rocketBob

This mod looks amazing. Is it compatible with Spectra visual pack?

thank you sir

Can anyone name the mod that allows you to view part collision meshes in VAB for the purpose of making custom bearings such as in Strazenblitz75's spin launcher video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS74SsBd3eQ&t=670s I've only found the Collide-o-scope mod, but it hasn't been updated since 1.3. Is there anything newer? Cheers

I appreciate this clarification, and it makes sense to me that volume is a better tradeoff over mass. Thank you for your time, my early career is going to need to invest is some large volume tanks smh

Hello all, I'm new to using Kerbal Atomics and was lured by the prospects of having more atomic engines to play with. However, I am aghast by the amount of LH2 fuel they consume, and I'm thinking to myself that either I have no clue about ISP (rudimentary at best) or I'm experiencing a bug? For example, from a fresh install with only kerbal atomics and restock installed, the "Liberator" engine consumes 726.273 LH2/sec?? What is the use case of such engines? Maybe I'm not thinking large-scale big enough, but even so, conventional rockets would still seem better. I really don't understand this mod, can someone please clarify ......eventually, using the ISP formula, Isp,g0 = FT / mfuel and finding in-game the mass of LH2 ~= 0.0708 kg/unit I confirmed that the expected fuel flow is indeed 726 LH2/sec, but I'm afraid this leaves me just as confused

New to Beyond Home, and sacré bleu, @Gameslinxthis mod is amazing--truly. I'm 100%, genuinely reinterested and excited to play KSP now. Thank you for your herculean mod. Also, Principia may not be the only cause of solar panels getting blocked by Destiny as I do not have it, but I am experiencing a similar problem. I do however have a respectfully decent amount of other mods installed. And if all ya'll are noobs, then I'm a scrub, so let me know if/what details you need to help diagnose. Cheers! edit: Specifically, the panels get "blocked by Destiny" once Fate gets within ~10deg from behind Destiny (just inside Destiny's sunflare). Interestingly, the issue also persist when Fate approaches ~10deg from in front of Destiny but only when in 50x or more time warp (orbit Lua); otherwise, or after exiting time warp, the panels are no longer "blocked by Destiny". Intuitively, it feels as though the barycenter is the light source that gets blocked by Destiny when fate sets behind it.

Here are some other possible considerations in addition to everyone else's: Cannot take off -- try lowering the front landing gear so that the aircraft points slightly upward on the runway. This will increase your Angle of Attack. Alternatively, you could slightly angle up your front canards upwards to increase AoA, but this may have adverse affects during flight. In any case make sure your rear landing gear is not too far behind your CoM. Steer in random direction -- I find that disabling steering on the rear landing gear can also make a difference. If problem persists, it may also be that the plane is too heavy for your landing gear, which will cause them to bend/wobble. Either add more to support the weight (I have some designs where I use two small landing gear side by side) or upgrade size of gear. Flip over -- CoM/CoL is tricky. How the fuel drains during flight is an important consideration. Try changing the fuel priority so that the fuel in the front of the plane drains last. This will help maintain a forward CoM. Using two short fuel fuselages rather than one long one can also give you better control of the flow. Spaceplanes are far more difficult to master but much more rewarding once you do! Best of luck.

Zhetaan, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for taking the time to guide me in this math, and I appreciate the detail that you have provided here. This makes sense to me now, and I am looking forward to being able to apply this knowledge towards other missions! The max/min constraints is especially interesting. Next up is a Minmus refueling station/base, and this immediately strikes me as being super useful for transporting fuel/ore back up to orbit. I've played around a little with the n value trying to find a good balance between fuel efficiency of a lower apoapsis and time efficiency of a higher one. Ultimately I'm going with your advice of n = 4, which will require about 200m/s to circularize down to 15km. n = 8 for example only saved me about 25m/s, and in the end I'd rather plan for spending more fuel than spending more time up in orbit. Not to mention that at n = 56 time warp would be limited to 10x (yikes). Thanks again!

Thank you for your welcome Captain. Apologies for not having said I am new here. Perhaps I should also mention that I have been Hooked on Kerbal for the past 3 years! It amazes me that this game continually offers new ways to learn. This is solid advice, and what I have previously done for landings in the past. When landing somewhere above/below the equator, I would put myself in an inclined (usually ~45deg) orbit and wait for the LZ on the body to drift slightly before being under my craft. Once the target was set, it was fairly easy to correct course during the descent using the target markers on the navball. This time however, I was looking to expand my knowledge of the game and learn a more precise/predictable way to get the job done. Thank you to you and everyone else for the input!

Hello I'm attempting to build a base on the Mun. Each section is parked together in orbit with a lander craft to drop them on the surface. What I would like to achieve is an orbit to facilitate landing the pieces in the same spot. Ideally this orbit would have a periapsis around 15km. How to I calculate the apoapsis in which the craft returns to the same longitude at periapsis every N orbits? The landing site for this base is above the equator, is such an orbit possible with inclination? Cheers