Araym

It could be an old bug, already know by Inigma: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/126574 The solution worked at the time was to rotate (in the VAB) the craft; if the belly was alligned east-west, SAS clipped in the fuel tank exploded... if it was alligned north-south, they will not... In my workaround of the same problem, I suspect that is related to this mod that forces surface attackability in parts not programmed to do so, used then to add the SAS units inside the Main Tank. If changing rotation of the Shuttle at launch does not work for you, you could use "my building trick": - load your shuttle in the SPH (has better camera control than the VAB) - move the camere "inside" the main tank - remove ALL the SAS unit inside (take count of how many they are: I didn't erased them, but just set them aside in the SPH, to do so) CTRL+Z is your friend, to undo all your changes, if by chance you select a tank rather a SAS - activate with ALT-F12 the debug menu, and activate on it the option the forces part clipping - at this point, rebuild the same number of original clipped SAS using the now available internal nodes: I added 6-5 SAS units per node*, spreading them in any one inside the Main Tank, to avoid a longer stack attached in one node only (to avoid they could bend out the main tank during launch) *When you have a node available, I used the same one to add 5-6 SAS in the upward direction, and another 5-6 SAS stack in the downward direction. This is to avoid an issue with stock KSP that bends too long stack. If you repeat the same procedure for any node available inside the main tank, enabled with the "part clipping" option, you have plenty of room to hide inside the Main External Tank the same number of SAS units used by Inigma. ... after I did it, I never experienced any explosion again. It the very same tecnique used in my own version of a modded Space Shuttle, that is rated to be launched facing any direction without any issue

Side note: I can finally share my own modded SpaceShuttle, as it finally does not need any "cfg edited" part (my previously edited AIES engines), but got newly, shining, parts from some nice Mk.3 extension packs: check it here! Preview: http://imgur.com/a/MAcK0

I've been always, and always will be, a fan of Inigma's Space Shuttles. BUT, in my game, I always look around to finde some cool looking mods to improve my pleasure to build more real life craft, and also to ease my poor laptop to run a lot of parts during flight scenes (specific good modded part could ease part counts A LOT). Recently, to improve my engineering skills and to stole some "secrets" behind Inigma's Shuttles, I rebuilt a very similar craft, but using some of the newly added parts on my KSP game... It leads to the: STS-K10-C "Olympus" Space Shuttle "Olympus" (in a pre-relaese version beauty shoot on a 300km orbit, showing its fully 42 tons payload capability, deploying Inigma's Fuel Pod VAB pictures of the actual released "Version C" http://imgur.com/a/MAcK0 Craft file: The following craft needs MANDATORY these Mods: -Tweakscale -Adjustable Landing Gears -Mk3 spaceplane Expansion Pack -Mk3 Mini Expansion Pack STS-K10-C Space Shuttle "Olympus" (Updated 23/09/2015) Part Counts: 227 (empty cargo bay) Cargo capacity: 0 to 42 tons Maximum rated cargo: 42 tons to +300km circular orbit Career Cost: 246945 credits (base craft, cargobay empty, ~2/3 main tank fueled, as downloaded: add cargo cost and additional fuel cost if needed) Notes: - Solid Fueled Boosters like the real NASA Space Shuttle. - Electric production provided by Fuel Cells, like the real NASA Space Shuttle. - MechJeb friendly. - Stock aero compatibile (obviously ) - FAR NOT TESTED - Boosters recovery compatible with StageRecovery (rated to ~56% returning cost) - OMS engines are tuned down to improve orbital controls. They are capable to deliver a lot more power than actual setting, but at expense to pitch wildly the Orbiter... feel free to change setting to your liking, but you have been adviced of "bad behaviours" if tuned more toward max thrust power!!! DOWNLOAD CRAFT: KerbalX Payloads subassemblies: FULLY COMPATIBLE with all the Inigma's Space Shuttle payload subassemblies (check them here) *Action Groups* 1- Space Shuttle Main Engines (toggle) 2- Orbital Manouvering System engines (toggle) 3- Cargo Bay (open-close) 4- Forward Cargo Bay Lights (toggle) 5- Rear Cargo Bay Lights (toggle) 6- Cockpit's Ladders (toggle) 7- AirBrakes (toggle) 8- *none* 9- Fuel Cells start 0- Fuel Cells stop B (Brakes)- AirBrakes toggle, Adjustable Landing Gear brakes BackSpace (Abort)- SRBs ShutDown and Decoupling Flight profiles: As Inigma's ones, your mileage could vary depending of your flight profile/capabilities. The flight profile is consistent to Inigma's Space Shuttle, so if you have already flew one of them, there is nothing very different to tell to you. The craft itself is already fueled for empty to medium payloads (upper 3 tanks fully fueled, 4th one half fueled, bottom cap tank empty). It needs to be FULL FUELED if your payload meet the max payload capability (42 tons) If you are flying a cargo half way to 42 tons, you have to add accordingly some more fuel/oxidizer: FIRST to the 4th tank and only AT LAST in the bottom main tank cap. 0 to 15 Tons Cargo Ascent (Default Craft) Fuel Load: Empty bottom external tank, 4th one half fueled (downloaded craft are already set to these values). (Maybe less/none fuel on the 4th tank, if you are flying empty and/or in career mode, to save money ) 1. Turn on SAS. 2. Start SSMEs at FULL thrust. 3. Start SRBs/release Launch Clamps. 4. Somewhat immediately after liftoff, but before 3km begin your roll program, after launch. Throttle down a bit (~75% or even a bit less) by the time you start to see the atmosphere Mach effect. 5. Let the craft pitches by itself to 45 by about 20km, managing the throttle to adjust the inclination, so don't touch your controls too much after roll (else you will cancel out SAS and could dip) but adjust inclination with throttle management if possible. 6. Separate boosters when empty, full SSMEs throttle (if you are still at partial throttle), and (optional) cycle to SRBs to deploy their parachutes and then cycle back to the orbiter. (If using a mod like "Stage Recovery", let the mod recover them for you: sometime the speed of falling booster could rip-off the parachutes, if they are above 250m/s) 7. Pitch to 0 degrees by 50km. 8. Drop tank when empty or at desired apoapsis. 9. Monopropellant OMS to circularize orbit and (later) deorbit. 10. ... Profit! 42 Tons Cargo Ascent: (Carrying the Inigma's STS Fuel Pod subassembly or similary payload) Fuel Load: Fill all tanks 1. Turn on SAS. 2. Start SSMEs at FULL thrust. 3. Start SRBs/release Launch Clamps. 4. Somewhat immediately after liftoff but before 3km begin your roll program, tail facing ocean. 5. Go at full throttle up for the whole flight, no major control on your part is needed as long as you have SAS enabled and leave your controls alone for the most part. The solid boosters should naturally curve your trajectory to 45 degrees by about 18km (help eventually them with a ~95/90% throttle, if you feel to fly too straight up), at which point you can ditch them in a beautiful separation. 6. (Optional) Cycle to falling boosters and deploy chutes separately then cycle back to shuttle (should maintain heading fine). (Like previous said, if running a mod for stage recovery, forgot them ) 7. Pitch to 30 degrees by 40km. 8. Pitch to 10 degrees by 50km and roll belly down then pitch up immediately to 15 degrees. 9. Unlike an empty cargo flight, you will actually raise your periapsis to orbital target altitude while keeping your initial apoapsis marker in the atmosphere (65km or less). Control your pitch (eventually even pitching a bit "down") to accomplish this by focusing on building speed after reaching 50km, not height. Your OMS engine could complete the circularization later. 10. Drop tank when empty or desired apoapsis. 11. Monopropellant OMS to circularize orbit and deorbit. 12. ... Profit! 0 to 42 tons Cargo, Mechjeb users: (no need to worry to change it, as it auto-tune for any payload/fuel loading characteristics ) Fuel Loads: accordingly to cargo, see above. From a guide I wrote on Inigma's Shuttle thread Descent and Landing: This could be tricky, as from KSP 1.*.* we have to counts to lift, drag and such... Pinpoint the KSC could need a bit of practice: I become someway confident to land almost always on the landing strip from a 120km equatorial circular orbit (generally, my "standard" orbit). To accomplice this, I set a ~100m/s retrograde burn someway between 1/3 and half orbit from KSC, to have a 5km altitude periapsis above the "Kamchatka-like" peninsula past the KSC's landmass. Like in this picture and to have my atmosphere entry halfway over the desert before the "Africa-like" continent where the KSC settles (I'm also use MechJeb to give me some data, mostly to tune the atmosphere entry point, as the landing prediction is totally messed as you can see here ) When set the descending orbit, I'll keep an 20°-pitch up attitude for the whole atmospheric flight (manually or, if I found myself lazy, with the MechJeb SmartASS set on "Surf", and pitch up at 20°, with an heading accordingly to my orbital path - generally 90° if equatorial, at least halfway to atmosphere entry and KSC): the Orbiter will slowly descent in the atmsphere with barelly any heating issues. At some point, aroun 40-35km altitude, if staying at 20° pitch up, it start also to gain altitude again, to give you the needed distance to reach the KSC. (Good rule of thumb: the orbital path should meet the ocean slightly less than halfway from KSC and the above mentioned "Kamchatka-like" peninsula). When above the last ocean part, and in sight of the mountain before the KSC, you should be still at +30km altitude: once you see (in the distance) the "tiny dot" that KSC give you, I start to deploy the AIRBRAKES to tune the velocity, to have a pass over the mountain between 25 and 30km altitude still but with a surface velocity at around 800/900 m/s. This is also the point when I aid the loss of velocity starting the "S-turns" to bleed more of it, if still over 1000m/s. If you pass the mountain at over 700m/s and at least at 25km altitude, you almost nailed it: tune your descent velocity pitching down or up, remembering a couple of data: - Orbiter stalls at around 65m/s - Better a slight overshooting approach: from 15km altitude the Orbiter bleed velocity very fast. At 50km distance from KSC, 15-10km altitude, you can also nosedive, with (almost) no concern, to point straight the landing strip: The Orbiter have plenty of autority to flare and bleed velocity (even without Airbrkaes extended) for the final approach: I found myself to nosedive at 250-300 m/s almost above the KSC, then landing safely at 90 m/s with just a bit of nose-up altitude. - In the staging list, there is a "drogue chute" mostly for "cosmetic effect" after landing (like the real Space Shuttle) but ALSO there is a "safety parachute" right after it: if you find yourself in danger, USE the last parachute to land like any "not gliding" capsule. The Orbiter could sustain a ground hit on the SSMEs (maybe you will lost them and the tail) but if you have also deployed the landing gear and set the brakes on, you mostly save the whole rest of the craft, if you can settle it on the wheels. Even if an hard hit could happen (in the sea or with a very higher velocity) the Cockpit is rated to save any Kerbonauts in it (NO guarantee for passengers sitting on module on the cargobay) You can also look in this album, showing a "standard approach" with a lot of Mechejeb infos and hint of the right descending/landing procedure, from a previous "Olympus" version (STS-K10-A) but almost identical from what I'm doing with the -C version. It's a bit different as I was aiming the Island Airfield, rather the KSC, but you can see how it can land safely and from what altitude: http://imgur.com/a/JlKxv

Space Shuttle STS-1 Mission: STS-K10 Olympus unmanned flight test It's been a while for a real mission involving something that could be count as a "replica" like the previous done MIR... ... this time I returned to a guest already shown on the MIR section: the Space Shuttle. KSP 1.0.4 make things different, but also some new, shining, things to be added on my own version of the game: the best ones are some parts from Mk2 Expansion Pack and (WIP) Mk3 Expansion Pack by SuicidalInsanity. That leads to my new "Olympus" Space Shuttle, tested here to prove its maximum payload capability: the old, same, 42t fuel pod payload as Inigma's STS-7 Shuttles. Rather than the old K-series SpaceShuttles (and even if sporting almost the same part arrangements), the K-10 version is the FIRST totally built from scratches, to overcome some "exploding heating issues" shown from adapting any Inigma's designs. It also served to me to refine some engineering capabilities for future plans to develope new space vehicles. http://imgur.com/a/JlKxv STS-1 Mission: 42t pod released in space on a 300km circular orbit

Mk.3 Expansion pack has some new parts!!! So I definitely changed (AGAIN!) the OMS mounts, to the newly added parts to fullfill the role: now Olympus is truly looking like a NASA Space Shuttle! I'm happy like a kid on Chrismast morning for the result! http://imgur.com/a/g8Tmo Also, I did (again) a "Max Load Test", confirming the 42t payload capability: flown with Mechjeb to confirm data and be "consistent" with flights previous done by the v.1... http://imgur.com/a/JlKxv ... totally confirming its flying capabilities.

It's been a while to my last post here (even if I left behind me an ispiration for Scathalh's spin-off shuttle)... ... so I should show what, in my Modded KSP, I developed. More iterations of the "K-series" were tried to adapt them to 1.0.4, but noones felt right, to me. Then, in this days, I went for a total, different, approach: up to K-7, I limited my enginering skills to "modify" Inigma's shuttles, but I was lacking to adapt them in the new aero enviroment... ... now I started it from scratches, to overcome some bugs (mostly due to porting parts from subassemblies, leading to random poking struts going impredictables, or to get rid of the "desctructive thermal behaviour" of SAS units inside the Main Tank - Hints to Inigma: forcing surface attack with EEX are the cause: I went with the KSP debug/cheat option from ALT-F12 menu to place small stacks of SAS - to avoid bending issues - in the inner nodes, after building the main tank, and I have no more problems...), to put in a better use my modded KSP. Tha leads to my new STS-K10 Olympus shuttle! Notable features: - better wing profile, closer to the NASA's Shuttle, with the frontal Big Wing Strakes upscaled a bit (120%) with TweakScale - newly engineered OMS pod mounts - new rear RCS mounts - same (old) 2x AIES Galaxy VR-2 engines, converted to monoprop, to take the OMS engines role - new Upper and Bottom ends for the Main Tank (from SuicidalInsanity's Mk.3 Expansion pack) - a couple of Airbrakes near the tail (I got rid to the 2x clipped tail, to use the doubled ailerons like brakes: it leads generally to flying imbalances: this is the only differences to the most closer looking Shuttle i build) - stolen from Inigma's STS-7E, the external rocket boosters cases made from liquid fuel tanks... but inside I built my own stacks in "my way" http://imgur.com/a/DThlc In the empty and 42t configurations, it flies like a charm... I still have to check the reentry tonnage capabilities (and eventually, any imbalance to put masses locked to payload cargobay frontal or back node) but I'm positive on it... (Some parts looks "not so good" 'cuz I'm running KSP in a very poor laptop, and generally I tweak graphics and - if possible - the bigger textures to lower my RAM usages. For example, here, the mk.3 parts have very smaller textures than the originals I downloaded) --- Edit --- Testing with the SpaceHab, as always my shuttles, it plunges on the ground pretty hard on final landing approach. Reverting to use a couple of little wing/control surfaces moved inside the cockpit made it work: now it flies like a charm *_* It gets now the "Approved" sign by my Space Agency.

... it's better "50 shades of GREEN", probably

If i got the problem (half way to space your rocket spins wildly, and it starts to plunge back to kerbin), my 2 cents: even if "stock aero" is plenty forgiving, some rocket configurations eat too fast their fuel. If your lower stages become too light, and upper stages/payload is too heavy, it is inevitable. How to avoid it: obviously, more "control autorithy" (more SAS/RCS) to take your rocket in trajectory could be useful, but looking to the stats you are displaying thru KER, I could see a common problem to a lot of rocket: TOO MUCH TWR. Your first two stages goes from 2.00 upwards: this means that they eat A LOT of fuel much faster than it will be needed, imbalancing your stacks. In VAB, reduce your engine by limiting their thrust (right click on them, then slide down their limiter) to stay at a good 1.2 TWR, for low atmospheric stages, and even to 0.9/1.0 for stages meant to operate in higher atmosphere (leave at full power the lander engine, at least in the 4/5 TWR range for the moon surface: even if you are going to land in a very low gravity moon like minmus, an extra kick could help you to slow down fast and good). Returning to te Kerbin ascent problem: 1.2 TWR for atmo stages means for you (and also for mechjeb) more time to use the first stages fuel, less dV losses for drag (if you are using mechjeb ascent autopilot, set the max Q dinamical pressure between 20k and 30k psa - I stay lower for bigger rockets, higher for already light ones) so they stay longer in an heavy-bottom configuration in the ticker part of Kerbin atmosphere, meaning that they can ascent in a more, quietly way. If instead you are flying manually, the lower TWR allow you to better manage power (take a look on KER stats during flights, and lower throttle during ascent to stay oat max 30m/s accelleration). You should then arrive in orbit without problem (obviously, if you do not point to low your rocket, tipping upside down because you make a too inclined gravity turn )

FANTASTIC-ELASTIC! lol Nice one! + rep

Poor Dilsby: he is having a nightmare about the next comic? "Eve Order Zero 2 - The Wrath of Bob"??? Kuzzter: you are more and more amusing in every panel you release

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134239 Support requested in the right forum section, plus added s little experiment made by me to check the problem. Indeed related to Asteroid Day mod.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124383-Rescued-kerbals-are-all-female Noticed this post, aside from the SAME behaviour in my game: with Asteroid Day in my game, any rescue mission is ONLY populated by female kerbalnauts. Made some tests: accepted a MALE rescue mission without Asteroid Mission in the game. Made the randevouz, popped out from the "anomaly-map listed" capsule a male kerbal... reverted... Added "Asteroid Day", made randevouz, same name for the kerbal, but NOW turned female... reverted... Removed "Asteroid Day", made rendevouz, same name, again male kerbal, but now left it out in space near my craft (from an "anomaly" now he is listed as "kerbal in space", for the game, in my persistence file). Back to KSC, game closed, added again "Asteroid Day", restarted the game: the SAME kerbal is MALE, rescued and landed. Mission accomplished... ... but from now onward, "only female in rescue contracts" behaviour started again. The single parts added are not really affected: if this behaviour could be disturbig (to have "free astronauts" in the roster of both gender) is possible to just remove the .dll (Obviously, asteroid mapping in space will not work... the new telescope turn out as a simple "science experiment", without the added feature), eventually to save the cool new probe part or antenna, or if they already used in any important craft on mission... ... but it is a real shame loose the feature: any possibility by squad to a "fix"??? (Like "Asteroid Day v.1.2"?? )

UPDATE: ... as guessed here, thanks to other hits, I could point the problem almost surelly to "Asteroid Day". Removed, and male rescue contracts started again... ... back in the list, and even those MALE stranded kerbals already in an accepted mission (but NOT already rescued) become FEMALE at once. I see a correlation!

Various Mods installed and I'm also experiencing ONLY FEMALE rescue contracts. The most strange situation occurred in a past save, with a MALE kerbal stranded on Mun, that TURNED female between different playing sessions. Then, ANY other one is directly ONLY female. ... Asteroid Day involved? Aside from various mods already used by me, and updated, it is my latest addition...

Hyperedit is a mod that allow you to put directly in orbit any craft you like: useful, eventually, for "testing purpose" (Esample: you wanna test an Eve/Tylo lander, to check if it can take off to orbit again) but, obviously, not good for challenges, when you HAVE to launch your things in orbit

Learn here in the forum a bit about science and career funds/contracts development. Start an easy-mode career, to get accustomed to the changes by using initially few parts, in the different enviroment (now Kerbin has a sort of proper atmosphere, so flying in it is different) and practice with basic of rocketry by fullfilling the starting contracts: it could help you to focus on playing, rather to build enormous craft with the whole lot of new parts you could find in the simple sandbox... ... once you get back the grasp on the game, then play as you feel, with newer saves. For me, career-mode is the challenge worth of the real trying: managing funds, upgrade my KSC, research an BUY the new researched parts (I added the fund spending option, beside science point spending, to unlock new parts), but just because I'm playing constantly from version to version, and i wanna a challenge... ... but in between, my sandbox mode is where I build the "absurde-humongus things" without bothering (For example, my last 0.90 sandbox MIR in my sig... or actually more spaceplanes than before, cuz I like buzzing around with replicas*like planes, more than rockets). The science-mode is a mild way: no money to worry, but still science gathering around to unlock nodes in the tech-tree. Maybe the right initial playground for you should be there (once you gather science, no funds costrains and no contracts let you to gather more science fast as you like, going faster to be a sandbox mode with science points/tracking of achieved explorations)

Dear Beale, I found probably a BIG issue on your releases (both Tantares v.29.1 and TantaresLV v.13): ALL (or almost, as I checked) your engines are MISSING the thermal definitions they need to NOT be sort of "thermal time bombs" for ALL the crafts using them. I noticed doing a "Gemini"-alike mission: when I staged from the rocket's 2nd stage (mostly, if not totally) build with stock parts, as soon the Spica engine started to burn, all the other parts had a BIG thermal spike. I added manually the missing lines to all the parts with an engine, using Squad parts as reference: something like that for liquid fueled engines (I used it for your Castor LARJ Thruster too) : skinInternalConductionMult = 4.0 emissiveConstant = 0.8 this, for solid fueled boosters, LES and sepatron: skinInternalConductionMult = 4.0 emissiveConstant = 0.5 and also, for your C200 "Eva" Nuclear-Thermal Rocket Motor skinInternalConductionMult = 4.0 <--- this line missing emissiveConstant = 0.83 <--- this line, a little different from Squad Nerva (0.85), is already in your cfg file (Mi stavi facendo cuocere due turisti spaziali )

I always felt a bit of lacking in "atmosphere breathing jet engines", in KSP, as a gap from the "basic jet", great for low altitude-low speed cruising, and the "turbo jet", very good for ji-speed/hi altitude jets and for spaceplanes. Also, sometime, designing just some sort of military jet planes, I didn't felt the necessity of such a "Turbojet" hi-altitude/ludicrous speed engine, when my needs were for a 2-2.5 mach engine at medium altitude to recreate some fighters. Also, I liked more the "truncated cone" model of the "basic jet", to fit in some of my "atmosphere fighter's designs"... So, I went for numerous "tests" to refining my needs for a "gap-filling" engine specs: I'm lacking actually to the possibility to model "new engines", so as placeholder I used the Squad's ones. I'm proud to present you, then, my new engines: - J-33-AB "Wheesley" Combat Jet Engine: ... a two-stage, air breathing engine: "cruise mode" allow you to fly like a little more powerfull "basic jet engine", best suited to have low fuel consumption rate. Then, "Afterburning mode" is great to have the needed "boost" as a "combat jet engine", to fly at medium-hi altitude on the 2/2.5 mach (stock atmosphere) at around 12km, degrading in speed if pushed higher (... it can allow 18-20km flying range, and maybe something higher, but it generally does not push you at the edge of space). *Bonus* - J-X4-AB "Whiplash" Combat Turbo Ramjet Engine: Developed the mid-altitude J-33-AB, Linus Kerman passed a lot of time overnight to design a new powerplant for an upcoming project for the Araym's Kerbal Administration of Space Adventures: my own version of the KR-71 (spy)recon plane. Maybe this one is a bit a "push" to the cheat, but I added some of the research put on the previous engine in the same "turbo jet"... so do not blame me for it, but my own Linus! J-X4-AB is a two stage engine too: "cruise mode" allow to spool speed at mid altitude, with a good fuel consumption rate, then the "Afterburner mode" push it even further, in the Ramjet category for hi-altitude/hi speed. !!!Pay attention!!! Based on testsâ„¢(1), things may be going VERY HOT in "Afterburner Mode". (1)Note: ... a lot of explosions, more or less kerbal style, pushing things to overheat... *Bonus 2* Added a tweakscale cfg file for anyone that would like it. Needed, obviously, "TWEAKSCALE" and "ModuleManager" to work properly. Pics??? They look as the stock jet engine, they use the stock Squad's models, they are just edited cfg with NO added weight on your RAM. Maybe a day they will be replaced by proper models, but here are just to share their performances... Do you need photo of them??? DOWNLOAD: AfterburningJetEngines-1.0.4-0.1.0 Known bugs(features???): - using the "Afterburner mode", in both engines, the "alternator module" producing electricity is NOT working. It was not intended (I didn't figure hopw let the "alternator" to produce electricity on both modes), but also, during development, pretty accepted by me as a "downside" of added features: Afterburning is not meant for "sustained", as (maybe) the higher performance required to shut-down unneeded power drains by the alternator itself If using them on an unmanned-drone plane, add proper electircity generator, or shut-off the Afterburner to regenerate your batteries.

Kuzzter : You are a... a... a teaser! It's saturday (for me), you left us with such a "potential disaster" in act. I hope you'll use some week-end free time to AT LEAST GIVE US MORE of your comic panels!!!!!!!! ... I NEED them, now I saw a potential tragedy (again) in act... <addicted> PLLLLLIIIIIIIZZZZZZZ! Side node to your KSP's mission planning crew and engineering team: spaceplane's operations need a BIG review!!! LOL LOL

LOL I read first this comment, then I saw the chapter 3 ending. Tedus is my new hero!

Around there there are plenty of mods that add features like to the electrinc needs of any spaceship/bases... But almost of them, thru plugins, add a pletora of new resources (Uranium... depleted uranium... bla bla bla) and features to simulate the heat production of fission reactor. My idea is a bit different: trying to NOT resort to any plugin, I thought about a sort of reactor that use the RAW Ore as a "fission fuel" (or sort of it: I'm not interested to consider it like a "real nuclear fuel" with its drawback), but, obviously, I wanna the "part" in development to have some HIGH drawbacks, mostly as an HIGH working temperature when active. I'm pretty new to part development, and actually I have not a model for a reactor (I'm using various 2.5m Tanks as development part, as they fill my idea of dimensions), focusing mostly to define the cfg definition to obtain the needed functions. The part (In my ideas) should work as: 1- an activable part, that produce electricity thru conversion of ORE (like a fuelcell that use liquid fuel/oxidizer) - BONUS 2- it should have an hi mass (not very practical to be the MAIN electricity generator, to let RTGs and solar panels as the BEST option to small-medium size crafts) - MALUS 3- MAIN POINT: on activation, it should produce A LOT of heat, to add the drawback to work together with STOCK heat dissipator (I thought about the "exploding nuclear device", if not cooled properly) - BIG MALUS ... I know the basic of cfg creation, but, from 1.0 onward, I do not really get how to manage the "thermal caracteristics" added in the game: I look at the fuelcell as "generator", I modified it to work as an ORE-using reactor, BUT I do not know if, with proper thermal caracteristic, or added line in the generator module, can transform a part as a "heat production part", capable to overheat (and explode) if not properly cooled. (I really never get how the new thermal caracteristics work PRACTICALLY, differently as many of older part modules) As side development, I thought also to use a sort of "Engine Module" that DOES NOT produce an actual thrust (mostly coping then the nuclear engine module, giving to the part MORE electricity production, and using the LV-N as HEAT-PRODUCER part, in comparison), but I do not like this more strange idea Any ideas/hints to help me from any proper modder out there??? Is it actually possible on a STOCK KSP, without using a plugin, to create a HEAT PRODUCING PART on activation??? Thanks in advance for any help

Classy: ... nothing is better than a truly masterpiece

As said from someone: my first videogame was PONG! ... from a child of the '70, I saw them ALL (thanks for a GrandMother that owned a bar, so I could play for free from the very beginning of "videogames age" )

Pliz Pliz Pliz: I need them, both the window and the igla for my Tantares! In any state they are already, pliz give me a download! (See my sig to understand why I could need them, when I'll revamp my MIR program)