PB666

^^^^^^^

YeEah, I'm really tired of the big sig-line images also. Its like allcaps, net loon signature.

I thought 1.04 was supposed to have fixed the heat problem. Previously The heat shield would block heat transfer from the engine, now it seems to make matters worse. Not to mention I had a very tall space craft landing on the moon the engines never exceeded 50% and yet it ended up heating up the docking port way on the other side of the space craft. Almost as soon as I turn on the engine the Sci, Jr. starts glowing red, along with all the other scientific equip even though the package is on the stack two fuel tanks and a heat-shield away from the engine. The landing gear which is horizontal to the engine does not show heat at all. This can't be a fix. The other problem that suddenly shows up is the mouse clicks only work when centered over the exact middle of a action button. In addition steering commands only work intermittantly as if the processor is overwhelmed. Im at the gig limit for 32 so Im thinking this cant be a processor problem. Im think the memory overflow problem has not gone away, just moved slightly?

Did anyone check the F3. This could just be a 1.0.4 Kraken. If so I got the name 'Don't tread on Jool, Kraken'. If is a real DOT then F3 will show some temporal progression.

And meanwhile your screen is checking out its wiring diagram to figure out where that pesky fuel line is. - - - Updated - - - That should be a rule, no white elephant music for KSP videos. Another rule should be take the kids and cats our of the room. Also don't speed the video up so fast that the veiwers eye muscles go into hypoxic spasm trying to keep up. I think all KSP videos should be set to the tune of Dio, imagine a failed reentry set to the climax of heaven and hell. That would rock.

Yes but pointing a sepratron at a fuel tank at an oblique angle 2 meters away would blow the tank up in 1 second, that was a little extreme, IMHO. - - - Updated - - - To the topic of the OP. My complaint is that in the VAB right click on the parts, it does not give a relative efficacy of heat dissipation for the parts, Just part strength and looks like a solar panel tracking value (usefullness?)

Plus -800 dV in space Minuses 1.-Do not work well in vacuum 2.-They have low thrust given their massive weight, they can only lift at 1 g 2wice their weight. 3.-No dedicated LF only tanks 4.-They get really really hot. 5. Because of the added weight, and because these are final stage engines, they can create alot of launch wobble Solutions 1&2. Don't use the as a launch engine except from low-g planets with no vacuum. Use good landing stuts, LV-N do not like to be used as landing struts. 3. Duplicate and rename the cfg of any tank you want to fuel the LV-N then edit the new cfg. - Change the name parameter to [tankname] & "LFonly". - Change the name of the title to [title] & "Lf only version". - Remove the "Oxidizer" resource - Double the amount and maximum values for the "Liquid fuel" resource -Or (if your a purist or lazy)- -after you add the tank in VAB right click the part and remove the green in the Oxidizer GUI. You will be carrying around on average 10% more weight in fuel facilities than you needed. 4. Place a heat shield between the LV-N and the tanks and run a fuel line from outmounts on the tank to the LV-N 5. In VAB LV-N should set on 18A decoupler which then goes on a F1-2 converter. Connect a strut from the side of the converter nearest the F2 to the outmounts on the fuel tanks above the LV-N. Note that many use LV-N on F2 tanks like the big orange fuel tank. In these cases you place the converter on top of the big orange, you might even mod the converter to hold fuel and place the big orange upside down on top of the converter and place the 18A and a nose cone (or just a nose cone and burn it off) on top of the upside down engine. The assembly will need a controller like MechJeb mounted somewhere. LV-N on a big orange is a very good way to carry loads between worlds that have a high dV relative to kerbin (such as Moho and Jool). LV-N used on fuel carriers may not need the protection of a heat shield. - - - Updated - - - 75 km you should be going for 70km. That level of planning is too much for me. One thing I did not like about MechJeb, is it would waste alot of fuel trying to create phasing. Like you I keep my targets at 100 km. When I launch I try to get Apo at 100 and bring Pe to 70. Then I just let the whole stuff orbit until the target is close to my ship Apo, then I increase the Pe to make the next orbit cross exactly. I waste no fuel to phase. Since the targets period is longer than the vessel, its best to launch as the target is crossing over, then let the vessel catch the target. The only thing I let MechJeb do is Smart SAS. To much wasted fuel, to many target crashes and too many time trying to literally cross a planet in order to reach a desired orbit.

He missed-timed is cancel relative velocity burn. Thats because you did not slow down, you should have slowed to say 20 m/s. There is a miss-sense here. The grasshopper was not actually trying to dock with you, in his mind he was just hopping up when out of the corner of his compound eye he notices a threat, while attempting to turn and avoid the threat hit him. Bats actually perform a better manuever. The manage to track the target with their vocal cords and ears and move the head relative to the target while altering forward velocity. If you are close to an ascending or descending node for a transfer, you can adjust grade, normal and radial vectors to intercept without planar synchronization the targets SOI. This can be the most efficient way to transfer since the hypotenuse of a right triangle is always shorter than the cumulative length of two other sides (IOW if you have to apply a velocity vector in the normal plane and then velocity in the elliptical plane separately it is often more expensive than wasting a little velocity spent along the radial, because it only add slightly to the length of the 3D hypotenuse) dL2 = dX2 + dY2 + dZ2. For docking manuevers your residual dV should be within the capability of the craft to cancel at closest approach. If you are making a normal antinormal approach (not recommended) then it will not be unless the orbital velocity is very low.

they're space ISP is closer to ground-K-MSL ISP at a fraction of the cost of the aerospikes. Here is how I rank thruster role. Job #1. Get the ship off the ground - sounds pedantic but the first few seconds of flight are important, and getting the LF engines up. Sometimes you just need a thruster than can push that load up to 30 or 50 meters per second over a few seconds, then go bye-bye. The first few seconds of flight add more apparent:actual DV to the flight (this means devices that add thrust on the pad do not show up as much vacuum DV, but because they prevent hoovering of the craft on the pad, they can add alot to the actual DV the craft has when it reaches space). So those Sepratrons can come in handy for some loads just to get them moving, then kick them off with a TT38K. One thing that needs to be remembered is that momentum is important. if drag(100 m/s at LP alt) = 1g*mass then 50 m/s = 1/4th g and 25 m/s = 1/16th g. G-force is falling most quickly (change of g per change of altitude) close to the ground. So the force of drag is trivial at the launch pad, so its best to fight g with as much force as the ship will tolerate. So getting a vessel off the ground can take a vessel that has exactly 1g of acceleration moving and it will stay moving and begin to accelerate, but to do so you have to get it away from the pad and give it a seed momentum. Job #2. Get the ship to 100 m/s (lower if its a sensitive load) - affords powering down the LF engines and sparing them until their ISP is higher. During this part of the flight drag force and gravity force are roughly equal, gravity is falling and main engines may need to be powered down more to prevent overspeed. Job #3. Get the ship past 5000 alt at 160 m/s - This separates from 2 because that span from 1000 meters to 5000 meters and from 100 m/s to 160 m/s the booster is carrying as much drag as it is fighting gravity, very little left to accelerate, and the craft accelerates because drag is falling, fuel is falling, and because gravity is falling a few percent. Main engines are still coming down. Job #4. Pushing fuel, Those inefficient space engines waste fuel, and the booster has a very draggy nose. So I put an aerotank on the nose of the booster and fuel line then I can use that wasty engine to help on the load. Tune the tank to expire when the booster depletes and ditch the booster and the weight of the tank, The main engine now has what it had on the launch pad, plus 100 m/s momentum, plus cleaner space. job #5. Beyond 5000 meters the role is pretty minor, for single LFOx stages it might be to push an LV-909 or poodle to the point that its ISP is high enough to prevent fall back, otherwise better to switch to LFOx stages. If you are not pushing thrift next stage engines up, its time to switch to LFOx. IN some cases you might want to push the structural limits of the craft to exceed the speed of sound at 15000 alt in order to impart enough momemtum on a lousy atmosphere engine so that gravity and drag are low enough that it can do its job. The problem is that boosters hate to turn, and staging them at an incline can cause crash back (you lose your main engines due to booster collisions). So you don't often end up better since the boosters cannot make the desired gravity turn and you have an inefficient conversion of forward momemtum to desparately need horizontal momemtum. There are times with specific set ups where you WANT to go higher-up to make that turn, particularly if your craft is lumbering along (sensitive payloads), you may be better off with a asparagas setup.

First person POV is in a capsule, with modern day technology you would probably be looking at a flat screen CC image. Where it would differ is for landings with a command-chair (rover chair). BTW if you have VR and doing rover-chair you are going to see every defect in the texture. I will be very unforgiving of game graphics.

Well, ahem, Valentinas munar lander docked with Commander Jebediah on the Munar Science Processing, Refueling and Data Retreival and Transkerbanization Station (abbreviation TLDR) and apparently they found a way to hold the whole thing in at Munar-Kerban L2 and we have not been able to establish contact with them. I did find two scientist floating where we expected to find the station in orbit. I've established a new Kerbal type. Doctor/Psychiatrist, he's in route as we speak. One of the satellites I sent to L2 region spotted the ship and got a partial image, our image analysis team has reconconstructed as much of the image. Some script that says 'This wobble is not due to a lack of struts'; although our scientist are not sure if struts had been a particular issue since. Apparently its antenna was damaged by 'debris'. Bill is distraught, he directed his Minmus lander at the Kerbol and burned all his fuel. Fortunately the Mech Jeb unit on board overrid his actions and he's now on a trajectory toward Duna with a new contract waiting in his message box.

Space vixen's on Eve? "hello, Mr Kerman, forget that valentina, she's to green for you, you need more purple in your life" Colonizable asteroids? No, no, ahhhhhh I got it we need more . . . . . . ... . . . . . . K R A K E N

Well, lets see how they rank I threw a match into a container of leaves that had pour gasoline on not realizing my mom had just put out the fire I was trying to restart the gasoline immediatedly vaporized and the match fell into a gas bomb. Its amazing how much that 55 gallon drum look like a 1600L tank with a rocket on it when those flames came shooting out 20 feet up, from about 5 feet away it burned the hair off my hands. I threw a tin gallon can that I thought meh it only has a few drops (maybe an once) of paint thinner (otherwise known as white gasoline) on a fire I was burning fence sections on just tossed an walked back to my work site when it took off like a rocket slammed against a mesquite tree went spinning around like a whirly gig and landed about 30 feet away. And I thought wow that was too danger....cool. A strut connector might have come in handy on that little booster. - - - Updated - - - Why do all army and marine stories seem to end with I pulled out some primer cord and some C4. Hasn't the army learned yet to lock away the C4?

I wonder if we can mod a playstation so that it works exactly like a PC, then mod a PC so it works exactly like a playstation, heh-heh. winstation 511. (bypassing all those low level upgrades like 4 and 10. I need a version for my iPad so that I can blow up rockets during commercials (also get free upgrades if I watch adds that trick you into watching the same add 5 times before you get the upgrade you think you are going to get watching the ad once).

If you put an X-box, playstation, or nintendo in front of me I could not tell which was which. Never played any of them. How can you design parts or make mods on a playstation? Does blender have a playstation version, ROFL. I like to see them edit their persistent file, or mod a cfg. IMO its for entry level players only, it would be like a starter package.

Life is long also, you'll figure it out. The problem is not wobble, the problem is that many folks want to do what NASA hasn't even done, and they want it to be easy. Yeah, sure 23.5 had problems, mainly not enough large diameter stuff. And if you think wobble is broken game. in V 22 I had an oversize tank that kept colliding on the launch pad. I removed the engine and launched the tank. The tank jumped up and down until it jumped about 150 meters in the air and then crashed just shy of the water. Since 23.5 the physics has been decidedly tame. You can deal with the wobble, but the reason it easier for the folks who got the game version < 23.5 is because before 23.5 the problem was a magnitude worse, and the hard lessons taught them how to solve problems. Which means you need to learn those lessons. And finally, if something is clearly a bug (e.g. fired players not leaving the crew lineup, terrain fall throughs, etc) I reported my fair share of bugs. I reported recently on my ship that blew up the Mun. But when someone is basically having their stuff malfunction when they are do a V2 manned rocket launch and have not gone about reducing the drag of their set-up, im wonder why their rocket didn't blow up earlier in the flight. Watch the space shuttle video, see how they control the speed in launch. You see a rocket flying up from the ground, but the SSME are constantly changing parameters during flight. Oh and learn to use the QUOTE tags.

1. Eventually you need to take your space agency out of the stone age. When the Soviets failed several times to dock their rockets the got unmanned vessels to do it and they insisted that there has to be an experienced astronaut on every manned mission. You never know they might have trained these cosmonauts by letting them see the machine do it. 2. Are you kidding? 10 hours? lol. BTW it I have parts for a given form factor I use the more than the stock parts, generally. So once you make a part you can use it on future builds. 3. I have many lifters without struts. My basic logic for struts on boosters is this 1. Struts go from booster to booster. 2. Strut only if the booster never exceeds 100 m/s at 1000 feet or the equivilant IAS at higher altitude. 4. Yes but not the same, the number of intersegment joints per meter of stack is less for 3.75 than for short rockets. And as I said its all about segmental flexibility. Hold a fishing rod and put a small weight on the top, holding the rod strait up move the base in a circle. If the weight on the top is high enough and if it is flexible enough the top of the rod will have a radius of rotation greater than the base causing the rotation, these is a recipe for resonance. As your rocket goes up, the mass at the bottom decreases, the gimble is further from the center of mass, the amount of mass it has to move is less, therefore its torque is greater by distance and its acceleration is greater by the F/M mass has decreased. So tuning the gimble during flight can fix this problem. I just completed a 6 stage rocket, with 13000 DV with 4 "Kickback" attached with TT38K and with the equivilant of two FL-T800 (one an areo) with no strut connectors and only 4 fuel lines. So... don't give me this gripe that boosters must have struts, they do not. Should they be struted, if you don't mind the added weight.

Yeah. I remember trying to secure those big orange tanks. But alot of the launch 'comics' were due to inexperience and you have to learn the tricks. 1. Strut placement and triangulation. Placing struts on some parts of the ship have little effect, others have profound effects. 2. The SAS module should not be on the part of the ship will highest flexibility per unit length. It better to turn off the space stage SAS and use a large SAS attached to the launch phases. 3. The winglets need to be tuned. To close to the thrusters and they may apply to much force, to high up and too little. 4. Reduce the number of segments (needs net-loonish exclamation points). While side mounting parts increases drag, it can markedly reduce the segmental flexibility, since the side mounted parts sit over a wider stages its not too bad if a cap is placed on top (or one blenders an aero tank or device). 5. Build or stretch fuel tanks so that no stage is composed of more than one stacked tank. If player does 2 through 5. they may find that they only need struts on space stages (looking at the lunar lander they appear to have strut comparables) , wanting stability may frequently be gained simply by slowing down the launch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#/media/File:LunarLander.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#/media/File:LM-9KSC.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#/media/File:Lunar_Module_Equipment_Locations_2_of_2.jpg note the extensive use of small struts. (cough), based on this and other similar images I created small strut connector scale mods that are basically fall into 1. Welds (which the game really needs) 2. lander strapers (i.e. about apollo lunar lander length) 3. Stock 4. Super long and heavy strut for securing things like a mega-space telescope to an oversized fuel tank. Note that !st, 2nd and 3rd parts can produce problems in VAB, the strut overstretch bug that locks the game until you exit VAB and reenter, since once you attach one end of the strut it will not release until to have validly attached the other end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#/media/File:Apollo_17_LM_Ascent_Stage.jpg Notice the enclosed out mounts for the RCS thrusters. I am using 3D scale-modded MK1 cylinders for out mounting, the stock MGS and the cubic strut just aren't suitable. They are not aerodynamic. Note that in the Heat Omnibus thread, I used such an enclosed outmount to feed a fuel line to an engine around the a heat shield (which blocks in-stack fuel transfers) to protect the rest of the craft from the improper heat reset issue in the game. And look how extensively struts are used in this research vessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#/media/File:Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle_in_Flight_-_GPN-2000-000215.jpg Struts are a reasonably good choice when you do not have to enclose a volume of gas, in total vacuum they do not produce drag. So the issue is enclosing the space stage. So I have to disagree with OP. Struts have a place in the game and much of the wobble problem can be fixed by better design without necessarily resorting to struting the lower stages. And I think if you are creating someting 'outside' the NASA box, struts are a handy thing to have around even in launch stage. The reason why I say this is now with aero getting those wide draggy packages into space requires slowing the launch down (meaning engines like jets that are efficient and lots of them) and this also means securing those outmounts and also stabiling a huge dragy thing on a node that is stock 3.75 or with mod maybe 5 to 8 meters. I've launched factorys that are almost 30 meter across so struts are very nice things to have around. But........some parts realistically need zero span welds. (massless preferably) You can adjust the breaking torque parameter. In general when I have fishing pole flexibility its because my launch SAS was on a thin space stage. If I turn off the space stage SAS and add a SAS module to the launch stage this causes alot to diminish. Then slow the speeds down. A second cause of wobble is winglet tuning. There is only one winglet in the game (unless you've added more), but you can bet that NASA does not put winglets that are oversized or undersized on their rockets. Oversized winglets are as much a problem as undersized, but one can mediate this problem by moving the winglets up the launch phase lower the distance between the winglet and CoG and therefore lowering the torque they can produce. I don't want to use the word whine but from what I see alot of the complaints are complaints about not knowing the physics and poor design. I have launched rockets with 10 burn stages that are taller than the VAB itself, yeah used struts, yeah needed outmounts and modified struts, yeah slowed down launch phase, yeah its all to compensate for an unrealistic design with a magnitude more unwelded segments (meaning linewelded not separable) than NASA has in their rockets, should I expect flawless operation? But another point is that the GAME allows users to redesign parts to suit their needs, so don't whine, modify, and if the modification was really something the game needed then it might get added. If you really really want to fix the single point snap issue without needing struts, modify your tanks to exactly fit your need. IOW don't have a 400 and 800 when you need a 1200, instead modify the scale of an 800, making the y = 1.5 times the original. Then add 50% more mass, 50% LF and 50% more Ox. Do this for every stage and reduce, realistically, the segmental flexibility. The real name of the problem is segmental flexibility, unrealistic numbers of segments result in 'unrealistic' levels of wobble. Count your segments from your SAS module in both directions and from your winglets. if you end up with lots of segments on the thinnest stage, . . . . . . . . IMHO, wobble and flexibility below 20000 meters alt tell me that I have a problem in my design. MechJeb generally takes care of the control issues (keyboard controls are not as good as stick controls). If the issue remains you have to treat is as a design flaw not neccesarily a game problem.

So at present we have several threads going. 1. Heat shield not needed 2. Too much heat and there's a memory leak I think I solved the first issue 800km alt, 6.5g*M thrust -59' to 7800 m/s and pe 24.4 km - you can survive, but lower pe or higher velocity may not be survivable or in a single aerobraking manuever. The bugs, -Heat texture does not disappear as the part cools -memory leak, not sure what this means but . . . . . . -over heater parts may not reset I found on revert to launch pad, so something is corrupted -parts may variably reset the texture on going to space center and reloading craft or exiting and reentering the game. OK some theory and some solutions. Here is the conversion of speed into temperature 1/2mv2 = 1.5kT (T is in kevins k is Boltzmann's constant). Therefore the faster an object is traveling though a feild of particles, the more heat that will be generated. The rate of heat addition will depend on the relative speed and the density. To create a solution first we have to define a problem. 1. Problem. is some parts, certainly not all parts, but the science and electronics are prone to over heating during reentries and during orbital insertion from planets with atmospheres. I have seen problems with solar panels, batteries, and reaction wheels. Mysterious goo and material science are some of the easier parts to overheat; for these the parts may need not survive re-entry Solutions. These parts can be hidden in a equipment bay, even mat sic can be compressed 3 into one large bay with proper securing. (though there are bugs with doing this. The fairings can also be used. Data can be removed from goo and mat sci. and stored in the pod. In addition the a little bit of retro thrust timed to correspond to the maximum g-forces of re-entry may suffice to prevent destructive over heating. 2. Engine overheating. Problem. Certain engines when operated close to their maximum fuel-flow will overheat and overheat their surrounding parts. This is the most common source of overheating during orbital insertion and during transfers. Specifically engines can dissipate heat more quickly than parts, they get hotter and radiate faster because they can tolerate the heat, the heat-labile parts cannot. Solutions. Avoid maximum thrust for long periods. Use many stage engines instead of SSTO (stages take the engine heat within when decoupled). Go up to clear draggy atmosphere then turn (begin the gravity turn later). 3. Heat shielding craft parts. Suppose you have a ship designed with separable fuel tanks, or have a nuclear engine. jettisoning the engine can be problematic. Solution. If the fuel tanks and engines are heat tolerant, put a heat-shield between the tanks and the payload, they will get hotter but the payload will not. Solution. If the tanks are not heat tolerant put a heat-shield between the engine and the tank connect a surface mounting tank to the tanks and run a fuel line to the engines. Now all the heat will trap on the engine. Recommendation. Water converts to steam absorbing alot of heat, the thermal energy per gram is higher than just about any other substance between 0'C and 200'C. Therefore resource 'water' can be added to the game. place a disk with 'water' infront of the heatshield but before the engine, as the heat comes off the engine, the water in the disk can be converted to steam and lost, therefore cooling waste heat off the engine. Recommendation. The same as above but the water circulates to radiative panels and returns providing energy to pump the steam and excess electricity is generated. The panels should retract into the disk when not needed. Recommendation. By using shielding much of the overheating problem can be avoided, since latent heat will not transfer past the shield, once the engines are killed only their part needs to be resent not 2 dozen electronic parts. 4. Strategic cooling, avoid the bug. Burns are often abbreviated periods with maximum thrust. Specifically the manuever planer gives DV needed. Solution. The burn time is estimated at maximum thrust and many of this subtract half the burn time from time to manuever to plan the burn. An alternative is to subtract all of the burn time from time to node (IOW when T(node in time) + burn time = 0) apply half thrust. Solution. The above may still not suffice, or burn windows may be inefficient. For transfers from low orbit to satellites the period of the orbit is small relative to that of the celestial satellite, hence a craft can return to a burn point through several orbits to add velocity and cool. Problem. Orbital insertion from interplanetary travel. Craft traveling to bodies like Eeloo or Moho may have small burn windows to efficiently gain orbit. I have seen DV for moho at 3000 m/s, multiple passes to gain insertion are not feasible. Solution. This works for ion drives as well as overheat prone engines. Anticipate the SOI for the planet, there is a several day window that retrograde thrust can be applied with minor adjustments to the radial velocity to slow the craft down in segments. 5. Not enough reality in re-entry. The problem is that nominal re-entry speeds for Kerbin are 2350 m/s. For earth its more like 7800 m/s. The KE formula above shows that (7800/2350)^2 is going to reflect the actual destructive capacity of the heat. Solution. Heat shields are valuble for sensitive parts and as above. As mentioned in the other thread 7800 m/s is survivable in KSP, being at the upper limit however of shield-less reentry speeds it is a bumpy ride and the craft almost reaches atmosphere limit before coming down. The re-entry heat probably does need to be increased in the game to make it more realistic. 6. Memory leaks. Frequents saves. In career mode hard save the game directory with a new name in the Saves folder. After every cycle of overheating allow the overheat bars to disappear then exit the game and reload it.

OK, then I have the recipe for deadly versus not deadly. -Take a ship and place a tank and thruster that can produce 7g forces*mass. -Alt-F12, unlimited fuel. -Shoot strait up to 800km altitude -Turn bearing -059 degrees. -Full throttle the engine until speed hits 7800 m/s -bear 0 or -180 to achieve a pe of 24,400 (quickly) -turn prograde quickly and decouple the main engine -wait until main engine is clear and turn retrograde you should be ~ 150km altitude, seconds away from a brilliant reentry (if you can see it through all the bump) -hold on tight its going to be an epic ride. -the ship should lose apo over the next 1/4 orbit or so until the pe- drops to below -100. That is the survival limit approximately 8015 m/s at 60km alt heading for 24,400 (throughout the remainder of the flight the pe will fall slowly then rapidly on second visible re-entry) The ship will immediately burst into a reentry. At around 29km the ships acceleratometer will exceed Gmax (15g) At 24km the ship will bottom out. Around 29km all the heat guages will be near maximum The ship will reach a maximum at 55km and have a rather uneventful ride back to kerbin. Any angle to Kerbin more steep at that velocity is deadly I had a chute and capsule survive reentry at a strait in trajectory at about the same speed, but no chute and capsule combination.

You set your Pe at thirty and so you saved yourself. As you reenter you came in at a shallow angle as a consequence you were dissipating energy in kerbin thin atmosphere before you hit kerbins dangerous atmosphere below 15000 feet. If you want to toast your kerbal you can do this. Fly to an altitude between mun and minmus orbit, take all the energy out of you spacecraft relative to kerbin, confirm this by MechJeb Pe is negative or in the Map view mode that your orbit intercepts Kerbin's surface on the nearside of kerbin instead of the far-side (IOW the average of the intercepts are on the opposite side as the Pe). Finally, to have your Orient express moment (as if a person needs to be stabbed by 12 people to die), burn prograde with all remaining fuel at 200km alt. (1000 DV should do it, closer is better if you have a high TWR setup), after completing the burn activate all your parachutes, finally around 15km alt send your kerbal on an EVA. ------- I tried a Minmus Mun average orbit reentry at about a 70 pitch on 70k, it did not even overheat the 1.1 or 1.2 pods. They landed with a velocity of around 8.5 and still survived. I then increase the angle to 90 pitch and entry speed to 24000 m/s (about the speed of an asteroid hitting earth from Pluto). At 20 k the first part overheated, within a fraction of a second all parts overheated inculding the F3 engine that I had moments provious decouple from the craft. All part angles are nose up. This is consistent with past experience because I have burned up parts on one occasion previous, though I think it was because the chute overheated. Don't remember perfectly. So . . . . . .

Fairings aren't a serious problem.

Carbon. hybrid orbitals, practical quantum dynamics -sp3 bond carbon forms hardest substance -sp2 bond carbon forms graphite, graphene, and aromatic resonance -sp1 bond carbon nitrogen-cyanide gas. molecular weight of 12C is the basis of mass for all other elements. if you read the molecular weight of any chemical on a bottle, that weight is determined by carbon. Carbon is the backbone of life. hydrogen and oxygen may drive the energetics but without and effective backbone to store it on, were would life be. Carbon is also the dominant components of DNA and RNA as well as being the major component of the back bone and is composed of sp3 and sp2 bonds. The aromatic ring structures provide recognition (2 versus 3 hydrogen bonds) Carbon represents 2/3rds of the backbone of polypeptides and a large majority of the backbone of the side chains. Carbon carbon bonds represents the source of much of the energy in oil and almost all of the energy in coal. These are the drivers of the industrial revolution. Without carbon no cars, no planes, no jets, no gas stoves, no food, no nature, without carbon the earth looks like a muddy moonscape. There are more characterized molecular derivatives containing carbon than any other compound, it is the most diverse material in the Universe as far as we know. Here is one H3C-CH2-OH. Another (−)-(6aR,10aR)-6,6,9-Trimethyl-3-pentyl-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol (if you are from California, Oregon or Colorado).

Its not just NASA, there are those that wish to fund only the military and their own salaries and health insurance and nothing else.

Power supply is composed of several components, frequently the voltages are produced off different wirings of the same transformer, but individual segments can short between two wirings producing inadequate voltage. I had trouble with my computer after upgrading my video card, it was intermittent and it was the power supply. Many of the chinese made power supplies rate the power as if each circuit is pulling maximum load, while other circuits are at nominal load, in reallife situations their maximum power rating is between 75% and 90% of the stated wattage. To overcome this problem calculate all the load at a particular voltage, then get a supply that is at least 25% and make sure the power supply produces the wattage under all circumstances, not just ideal circumstances for that voltage. This will fix your voltage. The other issue is that many cooling fans have step amperages depending on the temperature on the board, if the thermostat is broken this will cause the fans to run either all of the time or never. If you computer shuts down, don't necessarily blame the component that looks like is may have issues, the power supply is a first choice of many experts and also myself. Over the last 2 decades I've seen alot of failures and my typical long-lived computer generally has been through 2 power supplies. This was not the case a decade ago, mainly because it was senseless to keep a computer over 5 years.