ThreePounds

Hello and welcome to the forums. In order to help you, we need more information for you. A screen shot isn't enough. Please read this thread and if the issue isn't resolved, please provide us with logs and a modlist (at least).

Please remove the underscore from my user name and change it to ThreePounds. Thank you

Koperincus is version specific so if It says 1.7.0 than it means 1.7.0. There currently is no Kopernicus for your version of KSP so you either have to downgrade or wait.

hillarious!

This weekly wasn't posted on reddit. It's as if they'd knew how poorly the new part revamp would be received. Not that KSP weekly have managed to spark much interest on the KSP subreddit in the past.

This is my first time looking at the mod and I am absolutely blown away by it. It's surprisingly intuitive, which I didn't expect given what the mod sets out to accomplish, as I was able to get a lunar transfer and injection without consulting any tutorials. Buttons are were you expect them and clearly state what they're for. Just for giggles I loaded up a copy of my career save to see what my space craft are up to and all of them are where I'd expect them to be. Playing with this mod is some sort of eye opener. It's such a huge step up from the simplistic stock physics and I feel like a child exploring n-body physics. I seriously wish I had discovered this mod earlier. I'll be spending many hours in it in the future I'm sure.

The short answer is: the core principle of all reaction engines is, as the name suggests, conservation of momentum. Momentum is proportional to both mass and velocity while energy, like you pointed out, is proportional to the square of velocity. Since energy is usually the limiting factor it's therefore better to have a low reaction mass with high velocity than a slow but high reaction mass with the same energy. It's quite late so maybe I'm not making sense but ill try to answer your question in a more detailed way tomorrow.

I've played this game for thousands of hours and never knew this. Blind = blown

The "No Offset Limit" option doesn't seem to work for the stock strut connectors. Is that a know issue or should I make a complete bug report? I am sure this bug was recently introduced as the feature seems to work fine in 1.3.1.

@Raptor9 I'm continuously blown away by absolute beauty and detail of your craft. Looking for inspiration on a mining rig I found your M3V "Gilly Logisitics Kit" and was amazed at the design language, shape and execution. No matter where I look, I spot little details and all it's parts are thoughtfully put together. I just couldn't believe it was all put together with stock parts. However, I have a few questions regarding the landing struts. I initially thought you'd placed the first connector on the Rockomax Brand Adapter, attached the second point to it's final location and then offset the first point to it's final position. However, I don't seem to be able to do that myself, not even with Editor Extensions Redux. The offset tool is still limited, even with the option enabled. Could you share some of your black magic with me? Upon further testing it works fine in 1.3.1. Is that the version of the game you're running?

Well, I think it would make the tool that much more useful. Of course, a negative apoapsis radius is nonsensical from a pure physics standpoint, but it's a nice convention to make calculating hyperbolic trajectories easier using the existing variables and almost the same formulas (sign is flipped). Your astrodynamics calculator already spits out a negative apoapsis when supplied with a negative SMA, so I'll make sense if it goes the other way. But it's your tool, you can decide how it's supposed to be used. I can definitely understand your argument against it.

Awesome! Btw, the astrodynamics calculator has trouble converting ap + pe to sme + e for hyperbolic orbits. It requires the ap to be positive, which isn't true for hyperbolic trajectories. You can steal this code snipped I wrote in VBA for my excel table if you want: Private Sub calc_from_below1_Click() 'define working variables Dim a As Double Dim b As Double Dim e As Double Dim pe As Double Dim ap As Double Dim Radius As Double 'read central body radius from cell Radius = Range("D7").Value 'read altitude of apoapsis from cell ap = Radius + Range("D17").Value 'read altitude of periapsis from cell pe = Radius + Range("D18").Value 'calculate semi-major axis a = 0.5 * (ap + pe) 'Check if the orbit is elliptical or hyperbolic 'elliptical If ap >= 0 And pe >= 0 Then 'calculate semi-minor axis b = Sqr(ap * pe) 'calculate eccentricity e = Sqr(1 - b ^ 2 / a ^ 2) 'hyperbolic trajectory ElseIf ap < 0 Xor pe < 0 Then 'calculate semi-minor axis b = Sqr(-ap * pe) 'calculate eccentricity e = Sqr(1 + b ^ 2 / a ^ 2) 'Invalid Orbit Else MsgBox "Error: At least one apside must be positive.", vbCritical, "Input Error" End If 'write SMA to cell Range("D14").Value = a 'write eccentricity to cell Range("D15").Value = e End Sub

I once again tried to get the Launch Window Analysis to work properly to see if my issues were resolved between the awesome updates you've been putting out for this excellent tool, @Arrowstar! Unfortunately, the same problem persists: if I follow the directions closely, I sometimes get put into an orbit which has an LAN exactly 180° offset from where I want it to be, i.e. the launch azimuth that I was given has been flipped. In the past I corrected those issues with KER but unfortunately, there isn't no way to view your LAN in stock before lift off. Here's the in-depth report. Summary: When using the Launch Window Analysis, sometimes the launch azimuth given is due south when it should be due north and vise-versa Steps to reproduce: Launch KSPTOT 1.5.10, Mission Architect and Launch Window Analysis enter: Target Inclination: 5.6, Target RAAN: 316 - everything else default first result: 7280.158s UT, 84.401° Azimuth launch KSP 1.4.4, create new sandbox game, put KerbalX on the launch pad time warp forward to the specified time, which is Y1, D01, 02:01:00 approximately launch east, heading slightly north, set the mun as target for inclination fine control get KerbalX into orbit, quit to main menu Expected Result: We arrive at approximately the orbit we targeted Actual Result: now to see if we are in the correct orbit, we have to open the save file and get to the vessel orbit information, here's what I see: ORBIT { SMA = 684722.61710577214 ECC = 0.00048902921829306199 INC = 5.837735959910237 LPE = 161.99738541595747 LAN = 138.678376733356 MNA = -2.3354479809756241 EPH = 7535.6197543537428 REF = 1 } The inclination is correct as expected, however the LAN is exactly 180° less than what we expected. That means we had to launch slightly south, meaning our launch azimuth should have been reported as 95.599° by Launch Window Analysis for the specified time. Save file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q6B6VdjtrYGPtOhGzN_s5WMS0SNxKLbb/view?usp=sharing Screenshot of KSPTOT: Hope this helps

I've actually tried that and here's what I've found: If you rename, delete (by editing the save file) or dismiss (and then wait for the applicants to cycle) the Kerbals you start with, they'll reappear alongside them once you enter the Astronaut Complex. The setting you pointed out just decides if it's Galileo et. al or Jebediah and friends that will quietly add themselves back to your roster should you decide to part ways with them. One way is to edit the save file so they are either KIA or MIA, but then they'll still show up in the Astronaut Complex and mods like Final Frontier, or either delete or modify KerbalRenamer.dll, where the source of this trouble lies. I'm not sure what I'll do. Maybe I'll remove said *.dll and just manually change the last name of all the Kerbals I hire because I do like the whole alternative universe thing.

I think you're supposed to take the information given in the departure information and take them to the mission architect to do some proper optimization on them before you can upload them to your game.