White Owl

I thought I remembered seeing a MM patch to get the antennae from Probes Plus to work with Kerbalism. Am I imagining things again?

Figured it out. I was an idiot; totally my fault. I installed the Module Manager dll in its own folder instead of directly to GameData, and that borked Kerbalism. So a cautionary tale for others who want their mod directory to be all neat and organized: don't mess with Module Manager.

What could be preventing Kerbalism from modifying the antennae in my very unreasonably heavily modded install? I know the signals feature is enabled, because unmanned probes aren't controllable with the default config; but if I change the Kerbalism signals config to "full" control, then the probes are controllable. So that much works. But none of my antennae — stock Squad or mod part — are changed to high gain or low gain. They all have the stock "direct" or "relay" labels. Obviously, some other mod is interfering... but I'm not sure where to start looking.

For KSP, that's exactly how I use my Warthog. Experimented around with the throttle and determined that it's way more control than KSP actually needs. So I drilled holes in my desk and semi-permanently mounted the stick next to my mousepad. Now I use keyboard for most things, but grab the stick and rudder pedals for fine control of airplanes; still use the keyboard for throttle, action groups, etc. I only plug in the throttle for other flight sims.

Count me in for Kerbal Airplane Program / Kerbal Flightsim! Yes, I know about the current flightsim titles; actually spend more time in X-Plane nowadays than KSP. But I have always been frustrated by how few flight simmers have any interest in fictional vehicles and/or fictional settings. I can't fathom why anybody would want to pretend they're flying a tranquilized skywhale (airliner) in a straight line from point A to B and back to A over and over again, very very slowly turning only when the imaginary voices say you have permission... but apparently that experience is what a majority of flightsim fans want. But KSP fans, aha! Turn this bunch loose with a build-your-own air travel system, and there is absolutely no predicting what fun ideas you'll come up with. Whether the results are ugly or sexy, practical or fantasy, I guaran-damn-tee it won't be boring! I've always wanted to simulate worldwide air travel incorporating hypersonic and suborbital craft along with more conventional air traffic, with every single vehicle designed by players. It may technically be possible to create something like that in X-Plane... but most X-Plane players simply aren't interested in trying anything new or experimental. They like their tubeliners, and see no reason to change.

Thanks for the mod rescue!

Nooooo! I was hoping the last two mods would update so I could try out 1.2! Kidding. Mostly. Progress is good. Bugfixes are good. I'm patient.

I like it.

My only suggestion is to move the part much earlier in the tech tree. Like basic rocketry, maybe.

I'm trying this out, but for some reason the patch isn't working for me. All these parts still have ModuleLiftingSurface. Not sure what the problem is. Edit: Figured it out. There were some copy-pasta errors. I put together a fixed version. Still needs entries for the larger wings, elevons, and strakes from Shuttle Payload Tech, though. @PART[BodyFlap]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleControlSurface] {} %MODULE[FARControllableSurface] { %b_2 = 3.1 %MAC = 1.9 %TaperRatio = 1 %MidChordSweep = 0 %nonSideAttach = 1 %maxdeflect = 20 %ctrlSurfFrac = 1 %transformName = Elevon } } @PART[Bottom25]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} } @PART[Bottom50]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} } @PART[Bottom100]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} } @PART[CADelta]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} %MODULE[FARWingAerodynamicModel] { %b_2 = 4.7827 %MAC = 3.49113 %TaperRatio = 0.19983 %MidChordSweep = 23.885 %maxdeflect = 20 %rootMidChordOffsetFromOrig = 0, 0.969895, 0 } } @PART[CArudder]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} !MODULE[ModuleControlSurface] {} MODULE[FARControllableSurface] { %b_2 = 4.560464 %MAC = 2.74028 %TaperRatio = 0.44967 %MidChordSweep = 38.21 %maxdeflect = 20 %ctrlSurfFrac = 0.29 %transformName = ControlSurfaceL %rootMidChordOffsetFromOrig = 0, 1.37014, 0 } MODULE[FARControllableSurface] { %b_2 = 4.560464 %MAC = 2.74028 %TaperRatio = 0.44967 %MidChordSweep = 38.21 %maxdeflect = 20 %ctrlSurfFrac = 0.29 %transformName = ControlSurfaceR %rootMidChordOffsetFromOrig = 0, 1.37014, 0 } } @PART[CAStrake]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} %MODULE[FARWingAerodynamicModel] { %b_2 = 1.20137 %MAC = 3.1812 %TaperRatio = 0 %MidChordSweep = 66.726 %rootMidChordOffsetFromOrig = 0, 1.27448, 0 } } @PART[NoseCone]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} } @PART[ShuttleB]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} } @PART[ShuttleBottomLong]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {} }

Well, the stock aero fix is a whole lot easier than I imagined. Didn't even do any math or look up proportions or nothin'. Just take a half ton off each SSME so they weigh 3.5t apiece, and change the nosecone mass to 5.8t. Next, remove all monopropellant from the mkIII cockpit. That's it. The CoM is now in the correct spot, and the orbiter will glide and land just fine. I haven't tried FAR yet.

It used to be when I ran out of RAM, and/or the game slowed to an unplayable crawl. Now those problems are fixed! So I'm starting to get a little giddy at the notion of actually going interplanetary with this career. Maybe even use some of the Near Future parts I've been drooling over for years! Maybe... and this is where it gets really nuts... maybe even continue this career after the game updates to 1.2!

After doing a little bit of research, I'm learning that figuring out the total mass of a SSME isn't so simple, and I may have to eat some words. Some sources include only the bare engine, at a mass as low as 3392kg. Some sources include the engine controller, gimbal system, installation hardware, plumbing, etc. for a mass as high as 4957kg. For our KSP purposes, and specifically for use with Cormorant and this mod, I'd argue that all the propellant plumbing should be included with the aft fuselage part that attaches to the payload bay. My reference book claims all that plumbing weighed 759kg per engine, so that leaves us with a mass of 4198kg per engine. However, that's 4.2t for a full-scale engine, which is some uncertain amount larger than a Kerbal engine. Now I'm pondering how to solve this problem. Guesswork flat-out ain't going to work with a glider this perilously close to not gliding at all! One approach occurs to me. I found documentation for the real orbiter's CG limits, both forward and aft. Known as CoM to KSP players; same thing. The real orbiter's total mass is known. The mass and location of the engines is known. I can therefore find exactly what the total mass and CoM of a real orbiter without engines would be. Next step would be to edit the mass of all our KSP orbiter parts until the CoM without engines is in the same place. That done, find the KSP orbiter's empty weight and compare to the real thing. Find what percentage of the real orbiter's total mass is accounted for by the engines. Edit the KSP SSMEs to the proportional mass. Edit the KSP SSMEs to the proportional thrust, to keep the same TWR. Of course, all the same steps would be needed for the OMS engines too. Once that's all done, the lift on all lifting surfaces will probably need tweaked to get the plane to fly right in stock aero. In theory, FAR's voxels should work as soon as we get the CoM right. Well I know what I'm going to be doing today!

My reading of various histories suggests it would be more accurate to say the shuttle designers asked the Department of Defense what capabilities they would like to see in a reusable spaceplane. The DoD replied that they would want their best spy satellite to be launched into a polar orbit at a moment's notice, with the launch vehicle returning to the launch site after one orbit. The satellite had already been designed, could not be reasonably redesigned for the shuttle, and was big as a Greyhound bus. It would require a payload bay at least twice as big as what the early shuttle concepts were considering. Built a few shuttles in KSP? If so, have you noticed how incredibly expensive that internal payload bay is? A slight increase in payload bay volume means a much, much larger and heavier orbiter. That's the reason my favorite KSP designs shifted to stacking the payload in front of the nose inside a fairing; just ditch the internal payload bay entirely. The shuttle designers could have simply denied the DoD's request, and put together a space shuttle of more reasonable scale... but they believed they would never get the funding to build unless they could claim the DoD wanted to use the shuttle. Whether the lower development and operating cost of a smaller shuttle could have happened or not is one of those unanswerable questions. But the CIA didn't technically mandate the huge size; they just answered the question of what they would need to use the ship if it was built. The DoD was perfectly happy to keep using Titan rockets for all their payloads. Personally, I would've liked to see a more modest shuttle initially, to prove the concept and learn how to operate one efficiently. Build the do-everything monster a few versions later. Who knows if that could have happened.

Repeated over and over in these conversations is the assertion that the shuttle's capability to return a useful payload from orbit was used only a handful of times. It's been repeated so often, many people probably believe it's true. Consider payloads launched by the shuttle and recovered by the shuttle in the same flight, and it's clear that the payload return capability was used more often than not. I'm tempted to say that capability was used in every single successful flight... but there's probably an exception or two hiding somewhere in the list. Not even counting all the crews.

Other than various random flavors of the month, the three long-term addictions I keep coming back to are KSP, DCS, and X-Plane. I could probably be content just cycling between those three indefinitely.

Still haven't watched the video... If anybody is genuinely interested in understanding how the shuttle was designed, built, and operated, I heartily recommend reading Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System, The First 100 Missions, by Dennis Jenkins. Very detailed book, that I found especially fascinating after designing several shuttles in the game; it's a slightly bizarre experience to read about real aerospace engineers struggling with exactly the same issues that I've struggled with in KSP, and frequently settling on the same solutions! The book documents what compromises were made in the shuttle design, when they were made, and why. Good read. Although I've heard rumors that an expanded and completely rewritten version is supposed to be published in the next year or so... edit: Gaaakk, just watched the first few minutes of that video. Dude doesn't even have his facts straight, let alone sensible conclusions drawn from facts. Thumbs down.

Without watching the video, and speaking as a long-time fan of STS-like designs... It's fashionable in certain circles to lambast the poor shuttle for all its many failings, while giving very little attention to the vehicle's very impressive capabilities. The shuttle may not have been anywhere near as good as the original concept and early designs, but even the emasculated, fragile, and overpriced version that finally became reality was a powerful and hugely flexible machine. Just take a quick glance at the list of STS missions, and notice how often various payloads malfunctioned, and how often it turned out to be very useful to have a crew with a toolbox right there, ready to fix the problem. Or even decide to bring the payload back home for repair. Not a factor in KSP or other various fictional space programs, but it definitely turned into a majorly important capability in real-life.

Freaking fantastic. I'm-a-gonna put it over Jool, just inside Laythe's orbit. That way I can duplicate the whole end sequence with watching Yavin IV rise over the gas giant.

Looks to me like the SSMEs need to be a lot lighter, and the forward RCS nosepiece needs to be a lot heavier. Realizing now that none of this is actually this mod's problem...

I'll note the craft file that comes bundled with this mod looks fantastic, but the CoM is waaaay too far aft. The real Orbiter's CoM in both the on-orbit and landing configurations was located near the center of the payload bay. That's so payloads of various weights wouldn't adversely affect the Orbiter's handling. No wonder people are posting about not being able to fly the thing... looks like the CoM is actually behind the main landing gear, so you couldn't even land it anyway. The SSMEs from DIRECT are way too heavy, too. They're heavier than the real things, installed in an Orbiter that's smaller and lighter than the real thing. That's definitely a major contributor to the overall CoM problem.

Extremely cool idea! I stopped using Chatterer some time ago because it got too repetitive, but this looks like it has great potential to take its place.

It's a very interesting idea. Are you familiar with Flight Sim Economy? I've often thought I'd like to see a FSE-type system working in KSP. It would be a way to have meaningful multiplayer, without requiring people to be online at the same time. But I lack the organizational and coding skills for the task.

I have always been a fan of polished bare metal.

Have you seen this plugin? link Is it even possible to combine the rotating/retractable features into a procedural wing? 'Cause that would be... I don't know... something a whole lot better than pretty good.