Rucki

That was it, after downloading ModuleManager everything is working. Thank you a lot !

Thats weird then, It doesnt work for me, only if I attach the AR202 on the rocket I get the Mechjeb window. Im not using any mod besides Mechjeb. I also reloaded the MJ from https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/MechJeb2-Dev/lastStableBuild/ and Im on KSP version 1.12.2 I also tried to start a new game just for testing purpose and its the same, no Mechjeb without attaching the AR202 for me.

Have not played for ages and tried to get the newest Mechjeb version 2.12.0 going. What do I have to do to get Mechjeb running without that part ? I tried all the different Mechjeb for all and embedded mods but they seem to be outdated and dont work. Mechjeb is working fine btw when I use that Mechjeb Part, but would be nice to have the function without. Couldnt find any solution on google unfortunately.

And if we assume that we have a real pencil and a real car ? :=) Now I see, thanks for the good explanation. Now I even feel a little stupid that I thought they would start to rotate But I guess if we would give the car a "starting rotation", that this rotation would never ever stop ? Thanks for the PDF ! Very interesting, but I will have to search that Black Hole topic in german language I think, as that topic is quite complicated I always wanted to understand quantum mechanics ( at least a little bit, what is it about ). I read dozens of articles about it and also watched nearly every episode of Harald Lesch ( a in germany very famous scientist ). Lesch has the wonderful ability to explain complicated things about physics and astronomy with simple words, so that everyone can understand, but even his explanations about quantum mechanics i could never understand. Looks for me that quantum mechanics might be to most complicated theory to understand.

But if the cars starting position, isnt with the "front in front". So the car would get a little rotation, because the front goes to the side where the pencil is. So there is nothing to stop the rotation, cause its in space, beside the gravity of the pencil. But I guess that this is enough to "balance" the starting rotation out ? So if there are only 2 bodys in space, their rotation will always ( if we presume enough time until they will meet each other ) "balance out" until they dont rotate anymore ?

Hmm but f.e. if the car has most of his mass in front, where the engine is. Wouldnt that lead to a rotation of the car ? I dont know why i believe that, but somehow I do. Edit: made a simple picture with paint, what I have in mind: http://imgur.com/a/tbUL2

One questions regards gravity, which bothers me already for a long time. For my question we assume that the whole universe, the whole space, absolutely everything is empty, there exists nothing, no matter, no particel, nothing, besides 2 objects, which i wont describe further, besides: The Object A has the mass of an Car and the object B has the mass of an pencil. Both objects are 999kLy away away from each ( so more distance than between earth and Sagittarius A ). Time is freezed and they have no speed and no rotation, they are standing still and now the time goes on, its the first second in my fantasy universe, what happens now ? I would think that both objects would start to pull each other, but the object with the mass of an car would pull the pencil mass object much harder. So Gravity or better saying "curved space" never ever ends ? Am I right ? I also think that if both objects wouldnt be perfect spheres, but look like a real car and pencil, they would start to rotate as they are pulling each other, because the central point of gravity from each object is not perfectly aligned with the mid, am I right ?

Yep I did exactly this, just edited the game, so I can unlock the Parts earlier, its not a big thing in balancing terms. But I just discovered this mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129208-contract-pack-giving-aircraft-a-purpose-gap-112-air-flights-tours-coast-guard-sts-jan-31-2016/ I might be something for us "Planefans", I will give it a go

Is there a modded Science Tree which let me begin the game with simple planes or jets ? Its always a bit strange for me to unlock the good ramjet engines in the end of the career, when I dont need them anymore.

Thank you all, you all have genius ideas how to slow down. In fact tried to come down with higher AP about 200km and pitching up for about 5 to 10 degrees, with the help from MJ-Readouts for pure drag (only this Im not using the Autopilot ) I made a safe descent with Mk1 pod and 2 crew cabins + science moduls and it went well Well, sorry for my bad english, when i went to school I could speak better I think, but i lived the last 3 years in poland, mainly to learn polish ( Im a german native speaker ) and since that i forgot too much words and grammatical things about english, it looks like in my head is not enough space for 3 languages hehe.

Reminds me of the tv show " ARK the 100" where whole earth was doomed in an nuclear war and i think about 2000 people were rescued to gigantic spacestations in LEO until its suitable for humans again. Well whats with that scenario: The whole earth has 5 years build a gigantic ISS with space for 500 people, enough animals, and some spare room for parts, technology ect. Assuming that growing food in a space station for 500 people would be possible ( i think we should forget about that aspect ) Dont you think it would be possible in common ? Im only talking about the " Work ", not about if its possible for humanity to live in a space station for lets say 100 years and then come back to earth, though a little chance should be isnt it ?

Actually Im at a normal career ( but without quicksafe ) and have all the 90-Science Parts researched. My problem is that if do missions like " bring 4 tourists to mun orbit and back " that my Upper ( reentry ) Stage is just too heavy for reentry on kerbin. Normally I will get to an 55 AP and 55 PE Orbit, before i drop my last engine and let the heatshild do the rest. With enough SAS its not a problem like it was in early career stages, I think i even do not need the Heatshild but... Under 2000-3000m my speed is anyway too high to open the parachute. I havent got already the MK12-R Chute or Airbrakes so I cant use them. If I steer my landing stage in about 3000m vertically to retrograde i will get enough drag to go under 280ms and can open the parachute, but thats a very risky thing. Do you have some hints how to get more drag in lower atmosphere at that early career stage ? Ps: Maybe i should limit the weight of the tourists, i think 80kg should be the max allowed weight, so "No McDonalds before flying to the Mun, or you will have a bad time at reentry" hehe

I read your optimization simulations and its very interesting, thank you for sharing :). Though, one Question, did you tried that also in practice or only on formulas ? It would be interesting to know that formulas, if they are 100% correct, than i could know, why i fail to get to these values. I am testing since 2 or 3 days whenever i have the time, to get to the most effective Design&Ascent-Way which is only possible to minimize dV to LKO. In my last attempt i had a TW for about 1.90 and got to LKO with 3072 dV ( Im sort of proud after so many testing flights ) BUT: you showed a gravity loss of 669, i got to 835, you showed a Drag loss of 210, i got to 119 = total 945m/s ( well plus 25 m/s steering loss, so total-totaly = 970m/s loss ) And that is after dozens of dozens of tests. A few things got in my head after a few test: 1.) I thought all the time that in new KSP Atmosphere we should stick to a max-Q ( and I just took the advice from MJ for about 20.000pa) That is not true when the most important thing for you is most less dV to Orbit. You should stick with max-Q if you dont have a very well drag-optimized design to minimize stress on the rocket, thats also the way like they do it in Real Life, because an exploding rocket is fun in KSP, but it isn´t in Real Life. 2.) Further on beeing under Terminal Velocity is very important, you should not go over or you are waisting loss to drag. though in 1.05 its very hard for me to go over the TV limit. 3.) It seems that if you have a very well aero designed rocket, that the most important factor is not drag loss anymore, the most important factor is gravity loss, if you stick with max q limit to 20.000pa you will always have a too high gravity loss and if your rocket is stable you are not gaining anything. ( in a gamesim like KSP ) 4.) If you are trying to get the best optimized ascent, you can´t use Mechjeb Autopilot Ascent, you have to do it manually ! Though i was using MJ functions like maxQ, Terminal Velocity limit ect. for testing purposes. Also to get a perfect circularizing maneuver, the MJ Smatblabla function is useful to stay in prograde at Apoapsis. I found out that you can safe dV if you make the circularization manually and without a maneuver node, just stay 10 seconds behind time-to-ap and then burn exactly so that you dont go over or under the 10 seconds to ap, you will make perfect circularization maneuver. 5.) I cant make a totally handsoff Gravity Turn, the gravity turn is always starting to early or if starting at a good point, will end to early and I have to correct the pitch by myselve, thats a thing which grind my bears, because I wanted to make a gravity turn with so less drag and steering loss as only possible. And also I read that in Real life they are also trying to make a One-Steer only Gravity Turn ( the beginning pitch over ) though i also read that sometimes even in real life they have to use gimballed help to correct steer but at a minimal level ) I tried to give my rockets more weight to the top through tanks which i dont really need/use, so that I thought more weight on the top will result in faster gravity turn, but it looks like that is not true, further testing from my site is needed though. 6.) Im not sure about that thing, but it seems that a rocket with more width has also less drag in KSP and i think it should be the other way. Im testing this further on. I can only say that with similiar Ascent behavior, my first rocket with 1.25m did always had much higher drag loss than the rockomax parts rocket. 7.) Round about you should stick with that Degrees to Ascent: Pitch Over at : 100 m/s ( which is with a good TWR Vessel always something between 600m high and 1400m high, you should look only at m/s, because under 100m/s will return in too fast gravity turn and too much over 100m/s will return in a too straight gravity turn with much steering corrections and loss ) You are at 10Km = ca. 45° degrees Your AP is at ca. 40KM = turn down to 20° degrees Your AP is ca. 55-60KM= turn down to something about 0° degrees, you need velocity now It would be nice to go to 0° at 30Km but the heat will melt the cone and wings and may even melt more of the rocket. 3072 dV to LKO Rocket: Start Ascent at 28KM Ascent at 47KM after Burn Final Orbit If someone can show me that Im not right with some or even all facts, i would like to hear that ! Update 1 hour later i got to under 3000dV :=) Pic

That sounds good, but something about minimum 800dv drag loss looks uninevitable. I think 70dv drag loss is possible.

Thanks, I will try that and make a Post in KER Thread to suggest to add that functions