Pappystein

I wouldn't call anything in KSP as "Limited Usefulness" I am still routinely launching Rockets with the Redstone (A-10?) engine from the FASA mod and I am established with an orbital station and routine flights to the mun and minims in my current campaign. I am sure this engine could also find uses later on in the game, even if it is just to run some new science experiment when a new science part is unlocked.

Wasn't suggesting it (Grand Slam or Cloudmaker) Should or would be in your mod. We actually have no idea if Cloudmaker would have ever been used against ships at anchor. And Grand Slam was not ready in time, to try against any capitol ships... Tripitz was already sunk by Tallboys. I was only stating that the Tallboy model, via a rescale factor could be used for Grandslam but not Cloudmaker, even though the Cloudmaker was a derivative design.

And Grandslam is (Model wise) just a scale up unless you want to go super detailed. Only the US Cloudmaker (43,000 pounds) version of the Barnes Wallis Supersonic bombs would need a new model. It had flat sides on the warhead section and the light alloy Breakaway tail was of a less acutely angled cone with 4 fins canted to induce spinning at 40RPM if I recall correctly. T-12 Bomb on Wikipedia

I to have been using BOTH Pwing mods since I found them. However I do not use FAR as it seems to be MORE un-realistic to me than it is realistic *OPINION* However I think KCS123 understated the keys to either Procedural wing mods. In conjunction with the CLAW's stock Bug fixs Stock Bug Fix you can actually create Variable incident Wings that WORK! Hello F-8 Crusader true functionality My SSTOs commonly have a VIW with a 2-3 Degree changeable incidence. AWESOME on landing! you can dramatically lower the part count of your aircraft, and make the aircraft more rigid (sick of having wing panels break off in a high G turn because it is way out there and not enough struts?) Much easier to control the COL placement in relationship to the COM. More advanced airfoil designs (shape and limited-camber not actual airfoil profile obviously) allows for more complex wings (I Often use Cranked Arrow and Scimitar wings which are hard to construct and keep together on a maneuverable aircraft with stock parts due to the above #2 Oh and lets be honest here. There are lots of wing parts out there if you don't like Procedural, including the old B9 ones in the Legacy packs. The B9 design team has decided to no longer create new parts or provide more than basic support for those old parts. Nuff said.

Darn my Trust of Wikipedia Seriously the examples I used were right out of the Monopropellant page on Wikipedia. When does FASA grace your Signature Nathan? That is what I do. Honestly as soon as the armored Solar Cells are available, I put 3 or 4 on the Gemini capsule to stage 2 adapter or the CSM module for the Apollo and run with them. Not Realistic but FASA isn't either. I have used the Fuel cell when I am stuck behind a celestial body away from Kerbol for an extended period.

By Design I think. Frizzank has always maintained that a limited amount of dependencies was the most efficient way to make sure FASA alone did not crash your game. Most Fuel cells use some sort of Hypergolic or very low flash temperature fuel to create an Electrical charge that can then be applied to a battery or other stowage device. Mono-propellant (a most in-appropriately named fuel BTW) is a Hypergolic fuel. IE it reacts when both parts of the Fuel are combined (See it is Bi-Propellant not Mono.....) So without needing an additional mod to add more resources to the Game Frizzank used the most appropriate fuel available for the job. In the Real World Hydrazine Hydrant is used for the Maneuvering thrusters on things like the Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini etc. The second fuel is the catalyst which in the case of the modern thrusters at least is a piece/strip of Iridium Metal. One of the solid compounds that causes Hydrazine to ignite on contact (SO it is Half Liquid Half Solid fuel rocket motor. As only one fuel is used in any quantity someone thought to call it Mono-propellant. Sorry for the digression but it is important to understand WHY Monopropellant was Frizzank's best choice.

I to am having issues with the Airbrakes. Except I don't use FAR/NEAR, just stock aero. In my case, the Air brakes are fine, until I leave the ship in orbit to go to a different ship (Docking/etc.) Afterwords the Air-brakes are stuck and only deploy about 1 degree back in Atmosphere. If this isn't an easy fix, Is there any way AeroSufacePlus can be separated into two separate select-able items? AeroSurfaceLOCK and AeroSurfaceAdjustment, to prevent the in-inadvertent control lockout. Thanks for the continual and Great effort in bug squashing!

Aside from the cylindrical and conical decouplers on Saturn Rockets, as well as DennyTX's LM/CM command pods with issues with the Doors if you try to play this game as a simulation, there appears to be no major issues with FASA at this time. That isn't even a baby Kraken. It is just a couple of standardish Octopi gobbling tasty treats up.

There was a significant change in KSP 1.05 that breaks the way these decouplers were made. I believe that rebuilt decouplers for the Saturn I/V rockets are being constructed for the next update of the FASA mod. Thankfully that means there is likely nothing wrong with your game.... It is the mod and they are working on it.

The Resolution was possibly redacted previously. Oftentimes the US Military/Intelligence community have documents that are copies of documents that are redacted for lower security classification people. Often times these redacted copies are what are released under FOI Act. I have seen similar documents pertaining to aircraft systems and weapons developed during the Vietnam Civil war.

I think Frizzank has done an amazing job with FASA and I look forward to any changes you, and your fellow members/recruits, may bring to FASA Nathan. However I think I need to clear things up here. In my earlier post of engine stats I said: What I meant by that statement is Not Realistic to Earth. No I meant in-line with most other parts in FASA/Core game. In mods with parts directly based/copied/artistically borrowed from Real Earth world Space programs, I will in the future denote Realism as meaning in line with stock KSP and Realism as being real EARTH stats.

I too have noticed this and have my own config files for this and the Titan rocket (all production variants of the LR-87 and LR-91.) Something I have not been able to repair via CFGs is the fact that all three engines in the MA3 engine complex have a single plane Gimbal with a swing path of about 10 degrees. I admittedly have also not mastered the art of "correct" fuels (the LR-87/LR-91 using UMDH for example,) but I have found the rockets to behave similar to Frizzank's performance envelope with a more real world flight profile (IE still Kerbal scale and performance but act similar to real world.) I am porting my engine stats that vary from Frizzank's original CFGs. Please note, NONE of the below settings work without copying Frizzank's CFGs. This makes a more complicated engine selection (15 new engine CFGs with as many more choices in engine selection screen.) Lastly I should mention, I had to "Fudge" a lot of factors due to lack of information in various marks of the engines below. Atlas II Ditch boosters at ~20-30k meters depending on load and peek altitude sought. LR-89 Booster Engine: Max Thrust 334, ISP Vac:290 SL:256 LR-105 Sustainer Engine: Max thrust 275, ISP VAC 375 SL 256 Titan I LR-87-AJ-3 (Titan I First stage) : Max Thrust: 909, ISP Vac: 297, SL: 249 LR-91-AJ-3 (1.875m Kerbal Scale Titan I 2nd Stage): Re-scale Factor=0.75, Max Thrust: 275 ISP VAC: 310 SL:265 Titan II/III/IV and Titan Gemini LR-87-AJ-5 (Titan II ICBM/Titan 2 SLV): Max Thrust: 945 ISP VAC 300, SL:259 LR-87-AJ-7 (Titan II Gemini): Max Thrust: 919 ISP VAC: 315, SL:284 LR-87-AJ-9 (Titan III/3/3x SLV): Max Thrust: 970 ISP VAC: 298, SL:247 LR-87-AJ-11 (Titan 3x/IV/4x SLV): Max Thrust 1001 ISP VAC: 340, SL 260 LR-87-AJ-11A (Titan IV/4x SLV): Max Thrust 1020 ISP VAC:364, SL: 292 LR-91-AJ-5 (2.5m Titan II ICBM Titan 2x SLV): Max Thrust:300 ISP VAC: 288, SL:260 LR-91-AJ-7 (Titan Gemini II): Max Thrust: 275, ISP Vac:325, SL:266 LR-91-AJ-9 (Titan III/3/3x): Max Thrust: 312, ISP Vac:375, SL:310 LR-91-AJ-11 (Titan IV/4/4x): Max Thrust: 332, ISP Vac:378, SL:303 LR-91-AJ-11A (Titan IV late): Max Thrust: 348, ISP Vac:375, SL:310 E-1 An engine originally developed for the Titan Program as a competitor to the LR-87, however the development took too long. Later the plans for the E-1 were enlarged and updated and became the Apollo F-1 engine. So I just F-1 model Frizzank made to fit the 2.5m Frame of the Titan 1st stage and applied my conversion factor (RL to Kerbal.) It is slightly OP (less mass than a similar thrust LR-87) but it is close to proposed specs. I also re-scaled the S-II engine plate to 3.75m for use on the Saturn I 1st stage... (Saturn IC (4 E-1s on the first stage instead of 8 H-1s.) Rescale factor: 0.66 Max Thrust: 997 ISP VAC:299 ISP SL: 265

Then you should report it to the Realism Overhaul and Real Heat forums. Frizzank has ZERO to do with Realism Overhaul outside of providing the models (the CFG files are created by others using Frizzank's Models.)

@TeeGee I have not had this issue and I am running several iterations of the pod (mechjeb built in, RCS removed, etc) all have about the same heat level on both the launch pad as well as flying. Are you using any heating mods like Deadly re-entry etc? I have even had a pod with 6 of the standard Sargent Rockets turned upside down with the flames interacting with the nose cone... it heated up but the Ablator was never touched. Are you using the Latest FASA? Delete your FASA Directory and re-install it would be my suggestion.

I think this has to do with High memory load when KSP Physics loads. 2.5 solutions for this one: 1) Kerbal Joint Re-enforcement is your friend, it should be on everyone's required mod lists. 2) reduce your mod count to reduce memory overhead. 2.5) Shut down applications/Programs when playing KSP. I too had this issue, I was running Excel with my orbital calculation sheet, Firefox to look up stuff in the Kerbal Wiki/Wikipedia and 104 mods on KSP. If I killed Excel and Firefox the command pod wouldn't separate. Since I consider both of those programs essential to how I play KSP I reduced my mod count and re-installed Kerbal Joint Re-enforcement. I have not had an issue since with Command pod separation on the pad. However I have only had the separation when I have a launch clamp (Stock, SpaceY or FASA Launch Tower) attached directly to the command pod.

So to be clear, it is the DELETED T/V that Staged recovery uses (before applying Parachutes and any left over engine D/V?) Then Staged recovery calculates the T/V at Parachute deployment, figures final Velocity and checks against the set safe landing velocity value? Thanks for your answer, just trying to get a handle on how SR works in light of my troubles.

If you leave enough D/V on your Seperated stages and have an Probe core with basic SAS, Staged Recovery does this for you. I successfully landed (recovered) the first stage of my Saturn II INT-18 this way.

Err, How would I be getting the stage Destroyed message when the final Sink rate is less than 2m/s per the Gui feedback page? Is the Drag from Airbrakes, not applied like Parachutes? I use Airbrakes to slow the stages down to safe Parachute temperatures and velocities. I have a 2.5m Stage that has enough air brakes on it that it's terminal velocity is 16m/s The Chutes slow it to below 2 m/s yet with Staged Recovery, once I am out of range of the stage it shows as destroyed. This is in 1.0.2, not 1.0.4 (I have not tested in 1.0.4 yet)

With one set of exceptions I really like the Balance. Maybe a 50 unit bump to the "more resilient" probes (1250 instead of 1200.)

I believe so. Although at this point 1.0.2 has too many little bugs to be 100% certain.

This mod does not replace anything. It is a pretty awesome parts mod to boot. Not quite life-like but as the Mod Creator/maintainer Frizzank will tell you, he wanted a Kerbal Space program that was similar to NASAs space program. NOT NASA's space program. Ie he wanted it to be fun, not realistic. The only time I don't use 100% of this mod is when I am doing a SSTO space plane career. The Gemini capsule is my GOTO capsule for almost everything. I even use Gemini on most of my Saturn Launches! - - - Updated - - - If you leave the side attaching launch clamps on the rocket, this often happens. I had a Saturn II INT-17 break up at less than 1500m when I used the side clamps. Once I switched to the under engine (Redstone 1.25 and Redstone 2.5m clamps) most of my exploding issues went away. This is a known KSP bug and not caused by FASA itself.

I briefely tried the Re-Entry heating rebalance mod. I had issues with several parts overheating from many mods when they shouldn't. I quickly removed the mod and have not had issues since. Likewise specificly with the FASA Gemini nose cones, you can't use the mod Tweak Everything either. - - - Updated - - - I have never had an issue with MJ and FASA (or any other mod for that matter,) unless I combined it with FAR. I will say this, you can't start your gravity turn until you are at about 10K meters with most of the Rockets in game. And you must start with a SLOW turn. - - - Updated - - - Depends on what you want to use it for. I modded my CFG to add basic MJ Ascent guidance to the Explorer core (and the pioneer core and most obviously,the Agena core.) I have not had major issues with the latest dev release of MJ. I know the previous MJ 1.0.2 release was having issues. Have you tried the latest release as of 5 days ago?

No RL has snuck up and bit me in the hindquarter. I am in a forced move mode ATM. Good news it has allowed me to buy my First house. Bad news, the home needs a lot of work before I can take a trip to the museum. I did take a look at more pictures on the net and it looks like the part for your Shuttle door is a 3 bend for a total of 120 degrees part, not a single bend for 90 degrees. Since the Shuttle doors open about 120 degrees that makes sense. I hope that helps.

Very true, and like Frizzank has already stated, it takes a lot of balancing. I am trying to set the SRMs to drop off at the 18-20Km height with a full Titan IIIB/C/D Titan IV loads for UA-1205 and UA-1207 respectfully. IE almost to the point that gimbaling is effective but not quite. Add to the point that I have to keep total craft acceleration down so that I don't break 300m/s below 5K.... FUN It is pointless at the moment for me as RL is interfering with my work but it is a fun math process to crunch on my work breaks.

But couldn't we just use the Fuel per second based on thrust/ISP formula to calculate a reduced fuel burn for lower altitude launch? Then the Rocket would fly realistically yet compressed to KSP standards flight profile. I have been using the formula to futz with my personal UA-1205/1206/1207 (The Titan SRBs for those not in the know) configs for my take on Saturn II using FASA parts. Instead of the normal (RW) ~2.5 minute UA-1207 burn time I am working it out to be roughly 66-75 seconds long with a lower thrust profile to match the more rapid drop in air pressure. IE I am using the formula below to put me in the ballpark of how I feel the engine should work, A MASWAG (Math Applied Scientific Wild A(Donkey) Guess) For those in need the Formula is: Fthrust [N] Isp mdot [kg/s] (this is what you need to find: the rate at which fuel is burnt) g=9.81 [m/s2], Earth's (or Kerbin's) standard acceleration mdot=Fthrust/(Isp*g) I have "corrected" Corax's posted formula, they made the assumption that everyone would know you have to multiply ISP by Gravity before dividing the Thrust. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/18805-Can-someone-give-me-the-formula-for-burn-time-in-seconds-based-on-fuel-units-ISP?p=252635&viewfull=1#post252635