[1.12.*] Deadly Reentry v7.9.0 The Barbie Edition, Aug 5th, 2021

[NathanKell]

Merged; in testing.

[Drew Kerman]

I've been playing with this for most of the past evening (well actually it's morning here now)

I had the problem wrong, it's the exact opposite of what I said.

It looks like the transforms are too close to the bottom of the radial chute AND the radial chute is actually attached 0.0025 deeper into the surface it is mounted to. Together, that puts the transform origin inside the Mk1 pod. (btw I was totally unable to replicate this with the stock radial)

This is a workaround. Add the following code to the RC radial, preferably by using a ModuleManager config. I'm guessing at an appropriate value for adjustCollider. I know for a fact that -0.25 works, but it's too aggressive. It will cause the radial to show up as shielded even if nothing is there to shield it. Haven't tested the value below but it should probably work. If not, increase it a little. (I picked -0.015 as 0.0025 *2 to compensate for the part being sunk in and an additional 0.01 to compensate for the transform, where I'm not exactly sure how far off it is. (what this does btw is to move the origin of the raycast further back along the directional vector. That's why -0.25 is too aggressive; the raycast was actually hitting the radial so it was 'shielding' itself)

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleAeroReentry
        adjustCollider = -0.015
    }

Works great for the one test I was able to pull off before I experienced a hard lock up of my PC. On reboot KSP no longer wanted to load. I'm still trying to figure out where the hell all these "NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object" things are coming from in my log file all the sudden

Edited March 29, 2014 by Gaiiden

[HoneyFox]

Merged; in testing.

You might found that the fairings have quite high maxTemp... which renders them into pretty good heat shields. At least that is what I've experienced during my test.

[Starwaster]

You might found that the fairings have quite high maxTemp... which renders them into pretty good heat shields. At least that is what I've experienced during my test.

Which means. They'll make good Mars reentry aeroshells for Copernicus.

[HoneyFox]

Which means. They'll make good Mars reentry aeroshells for Copernicus.

Guess we need some black texture versions that look like ablative shield for them.

[drtedastro]

wish we had some textures for wing bottoms, and fusulage / fairing bottoms for look like heat shield soak or ablative materials....

all rest looks really good.

[Starwaster]

wish we had some textures for wing bottoms, and fusulage / fairing bottoms for look like heat shield soak or ablative materials....

all rest looks really good.

I think most wings out there share the same texture for top and bottom.

[Crater]

wish we had some textures for wing bottoms, and fusulage / fairing bottoms for look like heat shield soak or ablative materials....

all rest looks really good.

I think most wings out there share the same texture for top and bottom.

Even worse - when you add wings to both sides of a craft, with or without symmetry mode, they're rotated not mirrored. So if you textured a wing with differences between top and bottom, one of them would always be upside down.

The only solution I've seen to that is to have duplicated parts for left and right wings, which is major part bloat, can be major texture bloat if done wrong, and means you cannot use symmetry, but have to resort to tricks like attachment nodes for placing the wings onto the craft, which means you're essentially building a model kit, not your own design.

[Castun]

How does the G tolerance multiplier work in the config? I've noticed that with very small rockets (i.e. a Stayputnik probe core atop a small SRB) when combined with FAR, the G-forces just from the acceleration are disastrous due to the reduced air viscosity (I'm trying out BTSM career mode so that's all you start with.) I tried messing around with the multiplier but everything still seems to blow up once you hit ~13Gs. I've been very careful about having to add multiple boosters and fire them in stages to prevent this, but even on reentry parts are sometimes subjected to high Gs once you hit the thicker atmosphere. The smaller parts like sensors and chutes always seem to succumb to Gs first, so even if the craft survives it's going to dig a hole.

I finally could test this prior to my next kerbed mission and it didn't work. So, I copied and pasted the code directly into the RealChute/Parts/radial_chute.cfg file (didn't want to bother with MM just for testing). I tried the -0.015 value, then -0.025 and finally -0.25. I made sure to save the file each time and I exited and reloaded KSP.exe between each change. I didn't even notice a change between the three values, really. I'm not sure whether the isShielded property that shows up in the right-click dialog is for FAR or DREC but even at -0.25 it showed up as "false".

isShielded is for FAR I believe. The other value shown for Shockwave will read as shielded if it's not exposed to the reentry shockwave IIRC.

[HoneyFox]

How does the G tolerance multiplier work in the config? I've noticed that with very small rockets (i.e. a Stayputnik probe core atop a small SRB) when combined with FAR, the G-forces just from the acceleration are disastrous due to the reduced air viscosity (I'm trying out BTSM career mode so that's all you start with.) I tried messing around with the multiplier but everything still seems to blow up once you hit ~13Gs. I've been very careful about having to add multiple boosters and fire them in stages to prevent this, but even on reentry parts are sometimes subjected to high Gs once you hit the thicker atmosphere. The smaller parts like sensors and chutes always seem to succumb to Gs first, so even if the craft survives it's going to dig a hole.

isShielded is for FAR I believe. The other value shown for Shockwave will read as shielded if it's not exposed to the reentry shockwave IIRC.

These G tolerance parameters are for kerbalnauts AFAIK...

[drtedastro]

Even worse - when you add wings to both sides of a craft, with or without symmetry mode, they're rotated not mirrored. So if you textured a wing with differences between top and bottom, one of them would always be upside down.

The only solution I've seen to that is to have duplicated parts for left and right wings, which is major part bloat, can be major texture bloat if done wrong, and means you cannot use symmetry, but have to resort to tricks like attachment nodes for placing the wings onto the craft, which means you're essentially building a model kit, not your own design.

Yes, this is what i have found as well. Wish I could mod. we really need a 'new' method for wings / bodies / special parts so that different texture can be put on different part. Almost like a partial part, with 'shielding' to be bolted on, or painted or slathered on or such.....

oh well,

[ialdabaoth]

Alternatively, a smart module could re-texture the wing based on which symmetry side it's on.

[Starstrider42]

Hi,

Is there a way to predict how much heating you'll get from a given re-entry trajectory before actually doing it? I'm planning my first interplanetary return mission, and by my math I'll be going at 3600 m/s when I hit the atmosphere. I'd rather not have to use trial and error to find the best periapsis height, especially since I'm using FlowerChild's tweak (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-0-23-Deadly-Reentry-Continued-v4-3-1-11-14/page50?p=820787#post820787) and I've already found out the hard way that it's a bit harder than the original DRE.

Any advice/tools would be much appreciated.

[Guiltyspark]

Ok, something strange is happening to my ships. They seem to get random sideways velocity rapidly, causing a the entire ship to translate from side to side. This keeps setting off the max-G effects of DREC (breaking sounds, kerbals get killed). A day ago, I didn't have this problem. The only mods I've updated since then are:

• HotRockets
  
• Smokescreen
  
• Firespitter
  

Aside from those, I also use KW, B9, Interstellar, and MJ. I already have the latest version of KJR installed. The craft does not wobble; it translates. No RCS was used, only SAS (Stock SAS and MJ's ascent guidance both cause G problems). This exact ship worked perfectly yesterday.

Here's a ship file. You'll need MJ, KW, B9, and Interstellar to load it (possibly KAS as well).

Here's some pictures of what happens:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

EDIT: After more testing, this persists with the ship regardless of being in atmosphere or not. The problem seems to be tied to the lower stages since upon ejecting them the warning goes away.

EDIT 2: Built another launcher vehicle (carries same lander) and everything works fine. Something strange is happening in this launcher.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Guiltyspark

[Rabada]

Hi,

Is there a way to predict how much heating you'll get from a given re-entry trajectory before actually doing it? I'm planning my first interplanetary return mission, and by my math I'll be going at 3600 m/s when I hit the atmosphere. I'd rather not have to use trial and error to find the best periapsis height, especially since I'm using FlowerChild's tweak (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-0-23-Deadly-Reentry-Continued-v4-3-1-11-14/page50?p=820787#post820787) and I've already found out the hard way that it's a bit harder than the original DRE.

Any advice/tools would be much appreciated.

I do not know the answer to this question. I would assume that figuring out heating would be quite complicated and is based on about a dozen different variables, and it would simply be easier to just do the trial and error than to calculate it.

On another note, could anyone offer me some advise for making a Jool atmospheric probe like NASA's Galileo Probe? I attempted to make a probe using all the useful science parts and a 2.5m heat shield which weighed about 2.7t. However when I attempted to enter Jool's atmosphere, even from a very low circular orbit, my heat shield would overheat and blow up before even a tenth of the ablative stuff wore off. I am using FAR for this probe.

[Guiltyspark]

I attempted to make a probe using all the useful science parts and a 2.5m heat shield which weighed about 2.7t. However when I attempted to enter Jool's atmosphere, even from a very low circular orbit, my heat shield would overheat and blow up before even a tenth of the ablative stuff wore off. I am using FAR for this probe.

Are you sure you're probe is failing because of heating and not g-force damage? Otherwise than that, you'll just need an even more circular orbit.

[Mr.Rocket]

Would you be willing to create a stronger series of heatsheilds for RSS? I play on RSS, but without Realism overhaul, so the parts are still the same sizes. Even if i set my PE to only 80km, the 1.25 meter heatsheild burns up in the atmosphere?

[Rabada]

Are you sure you're probe is failing because of heating and not g-force damage? Otherwise than that, you'll just need an even more circular orbit.

Something is overheating. I think that it has something to do with the heatshield being too high in the atmosphere to effectively dissipate thermal energy to the atmosphere. I was doing some research and apparently some people put the cubic octagonal strut between their heatshield and the rest of their ship? Could it be the part that's attached to my heatshield that is over heating? I'm gonna try that after I get off work tonight.

EDIT: oh, and I actually did 4 or 5 aerobreaking passes which brought my orbit around jool down to something like 650km x 208 km, so my orbit is quite low over Jool.

[Starwaster]

Something is overheating. I think that it has something to do with the heatshield being too high in the atmosphere to effectively dissipate thermal energy to the atmosphere. I was doing some research and apparently some people put the cubic octagonal strut between their heatshield and the rest of their ship? Could it be the part that's attached to my heatshield that is over heating? I'm gonna try that after I get off work tonight.

EDIT: oh, and I actually did 4 or 5 aerobreaking passes which brought my orbit around jool down to something like 650km x 208 km, so my orbit is quite low over Jool.

DR doesn't care about altitude or atmospheric density when determining how much heat to reflect or ablate. (Nor are there any physics to support it doing so)

[Guiltyspark]

Something is overheating. I think that it has something to do with the heatshield being too high in the atmosphere to effectively dissipate thermal energy to the atmosphere. I was doing some research and apparently some people put the cubic octagonal strut between their heatshield and the rest of their ship? Could it be the part that's attached to my heatshield that is over heating? I'm gonna try that after I get off work tonight.

EDIT: oh, and I actually did 4 or 5 aerobreaking passes which brought my orbit around jool down to something like 650km x 208 km, so my orbit is quite low over Jool.

Use the 6.25 m inflatable heat shield (it attaches in 2.5 m retracted form). It can withstand 10,000ºC and weighs about a fifth of the Mark 1-2 ablative one.

(I'm also visiting Jool right now and my ship is too large for the 6.25 m heat shield. Worse yet, the heat shield is placed on the side that's father away from the CoM so my ship keeps flipping. So far, all altitudes above 110 km have been really safe regarding heat even without a heat shield. 105 km really set off some fireworks though... )

Edited March 30, 2014 by Guiltyspark

[Castun]

I've had overheating parts blow up, yet in the flight log it says it's from the G-forces (mainly seen when launching, even though G-Forces never exceeds 3Gs.)

Are there any plans to add reentry sound effects? I know there's sounds when parts near overheating, would be kinda neat to hear the crackle of reentry shockwaves though too!

[Rabada]

Use the 6.25 m inflatable heat shield (it attaches in 2.5 m retracted form). It can withstand 10,000ºC and weighs about a fifth of the Mark 1-2 ablative one.

(I'm also visiting Jool right now and my ship is too large for the 6.25 m heat shield. Worse yet, the heat shield is placed on the side that's father away from the CoM so my ship keeps flipping. So far, all altitudes above 110 km have been really safe regarding heat even without a heat shield. 105 km really set off some fireworks though... )

Thankyou for the advice! I got a bit side tracked with a new game but I will be trying this very soon! When I asked that question I was in a career mode game and the 2.5m shield was the biggest I had unlocked I believe.

[Drew Kerman]

I've had overheating parts blow up, yet in the flight log it says it's from the G-forces (mainly seen when launching, even though G-Forces never exceeds 3Gs.)

That reminds me that I posted about this too a little while ago and I don't think I saw a response

at T+48s I lose a solar panel due to excessive G-forces. I didn't even really realize it it was so quick. But when I checked a bit later (shown in the video) I saw the status message. Thing is, by that time my G-force had become even greater, yet I didn't lose any more solar panels (except for the fact that I was ascending too flat and slamming through the atmosphere fast enough for DREC to overheat and eventually explode them all. Oops I should have left the fairing on longer...).

So I'm guessing it wasn't acceleration that damaged the panels but the fact that I was maneuvering in my gravity turn at the time? Or what? I've already launched this same satellite (communication satellite) using the same launch vehicle, and I didn't lose any solar panels due to G-force although I mostly went straight up to stay over the KSC for maximum comm contact length. For the second satellite I was able to use the first to bounce signal and fly over the horizon on a flatter trajectory - too flat it would seem

[Starwaster]

That reminds me that I posted about this too a little while ago and I don't think I saw a response

Yes, maneuvers can generate enough G-forces to damage parts.

Re: the fairings. Probably would not have mattered if you had left them on longer as fairings don't provide adequate protection against thermal heating from atmospheric effects. At least, procedurals do not, at least not reliably as the raycasting fails too easily. Not sure about other types. The next update will check to see if FAR is installed and query FAR as to whether or not a given part is shielded, so fairings will perform better under those circumstances.

[Scripto23]

I'm having some issues with my (radial and conic) chutes burning up immediately after deployment while I'm trying to do a curiosity style reentry on Mars. So the chutes should be able to deploy to slow the craft down somewhat for a powered landing. I saw some discussion earlier about radial chutes burning up and I'm using the most recent DRE and Starwaster's fix, but they are still burning up and I'm not sure if this is intended behavior.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Scripto23