r_rolo1

Yeah, Pol has some patches of "terrain" where the visual input does not correspond to the collision meshes ... and some phantom invisible VAB :/ The issue is known, but AFAIK there is no fix ATM

Alternatively to having downward propulsion, you can make a ship mostly out of parts that have low drag ( like winglets or even wings, on spite of wings having the issue of producing lift ), that will allow a higher terminal velocity ( in extreme examples it is possible to hit Kerbin surface at 0 m at 1700m/s in stock atmosphere ). But as you are in a career game and those parts are expensive, it is probably better to push downwards or sideways ...

I do not possess extensive knowledge of KSP code, but given the history of the kraken bashing, my bet is that the game is failing to actualize the new place from where to calculate coordinates when you get out of the far away ship view ... thus it tries to reconstruct the world using the ship as the center. If you are around here for a while you know that the first incarnation of the kraken was caused by the fact that the coordinates and movements were always calculated using Kerbin as the center of the universe and when you got too far/too fast the system went berserk due to the floating point errors , so imagine what happens when you try to reconstruct a planetary surface 6 Tm away

I was saying the burn from Kerbin ( sorry for my lack of clarity on that one ), that, unless he is coming from a clockwise LKO ( in that case, my question is why, for heavens sake ? , and also why to burn in that particular place ... ) it is being done in the wrong direction for the rule of cool of making the ship to be directed to the dark unknown ... and also made in a bad place even if it was in the right direction ... Back on topic, the issue with Eve is that you don not necessarily want high TWR stuff ( because you will capped out in speed by drag for a lot of the way ... a thing I've seen a lot of people in youtube to forget when designing Eve missions. While you can muscle away your exit from Eve, it is far easier to not do so ), but you want engines with a tolerable Isp that is mostly unchanged by atmospheric pressure and , as a afterthough, that have decent TWR. The separatrons have a unchanging Isp with pressure , that is good , and a crazy high TWR, that is also a good thing, but their Isp is 100, that is bad in general and worse for a SRB ( their dry mass/fully loaded mass is in par with other SRB , btw ), so, while the proposed solution has some plausibility, it would need staging and probably fine tuning to even have a chance of working ....

I also seen the video ( nassault makes really good ones, given the base material ), but I'm skeptical about that particular part. OK, separatrons have ridiculously high TWR, but they also have a dismal Isp ... maybe they are just there for the rule of cool. It is not that it would even be the first time in the same video that he makes something for the rule of cool ... or didn't you noticed that he was making the interplanetary burn in the wrong place and apparently ( can't be sure, but it definitely looks so ) in the wrong direction ?

Too bad ... it would had been a good discovery it true

Still have to end my 0.24 rover trip from KSC to the South Pole via the North Pole ... it will take some more 20-30 h game hours, though

Mine is also in there, simply because of the way the OP made the video and the fact he didn't dropped coordinates in spoiler. In the second I base myself in my own experience, since I was one of the first people to notice the Mun arches back in the ol'days ... and everyone that seen them in the first day spontaneously gave coordinates or geographical intel to get outside confirmation of the weird things they had seen that weren't there in the previous version ( the "I'm not crazy , right?" test ). But the OP made a video where he makes sure you can't see half of the sky ( most likely where Ike is, that would be enough to know the longitude of the place ) and that the video was recorded at night ( making sure you can't deduct the latitude via solar height in the horizon ), plus he/she didn't cared to give any intel on the location ....

Too bad that cockpit still has no IVA view ... it would give a good ride experience ( that is why I like to use the Cupola on rovers ... it is fun to drive from the inside ) Anyway, and as a fellow member of the academy ( I forgot to see it yesterday, though ... was playing ), I can tell you those wheels are much more powerful than you need for a rover of that weight. Too much power is something you might not want in a rover, actually;) , because it can make the rover uncontrollable or to make backward flips during climbs. You actually would be be better with the RoveMax Model M1 ( the brown ones ). Less power, but far more controllable ... btw, wanting the cool look wheels is a major reason why people fail at make rovers, since those things are normally too powerful for rovers that use 1,25 parts As I'm in a place where I don't have the game in hand, I must also give you the customary warnings about rovers : steering only in the front wheels, traction and brakes only in the back ( I can't check if you have done so already , but even if you done so, the warning is never wasted ). But it is a good looking rover , anyway

Well, the video maker made a lot of effort to take out any clue from where this is ( and I find strange that he/she makes sure you can't see half of the possible panorama ... hum. More, the video is made at night, probably to make sure we can't deduct the latitude by the shadow ... ), but atleast we know the altitude : 3486/7 m ... and that there aren't any towering mountains in atleast 180º of the field of view . That narrows things a lot

Yeah, but it is a PITA to set things up and the rewards for chute contracts are normally not that hot. I don't do them solely because they can be hard, but because they are most of the times not worth the hassle IMHO.

Well, my take on the chute contracts is simple: if the terminal speed at the contract heights is between the speed limits of the contract, I'll take it if I have something else to test. Otherwise , no dice

Technically the least dV for a Munar mission is when you set your munar transfer burn in a way that your Munar Pe will be at surface level in the retrograde side of the Mun ( in theory 0 m , in practice most likely above 1-2 km ) ... and when you get to the munar Pe you burn retrograde until your speed is zero Also the place in LKO where you should do the burn is near the place you see half of the Mun above the horizon. OFC this is almost surely not feasible in practice, but that is how you get the lowest dV It also means that there is just one place in the Mun you can get with that exact dV, because of the Munar tidal locking with Kerbin

Well, technically the kind of contracts that we have in game are ignition tests. What you are suggesting are working stress tests, that aren't the same thing ... They most likely deserve to be in game, though

The wording of the contracts in that case coincide with the in-game behavior, so I would say it is a intended behavior. It might not match the original coder intentions or common sense, but that doesn't count for this kind of discussions

For a change I decided to drop stuff in the surface of Kerbin on propose For a ballistic projectile in stock, that speed is quite good

The reputation you can have is capped at + or - 1000. In fact , unless you start with 1000( via options ) , you will never get there ...

I finally got a version of my shuttle in top of a rocket that I feel confident to release: If you want to give it a go, it can be found here . Now on to the next project ...

Finally I got to a version of my Hermès mock up that I feel confident to release : You can find the thread with the save here TBH I'm thinking on making a more streamlined version of the shuttle, since the shuttle glides wonderfully and does not look like the Hermès . I think it can be done, but I might not be the best pilot to test it, since it might come too hot and need some parachute work OTOH I'm mulling for quite a while in a stock Rods of the Gods mockup and Scott Manley video gave me the itch ...

For those that don't know, Hermès was a 80s-early90s project from ESA for a small shuttle that would go in top of a Arianne 4 ( or later of Arianne 5 ) or of a russian counterpart, unlike the sideway approaches followed by both shuttles of the time ( the american and the soviet one ). Here is a pic of one of the many concept plans for it: And here it in top of one of the proposed launchers, the Arianne 5: I decided to try to make a mock up of this shuttle in stock ( note, mockup, not replica. I just want the basic features in, not the looks ) and after some days working I got to the Moho shuttle, in top of a Arianne 4 mock up: Note that the pic above is from a earlier interaction ( I forgot to take a pic of the current version in the launchpad ), but the changes made after this were mostly cosmetic. The version above was 100% functional Anyway, a album of the first trip of the last version of the Moho Delta 2: I do find that it actually is a very balanced rocket and the shuttle itself is far better than I was expecting ( hence I reserve the right of changing the wings to something more close of the original Hermès plans ( and probably add chutes to that version ) ). Just don't expect a lot of cargo in the cargo bay Anyway, here is the craft file. If someone wants , I might provide the shuttle subassembly, but that can be easily taken from the rocket above, since the shuttle does not contain the root part. >>Craft Here<< Some warnings: a) The shuttle in top makes the rocket to turn westwards if launched from the orientation it has in the save. That has a reason ( to help in the "gravity" turn ), so change it at your own responsibility. Also it is recommended to not disable SAS in the first 10 km, exactly because of the westward turning. Because the shuttle does not contain the root part of the rocket ( that is the probe part of the auxiliary stage ) on separation the action groups of the shuttle tend to not work. if that happens activate engines manually via right click ... EDIT: I changed the download link. Apparently mediafire thought I wanted to show it as a text file ...

Indeed there are better places to ask this kind of questions, but I think I can answer the first: Potassium permanganate is the choice catalyst for the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen. That reaction in older rockets was used to power the fuel and oxidizer pumps that force both of them to the combustion chamber. The A4/V2 of von Braun used that system ...

More work on my Hermés mockup ... TBH I'm liking the way the 48-7S + the shroud worked out ( BTW thanks to all of those that posted here stock fairings made out of structural panels, as I shamelessly stole your idea ). The shuttle itself needs some tweaking on the RCS and maybe a floor jr docking port instead of a back one. The only thing I really dislike on this is that, due to the size of the stock parts, the auxiliary stage ( the one that is behind the shuttle ) is far bigger than the original RL plan had ( relatively to the shuttle, that is ). But well, what can we do if we want to keep stuff in stock ? :/

More work on the shuttle I've been designing ...

Well, I can't talk about everyone else, but IMHO the very concept of the pilot skill changing engineering facts is in the exact antipodes of the SQUAD stated goal of having a game that respect the laws of physics ( OTOH if we were talking of the skill of the engineers in the ground that makes those parts , that would be a whole different thing, but that was definitely not what was stated in the dev notes ). And would definitely not be surprised if most of the people that were against it at the core thinked the exact same ... @Yellowburn10 Maybe this was the straw that broke the camel's back *dunno* ANd I would say that people were never that happy with the things you enumerate. And BTW , as stated above, it was SQUAD itself that said they wanted to make a game that respected the laws of physics. People that expect so are only waiting that SQUAD makes their word true ...

That reminds me a lot my first "rover" in KSP, when they added the landing gear part. God, that thing was ugly, but indeed it was quite sturdy