Brainlord Mesomorph

a mod called hyperedit, teleport to or land anywhere.

I've had some strange issues with roll and SAS. Mine was with a large space plane. The plane would start a barrel roll and the SAS wouldn’t even bother to try to fix it. You can see the control and SAS inputs in the lower left hand corner of the screen. I had plenty of role control manually, but as soon as I would take my finger off the Q and E buttons will roll indicator would just center, regardless of what the plane was doing. I could watch the sas trying to control the yaw and pitch. But it wasn't doing anything to correct roll. So are you sure SAS is working?

Oh, looping through all the engine sets. gotcha!

Wouldn't the TWR be zero if I have no fuel?! Thanks guys. and BTW: that math is just Greek to me, (LOL) Sigma over "i" (but not divided by "i", or with a subscript of "i")?? "i" am confused. I *AM* a computer programmer. so perhaps if you could rearrange that into one line of text, I'd say "OH!!!"

The old TWR Calculator web page (http://iyates.co.uk/ThrustCalc) doesn't seem to handle the the NERVs. I have a ship with 2 NERVs and 4 Rokomax 47Ss The LFO rockets are only on when needed. (usually NERVs only) She weighs 26.5 tons full (a mix of 3/4 LF and 1/4 LFO) and 16t empty. So what's my TWR on NERVs? Whats my TWR with all engines? And what's my Isp with all engines?

I wonder what Jeb Bush's Courage and Stupidity stats are.

My rovers are more like this one: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/d3/ArgoBuggy.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121002194143&path-prefix=de "I will always be puzzled by the Human predilection for piloting vehicles at unsafe velocities." - Data, traveling on Kolarus III Rovers can work at 100, 150, even 200 mph (90 m/s) I'm working on a tutorial. and FYI the Apollo Rover topped out at 18 m/s

Nothing wrong with a rocket powered rover, its is the only way to get above 25 m/s.

I once sent a fleet of 12 ships at once to Jool. (it was more work than fun)

needs SAS rolls backwards because the early runway isn't flat.

He (and you) can find royalty-free music of equal quality here: http://incompetech.com/ EDIT: just finished watching it: make that *better* music.

Long burns FTW!

A rover (with vertical thrusters) can be it's own lander. A rover can be carried in a Service Bay. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/136738-how-much-can-actually-be-jammed-into-a-service-bay?p=2245289#post2245289 A rover can be half of a lander and undock after landing. Wait for the upcoming cargo ramp part.

Isn't that the Japanese symbol for "luck" or sushi or something?

OK Guys, I've updated the OP. The technique has been refined with experience. Tutorial has been rewritten with data added for ALL planets in the Solar System. Optional Step 2B, provides for Exact Departure Time. Game screenshot showing how to plot the maneuver. Hope that helps,

I’ve been trying to refine of the following rule of thumb for ballistic reentry directly to the KSC. There is a peninsula that juts north from an equatorial coastline approximately 90° to the east of the KSC. I call it Reference Peninsula. I do a deorbit burn on the opposite side of the planet from Reference Peninsula, to bring my perigee to about 22 km directly over Reference Peninsula. From there, given atmospheric friction on the way down, you should land almost directly at the KSC. I say that I’ve been trying to refine it, because (1) in new aero, the drag of your vehicle effects the equation. And (2) the exact height of your apogee also effects it. 22 km is right from a 70 km apogee, and for every kilometer above 70, I’ve been subtracting a kilometer from 22. So a 73 kilometer apogee gives you a 19 km perigee. But that isn’t 100 percent either, because 80 km apogee and a 12 km perigee does not work. But I’m getting close!

Congrats!

Did you use hyperedit? Hyperedit once did a very weird things to a rover for me. I’d use that to telport into the orbit of Eeloo, and land there. And as soon as I drove any distance from the landing site, the nose of the vehicle just went up in the air. Like the front end was on a string being pulled up, or the front wheels suddenly had antigravity, or I was the bottom of some invisible force cone. I could use RSC and SAS to push the nose down, but as soon as I stopped, SHWING! Up it went. I blame it on file corruption caused by hyperedit.

I think he means from the ground, going up.

I had a thread about this a few months ago. A circular orbit is better for space stations, fuel depots, satellites, anything you want to get back to and rendezvous with frequently. A highly elliptical orbit (with a high AP and low Pe) is cheaper, no circularization burn, and provides more options and opportunities for maneuvers like leaving orbit or landing. It all depends on the purpose of your orbit.

I have noticed the new steerable wheels. Haven't tried them yet.

Isn’t the entire Kerbal star system very tiny? The sun is like the size of Earth? And the entire system smaller than Jupiter and its moons? So to answer the OP question, it would become another planet/but one that was on fire, with tiny moons. (And a strange parallels the 1960s America)

Ah, PhysX, an answer to my question. (I was joking about a lithobreaking model.) I googled that, there *is* a section in there about different friction for different surfaces. Granted that might not be implemented in KSP. Because the water is clearly a different surface, I extrapolated grass was a different surface from rock. Given that assumption, I went out and found a lot of evidence for it. (Perhaps it was observational bias on my part.) Things do seem a lot more “explodey†in the mountains than they do on the grassy flats. But that could be due to how angles change impact force. The fact that the mountains are more pointy this means is a greater chance of one polygon being more perpendicular to your direction of travel or managing to reach between your landing gear and strike the ship. (and in retrospect: all wheels on all video games I have ever played acted like skis.)

Its a side effect of reducing the terrain detail (i.e. polygon count) in your graphics settings.

I beg to differ. Minmus flats are slippery. the mountains less so, the grass at the KSC is softer than the runway etc. (The rugged wheels pop at a lower speed on the runway than on the grass.) EDIT: I guess i could be imaging all of that. EDIT II: IMHO three variables (hardness, static and dynamic friction) would seem to be a minimum for any physics model.