Requia

I do not have KW rocketry no.

I've got no emissive animations with the latest update (via CKAN). Probably user error since nobody else had said anything yet but I'm not sure how to fix it?

My thought given the 'what is actually being shown' question above is to install navball docking indicator. If you haven't yet restarted KSP also just flat out try that a lot of weird behavior goes away after a reboot, Squad got really good at sanitizing the kraken from save files, and this fixed one of my own docking nightmares.

this doesn't really work, the main reason to use that trick if you have a poor mass/torque ratio, in which case you can't move that fast. So any speed other than zero is too high. A better option might be to remove the need, the stock SAS controls suck, leveled pilots (and equivalent probes) should be able to turn to the manuever node without overshooting, I know this is possible, remote tech does it perfectly.

space soccer should really really not be stock.

Mechjeb is totally cheating. If you need an autopilot there's kOS

assuming an AoA of purely pro or retrograde would seem perfectly functional here. (no good if the rocket won't point one of those two ways naturally though) A lot of the normal control systems could be left untouched in favor of getting close to KSC in the first place.

"heavy" Well I don't normally optimize rockets for something this light but I'll give it a go.

Suggestion: Acetylene/Carbon Monoxide mix (this is the most ridiculously toxic thing I can imagine, but hey its space if you take off your helmet you die anyway). CH4+184,000KJ-->C2H2+3H2 (no fancy chemical process name here that I'm aware of). This is a serious mars mission proposal, 1/8th the hydrogen mass needs to be landed on Mars (or somehow mined) as for a methane rocket, vacuum isp of 380. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/3.26350

Yeah but it stops at 4.0

It's actually cause the atoms in the molecules are so close to each other and can't move because the minimum energy involved under quantum physics is lower than what's available even for molecules with far above average individual kinetic energies. What you're talking about is latent heat, which isn't factored into the specific heat. What's the changelog for 4.3?

Mining on the ground, fuel to orbit, but I disabled 'ore' in config altogether because I hatehatehate that it has a 1:1 resource:fuel mass and use custom ISRU configs with mod resources (water mostly).

Community Tech Tree adds a bunch of post stock nodes, whcih most mods then fill in if CTT is installed, as much as 10k for a node (warp drive mods).

This is literally the exact opposite of what boosters are good for. The faster you get going off the launchpad the less dV you need to get to orbit (it drops as far as 3005 vacuum dV for the way I fly), no the fact that your TWR rises as you lose fuel does not make up for this, its on the launchpad that high acceleration is the most useful, by the time you get all that TWR from fuel expenditure you already wasted a .... ton of fuel.

Every building has its own surface biome like the launchpad/runway, and there are other even smaller biomes within that (possibly dependent on how upgraded the buildings are). But uh, you don't have wheels. Also its tedious as hell. You can sometimes reduce wobble by sliding the gimbal range down to 20% or so. But long term you need those struts for boosters, so they should be your first priority.

I've launched off Duna with LV-Ns. 'atmosphere' is a bit of an exaggeration, as long as you don't land at the lowest points on Duna you're good.

even hyperedit isn't 100% cause of the way the game calculates orbits, AP and PE change slightly every physics tick.

Some additional options: Instead of matching orbits, match the total of AP and PE, at long as they sum together the orbital periods will be exactly the same, no matter how weird and elliptical they are. For limited thrust, the flight computer can do .01s bursts, faster than you can hit x after hitting shift. Between the two of these I've gone years without adjustments, perfection is impossible though cause of the AP/PE wobble when not on rails. By using highly elliptical orbits, you can greatly resist drift, even once badly out of sync the sats will still give full coverage whenever in the upper part of their orbit, which is most of the time.

Having seen what happens in parachute stress tests, nope. The seams all rip at once in a failure.

that moment in the upper atmosphere when your rockets slips away from fighting gravity to using it.

At a bare minimum, there needs to be a way to undo it if you stage the chute. The 'don't open till x pressure' feature is now useless since its still unsafe at .5 atmo

Stating a whole new KSP folder then reinstalling mods seems to have fixed it. PITA.

Yes that's exactly it, it gives performance much closer to the stock LV-N. Thanks Why a modulemanagerpatch instead of direct edit?

No it isn't. The LV-N is lighter than NERVA-2 would have been, but its also a fraction of the power. It's substantially heavier than the LV03, which is the most complete system (actually built, never finished testing) since the 70s, and *still* a fraction of the power. But maybe you could explain how the configs work and I can change JUST the NTR (and also whatever else I find, the Mammoth also has issues but its not as big a deal), instead of trying to change every other engine in the game?

If TL3 is mid 60s it shouldn't be possible to make it at TL3. Its not until the early 70s that it was actually an option. The NERVA-2 is the FIRST engine that could conceivably have been built, those 60s tests shook themselves apart and vented their reaction mass with the exhaust. But regardless, I would really like USABLE configs that are meant for Kerbol and not RSS. 17 ton engines don't factor into that. I've figured out how to change the realistic masses, still can't find the stockalike masses, is it just a multiplier?