AVaughan

Real fuels and procedural parts should work together. Proc parts will let you configure tank diameter + length in the VAB/SPH

From memory, Mechjeb -> settings, toggle 'module disabling does not kill throttle'. If I recall correctly, after you have enabled that, disabling ascent manager will leave the throttle in whatever state it was before you engaged the autopilot. So make sure you throttle up before launch (or set ksp to always throttle to 100%). There are also some settings in utilities you might want to toggle. (Prevent unstable ignition, rcs to ullage). Also you probably want to be using mechjeb PVG, and might also want the mechjeb dev version.

I've never seen it myself, but it has been reported occasionally for years in RO/RP-1 threads (and I think I've also seen reports in other planet pack threads). From memory the normal suggested workarounds are things like entering the tracking station, or doing a save/load cycle.

I think an 1.11.2 is unlikely. 1.12.0 is due is roughly 7-8 weeks, so I doubt they will do a 1.11.2. Indeed at the time they announced the quarterly updates they were hoping that with the new process they would be able to reduce the number of updates below 6 per year. See https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/178756-ksp-weekly-the-moon-race/&do=findComment&comment=3463071 . My personal opinion is that the only way we will get new updates without new bugs is if they switch to an open beta style of release. They apparently don't have enough automated test c

A week or two ago I read something on social media (not sure where, maybe in this thread), that suggested that SpaceX had loaded more fuel in SN8 than they were authorised to. Maybe that is what the FAA was upset about. Personally I'm worried about the downcomers and header tanks. Especially that long downcomer from the nose. Fluid mechanics is complicated. With a fluid that is already close to its boiling point, it might only take a small (potentially localised) pressure drop to cause some of that fluid to potentially boil and create gas bubbles. Turbulent flow in the do

Everyone on a boat, and go watch the launch from 5 miles away. (Or whatever distance is considered safe). That will do for the initial testing phase. Long term they probably want a better solution, but for Superheavy's initial test phase, 1 hour or so to evacuate everyone is simpler than trying to design something that would allow the crew on the rig to survive a worst case launch failure.

KSP version? Mod versions? If it is on 1.11 then it sound like it might be

1.11 ? Do you see the same thing in earlier versions? Crewed part? Sounds like it might be https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.11 mentions a minimum part mass, but my reading of that means it shouldn't affect dV/acceleration. Another possible cause might be whatever function is returning vessel mass is ignoring crew mass or maybe the mass of eva attachable things in crewpods/containers.

Superheavy should be able to hover, so a suicide burn shouldn't be necessary. Assuming adequate fuel reserve, it should be able to gently lower itself into the waiting arms. But yeah I can see them losing a few launch towers trying to get this right. Might make more sense to use a retracting arm launch tower for launch. Then use a specially designed crawler setup with tracks at 4 corners to catch the booster. Can grab Superheavy from 4 sides. Can be designed to withstand lateral and vertical shock loadings. Over engineered to hopefully cope with an imperfect landing. More

SN9, after its test flight.

I think there are a lot more mature KSP players/forum members than in many other games. One of my earliest memories is of my parents getting me out of bed in the middle of the night to watch a moon landing on TV. I would have been about 2½ during Apollo 11 so it was probably that landing. (That dates me).

What is that max acceleration of Starship + Super heavy? I'm guessing around 30-40m/s2 shortly before separation? What is the load path? My guess is through the skirt, but that is just a guess. What is the acceleration of a fully fuelled and loaded Starship? About 10m/s2 or so isn't it? So the thrust puck only needs to be designed to cope with stresses equal to a fully fuelled and loaded starship at just over 1 gee, whilst if my guesses above are correct, the skirt needs to support a fully fuelled and loaded Starship at around 3-4 gee. Additionally, in the event of a heavy la

Where I live (Australia) land is zoned residential/commercial/industrial etc. Zoning affects council rates, permitted use, and is also relevant when you need approval for development etc. Does a similar thing exist in the USA? Could it be simply that those creek beds are zoned rural, since they are unsuitable for residential/commercial/industrial use? Also politicians tend to vote for proposals that they think will help them get re-elected. So it doesn't matter how badly written a proposal is, if enough rural voters think the proposal is good, then that might be enough to get

Have you followed the install directions? https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.8.1

Because of the way Squad choose to simulates the physics of individual parts (including the values they choose for stiffness and damping of joints. If you made the same choices in Unreal engine, I expect you would get similar results). I expect they decided that bending/flexing rockets add to the comedic appeal of the game, the same as waddling Kerbals, and so didn't want to change the physics simulation. So in my opinion the Kraken is probably the result of choice made by KSP's developers. You keep pointing to the flaws in KSP/Unity games in general, and using that to claim that Uni