Razgriz1

Starting it up fresh and attempting to setup a parallel pool yields a log that only says Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ... I have 24 GB of RAM and my CPU has 6 cores and 12 logical processors. I have also verified that I am able to start a 12 worker pool through MATLAB (2018b) itself.

Hey y’all, is there something extra needed to setup the ability to run a parallel pool for optimization? When I try to enable it, I just get a message saying it wasn’t able to start a pool. While I have some experience running parallelized code at work, I’ve never tried to set it up at home. I do have MATLAB, if that’s a requirement.

You should check out Kartoffelkuchen's Launchers Pack. It has the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.1, and the Falcon 9 v1.1 Full Thrust, as well as an Atlas V. It also includes an ASDS and a Landing Zone 1 so you can land the booster back at the launch site or on a barge.

The Delta II's in KK's Launchers Pack have not been updated to the most recent version of KSP. In particular, with the fairings blowing up, the collider that they used is no longer supported by KSP, so it assigns a rectangular collider to the part. When you decouple, the physics engine thinks the payload and the fairing are occupying the same space, and therefore causes them to demolish each other.

Actually, MechJeb is able to do exactly this. This feature is present in the mod, just not in any of the preset windows. To have MJ record the dV expended, all you have to do is go to the custom window editor and create a new window for yourself and then add it in. I believe that it is under the "Recorder" tab in the custom window editor. You can also have it list how much dV was lost to steering losses and drag losses, which is amazingly helpful when trying to make your ascent trajectory more efficient. Hope this helps!

Do you have fairings unlocked? Because a fairing around that probe core would help you out tremendously.

For what it's worth, that "fiery atmosphere" that you experience on ascent is not quite the same as what you're experiencing upon reentry. This fire on the way up is KSP's attempt at mach effects that are much lower than those that would actually create plasma like it looks like. This means that it really isn't doing much to heat your craft. It isn't nearly as destructive as reentry effects. Furthermore, a proper gravity turn, like the one you've started taking, will almost always produce these fiery effects and it's nothing to worry about.

So were I to guess, I would imagine that those engines on the lander in the video have at least some form of attitude control, which would provide some control to counteract the aerodynamic forces. Additionally, I think I remember reading that the actual design of the Aeroshell landers had control surfaces that did not make it onto all of the artists' renderings, such as the one in the video. My advice would be to not worry about sticking to that video too much and instead trying to do it in a way that works. For example, you could try to decouple the heatshield first, to keep it upright.

Time warp while still on the launch pad (or the tracking station!) instead of in a parking orbit. This way, you can launch into LKO and then from there do an interplanetary burn, saving a large amount of DeltaV.

I believe that they rotate like the first picture, as that would provide pitch, yaw, and roll control, whereas the other way would actually not really provide any control at all, as it wouldn't change the flap's angle of attack. Additionally, I believe the fins were mechanically linked to the thrust vanes that deflected the exhaust of the engine, but I cannot find any confirmation for that.

Good luck with that friend! I just started Differential Equations myself.

My initial thoughts are that you are traveling too fast when you lower them and they are being ripped off by aerodynamic forces. However, I can't quite remember whether or not the new gear is affected by that or not (I mostly avoid aircraft) and I don't have my computer with me to check it out.

Just glad to help. There had been some trouble with this sort of thing when people were trying to make RO configs for some existing mods. Long story short, some unsavory words were said...

Not for control, for stability. As far as I know, neither FAR nor Squad's new aerodynamics in 1.0 recognize or compute drag on winglets that are part of the tank. If the winglets are to be for any purpose other than aesthetics (i.e. aerodynamic stability) they have to be separate parts (I think!) It's probably not that big of a deal though since they're pretty small. I just wanted to make you aware of this fact before you really started to put this through Unity.

I like these dimensions. 0.625m seems like it might be just a bit too small for this. Either way, this looks great! good work!

Very Nice! I can't wait to see this in action. One small note (though I am no expert and you may already know this!) I think you want to make the small fins at the bottom a separate part, or they will not actually do anything at all.

That's actually exactly correct, it is due to drag. However, it really isn't a bug, it's just the new aerodynamics in 1.0. For explorer you actually have to take a steeper launch and put it higher up when you are staging. I believe they actually took a much steeper trajectory with the real Explorer launches because of a lack of understanding at the time.

This is awesome! A while back, I attempted to start learning how to 3D model and create parts for KSP by attempting my own Thor for exactly the purpose you described. Unfortunately, it turned out horribly and school got in the way, so I couldn't continue, but I'm so glad that someone has finally started this. Props to you!

If you're using remotetech, your rockets are going to lose connection a couple kilometers away from the launch pad and be uncontrollable. Also, if there is no antenna built into your probe core, the rocket won't be controllable at all, even on the ground, causing your engines to not ignite. To fix this, you could make sure to put enough antennas on your ship to control it in orbit, or just uninstall remotetech entirely.

The only problem with that is that the SRB's that the SLS will use are actually larger than the ones used by the Space Shuttle. The SLS uses a 5 segment booster whereas the shuttle only uses 4 segment boosters.

Actually, as far as I'm aware, those indents around the top are not RCS thrusters. From Aerojet Rocketdyne's website (they made Orion's RCS): Unfortunately, I could find no more information as to the correct placement and angles of these thrusters. I'll keep trying though. Keep up the good work NOS!

The Zarya panels share the same part name with the solar panels they're made from in Near-Future Solar. If you have both mods and don't change the part name for one of them, the Zarya panels do not work.

I've only looked at the Hermes and Atlas probes so far, but both appear to be correctly sized and massed. One thing to note, however, is that the Voyager probes actually contained Hydrazine and had 16 Hydrazine thrusters on them. As it currently stands, your probe has no room for any fuel.

It's liquid. The Delta-K irl is a hypergolic stage fueled by Aerozine 50 and N2O4.

That would be because the shuttle is not compatible with FAR at all. This same question has been asked all over the thread. It just is not ready for FAR yet. It works perfectly fine with stock.