Spricigo

Sometimes a message appear on the screen informing something, be it that our antenna just got ripped-off by aeroforces, SAS disabled for lack of electric charge...anything. Mods add some more, life support supplies running low, orbital construction finished, rover arrived. But what exactly was the last one? As a felow player puts it: We need the One Window Notification Display (OWND) One Window to rule them all, One Window to find them, One Window to bring them all and in the readable log bind them The idea is as follows (excuse-me if Im going a bit wild, just brainstorming) : Messages got displayed in OWND, either because somehow the mod can intercept the messages ment to be displayed on screen or because other mods are coded in such way to send the notification to OWND (when present) instead of the usual 'appear briefly on screen and vanish before the player can read' Each message may have a timestamp and a tag to help identify it, or maybe even filter when loooking for a particular kind of message. (e.g. y2d1004h30:12 [LS] Untitled Space Craf in orbit of Duna have only 3d left of supplies) Messages will be displayed and keep (in a kind of stack/list, I suppose) and the player can chose to delete/copy or just let it there. Maybe some messages can also be used to trigger an action (e.g. open a part context menu, Switch/focus to a vessel/celestial body; open a plugin). Just to clarify, the idea is to OWND be primarily a way for the player to read the messages that he missed because he was busy with something else or not paying atention. Any extra functionality is a bonus, not the core of the idea. I don't have the skill to make it a reality, what I have to offer is that idea and my gratitude.

Was about to reply, and @Lelitu just made it easy. Exactly what he said. My only nitpick is that instead of for more deltaV for the same mass we are more often aiming for the same deltaV for less mass. Edit: about Reaction Whells: stock reaction whell use Electric charge to produce torque. It dont care about what else there is in the craft and not even for real life laws of physics. Also, when build a ship look what KER says about deltaV and TWR

<look to mod list> <flinch> Considering how much more enjoyable my time at KSP is because of your mods, I'd gladly give some of my spare time, and it would be a good trade. Unfortunately that is not possible.

Wiki list the Sideral Rotation Period, that is relative to the 'start background'. In any case all have days/nights and some* have looonnnnngggg day/nights. *dozen of kerbin days for Moho, Pol and Bop.

Personally I had used RCS to fine tune the rendezvous of my rescue ship. But that was enterily for convenince, since just 2 thrusters (aft and fore) and a small amount of monopropelant remove the need of 180° turn and adjusts of thrust limits.

Well, I know that post(and thread) is not exactly fresh and lively, but because a more recent discussion I ended up searching a bit and found that thread. And something just occured me: Maybe for what mods are concerned, maybe If you build it, they will come. Well, not exactlly you but someone in the modding community may create a simple 'Info window' where messages are display and saved. It dont intercept the messages but just offfer a new way to dysplay it and ask for the modding community to use it. Like we have CTT and CRP we may have Community InGame Log Window (or whatever the name). Off course I see problems with the idea (maybe substituting catching ghosts for herding cats?) In any case, the idea make some sense?

Ok, that is intended as contructive criticism: From what I can see, assuming stock parts and solar system, what you are doing wrong (as in I wouldn't do this way) is using a heavy and expensive Nerv engine for this craft. A terrier(and the oxider that can be put in this tank) will give considerable more deltaV and more TWR. Actually I suspect that a spark+fl400 combo will offer enough performance to this probe. I didn't see a docking port anywhere so I don't see the need to RCS also, a small reaction whell can handle the attitude control. Now about the RCS: it should not activate unless the RCS mode is active. If RCS is active the thruster will only respond to a the accutation toggles enabled for that particular thruster (yaw, pitch, roll, port/stbd, dorsal/ventral and fore/aft by defoult, fore by trottle can also be enabled). So if RCS is enabled and SAS disabled only pilot imput.

Seems you found the little germ. Maybe share a craft that suffer for this issue so other can test it, but more probably make the people that can handle it aware. Our friend @bewing sometimes have an extra bit of info about where the creepy-crawler are going, and if their are about to be smashed or still eluding the insect-squishers.

By any chance are you using Nerv in the atmosphere? They are absolute garbage in the atmosphere (isp , 1atm 185) Another possibility is that your maneuvers (e.g long maneuvers in a curved trajectory) are so inefficient that much of the theorical deltaV is lost. (

The simple answer is: when you feel like it. (and I think it really don't help) So, you did a Mun mission. Did you landed? Returned to orbit? Returned to kerbin? Landed safetly on kerbin? Question yourelf where you need to improve and if you think you are doing well question yourself what is the next challenge you can take.

Good news: it's not an aerodynamic issue. Bad new : can be a lot of things. The amount and quality of the help we can provide is directly proportional to the amount and quality of info you provide about your problem. So far you provided very little. Please a screenshot(so we can see your craft and a few other things) , a description of your objectives (where you want to go) and how are you trying to handle your vessel ( control inputs).

In part. Pilot skill, available technology, vessel design and mission complexity may be all relevant there.

We maybe need more details to be able help. A screenshot is a good start. The craft was flying straight before decoupling? Is this atmospheric flight or space flight? You still have full control of the vessel (control point, electric charge, communication link)?

Maybe a moderator can give more details (and I actually will report my post to call their attention) , but usually is considered better to create new thread to avoid confusion with potentially outdated info (often the case with info about the game several updates ago) and avoiding new posters pinging people that move on to other things. Another point, more specific to this subforum, is that there is a few functions that will be a bit skewed. You may have noticed a gray checkmark on each reply in this thread, but not present in question originated by other people. If you click any of those it will select the particular reply as the one that solved your doubt, bump it to the top of the thread and Mark the questions as answered. Other people can upvote replies signaling it as relevant and making it show up higher in the thread than 'lower ranked' replies. Anyway , if you feel an old thread has relevant info you may always link to it. Sometimes even reviving an old thread is OK, in that case a quick disclaimer is a good idea. Chances are that people will spot if there an issue because the thread is old and, if necessary moderators will take the appropriate measures. OTOH irrelevant threads that get necroed usually go back to rest by their own means. In your specific case probably a new thread is the better approach. The message you had seen was related to your life support mode, I belive there is a [life support report] provided by the nod where you can see what, and why, is happening to your crew. For more advice we need to know which mod are you using (and know something about it, what might not be the case).

Not sure if we call "interstellar quest" the same thing. May you provide further details about what you have in mind?

Well, you need to decide yourself what ruin gameplay and what improves it. But a good place to start looking is this: My personal highlights: Kerbal Alarm Clock, Editor Extensions, RCS Build Aid, Kerbal Engineer, EVA Resource Transfer, Better Crew Assignment, Better Burn Time, Navball Docking Alignment Indicator and Contract Window Plus

@gedro7000 apart from the desire to show how much finesse you have, what was the purpose to interrupt the 2 years of pacefull rest of this topic? @NewtSoup, for future reference, it should work that way: Craft A is loaded, and need to have at least one open attachment node no matter where. Craft B is loaded with merge function, and need to have an open attachment node on the root part.

Not even lvl2 DSN is necessary. We can calculate the things as long as we know a few bits of data (standard gravitational parameter, orbital parameters of the celestial bodies in question). 1. Launching from our Home Planet will have to deal gravity losses , drag losses and engine efficiency variation with pressure. For that one probably launching a Vessel and see how much fuel it takes is the way to go. 2.From there we start to use the vis-viva equation, but we don't need much else. We have Vessel in orbit, given it orbital height, orbital velocity and semi-major axis we determine Home's Standard Gravitational Parameter 3.For the transfer to a moon Around Home we calculate how much more velocity we need at the same orbital heigh to make our semi-major axis big enough so our orbit intercept Around's orbit. 4.Vessel's velocity relative to Around is the difference between Vessel's velocity relative to Home and Around's Velocity relative to Home. Mass of Around can be determined by Newton Kerman's Law of Universal Gravitation (I suppose the value of G was already measured by Cavendish Kerman, so we can have Around's Standard Gravitional Parameter also) 5.... Our values with this approach will be somewhat off with our assumption of instantaneous change in velocity but already usable for a rouge idea of how much it takes to travel between the celestial bodies, including landing a liftoff from airless bodies. We can increase the rigor of the mathematics involved (maybe @OhioBob can say something about that since he actually did computations for a deltaV map {while I did only educated, or so I hope, guesses}) but for a first approach the numbers are good(as in an extra 20% is enough safety margin). Celestial bodies with atmosphere brings a lot more to consider and more data is required (you can't just see how much atmospheric pressure it have with a telescope), that is where, instead of just calculate, starting our surveyor program may be a better approach.

So, a 'medium sized' KSP rocket? The difficulties for the moon landing were not about calculating the required deltaV required. When Apollo 11 touched down there was enough fuel to return to orbit form moon's surface that were a know fact, the astronauts even knew how close to being stranded they were (for the records 13s). Yes NASA sent unmanned vessel before, but only one liftoff from the moon, and a mere 4m. So Apollo 11 was not only the first manned landing on the moon but the first return to orbit from moon's surface, a unmanned craft was not necessary to prove it possible or determine how much deltav (or fuel) was needed. What surveyor program actually was needed for is to know more about lunar soil. You don’t want to send astronauts 400.000km away just to let then glued in a ground made of cheese (well, we had a pretty good idea the ground was not made of cheese but if the moon dust was to deep that would give the term "soft-landing" a very unpleasant meaning for astronauts touching down). For the most part century old mathematics is enough to send spacecraft in pretty complex trajectories with not much trouble . If there is trouble, more likely someone used the wrong units .

Personally I don't think removing ISRU from your gameplay will change much, as other stated even without refuelling you can go anywhere in solar system* and not even require complex trajectories. I'd consider a mode like Real Fuels (not update to 1.3 yet, promised to be provided soon). Issues like fuel boiling off can bring more challenge to the task then simple the need to launch more fuel from Kerbin. *kerbolar system?

Also think is pretty much shifting from "how I fuel my Interplanetary vessel" to "how I supply my refuelling depots" But there is some advantages, mostly related to the fact the Interplanetary vessels can be smaller. Some becomes more relevant if there is also life support to deal with. Example: A big unkerbaled tanker goes to Moho, it takes a gravity assists from Eve and several passes around Moho to finally capture years before departure. The crew comes later in small(ish) vessel and a direct trajectory sacrificing deltaV to get there faster (so using less LS supplies)

I'm not editing it in the original post to share the love to autocorretor. How not love it. </irony> JOHANNES

I wonder why my opinion in this matter should be relevant. And think we are going a bit out of topic there (a good subject for general discussion, I suppose). But in any case I gladly share my opinion about it. As I see KSP universe is pretty much a simplified version of our own. And kerbal are pretty much the KSP equivalent to humans. So, since in our universe we had the maths to deal with celestial mechanics and astronavigation way before we had spaceships, I expect Kerbals to have a good mathematical repertoire to map the way to the space. They didn't got their deltaV map from the Kraken or a Kerbal God. They science it into existence, built it with kerbal ingenuity much like we got the requeriment for the spacecraft we send across vast distance all over the solar system and beyond. (because you can science anything! ). I think there was kerbals like Johannesburg Kerman, Isaac Kerman, Pierre-Simon Kerman, Robert Hutchinson Kerman, Robert Albert Charles Kerman, Hermann Kerman, Konstantin Kerman...and they made a lot for Kerbal astronautics much before Jebediah even dreamed to be an astronaut. Again, my opinion should not be relevant, but since you asked here it go: Is one of several methods that works. But I can't say I share the enthusiasm to fly a vessel only to measure something I can easily calculate* in the comfort of Mission Control. Neither say that someone that prefer to look at an deltaV map is getting less fun. *yes, I often do calculations with pen&paper to design a vessel/mission. But for convenience and error avoidance a RPN, stack-based calculator is preferred.

really, really , really don't get why did you think my post(s) was not nice. In no way I implied anything about what you said or your method. I just get that DeadJoe expressed surprise about that fact that is possible to figure out how much deltaV is necessary to land in a given celestial body. (and maybe that is where the confusion arise, I read "there is a way to ..." when he said "this is...") and in the intent of offering help to a fellow player I pointed out that not only one method exist, but several and asked "which one interested you?" And I think I provided information that may be relevant for him and for someone else that just happens to be reading that thread trying to figure out something similar. So, maybe bringing attention that I misinterpreted his post (or your) and what I get wrong is understandable, even a opportunity for me to learn something. But using the word "hijack" was not nice. I think the major advantage is that the result are tailored to your own preference. If we take the tool Foxster presented, it list the deltaV cost from low orbit of Mun (14km) to the surface as 640m/s, but you may prefer, for whatever reason, use a different orbit and the deltaV cost will divert (even if by small amounts). Well, the point may be the challenge. Or the fact that people usually don't really think they will mess things up. Or they consider that messing thing up once in a while is unavoidable even with a safety margin and the better approach is just accept it. I can see the point...but usually I'm not comfortable using such narrow margins myself.

Out of curiosity, RA-100 are unavailable? And a single RA-2 will give better range and weight than 3xHG-5.