Gaarst

Searching for mods for KSP is a mess. I made the experience myself yesterday when searching for capsule mods, with neither Google nor the forum search feature giving me anything helpful; a few people answered to the thread I made, giving some obvious suggestions of well-known mods that for some reasons I didn't remember existed. Until very recently, we used to have a Community Mods and Plugins Library thread which was essentially a thread aiming to gather all mods for KSP for people to be able to find them easily. Very ambitious but equally helpful. This thread was lost along several other add-ons thread in the beginning of January, and as I understand it there is little to no hope of getting it back. So I'm wondering how many people would be interested by a new thread continuing this library. I should be able to do it, but if someone wants to start one themselves, go ahead!

Huh, there were that many. I feel kinda stupid right now. Thanks all, I'll check these mods!

Jetpack.

So first, I play with dozens of mods and can't be bothered updating everything to 1.2 yet. That being said, anyone knowing some capsule mods compatible with 1.1 ? I know there are quite a few mods for Soyuz, Gemini, Apollo and other real life capsules but I'd like to avoid using real life things as much as possible (I'm being picky I know). I like the Taurus HCV and NovaPunch ones but they seem to have skipped 1.1. Google is not helping (as usual) and the community library thread was lost to the Kraken so I'm a bit lost.

Where da video at? Edit: anyway, delta V is pretty straightforward to calculate. It's given by: dV = g0 * Isp * ln(m1/m0) g0 is the standard gravitational parameter, it's 9.81 regardless of the body you're standing on Isp is the specific impulse m1 is the wet mass of your stages: this stage and all stages above fueled m0 is the dry mass of your stage: current stage empty from all fuel, all stages above fueled ln is a function: the natural logarithm

Buy science parts, explore Mun and Minmus, unlock rest of the tech tree, do missions you actually want to do.

Check you Real Plume, Real Fuels and SmokeScreen installs. A list of all your mods, and your logs would indeed be helpful too.

I recommend you don't download CKAN and don't let it install everything for you, since when something will break with your 40 untested mods with no clue of which one(s) cause(s) the issue you'll want to jump out the window.

It depends. Do you want to flyby Jool, orbit it or crash into it? In any cases, seriously consider gravity assists, they are extremely simple in the Jool system, very satisfying to do and a lot more efficient than anything else (aerobraking usually requires you to haul a large heatshield to Jool). If you're going to dive in Jool/Laythe anyway, then just aim straight for the atmosphere (but be careful with heat on atmospheric entry). Solar panels are fine if you don't intend to use lots of electricity. As long as you don't try to run a science lab 24/7, drill, refine or have hundreds of reaction wheels on your craft, a pair of Gigantors should be more than enough for anything. RTGs are not powerful, but lighter than big panels, so if you only send a small probe, it's the best choice. Finally, fuel cells are what you need if you intend to power some big things, usually the best when paired with a refinery because you actually create the fuel they use.

Launched a small telescope in Lunar orbit to mess with planetary alignments and angular sizes. Original image: After having fun with the contrast slider in GIMP: (Sun is a troll confirmed)

In practice, an efficient and low TWR launch will always put you in an orbit higher than 200km, close to 250. To get a lower orbit, you'd either need more powerful upper stage (not really a thing in real life, but you are free to do it if you don't mind the added dry mass of a bigger engine), or a less efficient ascent profile (circularising way after apoapsis or burning in the outward radial direction).

It's not on PC either, at least in the game itself. We have KerbalX which allows to share .craft files, but that's the work of a modder (Katateochi) , not Squad. Being able to share crafts in the game seems like a basic thing to do in the game overall, even on PC where you can download separate files. Why this (and a lot of equally basic stuff) isn't on console is beyond my logic. Anyway, since Squad changed the company with whom they work on the console ports for 1.2, they maybe will make things better. Even though it's not on any known roadmap wait, there is no roadmap at all; so not ever mentioned by the devs AFAIK.

It's called metallic because it's a metal. Solid, crystalline structure and free electrons in between atoms.

I'm OK with that personally. I really really don't care about multiplayer. Also, if you want it so bad, find a good C# tutorial and get coding.

What about your social life? This is SCIENCE!

If you do several runs and average the dV required, you'll see a difference, but in an actual mission you don't care about such a small difference, especially on Minmus. Trying on x64 or x10 Minmus would probably give good results.

The method in which you drop the altitude to 10m and the orbital velocity to 0 right above the ground is theoretically the most efficient method. The problem, besides its riskiness, is its efficiency is directly related to your TWR: you need very high TWR to achieve good efficiency because otherwise you will end up burning radial-in to avoid crashing into the ground. The more time you spend burning out of prograde, the more fuel you waste. So for low TWR landers, or unknown terrains, the reverse gravity turn is more efficient because it's easier to do the manoeuvre correctly. Edit: try this method on Minmus where the orbital speed is low (high TWR) and you have great flats, it should be the most efficient, costing barely more than your orbital speed.

They flip because they are too light at the top. Using fins usually helps, but it would be better with images.

Monitor you parts' temperatures during a misson. Each time one goes over 400K, unless it's an engine, you can consider it to be dead, especially internal temp. And real life has to deal with boil-off as well. Real Heat is a nice mod that overhauls the heat system and makes it a bit more realistic. Though unless during high-speed reentry, it doesn't make that much difference with stock.

Yeah, cooling nukes and also cooling drills and ISRUs which generate a substantial amount of heat when several are running at the same time. I don't feel they are absolutely necessary though. If you used them at Moho, you will want to use the deployable radiators since you'll probably absorb more heat than you extract with the fixed ones. They rely on BB radiation so they won't cool anything if facing the Sun.

This isn't really how fusion works BTW. Unless it is made out of hydrogen, confined within itself and heated to a few hundred million degrees, it'll just come apart really quickly, but won't fuse anything. 100,000kg/m^3 is less than the density of the Sun's core, and about twice that of the densest material known (under standard Atm conditions), so nothing too extreme. Supernovae don't work that way either. You haven't got enough stuff out there to trigger an actual supernova mechanism. A hundred tons isn't that much.

The first formula is accurate regardless of the body you are standing on. Using direct measurements of pressure, I get accuracies of a thousandth of a percent. The third formula, defining A, is expressed in terms of Kerbin asl parameters since it's the ones that are available in the VAB (vac thrust, vac Isp and asl Isp), but the constant A remains the same wherever you go, for a given engine. The second formula is indeed only valid on Kerbin because it uses an approximation of pressure as a function of altitude. In fact, pressure varies only with density and temperature but can reasonably be approximated as a function of altitude, as I did. The function I used to express P(h) is extrapolated from experimental data on Kerbin and is only valid there.

Yes remove these stupid tankbutts and make all engines surface attachable please. I take it we'll never get an actual choice between different engines for the same usage, at least give us the ability to make clusters.

@aeroz2011 as @Spricigo said, I'd like to see where your formula comes from. I've done the experiment and found something very different. I find that the thrust for a given engine is given by , using the pressure P as a parameter. Taking measurements of Kerbin's atmosphere, you can roughly express pressure as a function of altitude only, which gives In both cases A is a constant specific to the engine that can be calculated using Isp figures given in the VAB: This is accurate to about 1% in low atmosphere, a bit more in higher atmosphere. I believe that aeroz2011 derived his formula for a specific engine, which means it won't work for all engines (I get almost constant thrust using a SRB for example).

If you forget about economy and politics, we could probably terraform the Sun.