Gaarst

People "like" posts and you get a rep point. It can't go negative but you can cancel given rep. Doesn't do anything besides boosting your Internet ego. Not really much of an indicator of how helpful a person is since it can only increase: it's pretty redundant with post count.

Hyperbolic excess velocity is what's killing you. Basically you can't add your orbital velocity around a body to the body's orbital velocity around its star to obtain your velocity around the star, because you need to escape the gravity well of the planet first. What you need to do is add your orbital velocity when you have escaped the planet's gravitational influence, ie: at infinity, which is exactly what the hyperbolic excess velocity (HEV) is. For example: if you reach exactly escape velocity around your planet, your HEV will be equal to zero: you will escape the planet's influence but you will have exactly zero energy left to alter your interplanetary trajectory. Computing the HEV is quite simple, it is given by: HEV2 = v2 - ve2 Where v is your orbital velocity and ve the escape velocity. For your example the velocity of the Earth around the Sun is 29290 m/s and the velocity at the apoapsis of your transfer orbit is 26985 m/s, this means that your HEV will be equal to 2305 m/s. A circular orbit at 200km has an orbital velocity of 7784 m/s. By definition, the escape velocity at that altitude is the circular orbital velocity times √2, then ve = 11008 m/s. From the equation above, your orbital velocity at 200km after your escape burn will be: v2 = HEV2 + ve2 = 23052 + 110082 v = 11246 m/s This means that your escape burn will be about 3462 m/s, or about only 250 m/s over the escape velocity. Thanks to the Earth's gravity well giving you tons of gravitational energy, a 3462 m/s burn in Earth orbit is equivalent to a ejection burn of about 3200 m/s in orbit plus a 2300 m/s burn once you've escaped Earth. In your original reasoning, besides neglecting HEV, you've also assumed that the 7784 m/s of orbital velocity you have at 200 km would be translated into a 7784 m/s difference in orbital velocity once you've escaped the Earth. Thing is you forgot to account for the fact that you are loosing speed as you get away from the Earth because the latter is pulling you towards it: you're fighting against gravity so you change kinetic energy (speed) to potential energy (distance to Earth). Eventually you're only left with the HEV which is the important number to consider for interplanetary transfers. (In reality things will be a bit off because you're never getting infinitely far away from the Earth: you remain at a given distance from it, but its gravitational effect on you becomes smaller as you get far away because the Sun has a greater influence on you.)

You're out of memory: Could not allocate memory: System out of memory! Trying to allocate: 2796208B with 16 alignment. MemoryLabel: Texture Allocation happend at: Line:383 in Memory overview I see from your logs that you are using the 32bit version of KSP (since you're running KSP.exe). The 32bit version is subject to crashes whenever the used RAM memory exceeds 4GB, it's not normally a problem with a stock install (save memleaks) but visual packs tend to use quite a lot of memory as soon as the game loads as KSP loads everything at the same time when launching. The RAM limit is linked to the way 32bit executables are used (I don't really know the details myself though) and it's pretty much unfixable. Fortunately for all of us, KSP has had a stable 64bit version since 1.1. Steam still defaults to the "historic" KSP.exe launcher which is the 32bit version but you can use the 64bit version with no problem. If you go to your game files (should be something like Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program) you should see a "KSP_x64.exe" executable next to KSP.exe. This is the 64bit version of the game that doesn't suffer from the memory limit issue, and has virtually no downside compared to the 32bit (except being incompatible with a 32bit OS but I think everyone runs 64bit by now). Just launch KSP_x64.exe instead of KSP.exe and the issue will be gone. You don't need to move your mods or saves since both versions use the same directories. If you want to save yourself some time for the next times you want to run the game, you can probably change the default executable launched by Steam to the 64bit one. While you're at it, I suggest making a copy of your KSP directory to another place on your computed. Since KSP has no DRM and requires no installation, it can be run in pretty much any folder (avoid C:\Program Files because some permission issues may arise). This will allow you to run different installs of KSP at the same time (eg: one modded and one stock) and more importantly, it will prevent Steam from overwriting your current install every update which tends to break most mods and may corrupt your savefiles.

Seems like someone forgot to log out when leaving... Edit: seems OK actually:

I don't think you understood what I meant. Disregarding realism for accessibility is acceptable. This is why, despite being a strong realism advocator, I am OK with the Kerbin system being made of very small planets. Having RSS as the base system would make the (already steep) learning curve a wall and it would not be appealing in any way to new players. This is also why, in your later post mentioning the camera, having a floating camera is OK: forcing the game to IVA-only or thermal ground-camera only would be incredibly stupid and not appealing to anyone. If you want a full-on simulator, get Orbiter. Disregarding realism for "looks" is not acceptable to me. Having a fake sonic boom serves no purpose besides "sounding cool" (and it is in itself a poor argument when the game has no proper sound design whatsoever: if you want things to sound cool there are a lot of other sounds to implement/tweak before having to resort to fake news sounds) and I don't think it should be added to the game. KSP is a game, but it is based upon realistic mechanics. Even if realism is thrown out of the window from time to time (magic engines, small planets, patched conics, I can go on) it is always for gameplay reasons: because KSP has to remain a game it needs to balance the difficulty of some aspects of realism with the accessibility brought by the simplification of this realism. I don't think adding sonic booms to the game would bring anything to anyone besides annoying a everyone after a few minutes flying and making people think that sonic booms work the wrong way. I agree that other things are higher in the to-do list for KSP, and that KSP wouldn't benefit from advanced sound effects as much as a shooter (for example) where you have to be aware of your environment for gameplay reasons. Sound design in KSP would only serve a cosmetic purpose (which is why it is low on the to-do list) but I still think having a pass on it at some point would improve the game. I'd put it in the same spot as visual improvements and art coherency: even though I'd personally enjoy the latter to be done (properly), I get it's not that much of a priority.

Ctrl + Right Click, edit image.

KSP sound design is non-existent. Engines sounds are terrible, jet sounds are terrible, ambient sounds are terrible, sound propagation dynamics are terrible... Using it as an excuse to shove in even more terrible sounds is not something I'd agree with. I can understand saying no to realism for the sake of accessibility (N-body simulation would be a pain for everyone, so patched conics are used even if they are scientifically inaccurate), but not just to have a cool effect whenever you pass the speed of sound. A sonic boom would be inaccurate, and "it would sound cool" is not a good enough argument to ditch realism (in my eyes).

SRBs already have terrible Isp on Kerbin. I don't expect them to be of any use. In fact I'd be surprised if any of them could lift its own weigh. As for the LF engines good for Eve, the Aerospike, Vector and Mammoth are the top 3. Don't remember much about the other engines since I haven't been there in a very long time.

Yes. Reversing the direction of an orbit is very expensive in terms of dV (twice your orbital velocity) so I doubt it is an option.

The ascending/descending nodes tags show the difference in inclination between your orbit and the target orbit. Here you have "ascending node: 180°" this means that your orbit is inclined 180° relative to the target orbit. In other words, you are orbiting in the wrong direction. In the map view, you should be able to see shadings on the target orbit line moving around: these show the direction of the target orbit, pay attention to these when launching to avoid this common mistake.

Yes, launch to the West. 180° is an equatorial orbit, only opposite the usual way. Remember to pack a little bit more dV since you won't be using Kerbin's rotational velocity, but rather be fighting against it.

Thanks for your patch! The license of the original mod allows for redistribution under an identical license, which you've done, I don't see anything wrong. I'll be adding the original mod with a link to your patch straight away! There is probably a reference to something in here, but I am too uncultured to get it. Either way, I haven't started the spreadsheet yet because there are some things that I need to take care of. Nothing too bad, just annoyingly slow, I can't be bothered starting the spreadsheet right now.

No, ground effect is not simulated. So no ekranoplans can't be an efficient way of travelling in KSP. An efficient way to travelling around Kerbin, flying aside, is hydrofoils. This means using the lift from the water to have your craft fly just above the surface. Pros: a lot more efficient and faster than a boat since only your foils are in contact with the water, since water is 1000x times denser than air you need small hydrofoils to lift a craft (as opposed to huge wings). Cons: they are a pain to make stable.

The five first nodes of the tech tree. I created a career mode and cheated myself a couple thousand science to unlock all these.

As @Physics Student noted earlier: TWR is important to fight gravity drag in the earlier stages of the attempt. I took my previous lifter, reinforced the lower stage, now powered by one Reliant and 4 Sparks (Vernier hype) instead of the dual Thuds, giving much higher TWR at launch. I modified the upper part accordingly, mostly optimisations and moving fuel from the stage to the payload, allowing me to have a smaller tank for the second stage, saving some more mass. As a result of the TWR increase, the flight profile was much more aggressive, with a gravity turn starting a couple seconds after liftoff (hitting 45° around 8km). From there, I raised my apoapsis to 70km in several steps (always thrusting exactly prograde) to avoid overshooting it to end up in a 70x40km orbit. A final circularisation burn brought my periapsis above 70km. Album link because stuff's broken: https://imgur.com/a/0XXiA Result: 3.66t to LKO for ROcket 10! If I do a next attempt, I'll be focusing on the second stage: I feel like the Terrier is giving me plenty of TWR that the upper stage doesn't necessarily need. I'll see what I can do with a smaller (and lighter) engine.

Since the moderator in question got demoted, we can speculate that, as you said, this was more than an accident, at least in intent. Either way I'm personally satisfied with the forums moderation, and don't feel censored in any way: I (and many others) have been able to openly criticise Squad and/or Take-Two without any consequences (as long as we stay polite, but that's courtesy, not censorship). It's a shame that this mistake happened, especially for the users involved, but it's not really our business. The ban was an mistake or an error of judgement, it was reverted (with the posts being lost unfortunately) and the concerned moderator punished. That's as far as it goes for me. I've not had any problems with the moderation personally, as far as I'm concerned they are doing a good job. Speaking of "abuse of power" in a forum maintained by Squad themselves is kind of absurd, especially when (as with any decently written rules) the Guidelines specify: Even if the action was not a mistake and justified from a moderator standpoint, there is little we users would have to say about it, since we've all (consciously or not) agreed to these Guidelines. As was said earlier, if you want freedom of speech (or a moderation that isn't related to Squad) r/kerbalspaceprogram is a good place, but personally the situations where such conflicts happen are way too scarce for me to bother.

These are the official forums. They are managed by Squad, so they are pretty much allowed to moderate how they want, go to Reddit if you want less moderation. EDIT: EDIT2: The above is true. Now I'm going to stop talking because I'm breaking a lot of the rules.

My attempt, using ROcket 1 because I forgot to name it in the first place: Album link: https://imgur.com/a/Zi49A All conditions are respected (I think). Brought 3.005t to LKO easily: I had about 100m/s of dV left in the tanks, did not flew in the most efficient way, lost a bit of dV due to low TWR (though a 10kg margin doesn't allow for much modifications on the launcher) and overshot my orbit by a bit ending in a 72x71km orbit. It probably could have put 3.015t to orbit, anymore and I would have needed to change the launcher because of the mass limit. EDIT: used KER in the VAB to design the rocket.

The reaction wheel is probably too powerful. Reaction wheels and control surfaces do not respond to input the same way: reaction wheels pretty much apply full torque instantly while control surfaces take some time to deploy and react depending on the airflow. By forcing your craft to move using the reaction wheel, you "throw" your surfaces out of the airflow by the difference in response or simply because the torque of the wheel exceeds the torque the surfaces can apply/withstand. Reaction wheels and control surfaces usually don't work that well together, but it can be amplified depending on the craft itself (ie: shape, CoM and CoL positions...). It's just an hypothesis but SAS is known to destabilise crafts when too much torque is available. Kind of hard to say for sure without a picture of the craft or a craft file.

You mean the dots under your name? They depend on your post count, I know you get 5 dots at 1500 posts but I don't remember the lower thresholds. As for the description ("Librarian" for me), you can set it to whatever you want by going to your profile, Edit Profile, and changing the "Member Title" box.

Yeah I already watched this video, but it was made when Isp decrease meant increase in consumption (instead of decrease in thrust). I'm pretty sure the changes made it 100% impossible with regular chemical propulsion.

Thanks! That is indeed where I originally saw it, didn't remember it was on Github though and I was searching on the forums.

At least for me it's: A habit. Low TWR burns. It's not so much valid in stock, but when I circularise in RSS a 100 m/s burn can take several minutes, making a node is useful if you dont want to waste dV. Precision. Having a node allows you to circularise in an (almost) perfectly circular orbit which is harder if you just eyeball it. Rendez-vous. To dock quickly I raise my periapsis from below zero to an intersect with the target orbit in a single burn (and just warp until I meet my target before completing the Hohmann manoeuvre); again it's easier to do this accurately with a node than just eyeballing it.

Download RSS, try to ascend from Venus and come back once you've achieved it. Then we can discuss landing on the core of a gas giant (semi) seriously.

Nice to have the enlightened truth be given by someone who totally works for Squad and detains the indisputable truth on the matter. You obviously have an extremely valuable insight on the situation, probably coming from your years of experience working for Squad or TT, and we should therefore be taking your words as a holy utterance and in no case ever buy the DLC as it only serves to fill the pockets of the evil greedy capitalistic corporation that is Take-Two (they probably even torture puppies to strengthen their evilness). No, but really, this is absolute bullcrap. If you have no idea of what's going on, don't say anything instead of actively hurting the conversation.