FleshJeb

Just for everyone's edification, the relevant lines from physics.cfg are: buoyancyMinCrashMult = 0.1 // The downwards component of velocity is used, not the whole velocity, when seeing if a part is destoryed when splashing down. However, that component will be clamped to no lower a portion of total velocity than this value buoyancyCrashToleranceMult = 1.2 // Multiplier to crash tolerance used when checking if a part is destroyed on splashdown

So happy, found out from fark.com thread. OK, which of you nerds are commenting about KSP over there...

CorrectCoL mod. I’d link but I’m on mobile

I think the fundamental problem right now is that wheels/legs seem to be OK at damping velocity but not acceleration (or maybe bump and jerk). I think the existence of landing-leg cannons are proof of this. The physics easing on load can only mitigate this so much if parts can't respond in a realistic way. Parked mode is likewise a kludge, but it may be a useful one. If it's not possible to alter the wheel/leg behavior sufficiently, maybe not loading craft in IS a reasonable answer. However, it comes with a whole host of other potential problems that I don't even want to list right now. My suggestion for a "parked mode" wouldn't suspend loading a craft into physics, but merely have it placed on invisible launch clamps. Of course, things on launch clamps can bend and flex in destructive ways, so it would take a bit of fiddling, but it might be a workable answer.

Very nicely designed and executed. It was a real pleasure to watch. What was the non-stock song? It was perfect. If I had any minor constructive criticisms: I think you would have gotten more range out of a more glider-like plane, but the one you used CERTAINLY got the job done. Quality of life stuff: Your nuke tug looked like it would have benefited from some autostrutting. Turn up the friction and the braking on your plane landing gear--It looked like it tried to run away a few times. (although slippery ones ARE safer to land). Turn down the gimbal range on the Vectors.

Is it many of them, where some of them don't appear to work in flight? Increase "Pixel Light Count" in the settings.

@KSK My apologies, I flew off the handle. (Not an uncommon occurrence) I also need sleep. I will edit. I've done a fair amount of reading on failure modes in the past. Also highly pertinent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Having just re-read that, I see that it highlights CRM (which is fundamentally a "cultural" choice) as "additional layers of cheese". The assumption being that the safety standards are even rational. Which we know (per Feynman) was decidedly not the case with the Challenger O-rings. (As you acknowledged in your edit). Even if the standards are darn good, they're just another layer of cheese--There always exists the potential for unforeseen holes. Part of a strong workplace culture is that if somebody DOES have a nagging concern about a problem that hasn't bitten the company YET, they have an avenue to bring it up where they'll be actually listened to. In my professional life as a surveyor I have two concerns that sit at the top of my mind all day long: Reducing or mitigating errors and blunders in measurement. Reducing the odds of my coworkers getting injured or killed. I'll admit that we've had plenty of failures and near misses in those two departments. But, we talk about them, we stop and listen when someone has a "funny feeling", and we learn how to plug the holes.

Examples of Workplace Culture in action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster#Flight_risk_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#"An_accident_rooted_in_history" As fun and satisfying as it is to be a reactionary (because I engage in it sometimes myself), you should at least bother to educate yourself on your subject before debating it.

Fabulous stuff Steve! How about this?

Welcome! Apollo-style could mean a few things: If you mean a two-stage lander, then maybe for Tylo and Laythe. For the other three, it's not necessary. If you mean a lander that detaches from a mothership, lands, and returns to the mothership (and refuels for the next landing), then yes, definitely. The most efficient way to capture at Jool is a gravity brake using Tylo: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Gravity_Assist#Gravity_brake A tutorial on Reddit Delta-V:

Or Shift-click to grab the whole thing, instead of having to find the root part.

I've been finding that wings in the same line, even if they're not connected seem to occlude those behind them. I don't have any conclusive screenshots yet, but it's a behavior I've noticed. I'll try to verify this later. I've been experimenting with the "wings as radiators" trick, mostly by attaching E-wings to Small Nose Cones and NCS Adapters, offsetting them way back, and doing Jool dives while holding surface prograde. One of the more interesting things I've noticed comes from the AeroGUI window. The External Temp and the drag don't really affect the thermal survivability of a part. The most important factor appears to be the Static Ambient Temp. (Note that the E-wings near the tail are glowing because they're taking heat off the nose cones.) This mission survived and made it back out to a safe orbit. Static Ambient Temp graph for Jool, per KSP wiki. Graphs available for all other atmo planets, provided by OhioBob. They're worth looking at. Out of dozens of dives with various craft, trying to survive a pass at 180km was WAY harder than just crash-diving to 130km, even though 180km is almost vacuum. EDIT: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that understanding thermal occlusion is important, but you can DEFINITELY get away with just properly "radiating" a part by choosing what it's attached to. If that "radiator" part is oriented surface prograde, you're in GOOD shape.

Went Jool-diving: Made it back. 100% recoverable.

The only two places a sophisticated gentleman may burn oxidizer are in Vernors and Fuel Cells--All other options are for for commoners. (OK, OK, I occasionally put some through Rapiers.)

Awesome! Given the limitations of LEGO-style building, I’d justify the wing clipping as adding mass and drag to the tank as radiator fins embedded into the surface. Functionally, the tank and the wings are one “unit”. Now, if you want to see KSP abuse, go look at Brad Whitstance’s SSTO to Tylo and back. I would have sworn he was editing config files until I figured out how he did all the drag reduction.

Ah ok. I was thinking in an orientation that doesn’t resist anything but sideslip. Long edges up and down, and short edges forward and back. I think you can still clip them into the Rockos completely, and they’ll be treated thermally as if they’re fully exposed. What you’ve got now makes for a nasty airbrake. Wings always work, even if clipped. I think they even work in cargo bays still. No need to repeat the test, but I’d love to see the eventual mission. Nice job on bewing’s experiment. Results are always going to be inconsistent. Sometimes with the same craft on different runs. I bet if that were pointed 85deg up and slightly retrograde, instead of 90, you’d get very different results. Heat shields have a “safer” zone behind them that I think is cone-shaped. I have no idea how much this depends on AoA. It would be nice if the SPH had a visualizer for this, so we didn’t have to guess.

Looks like the power of the educated guess paid off! The fun thing about thermal is that radiated heat is proportional to T^4, so the closer you ride the edge, the more efficient it is. Boy, were you riding the edge there! I'm curious about the orientation— I was thinking like a vertical tailfin, which shouldn’t impact CoL much at all. Got any screenies for your loyal and hardworking assistants?

Hey @Overland, I just wanted to add to the chorus of people that miss you and your unique take on KSP. I sympathize with your frustrations, because I experience them myself, but I hope you find a way to come back, because what you do is cool and fun.

On phone, quoting hard. Again, what @bewing just said. Fooey! I think ultimately what we’re going to discover is that those tanks are crap. Rebuilding the body with an additional, partially full Mk3 tank segment may be your best bet. The other bonus to this is lower overall drag. I was going to suggest changing your reentry profile, but you already did. As to the other stuff going boom: Stick a precooler between the nose docking port and the cockpit, and offset it into the cockpit. The RCS thrusters should do better attached to the coolest wing, even if you have to cheat and offset them where they need to go.

Static/unmoving isn’t as important as low altitude/dense air. They just really thermally inefficient and draggy in the thin hot stuff. Also, I think they only affect core temp directly. Wings: Since you’are entering belly-down, I was thinking on the dorsal surface with the rear of the wing pointing up. Any orientation that minimizes their drag should do. As long as they stay cooler than the tank. FYI, in the .cfg files “emissiveConstant” is the thing you’re looking for. 0.95 is really good. I think the default if unlisted is 0.6, but i’d have to look in physics.cfg. Your slant adapters are 0.8. Example: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts/Aero/circularIntake/intakeShockCone.cfg Likewise, there are parts that make really good insulators when placed in-line. Service Bays are my go-to. My default 1.25m spaceplane stack is nose cone - svc bay - cockpit - precooler. As usual, I agree with everything @bewing said. Thermal occlusion is mostly voodoo. Since you’re already invested in RCS Build Aid and EdEx, consider CorrectCoL—If only for the more accurate CoL indicator. Please ping me when you get this thing working. I’m sure it will be educational and awesome.

The only two places radiators work acceptably are in space or static on the ground. Parts with high emissivity like precoolers and intakes work anywhere, but are best off attached directly to the problem part. Can you swap the 2.5m out for 1.25m tanks? Alternately, some wings or control surfaces mounted parallel to the airflow. I think they still have pretty high emissivity. Heat occlusion is a funny beast with surface attached parts. You can also try attaching the front 1.25 to 2.5 adapter to the main tank and stringing the other parts behind it. I assume it’s the Rocko tank attached to the main tank now. Also, put some end caps on those things! Lastly, that shuttle looks amazing. I love it.

Squad Project Managers

Already have it. I just have to commit to using the module-size filter. Too bad the stock cross-section filter doesn't seem to display the tanks.