Archgeek

1: In places -- The editor (VAB/SPH) will be less of a butt, as it will no longer be several scenes fighting each other, and horrifying WhackStrocities won't grind the editor to a crawl either. Sadly, due to all the co-dependence of things in an in-flight vessel, we won't see much gain for single-vessel part count, but having several large ships near each other will stop being a problem, as those can be easilly parallelized. They will start to fight with each other as you get more vessels (and thus threads) than cores, though. (Note that even a kerbal on EVA is a vessel with one part.) Otherwise soulsource blatantly has the right of it. 2: Almost all of them. Some parts might work, as might things like KAC and Chatterer, but I'd expect almost every one to be broken by the release. I'd also expect more than half of them to be fixed before I even get home from work to download the update. Modders tend to be amusingly fast with these things if real life doesn't get in the way. 3: 1.1 will improve a lot of things, often in hidden ways. 1.1.1 will fix a lot of things 1.1 might've broken. 1.1.2 will kick butt.

From before we had a stock LES (though these shots are from a demonstration craft slapped together in .90), the OctoBail heavy escape tower! The abort action cuts all main engines, separates the portion of the craft to be recovered, and fires the 8 separatron motors in one keystroke. Here's the test craft after a major fuel pump malfunction, abort system engaged moments before impact: Note the nice and gentle 2g acceleration. It goes up to 3g as the fuel burns out, but still much less violent than the stock LES, while still able to pull the capsule away from disaster: Nice and safe from the inferno below. A second action group releases the tower and pops the chutes:

Wow, I ask about gimbal rate on squadcast and they turn around and hire the guy who wrote a thing that does that. Sweet.

KER, KAC, and Stock Bugfixes as usual, plus a limited HotRockets install, as I love what it does with the ion engine. I'd also like to try out KAS and possibly Kerbal Construction Time for kicks.

I recall someone brought up bringing the gimbal rate (deg/s) in line (like Claw's GimbalPlus Stock Bugfix module), but was initially misconstrued as referring to the existing gimbal limit (max deflection). Once clarified it was said they'd have QA look into it.

You sir, have one heck of an extraordinary wife. XD

Alas, the rhetorical triangle outmoded. (Also, no Kairos?)

Not trim, then. 'Sounds like your SAS input must be zero sans fins...hmm, do you use angle snap in the VAB? If not, it's possible the editor's derping slightly and they're going on a bit twisted or the control surfaces........ Hmm. Where on your rockets are you placing the fins? A time ago there was a problem with control surfaces in front of CoM getting reversed, deflecting the wrong way for a given input. Under SAS, that problem would definitely self-worsen as corrections were attempted...but that would also break pitch and yaw.

I think this discussion has quietly revealed the real truth -- priming the lines induces a small torque, and most of us like to stage our clamps the moment we fire the main engines, or just sit the beast on its engine bells. Now this will only introduce a small rotation, but the steady chant of "momentum is conserved" has caused me to think of something -- the moment of inertia is changing, and very rapidly at first. The priming of the lines puts a slight twist on the rocket, and then large amounts of mass are moved from the outside in, like the clasic ice skater pulling in their arms example (except then the mass just plain leaves, making the whole thing lighter). As this happens, that little twist gets magnified very, very rapidly, and worsens a little bit more with each staging event as the moment of intertia keeps moving inwards (I wouldn't be surprised if the pump priming torque, if modeled, is repeated with each stage). Ultimately, you get a ship that's very interested in spinning on its axis, beyond the level pod torque can counteract in severe examples. See also Scott Manley's video of a craft with two fuel tanks moving around as fuel is pumped due to the system completely ignoring conservation of internal momentum.

'Sounds like indeed a booster-induced roll worsened by SAS input on the fins. With the fin surfaces disabled, SAS may well be managing to counter the roll with the command pod's reaction wheel. Whether it be trim or SAS input, there should be a visible roll input in the control input UI. If it's something weirder then you'll see the roll needle centered.

'Pretty sure Tfin means the SAS input from their kerbal pilot, there.

The Albatross 1 fell apart on the runway. We...we don't talk about the Albatross 2.

Zounds, kerbol heliopause'd be sweet. On the subject of sundivers, has anyone had any luck abusing radiators to get solar atmospheric science yet? Its atmospheric height is listed at 600km, and since the dv needed to get to a 610km circular orbit is said to be13.7km/s, I've got two 14km/s+ probes that ostensibly can do it, but might not be able to take the heat that far down.

With rocket fuel? HeHEhEhAHahehaeHe. I try to play KSP for a few minutes at a time, intent to just tweak a design, update my notes, and double check some numbers...but then I notice it's uncomfortably close to dawn the next day, and my little sundiver probe is an elaborate beast with enough delta-v to circularize just above the corona.

All this talk of "tank butts" -- just what is a tank butt? I do hope you're not refering to the turbopump and combustion chamber assemblies. Those are known for pretty important. One of the dopier things about the Vector is that it's just a black attachment disk with a gimbal bearing and a bell. Of course, this is to emulate how the rest of engine was set inside the structure of the shuttle with SSMEs, but shouldn't we take a fuel penalty when attaching it, then?

...I read that in Dr. Emmet Brown's voice. Well played.

So the upshot here is that it is here shown that Harv and friends have had an even more positive effect on reality then we were before aware -- in this case, an awesome book that's useful for teaching the general meaning of complex things in simple words exists because a couple of old friends who used to make cobled-together rockets decided to make a video game.

It sure was weird seeing all that cutting. I wonder why/how that happened.

By all accounts this should really have no benefit -- As Ten Key said, you'll have nasty gravity drag going straight up to get your AP to Mun town, and then instead of burning for with an already significant tangential velocity, you'll be floating around the Mun's path with near-zero relative velocity, so you'll have to burn for nigh-unto the fullness of the Mun's own orbital velocity about Kerbin, save for what it gives you by dragging your craft along a bit as it rampages by. Though I'm curious just how much delta-v the Mun would impart to a near-stationary craft in its passing.

[quote name='Azimech']Too bad ... another 1701. I'd like to see a nice 1701-A.[/QUOTE] Constitution class for life! :cool:

I'd say a weird combination of mothership and flotillia -- Multiple fusion/antimatter powered interplanetary vesels, some scanny probes, and options to alter loadouts for each system by docking most everything to anything else -- all of which in turn dock to a single warp-capable mothership that takes the whole fleet from star system to star system.

[quote name='Francois424']My Solar Cruiser... back from 0.23 (or 0.22? can't remember exactly) First 15k dV ship I ever made... But man those 45-80 minutes burns... Ouch. ( Price to pay for having 3 Ion engines ) [/QUOTE] Oh man, that thing just makes my day. It reminds me of the symmetry-glitch party that was my XenonStorm Mk3, just with over twice the delta-v (probably in part because I had 24 engines due to said symmetry glitch clipping insanity, and my very very dumb early attempt at high-density xenon storage). How the heck did you get that many gigantors in parallel at those angles? ...Are those tail connectors?

[quote name='cantab']If you want to hide images it's better for readers if you link them anyway, If they're spoilered my web browser will still download them whether or not I open the spoiler; if I'm on my phone that's a waste of mobile data.[/QUOTE] To each their own, it seems -- I use them to de-clutter a page and reduce scrolling, and actually find it quite annoying to have to derp off to another website to view an image meant to be part of a forum post. 'Kinda curious that they don't use an ajax script to load spoilered images on demand instead (with a profile option to load 'em anyway, in case the delay vexes desktop users with slow internet).

[quote name='Guz']why dont you go for it like this? [/QUOTE] While impressive, using ISRU to get away with Mammoths and have all of the TWR is Easy Mode. I was thinking more along the lines of this thing:[spoiler=Xenon Tempest Mk2] [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59091477/Monstrosities/screenshot141.png[/IMG] Seen here with fuel pod and return system already docked and the MicroTug construction runabout arbitrarily docked to one of the engine spars (some assembly required). [/spoiler] Though after seeing cantab's design, I might instead go with this:[spoiler=Xenon Tempest Mk3 concept] [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59091477/Monstrosities/screenshot142.png[/IMG] Much simpler, better delta-v, TWR, and even part count, plus it kinda looks like the Discovery One, just with ion engines and non-radial fuel tanks. [/spoiler] Granted, both of those might have too much delta-v even for Moho, depending on the lander package. I am going to miss these spoiler tags if the new forum lacks an analogue to them.

I see BB code won't be supported in new posts...will there be some analogue in functionality to spoiler tags? Lacking an imgur account I've found them very useful when posting images.