[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.54 June 15

[ekvadorista]

Hello,

I'm new here, but playing stock KSP for a while. Now I realy enjoy playing RP-1, but there is a thing, which confuses me. Sounding core has no avionics control support, meaning no pith, roll... But MechJeb has flight controls usable even with this Sounding core.

Does it mean there is no reason to put procedural avionics on stages? Isn't it pity? So much developer work about procedural avionics and I am sufficient with only sounding core. Is something missing me? How do you guys use these parts?

I'm using mods based on discord modpack btw.

[Bornholio]

16 hours ago, ekvadorista said:

Hello,

I'm new here, but playing stock KSP for a while. Now I realy enjoy playing RP-1, but there is a thing, which confuses me. Sounding core has no avionics control support, meaning no pith, roll... But MechJeb has flight controls usable even with this Sounding core.

Does it mean there is no reason to put procedural avionics on stages? Isn't it pity? So much developer work about procedural avionics and I am sufficient with only sounding core. Is something missing me? How do you guys use these parts?

I'm using mods based on discord modpack btw.

That core is heavy and power hungry, also has no ability to turn on or off RCS state since it allows no avionics tonnage. You can't transfer science to it.   Its based on the aerobee core allowing some limited functions and timers. Later US cores are much lighter with tiny power consumption and science instruments integrated.

When you go to orbit it can be done, but not reliably, using the sounding rocket core. Generally you need one last controllable stage with rcs spin up to set a AP burn. Then once you are there you'll only have a few orbits of battery because of power consumption.  Also without the ability to turn off rcs many times RCS fuel is bled off being used unnecessarily.  This can be partially mitigated with staging of RCS thrusters.

With launch clamps you can even leave that Core off. Set some trim to spin the rocket and power up the rocket and stage the clamp. No interaction after that.

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by Bornholio
Needed more pics

[golfsoccer9]

Hello,

Would anyone happen to know how much charge is needed to get to the moon?  I'm trying to perform some scientific gathering missions in orbit or during a fly-by of the moon.  I have about 14,000 units of charge on my three stage rocket, but I run out of charge about half way to the moon (I have an able avionics unit for the lower and mid stage and early controllable probe for the upper).  I have solar panels on the upper stage (around 4 medium solar panels) but they never seem to be able to charge up the procedural battery and charge on the early controllable probe.  I've thought about adding a larger procedural battery, but the extra weight decreases my total delta v.

Thanks!

[ekvadorista]

13 hours ago, Bornholio said:

That core is heavy and power hungry, also has no ability to turn on or off RCS state since it allows no avionics tonnage. You can't transfer science to it.   Its based on the aerobee core allowing some limited functions and timers. Later US cores are much lighter with tiny power consumption and science instruments integrated.

When you go to orbit it can be done, but not reliably, using the sounding rocket core. Generally you need one last controllable stage with rcs spin up to set a AP burn. Then once you are there you'll only have a few orbits of battery because of power consumption.  Also without the ability to turn off rcs many times RCS fuel is bled off being used unnecessarily.  This can be partially mitigated with staging of RCS thrusters.

With launch clamps you can even leave that Core off. Set some trim to spin the rocket and power up the rocket and stage the clamp. No interaction after that.

 

Thank you for the answer, appreciate it!

[Bornholio]

14 hours ago, golfsoccer9 said:

Hello,

Would anyone happen to know how much charge is needed to get to the moon?  I'm trying to perform some scientific gathering missions in orbit or during a fly-by of the moon.  I have about 14,000 units of charge on my three stage rocket, but I run out of charge about half way to the moon (I have an able avionics unit (150W each) for the lower and mid stage and early controllable probe (50W or 1W with avionics turned off) for the upper).  I have solar panels on the upper stage (around 4 medium solar panels (Max 7.9W each at 100%)) but they never seem to be able to charge up the procedural battery and charge on the early controllable probe.  I've thought about adding a larger procedural battery, but the extra weight decreases my total delta v.

Thanks!

First know that Modified ElectricCharge system - 1EC/s = 1kW, 1EC = 1kJ.   So each EC/s or kW times the seconds it operates is the EC or kJ of battery needed.

For example the proc avionics shown above needs 27.6W or .0276kW  so after 2200s in earth orbit (dark side for instance) it will have used 61 EC. If there are no generators you will need 2400ec per day.  a pair of 15W solar cells even both 100% sun facing would have a hard time keeping it powered.

@golfsoccer9 Your consumption not counting antenna is probably 50W unless you turn the probe to low power mode, maybe even as high as 200W if an able is going along for the ride.  while power generation at best is 24W or maybe 60W if those are ST1 Solar Panels instead of ST1 Medium Solar Panels.  I'd first make sure they are upgraded from mediums, make sure you get rid of any ables after TLI and then power down the ECC probe. it can be worth using some light structural to make a frame for getting all the solar panels on a balanced plane and positioned so they all see the sun.  then reduce the battery to 4-5000 this will allow for the ECC to be on during night time and that maneuver to set orbit at luna. If you are already to Early Power gen tech it is well worth the weight to use a ranger cell as it is you first high density foldable

Battery should be enough to meet power demands when you are in shade or at odd angles for maneuvers.  the best thing to do is understand what your total power draw is (antenna,control etc.) in kW  then make sure you can exceed this with sun facing solar or fuel cells. also remember to turn off avionics if you have that function.  The avionics on probes is generally the largest power draw.  At 200km parking orbit around earth you will need batteries for a 2200 second night time.  Lunar orbits will need 2600 seconds or more.  For your TLI stage, the able is drawing 540 per hour so its usually best to dump that stage immediately and have a bit of extra battery that leaves with that stage if you have to wait for TLI start much.

If you are using MJ smartA.S.S. has a advance facing function the can place you sun relative and with the right selections keep you with a solar panel facing at the sun. Select a solar panel you want to optimize and watch the efficiency.  I generally use side placed and choose sun relative prograde and set force roll to the angle that is best for the cells.

 

If you need help estimating the shade duration in parking orbit use the Visual remotetech planner link at the bottom of https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki/RemoteTech-antenna-ranges-in-RO

This tool has a good power planner but needs a settings change to work with RSS/RO/RP0

https://ryohpops.github.io/kspRemoteTechPlanner/#/settings

Edited June 30, 2018 by Bornholio
look up part stats

[AVaughan]

@golfsoccer9 : For an early Lunar flyby I normally use the 20 inch X-ray detector.  That has only a 1W power draw, and plenty of battery to last till after the flyby.  Just make sure that after you have the flyby setup, you decouple the transfer stage, and everything you don't need that will drain power.

[golfsoccer9]

21 hours ago, AVaughan said:

@golfsoccer9 : For an early Lunar flyby I normally use the 20 inch X-ray detector.  That has only a 1W power draw, and plenty of battery to last till after the flyby.  Just make sure that after you have the flyby setup, you decouple the transfer stage, and everything you don't need that will drain power.

 

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 8:00 AM, Bornholio said:

First know that Modified ElectricCharge system - 1EC/s = 1kW, 1EC = 1kJ.   So each EC/s or kW times the seconds it operates is the EC or kJ of battery needed.

For example the proc avionics shown above needs 27.6W or .0276kW  so after 2200s in earth orbit (dark side for instance) it will have used 61 EC. If there are no generators you will need 2400ec per day.  a pair of 15W solar cells even both 100% sun facing would have a hard time keeping it powered.

@golfsoccer9 Your consumption not counting antenna is probably 50W unless you turn the probe to low power mode, maybe even as high as 200W if an able is going along for the ride.  while power generation at best is 24W or maybe 60W if those are ST1 Solar Panels instead of ST1 Medium Solar Panels.  I'd first make sure they are upgraded from mediums, make sure you get rid of any ables after TLI and then power down the ECC probe. it can be worth using some light structural to make a frame for getting all the solar panels on a balanced plane and positioned so they all see the sun.  then reduce the battery to 4-5000 this will allow for the ECC to be on during night time and that maneuver to set orbit at luna. If you are already to Early Power gen tech it is well worth the weight to use a ranger cell as it is you first high density foldable

Battery should be enough to meet power demands when you are in shade or at odd angles for maneuvers.  the best thing to do is understand what your total power draw is (antenna,control etc.) in kW  then make sure you can exceed this with sun facing solar or fuel cells. also remember to turn off avionics if you have that function.  The avionics on probes is generally the largest power draw.  At 200km parking orbit around earth you will need batteries for a 2200 second night time.  Lunar orbits will need 2600 seconds or more.  For your TLI stage, the able is drawing 540 per hour so its usually best to dump that stage immediately and have a bit of extra battery that leaves with that stage if you have to wait for TLI start much.

If you are using MJ smartA.S.S. has a advance facing function the can place you sun relative and with the right selections keep you with a solar panel facing at the sun. Select a solar panel you want to optimize and watch the efficiency.  I generally use side placed and choose sun relative prograde and set force roll to the angle that is best for the cells.

 

If you need help estimating the shade duration in parking orbit use the Visual remotetech planner link at the bottom of https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki/RemoteTech-antenna-ranges-in-RO

This tool has a good power planner but needs a settings change to work with RSS/RO/RP0

https://ryohpops.github.io/kspRemoteTechPlanner/#/settings

That helps a lot! Thank you both!

[Antstar]

So, after a hiatus I am back to KSP. I decided to wait until I have a NTR to go to Mercury orbit, its just too much dV.

In my quest to visit the nearby planets I am planning a probe to land on Venus. Has anyone who has done this got any tips? I am trying to figure out if I need to thrust into orbit, or if ballistic aerocapture is possible (ie. will a lunar rated heatshield take it, or just explode?). Will the probe overheat on the surface like IRL or should the parts be ok?

I hear its almost as hot there as my room is at the moment :D

[Zeiss Ikon]

If FAR is doing its job, you probably at least don't need a parachute to land on Venus.  They landed at least one of the Venera probes after a paracute failure, but the atmosphere is so dense the terminal velocity was low enough to leave a functioning probe (until the heat got it) after landing.

Most of the parts I've looked at have temperature tolerances listed -- structural parts are likely to take the heat just fine (it's not quite as hot as a pot of molten lead, after all; steel will still have most of its strength at that temperature, though aluminum will be starting to weaken pretty badly).  It's the electronics that will have trouble, and there isn't (that I know of) any way to simulate sending along a big bucket of liquid nitrogen (the way the Soviets did) to keep things cooled for a while.  Once that heat soaks in, your instruments or your probe core will fail, pretty much no way around it.

[Bornholio]

1 hour ago, Antstar said:

So, after a hiatus I am back to KSP. I decided to wait until I have a NTR to go to Mercury orbit, its just too much dV.
Will the probe overheat on the surface like IRL or should the parts be ok? I hear its almost as hot there as my room is at the moment

First, you only need NTR for mercury if you need to get a good amount of mass there.  A hydrolox+simple three stage storageble/solid setup can get a small probe into mercury orbit.

Venus is very easy to get a capture, you need a basic heat shield or even a high drag aeroshell.  your drag hits so fast it can really keep the heating rate down.

No parachute is needed use either a lithobreak system like structural or antennas or landing gear. I've had literal space junk accidentally make the descent safely. landing speed will be 10-15m/s depending on dragginess.  be prepared to wait a long time. its more like sinking through soup that falling through air.  Most of the time i try and use a parachute it just rips off or never deploys. if you want to try use a kevlar drogue.

This was a carrier frame for a coms constellation that I dropped after aerocapture. It was so high drag that when i switch craft while doing the capture I couldn't get back to the rest of the sats and had to ride it down before switching to them. It broke one of the 4 decouplers on landing. I had a probe core and batteries plus basic antenna on it so it got my first landed science for that career.

Make sure you have comms ready to go into orbit.

[Antstar]

28 minutes ago, Bornholio said:

First, you only need NTR for mercury if you need to get a good amount of mass there.  A hydrolox+simple three stage storageble/solid setup can get a small probe into mercury orbit.

Venus is very easy to get a capture, you need a basic heat shield or even a high drag aeroshell.  your drag hits so fast it can really keep the heating rate down.

No parachute is needed use either a lithobreak system like structural or antennas or landing gear. I've had literal space junk accidentally make the descent safely. landing speed will be 10-15m/s depending on dragginess.  be prepared to wait a long time. its more like sinking through soup that falling through air.  Most of the time i try and use a parachute it just rips off or never deploys. if you want to try use a kevlar drogue.

Make sure you have comms ready to go into orbit.

Awesome advice.
Much of the rocket is already designed/modified from something I sent to Vesta. Now that I know aerocapture is viable, the whole thing is going to head to Venus, then the probe will detach and do a small burn to get there about an hour earlier. The comms will follow and go into orbit. Yeah I decided to include a parachute, its already kevlar and 2 chutes * 1.5m for what will be ~450kg when the heatshield is dropped. And they wont even semi-deploy until 200m from surface. I was only worried about the more than escape velocity entry

[Antstar]

Never mind, I found the correct thread and can't delete my comment

Edited July 4, 2018 by Antstar

[Phineas Freak]

@Antstar

• Find the "ProcSizes.cfg" file under the "RP-0/Tree" path
• Delete the " !PART[proceduralSRBRealFuels] {} " MM patch at line 67
• (Re)start KSP

[Antstar]

9 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

@Antstar

• Find the "ProcSizes.cfg" file under the "RP-0/Tree" path
• Delete the " !PART[proceduralSRBRealFuels] {} " MM patch at line 67
• (Re)start KSP

ARGH. Didn't work.
I did exactly this, removing the line. Restarted KSP. No SRBs
I quit and deleted the MM cache file. Restarted KSP. No SRBs.

Any other ideas @Phineas Freak

[Albert7df]

Hello, i'm using ksp 1.3.1; there is a lot of time i haven't played it. I had notice that rp-0 hasn't had to much activity in github. I already knew that there was an rp-1. But there is not rp-1 on ckan or a new version of rp-0. I know also it's for free and people need to do another things to life. So... when a new version of rp-0/rp-1 is going to be released on ckan?

[Rob K]

Hello fellow rocketeers.

I've been playing the 1.3.1 dev version for a few weeks now and having a blast, but am starting to run into the issue that the tech tree is pretty sparsly populated with parts once you go beyond the lunar/apollo tech levels.

All mod parts show up when you start a sandbox game (infernal robotics/station part packs/tested kspi etc) but do not show up in the rp-1 tech tree in career, I assume this is because of the new node names that are used in rp-1.

So my question is, is there an easy way to get modded parts (most use the community tech tree) to show up in the rp-1 tech tree?

I would think a mm-patch that basicly says "node X (CTT)=node X (rp-1)" should work ? Has anyone made something like this or would this be a hard one to write? (I have very limited coding skills, copy/paste mostly ;D ) Or would it be an idea to add this to the rp-1 standard patches? allowing for other mods to integrate more easily into rp-1.

Also I tried scouring the github pages for this but I cannot find any information on the new nodes and their toughts behind it.

 

Also a GIANT THUMBS UP to the entire dev team for making and supporting this totally awesome modpack.

[Bornholio]

4 hours ago, Rob K said:

So my question is, is there an easy way to get modded parts (most use the community tech tree) to show up in the rp-1 tech tree?

Inside of the branch the parts are added to the spreadsheet and can be generated from that. Since no one is currently maintaining it though for personal mods you can edit the /GameData/RP-0/Tree/TREE-Parts.cfg and the other files in the tree folder.

@PART[Bumper_Nose]:FOR[xxxRP0]
{
    %TechRequired = unlockParts
    %cost = 30
    %entryCost = 1
    RP0conf = true
    @description ^=:$: <b><color=green>From Taerobee mod</color></b>
}

 

[Rob K]

@Bornholio

Thanks. I'll take a look at that after the weekend.

I'm mostly looking to get the infernal robotics parts and some isru and reactor parts from kspi-e into my game.

 

 

 

[MR_STYLZ]

Worked on installing this last night -and it was kind of pain.

Did it through CKAN with not much luck

did it manually following these steps:

used ksp 1.2.2

manually downloaded all RO mods and dependcies

downloaded RP-O and dependicies

when laoded up it looks good - tech tree looks ok, but when build rockets fuel never goes into the engines.  Copied youtube video builds of first rockets (procedural tank with aerobee, then right clicked the tank and loaded the proper fuel which it shows loaded - try to launch and it doenst have fuel pumpin to the engine it seems so doesnt do anything.  The videos and builds I see of this basic rocket are identical and theirs worked.

 

so looking for 2 things - is everoyne else doing 1.2.2 and downloading old mods?

if not do you have a good guide step by step for isntall of this mod (including RP-O)

 

secondly, whats up with my engines?

[Ixenzo]

Is it intended behaviour that (some) single ignition engines can ignite multiple times? Situation: LR105-NA-5 sustainer with two LR89 (LR43-NA-3) boosters on the launchpad held together by clamps. LR89's have one unit of the TEATEB igniter, and promptly refuse to light up a second time. LR105 doesn't have the igniter, and lights up multiple times despite the ignitions remaining readout clearly showing zero.

Is this a specific design of the real engine that allows it to be reignited on the launchpad on the spot?

Edit: I should clarify that I cut thrust with X and the LR89's did not reignite the second time. However, shutting down the engine entirely, setting throttle to 100%, and then manually activating the engine again does reignite it despite not having TEATEB or ignitions remaining left. An engine that failed to ignite due to TestFlight completely removes its activate/shutdown button and as such cannot be replicated.

KSP 1.3.1, mods mostly from the spreadsheet.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Ixenzo

[AVaughan]

@MR_STYLZ I haven't played with RO/RP-0 for a few months, (and it's been over a year since I played with the 1.2.2 version) but from memory many of the early engines need a highly pressurised fuel tank, and you might need to change the tank type.  If you right click on the engine it should tell you whether that is the issue.  (I forget whether you can do that in the VAB in 1.2.2, or only once it is on the launch pad). 

For RP-0 tutorials I recommend Nathan Kell's 1.2.2 RP-0 tutorial series. 

 

[Bornholio]

Noticed a flaw in updating or adding KSC Switcher mid game.  If you do this it can change your VAB build and pads to default amounts.

Changing back requires cheating or editing the persistent save KCT data section to restore the previous values.  These values are stored in the "stock" location instead of the US_cape Canveral one

 

@MR_STYLZ  try 1.3.1 and CKAN install except for RP-0, i'd use Developmental branch since master really didn't get needed updates for quite a while.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Bornholio

[Rob K]

Question for the devs, @Bornholio, @Phineas Freak, @NathanKell

Is there a setting somewhere in the dev-version for 1.3.1 to change the rollout costs?

later in the game (mid 90's and I have a BFR-like reusable orbital booster) but the rollout costs become plain silly.

I'm now paying over 2.000.000 (x1000$ was it?) per rollout of what is essentially a almost fully reusable spacecraft, 3400 tons at launch and only the interstage-fairings and payload fairing don't recover for 100 tons to orbit.

I don't really want to resort to hacking my savefile and setting the contract rewards even higher (I'm at 500%), so I was wondering if there is a variable in the configs I can lower somewhere?

 

Also is any work still being done on the developement? It has been quiet on the github lately and I would really like to see more advanced things like ISRU and longer term habitation/lifesupport.

Still loving the pack, it's causing plenty too late nights. :D

[Bornholio]

17 hours ago, Rob K said:

Question for the devs, @Bornholio, @Phineas Freak, @NathanKell

Is there a setting somewhere in the dev-version for 1.3.1 to change the rollout costs?

Also is any work still being done on the developement? It has been quiet on the github lately and I would really like to see more advanced things like ISRU and longer term habitation/lifesupport.

 

Rollout costs are contained in the KCT preset  and can be edited in play

RolloutCostFormula = (((([L]+1)^2.5)*200)-180) + ([BP] * (0.7 + (([SN]^0.5)*0.05) + (([SP]^0.5)*0.05)) * (([L]+12)^1.2) * 0.00011)

No-one with push rights is active now.  Hopefully they regain some time and sanity coming back to do so.

@Starwaster has done some good work with Real ISRU hopefully he is able to continue his blessed endeavor.

[Antstar]

Hello :D

Quick question on crew training. From wiki:

Training course times and durations that the training lasts are based on the pod/crew container and the stupidity of the Astronaut. see CrewTrainingTimes.cfg for base times.

1. Proficiency Course Give a skill set that allows the 'naut to be trained to do missions in that crew space.
2. Refresher Course Retrains or updates the training time for a previously proficiency trained crew member.
3. Mission Course Trains the crew to perform upcoming missions. (available slots = 2x crew capacity of part)

 

I have never had proficiency expire (I had a problem with disappearing astronauts that may now be fixed). After looking at the config file I still have no idea how long proficiency lasts before refresher is needed??