FortyCaliber

I get the following: RasterPropMonitor: INITIALIZATION ERROR, CHECK CONFIGURATION

I am using the latest (I think). Is NOT using it the cause or IS using the cause?

After installing the following: Engineer Kerbal Alarm Clock Protractor Deadly Re-Entry The Command Pod for HOME 3 has the RCS on in VAB and from Launch... it doesn't do anything with physics, but the temp goes up on the pod and the RCS Build Helper shows thrust. EDIT: I removed these, it still happens.

When I install the "RealChute" mod, the loading screen stops at SDHI ParaDock Clamp-O-Tron.

Thanks. I didn't think the mods were that sensitive to folder structure.

Diazo, I have installed this but I don't see the toolbar button anywhere. I have RCS turned on and I am within the hard ceiling, but nothing happens. KSP 0.24 x64 I have the mod installed as such: ..\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\RCSLandAid

Procedural Fairings 2.4.3 is not showing up in my parts list. I have Scott Manley's Interstellar Quest mod list installed minus FAR. Is there anything that is incompatible with this mod?

Not air friction, but air compression, heats things at high speeds. IRL, this is really only an issue past the sound barrier because the air can't get out of the way fast enough and as a result "piles up" in front of the object causing it to compress. this compression heats the air and that heat is transferred to the object.

Then I guess I should dig my casio watch out.

"For Reason Unclear" It's just a Kerbal thing. Thanks for the help everyone... I'm going to plug some numbers in Excel. I had dinner and wine so I'm ready for maths.

I am using PartGen from Lando to create custom tank sizes. With a given craft of a known weight (minus the fuel and fuel tank) I want to calculate the require tank+fuel size. I have the following: 1430 m/s = (9.81 x 350) x ln(m1/m2) craft mass = 5.035 I have the delta-v and the Isp and I even have the craft weight... except this formula assumes that the "empty" weight includes the empty tank mass too. If I use the formula using this mass, I get a number that tells me the mass of fuel used for that burn. However, since the tank mass is missing from the craft mass, when I test the numbers, I always come in under 1430. Here's the problem: I can find the tank mass easily by knowing the amount of fuel (fuel mass/8 = tank mass.) However, I can't calculate the fuel necessary for the 1430 m/s burn without knowing the empty tank mass and I can't calculate the empty tank mass without knowing the fuel. I put this in Excel and got what I expected: a circular reference warning. I can get close to my number running multiple layers of calculations by adding the tank mass to the craft mass and re-calculating the fuel and then using the average of the first calculation and second calculation of tank mass as my assumed tank mass and using the second fuel calculation as my fuel. This isn't ideal as it's not precise and I don't like it. Does anyone with a more practiced math mind have a solution for this problem; is there a way to do this with pure math? Any help is appreciated.

Some movies and TV get close, and almost all of them get something right: examples: 2001: Space Odyssey - pretty accurate for the space craft. the exception was the orbital station that was spinning: it was too fast, but even at appropriate rotational speed, normal people couldn't handle the Coriolis effect. Same goes for the vessel moving to Jupiter. Firefly: Firefly/Serenity got the "no noise in space" aspect correct. BSG: The vipers and raptors used liquid fuel and maneuvered using RCS thrusters. Star Trek: while almost everything is unlikely, they do include "inertial dampeners" that prevent the crew from being tossed around the vessel at near relativistic speeds. They likely keep the vessel intact. Avatar: The vessel that brought everyone to Pandora was actually designed by experts in the field at Cameron's request.

Unlikely: Plutonium has a melting point of 639C at 1 atm.

I saw it mentioned in Reddit via the front page for Gaming. I was intrigued, so I downloaded the demo .13, then I pirated .16, that lasted 1 day and I immediately purchased .16.

1. To get to Moho: 4550 - from Kerbin to 80K LKO 1020 - from LKO to escape (+10%) ----- 730 - from escape to Moho Intercept 2200 - from Moho intercept to 50K LMO circulization ----- * These above two values should be combined as one for purposes of going there, so, 2930 m/s, because the dv to get from Kerbin escape to Moho intercept may vary depending on intercept altitude, but it is nominally 730 dv. 1400 is the value to get from Moho surface to 50K LMO. So, for a single craft launching from Kerbin, landing on Moho, and Launching from Moho to return to Kerbin, the total would be: 4550 1020 730 2200 [unknown, but no more than 1400] 1400 2200 730 1020 ----------- 13850 + [1400 max] It's possible to do this, but it may be easier on your equipment load and fuel requirements if you build a vessel that carries a lander to Moho, detaches the lander, the lander lands, launches, re-docks, transfers crew and any remaining fuel, and then jettisons the lander. This way you don't need to land your return fuel on Moho. This of course assumes you know how to dock well. A parachute is used to return the command pod to Kerbin, so no fuel is needed to land on Kerbin. This is the best delta-V map available right now. I have contributed values to it and recommended that the author add 10% to all true values to account for error.