Fortunateson1969

Hm. My problem was always skin temp, not built up internal temp. I'd put my Freyja Light Shuttle through the rounds again to test that but...eh. That prospect doesn't really grab me haha. Until the next round of shuttle development fires up. I need a way to get liquid fuel into orbit cheaply...and the mk1 liquid fuel tanks are about the only way I can do it right now :\

Okay, so I just landed one of my shuttles just to make sure my info was as up to date as possible. I can't affirm the rest of the post but the major point worked for me. Here's my setup: I have a passenger shuttle with the Mk1 Cockpit, two Mk1 crew cabins, an advanced inline stablilizer, two (per wing) big elevons, a bunch of RCS and the puff RCS thrusters. I have my Mk-55 Thuds on there, but at this point they're just for show. I do not have any liquid fuel or oxidizer on the craft at this point. I have arrays of Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS ports pointing up, down, left and right on the nose and two of those plus two RV-105 RCS Thruster Blocks on the tail. I've attempted to put as much of the weight as aft as possible. I have my spacedock at 71km. These little baby Mk1 shuttles can make it easy to 250km easy but coming back from 250km is the hard part. Haven't nailed that one yet. 1.) I leave my spacedock topped up with RCS. For me that means 377.5 units of RCS. 2.) When I am west of the impact crater on Kerbin, I burn retrograde until my Pe = 50km. (I'm still dialing in my burn location, I usually end up east of the runway. I would like to undershoot than overshoot, but my shuttle is maneuverable enough while gliding that I can usually muscle it back over to land and not get my crew wet. Or dead.) 3.) (Here's where people may have qualms) I engage mechjeb *boos and groans* Yeah yeah. Anyway. I engage mechjeb. My settings are SmartA.S.S.->Surf->SVEL+->ROL = 0, PIT = 90, YAW = 0. I turn and leave RCS on, making sure that SmartRCS->Use RCS for Rotation = ON. (TLDR; Pitch up. Way up. 90 degrees up. Hold it fast and hard) 4.) I descend. For a long time. Long. Eventually, the drag on the craft will overcome the reaction wheels and the RCS thrusters and you'll nose down. You'll be well into the fire and flames at this point. 5.) When my vertical speed reaches around -10m/s (the dial on your altimeter), I disengage Smart A.S.S. entirely as well as the RCS jets. I fly it in by hand using the SAS on the craft to maintain stability. Usually as I drop down through 1000m/s Surface Speed I start to regain control and can bank or do what I need to (because historically I've overshot my entry vector by 10km or so). However, look at your Mk1 Cockpit. For me, at this point the skin temperature is decreasing. The internal temp usually is still on the rise, but won't hit catastrophic levels before it too starts to cool. 6.) Bring her home. I usually keep the pitch at about -10 degrees for the remainder of the flight. I'm gliding at this point, and that puts me at about 1000m @ 100m/s. Nice, slow, gentle landing. Thanks for flying the friendly skies. Notes: Make sure you have a bunch of control of your craft during your descent. I brought a shuttle back from orbit and forgot to turn the elevons back on (had their limiters at 0) and I burned up and exploded. Not enough RCS juice? Burn up and explode because you haven't decelerated enough. If you want, I'd be happy to run another shuttle landing and post the profile, weight, and craft pictures. The "pilot involved" steps are pretty obvious though. I don't pay much attention to speeds and such as I'm re-entering. Just hold that 90 deg pitch as long as possible, and even when it isn't possible. Any pitch will continue to decelerate you. This is what worked for me. NathanKell and Alshain seem to have different approaches...and while I won't discount their experience, it didn't work for me...I've literally tried every altitude from 65km to 0km with rcs on and off (and a bunch of other modifiers) and this is the only way that worked for me. TLDR: 60km periapsis x 71km apoapsis, pitch @ 90deg, assisted with stabilizers, elevons, and RCS. Pitch will drop naturally, but try to keep it as high as possible until vert speed = -5m/s.

I probably can, and honestly this may be more of a 1.0.5 question at this point. In 1.0.5, when you process the report still sticks around. If I have 30 in a pod, and add 5 more, I can only look at (keep, transmit, process, trash) the first 30, and the last 5 are lost until I do something dire to 5 of the original 30. With 1.1, it seems that processing 'destroys' the report itself, so those 5 may come to the end of the queue. My original plan (and still active I suppose) plan is to gather up all the science I possibly can from Kerbin, Mun, Minmus and shoot it off to whatever labs I have and process it all there. That'd be a ton of reports, but if I can't do much with any > 30 then it'll be tough to pull off.

Not sure if you were looking for an answer to this question (if there even was one) but basically you can feed science reports into it and get more science (over a longer period of time) than you would get by just returning the science experiments to Kerbin. It takes a bunch of electricity and 1-2 scientists, but that 10 Science mystery goo report from the launch pad can become a lot more Science if you give it to your science teams. It also gives scientists something to do.

Hey all, quick question. My KSP seems to be having issues with more than 30 Science Reports stored in one module. Is this strange, or is that the limit? I don't seem to be able to scroll past 30 when viewing reports, they're trapped beyond the scroll limit. I can store as many as I want in the capsule, but I can't get at them to process them or transmit or what have you... Thanks!

Alas...if only that were the case. Might be a bug. I might give it a little bit on 1.1. The improvements to overall performance, rovers, and the GUI are extremely alluring, but I'm running a x64 *nix build and it's shaky enough as is. I'll let it equalize a bit (I mean, ffs, I am running a Titan X, i7-5960X and I get wonky performance stuff and crashes) and then I'll jump into it. I figured the Lab system was more like...a Lab or Institution on Earth being able to purchase Moon Rocks for experiments. Instead it seems that those dang scientists get a little overzealous with the drill. Eh-it's fine. Looks like for every lab I set up I'll have to fly 'round the world and pick up science again. Looks like my airplane corps just got useful again Thanks everyone.

Okay-that certainly makes sense from a balancing POV. I guess the terminology in the KSPedia was misleading a bit: I guess it's the report of the processed science? Meaning the science you got from processing, not the report itself. I guess. Either way, thanks! Makes the game more challenging but hey ya know, if I didn't want a challenge I would play something that doesn't involve orbital mechanics and rocket science...

First off, 1.1 is amazing. Running on my Linux box with a great GPU and finally I don't get hitching and silly lag (big space stations are my best friend and worst nightmare). That being said, two questions: 1.) If I bring a piece of science (mystery goo from highlands on the mun...let's just pretend) to any MPL and select Process it in the Lab, what happens to that report in 1.1? In 1.0.5, it would process it, then kick it back out to me for transport to another lab. Does 1.1 do away with that and "destroy" the report when I process it? The game seems to be doing that, but am I missing something? 2.) The amount of data you can store in an MPL is hugely increased in 1.1, but is the rate of science also crazy high now? I thought I was hot excrements when I got my labs running up to 4.5 science/day and now they're at like...20 science/day. Bugs? Features? I'd like to figure this out so I can either jump to 1.1 or stay on 1.0.5 (with my wobbly, laggy main Kerbin station) until they get fixed. THANKS!

Without futzin' with the config file or turning on debug I can't get kethane on the launch pad. It's no big deal-honestly it gives me more time to waste between launches and an opportunity to perfect a (surprisingly stable and good considering my nega degree in Aerospace Engineering) delivery aircraft. Perhaps in the interim I'll fly up to my comm satellite and figure out why it's suddenly spawned 20 copies of itself in a horrifying, Lovecraftian-esque Hydra affair...but yet I can still get coverage and decent reception on my Satellite TV. (And removing any of the 20 copies...seriously it's twenty...causes my entire RemoteTech network to go down. Very mysterious. I suspect the Elder Gods.) Anyway-in an attempt to build the gas stations light I used little spindly legs and underestimated how heavy the drill was and now the three I've deployed have the tendency to lean/fall over when coming out of time compression. Which isn't great. Thanks Horseman!

That cheeses me off to such an extent that-if I were the type to use bad language, I'd be employing it bitterly and repeatedly. So I can't fake fuel tanks using KAS huh. Crumb. Good thing I've only rolled out 3 of my planet-wide "Gas Stations". They could probably do with an upgrade anyway... EDIT: I'm deploying a Kethane network as a test for an extraplanetary one, but also as something to do in between launches (I'm doing a week between each). This way I can bring less fuel in-atmo and more cargo

So I read a couple of posts here that didn't quite answer my question...so I'll ask here. I have a plane that drops off a "Gas Station" (Kethane tank, converter, solar power and a drill...note the lack of LF or OX tanks...) with a control system (probe core) and a KAS winch. Now, I can "dock" the two craft together (once I've landed) and transfer the one common resource they have between them-power-no problem. However, when I go to convert some LF, no dice. So-is that because there's no LF tank on the gas station, and because KAS is being sassy it won't transfer through the winch? do I need to have a LF tank on my gas station, then transfer it over in chunks? I'm trying to make this thing as small as possible...and I thought that because they're "docked" they share tanks and such (btw I've checked, the port I've plugged into on the ship allows crossfeed). Any ideas braintrust? Thank you in advance.

I think you're probably overcomplicating things. I'd only launch 3 satellites, with 120_deg separation. Here's what I'm about to do for the second time. First, you launch. You can directly burn to 2868.75km, or do an apoapsis burn. Depends on where you want your satellites to "sit" (but I don't have much insight there...haven't done an AP burn, just the direct). Next, when you get to your new AP @ 2868.75km, you adjust your orbit so that your orbital period will resonate properly for what you're trying to do. I do four hours orbital period. Then, release your satellite and circularize it. Go back to your "shuttle" vehicle and complete a 4 hour orbit, then when you reach your apoapsis, release and circularize. Another rotation, and lastly another satellite. RCS works well to get perfect Geo-sat maneuvers. I'm not 100% on the math for 90_deg, and I worked on it a bit. (You might try an orbital period of 1:30:00? That seems to work in my pen-and-paper simulations. I'm not sure if that's a proper orbit though.) Sorry if this isn't helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks-Any particular reason for all of 'em to broadcast at Kerbin even if it's not over the KSC? Also-in the same 120_deg formation? That might be a future project, as soon as I get some better probe stuffs. This is a tough mod yo!

I can see there's quite a bit of ire going on in the thread right now, and I figure my question might be exactly what people are mad about...But here goes. I set up a sat network using the DTS-M1's (x2). 3 satellites, 120_deg apart@GeoStationary. And I'm losing signal to them (of course). I think I'm really confused about what the satellites and such do nowadays-RT1 would automatically route the signal shortest route back "home", but it doesn't do that anymore. In order to use my network, do I need to have the two satellites that are 120 and -120 degrees seperated from KSC (i.e. the ones in the shadow) pointed at 1: Active Vessel and 2: KerbStar I (the satellite directly over the KSC)? Then on my "active vessel" going to the mun for example, how many antennae/dishes should I have? Should it/they point straight back at kerbin (so that I just catch any satellite in my cone) or at a specific satellite so that I have to switch over every so often? Where the crap should KerbStar I be pointing? It seems like it needs a LOT of antennae (or at least n-1) so that it can point at II, III, the KSC and the active vessel? I'll try to concatenate my questions: TL;DR: 1.) With my 3 sat@geostationary system, where should each of the three satellites be pointing their 2ea dishes to support a mun mission? 1a.) Are my satellites even set up correctly for what I'm trying to do? 2.) Where should my mun mission be pointing its dish? Sorry-this is just a bit complicated, and I've spent entirely too much time working on harmonic orbits to figure out how to get my satellites 120_deg apart only to have them fry on me...

Do it man! Every cool thing I've ever built started off as the dumbest thing ever. ~*Follow your Dreams*~

Wow dang pretty much. That flies really nicely. I'd love to see your rover design...

Haha just kidding. Your mod and the rest of your wares look very fine my good Ser Devo, but there's just a certain appeal in me building it myself EDIT: Heck-Enter your craft Devo-it'll serve as a advertisement for it if you so desire

I just built the dumbest thing ever. Perhaps trying to duplicate the Cheyenne directly isn't such a great idea. http://imgur.com/n7pU21w Yup those sabres in the back are basically pointed at the ground. EDIT: Oh man and it's only getting dumber...

Hello Challenge Participant! We here at Beyland-Kutani Corporation are in the process of making the Kerbol Star System a better, safer place to live. Our extensive colonization process has given rise to our peacekeeping force-the Kerbal States Colonial Marine Corps. These ladies and gentlemen are obsessed with the safety of our colonies and the investment they represent. As a result, we here at Beyland-Kutani Corporation are insistent they receive the finest hardware the lowest bidder can provide so, Hello lowest bidders! We're farming out the development of a new Dropship platform codenamed "Cheyenne" to you! This rough-and-tumble ship/tactical command vehicle must be capable of several things, so here's the design document: -Single Stage to Orbit -Stable atmospheric flight -Basic orbital flight (i.e. RCS thrusters) -Capable of dropping off the M577 Armored *ehem* Pretty Sturdy Personnel Carrier, and then departing -Capable of docking with a larger "mother ship" in orbit (i.e. docking capabilities) -Hold the M577 PSPC securely in its bay both before dropoff and after pickup -Must be able to return to orbit with the M577. Leave no Kerbal behind! The M577 PSPC must do the following: -Be able to maneuver around the roughest terrain the Kerbol System has to offer without any unintended disintegration or transaxle failure. If it does-game over man! -Be able to survive an encounter with **REDACTED** for at least **REDACTED** or until reinforcements arrive. -Hold at least four kerbals, not including crew (of which there must be at least one) Thank you for participating! At Beyland-Kutani We're Building Better Worlds-won't you help? -- Okay. Real life KSP stuff. Basically I just watched Aliens for no reason and got really hyped over the dropship. It's happening more and more with the sci-fi and me copying it in KSP. My Viper MkII was a disaster Points will be awarded thusly: -Entry into the competition by completing the craft, taking it into orbit, taking photographic proof, and then landing, dropping off your cargo. (I'm assuming there will be no sizable change in mass in the rover/apc so that doesn't enter into it) -10 points for every Kerbal over 4 you can wedge into the rover. Seated comfortably in a chair or a capsule, basically encapsulated. -250 points for a VTOL design -250*(1/n) points if your craft can do the trip n times. Without refueling. (That means ground, orbit > 70km, ground, orbit > 70km. That's 2 times. Don't have to dock) -1000 points for using Ferrams Aerospace and Deadly Reentry. Both or none. This also means that the custom parts you use have to be FAR modified. Special Awards "Hang on, we're in for some chop!": 50 points if your Dropship pilot kerbal is wearing rad aviator sunglasses. "A bit twitchy": 25 points if your Dropship can be piloted entirely from a ground station. Another 25 if you design an android Kerbal. "Nuke it from orbit": 10 points for each individual weapons system on the craft/rover (I don't want to make this a military challenge because I know people don't play like that, but I have to acknowledge it) "Rollercoaster ride to heck": There will be a point prize awarded to everyone based on reentry times (write down the MET you make your deorbit burn, then write down the MET when you land. Quicker is better. Haven't worked this out yet.) "In the pipe, five by five": 250 points for designating a landing zone, -1 for every meter you are away from your target. (Mechjeb or some such might be needed for this one) "Power Loader": 100 points for offloading the vehicle towards the direction of the cockpit (fore) "Mistaken for a man": 250 points. Style. My discretion. "Well that's just great": 100 points. Best fail. Entry into the contest at my discretion. "Cryosleep": 250 points. All stock. (is that even possible holy crap) RULES: -Mods are okay except for one. As long as they're balanced. I reserve the right to deny any mods (please list with your entry) -There's a mod out that gives you the Cheyenne and I think the APC. No dice. Make your own entry people. -No Kerbal Attachment System mod. The winch thing. Nope. -No rigid airships, derigables, zeppelins, whatever. Rocket power baby (that being said, sabre and jet power is fine intra-atmos.) -All of these are based on no refueling. So no kethane/etc. -You can dock or strut in the SPSC, but it needs to be just as stable on the way back up. (I'm going to use quantum struts) Prize! If you win/top 10 entries will get a neato campaign ribbon with the devices of the awards you won. Winner gets a lucrative corporate contract...and something else cool. *looks around* (TBD) Is this the longest challenge text ever? Probably! Have I done this challenge yet? Nope! I'll get back soon with my entry. Good luck!

1.) The side mounted jets seem to do okay, the 3 SABRES have trouble in the respect of their fuel-hoggery. It's better to use less fuel and ride out the atmo as much as I can before switching to rockets. Fuel economy stuffs. I can see if relocating them would help though. 2.) Interesting fact-I realized that I actually HAD updated to a new version of b9. My bad-sorry. Keeping 0.9.5 FAR and going back to R3.1c B9 seems to have fixed the problem (seems to have being the key word there). His changelog is vague as to any changes he's made to the jets or SABRES Isp or what have you...apparently I was wrong to blame all of my problems in life on you. I'll have to keep the flaring thing in mind though. I might be back here sobbing to you when that starts to mess up my stuff Thanks for the great great mod man you're a star!

http://imgur.com/a/Xn4BC#0 And hey-while I have you, if you see any of the dumbest engineering choices ever (like the way those jet engines on the sides might be blocked by the b9 wide body thingey there...idk how KSP treats that) and want to point them out to me that'd be grand. Oh and the wheels on the bottom are placed upon those square b9 intakes. But that's about it. Edit: It's a significant difference in how far the same amount of fuel gets me now. Difference between ~1/4 left at 100x100 and empty at a parabolic 60km rollercoaster ride.

Ferram, if you could take a moment out of your busy schedule creating air particles and other Godlike things to help me for a mo that would be much appreciated. Using B9, MechJeb and FAR (No deadly) my SSTO spaceplane program was going incredibly well. I'd just clocked my biggest guy at carrying 100T to 100km orbit and able to safely return. I was almost done with my production save and ready to move on to a career save. Then I noticed that I had FAR 9.4 installed, so I went to install 9.5. Came back in, and several things were pretty borked. The SABRE engines from the B9 pack would go to infinite thrust, while not actually doing anything. Re installed B9 which fixed it-launched and found that I could only get to about half that launch profile before running out of fuel-while before I had plenty left, even with no cargo. I'm assuming that this is YOUR FAULT (haha just kidding) because I can't see why B9 or Jeb would have anything to do with air intakes or such-especially because I didn't update B9, just went off of an older (current) download I had. My question to you is-has anything changed since 9.4 that would cause more fuel usage or...something? It's really vexing me...this spaceplane was perfect man! Thanks in advance for your help.

Mine too. Turns out wings are pretty crucial to the proper functioning of a spaceplane.

I appreciate that torque will also factor into this, but only if a force is applied a distance from the center of mass (i.e. the lever arm). At least I think. In theory, my program will modify the total Thrust Vector to point through the CoG by only manipulating the gimbal (using the DR hinges) on the SSMEs-the thrust vector of any solids or asparagus stages will be taken into account by the CoT calculation already done by the game and is then included in the total Thrust Vector. I don't know. I'm not super awesome at moment of inertia stuff and free body diagrams (especially when the CoM and the CoT aren't aligned). Darn it Jim, I'm a Computer Scientist-not an Aeronautical Engineer. Endless-what did this plugin that was brought up earlier do? I would like mine to be able to have modes for automatic CoM/CoT compensaton, "Stowed" and manual control. I'd like it to have a graphic depicting CoM, CoT and CoL (mostly for debugging purposes), and I'd like it to not add a lot of lag to the game (my shuttles are insane, and they don't need any help in the lag department). You can PM if you want to. Thanks for your answer!

Yeah, if I code myself into a corner I might hit him up, but this is more a project aimed at keeping me "in shape" during the code offseason. Throw myself into an unknown codebase, using a (previously unused) language, and wa-hey at the end of it I get a nifty little doodad that makes my KSP more enjoyable. Can anyone answer my question? I'm thinking that the thrust vector needs to intersect the CoG right in the center for controlled, straight flight. If that's the case, it should be a simple matter of drawing a triangle from the angle of the engines now, to the center of gravity at (0,0,0) and then to the "ground leg" of this triangle (let's call it the z-axis for ease). Anyone?