Alias72

Hello. I didn't see this in the already suggested box so here it goes! with 0.26 we will be introduced to new mk 3 parts. These are supposed to approximate the Shuttle. the shuttle, and many space planes that I have seen, use radially mounted fuel tanks, often asymmetrically mounted (such as on the bottom.) because of the offset in center of mass, and the large shift in CoM as the tank empties, it is incredibly difficult to correctly mount engines such that they do not create moments on the craft. To combat this I suggest that a series of engines, at least two, are added that trade weight (the're heavier than normal) for the ability to gimbal at least 15 degrees. This would simplify construction and piloting of space planes as the engine could better compensate for the shifting and offset center of mass.

(FAR,DRE,KIDS,RT2,Stockalike) I built a rocket family to get my budding space program into... well... space! The first got a command pod into High sub-orbit The second into actual orbit so I had a rocket series that could do that, but the tech I was getting was insufficient so I decided to go to the mun. not only did I want to be efficient in fuel, I wanted to be efficient in design. so I designed a comm-sat science lander combo that could be launched using the smaller of my two designs, fit within a 1.25m fairing (entirely). and cost about 50k funds. here's how I kept the mass down... Parachutes? no. Solar panels? Just one. Lading Gear? It's called rocket engine. RCS? Reaction wheel in probe. Sat body? just use the fairing base. Turns out rocket science is easy when your munar mission weighs as much as a pop machine with fuel.

Honestly describing an accurate alternate history diverging at WW1 is difficult. though there are many ways that history could have diverged, they all conflict with personal interests. For example any history in which the Austro-Hungarian empire isn't destroyed by war offends, to a degree, the Slavic peoples of Yugoslavia (especially Serbian nationalists.) as well as those who believe that ethnic nationalism is an inevitable determining factor in the borders of nations. While this does not make prediction impossible, it biases critique on the history as measuring militant national intent becomes difficult. Extending my example we say that the Hapsburg empire continue into the 1920's under Archduke Carl; already we have a number of people complaining about Serbian patriotic nationalism being too powerful to allow this, but then we get into an even trickier subject as we talk about what attempts Serbian nationalists would make to prevent the Empires survival. Because Serbia was the "good guy" defending itself from an imperialist aggressor, discussing an alternate history in which the kingdom of Serbia resorts to terrorism to undermine the Hapsburg Empire could be seen as taboo, though extrapolating from what members of the Serbian government had been doing terrorism is a plausibility. *here it is important to note. The government of the kingdom of Serbia did not directly endorse terrorism, however many in it's government, especially in the military, helped plan and execute racist propaganda and terrorism outside of their "day jobs". one excellent example being the black hand, which helped orchestrate archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination, and had previously killed the king of Serbia. The black hand was actually disbanded and its key members executed for treason in 1917.* Honestly the biggest problem most people have is that their nation does not come into existence and yet you depict a world in which everything is "fine" or sometimes even "better". Anyway this makes open discussion of plausible alternates difficult and reduces legitimate source material for researching said plausible alternates.

That and there are only a handful of competitors. Gouging is always an option. Edit: ummm, reading back to page 85 no one has mentioned the problem of gas separation. If we have a centrifuge with atmosphere in it and spin it to simulate gravity then we will also force the gases to separate into layers. a proposed solution would be to include a mixer that ensures a turbulent flow of gases inside the pressure compartment.

I have a strategy that I use. With FAR: press T Max thrust SPACEBAR!!! get to 100-150 m/s pitch approximately 2 degrees press T (unguided) Only use the controls to cancel rolls. Once Apoapse at 75km prepare for circularization (activate SAS level off and try and get into orbit. basically as close to a true gravity turn as possible.

Well my pride just took another blow. You on the other hand, get my approval. These look awesome. I wonder how well they handle FAR and DRE.

it probably wasn't enough of an AoA for takeoff. when you tipped up you likely went to 10 or 15 degrees. doesn't sound like much but has a major effect on your lift. KSP airfoils are considered symmetrical. at 0 degress they get no lift. in fact here is something useful this graph shows an ideal lift and drag to AoA correlation. this is for a flat plate, but KSP likes this kind of oversimplification. note how steep the lift to AoA curve is. *note I am using some assumptions about how lift works in the base game. I use far and so have access to features not in stock. I really hope this lift model applies to stock KSP or all I did was throw a picture and a poorly worded paragraph at you.

Good news everybody! I have managed to reduce the craft mass to 36.5 T through tweakables. now I only need 790 T of fuel to get the 5000 m/s delta v I need... well any more suggestions? Interesting things to note: there's a reason US hasn't released a TAC pack yet. all TAC units are in days requirement, and all US units are in liters. If I don't fix this then the craft is going to be wonky indeed! specifically the mass is presenting issues. I need thousands of litres of oxygen for my fuel cell, yet only 640 for my crew. I'll try fixing the configs and see how that goes. Another problem, also related to fuel cells, Is that I do not know there input rate vs my requirements. I'll need to do a lot more math there. also: 1. I shouldn't need 8 quad RCS for full orientation. 2 coupled forces provide a coupled moment and I can produce all three moment as well as translations with just 4 quads. technically I could do it with 3 but it would be wasteful as I would be using fuel canceling forces in directions I don't need. 2. The poodle is fine. I have a Duna TWR of 1.78. I also have 1442 m/s delta V. which brings me to... 3. Re-entry Delta V's. how much delta V is required to reenter: -Kerbin from 80km -Duna from 60km * answered above but DV to reorbit seems low compared to my numbers. this is important because I don't want to thrust all the way down. I just need to lower my periapse so that the atmosphere grabs me and brings me down. 4. Does my Duna lander need a heat shield? It will only be going 1.2 km/s in a sparse atmosphere. BTW I removed the second RCS tank and temporarily added the second set of thrusters *grumble grumble grumble*

I am using KIDS. I have an ISP of 166.5. The ships is supposed to be reusable. drop tanks are out. The lander has no heat shield. this may be a bad idea as I am using parachutes to land the lander. still all good ideas. realism mods make everything harder! BTW if you have any ideas on reducing payload I'lld love to hear them.

Thank you for the suggestions. I don't have access to LV-N's at the moment, which is unfortunate because I really would love the ISP. I currently have 166.5.

Hello everybody! I have a problem. before I begin I should probably list my mods. DRE FAR KIDS (set to FAR adjusted) Bunch of parts packs (most not unlocked) Ultimate Storage KAS TAC Engineer KAX Ok back to the matter at hand. I am planning a manned mission to Duna. The mission will take three astronauts on a multi-billion dollar journey through the solar system to the big red planet and land two of them on it's surface. Note TAC means I must also bring food water and oxygen for my intrepid victims. My current issue is weight. The First part of my craft is the Duna Lander. It has a mass of 14.2 Metric Tons (hereafter Tons). It carries 2 Kerbals to the surface and back. It has 3 experiment bays, and enough endurance for a few weeks on the surface. The second Part is my Command Module. The CM comes in two parts, a capsule (with spaces for experiments) and a reentry module (the segment on the back with the engines) It has a mass of 12.4 Tons. The Third Part is the Service Module. This SM is for the interplanetary craft and has a mass of 30 Tons. it can sustain the crew for 640 Days. I need a Propulsion module capable of providing 5000 m/s Delta V for the combined craft. This may require cutting down my parts, which is unfortunate. Also any tips you can provide me would be welcome. Please help me get to DUNA!

You do realize that nothing would survive a 75km/s impact with the atmosphere right? In fact let me do the math, a 2 ton spacecraft at 75 m/2 has how much kinetic energy? ans = 1.3 kilotons TNT. well not quite Hiroshima but not something you want to be near either. How about not blasting into the atmosphere at mach 220. In case it isn't obvious I oppose this suggestion for its ludicrous.

Another interesting contribution is FAR with KIDS. The combination of these two mods ensure that you need a rocket the size of an R7 to get into space. my rocket has 3 stages, 4 boosters of 3 ftl 800 tall, one central rocket 5 ftl 800 tall, and a single ftl 800 upper stage. getting to orbit requires something akin to a mun rocket. getting to the mun... I'll let you know later.

Hello. My suggestion is to implement a set of subsystems under control that cause the craft to maintain its Attitude relative to a Primary Body. Because physical forces such as gravity act only on the center of mass of the craft many of the tricks used to maintain spacecraft attitude do not work. My suggestion would create a special part with a module that would replicate these forces. when physics is not simulated then spacecraft orientation does not normally change. This part would require a correction such that either: 1. a spacecraft with sufficient attitude control maintains orientation by hard-code. 2. a spacecrafts orientation is reset to face the planet if it has sufficient attitude control and enters physics range. Examples: Gravity Boom. The gravity boom is a passive system that acts to orient a spacecraft so that the boom faces the planet. It requires no power and the force it exerts diminishes with altitude. The boom may be extended or retracted and works based on the principle that gravity is not constant across space. a sufficiently large rod will experience a form of gravity drag on the end of the spacecraft that will orient towards the planet. Solar Sail. This is another form of attitude control that uses a solar sail as a form of drogue chute in space. Radiation pressure pushes the sail away causing it to orient itself farthest from the sun. This is another form of passive control that uses no power once deployed. though effectiveness diminishes with solar radius it does so at a less significant rate than the gravity boom, and maintains solar orientation as opposed to gravity orientation. It is smaller and does not work when the sun is obscured (for the same reason as solar panels.) Magnetorquer. This form of attitude control uses either a fixed permanent magnet or, more commonly, a magnetic coil to maintain spacecraft orientation relative to a magnetic field. Most magnetorquers require a small amount of power to maintain vehicle orientation. This is a very low torque solution and only operates around bodies with magnetic fields. Additionally this system provides a small drain on spacecraft power. Reaction Control Stabilizer Computer. This is not a means for stabilization but for control of stabilization. The RCSC would work like SAS but orient toward the orbiting body or the sun (dependent on a setting) and would use momentum wheels and RCS to orient the craft (just like SAS.)

I assume your in LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit.) and so everyones statement is perfectly adequate but I thought I might add something. If you and the target are in a higher orbit then you can attempt a docking approach from farther out. the reason is that the greater your orbital radius the more linear your system becomes. If you are ever trying to perform an intercept between two deep space vehicles you may be able to begin a direct approach method from as far away as the mun is from Kerbin.

A few suggestions: (I use and enjoy this mod. It botched a 40k funds rescue mission after I had to make many different burns on a poodle.) 1. Decouplers: These have been a problem since the earliest manned missions. Uri Gagarin's decoupler almost killed him during Vostok I's Re-entry. I suggest that when a decoupler fails and nothing happens there is a good chance that it fails "permanently" (you may only get 3 attempts to decouple and then it's done for.) however when in the failed state it becomes fragile and may break under load (G forces and heating) 2. Heating failure: It may be interesting to see parts that fail if they get too hot. This may not be as big a problem in stock as it is with deadly reentry however. 3. electronic failures: antennas, batteries, all of these can fail hilariously, and there even less forgiving of blunt force repairs. (maybe an electrocute kerbal failure where the kerbal gets knocked out as if he fell) 4. Control failures: RCS thrusters firing out of control, like during Gemini 8 5. Backup modules: paying extra money for a second ignition coil pre-installed. the reason is that you cannot EVA on a probe. 6. perhaps a set of failures that while not immediately dangerous may be if the part is activated, like a damaged fuel line to an engine. starting the engine may be fine, or you may blow up. forces you to make hard decisions.

One thing that may help is if/when contracts get expanded. There may be missions like company X wants you to put a satellite with a communitron 16 into orbit with periapse B and Apoapse C.

another interesting note: not all missiles use spin to stabilize them. Many missiles use rotating optics to examine the sky and determine range and course and as such need a steady orientation (up must be up). The AIM 9 sidewinder is one of these missiles. stabilization on these weapons is achieved by: 1. articulating control systems 2. Thrust vectoring 3. spinning paddle-wheels running axial tot he missiles flight path. This prevents the missile from spinning like a bullet.

quick question? DAC provides negligible positive feedback to the elavons on my craft while exceeding mach 1. The crafts structure can take more and the controls can give more but DAC refuses to pitch up. Is this normal? Have I screwed up? also. I am having great difficulty exceeding mach 1.8 in SLF. this is primarily a deadly reentry problem but I was wondering if you could give me some hints as to what I can do. Or should I cool my jets so to speak?

Hello. I recently added a few mods to my install and I think I may have messed something up. Hopefully this is the right place. please help me! I am having issues with lag resulting from a craft I have built. The craft lags, especially after mach 0.7 ish it uses procedural wings, the landing gear from KAX, and a bunch of spaceplane+ parts. It did give me a yellow warning regarding the interaction of joint reinforcement and procedural wings, and the wings were floppy. my mods are: 000_Toolbar AJE CrewXfer DRE Engineer FAR Firespitter(.dll only) KAX KIDS KJR Klockheed Martian KSPX Infernal Robotics KSPI Real Fuels Remote Tech 2 Spaceplane Plus Procedural Fairings Procedural Wings the most recent mods that I have installed are Procedural wings KSPX Klockheed Martian KAX Spaceplane Plus Firespitter.dll

The game is becoming easier. The reason is that the game is becoming more stable. Half the battle used to be defeating game glitches like parts randomly separating. The game will get harder again as it is balanced and features are added. Until then it may get even easier. The thing is, if the game is getting too easy for you, come up with a bigger challenge or install difficulty mods.