Loren Pechtel

I remembered this mod and decided to see if it would allow me to reliably land a pesky beast--lands safely on land, but bounces back up and blows up when it lands in water. From your description of the math it's probably going to do it wrong--but in this sort of case I think the math is being done wrong. You're assuming the rocket is falling and it's a purely propulsive landing--but a good use for this is like on the Soyuz, reducing the landing speed of something that's already under chutes. 1) Figure the rocket is already at terminal velocity (there's no reason for suicide deployment of chutes), without the booster it will not accelerate. 2) In computing the burn effects apply planetary gravity at velocity zero, zero gravity at the rocket's current velocity, the curve is a y=x^2 over this range. 3) Provide an offset number, initiate retrofire this many meters above/below the computed point--let us tweak it for a particular rocket if the math isn't spot on. 4) How about some stack-mounted versions?

This thing is driving me nuts! I rebuilt it lowering mass in the part that's recovered--and now it won't fly even with some big steerable fins on it. Oh, well, I guess I have to make it fatter and shorter.

This game hates me! While my rocket insists on turning prograde the instant the booster comes off the fins will slow it fine. If it comes down on land, fine, but if it goes into the water it pops up to turn turtle and blows up (and where did that fireball come from? There was no fuel on board!) when it hits the water coming back down. I'm going to have to rearrange the recovered portion to lower the center of mass.

Interesting. It never occurred to me the doors would survive the fire.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the part you suggested unlocked. I did find there are now two separate sets of grid fins, though--the second is heavier and more expensive, but has more heat tolerance. I held onto the booster as long as possible as I've found it tends to help (why?!?!?!), when it was about to blow I triggered the fins and blew the booster--and despite a bunch of fins my craft insisted on going in prograde. The fins did their job, though, my chutes were green while still above 10,000m. My kerbals didn't even get mad at the wild tumble they took when the booster came off.

Well, what I'm currently struggling with isn't exactly skinny but it's long compared to it's width. So you're saying to deploy the fins and come in prograde? I've done that high up before when returning from a moon--set the periapsis to 50km and come in prograde, it doesn't get too hot and it lowers the apoapsis. Takes a few passes to get down to low orbit speed but it means a lot cooler dive when I finally do fall out of orbit.

Before my normal solution was grid fins (I forget what mod they come from). Put them at the top of the rocket, deploy them at around 2000 m/s and it didn't matter how long (big passenger bus) the rocket was, it stayed retrograde. Now with 1.4, though, they're delicate--I tried leaving them folded until I got in trouble--and they burned off anyway! The only solution I see now is the utter kludge of building a rocket that doesn't care--keep the size constant, put a heat shield on the nose also, then a decoupler and a nose cone. Blow the cone before re-entry and come in prograde. Sometimes it flips but there's a shield there, also.

I do agree that many of these encourage probes--but I don't see that as a big problem. If you're just going somewhere to do one thing unmanned is the way to go. Kerbals should be used for the missions where flexibility is required. Expanding on #6: There's a big pile of science available in a biome that is obtained by putting a scientist in a lab landed at the biome and they gather science at a rate based on their skill level until all the science from that biome is gathered. This wouldn't be just a click and go like most science missions. Thinking about it, the gravity scanner should also be modified. No biome-based science, but rather a fair pile of it that's obtained slowly from a probe in a polar orbit about the body. That's how gravity maps are made.

My thoughts on fixing science: 1) Everything that you get from instruments should be 100% transmissable. The idea that you need to bring back the instrument makes no sense to me. 2) No more clicking. Automated science sampler should be incorporated into the core game. You simply need to bring the instruments to the place. I would also apply this to EVA science. (Make a few changes to the how science is handled internally. Uniquely tag reports, direct reports to every part on the craft that can store them. The entire UI of ASS could be removed, replaced with "automatic" switches on resettable experiments. The only thing you would have to click is those experiments and only if you couldn't reset them in flight.) 3) All experiments that are resettable should have higher tech versions that don't need resetting and thus can be done unmanned. 4) An "experiment" that can get a surface sample--thus allowing sample return missions. 5) Remove the crew report. This one makes no sense. 6) Putting a scientist on another world EVA should permit collection of much better samples. 7) A new type of contract: Haul instrument package (which would simply have a shape and a weight, we don't need a bunch of fancy graphics) to a certain biome, leave it for a certain duration, if landed it may include a return it to Kerbin requirement. It "pays" in the science (they provided the package, you get to share what they learned.)

Actually, not quite. Science Alert only understands science that can be gathered right now. If you want EVA reports you either have to send someone out when you enter a biome (which Science Alert will not be aware of!) or stick a Kerbal in a command chair--but that doesn't work if you're playing with a life support mod.

Well, that would leave Valentina with a suit that doesn't meet female sanitary needs and has no space for two of her body parts....

I just got a look at what might have happened. Bigger rocket but with the same general flight profile. I dropped the booster at 1000m and pulled the chutes. As I was passing about 500m a fuel tank came flying up--it went higher than my contraption.

This is the first I've seen parts survive impact at terminal velocity. I do agree that in the normal case you want to come in shallow. However, for sub-orbital tourist contracts it's actually cheaper to go straight up and down, slowing on your rocket takes less fuel than building up enough horizontal velocity for a safe entry of a longer rocket (to haul several tourists per flight.)

You misunderstand--I'm landing fine. While my approach isn't the conventional one it works and costs no more. What I am not understanding is why I'm sometimes getting back part of the discarded booster. It should be going **splat**!

New game, getting some money from suborbital tourists. I've always had a problem bringing suborbital rockets in smoothly as they don't have the horizontal velocity of orbital ones and thus don't tend to slow enough. I decided to try a new approach--go straight up and use the engine to shed my velocity on the way down with the fuel that normally would have built horizontal velocity. The mission is going as expected but I seem to have lit the booster a bit late, I'm coming down a bit fast. I blow the booster and trigger my drogue chute. I acted quickly and didn't shut off the engine first--it flies up into the sky beside me. I get down, recover my rocket and it's tourists and then notice something in the water--most of the fuel tanks of the booster! It must have come down at terminal velocity, how did anything survive? Stranger and stranger--while I'm waiting for the internet to come back up so I can post this I find another smaller chunk from another flight of the same rocket bobbing in the ocean and I find a lone decoupler on the ground.

Relationships: ! Taurus HCV - 3.75m Stock-ish Crew Pod 1:1.5.3 (KSP 1.0.5)

I have set these. The problem is the part I wish to resurrect--the Taurus 3.75m stuff--doesn't have 1.4 support at all but is listed as a dependency. If I install that manually will yours then install? Is there some licensing issue that you have to modify the old one rather than simply include the files?

I'm saying the old mods are listed as dependencies and they won't install because they don't support the current version.

I see what was happening--it's got dependencies that don't work. Is it actually possible to install with CKAN?

What am I missing? I can't find it on CKAN.

Your wish is called "Biomatic". Now your wish should be for it to be updated to current.

That sounds like a very useful part! Trying to do anything large with spacewalking Kerbals is an exercise in frustration if it's even possible at all.

Thank you.

It still shows a max of 1.3.99, I'm looking to move to the current version.

If you have to ask the question the answer is clear: No. The source code is for us code monkeys, it's of no use to the untrained.