Falconer

Only if they're of the Miniature Giant Space variety...... Of all the mods... I've yet to see a Spelljammer one.....

Odd I just cut and paste the link to the forum and the thread comes right up i's halfway down the first post.... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117415-SSTO-to-laythe-and-beyond repaste and cut with the link markers... Just pointing out the silliness of ions propelling a manned craft from atmospheric high gravity Kerbin ground all the way to orbit... granted putting all that stuff into a single 1.25 bay for the clipping and drag exploits is also silly. The parts may no longer be massless... but I simply quoted what the gentlemen posted without comment.

Just in case most people don't realize.. the ISP of an engine... is directly proportional to the square of the energy used to power it. So the better the ISP of your ion the power problem increases as the square of that. Also the further you go out the worse solar gets as an option.... at some point your only good option is a nuclear power plant... (and not necessarily a NERV). Just found a new level of ion wrongness and brokenness... "Ohh, and heres my entry, although its not exactly 100 legit in my opinion as i clipped 300 massless batteries, 21 xenon fuel tanks, 15 ion engines, 3RTGs, and a probe core into a 1.25m service bay. yes it TECHNICALLY works, but i cant really call this legit given the sheer amount of crap i threw into such a small space." http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117415-SSTO-to-laythe-and-beyond Start with a severely broken engine... then use all the other exploits to make it even worse....

Tried a quick experiment NikkyD. Took off he precoolers and replaced them with Mk1 fuselage LF tanks... and some other minor tweaks to fix stability pushing the mass up to around 48t. The nukes got hotter and instead of running them at 100% power or off like on the original launches where they'd stabilize at about 80% overheat). I had to throttle them back to about 50% while making the final push up to orbital altitudes. There may be a piloting dependence in there too... less time spent oscillating as you wrestle to keep the nose pointed in the right direction.. and more time thrusting and accelerating straight forward. Things seem to cool off while the craft is wobbling. If someone has that mod which allows stupidly high launch platforms... might be interesting to bolt a nuke to the launch stability platform at various altitudes... then see how long it takes it to overheat and explode when bolted to the Mk1 liquid fuselage with the much lower heat dissipation figures than the Mk2/Mk3 fuselages. Or mounted directly to a precooler inlet. In space though the experiment would be fairly straightforward... attach nuke to a big fuel tank in orbit... start burning out of system at full throttle... see how long it takes to get fireworks based on which part it's attached to. Another question though would also be the drag figure on the precooler... since it's an inlet it would have higher drag and also self-generate more heat at speed possibly eliminating it's benefits as a cooling system. Thought I saw someone mention that inlet drag may not change when closed in 1.0.

Gotta agree with most... while cute the ion landers don't really fit in the game well. Their thrust is too high. All attempts to fix only ion engines kind of miss the point IMO. Simply fixing the ability of all ships to thrust while on rails would do a lot of good. Also the tech tree really is missing some items which really should also be in here. Propellers, Rotors, and balloons. Yes they only work in atmospheres... but they work in non-oxidized atmospheres as well as oxidized ones. So far the atmopheric parts really only involve Kerbin and Leythe... People forget unpowered rotors double as parachutes.... and can make autorotation landings... (personally think gyrocopter is great pick for moving around some of the atmospheric biomes, though most people don't understand how they function differenty than helicopters). Instead we need to rely on inefficient rockets and only rockets (and the stupidly broken 1.0 ion) to push us through.

Thanks... it works on a new post.. though trying to edit it into the old post doesn't work.... ... that is about the 4th iteration and the first to go orbital.. (tried 2 nukes not enough thrust... added more engines underneath what was initially a high wing... sucker would pitch up uncontrollably..... added two more engines on top of the high wing (6 nukes)... with after tweaking down nuke thrust to balance the thrust vector once the low ramjet flamed out... it just ran out of gas... So switched to midwing with 4 engines balanced symmetrically around the ramjet in the center... also added two more delta wings in the far back for 1200 more gas and more lift and to push the CoL back even farther. Problem now is the COM is very stable in pitch/roll... but on reentry on yaw it's unstable if the nose gets too far left or right when it's dry on reentry after most of the speed is bled off. ... so it's prone to a flat spin after reentry... so the tail stabilizers need to move back farther... or add another pair there and risk the drag. I put all the remaining fuel in the forward tank... and second time I did it I had a lot more fuel leftover due to better piloting (about 280 units instead of 160). In fact, I marked the frontmost two tanks as 'do not use' which helped a lot with dynamics only unlocking them one by one as the tanks drained out and it was clear I'd need some gas for the final push to orbit, meanwhile the fuel drained from the rearmost wings into middle and then forward wing... and from the forward wing into the front fuselage tank. ramjet pulled equally from all tanks just like normal except the reserved ones, but when you turn on the rockets the fuel flow helped a lot with keeping the CoM where it needed to be. Other than that... wondering if elminating the fuselage entirely or using the Mk2's fuel fuselage would work better... (Mk2 is lifting body... so more lift, I aavoided it because all the Mk2 adapters have oxidizer and aren't great fuel tanks). But then we got the whole lift == drag problem. It doesn't matter how much wing you have all the wing does is turn forward speed into vertical lift which is felt as drag... which all needs overcome by a single ramjet still. Attaching nukes to precooler inlet/fuel tanks... seemed to help with the heat dissipation (also they're bolted to the large wing... not the fuselage as the next heat sink in line). Another question:... I put my ramjet inlets on the bottom two nacelles... Yet most designs I see on here...have them on the top of the wing? Is there a reason for that? Just a matter of KSP taste... since it may not be advanced enough know the difference? (I know real world... top wing inlets are used for stealth reasons... but for airflow underwing are superior... underwing is higher pressure due to bernoullii effect.. and when at positive AoA the fuselage or wing helps funnel more air towards the scoop). I'm guessing KSP''s aerodynamic model isn't that advanced for this? I can think of other airflow things it probably ignores as well (the wingtip vortex and how it can be used to enhance lift for example, or increase/decrease drag). Another question... I see a lot of people using the "Ram Air" inlet.. and not the shock cone. The shock cone just doesn't work as well with ramjets? by the time it's in it's prime the ramjet is falling off so it's made for rapiers? I chose the ram air... because the sucker never really gets to shock cone speeds before the ramjet shuts off... (the ramjet flames out about 700-800 m/s IIRC).

New entry... clocking in at a whopping 45.6 tons wet on the runway. Orbits at at 25.1 tons. Landed safely at just under 25 (burned off 100 units of fuel to deorbit and final approach). Pure plain vanilla KSP 1.0.2 with completely no mods. 1 Ramjet, 4 nukes and the flattest flight profile I've ever done... It can't climb without bleeding speed at more than 5degrees nose up.... and one you're high up it doesn't want to lift the nose much til you're hypersonic and even then it's constant pull back on the stick while keeping it level. So the answer is yes... you can reach orbit with a 5degree ascent slope... with some well timed flat stretches to build up speed (about 11k for the ramjet only... about 30k once the ramjet flames out for the nukes to gain enough speed to start climbing again...). You'll enter with ~2200 m/s orbital velocity too meaning you only need a little bit to circulize. Though above 8000m I learned the nukes are getting about 750s ISP... more at 12k when I turned em on. It more lifts itself out of the atmosphere on wings rather than powers itself out of the atmosphere on vertical thrust like the other entrants... This became heavily apparent on reentry... I pitched the nose slightly up at 50k altitude and started to climb while bleeding speed... very high AoA solved that as intentional stall plus massive wing airbraked in no time flat well before hitting the 15-25k altutide death zone. Also putting my ballistic impact in roughly the mountains outside KSP before going prograde to keep speed and regain lift to float back into the plains... Edit: hmm how do people post the imgur album... I can only seem to link single pics... but I'll put in the album URL Edit Imgur album posted below.... doesn't want to edit it into this post at all.

One of the problems I've run into experimenting with the LV-N's is a severe shortage of LF only fuel tanks. You'd think that'd be low hanging fruit... no need to change the part model... just duplicate it and increase LF capacity and remove the oxidizer capacity. The only good thing about having a little oxidizer is being able to use verniers for RCS. It might even be a good idea to split up the fuel tanks section of the menu... have one for RCS/exotic (xenon), ore tanks etc... put all the oddballs in one spot. Another for normal rockets, another for LF only. Good example is the Mk2 fuselage adapters... the short and long to single ends both are stuffed with oxidizer... same goes for the short to double adapter. Even many of the size adapters that double as fuel tanks are rocket only.. leaving you with an inefficient fuel tank. I was experimenting with a LF only ramjet plus nuke space plane and this was a constant annoyance... either sacrifice the aerodynamics or the mass efficiency of the tanks. Even the Mk3 Liquid fuel fuselage... great... except the Mk3 to large/extra large adapters all pack you got it... extra oxidizer tanks....

Slightly related thought here... when read this... pulled out a ramjet, stuffed it on one of the lightest cockpit planes I could build in sandbox. Then pointed it straight up after seeing how fast it turned into fireworks when flown horizontally... sucker hit 150k apoapsis...granted without the horizontal velocity to orbit. Essentially everyone here is simply using the ramjet as a non-disposable booster... and trying to eke out the best performance (most speed and altitude before switching to closed cycle as limited by thrust and atmospheric heating). That got me to thinking... this thread deals mostly with single engine optomization for light lifts... but with the extremely high 59 TWR these things can manage while in atmosphere.. it got me thinking about using them as boosters instead. Rather than SSTO single stage plane... what about using them as a SSTO booster stage (preferably recoverable). Initial results were kinda surprising... 12 ramjets, 1 rhino. Were able to loft 58.8 tons of payload on a 178.9 launch weight to 80k LKO (32.9% payload fraction) while burning through two 7200 tanks worth of gas (plus only a little extra liquid fuel for the ramjets). The only staging was spooling up the ramjets before engaging the liquid fuel rocket for takeoff (turn the TWR positive long enough to get to roughly mach1 as quickly as possible).... then toggling the rhino off again between 4k and 15k altutide while the ramjets did the work). Mind you that fraction will go down slightly once probe core, parachutes, and stage decoupler get added... but still... Anyone else seen similar results... I don't think I've come anywhere close to this using liquid rockets or solid boosters. (I tried strapping on 12 sidekicks with nosecones set to 70% thrust instead... price came down slightly... but I had to use half of the payload 7200 tank to finish the orbital burn). In terms of economy only thing close was the sidekick at about 3400 each with nosecones & radial decoupler.... What kind of a payload fraction or cost per ton are people typically looking at in KSP... (haven't played in a while.. though wiith 1.0.2 pulled it out again to play in the sandbox?).

OK... how would this thread get moved to the bugs sub-forum instead of this one? Secondly, Eyeballing the wiki.... and a reddit thread on the processing lab. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/34jysx/the_mobile_processing_lab_an_indepth_look_at_how/ That thread puts the bonus for flying at 125% science value being the data value. (then 10% more for being landed, except Kerbin which is a -90% instead). Quick glance at the wiki.... base science of PresMat is 12. [TABLE=class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter] [TR] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Kerbin[/TH] [TD]0.3×[/TD] [TD]42[/TD] [TD]0.4×[/TD] [TD]0.7×[/TD] [TD]0.9×[/TD] [TD]18 km[/TD] [TD]70 km[/TD] [TD]1×[/TD] [TD]1.5×[/TD] [TD]250 km[/TD] [TD]1× [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Using those values.... expected science value of the PresMat in each location is exactly as was measured in EVA data (1.00 multiplier) after normal rounding. 12*0.3 = 03.6 Ground ~= 4 data 12*0.7 = 08.4 Flying Low ~= 8 data 12*0.9 = 10.8 Flying High ~= 11 data 12*1.0 = 12.0 Low Orbit ~= 12 data 12*1.5 = 18.0 High Orbit ~= 18 data Increasing those figures by 25% for in-flight, now obvious that 0.5 rounds down always. 10.5 Flying low ~= 10 data 13.5 Flying high ~= 13 data 15.0 Low Orbit ~= 15 data 22.5 High Orbit ~= 22 data The kerbin numbers at -90% make perfect sense since grounded only the Materials Lab produces a large amount of science which after -90% still has 1 left. All the rest produce small fractions which wouldn't survive the rounding down. So yes, those numbers appear to check out exactly with the hunch in the final thoughts. The EVA scientist isn't getting the location bonus (or in one spot penalty).

More data... launched a very rough KerbLab into elliptical equatorial orbit (high & low orbits), also clipped atmosphere for some high altitude for experimental purposes. Using a scientist is still producing different amounts of data than using ships controls. Only now the situation is reversed from grounded on Kerbin. Each time the scientist on EVA produces less science than using the ships controls/cockpit. Again all Kerbals 1 star. High Atmosphere: Cockpit (65k) Mat: 28, Goo: 11, Temp: 9, Pres: 13 High Atmosphere: EVA (65k) Mat: 22, Goo: 9, Temp: 7, Pres: 11 Conclusion1: using an EVA scientist produced lower results than simply using ships controls at high altitude. Low Orbit: EVA (72k) Mat: 25, Goo: 10, Temp: 8, Pres: 12 Low Orbit: Cockpit (72k) Sci1: EVA Ladder, Sci2: Lab, Engi: Cockpit Mat: 31, Goo: 12, Temp: 10, Pres: 15, CrewRep: 6, EVARep over Biome: 10 EVAReport over Highlands: 10 Sci1: EVA Ladder, Sci2: Cockpit, Engi: Lab Mat: 31, Goo: 12, Temp: 10, Pres: 15 Sci1: EVA Ladder, Sci2: EVA Ladder, Engi: Lab Mat: 31, Goo: 12, Temp: 10, Pres: 15 Conclusion2: again tried various assortments of scientists on board vs offboard... it made no difference provided at least one kerbal of any type is in the lab the data is processed for the same amount. Conclusion3: Again less data for EVA scientist compared to cockpit controls. Duh moment here... processed the data for all but the Pressure sensor. So couldn't EVA it to figure out the differences. But anyhow EVA'ing kerbal got less science than simply using ships controls in this case as well. High Orbit: Cockpit (285k) Sci1: Lab, Engy: Lab, Sci2: Cockpit Mat: 47, Goo: 19, Temp: 15, Pres: 22, Crewrep: 9, EVARep: 15 High Orbit: EvA (285k) Sci1: EVA, Engy: Lab, Sci2: Cockpit Pres: 18 Conclusion4: EVA scientist loses out again to ships controls. After all that.. Kerblab has about 300 units of data and is pumping out roughly 0.4 science a day with 2 1star scientists aboard. So by the charts 2star scientists would move that up to about 2/day... and 3star 10/day. Unless you go through kerbal training camp (Mun/Minmus tour for quick 3*'s... not the grreatest investment). Final thought... the results may correlate to the data modifier by location. Kerbin surface is getting a penalty (like 10%) which is getting applied to the ship but not the scientist EVA. Kerbin orbit gives a slight bonus IIRC... and the ship is getting this bonus, but the scientist on EVA isn't. I don't know the exact numbers there so someone who does might check that for correlation to the data numbers above. If so that is probably a bug. (no reason same experiment in same place with same equipment and kerbals in local ship vicinity would vary that much).

Yes only scientists can activate while on EVA. (toddle close then right click manual activate part) Yes I tested it both ways. There was no difference between the scientist on a ladder while landed and one simply standing on top of the plane or solid ground. I put the scientist on the ladder which ran right next to the PresMat and Temp. I activated it while he was on the ladder and while he was simply standing on top of the plane. I also activated the Materials lab while he was on the access ladder I put in the back and while he was standing on the solid ground. No difference either way. That thought crossed my mind too since you get different EVA crew reports for standing on the plane (normal ground) or hanging off a ladder while landed (while flying over terrain).

Okay, screwing around with the mobile processing lab I just unlocked in v1.0.2 normal vanilla carreer mode. I also read this entire thread and didn't see anything to this. And I didn't want to clutter up a how it works thread with what may be a bug report and belong in the buts instead of questions/tutorials section. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117461-New-Mobile-Processing-Lab-mechanics/page21 I'm noticing a huge discrepancy between data amounts available to the processing lab between cockpit activation and manual scientist EVA activation of experiments. I'm not sure if it's a bug or intended behavior. I made up a simple plane with Goo, Pressure, Temperature, and Materials Science Lab, and the mobile processing lab to learn how it works hands on. I then proceeded to learn that simply activating experiments from the cockpit only gave 1 data on the materials lab and pretty much nothing on anything else. However if an EVA scientist activates the experiment manually there's a much larger amount of data available to process (discovered by accident). I also tried activating the experiments from the cockpit, then using a scientist to collect them and take them to the lab. This didn't increase the data available for processing it was simply the cockpit activated values and collecting and storing. Quick Report: All Kerbals 1 star Temp & Presmat attached directly to SciLab, Goo in service bay, Materials Lab in tail after Medium to Small aerodynamic fitting. Data Amounts for Processing from the Runway. Ship Controlled Experiments from Cockpit/Autopilot Engy-Cockpit, Sci1-Lab, Sci2-Lab Goo: 0, Temp: 0, Pres: 0, Mat: 1 Engy-EVA, Sci1-Lab, Sci2-Cockpit Goo: 0, Temp: 0, Pres: 0, Mat: 1 Conclusion1: putting a scientist in the cockpit doesn't change this. Manual Experiments from Scientist on EVA Engy-Cockpit, Sci1-Lab, Sci2: EVA Goo: 3, Temp: 2, Pres: 4, Mat: 8 Engy-Lab, Sci1-EVA, Sci2-Cockpit Goo: 3, Temp: 2, Pres: 4, Mat: 8 Engy-Lab, Sci1-Outside Idle, Sci2-EVA Goo: 3, Temp: 2, Pres: 4, Mat: 8 Sci1-Lab, Sci2-Lab, Sci3-EVA Goo: 3, Temp: 2, Pres: 4, Mat: 8 Conclusion2: So long as a scientist collects the data manually... a large amount of data is available from each biome. (it's Kerbin surface... so yes I know small compared to elsewhere...) Conclusion3: The lab must be manned with at least 1 kerbal. But the game doesn't care if it's a scientist or not for data collection. With no kerbals inside there was no data button on the reset/keep/process/transmit dialogue. There is no difference between 1 or 2 scientists or non-scientists in the lab while a scientist collects manual EVA data. In flight Over KSC (Coast), All experiments repeats of previous scienceSci1-Lab, Sci2-Lab, Sci3-Cockpit Goo: 9, Temp: 7, Pres: 10, Mat: 22, CrewReport: 4 Conclusion4: Cockpit activation while in flight is producing significant amounts of data for Kerbin at least. Quick jaunt over to the highlands/mountains (never did science in mountains). Cockpit Activation, Mountains Landed (new biome), (accidentally trashed Materials Lab on rough highlands landing...) Crew Report: 1.5 science, no data Transmitted Crew report... still no data or science on repeat. Goo: 3 science, no data Temp: 2.4 science, no data Pres: 3.2 science, no data EVA Activation, Mountains (new biome) Goo: 3 science, 3 data Temp: 2.4 science, 2 data Pres: 3.6 science, 4 data Surface Sample: 9science, 1 data Ground EVA Report: 2.4 science, 0 data Conclusion5: game rounds Data/Science values... 3.6 rounded up and 2.4 rounded down... not sure which rounding method is used on 5's. Highlands (old biome I've tested before). Highlands Ground (old biome): Scientist on EVA Goo: 3, Temp: 2, Pres: 4 Highlands, Ground (old biome), Plane Cockpit Controlled Goo: 0, Temp: 0, Pres: 0 Questions: Is this a bug or intended? (needing an EVA scientist manually activating experiments) Questions: When flying a lot of data shows up without scientist on EVA? Why is landed acting differently than flying? Obviously even with ladders... atmospheric flying vehicles don't tend to be kerbal friendly.... they like to get blown off to their demise. I didn't loft anything into orbit for lack of time. That's the next step. Since obviously orbital kerbals on EVA is easier to test vs cockpit activation.

I know lazynewbpack for dwarf fortress... it is a great boon there because almost everyone I know who played DF plays it either vanilla or simply uses the combined modpack and doesn't bother with individual mods. It's not like this where it feels like every player has their own set of mods (without even touching the MechJeb vs KerbalEngineerRedux holy war). I simply don't see the OP providing much value-added and a lot of hassles to the modding community. I think Ferram has the better argument. What it really comes down to is most people here are looking for a compatibility list (or incompatibility list). I mostly get that by looking on forum threads to see what mods people are running together. Quite frankly the best way to do a 'modpack' would be to simply maintain a thread with a list of mods... complete with links to the mods in use that they've found work well together.