Space_Coyote

Well as Gene Kerman Would say , Great! Jeb got the Vehicle into orbit .. So now.. How are we going to get it down? If we have jsut the stock craft there's no real way to get it down.. But if someone were to say use the KIS and KAS systems and had a storage container or spadce where to store EVA Tanks for the Kerbal, the Kerbal could actually deorbit it just by getting out and pushing..(Refer to Scott Manley's video on how to Deobit a vehicle with Just EVA fuel.. So there's your answer to geet ti down.. So yeah we got it up and we can get it down.. Just ask Elon Musk.. He did it with a 12 story stage and it worked flawlessly.. But that's how I would do it.. What goes up has to come down.. eventually.. Space_Coyote

This would be easy and in fact I would put the landing zone Would be south of the launch pad.. we could theoretically put it between the Launch pad and the Tracking station.. and in fact there would be one large pad and then four smaller pads.. So yeah we need those now.. Space_Coyote

Hi there, I am wondering if there is a work around for the latest version of Kerbinside as it seems that the textures for the map oicons when yOU install both Active Texture Manager and Kerbinside are instealled together. the Issue it seems is that the Icons are trying to be compressed but It hink the issue here is in fact because a ffolder in Kerbsinide has been changed or modified and thus the older confige they had prior to 1.0.4. ahs in some how changed.. I think this needs to be investigated further.. (Edit: It h think the issue is in the Kerbinsiee and Medouz foulders as one of the lines of Code I see is to a Folder that no longer exists in Kerbinside.. ) Any ideas on how to fix this so the icons show up? Space _Coyote

Well I went back over the code here and looked and I can see why the Black Squares show up agan in this version.. and in fact the issuedoesn't lay within the Konstructs side of the code, but r ather with the Kerbin side.. and I'll show you which line it is.. ACTIVE_TEXTURE_MANAGER_CONFIG { folder = KerbinSide enabled = true OVERRIDES { KerbinSide/Parts/Static/.*Icon.* { compress = false mipmaps = false scale = 1 max_size = 0 make_not_readable = false } } } The issue is with the line KerbinSide/Parts/Static/.*Icon.* I went back over both sides of the issue and it's one line that stands out... I went into the Kerbin side folder to find this particular folder, and there ya go.. No Parts folder means that the call will never happen.. SO the question is.. How do we have a paticular work around for this? Well that's teh problem I can see.. and in fact the issue is that we have to know what to do to fix this as the ATM . Config that was written back in 0.90 no longer works here.. so I guess a New "Kerbinside" configue has to be re-written for this.. or some work around is possible.. So I Hoope that work around or the bit of code I found can correct this problem and the Case of the BLack Squares remains closed.. or gets removed from the Known issues.. Hope that Helps Space_Coyote

Well I would like to inform you, that tis fix is now outdates and here is the reason why.. I was wondering where the icons were when I installed the Active Texture Management and I went though everything and in fact I found the reason as to why this no longer works.. If you look at this part of the code for the ATM configuration, and I'll hilight the part of the code that is causing this issue ACTIVE_TEXTURE_MANAGER_CONFIG { folder = KerbinSide enabled = true OVERRIDES { [B][U]KerbinSide/Parts/Static/.*Icon.*[/U][/B] { compress = false mipmaps = false scale = 1 max_size = 0 make_not_readable = false } } } And here is where the problem lies.. I went into the lates version of the Kerbinside 1.0.4 code and found there is no Parts folder.. ergo since this is no longer in there, that particular line can not nor doesnot work. So I'll put this out for both you and the ATM guys to figure out.. that way the Black Squares of the Icons that should work in Kerbinside will work in future updates.. Hopw this helps solve the problem for the black squares once and for all.. Space_Coyote

Hi there, Space Coyote here, I just recently installed the Kerbinside and Kerbal Konstructs mods in, but when I went to the map view of the planet.. Instead of the icons showing up , instead the thing I got were a lot of black squares anvery few icons.. (Maybe 2 or 3 at best.. is this a graphical issue (even though I run an Radeon ATI 48900 the icons shouldn't take up tht much space.. I mean is ther esomething I am missing here? or is there something I need to do. Any ideas? Space_Coyote

Okay Just updated the Fustek and the GUI size for iS is fine except for one thing.. If you are trying tin put into the storage units an item that can be used to have multiples of (e.g. Lights explosives, and Handholds for example) then these are not being multiplied, (Soyou can only put 1 hand hold into a slot raarther than 20 or 50 or however many.. (Things likee wrenches screwdrivers, and eva tankes are okay. as they are only designed for one inventory slot.) (Just some of the observations I am making.. (Oh and if these have bene fixed, I'll go download and reteest in 1.0.4 as the KIS/KAS system has been updated for such.._ Space_Coyote.

So at this ipoint at least we got that figured out even though I didn't know what i was looking for.. So does this mean I need to do a uninstall/reinstall on thi sone? or should I jsut wait? Space_Coyote

Hi there I'm trying to create a new storage unit part and when I try to use the KIS system with it, the inventory slots on it appear to be too small and it is very hard to drag the necessary supplies into the slot to store it.. also it is the same when trying to pul lthe part out.. Is there some coding I am missing when it comes to this and the KIS? Any advice would help.. Space_Coyote

Hi there, Well I love the new update but since i am using Kerval INventory system, I do have a question for the dev.. and for anyone using the Kerbal Inventory system (KIS) I noticed that when you use this with KIS the inventory slots come out way to small (So mall in fact that the slots are extrelmely small and it's kind of hard to put euqipment into those slots.. I was thinking.. ther' has to be a way and I hae been over at KIS and I am looking for some code that could possibly fix this problem.. I was wondering if anyone else was having the same issue.. Oh and Sumgum if you do know how would i fix such a problem Other than taht Hope lighting for the modeules comes up niext.. Space Coyote.

Well I think the faring Failure theory right now holds a lot of water as if you note the video closely that just before breakup the explositon occurs at the top and not the bottom of the vehicle, which does stuggest that the fairing did come undone somehow more than likely due to the aerodynamic stresses on the craft (if you hear the call out on the video the rocket wa moviong at 1Km per second (or 2237 mph) and that that point was traveling at mach 3 when the failure occured..) again we have to look at the aerodynamic forces here and in fact the interesting thing is that when the rocket goes supersonic you ntice that venting on the port (left0) side of the rocket..(at thi spoint i would say that is where the failure began..) SO the failue occrred, the capsul did a crash into the lox tank and the end result wa the explsoion you see.. So TOo much stress on a newly redesined fairing (I guess it was to make it Lighter) ended up in costing the craft and all equipment on board.. That' the way I see it. Space_Coyote

While i tend ot agree witht eh theory put out ther eYOu need to also take a look at that same picture at the back of hte rocket.. is it me? or does it look like there could have been a "Cascade" Failue of the 9 engine stacck in the First stage (The other part is the ventin gyou see as it is moving upwards.. This helps support the vening lox and failed Faitng coonecting the dragon to the second stage failed completely and thus caused the capsule to crash into the Lox Tank of the 2nd stage.. And yes from what i oculd tell this happend enr the moment of Max Q.. so the fairing failure looks like the more lickly suspect here.. Space_Coyote

F**k it blew up... they're still piecing thi sone together... Well as we say.. "You will not go to space today. " Space_Coyote

This just in from teh European Space Agency.. Seems that the little Cometary lander known as Philae,, has just woken up from it's 7 month slumber. The German Aerospace Center says the lander, resumed communication for more than a minute late Saturday. The ESA says the probe sent about 300 packages of data to Earth via its mother ship Rosetta, which is orbiting the comet. For those who forgot abot this little cometary lander, the vehicle touched down on Comet 67 P back on November 12th of last year, and after just 3 days, the batteries ran out as it waas hitten from the sun and had no way to recharge.. Well it seems that the lander is back online, albeit intermittently .. but the who knows.. if this is a sign of what might happen, well we might see history in the making agian, unless hte batteries run out.. Let's hope for the best.. Space_Soyote

Okay well to put it in terms, Le'ts start off with teh basices, and Excilpse, we'll start off with you reply first. Okay wel in the cae of flyingup to ornbi to down the only planet that is Earth or Calypso Like I ins in fadct Calypso.. after all thi sgives practially al the informaiton short of Eccentriciyt of orbit and a few otherthinsgg, Can a map be used to lay out the plante tna d make it confince/ Of ocurse.. and on Serfact datail it wouldn't ahave tobe super details (at least it' shouldn't as this would be jsut a test to see what kin fo deail we could get..(I was thinking aobut going with Low Details and go from there.(And yes the Cities would be an iseu if we look at the surface, but other tan that, I jsut want a rouch representation of waht th essytem would look like and Landing and Take off owuld be sort of a Vtol or Svtol Idea.. and if we need space ship, I can actually show you some of the schematics like some of our faster non Warp ships But other than taht, it's pretty much straight forward so taht you could take off from Calypso (Planet 4 in this system and rravel around it..) so tat hopefully answers that question.. Now as fo rhte other, I can answer this.. IT would be that you cuold take sometinglike a VSTOL or VOL to take off form planet and fly into space.. andalso reentry effects would be the same. much like waht we have in Kerpa..(As for hte planets most of them as you can see are uninaitable except Planet 4 (The charrt has a good idea of what it sould look like but the orbits i will say this are not to scale and we wk know that the oribt could bee slightly eccentric, or really skewed..(The one taht intyriuges me is the Janus-1/2 planets as the revolve around a central focal point whit the 2 clonces dane around each other.. Other thatn that that's aobut it (Oh and there would be 3 things around planet 4, which is a large asteroid that oculd be flown into and you could park inside the asteroid, (yes an docking bay so youcould enter or leave.. As for Asteroids/ Yes there woul dbe a myrraid of Asteroid s that ould exist but they would nto be as big as one that has a small city and a night club on it.. Other than taht, fele free to get back to me wto see what would be needed from my end, I mean Mps, or anyting else.. So I hop ethat helps Space_Coyote

Howdy Space_Coyote here Well I've been doing some real indepth seach on the Unity game system and especially the space partof it.. (fte rlall I not only play KSP but other games as well and since this related to one oof those other games, well This is more along the lines of the game engine and not KSP itself.. Now i play in another game call ed "Entropia Universe' and i have looked at the game engine it uses and to be honest, I find that the Unity system is a lot better and in fact would be intretnig to see if someoen could design a planetary system that could be used to acutally traveers around the star system map I have..(and yes in ourother game ther are "Warp points or Jump Oints" that allow you to travel between systems.. But it got me to wondering .. Could a system like this star sytem be created in say Unity.? (My guess is that it more than likely would be considering that I've seen the thign syo can do both n unity and the Space 4 UNity modules But any thoughts on this? Space_Coyote

Well here's my thoughts on this, and waht I am going to say might wake everyone up to the fact of this.. so no disrespect to any of the previous posters but well here's my thoughts: First off let's start off with this comment, and tihis one really takes the cakse.. after all it's an agreeement that SPace X is Overrated.. and then I'm going to counter with my own response.. *Rant On* Okay so you don't like SpaceX.. and you think it's overrated.. Well then you don't like CHange.. And if you think they are overrated, then rthe reality is, you Support a governmentsal agency (NASA) and you think their safe? Well hate to burst your bubble but they aren't.. Let's see.. I could post up some videos here and they would bring up harsh memories, but I won't.. Need I remind folks aobut the 1967 Flash Fire of Apollo I, or the 190 event with Apollo 13 (Which amazingly with some innovation, we were able to save 3 lives from bring the first real casualitys in Real life space.. and then after All of that was said and done, Need I remind folks of the 1986 Challenger disaster, or the 2004 Columbia accident. in which another 17 lives were lost.. (Sure SPaceX hasn't sent any real astronauts into space but NASA has and yes this is a NASA project.. and you saw what NASA's own project (Oriion0 has been like.. Cutbacks, cutting corners, and for what? Just to go to Mars in the supposedly next 15 years? Heck I think America has no frther drive to go to space.. Leave that to the russians and the Chinese.. But even their space Track records aren't spotless.. Russia's first death occurrede in 1965 when over 5000 people died in a rocket test that kiled everyone including the head of the Russian Space program.. They've lost astronauts too, 3 aboard Soyuz 11, another one testing out the original Soyuz, They've had near escapes by Astronauts as their rocket's literally exploded on the launch pad and it's the sheer luck that the abort systems did work.. I mean for the russians their track record has been less than stellar as well.. And let's not forget the Chinese... Remember the March Long 3 test? The one that ended up taking out a nearby village/ Howmany died in that failure/ 400 -500? More maybe? (The Chinese aren't going to reveal howmany..After all their agency is tight lipped as it too is government controlled and being censored because of this.. Now let's take a look at how much each agency in the world has done.. and you'll be surprisd why we ar in such financial straits we are today.. The Space Program, Billions if not at least a trillion dollars. (Let's see if were were to adjust for inflation, the end cost of the moonshot backin 1969 would be now about 300 billion instead of the 24 billion it did cost/ The Shuttles? Well with the loss of CHallenger and Columbia the Goveernment lost not only 14 lives but also 4 billion dollars worth of equipment, and the flights into space were curtailed.. In fact All 5 shuttles were supposed to last 100 flights each and instead.. the tiotal number of shots into space totalled only 135 or 136... way way below the expected life time of the 10-20 billion dollarr space truck that turned out to be a white elephant..(Oh and did they have an escape system on teh shuttle/ Tell taht to the Challenger crew.. an see what they think.. Oh and then, let's not forget us the players in Kerbal space program.. How many Kerbals die on any given day? 10, 100 a 1000? You give me an actual figure, and put that against these agencies and 17 in a 50 year life span at nasa is nothing, in fact it's stellar.. .. heck more than 50,000 people die here in the states in Car Crashes.. 17 people ? That's nothing.. And like I said, if you want to see Rank amateurs, we're it.. BUt then do we have the innovtation or drive to put a rocket and send it somewhere there? Of coursse it is, but then if Kerbal money was like Real money, how much have we wasted as we've had to g in and rebuild our ships and redesign them jsut to get into space (I know this is a game, but when you stop and think about this, that 500,000 Kerboleans that it cost to build the FASA Saturn V is the equivalent to 2 or 3 billion actual dollars in the real world.. (So yeah 500 Kerboleans is nothing.. but 3 billion dollars? How is economy doing? Well you tell me.. And to think a lot of this is based solely on decision making.. And then there's innovation.. The modders in this game are much like the SpaceX"s the Virgin Galactics, and the Orirtal Transports of the real world.. Even ESA NASA, the Russian and Chinese and India Space budgets are that way, but the russians had their world topple in 1989, and their economy is now one of the poorest, sure the Americans have the drive to make it to space but at a cost that is draining the coffers of our own treasury that they are helping cause Hyper inflation... And then you got the privatized sector of the space program.. the SpaceX, the Orbital Transport, The Boeings and Lockheeds of the world.. do you think when you launch a rocket in game it's cheap? it's not.. and if the thing blows up on the pad, that a few bucks of yur money comes out ofyour wallet to make the next flight better? The point is, sure it's overrated, sure it's hyped, sure it's innovative.. (And people who hate Innovation usually are the ones who hate space flight.. They're afraid that we just might succeed.. and yess we should be able to feed all of our people back here on the ground.. (but when you walk into a supermarket and see Aisle upon Aisle of food sitting on the shelves rotting, that no one can afford, doesn't it make you wonder.. where is all the money going/ I'll tell you where.. Into the goverment's pockets.. that's where.. The people who cut back the space programs are the ones gettng rich here, they don't carre what happens to us.. As long as they get the money, they're happy, the rest of us, well we're just dirt.. (Overhyped now? Or maybe we're all a bit underhyped.. Tell taht to your Kerbals the next time you have them blow up on the pad *Takes Deep breath in, and lets it out slowly* Now then, sure this is a test for NASA and sure it's to prove that an abort system can work if something goes wrong. but again Need I stress to you the shuttle incidents.. those 14 astronauts didn't need to die.. They didn't need to perish because a governmental agency didn't think of an escape plan incase of failures like Challenger or Columbia.. and when they did, it was paltry at best..(Yes Nasa did coe up with an idea, but you try tryinig to get out of a out of control cumbling capsule and try to jump out in a bulky space suit with a parachute before you capsule hits the water.. (See if any of your Kerbals can make it.. (And now with 1.0, the reentry factor is now real... So in the end, when you look at the entire space program, think about this the next time you put a Kerbal insto space.. if this was the real world, Millions if not billions of Kerbals are dying everyday, in car and plane crashed, in wars, and starvation, in behing homeless and even due to technological failures.. I mean if yo want this game as real as it gets (No offense to Microsofr for the use of their "Flight Simulator Line" ) The point is this.. PEople and Kerbals live every day, they die every day too, and if we had it such that we put the real life events of all these disasters in space into context then it adds up quickly and a lot, the lost science , the lost money, just the loss.. IN closing i have this to say.. Space is dangerous, maybe it's space that is hyped up to much.. Maybe it's the poepole who are afraid of innovation, maybe they don't want us to find new drugs that can help fight off disease.. and possibly find new cures for Cancer.. In short, space is dangerous. and we need working secape systems to be tested, tweaked and tested again.. even if it is our money.. After all if you were to go to Marrs, wouldn't you want to be safe too the next time something goes horribly wrong? That's all I have to say about this.. No need to carry on about it anymore.. afte rall I put this up there for a reason.. to show you how a system could work to save 7 astronauts .. but hey go ahead kills your kerbals, I don't mind.. *Rant Off* Space_Coyote

Well here it is the 6th of May and SpaceX decided today to give us a taste of what would havppen if something went wrong with one of their lauch viehicles and you had a crew on board.. Time to bail out! (Or better yet, let's hit that Red button next to the Altimeter shall we? And it looks like it went pretty well.. (And yeah, Jeb wasn't bothered a bit...) Well time to move on to the next SpaceX Launch.. Maybe in the next one we'll finally get a proper landing with that first stage..(and to think that's what exactly space X is talking about.. Landing a rocket.. back at the pad..) Space Coyote

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and time to Launch you up! The new anthem of space.. Space_Coyote

I think you hit the nail square on the head for this one.. Frankly I doubt giving them a larger target to land on would be an option... unless you want to try and land it on the deck of an aircraft carrier.. but the second part would be more apropiratee.. to be able to land it on "Sea" Conditions would require bigger RCS thrusters to stabilize it a bit more.. But as Musk said after the first test, "We are learning frrom each unsuccessful attempt.." And this so far was the closest to success in just 3 tries here's how the break down goes.. Test 1 Crashed on barge but landed at a 45 degree angle.. Test 2 Had to be aborted due to rough sea contitions.. Test 3; Landed upright but residual motion (Probably again due to the dea moments cause the bird to tip over.. Now as for the landing gear issue, I tend to agree there too.. Maybe they need a wider more stable landing platform in the form of lander legs than what is available now.. but the issue that will have is that the added weight means a bigger redisgner to carry more fuel to get it into the bost phase and then to land it.. (Larger fear menans mroe eight.. ) other than that, this try was o so close from wht the video looks like.. and if tha that motion had been dampened, I bet this would havve been a 100% success.. Instead I put this at about 80 if not 90% success rate. which is better than test 1's failure where it djust got to the pad but crrashed before the motion was dampened.. So I say that's a step in the right direction for Space X.. My Father (God rst his soul) said it best.. "Almost counts in Horseshoes, Handrenades and Nuclear weapons.. I guesswe now can add "Landing rocckets on ships" as another part of this "Almost" logic. Space_Coyote

Yeah, why can't you be more cultural.. like Space X here.. (And hit it!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=94&v=yypBjVpDJZY (Oh and if you look they show you the results of the landing.. (From a distance..)

Well I have a feeling that if they stick the landing on the barge, then this will be a great moment for space.. And I hear this time, the First stage hydrulidcs have 50 % more fluid in it.. so I have a feeling confidence will be high for a landing.. so let's see what happens in about say.. oh, 94 minutes or so.. Space_Coyote.

Now from what i hear the rocket suffered an "Anomaly" and my guess is that one of the engtines on the Aneres First stage actually failed but this caused what I call a "Cascade Failure (what a Cascade Failure is this, ONe engine blows apart, sending shrapnel into the area around the rest of the rocket engines, then another one fails, then another in quick rapid succession like a stack of dominoes. Now what probably happeend was that someone on the gorund noted this and informed the Flight Safety Officer and the Range Safety Officer about this and quickly the decided the only thing lieft to do to prevent this rocket from falling into a dangerous area like a populated area, was to literally send the Destruct or abort signal to the rocket.. (And yes i know and have seen this a couple of times in my lie way back i the 1960's when space flight was ajust getting started.. My family was stationed in Orlando and My father would do security duty at the gate that was in fact Cape Kennedy.. and he had a friend of his who was a Range Safety officer.. From what my father told me the friend had to pull the plug twice on two seperate unmanned flights because of a similar type of event.. Luckily no one was injured.. But on a side note, everyone here remembers why they scrubbed the flight the night previous, right? If not there was a sailboat located down range in the range safety zone that had somehow gotten there.. Now imaigine if this had happened not at the 6 second mark but rather say 60-90 seconds down the line.. tht 143 foot long rocket would have ended up right where that boat probably would ahve been sitting.. I could see the lawsuit if that had happened.. But then stop and think about this.. The courts would have tossed the lawsuit out cause the mariner actually wandered into taht zone and parked himself in harms way.. I bet that guy now is thankful they scrubbed the launch the night before.. or else the worlds, "You sand my sailboat' would ahve been heard.. Oh wait, that's right, the mariner wouldn't be saying that, cause the rocket would have been on his boat.. the hard way.. (Ouch) Oh well thank god the Game has an Abort switch too... at least now when we program it, we'll know what to do.. Space_Coyote

Hi sumghai , I have an idea for a part or maybe a new module here and this infact would only change one thing around the dimentions of the models themselves.. As you know the Karmony III modules has a docking port around the circumference of the cylinder that is 1.25 meters across. Is there anyway to make a variant wher those side porrts can accept a 2.5 meter IACBM unit? I mean right nwo the solution I have is using a unit that adapts a 1.25 meter IACBM to a Sum Dum bulkdhead to a 2.5 meter IACBM. So why not cut out the middle man and lut put a 2.5 meter port there instead of just the 1.25? or how about some sort of connector that is like that.. Think of it as a port adapter.. of course there could be a problem as the docking port would cause the entire circumference of the cylinder to increese.. to a whopping 5 meters in diameter... But at least if we could look into an idea this might actually allow some of us to build a huge station.. Just a thought.. Space_Coyote

Black holes are sucking up the Krakens and the now devastated Earth.