ninjaweasel

I just did a mission to the moon Ceti (GPP Minmus equivalent) with the following experiments on my craft: - Science Jr 9000 - Mystery Goo - Temp - Pressure - Dust Collector. I came back with over 4000 Science. If I could have stored my EVA report and surface sample if would have been closer to 5000 . It's difficult to say because of the number of experiments happening on at each situation change, but I think the mod is collecting and resetting the one use only experiments. It's the only way I can explain such a massive haul from one mission. I'm am wrong in thinking it's an impossible amount for those experiments?

I'm having the opposite problem. I put a science lab on the mun, and on reload from a quicksave, the vessel floats up off the surface. There is no gravity, and burning engines has no impact on velocity. Reloading subsequent quicksaves causes the issue to occur there as well. For example, If I load the quicksave with the vessels already landed, they float up off the surface. If I then load the quicksave with the vessel in descent, it's stuck in a 294.5m/s fall. This was a well developed persistence file and it had no issues until the use of the in menu save/load buttons.

After reading this, it is clear that my problem is that I don't know the first thing about how to fly the Mk1-2 pod. My procedure has been: 1. Set periapsis 2. Turn on decent mode. Because I'm descending, right? 3. Cross fingers, hope I got step 1 right. Where can the instructions for flying that pod be found?

I'm curious as to what others use for a re-entry procedure from the moon. I've experimented with different aerocapture altitudes and from a free-return trajectory, a 70km aps sends me for 3 orbits before I finally settle into a re-entry orbit, but a 64k aps kills my kerbals from g's on the reentry orbit (second pass). I'm using a mk1-2 pod in decent mode with no extra weight but a chute and a heat shield. Life support waste gets jettisoned with the last stage as does anything else extraneous. I've seen youtube videos with Apollo re-creation missions where people do a reentry in one orbit and I'm wondering how to do that without an over-g death. Sorry if I missed the answer somewhere in this 30 page thread.

Awesome! As Ophiuchus said, The other work was supportive/interim. Anything I find, I'll post for you, although it looks like he got an earlier start than me today and has already fed you a bunch of great data!

I was thinking that calculating area under the curve should be the easiest thing. Since total area under the curve = 100% fuel burnt, I should be able to average one fuel % interval to the next to calculate time. Since the problem has been solved for the booster I was working with, I'll give that a try on the next build I do.

Awesome find! Is there a higher resolution? That one got downsized and I can't really read it. I should be able to extract approximate #'s if that's all there is. I was already thinking about how to convert propellant % to time so that I could tweak numbers more accurately without having to do a test flight just to see when the booster would run out of oomph. I'm not there yet, but with a couple of the right formulas I should have excel doing this for me before too long. Even to eye-ball it, I shouldn't be too far off. I think I understand the rationale here. It ramps up to avoid shock-loading on launch, then pushes max thrust to get supersonic, minimizing drag. Makes sense.

So, First off, discovery: MM Database re-load didn't like me. Post-re-load, the mass of those boosters shot up to 1050t. Not cool for testing purposes! On the EAP-241A thrust curves. My methodology was to use the following goalposts: Metrics for which I lacked data: - A satisfactory TWR at launch. I went for about 1.3 - A Max Q similar to the Delta series rockets (roughly 50 KPa) Data pulled from the user manual: - 1000 m/s @ 80 seconds - 2000 m/s @ 120 seconds - 4.5g Max G loading - Burn Time of 129 seconds - Booster Separation @ 100Km (this just helped define the ascent curve, isolating that variable somewhat) I'm on target for all of these within a reasonable degree of error, with the exception of 2000m/s @ 120 seconds. I blow through that and hit about 2200. But if I turn down the thrust to hit that figure accurately, I blow the burn time figure etc... I don't envy your task if you're going to do this for every SRB out there! I know this is a very different shape from the default curve and I don't know how realistic that is. I know that SRB thrust/time is controlled by the shape of the combustion chamber and the exposed surface area of the propellant, but I don't know how accurately that can be tuned. That being said, it reasonably emulates the real-world flight profile so... if the shoe fits? key = 0 0 key = 0.03 0.69 key = 0.1 0.78 key = 0.16 0.85 key = 0.23 0.91 key = 0.29 0.97 key = 0.35 1 key = 0.42 .98 key = 0.48 0.95 key = 0.55 0.91 key = 0.61 0.87 key = 0.68 0.82 key = 0.74 0.76 key = 0.81 0.71 key = 0.87 0.66 key = 0.94 0.63 key = 1 0.6

If I do a MM database reload, will that force a reload of the .cfg file, or do I have to restart KSP every time I tweak the file?

Thought so, just wanted to be sure!

For all those having issues with other mods, I had to re-install a bunch of folders after the latest update. Procedural Parts and Fairings, and SmartParts all stopped working, possibly others. A simple folder delete and reinstall fixed them. The new thrust curves on the SRBs are awesome! What an ambitious project! I built and test flew an Ariane V (ECA) today (Mass was accurate to within 1% of real world figures). With my standard 1t test satellite as a payload, TWRs were as follows: T +0: 0.95. Amusement followed the launch attempt as this massive rocket walked all over Kourou, since I didn't put launch clamps on it T+15: 1.33. Positive rate of climb established T+60: 3.23. Mach 1.4 at 8000m T+75: 3.87. Mach 2.7 at 16000m. Atmospheric density at about .14 but still under high dynamic pressure. (even got an indication of aerodynamic failure, but couldn't figure out what fell off). T+80: 3.93. peak TWR T+120: 2.80 Gradual TWR fall off during the transition to down range flight (which came late because I feared changing pitch and ripping the rocket apart!) T+157: SRB thrust @ 20Kn, SRBs jettisoned I would say initial thrust could be about 30-35% higher, and the drop off needs to be faster (they're only rated for a 129 second burn). Although the X Axis of the graph is compressed since it shows the whole flight, Figure 3.2.1.a in the users manual is a good reference. I'll play with the EAP-241A for a while (if you'd like me to) if you can confirm for me the function of the two numbers in your thrust curve. I think I get it, but want to be sure before I waste a bunch of time and just screw it up. The Ariane V users manual has Time/Speed, Time/G force, and Time/Altitude curves, so I should be able to put together a pretty good profile. PS: NK, this is where my other thread about getting the GTO burns perfect comes in. Unlike the Delta series upper stages, the upper stage of the Ariane V has no re-ignition capability, so you don't have the same flexibility for GTO and plane change burns. This rocket is going to be HARD to fly!

TeeGee, do you want to post your craft files or are you going to keep that beauty all to yourself? =)

I just got a satellite up to the moon today and for the most part, it looks fantastic. However, I'm getting these tan blobs over-layed on it: They're there on the map view as well. They aren't perfectly fixed; they randomly shift size and shape a little bit, but appear to be concentrated on lower altitudes. Is this RSS or EVE, and any ideas of what I've done wrong? Edit: It appears to have been EVE. I wasn't liking either the clouds or the Lights Overlay (neither seemed to be working/aligned properly) So I deleted the Cluds and Lights .DLLs and this was the result on the Moon. Cheers

Procedural Parts. They make it easiest to measure lengths. So when a website tells me that the Delta IV CBC is xx meters long, I build a procedural tank that long as a measuring stick, then build the actual tank, engine and other parts to match that length. To try to use pre-made tank lengths and get accurate vehicle sizes would be very difficult, and would involve a lot more parts, and probably some wasted mass. Done!

At this point, I don't even care where the satellite ends up, other than over the equator in a circular orbit at 35786km. Figuring out a launch window is a later problem! My priority right now is figuring out how to plan the GTO burn such the Ap ends up at 0 degrees latitude. As far as I've determined, Mr Shifty has then best plan. Since I'll eventually have a few satellites in Geo-Stationary Orbits, I fake it by making one of them the target during the GTO burn. I'm hoping I can convince somebody to build a mod or MechJeb module that handles equatorial AN/DN better, and provides orbital parameter data for orbits post-manoeuvre node.

I started up the craft repository today for anybody wishing to contribute their RO designs for public consumption. My little Deltas are looking lonely there right now! RO Craft Repository

My own contribution: The Boeing Delta Family of Rockets from the Delta II on to the Delta IV. Many thanks to Ophiuchus to helping me figure out how to try to separate 6 boosters without blowing up my launch vehicles. In fact, the included first stage of the Delta III here is largely his design. This pack contains all of the sub-assemblies required to build any one of the Delta variants listed below from the 6XXX up, with the exception of the payload kick stages which I haven't included, but for KSP purposes are really just an engine and a tank. Kick engines are included in Realism Overhaul. I've included one fully assembled Delta II 6920 with a Comm Sat on it as an example. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vj4etkb2lzzq5ke/Delta%20Family%20Rocket%20Sub%20Assemblies.zip https://www.dropbox.com/s/13cct93nfgc66u0/Comm%20Sat%20on%20Delta%20II%206920.craft Notes: - Additional Mod Packs required above and beyond RO for these craft include Klockhheed Martian Smart Parts, Davon Thrust Control (Delta IV H only), And Wolf Aeronautics Perfectrons (that's just off the top of my head, there may be more) - When using 9 booster configurations, there is a tendency for your jettisoned boosters to be flung against your craft, destroying it. I have discovered that there is no "One size fits all fix for this". Add/re-position sepatrons as required to get a clean separation. What works with a 1t payload may not work with a 4t payload. (Edit: The new thrust curves may solve this thanks to residual thrust in the booster when it is jettisoned. Flight testing Required) - I don't recommend using MechJeb ascent guidance autopilot (I also turn off SAS during ascents). I find that at booster separation, things go badly. I recommend setting your ascent profile, selecting "show Nav Ball Guidance", then flying that profile with SmartASS. - This is my first time posting craft, so I've probably screwed something up. Let me know and I'll do my best to fix any problems. "The Delta launch vehicle was always viewed as an interim launch vehicle in NASA's stable, and was used to retain an intermediate size orbital payload capability until larger launch vehicles were developed. The Delta Project Manager at NASA, Bill Schindler, had a knack for keeping the program alive. He would participate in the launch vehicle assignment process, and when he found that Headquarters was about to kill the Delta on the grounds that a new mission exceeded its capabilities, he would assure them that Delta could do the job. Then he would challenge his technical staff, and often with the aid of the prime contractor, McDonnell Douglas, and our Goddard technical staff, to figure out a way to extend the flight envelope. This process occurred many times, and it was extremely difficult as production launch vehicles are not meant to undergo such constant changes in design. Delta payloads grew from about 200 lbm in low earth orbit in 1960 to about 4100 lbm in geosynchronous orbit by 1990." The configuration of Delta vehicles was encoded for forty years as follows: First digit: basic vehicle configuration: 0 = Castor 2 solid propellant strap-ons, Long Tank Thor core with MB-3 engine 1 = Castor 2 strap-ons, Extended Long Tank core with MB-3 engine 2 = Castor 2 strap-ons, Extended Long Tank core with RS-27 engine (derived from surplus H-1 engines of the Saturn IB). 3 = Castor 4 solid propellant strap-ons, Extended Long Tank core with RS-27 engine 4 = Castor 4A strap-ons, Extended Long Tank core with MB-3 engine 5 = Castor 4A strap-ons, Extended Long Tank core with RS-27 engine 6 = Castor 4A strap-ons, Extra Extended Long Tank core with RS-27 engine 7 = GEM-40 solid propellant strap-ons, Extra Extended Long Tank core with RS-27A engine 8 = GEM-46 solid propellant strap-ons, Delta-3 strengthened Extra Extended Long Tank core with RS-27A engine 9 = GEM-60 solid propellant strap-ons, Delta-4 Lox/LH2 cryogenic core with RS-68 engine. Second digit: Number of solid propellant strap-ons (0, 3, or 9 prior to Delta IV. 0, 2, or 4 for Delta-4). Third digit: Second stage 0 = Delta storable propellant stage with AJ10-118 series engines 1 = Delta storable propellant stage with TR-201 engines (surplus TRW Apollo Lunar Module upper stage engines) 2 = Delta K storable propellant stage with AJ10-118K engine 3 = Delta-3 Lox/LH2 cryogenic upper stage with RL10B-2 engine 4 = Delta-4 Lox/LH2 cryogenic upper stage with 4 m diameter 5 = Delta-4 Lox/LH2 cryogenic upper stage with 5 m diameter Fourth digit: Third stage 0 = No third stage 1 = Not used 2 = Not used 3 = Star 37D / TE-364-3 solid propellant kick stage 4 = Star 37E / TE-364-4 solid propellant kick stage 5 = Star-48B / PAM-D solid propellant kick stage (often listed as '0' upper stage with a PAM-D due to the modular nature of the PAM configuration). 6 = Star 37FM solid propellant kick stage Optional letter after fourth character: An 'H' here indicated a 'Heavy' configuration. For Delta II, this was use of 46 inch diameter GEM solid strap-on motors in place of the standard Castor motors. For Delta IV, it indicated use of two strap-on Common Booster Cores (CBC) to supplement the CBC on the core stage. Encyclopedia Astronautica Delta II 6920 Delta III 8930 Delta IV Heavy

Hey all, This thread is intended to be the repository for all craft designed and built to be flown with Realism Overhaul. As a minimum, the craft here will need all of the required supporting mods listed in the realism overhaul thread, and possibly more depending on the author. I will add craft into this first post as they are added by their authors. Replica Craft Replica Launch Vehicles (i.e. rockets only. eg Boeing Delta Family, Ariane V, etc) NinjaWeasel's Boeing Delta Family Ophiuchus' Delta III Ophiuchus' Delta IV S Replica Command Modules/Landers/Integrated Systems (eg. Saturn/Apollo, Falcon 9 type vehicles) Replica Orbiters (eg, Buran, Space Shuttle) Non-Replica Craft Non-Replica Launch Vehicles Non-Replica Command Modules/Landers/Integrated Systems TeeGee's 3 Man Pod Launch System Starling 1 Non-Replica Orbiters

I get that, but I don't need to know when my Latitude is 0, I need to know when the latitude of my Apoapsis is 0. Even more specifically, not my current Apoapsis, but my Apoapsis after a manoeuvre node.

OK, That is a good solution I hadn't considered for a stock solar system. Any fix for RSS where I don't have the moon over the equator?

I'm currently playing with Realism Overhaul and Real Solar System, although this can be equated to a stock game as well. I want to insert a satellite into a Geo-stationary orbit from an inclined sub-orbital launch trajectory (ie launch to GTO without using a parking orbit). In order to do this properly, I need to do my GTO burn such that my Ap ends up on an equatorial AN or DN. The circularization burn is then done at the same time as the plane change burn, (theoretically) putting the satellite in a perfect Geo-Stationary Orbit using less Dv than doing the two burns separately. Since the map view doesn't show equatorial AN/DN, this is somewhat complicated. Does anybody know the best way to accomplish this? I've come up with a couple of possibilities: 1. Do the burn to bring my Ap up to GTO altitude at an equatorial AN/DN. Since it's just a Hohmann transfer, I should end up at the opposite AN/DN. The problem is that the Ap of my suborbital launch trajectory is still fairly close to the atmosphere and if it isn't timed correctly, I'll find myself descending back into the atmosphere before the 6+ minute burn is complete, so unless I'm really lucky, I may not have that flexibility. 2. Use a parking orbit. Realistically speaking, this isn't the perfect answer because I should be able to skip this step but for the fact that I'm missing the information about equatorial AN/DN in the manoeuvre planner. Any other ideas or anything I'm missing?

Ah, I read 1.2.1 wrong, where it said 3 ground start SSRMs have TVC. I guess that's three Vectoring, 3 not.

Booster sep is a lot more difficult on the Delta II because FAR tends to slam them back into the core. I used a S-II retro as an ullage motor with just 15 units of fuel. Put it near the booster center of mass and its kind of shocking how fast they jump away. The Viking engine isn't in any of the parts packs I have installed, so I cloned the LR-87 to get a Viking 4, 5C and 6. Ariane is really difficult to control because of the skinny neck not being as rigid as the larger diameter core http://i.imgur.com/iy8doqy.png http://i.imgur.com/Uy1Konb.png I found the Delta III Payload Planners Guide. It confirms 3 ground start, 6 air start. http://www.upv.es/satelite/trabajos/pracGrupo15/Marte/Lanzador/PDF/Delta3.pdf I'm done building all the Delta family (from the II to the IV Heavy). It's about 20 sub-component assemblies all told, mostly just due to the number of first stage configurations. Once I'm done flight testing and tweaking, I'll start a .24 RO craft repository.

For an even better experience than falling into the holes in the world at some launch sites, try launching from the (underground) pad in India! Good times! But since I've seen that those pads are a known issue, two issues I haven't seen the answer for (but have likely been asked somewhere in these 150 pages): 1. Inability to click on some buildings from some camera angles. Can be worked around since the camera can be moved, but somewhat irritating. 2. Very obvious tile tearing/texture misalignment on the surface. I'm using using the 2048x1024 textures. Not game breaking errors at all. I haven't gotten to explore beyond the bounds of Earth yet to check out the rest but given what I've seen so far, I'm sure it will be great. Awesome work!

Edit: lol... double ninja'd - Your first mistake is playing in career mode. I did that too. Until somebody writes a mod to support Careers in RO/RSS, play sandbox. - Yes. Tank sizes remain at their stock default, but are tweakable. - Again, tweakable. - Again, forget career mode. - Things sinking into the runway: I don't think that problem is unique to RO/RSS. I recall that happening in stock as well. That being said, I've noticed some oddities in RSS such as bases spawning under Earth texture tiles, completely missing tiles etc, so it could be an RSS issue. I recommend you ask the question in that thread if you find it to be a major issue. - Clicking on buildings in SpaceCenter view: Agree. You have full pan and scan and zoom control though, so you can find a better angle without much trouble.