Gaarst

I don't know much about modding, but can't you put a config file with: [code]@PART [*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]]{ MODULE{ name = //whatever your module name is }}[/code] to target all parts using solid fuel ?

More engines means more thrust so shorter burns. But more engine also means more mass so less dV. If money and rocket size is not a problem, then I would go for engine clusters as it is more practical (also allows to make nice designs). On the other hand, if your craft has to be as small/cheap as possible, then use a single engine. Of course, keep in mind that you need a TWR of at least 1.2-1.3 for a good ascent stage, if one engine gives you a TWR of 0.5, you're not going anywhere.

[quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']Alright: Will it be against the rules after the 27th to take craft requests with a group of collaborative builders in a thread in the spacecraft exchange? Thank you![/QUOTE] [notamod] RP is specifically stated as the reason for the removal of the RB section of the forum. I guess taking requests to make crafts will be OK as long as there is no corporation/employee/CEO thing. [/notamod]

I hate spacejunk... but I hate even more deleting it from the tracking station. So each time I go somewhere, I do my best to leave no debris at all in orbit: send them on crash trajectories, circularise with payload engines... And I don't use NERV in my main save: too OP, I prefer doing everything with dem good ol' chemical engines!

[quote name='egoego']I hope a follow up question is allowed. How do you get to your transfer window? Just time accelerate until you reach year 21 (if we go with EditoRUS' example)?[/QUOTE] Either time warp or do another mission in the meantime. Also, the greatest synodic period from Kerbin is to Duna and it is a little over 2 years; in other words, there is a transfer window to Duna every 2 years, and to other planets even more often, so you won't have to wait for 21 years to go interplanetary. Even if you account for orbital inclination (for Moho and Eeloo, for example) and really want the lowest dV possible you might have to wait a little longer, but never for 20 years.

[quote name='Mods_o_joy']aLSO, 1.0.5?[/QUOTE] For now 1.0.4. Switching to 1.0.5 will depend on mod updates, and it is ZNG's decision to make. [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] ZNG = ZooNamedGames (he is the Big Boss, but he prefers to be called "Flight" or by his name than "Big Boss") :wink:

[quote name='ZooNamedGames']EST, but I'm thinking of making it 2:30 to work with others.[/QUOTE] AM or PM ? :P

[quote name='Mods_o_joy']Wait, cmp stands for command module pilot?[/QUOTE] Yes, sorry for not mentioning it. [quote name='ZooNamedGames']Likely 1.[/QUOTE] 1 what time ? GMT or EST ? AM or PM ?

[quote name='Mods_o_joy']What rolls are Left?[/QUOTE] OP was updated yesterday, so look there for any information. Anyway, the only roles left are CapCom (for which [U]no one can apply directly[/U]) and CMP (not ground crew). Also, IIRC ZooNamedGames was looking for a Flight Director Assistant: you'll have to ask him directly for that. But, as I said, backup positions are open to pretty much every role, so pick whichever you like and feel comfortable with there: we will have to organise shifts anyway.

What about advanced nosecones type-B ? I remember seeing somewhere that their dragbox was identical to the type-As', but I'm not really sure. Do they offer any advantages compared to the type-A, especially concerning airflow around radial boosters, other than being prettier ?

[quote name='Mods_o_joy']Can i be part of the Ground crew?(This sound super fun!)[/QUOTE] It depends: is there any role in the OP that suits you ? And if yes, are you going to have the dedication required for this type of program ? Also, I'm afraid there aren't any "main" ground crew roles available anymore, so you'll have to be part of the backup team. Your involvement will then depend on the shifts we will set up.

I should be able to show up on Monday, what time ?

[quote name='SparkyFox']but but but I need looked afterededededed[/QUOTE] Listen to the people in the mic, and everything will be fine. :)

[quote name='SparkyFox']"therefore"(whatever that means) I GET TO CRA-AAAHHYYEEE MEAN land the lander which puts my in charge of the whole entire mission and I out rank zoo and zoo will kindly admit that(im wrong) Im the big cheese[/QUOTE] No, you will closely follow the schedule that I made for the mission (and that has to be approved by Flight). Otherwise you won't have anyone to look after you, and the mission will probably end tragically, even if the lander makes it to the Moon. :wink:

[quote name='ZooNamedGames']Possibly, and I am dearly considering it. What's everyone else's thoughts?[/QUOTE] It would give more the crew more things to do on the surface of the Moon. Would be a nice thing.

But will it ride eternal, shiny and chrome ? :huh:

About Monday's mission: I need to discuss important points of the mission with the relevant members, especially I need to have a mission duration, flight plan and resources on board, so that I can set up a detailed plan for the crew. Also, are EVAs even possible on an Apollo or Gemini mission, considering the resources and equipment that astronauts have ? If yes, then I would like to set up an EVA for one of the mission members during the Gemini mission. If ever there was a problem that only an EVA repair could fix during the mission to the Moon, even though highly unlikely, I would like to have the crew as prepared as they can be, for any situation. I'll try to hang out on the Steam group chat more often, so that we can talk more easily about these things. EDIT: I need to discuss these things especially with EECOM, FIDO and Retro. I would also like to talk to the crew-members about the EVA: I would like to have CMP do the EVA(s) but we have none so far, so another crew-member would have to do it.

[quote name='Benoît']Thank you Nathan and Gaarst. SMURFF is exacly what I was looking for.[/QUOTE] Wait, so do you actually want my modlist (as you quoted me) ? [spoiler=Putting it anyway]Here is my modlist as of 1.0.4. Mods [U]underlined[/U] are mods that are relevant to your question (included in RO or useful for RSS). AeroGUI Active Texture Management Asteroid Day [I][U]Better Buoyancy[/U] - Obsolete as of 1.0.5[/I] Chatterer Contract Configurator [U]CrossFeed Enabler[/U] FASA Launch Clamps Hangar Extender [U]Interstellar Fuel Switch[/U] [U]Kerbal Joint Reinforcement[/U] Kerbal Alarm Clock Kerbal Engineer [U]KSC Switcher [/U]KSP Add-on Version Checker Lights Out Procedural Fairings[U] Procedural Parts[/U] RCS Build Aid [U]Real Fuels[/U] + Stockalike configs [U]Real Heat[/U] [U]Real Plume[/U] + Stockalike configs [U]Real Solar System[/U] Science Alert [U]SmokeScreen[/U] SpaceY SpaceY Expanded Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Stock Bug Fix Modules Stock Revamp [U]TAC Life Support[/U] Texture Replacer Blizzy's Toolbar Trajectories Transfer Window Planner Variable Thrust Limiter[/spoiler]

[SIZE=1]What does PSA even mean ?[/SIZE]

[quote name='Benoît']Hello Nathan! I was wondering what you would think about making some sort of a light Realism Overhaul suite for RSS. I really like to play with a real sized solar system but I dont want to have my part list doubled, nor do I like to have a part for every use. I think it somehow kills the "Lego" side of the stock game. In my opinion, having a little part list encourage ingenuity in the construction and better designs planning. Now I know that this is Realism Overhaul and not "bigger Kerbol system", but I'm still curious what you would think about it. Cheers! Ben[/QUOTE] Kind of the same as you here: I don't like RO and the whole messing up with parts it brings. What I did (and am still doing) is getting most of the mods that compose RO, but separately. That way, I can play a more realistic KSP, but still have control over which part I want and which I don't. (I can give you my list of mods if you wish)

[quote name='Workable Goblin']Hm, no, it's just that the components would begin to heat up and eventually reach a temperature where (combined with whatever forces happened to be getting applied to the ISS) they would drop below the structural strength needed to hold together and the station would break up. Or, if the temperature was not applied long enough for that to happen, they would gradually cool off by radiating heat back out. Which, come to think of it, is actually rather similar, no?[/quote] So you're saying if you exposed the ISS to excessive heating (2000K is excessive) it would break up ? That is exactly what I said, except with a bit of sarcasm. Similar to what ? KSP ? Even if an unprotected part was exposed to such a heat for a short time, there would consequences. I mean 2000K is pretty hot, hot enough to make a nice hole in any module not designed for it. KSP doesn't care about damages to a part: under 2000K: everything is fine; 2001K: BOOM! (or whatever max temp your part has), regardless of exposure time. Whether a part would actually break up because of heating or forces does not matter: heat damages things, if it does not break up this time, it will cool down but be severely damaged, and will definitely break up next time. [quote]Capsules, maybe, bulky assemblies, no. "Bulky assemblies," as you put it, will tend to be torn apart by aerodynamic forces on entry, regardless of any heating issues. Substantial fragments may reach the ground, but in KSP terms they would merely be debris at best.[/QUOTE] What I mean by "bulky assembly" is anything less aerodynamic than a shuttle. For example a station module. Of course an entire station would break up and burn during reentry in realistic conditions, but I was only talking about heating.

343 m/s at standard atmosphere. Edit: just though about it, but transsonic drag might be a real problem if we want to reach Mach 1...

[quote name='Workable Goblin']If it seems counter-intuitive, it's because it [I]is[/I] counter-intuitive that something not designed for reentry is better able to survive reentry than something that is so designed. If you look at actual space stations like Skylab or Mir, a surprising amount of material [I]did[/I] make it down to the ground, but it was all in the form of fragments, or to put it in game terms they overheated and were destroyed (or experienced excessive aerodynamic forces and broke up, either one works). By contrast, the Space Shuttle (and other spaceplanes, e.g. the X-37) fairly routinely reentered, with the only reentry failure occurring because one critical part was, thanks to launch damage, less heat-resistant than required. If the overheating system is functioning to make it hard to land spaceplanes and easy to land space stations, then something is not right here, because the latter should be (almost) [I]impossible[/I] to land, and the former should be easy if you use the right technique and have a decent enough design.[/QUOTE] That's because in real life, space agencies do not bother making their space station parts resistant to 2000K. In KSP all parts are thermally protected so that they can withstand a reentry, except a few which are down to 1200K or less. But overall, most KSP parts designed for space have a max temp of 2000K. But guess what ? If you exposed the ISS to 2000K it wouldn't have a gauge magically appear, become red and come back down after a while, as your KSS would. KSP's overheating system if not perfect, but it is not responsible for the issue you described. Thermally insulated parts are responsible for your space station making it to the ground. And for equivalent thermal protection, spaceplanes and shuttle will always be harder to reenter than capsules or bulky assemblies.

[quote name='Foxster']Anyone noticed weird "plinking" noises with moving craft that are partially submerged?[/QUOTE] Yes, I guess it happens when parts touch and leave water at some speed. Wierd noise still. [HR][/HR] Anyway, I pushed a design to 263.0 m/s, but the craft is very unstable due to SAS at this speed. Craft nose-dived and exploded a fraction of second later. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aySO2tX.png[/IMG] Still convinced Mach 1 is doable if you find a way to block the SAS wobbling. Working on it.

[quote name='Gooru']I just put down an old spacestation for LKO. I did a quick retrogradburn to PE 45km and let it drop. It survived without loosing parts and had no radiators, heatshields or care for AoA or anything on it. It wasn´t streamlined at all. Please take this as constructive criticism. I really think the reentry heat system need some rework on it. All the talk why this radiator works that way, and why this is correct and so on is fine. But if an old station can drop throught the atmosphere without damage while a streamlined spaceplane expoldes all the time due to overheating there simply is something wrong.[/QUOTE] This may seem counter-intuitive but the more drag you have during reentry, the better off you are. Shock heating doesn't depend on drag because it is not the same as friction. Higher drag means losing more speed, and you'll heat less. This might be the reason why your station survived reentry. Also, spaceplanes and shuttle have very shallow reentries compared to other crafts/objects, mainly because of lift generated during the reentry. They then stay longer exposed to shock heating in high atmosphere, lose less speed, and in the end heat more. Even in RSS with orbital speeds >7km/s, an unshielded craft, as long as it is a little "bulky", will not lose more than solar panels and antennas.