Scarecrow71

I always go engine first (retrograde) so I can burn off any fuel I have remaining as I get near Pe. This helps reduce speed AND decreases Ap. Once fuel is burned, I jettison the engine and tank, letting the ablator do its job.

I am going to vote a hard "no" here as well. We do not want another situation like we had eith the promises of when the game would originally drop, coupled with continued rehashing of what we were told and that the company is lying and Yada Yada Yada. We have been down that road, and we really don't want to go down it again. All it would take to destroy this trust that has been regained and/or rebuilt is to be told that x system will include y mechanics, but then what is released isn't what was promised. I can already see the forum threads and the endless reposting of links and videos to prove the company didn't deliver. We simply don't want that. I don't want that.

Not interplanetary; I have yet to do that in For Science. Munar return.

What elaboration are you looking for? I literally stated: Command pod, on top of a heat shield, on top of coupling, on top of a tank, on top of an engine Standard re-entry profile Attempting to aerobrake to reduce Ap before landing Burning up at 60km I'm not the only one who has reported this happening in the upper atmosphere I'm not trying to be rude, but I fail to see why you are asking for an image of the simplest craft EVERYONE BUILDS. Literally, everyone builds this craft. And >90% of the people have used this tactic in KSP1 to aerobrake to return to Kerbin. Exactly what part of all of this are you not understanding? What elaboration beyond simply reading the rest of this thread - which I have to assume you haven't done because you aren't asking anyone else to provide screenshots - do you need here?

Thanks for assuming I don't know what I'm doing here. I told you: Nothing to see. Standard craft, standard entry, standard parts. I'm not the only one who has stated this doesn't work; all you need to do is read through the thread to see that. I'm not sharing an image of a standard craft that everyone builds.

Nothing to see, really. Standard craft (command module on top of a heat shield, with a tank and engine just below that to help slow down), pointed retrograde. Ain't my first rodeo here.

I am simply turning heat off for the time being. Although some of the issues I'm experiencing are a direct result of the craft I'm building, there is ZERO reason for things to explode in a fountain of hot lava at 60km when attempting to aerobrake in Kerbin's atmosphere. If I'm trying a direct descent at 6 km/s? Yes, I should explode. Trying to use the upper atmosphere to slow down and reduce Ap, using multiple passes and not dipping closer than 60km? Shouldn't happen.

Just like in KSP1. Killing/abandoning/marooning Kerbals was part of the first game; we'd have no Blunderbirds or rescue missions without this. And in actuality, this became a really decent teaching technique on how to get around wasteful designs or what to do when bad stuff happens.

As a shameless plug, there is a mod i created specifically as a workaround for this. Page Up/Down to cycle through celestial bodies in the Kerbolar System, +/- to target or remove target, and Home to reset the focus to the currently controlled craft.

I am the kind of player who likes to look back at what I've done, primarily so I can go on missions to places I haven't yet been. KSP1, in the R&D Archives allowed you to look at the different bodies and biomes and see what science you gained from which experiments, and this is sorely missing from KSP2. I would like to see a system on the game that shows: Science experiments collected by biome/location, complete with points gained Flight data for every flight, to include when it flew, crew, distance, time, and whether or not it succeeded Type of flight (rocket, spaceplane, submersible) I am sure a mod could handle this, but it should be stock functionality. In my opinion, anyhow.

Use the Maneuver Node Controller mod; it has this functionality.

Check your TWR in the upper atmosphere. Although I agree with you that this shouldn't happen, it does. Pull back on the amount of thrust you are generating so that you aren't racing as fast as possible to orbit. Stay < 2.0 on that ascent (TWR), and around 1.5 if you can. That should help.

So, on a hunch, I started a new Exploration game; I wanted to see how many flights it would take me to fill out Tier I. The answer? 3. 3 flights is all it took for me to completely unlock all of Tier I (and then 3 nodes inside Tier II). The 3 flights: Get to 10km or higher Go sub-orbital. Then orbital. Then do the EVA mission. Do a Munar fly-by. Then land on the Mun. Then plant a flag in a Mare on the Mun. Then return to Kerbin. I am wondering if I could maybe do this in two launches (combine the first 2 bullets above into 1 launch). All told, 3 flights is pretty darned quick. I had the contract to go find the source of the Munar signal after landing on the Mun, but it was so far away from where I would be orbiting once leaving the Mun, and I was low on fuel (I had 22 m/s of fuel after the maneuver to aerobrake on Kerbin at 57km). Maybe I could have done that, maybe not. But I know I can get to the Mun, find the signal, then land at the monument all in one trip (and a few other things, like the perfect circular orbit).

Well, I can either play the game peacefully, or I can complain about it and still play. Guess which one I'm choosing? The more I play, the more I find that I don't like about 0.2. But apart from filing bug reports, there isn't much I can do. Easier to just plow ahead and do what I can.

What exactly are you talking about? Bej stated they didn't like the mechanic, so I simply asked what they would like to see. I then even stated that while I like the idea, I am not sold on the implementation AND I don't have any ideas of my own. Your response and its point, if there is one, is lost on me as I don't know why you responded in this tone.

Ok, so what would you prefer to see? What idea do you have to make this better? I like the idea of a science mechanic...but I don't think the current implementation is right or perfect. I also don't know what the right one would be. So I simply play with what we are given.

I'm not sure. I haven't tested it in a while, and I don't know if the person who developed it is still maintaining it.

Flight Plan doesn't chew up system resources, nor does it impact sharing craft. And it does exactly what you are asking for. If you want to wait to see if some stuff shows up officially in the game, great. But you might be waiting for quite a long time.

There's a mod for that.

Validated as working in 0.2. OP updated.

Yeah, this ranks up there in ridiculousness with landing 200 tons on Minmus for 35 science.

So much for staying on topic. The mods can close this thread as the economic discussion is not what this thread was to be about.

There's a mod for that. Flight Plan.

No shield on the tank itself. So I expected it to heat up...just not at 60km. Why is it that I'm the only one getting called out here? I'm following what others have done.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: Flight Plan, Maneuver Node Controller, MapView Focus and Targeting, K2D2, Micro-Engineer | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win11 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900 12 core | GPU: GeForce RTX 2060 Super | RAM: 32GB Had this happen to me today. Waited until I hit about 10km before attempting to deploy (speed was at ~200 m/s). The pair of drogue chutes deployed, but the pair of radially attached Mk16's did not. Deployment was attempted through staging. Quicksave and quickload did not work; Mk16's did not deploy through staging. However, through PAM I was able to click deploy and they worked, slowing the craft down to 14.5 m/s...before flipping the craft over and picking up speed to 20 m/s. That's probably more a function of the weight of the craft, but I've never seen chutes slow something down and then have that thing pick up speed after flipping over. Weird. All told, chute deployment is simply not working through staging.