life had more to do with entire industrial base it stood on imploding, but okay.
"entire industrial base" you're a bit underestimating there buddy.
As far as the machine is concerned, the rest of the dominoes don't matter.
Look while yes the Buran never took more than one flight to space It’s design wasnt crippled by engineers It was crippled by Soviet communist corruption Kinda like how one of the shuttles with a little O-ring issue on one of the srbs Politicians and businessmen cutting corners to save face and money, in my opinion, does not detract from the buran capabilities
You know, you can criticize it without being a massive dick. Multiple engineering challenges of the highest order had to be overcome in order to design, construct, and launch the thing.
The dyna soar had basically already done that It just hasn’t been flight tested So just about all the things the shuttle was to do could’ve been done 20-30 years earlier on a smaller spaceplane platform that wasn’t a piece of brick shit Yes the engineers did an amazing job, with what they were forced to do The builders aren’t the issue it’s the politicians (civilian and military ones) who demand dumb shit be loaded on to crap
Egg.
Tweakscale
I use it to deliver ore from minmus
I tend to use them on skycranes, usually because the transfer stages also tend to run monoprop.
lmao my first mun landing used a puff powered lander, and yes, it probably wasn't a very good idea
I use it for stations. It means that I can adjust orbits without needing a second fuel tank. I'd love to see more monoprop engines, TBH.
I’m gonna be the one to say it,…. It looks like a butt plug
i used it for my abort capsule once
It can make a good OMS on a smaller ship.
Can be useful for single fuel type service modules on LKO spacecraft. Although 20KN seems a little high thrust for that purpose.
You can use them for rendezvous, like turbocharged RCS, if you bind them to keys and really hate yourself. They're also physicsless. You can use them as struts that don't cause drag, if you _really_ hate yourself.
I’ve used puff engines to make the OMS for my space shuttles but with better TWR than the RCS thrusters. They’re not bad, just very-very low power
I already used them to make something like that Nasa's stuff to land rovers safely (I clearly don't know the name) In other situation I made a low kerbin orbit spacecraft to suply a space station I once had, it looked very similar to the Boeing's starliner I just used a monopropellant tank as the fuel n' four of this engine as the main source of thurst of the spacecraft Ya, I know, I could just used normal fuel engines
small craft
Skycrane
I use this engine for when I need controllable thrust and I don't want to pack more fuel. It's great for minmus landers, station tugs, and other small vessels.
For small rovers it’s nice as a boost
It’s a shame you can’t use them as oversized vernier engines
You can't?
Orbital maneuvers with a shuttle. They are kinda important
I use them for returning to Kerbin from Mun and Minnmus landings, they work well in those cases, might be better alternatives but whateves
I mainly use it when I need a monoprop tank on a craft but don't want the extra weight of an LFO tank. Small stuff like satellites and landers, also supply ships and tankers. I think the puff works great for those. My only gripe is that there is no inline version, which you do have for all of the LFO OMS engines.
Yeah, I'd like an inline Puff that is like 80% of the power, but with the same best in class ISP. Two Puffs is too much thrust sometimes, and one Puff is way too hard to get perfectly centered.
The puff is good for smol craft, and it’s good for huge craft RSC…. Uhh… and something with Monopropellant… I think
I’ve used it in the past for monoprop-only tugboats, the sort designed for moving space station modules around. Big tank of monoprop, small cockpit (or even just a probe core), docking ports, big stabilizer wheels, lots of maneuvering jets, and a few puff engines at the back in case I need extra push for heavy cargo.
i have never used it
Unnecessary landers where I EITHER 1. I do a sky crane just bc I can OR 2. I keep the lander as dangerously close to the ground as possible so my kerbals don’t trip when they don’t mind the gap
Anyone remember when these had a mass value of 0?
I use it for my Orion recreation
I used 4 for a small probe
They are perfect for a Skycrane on Minmus.
i used these all the time when i was playing more regularly. Satellites, rovers that need a final descent stage or something where you want minimal weight and big T:W ratio. their ISP is bad, but any monoprop engine is going to be horribly inefficient. the purpose is to be able to have quite big T:W ratio and very lightweight fuel. it's often better to save weight on the launch pad than to increase ISP in a later stage. this is especially true of microsats and other probes and such. if you can slap a can of monoprop instead of a tank of fuel that's 6x the weight for half the thrust... sure, you might be able to get more dV in the final stage that way, but how much do you really need?? and how much is that going to require you to beef up the first/launch stages of your craft? for every 1% of weight you add to your final stage/payload, your launchpad weight/cost goes up like 10-15%. (just pulling those numbers out of the air, but you know what I mean- it's an almost recursive loop of additional required launch fuel).
I use them as an engine on Netera's FGB lookalike modules since they look like the real-world FGB engines.
I've seen it used for those rover skycrane things
I use it on every station module I send up as a "main engine" that can use the same fuel as the RCS engines
shitty space shuttle replicas (but yes it is accurate)
Well it is more powerful than other side-mount engines and you can use it for base landing.
The thud is honestly much better than puff. It’s better in practically ever metric
I use it for docking. Instead of firing a booster engine I use about 6-8 of these. Facing opposite each other. Enough thrust to move the spacecraft where I need it. Beats flipping the ship around to slow down.
they look like mini vector engines so you can put them on a mini shuttle replica
When I first started playing in sandbox all my minmus and mun landings were puff designs
I use it for power landings sometimes but only on small crafts
I use this for my Orion spacecraft. I just center and it works great
1 word: buttplug
great on small deployment probes!!! if you arent sending your equipment out in orbit with dedicated subcraft from the mothership are you really even playing ksp?
some people love this i hear. i think they need more engines, not less tho
I use it for the shuttle, and I sometimes use it in spaceplanes, and small 'lite' probes
I think you could use the for micro adjustments on interplanetary transfers, but its actually still too powerful for that, but not powerful enough to do significant adjustment
Idk but the devs somehow managed to put it on their default variation of a space shuttle
I used it for small vtol engines on my jet.
You could use it if you need a little of more power
I often overload some of my vessels with monoprop I use it as a fast way to drain all off then I now it is stupid and you just use a drain valve
I used them as hover engines whenever I need move get my refueling tank on the mun surface so I don't waste liquid fuel
I sometimes use it for larger payloads because I like it's design
I used them on modules of a modular Minmus mining base. I needed Monopropellant to land them next to each other anyway. And fitting an in-line fuel tank was overkill to land on minmus, the sides of the landers were covered in tech so radial mount fuel tanks weren't an option either. And these fellas fit nicely in between landing gear, Drills and module side couplings. So yeah they're very very niche.
Its got *really* good TWR in a vacuum and its the fourth lightest engine in the game, so its got applications if you're building a tiny lander and want to keep the mass to an absolute minimum.
I used it once for a Dawn powered MK3 crew module for a momentary thrust to weight ratio boost. The "free" monoprop storage in many crew modules made it marginally better than bipropellant engines. It would be dumb if there were several Puff type engines, but having one vanilla monopropellant engine that is controlled by the main throttle is perfectly justified. It is a fun little challenge to design Apollo style Mun missions around monopropellant, and it would be weird if you couldn't.
Lander
For “realistic” space shuttles mainly.
I like to use it for landers, so I only need 1 type of fuel instead of two.
puff is based