Nerd1000

It seems that in my install Deimos is bugged. The collision model doesn't correspond to the visual surface. My attempt at landing on it resulted in phasing through the ground and subsequently exploding even though my velocity was 2.5 m/s.

PM sent. Edit: BTW, the part is definitely a service module type tank. I checked the RO config.

Whoops, It is 0.0001. must have missed that zero. I've done a little more experimentation, and I think I've found the root problem. The issue is that conduction rates into the LH2 tank are quite high, it's basically trying to cool the entire service module down to 20K. You probably wouldn't notice with a propellant tank due to the everything already being really cold, but the service module is only carrying a few tens of kilos of LH2 to run the fuel cells- the rest of contents are relatively warm storable stuff. When I tried removing the LH2 storage inside the SM and relying on the servicemodule type external tanks, the boiloff rate went from 0.01L/s to 0.17L/s because the starting temperature of the SM was higher. Replacing those servicemodule type tanks with a procedural cryo tank took boiloff rate to less than 0.01L/s (is there any way of making the resource list show more decimal places? It was displaying 0.00), but not low enough to prevent all the LH2 boiling off within 2 days. I think I need more effective insulation for this application. For one boiloff is just too fast and secondly if freezing was modeled my storable fuel and oxidizer would be toxic snow. From what I've read the Apollo SM LH2 tanks were special items with extremely good insulation, so maybe another tank definition explicitly for this sort of role might be a solution.

Yeah, its a Service module type tank. There seems to be a constant drain well above the rate you'd expect, which causes all the fuel to be gone around 9 hrs into the flight. I added another 480L of LH2 in side tanks, which bought me another 9hrs or so (original capacity is 410L). I've not got any radiators on the pod. I had a look at my realtanktypes cfg file- the service module has the same insulation thickness as the Cryogenic tank and also the default tank (!). The insulation conductivity however is much lower and the tank wall is set to be thinner (0.001 rather than 0.0025 for the other two). Maybe I've got a old or messed up config?

How does RF calculate boiloff rate? All the LH2 in my FASA Apollo CSM disappears within hours of launch, leaving the ship without electrical power- seeing as this didn't happen IRL, either the RO configs for the parts are messed up or something odd is going on with the boiloff rate calculation.

having the heat shield on the pod might be the answer. For my Gemini lunar flyby mission I removed almost all of the ablator from the actual Gemini capsule and slapped a lunar rated heat shield on the bottom, which gave me no issues. I've also done ballistic re-entrys from the moon and solar orbit using unmanned craft based on the Agena control core (Deceleration peaks at 8 - 9.5g, but otherwise everything is fine), so it seems like those lunar rated shields are the business. For those curious about the rest of the flyby mission: Gemini and its service module went on top of a Centaur loaded to IIRC 60% capacity. That arrangement was just light enough to get to orbit on a modified Saturn IB (I didn't have the full thrust J-2 unlocked, so I used an LR87-LH2 as the engine on the S-IB stage), and had just enough fuel and life support to do a free-return flyby. I would have preferred to do a proper Apollo, but it was 1973 and I hadn't unlocked advanced capsules or manned lander parts.

I think the ablator is considered insulation, so heat transfer is a function of how much you have left. As far as your re-entrys are concerned, aim for a periapsis of 50km or so and make sure you set the capsule to descent mode. This will offset the CoM of the pod so that it flies at an angle to produce lift. Once you are in atmosphere roll the pod so that your lift vector is pointed up. This will keep you at higher altitude for longer and let you slow down more gently. From a lunar return the Gemini pod (and presumably Apollo as well) actually produces enough lift to fly back up into space again- You can either do a skip trajectory that bounces back up into space and then comes back down, or you can keep an eye on your apoapsis and temporarily revert to a ballistic path by continuously rolling the pod if you start to ascend. On another topic, I have a question about your Apollo build (assuming you're using FASA): Where in the tech tree are the covers for the side of the SM? I can't find them, and it looks really silly with huge gaps in the sides .

Even lasers spread out a little bit. Setting a FOV of zero would be unrealistic.

I have a strange and nasty bug with my RO install. If I timewarp with my execute maneuver node script running the gimballing section of any engine that has previously been activated starts to flicker. Throttling up in this state causes the game to crash with the navball disappearing, the screen turning black, and altitude and velocity displays showing NaN. Has anyone else had symptoms like this? I inspected the log file and oddly the first error that appears is FAR complaining that something to do with its voxelisation process being NaN.

The problem mostly appears when I ask the ship to perform a maneuver node that lies outside of the LOS of my comms system. I could write a script in KOS to steer the ship in a more sane fashion, but I haven't got time for that at the moment .

How does one deal with the way the autopilots waste all your RCS fuel (in my case, often without even succeeding in correctly aiming the ship)? The KOs and Remotetech Autopilots both do the same thing. I'd rather not have to re-invent the wheel by writing functional autopilot logic in KOs.

I've got everything working, but something strange keeps happening: If I light my booster, wait for thrust to reach 100% and then decouple the launch clamps the engine immediately shuts down with the message 'no ignitions left'. This also happens when trying to light an engine and then detach the previous stage, and seems to only affect some of the engines that are available (The Aerobee sustainer is fine, for example). Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

I actually kind of like AJE (though it seems to have issues with remotetech as well). Do you reckon I could fix the problem by adding the required module to the intakes using a ModuleManager patch?

Speaking of interoperability, KSPI extended does not play nice with realism overhaul. KSPI can't find a module in the RO air intakes and spams the debug log with errors, which slows the Space Centre view to 1 frame per second. They seem to work okay in other parts of the game though.

Just to briefly extend on this, I've determined that the problem isn't RO per se. It seems instead that my Realfuels install doesn't like engine configs, be they the RLA stockalike configs or the RO ones. I'll follow your advice and do a clean re-install.

Getting a weird bug. None of my engines will work when RO is installed- they activate and say they are 'nominal' but throttle, fuel flow and thrust all remain at zero regardless of my throttle setting. Exhaust effects are displayed but sounds are not played. The ksp log says something about solver engines not being able to find the actual throttle of the engine. Anyone got an idea as to what might be going on here?

Depends to some degree on the engine. Piston engines will restart after fuel flow is interrupted so long as they still have sufficient RPM and any required electrical systems are still working (e.g. ignition on Otto cycle engines, electronic injectors on more modern Otto cycle engines and common rail Diesels). Jet engines won't: they require manual re-ignition. In the MiG-21bis (which I know about thanks to the excellent DCS module) this is achieved by setting the throttle to the starting position, throwing the 'in air restart' switch to power up the ignitor and putting the plane into a dive so that the engine will windmill up to starting RPM. Once the engine spins up to idle RPM you just turn the ignitor off and you're good to go. In the MiG the ignitor requires an auxilliary oxygen supply which is drawn from a bottle of compressed Oxygen when you're in the air and therefore has a limited number of uses per flight, but I suspect that this little 'feature' is an idiosyncrasy of the Tumunsky R-25 rather than a universal feature of jet engines.

It is possible to fly aerodynamically at over 20km, even at subsonic speeds, with AJE installed (I've not tested, but you may get engine flameouts with stock engines). To pull it off you'll probably end up building something that has a lot in common with the Lockheed U-2: really, really long high aspect ratio wings and a high-ish thrust engine. The only issue is that because this vehicle shares many design traits with the U-2 it will also fly like a U-2, which means that the range of speeds you can fly at at high altitude will be very small- if you go too slow you'll either stall or enter the 'second regime' where drag is greater than thrust and increasing angle of attack will cause you to descend. If you go too fast you'll encounter transonic effects and probably go out of control (the cold air at high altitude has a low speed of sound and your long thin wings will cause you to have a low critical mach number, so transonic effects will be significant at speeds not far above your stall/second regime speed).

Use infernal robotics- attach your fins to hinges and clip them into the ship so that you can hide them inside the ship for launch and extend them later. placement problem solved.

Did you ever figure out what was making those random flameouts happen? I'm finding that any attempt to change the exhaust velocity calculations in the jet engine solver causes the same issue. Edit: I just commented out the entire engine flameout part of the solver and its still happening...

Is the flameout actually meant to happen? Under some conditions (excessive AoA, extended periods of -ive G, inert gas entering the intake etc.) RL engines will flame out, so its probably not unrealistic for that to happen in game. The simplest solution I can think of is a 'restart' button that resets the engine to a condition where it can operate properly again. Edit: On the topic of thrust vs speed, I just did some testing with the F100 engine. Flying at 12km I was able to get my MiG-23 knockoff to super-cruise at mach 2.9, though even with the afterburner off it ran out of fuel after about 300km. I could have gone a little faster, but I was concerned about overheating the engine. SR-71 eat your heart out.

I've had this happen with the stock Swept wings.

Use a smaller engine or deploy airbrakes if your speed gets too high (You can even automate them with a Kerbal OS script). Thrust in AJE is a function of mass flow and exhaust velocity, while mass flow is a function of the engine design, intake area and speed. If the mass flow rate through the engine at idle is high enough to make you accelerate you will go faster and faster until the engine explodes. This is the sort of behavior you might expect from a ramjet, but it is probably unrealistic for a turbojet.

Looks a lot like a Supermarine Swift. Is that what you were going for?

I'm getting a hang on loading the Basic Jet engine. It only happens with this config installed. I'd post an output log, but KSP didn't make one.