paul23

I work a lot with code, and most of my posts will be things like codeboxes and other ways to have monospace text - or mathematical notation. When we joined this forum I clearly remember no rich editor being in place. So the code should still be there, and it must be just a way to undo some kind of update to the forum software.

That's captured by the `M0/Mf`, starting mass over the final mass component: heavier engines will give a smaller fuel fraction. If fuel burns "less efficient at low altitude" is the driving force the best solution would be to go perfectly vertical and then once you are at sufficient altitude do a turn. however this is not a gravity turn at which you minimize offset between prograde and gravity. It would be a much sharper turn, and unless you come up with some form of calculation or test I cannot verify such statements. What? This is just repurposed bovine waste, the direction has no (in ksp, and very very very minimal in real life) influence on the way a fuel burns, or even how a nozzle works. I'm out, this is exactly why I said: "verifiable proof", not "I can do x, you need to get good". This is not scientific and reeks of claims that are just false, [snip] claims.

Well quite often when I try to insert text I accidentally forgot to remove the formatting of the pasted text. Thus I have weird formatting in posts. Then if I wish to later edit it I have to find everywhere in the buttonbar (using mouse, tabs apparently don't work, this is silly) what format is where. On top of that some things cannot be edited anymore (anything between [code] tags). The most annoying this is when trying to insert a hyperlink. In some way the forum always makes a pasted link a hyperlink. Thus you get a lot of text that looks like: [url=https://www.google.com]search engine[/url] So can I stop using this silly rich text editor and just use bbcode? (better would of course be a markdown flavour like github and stackexchange family uses, but that's another topic altogether) EDIT: I just realize the engine is even worse: it tries to fix things where I deliberately left unclosed tags so they should be interpreted as text like any sane xml parser.

I'm using the tourism plus contract pack. This contract has a mission "space camp" which gives new kerbals. I wonder, can I modify this mission to give "random traits" to the new kerbals, instead of always 1 pilot, 1 scientist and 1 engineer? I tried creating a module manager patch but am wondering if it will actually work: @CONTRACT_TYPE[Tourism_SpaceCamp]:AFTER[ContractPacks]:NEEDS[UmbraSpaceIndustries] { -BEHAVIOUR:HAS[#type[ChangeKerbalType]] {} BEHAVIOUR { type = ChangeKerbalType onState = CONTRACT_COMPLETED KERBAL_INFO { kerbal = @/candidates.ElementAt(0) trait = [Pilot, Engineer, Scientist].Random() kerbalType = Crew } KERBAL_INFO { kerbal = @/candidates.ElementAt(1) trait = [Pilot, Engineer, Scientist].Random() kerbalType = Crew } KERBAL_INFO { kerbal = @/candidates.ElementAt(2) trait = [Pilot, Engineer, Scientist].Random() kerbalType = Crew } } } Mainly am I wondering: is the way to define the list correct? Or should the traits be between quotations (being a string)? `["Pilot", "Engineer", "Scientist"].random()`. The original contract type also doesn't use strings.

Well they have a (temporary) orbit and all orbital parameters are "in the save file" (though not visible so it's hard to calculate manually).

Using a mainsail, you have 8000 = 310 * 9.81 * ln(m0/mf) or: m0/mf = e^(8000/(310*9.81)) = 14 so total weight needs to be more than 14 times the operating empty weight. Looking at the tank: Kerbodyne S3-14400: empty weight is 9 tonnes, full weight is 81 tonnes. So the maximum fraction m0/mf we can get is 9. So this means we do indeed need a minimal specific impulse of: 8000 = Isp * 9.81 * ln(9) Isp = 371.147 In stock outside the conventional engine ranges. There is a slightly more efficient tank: R-4 'Dumpling' External Tank. It's a small tank so you'll have to spam those. But this tank has a fuel fraction of 12. 8000 = Isp * 9.81 * ln(12) Isp = 328.179 Which is "almost" possible using the skipper, and possible with the poodle, though then you're back at bad thrust levels.

You don't have to get to 0 degrees when doing a burn. The sphere of influence is bigger than a point, and for transfers to another planet: it really doesn't matter, and you'll just fix it "mid way" in the solar soi.

Not really, except for a few "pre defined scripts". If you wish to add scripting and "ai", there is a special mod for that purpose: kOS.

Is it possible to use this mod to plan transfer windows to asteroids and other objects?

Well I need to capture a highly elliptic asteroid (class B) (apoapsis is almost at kerbin soi's and periapsis 1/4th moho's orbit). I wonder: how would I plan for this? - How much delta V would I need to reserve, how do I know when the next transfer window is? Is there a tool to make a porkchop plot for such custom objects?

I always doubt this to be true, I never saw any real proof. Yet I can easily give proof of the opposite, actual delta-v for a launch vehicle is: DV = Isp * 9.81 * ln(m0/mf) - integral(g(t) dt) - integral( d(t) dt) - otherlosses with integral(g(t) dt) being the integral over time for the gravity at time t, between start of the burn and end of the burn. (and d(t) for drag between start and end of *maneuver*). Since gravity is near constant during launch, we can simplify to: DV = Isp * 9.81 * ln(m0/mf) - g0 * t_burn - integral( d(t) dt) - otherlosses Now the question is chiefly: is the drag loss due to increased velocity by burning more fuel faster offset by the gravity losses. Given Kerbin's very thin atmosphere above 13ish km I can easily argue "yes", at least above the very first few km. So the longer you burn the more fuel you "waste" (t_burn increases). Now that I have this statement, you ought to bring back a counter argument. And "experience" or "others say so" is not a valid argument, that's not what science is based upon, I need something I can repeat and that shows it.

Problem I can see for the OP is that rockets tend to randomly explode upon loading at the launchpad.

To be frank "I wouldn't bother". The only thing you might wish to do is "fix inclination during circulization", only if you're near the ascending/descending node though, if you combine multiple maneuvers like this you get at most 30% saving, so if the ascending node is like 2-3 degrees off the apoapsis, you might make a maneuver node that has both circulization and a "fix" up to ~5 degrees inclination. But that would require lot of tweaking of the node to see how you have to fire.

The syntax is all mixed up, but you can easily find it (@Kopernicus:AFTER[Kopernicus]). Also you should add a procent sign in front of the values, this way you won't end up with "two" eccentries (and kopernicus picking last only). But besides that: be careful with high eccentric orbit. In reality (and the physics give that) the sphere of influence is based on the actual distance between a planet and the larger body. When you get closer the sphere of influence reduces. However ksp uses a single value for the soi, so weird things might happen, where the game "thinks" you're inside another SOI, but your acceleration actually drops. This can lead in bad cases to jumping around, and in even worse cases to a system where you leave a soi, only to join next frame and leave again, getting "stuck" due to the massive difference in velocity.

Hmm I fast forwarded a full year, having put 4 sentinels in orbit below kerbin. I am finding a few more, always around 4-5 active. But 80% is class D or E, and the rest almost all class C. I found 2 class A asteroids but no B in the full year.

Illegal implies against the law or rules. The high court of justice in europe has deemed that any software (owner) has the right to be resold. And this right cannot and shall not be limited in anyway or shape - independent of where the company is located, so long as it is being sold to a european customer the seller may not put any limitations are hurdles. Please do not spread inaccuracies and false statements, especially from a semi official ranking as "moderator". (If need be I can show the court ruling, it's dry text though).

Hmm does having multiple actually increases the amount you see? Or just one is max? Also: might USI (mks' resource lodes) interfering with this?

Nope, one is getting into an orbit, but the time till leaving of kerbin soi is taking long, I'm finishing around 100th tourist landing on minmus before the sentinel gets into position.

Well I'm currently having a mission to tow a (new) class B asteroid into minmus orbit. However I'm checking the tracking station and only find 3 class E asteroids. How would I find a class B asteroid?

Hmm so I'm not sure which pack of USI adds the extra kerbal classes (miner, technician etc). I'm guessing this mod, otherwise tell me and I'll post this is the correct thread. Anyways; is it possible to make the extra kerbal classes available from other "missions" that give kerbals? - rescue, and with tourism plus I've got the space campe missions. If this is "hard" - would it be possible to allow "retraining" certain classes to the specialisms? IE, there are 10 specialisms, allow retraining of "pilot" to "kolonist, quartermaster or scout". "engineer" to mechanic or technician and "scientist" to Miner, geologist, farmer, biologist or medic. Those missions easily give me more than enough kerbals, so it's weird that I have a few dozen pilots but no specific classes.

When you are in physics view there are a lot of inaccuracies, especially when your ship is large and center of gravity does not correspond to the control point. The solution is to penetrate the soi very clearly and not a shallow entry. Make sure you dive into a low orbit.

Well currently whenever I go to another scene from the main scene (mostly VAB and tracking station) it takes multiple minutes for the new scene to load. How can I improve this and how can I find what is causing the delay? I've tried adding an SSD, I've improved my memory from 8 to 16 GB but I do not see any difference. How can I improve this?

Well I've always kind of wondered: why is there no "adapter" docking port? - A docking port that has an initial form factor of 2.5m, however which can also "dock" with the smaller ports. This would be ideal for utility ships around larger stations, to move modules around and not having to worry about the correct port for the "utility ship". (the utility ship would have this adapter).

I have for non utility mods like kerbal engineer and mechjeb: USI (life support + mks) kas/kis StationPartsExpansionRedux nearfuture technologies (all mods) cryoengines scansat remotetech

Well I've got a science task where I have to bring a scientist to a specific spot and let him do his magic. One of the experiments is "data camera". What part gives this experiment?