All Activity

And I thought My 30 mods were a lot

Nah, i'd ⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️.

P 54

Right, but look at it, it got completely mangled, and the small part that did come through says something about KSP_Log being installed incorrectly, and that's a mod, not the stock KSP.log file that shows up in the main game folder.

The trade is risk from boost/repair vs risk from doing nothing (the only alternative). I have no idea when the risk-reward heads into the right territory, but I'm confident that those curves cross at some point. It supposedly fails 2030-2040 assuming nothing bad happens before that (an eqp failure). Assuming it can be dealt with after such a failure, or once the end game for it is actually in play, then such a mission could wait until then, clearly. If the plausible failures include modes that make rendezvous and boost/repair impossible, then waiting too long could result in the certain loss of Hubble (tumbling?). Where the risk outweighs the benefit? Again, unsure. What I do know is that NASA has exactly zero capability to deal with it for the foreseeable future.

We have lost it due to the Kraken's attack.

Yes. Better 4.

Per comments earlier in this thread, that appears to be the default for existing saves, and means the surface features are disabled. Set this to any other (positive?) integer to activate surface features.

Well, the Rotorwing is not a file, is a directory and it's full of engines, all of them related to helicopters - so you, indeed, accomplished what you intended. The CFM56 (big Lotus) is on the Modern one, and shouldn't had been effected - it doesn't share any assets with the Rotorwing ones. So I removed the Rotorwing directory too and fired up my test rig to see what I get and... The damned thing is M.I.A! So you appears to be right... So I put the Rotorwing thingy back, and the Lotus is still missing. I think this thing is not being displayed on KSP 1.12.5 at all, and you only realized it after deleting that directory. Now... Why, in Kraken's name, the cfm56 (internal name) is M.I.A. on KSP 1.12.5? I'm trying to figure it out.

The link just goes back to this topic

I would be content , if they just fix the damn docking ports and staging stack. (stop merging the stages after docking)

Yes, at least in my collection of 180+ mods. YMMV.

This post is brought to you by the X-15 Gang

Pulsing... wouldn't be a good idea either. The inventor, Dr. Robert Zubrin, the one who came up with Project Orion in the first place, said that this concept depends upon a steady stream of constantly-fissioning propellant, and water to shield the reaction chamber/nozzle. For the why, read on. From what I have read, a lot of the engineering and startup/shutdown processes in any rocket engine are attempts to mitigate/eliminate transient events. Transient events, or transients for short, are the bane of any system in spacecraft, most often fluid-carrying systems. They happen when you turn something on and things are in the process of starting, or the opposite, when things are in the process of stopping. Sometimes it's when you have almost reached full power, but have to literally wait for the pumps to catch up. We find this on Earth with normal plumbing. Closing or opening a tap/valve suddenly will cause a bang as the speed of a mass of an incompressible liquid (water) is reduced to zero, and the energy is dissipated at shockwaves ringing through your pipes. This is hydraulic shock AKA "water hammer". If the system isn't engineered to mitigate it, such shockwaves can cause pipes to crack from the strain and bubbles of vacuum or vapour to form. That's like a couple kilograms per minute in a good water system. In a rocket engine pumping hundreds of kilograms of propellant per second, suddenly closing a valve that's feeding the propellant from the tanks is Bad. And explodey. Citation: "Treatment of Transient Pressure Events in Space Flight Pressurized Systems" It gets worse, though. "Hard starts" are generally caused by fuel or oxidiser left in the engine or pipes meeting up with new oxidiser or fuel being fed in when you restart the engine. Certain mixture ratios or allotropes or frozen/semi-frozen mixtures of fuels explode. You must run the engine lop-sidedly by feeding in one part of the propellant to wash away any trace of the other, and in the case of cryogenic fuel/oxidiser, do not boil when entering the pumps, causing vapour bubbles that the pumps will ingest, overspeed and then tear themselves to shreds. (This is what "engine chilldown" is prior to a Falcon 9 second stage engine igniting.) See here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/41473/how-does-lox-lead-startup-prevent-hard-starts A NSWR, when the propellant is dissolved nuclear salts of a certain concentration that can boil off the water and become more concentrated, will need to be really, really, absolutely certain it is not leaving a crust of uranium tetrabromide on the reaction chamber walls that will not detonate when more nuclear fuel is fed in. Because water (which we are using to cool the chamber walls) is a good way to slow down highly energetic neutrons so that they can split fissile uranium i.e. it is a moderator. So if a restart doesn't feed multiple swimming pools of water into it beforehand, it's going to suddenly produce much more radiation and then blow up in a very dirty explosion.

It would, let's face it Colonies could, would have changed the fortunes of the game I think as it's such a big departure, in principle, from Kerbal Space Program 1. Most of the feature set in Colonies just can't be replicated in the same way, so it'd be a tragedy if that 'dream' is over.

It's more than just crewing the mission with NASA astronauts. The question is this; do the capabilities exist in the private space sector that can allow for a crewed servicing mission to the Hubble that mitigates as much of the risk to not only the crew tasked with the mission but also the orbiting piece of public property that is the Hubble Space Telescope? I would posit that it still does not have that capability at the present time. Even Polaris Dawn; as ambitious as it is, it still not enough of a demonstration to justify confidence that an Issacman/SpaceX venture to Hubble can be safely executed in the near term. The issue here has nothing to do with red tape or regulations. Issacman is basically soliciting NASA with regards to a service which it has not officially asked for. It may be receptive to hearing ideas on the matter; as evident by it's dealing with Issacman and by responses to the agencies requests for information to other commercial space companies on a robotic Hubble orbital-boost mission. But that interest is not the same as a publicly stated (and congressionally funded) objective the agency intends to execute. Furthermore, Issacman is asking the Agency to stake its reputation on a mission that will be badly damaged if it were to allow such a mission to proceed it its name that results in the deaths of crew, the premature destruction of a public asset, or both. That alone would justify reticence on the part of NASA officials to proceed with a such a mission proposal.

As I understand one chute is backup, landing will be rougher but fine if one fails. Reason to have 3-4 of them

Floor 4930: Two seasoned Kerbonaut pilots flying T-38 replicas, taking two near recruits for a ride.

P 53 POSITIVE STRIKE TEAM, VICTORY IS IN OUR GRASP! @AtomicTech, @Aviator01, @dsplaisted, @Kerb24!

One chute didn't open, but the ship had insurance, and the prayers of the insurance agency have put it softly on ground.

Even glowing ghouls are cheating.

Callyng 911 from hyperspace.

Yes, there can be just any thing in it. Cook! Two buckets of rum for the guys on the deck.

We've decided for now to use modded KSP1 until the future of KSP2 is out of the grey.