cantab

If you've visited most of the stock bodies and want somewhere new, it's time for a planet mod. I've been loving New Horizons, it reshuffles the existing worlds and adds a bunch of new ones and has given me some of the best challenges and most fun moments I've had in KSP for a long time. Just keep in mind that planet packs are somewhat memory-hungry. Unless you run 64-bit KSP you'll probably have to forgo large part packs.

That the densities are about ten times reality is a natural consequence of the planetary radii being about a tenth of reality, and the equation for surface gravity g = 4/3 * pi * G * density * radius . I think I've come round to dark matter cores as the least bad option. It's a bit handwavey to see how they'd form, but once formed they should be stable.

14 (-)

What I heard is that with Skylake, 2133 is the only standard speed and anything above that is technically overclocking, even if the memory is officially rated for higher.

Remember I mentioned this? Well about two weeks after placing my order I telephoned the supplier and was informed they were expecting new stock in January. So in the end I've had to switch my build to the i3 6100 anyway, since I don't want to wait that long.I guess the lesson learned should be, don't order computer stuff from places that don't have it in stock! And perhaps don't dither about purchasing so much; if I'd moved earlier I probably would have got the i5.

What I've always done is, from the top: 2.5m tank, 1.25m engine, 1.25m decoupler, 2.5m fairing base, 2.5m tank. Then take the fairing straight up to the tank above. Then three or four struts down from the bottom of the upper tank into the fairing base. What I also do is put a probe core somewhere on my launcher, usually on either the first or second stage, and control from it during launch. A Stayputnik on a small nose cone does well and looks kinda neat. SAS responds to the movement of the controlling part, so this means that if the top of the rocket wobbles a bit it doesn't matter as much.

Doesn't even need to be a spaceplane. If the survey site is reasonably close to KSC just a regular aeroplane will do fine, and money permitting you can leave it landed at the site so it might be well placed for another contract in future. If it's further away and you don't fancy a few hours flying then try a mini-shuttle like the X-37. At least unlocking landing gear is a good idea though. Whatever you use to get to the general area, if you have wheels and an engine you can taxi to the exact location, meaning you don't need to be as precise on the original landing.

I expect the KSP tanks will stay the same. Personally I think there's a place for a few five metre orange parts, since now we have Mk3 for shuttles the current orange tank is way too tiny.

13 (-)

11 (-)

Based on this delta-V map: http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png a gravity assist from the Moon will save about 500 m/s or so at best. Not negligible, but small fry compared to the overall requirements of the mission. It's the same problem as in KSP, the delta-V to go from LEO to intercept the Moon is almost as much as it takes to go from LEO straight to a Mars intercept.

That's asking for trouble. Your fairing has four times the cross-sectional area of the rocket below it resulting in massive drag, and it's also relatively light.The best solution is to make the fairing not much wider than the rocket beneath it, which means going to a 2.5m rocket. The next best solution is whopping great big fins on the bottom of your rocket. They don't need to move and it's probably better if they're fixed, but like the fins on a dart they'll keep the rocket flying straight. Since you're using FAR remember to right click them and take the strength down, the default is for a fighter/acrobatic level of robustness.

Regarding the original issue, the overall mass may have been the same, but were the Centre of Mass and Centre of Lift in the same place? If they weren't then the two aircraft would require different amounts of elevator deflection to maintain level flight at a given speed and altitude and that may account for the different performance.

Got baffled by FAR. Two quantities that I thought were basically the same thing suddenly gave me opposite answers. EDIT: Also, I just noticed this is page 1969 of the thread.

OK, now I'm confused. I understand that on the Static Analysis page, the Cm graph should slope downwards for the plane to be stable in pitch. On the Stability Derivatives page, the FAR wiki describes Mw as follows The Wiki contradicts FAR here, which colours it green when negative and the tooltip says that it *should* be negative. Nothwithstanding the Wiki/FAR conflict, this sounds like Mw is basically the same thing as the slope of Cm. But now I have a plane with a firm negative slope of Cm, but at the same speed a slightly positive Mw - like 0.006 or so. So what's going on there? Screenshots: https://flic.kr/p/ApZpEr https://flic.kr/p/zsXARh

On an unrelated note, is the issue with inconsistent behaviour from the analysis tools likely to be resolved. Simple things like reloading the craft, or making a change and then undoing it, have a habit of changing the reported aerodynamic behaviour. It makes plane design rather frustrating.

Double-check the contract terms when it's on the pad. I think they're usually OK with a single-launch station like yours, provided you have anything. As far as being an operational science station goes, I don't see a lot of solar power. The Science Lab is kind of hungry, I recommend half a dozen 2x3 or 1x6 panels or a Gigantor or two, and a couple of thousand units of Ec. The contract won't care though, it only matters if you actually want to research for extra science points on it.

I think you'll still be able to get it from Squad. You can't from Steam - it hides the demos for games you own.

Later on the same analysis states "h is known as the static margin. For stability it must be negative"

I used TAC previously and liked it. If you want it to be simple, just load up enough Supplies containers for your mission and it's simple; there's a tool available in the VAB to tell you how long stuff will last. If you want it to be complex there are other parts there to do more complex things. Adding it to an existing career probably will kill your Kerbals though. You can just make it so the deaths aren't permanent and they turn up back at KSC, or there may be ways to work around it. I'm currently using USI-LS, it's OK, I'd say it does the job. In some ways it's more configurable than TAC - the default is for it to put Kerbals "on strike" rather than killing them, but you can make it fatal if you like. However by using a single supply and single waste resource I feel there's less opportunity for richness and variety. USI-LS is also a bit rough around the edges compared to TAC, the utilities are less capable. For example consider a modded KSP where you've got other stuff doing things like mining and planetary bases, and suppose you can get oxygen and water from the environment on Laythe, water but not oxygen on Duna, and you can't get either on the Mun. With TAC-LS it's easy to see how bases in the different locations would differ since there are different ways to get the required resources for life support. With USI-LS it's much harder to get that kind of richness and still have things make sense.

This contradicts everything I've read about aerodynamics, which says that for longitudinal static stability the centre of gravity must be ahead of the aerodynamic centre.Even stock KSP is now close enough to reality that you can expect a design that works well in real life to work well in KSP. The converse does not hold though.

A fast landing is possible but I don't have the skill to make it reliable. My current main save is no-reverts (bugs excepted) so I need something that I can get down safely most of the time.

The runway is a flat plane on a curved planet, which means it effectively slopes up at either end.

1) Yes, it's relatively simple. You just copy the VESSEL section. Do make sure you get it all though. 2) My understanding is there are differences. I recommend you get a routine backup set up and include your KSP saves in that. It's saved my save a fair few times. 3) Yes, you can blank the tech tree. I had to do that when updating a save from 0.90 to 1.0 because the tech tree had changed and I had duplicate entries for a load of parts.

KasperVld is Mortimer or whoever it is. PR guy. Wherner ... Maybe Ferram?