the_Demongod

Imagine a dart (or arrow, badminton birdie, etc), where the center of mass is at the front and the center of lift is at the back. The center of lift becomes the tail and is "dragged" behind the center of mass. You've essentially created a huge parachute in front of your ship. What you want to do is have the heat shields as close to your ship as possible, and then have your center of lift as far behind that as possible for maximum aerodynamic stability. I've even seen people create a big boom with fins on it trailing behind the vessel to act as a tail. It's not "top heavy" you want, it's "side hitting the atmosphere heavy."

If you're playing stock you can definitely go with single-launch, but if you have life support mods such as USI Kolonization, you need to build almost a mini space station with the capabilities to grow food and all. Plus I just love assembling things in orbit but that's just me.

Lots of naysayers here. While it's obviously not configured to fly the Falcon 9 into orbit and land the booster, it's still just a PID controller in the end just like any other rocket guidance system so with proper tuning I have no doubt that it could fly a simple rocket decently well. Maybe not a real mission or anything like that but so long as the inputs and outputs for the rocket's instruments and gimbals/fins are set up the same way as KSP's, I see no reason why it couldn't fly a real rocket along a mini ascent path. I doubt it would get anything to orbit without some serious guesswork and luck but it could at least control a rocket along a given path, maybe something small like SpaceX's Grasshopper or the test vehicle Falcon 9R, minus the actual landing of course.

Getting this exact same thing, Win 7 x64. Happens at the end of almost any install/update/uninstall. (when leaving the status log page I guess)? Although I just got this one while simply deleting the text in the search/filter field. I had just looked for Kerbal Alarm Clock to re-install as a test; it worked without crashing. At that point I was on the "Compatible" mods page with "Kerbal A" or something similar typed into the search bar. I switched to "Installed" mods and then selected and deleted the text in the search, and got this:

I would if I knew how, I have Visual Studio and I'm in the process of learning C# with the intent to mod the game (should be easy since I'm already experienced in Java) but I'm not really sure how things work on the compiling/packaging/backend/delivery side of things.

There's an option in system settings related to "Orbital drift" or something similar. I believe that's what you're looking for.

I was heavy into flight sims like DCS and BMS and I'd seen some clips of the game. I remember how cool it looked and I especially loved the navball (it stood out to me), and I watched a couple tutorials to see what it was about. Bought the game several weeks later and here I am a little over a year later, playing hours and hours of RP-0/RO/RSS daily, reading about self-impinging doublet type bipropellant rocket injectors and drooling over every SpaceX launch video. Can safely say I'm thoroughly addicted to spaceflight.

You might be surprised. While they wouldn't actually simulate it directly, it would be very easy to use a simple function of speed to calculate the effectiveness of the ablative cooling, with would eventually cross the point at which it becomes useless. I can't say for sure but I would be surprised if a similar system wasn't implemented.

First of all, the most common issue people have with these contracts are that they end up going the wrong direction (i.e. against the required orbit's direction). First off, make absolutely sure that the direction you're moving is the same direction that the little points of light are traveling around the contract's orbit path. If you're indeed going the right direction, try using the weakest engine you can such as an ion engine or "Ant" engine and put the thrust limiter to 1% and have a heavy-ish payload. You should be able to get it to match up properly.

If anybody is curious as to why heat shields become useless after a certain point, it has to do with how ablative cooling works. Ablative cooling works by allowing the heat to vaporize the ablative surface of the shield (or engine nozzle in the case of an ablative nozzle), and this vaporization absorbs a lot of heat energy and allows it to be transferred away from the surface by the vaporized ablative. While this helps cool a little, the primary mechanism involves the vaporizing ablative creating a thin barrier of gas over the ablative surface to protect the surface from being directly exposed to the shock heated air, effectively shielding it to a certain extent. If you are moving too fast through the medium, however, the pressure of the incoming air is so great that the barrier of vaporized ablative is unable to hold the atmosphere away from the surface due to the extreme onslaught, effectively rendering it useless as the shock heating transfers its energy directly to the surface of the vessel.

Are you positive you installed RP-0 properly? Realistic Progression Zero is what allows Realism Overhaul to be played in career mode and is required to do so.

Wow, that was way easier than I expected it to be, thanks!

I used to try really hard to avoid causing space junk by deorbiting it, building my rockets so that I circularized with my transfer stage so that the previous stage would fall back to Kerbin, crashing my transfer stage into the target body, and all sorts of other stuff, but then I realized that the chances of an impact were almost nonexistent, and that having a lot of space junk was actually very cool and more realistic, so I just leave it all up there. It's pretty cool when you go to the tracking station every so often and enable debris visible and see all the different orbits that you once took that left the debris.

@AbacusWizard Nice, much better than mine. You're inspiring me to get better at TI-BASIC. For a while I really wanted to make a program that could solve for the amount of mass that can be moved given some rocket parameters and required delta v, but I got stuck on the math. The rocket equation can be adjusted to include a separate payload mass as follows (my calculator program actually works this way but I didn't include it in my post above): deltaV = Ve*ln((mi + mp)/(mf + mp)) where Ve is mi is initial stage mass (without the payload) and mf is final mass (again without payload). My calculator program has a simple step that says :P+C->C :P+D->D …where C is wet mass, D is dry mass, and P is payload mass. It just allows you to calculate the delta V of a stage whose parameters you know (such as a stage that you're reading about on Wikipedia or something), and want to see how much delta V it'll have with a given payload. For example, using parameters for the Centaur upper stage with a single engine: ISP (S) ?450.5 WET M (KG) ?23077 DRY M (KG) ?2247 PAYLOAD M (KG) ?4000 DELTA V: 6481.425615 Done Not bad, 6481.4 - 3210 is 3271.4 delta V, almost enough for a Jupiter intercept, but not quite. So I wanted to make a program that would do exactly the same thing, except you'd enter delta v and get payload mass as the answer. Unfortunately, mp in my equation is not easy to solve for: (deltaV/Ve) = ln((mi + mp)/(mf + mp)) e^(deltaV/Ve) = (mi + mp)/(mf + mp) (mf + mp)*e^(deltaV/Ve) = (mi + mp) mf*e^(deltaV/Ve) + mp*e^(deltaV/Ve) = mi + mp I really don't know if my math checks out so far but I'm stuck here because there isn't a clear way to isolate mp, and I suspect whatever method is involved is going to be really messy.

I personally wrote myself a little TI calculator program to speed up the process, anyone is welcome to use it if they have a TI graphing calculator. If you don't know how to program your TI, create a new program (PRGM > New), name it RKTEQ or something, and enter the following: (functions are found by pressing "PRGM" again while in program editing mode, you'll only need the Input and Disp(lay) for this (and ClrHome). variables are stored (->) with the STO> button. All variables and anything else in quotes are just typed using the ALPHA button) PROGRAM:RKTEQ :ClrHome :Disp "ISP (S)" :Input A :A*9.81->B :Disp "WET M (KG)" :Input C :Disp "DRY M (KG)" :Input D :B*ln(C/D)->E :Disp "DELTA V:" :Disp E Use the program by entering the Isp of your stage's engine, your rocket's mass, and then your rocket's mass with the stage's fuel drained, and it'll give you delta V. The output of the program will look like this: ISP (S) ?345 WET M (KG) ?4400 DRY M (KG) ?2400 DELTA V: 2051.43632 Done If you are using multiple engines with different Isp, it'll get more complicated though.

@p1t1o Ah good news, downloading the .pdf and opening it in Adobe Acrobat makes it display correctly, I guess it was just Chrome's built in pdf reader that was scrambling it. Will definitely give it a read, thanks!

@p1t1o maybe it's on my end, but that PDF is completely scrambled and unintelligible, maybe I'll just have to buy the book, it definitely sounds interesting.

My thought was that if combustion was taking place up against the injector plate (to give an extreme example), the propellants would begin to combust before they'd sufficiently mixed and causing pressure that might push propellants apart (imagine our rocket's injector is like a gas stove burner or something, where the fuel is ignited as soon as it leaves the injector), as opposed to impinging cleanly and then combusting together a short distance later but it sounds like the sheer force and output volume of the turbopump is enough to keep the combustion from "climbing" up too close to the injector, like in this video I just found.

Can somebody help me understand why liquid fuel rocket engine injectors work in their typical configuration? Assuming a self-impinging doublet, how does such a method of mixing the propellants sustain itself in the conditions of the combustion chamber? My intuition tells me that the pressure, acoustic resonance, and turbulence from the combustion would interfere with the clean mixing of the propellants either by igniting them prematurely before they have mixed properly, or by disrupting the jets of liquid and preventing them from mixing properly before combustion. How far down the chamber does the combustion take place, is it closer to the throat of the nozzle, or to the injector plate itself? Is the propellant injected with sufficient pressure to keep the actual combustion away from the injection mechanism? I guess my confusion stems from the fact that it would seem that the combustion would put sufficient backpressure on the injection process to interfere with an even and stable mixing of the fuels, or if the combustion is happening right up against the plate, to cause them to begin to ignite before they've mixed properly, but obviously they work or real life rocket engines wouldn't function as they do so obviously I just don't understand it fully. Thanks

They're good enough for the stock game. I personally prefer a little more which is why I use FAR for improved aero but for the average user I think they're just fine.

Sounds like you're looking for FMRS, "Flight Manager for Reusable Stages." It basically freezes the stage you ditch (in your case, an aircraft, but could also be the Falcon 9 first stage for example), and then you fly the second stage to space as usual, and then you can return to the first stage afterwards to manually fly it back to base. It hasn't been updated for 1.1.2 yet though, so YMMV with its current state.

I get bored of KSP all the time. This is partially due to the fact that I usually play it for hours and hours a day every day for weeks on end until I get tired of it. All I have to do is take a break for a week or sometimes more, get back into an old game for a while, and when you boot up KSP again, you'll be having so much fun you'll wonder why you stopped in the first place (until you get burnt out again).

KSP's actual space stuff is pretty good as it is. The only way I could see improving that would be to basically go the stock RO/RSS/FAR/RemoteTech/Life Support/<insert all realism mods ever here> and have much more realistic aerodynamic design, PID controller tuning, kOS, etc. which is not something everyone wants in the game (obviously some people prefer to keep things lighthearted and as math-free as possible). So the only way in which the game can really grow is on the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial side of things. This includes: Terrestrial: Overhauled Career. While enjoyable and fairly well-done, I think everyone can agree that career mode could be so much more, especially if we assume that ours is a private space program company. Less micromanaging all around. Currently you're the only person in the entire space program who seems to be able to think autonomously. This will be important for the next things: More in-depth and impactful management. The current administration strategies are pretty unimportant few people actually use them. By broadening the scope of career mode, we'll have more aspects of the program to macromanage, such as the resources noted in a bit. I feel compelled to put this as a sub point just to make it stand out, because a very impactful decision could include actually being able to choose where KSC will be located in the world at the beginning of your career, or to possibly relocate (at a massive cost obviously). Players would have to make compromises between having access to nearby resources, having a clear range (see "life on Kerbin" §Civilian), being closer to the equator (not being on the equator results in non-equatorial orbits), etc. More advanced resources. We're only seeing the very surface level here with reputation and funds. Additions could include: Actual, physical resources required for construction or even maintenance for the space center. Examples: metals, polymers, silicon (for electronics, if manufactured on-site), electric power to meet manufacturing or research requirements, etc (wind tunnels and particle colliders probably take a lot of power). Fuel as a separate resource as well, needing either to be purchased from a 3rd party (especially early-game when the program is small) or produced internally (late-game when the space program has the funds to facilitate on-site fuel production). Other expenses besides paying for rocket parts. Employee salaries, utilities, research & development, etc. all take money in real life and could in the game as well. Closely related to the previous point, outsourcing. This could include ordering rocket parts from external manufacturers, ordering fuel, R&D, or anything else that a budding space program would need to obtain externally before it has the means to produce everything itself. An extension of "reputation" could include employee morale (which might affect efficiency and would plummet after a failed launch), public opinion (would affect the amount of contracts you're offered), etc. Time. I don't think it would be unrealistic to have a stock Kerbal Construction Time type system given the above enhancements. Improved contracts. They should make sense and be realistic. Maybe a few "test item in condition" contracts are realistic, but for the most part it would be requests to put things in orbit or repair existing hardware (which brings me to my next point) Other life on Kerbin. This includes: Civilian - populating Kerbin would change everything. There would be cities, roads, cars, commercial aircraft, and boats. It would absolutely transform Kerbin from a desolate rock in space into a thriving planet like our Earth. It would give a sense of purpose to the space program (for Kerbalkind?). It would also hamper you in that you have to be mindful of where you're dropping hardware. You can't launch from the Kerbin equivalent of Vandenberg AFB and say "eh, there's nothing in Kansas anyways, can't hurt to ditch a massive lower rocket stage randomly into some area that may or may not be populated." You'll have to place your space center somewhere (as discussed earlier) where this won't be a problem (or will, if you want to go maximum Kerbal and ditch your rockets into cities). Also, don't accidentally hit any commercial airliners. We don't want to be accused of terrorism now, do we? This also applies to de-orbiting or landing any spacecraft that were already in orbit or returning from elsewhere in space. Other space industry - Having some competition could really drive things, and this could even be a prime source for some multiplayer integration. Another space program may try to beat you to certain goals, come to your aid in an emergency (The Martian, anyone?), or even sabotage/attack you (I wouldn't have this stock,but those with a BD Armory equivalent would definitely mod this in. I think building ASAT missiles could be really cool tbh). In addition, you could give them contracts to repair or refuel your hardware or space stations in orbit, and they in turn could hire you to do the same to their own equipment. Extra-terrestrial: Vastly more detailed planetary surfaces. The current system of having several massive biomes that are roughly the same everywhere is, let's face it, pretty boring. We need much more detail on the surface that can actually warrant rovers and such. This includes opportunities for science, there should be many more surface sampling options available, including perhaps randomly generated chances of various rarity of finding anomalous features, including life. This would require taking core samples of rocks, seeking out valleys that might have once held water, etc. I realize this is difficult development-wise. Procedural generation for small details could be an option I suppose, while keeping the major features the same? Vastly more detailed orbital structures, such as planetary rings and asteroid belts. Procedural generation is definitely the way to go on this one. I want to be able to fly into the ring of a planet and see glorious volumetric lighting and crepuscular rays from all the dust and rocks. I also want to be able to explore an asteroid belt like the Dawn mission did. General: Life support should probably be at least available as an option for stock since it plays such a huge role in real-life space travel. Potentially improved Kessler Syndrome if such a thing could be implemented without killing performance Even more realistic aero. A voxel-based aerodynamics model is definitely in order. This could be adjusted as desired, but definitely needs to be more realistic than it currently is. Orbital decay, potentially. If such a thing could be implemented (requiring calculations when the vessel was not being focused on), then automated station-keeping (i.e. orbit re-boosting) could definitely be as well. This would also open up the door for more resupply requirements in addition to life support. ScanSat, we need better interaction between orbital spacecraft and the surface. Something like TestFlight to encourage test-bed experiments and making for overall more realistic hardware Improved graphics would definitely be amazing, especially using something like UNIENGINE like @StarStreak2109 said above. hnnnnnngggg More discovery. I was dismayed to find that as soon as I start a new career, I can jump into the tracking station and see all the planetary bodies as if I was orbiting them. If this wasn't an option, there would be much more interesting options in terms of discovering the solar system. Maybe you can choose to start at a time when nobody knew anything about the solar system, and when you go to the tracking station all you'd see is the sun, moon, and any other extremely obvious bodies. Maybe you'd begin with some simple coordinates in the sky and you'd have to somehow derive the existence and orbits of the other planets before you can even see that they exist. This would be especially cool in a procedurally generated solar system. Overhauled science. Some aspects of the current science system are fine (such as receiving science from data gathered from locations), but is that science really something that can be used to develop better rocket engines? Maybe an atmospheric pressure scan would, but in general, not really. Now I know that it would be boring to obtain all R&D-spendable science by playing "test bed simulator 2017" so some sort of compromise would have to be made. Something like TestFlight (which I mentioned above) would definitely add a lot. Perhaps linking certain experiments to certain nodes of the tech tree for a non-linear tech unlock system? I don't really know, just throwing out some ideas. And wow, that was a lot longer than I intended it to be. But if you think about it, really the only way to turn KSP into an actual KSP 2 would be to make major changes like the ones I've detailed here, otherwise we'll truly just be getting KSP 2.0 like the title says (i.e. a version number instead of a separate game).

I'm lucky in that I never have to wake up any earlier than 8AM for class, so I can stay up until midnight every day and still get 8 hours of sleep, so even if I have to work on coding or math homework until 10:00PM, I still have 2 hours to play KSP instead of going to bed Priorities.

I usually use the Unpaid Internship one to sacrifice some rather useless reputation for some of that sweet, sweet science.