OrbitalManeuvers

I was going to ask about building a Molniya so as to recreate Venera 7, but turns out I have a more pressing issue ... pun intended. My setup is KSRSS at 2.5x. Warnings began at about 5km, and death came quickly at around 4300m. I used Friznit's R7 Soyuz for this, as to my ignorant eyes, the Molniya on Wikipedia looked very similar. PVG ascent to 120k was picture perfect, however, just under 1600m/s left in the upper stage, and the optimal Venus ejection burn is ~1660m/s, so I used two B tanks on the upper stage instead and that worked out. Next was what to do at Venus. The probe has nowhere near enough dV to capture propulsively so there's aerobraking required which I wasn't prepared for, so I cheated to 200k Venus orbit for the rest of the test. I then raised my Ap on the dark side to ~600k, burned at Ap to lower my Pe to 40k (trial and error), released the probe, spun around and raised the Ap back up to 200k, then switched to the lander for the rest of the fatal flight. All the parts look gorgeous. They just got crunched in KSRSS.

Dear Cerulean Canines, would it be possible to allow the new klaw to change its deployment girth setting whilst in flight? The one from a mod that rhymes with Splanetside allows such shenanigans so I thought I'd ask. Please and thank you or, OK no worries!

just gonna derp in here and say that I'm sure Cobalt will find what is wonky, but it's also affecting the CM - some of the texture options appear to affect only 1/2 of the model.

Confirmed. WIP

OK, no pressure but your latest Titan stuff is probably your best stuff to date. Like the whole experience with it, the looks, the functionality, it's very polished. You've set the bar pretty high, just sayin. Seriously looking forward to this one!

I have never said the words "thank goodness I can't warp any faster!" but I have expressed the opposite sentiment many, many times. Can you comment on the purpose of these limits from the planet pack designer's point of view?

Yes. I'm thinking it's sorta required actually, but yeah it works. Mine seems to be 2.0.0.0. 7.5hrs at 2.5x scale.

Yep, fixed. Thank you! Since this one is now perfect, the obvious question is what's next?

Thank you for the update! I've done a couple tests this morning and had much better success with the aeroshell separation - thanks, that seems perfect on my system now. The sound issue persists, but this might be my fault. Does the sound fix depend on the bundled CCK or CRP? I have slightly earlier versions of those 2 dependencies, which are required by another mod, so I have not copied your bundled versions. If the sound fix relies on those specific versions I will do some mod shuffling and test again.

[opinion] This is due to the lack of axial tilt in KSP 1, which then leads to modders having to make a difficult decision about the earth/moon/ecliptic relationship. So KSRSS (and I guess RSS, but not sure) have decided to prioritize the relationship between Florida and the moon. This is only a prioritization, not a replication, since there's no axial tilt involved. What this decision de-emphasizes is the relationship between the moon and the solar system ecliptic - which is 5.1 degrees. So one relationship is closer to reality, but another is farther from reality. Importantly, neither actually IS reality. When KSP 2 introduces axial tilt I will bite the bullet and learn everything about how Florida and Baikonur deal with their inclinations and the moon's inclination and orbits reachable from both locations. I'll build the ISS, and do all that RL stuff, trying to follow RL procedures and whatnot. But, until then ... ? My decision for myself and my KSP time is to postpone the process of learning inclination until the game can reproduce the real solar system, so I don't spend time learning things wrong. So for now I go the stock route of mostly ignoring inclination. I do that by removing inclination from the moon and all the planets, and I launch from Kourou. I still have to deal with that 5 degrees, but that's a good enough intro into the concept of launch site inclination for me, for now. When we can tilt the earth 23.5 degrees, and Florida can dip below and rise above the ecliptic, and the moon's in the right place, then I'll bite the bullet and learn how all that works. [/opinion]

Well, we could keep guessing, or you could post a picture of the contents of your GameData folder and we could just tell you what's not correct.

This does not work for me in either of these two combinations: KSP 1.11.2/HC 0.2.1.1, or in KSP 1.12.2/HC 0.2.1.3. You sure this functionality isn't provided by another mod?

Could I have something installed incorrectly? All the experiments except one are UV observations. I am up to date with Github except that I do not have the OldParts folder installed.

Speaking of probes n stuff: do you happen to have a roadmap specifically for the pioneer 10 collection? just don't want to ask about stuff that's already on the to-do list.

Wondering what other users of this mod would think of this suggestion: when I'm using proper ullage and my "chance of ignition" is 1, I find it distracting to have this 9-digit random number displayed on the screen for every engine. Igniting stage 2 of the Saturn V gives me this report for each of the 5 J2's. It's not useful to know what my chances of ignition would have been if I hadn't built the rocket correctly. Personally I would prefer no on-screen message at all when the chance of ignition is 1. Thoughts?

I apologize for not being able, at the moment, to give you a report with more info. But on 1.12.2, Waterfall 0.6.7, things are just really unhappy with this mod. The flood of nullrefs is unending. Again, sorry I don't have the log for you, and if you absolutely cannot reproduce this then I'll reinstall and get a log file for you. I just put the sample craft on the launch pad, and took off. 10mb log file within seconds, no plumes on main engines.

I still had two pairs on this launch. Normally I would underfuel the first two stages to force the SIVB J2 to be needed for circularizing.

This was too cool not to share. Topic: Venus flyby mission. In spoiler tag for the uninterested.

This was my experience on 1.12.2 as well. A quick flight yielded me a 100MB log file so I uninstalled it. However, it did fly well and the fuel rebalancing that has been done since I last tried it seemed to be just right for KSRSS at 2.5x scale, so great job there!

The connection ports (geometry only) on the base of the S-IC engine mount have swapped sides now, such that the dual ports side is now facing south, and the single ported side faces north, which is opposite from the MLP attach nodes for the tail service masts. Mentioning in case this was unintended, as it's a change from previous builds.

thank you this is perfect!

Has there been an "author-intended" layout shown or built for the two historical sim bay formats with the new experiments?

service module's flag UV is maybe borked?

I just loaded this today into a working JNSQ install, where I pulled out the JNSQ-specific stuff and dropped this in as the only planet pack. I do not see the dark artifacts shown above.

Single ignition on the LR91, but in KSP the SRM has 590m/s. The docs say that after the SRM fired there were two Earth flybys. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/clementine/in-depth/ edit: more mission and orbit details here: https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/c-missions/clementine