dzikakulka

It was a typo, I don't know how I've did it twice Okay, second case, TWR=1 so we burn with force to equal to gravity force but in the opposite direction. Result - forces acting on our ship "cancel out". Game follows Newtonian laws so without any force our body keeps moving with constant velocity undisturbed. Basically there is no change of velocity (there would be some due to gravity force if we did not burn). Then it would land safely ONLY if our velocity was considered safe before burn. That's why in practical situation we would crash. Feel free to ask if you do not undestand something or to point out some stupid things if I did any

Okay so let's say you're descending at some speed and some height where 2s suicide burn with TWR=3 at 100m will bring you down safely. Now, what would happen wif you did the same at 1000m instead? Well, you would gain some positive vertical speed, lose it and crash. Now what would happen wif you would prolong that burn, doing it with TWR=1 over 6s? You would crash, retaining whatever speed you had at the beginning of the burn. All these cases we did burn exact same amount of fuel with same parameters. But it didn't work at all. We want to minimese the time spent on descent so gravity force will have minimised effect.

It's all dark magic to me, but I think RealGreps (continued) Protractor plugin can read closest approach: Source, getclosestapproach(CelestialBody target) method. GNU GPL \o/

Recently I've discovered that size 2 parts (engines in my case) cause pretty high drag when placed on "s2 Wide Universal 4x1.25 Engine Mount"s s2 node like shown in here: http://imgur.com/a/8nK4h Is that part totally out of option as for attaching non-s2 stuff on s2 node? It looks so good and makes perfect multi engine mount with different sizes

@The Pink Ranger From what I've tested, ranges in KM_Gimbal are degrees "in one direction" so total engine vectoring can cover twice the value. Saying straighten engines out you mean you want something to align them properly to the CoM (Davon thrust Controls mod) or you gimbal is not working as intended? I was playing with B9 stuff mostly which uses KM_Gimbal and it was as easy as editing ranges, response speed etc, post cfg if that is your problem.

@Kitspace If you disable symmetry, assemble stuff on whichever side it looks right and then grab the root part and enable symmetry does it still appear different on the other side? Edit: Or alt-click the good one and attach to the other side.

I don't think Pecans equation works, first thing is that it doesn't take object mass as an input while it is a very important parameter (think how much fuel 1ton craft would require and how much 100ton craft would). Or I'm stupid or something, anyway you have all math required here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/40053-Estimate-the-duration-of-a-burn

@Budzynski First post in the thread, big fat bolded text:

Quick question: All stuff connected to asteroid is considered one part and fuel and EC is crossfed through roid, right?

What's that part under decoupler from? It looks pretty nice and I don't quite recognize it. Also, sooo smooooth.... damn I have to dump some mods and stop using ATM. Or do you use any visual enhancement mods?

It's quite possible KER does recognize physical insignificant parts which is good and these won't have impact on your deltaV

I do agree with your points, but isn't the mod itself a source file if there is no plugin, only parts?

Basically any airbreathing engine at any altitude will have better Isp than nuke (even nuke in vacuum). You should delay switch to rocket engine for as long as you can. Simpliest way is to switch to them when all jets flame out on regular ascent, but it is not optimal. Usually what you want to do is to climb to 20-30km (highest possible altitude at which you have enough intakeair for stable burn) and then burn horizontally.... well as long as you gain speed it's good. Usually with over 2km/s you can slowly tilt up and proceed achieving orbit as usual, again, burning with jets as long as you can ofc. PS. Nukes have Isp higher than any other rocket engine in game already at ~30km altitiude or something. Switch to them from other rocket propulsion as soon as low thrust s no longer a problem (for efficiency).

I just wanted to let you guys know that QuantumStruts mod is a godsend for long faired payload. You can place them (strut-beam-thingies) on payload in 2+ symmetry having their beams shoot outwards and when you put the fairing on - click - everything connects making pretty stable contraption. That and struts from lower fairing part to the rocket (for wider than stack top fairings) makes wonders.

Yeah, deploying parachutes on 30km 4km/s flyby already sounds.... kerbal But I know how much effort has to go into balancing out stuff (saw in K3|Chris' post in this case) and actually piloting it for safe, stable and cool reentry. I just slap chutes for whenever I have to slow down and hope for the best (kind of works)

It looks like you've made a typo on KSP-AVC update, it is showing that 0.4.5 is outdated and 0.4.6 is available

Any kind of log? Test results when it lags and when it doesn't? When it started to lag and if 32bit lags? ....anything?

That's why I love stupid_chris and his RealChutes with drag chute. I'm too stupid to bring down a plane safely (with DR and aero failures) without soccer field chute for deorbit

@mrstoned Try QuantumStruts Continued mod (super strong, beam-like - not attached to two places) or struts from B9 Aerospace (realistically strong, also invisible link version). Yeah, I know it's a bandaid solution. But it's ksp

Rendezvous in-game tutorial will surely get you started, try it a couple of times and then tell what part are you having problems with. There is a great deal of video and text tutorials spread around web by the way but still there are people willing to help, you just need to ask more precise questions.

Usually you have to either right-click the part and click "run test" or activate it by staging sequence. To do the latter after you've fired all stages shut down the engine (right click menu), create new stage if needed and drag engine icon to new stage. Firing it should complete contract if that was required.

@Alonzo 1. Kethane 0.8.8.1 with taniwha's fix already works fine. And there is also 0.9 out... 2. I think having base mod with least dependencies possible is good. Maybe I do not want to build on Procedural Parts but on FStexture switch thingy instead. Having no dependency at all in base is the most universal.* But it's up to creator of course. About excess parts - again - it's so easy to delete them. 4. Unless you use adaptation mod (Wombats Karbonite conversion), let's say Karbonites or ARTs "Ore" is not the one you'll be able to use. Base version of this mod uses Kethane-like resource and nothing else will work despite same/similiar name. *this is actually loosely applicable to tanks. Tanks are easy to create and manage (ofc except for models and animations, just assuming we'll steal some from one of the gods around here). I'm more about hard dependencies.

Thanks! Turns out flying hypersonic is quite hard. PS. Link in your sig is broken (missing ':')

Are there any plans for a (sc)ramjet-like powerful and efficient engine with velocitycurve zeroed until few machs? Maybe someone has some config to change one into something like that? I'd like to build some super light and fast UAV (towed to mach 3 or something) but sabres are quite heavy Of course I could make one myself (I'm trying) but I suck at balance and have very limited knowledge (of how stuff is supposed to work irl). Just asking if anyone has something similiar.

If OP wants it to be like that and is ok with not realistic working, what's the problem? Like if there isn't a lot of wizardry in all the stuff around here