khearn

Is there a reason that auto-stage isn't remembered? I don't mean auto-stage during the ascent autopilot, I mean during other maneuvers. If I turn it on or off in the ascent autopilot it will be remembered for the next launch. But when I start my Munar transfer burn, I have to remember every time to go to the utilities window and turn it on. Frankly, I'd prefer to have it on by default, but even if it's not on by default, it ought to be remembered after I've turned it on. But every ship I launch has it turned off. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, so I suspect there may be a reason behind it. If so, I'm curious what it is. And if there isn't a particular reason, could I respectfully request making it be remembered? I've lost track of how many times I've watched a maneuver in map view and seen the orbit suddenly stop changing, said "Huh?", then "oh-...., gotta stage!" and quickly changed to flight view and hit space. Or maybe I'll remember it just after the burn starts and desperately pull out Mechjeb, open up utilities and try to turn on auto-stage before the current stage runs out of fuel. Thanks for this great mod. I find it adds immensely to the game. Keith

I've run into something much like this with a ship with two radially mounted boosters with their engines slightly below the central engine. It acted like one of the booster engines was sticking for a moment, making the ship veered off to one side at launch. Possibly recoverable with stock physics, but I was using FAR and the high angle of attack required to regain vertical flight made this unrecoverable. Launch clamps (once I unlocked them) fixed it.

Wohoo! Can't wait to get home to give it a try. I guess This will pretty much require a new campaign start though. And I was just about to launch my 4 vehicle Duna probe mission. Oh well, I was wishing I had Smart Parts on it anyway, so this gives me a chance to add them. Thanks again for all the work you've put into this. Keith

Could be worse. Could have contained a bobcat.

I think I've figured it out. I just checked, and the DERP propulsion module has a drag of 1.0, compared to typical drag values of 0.1 to 0.3 for most parts (the lifeboat has a drag of 0.3). I think this explains the behavior I have been seeing. Having 5 times the drag of a typical rocket part will definitely cause problems if it's above the center of mass. I'm guessing this is to make sure the combined lifeboat plus propulsion module will re-enter with the lifeboat leading. Any reason the lifeboat can't be 0.2 (like most pods), and the propulsion module something a little more reasonable, like 0.4 or so? Keith

Actually, I was asking PrivateFlip why the mod had that limitation. I could care less about how you attach stuff to your bases. ;-) Admittedly, KAS is probably a better way to do it (I've just started using KAS, so I'm still learning what it can do), but if using a docking port will allow automated resupply runs, it might make sense to do that just for them.

Just out of curiosity, why does the docking have to be in orbit? I've designed land bases with docking ports at standardized heights so I can have a lander/rover with a docking port at the same height. Then I can land and roll over to dock. Any reason your mod couldn't spawn the lander/rover attached to the docking port on a base?

Move your mouse over the node and watch for the center circle to get brighter, then left-drag it. Disclaimer: The above is from memory, I'm at work and can't confirm it, but I think that's right. I know the center circle is what brightens and is what gets dragged.

This was not using FAR. I did some more experimenting last night. With only 2 DERPs, the rocket would stay stable until it started its gravity turn at ~10km, then it would do one flip, then stabilize and continue to orbit. So it seems stable early in the flight, then loses stability as the velocity/altitude increases, then eventually regains it (if it gets that far). With 4 or more DERPS, the instability is bad enough that vertical flight is unmaintainable after 30 seconds or so (with MechJeb limiting speed to terminal velocity), but with only 2 DERPs it can hold on while vertical, but when the angle of attack increases at pushover it can't maintain control. The DERPs were mounted near the nose of the rocket. It kind of seems like the DERPs are making very high drag, which is putting the center of drag in front of the center of gravity. At the start, velocity is low enough that the SAS and engine steering can keep things stable, but after the velocity climbs, the drag increases enough to become dominant and the rocket starts flipping. But if it manages to get high enough so that the atmosphere is thinner, the drag falls to a low enough level that the SAS and engines can again get control. At least that's what it seems like. Decoupling the DERPS also fixes things immediately. BTW, most of my testing is using MechJEB's ascent autopilot, but I've also tried flying it manually and get similar results. Tonight I'll try a couple of things. I'll look in the VAB at where the center of lift is and see if it is unexpectedly high (but I'm not sure if the center of lift is the same as the center of drag). Then I'll also try moving the DERPs to a lower location on the rocket and launching to see if that fixes it. I'll also try more/bigger winglets to see if they can overcome the problem. I'll also post a screenshot of the rocket, but it's a fairly standard design. Top stage is a probe core (I've tried Stayputnik, OKTO, and one other whose name escapes me), an Advanced Inline Stabilizer, a FL-T400 tank with the DERPS mounted near the top, and an LV-909. Then below that is a 1.25m decoupler, then another Advanced Inline Stabilizer, a FL-T400 and a 1.25m quad engine from one of the mods (probably KW or Novapunch - I can't find lists of parts for either of them to get it exactly and I'm at work now), and there are 3 AV-T1 winglets near the bottom of the tank. Then in asparagus fashion around those two central stages I have 3 pairs of liquid boosters with 2xFL-T400 tanks and 1.25m engines. All the bottom engines are able to gimbal and I've tried it with the gimbals both locked and free. With 2 SAS units, 7 gimballing engines, and 3 steerable winglets, this puppy should be able to keep the pointy end upward, and it has no problem without the DERPs. I'll also look into making a video, but since I've never tried making a video, there may be a bit of a learning curve. If anyone can point me at a decent tutorial, it would be appreciated. Without the DERPs it gets to orbit with no problem at all, so I'm pretty sure it's not the rocket design that's the problem. I've launched hundreds with similar designs in the past. I've been playing KSP since version 0.17, so I'm fairly experienced at building rockets that can fly.

I put a dozen DERPs on a ship and tried to launch it, and after 30 seconds or so it became unstable and started pitching/yawing uncontrollably, despite having 2 Advanced Inline Stabilizer SAS modules and 3x AV-R8 winglets.. If I try without the DERPs, it flies just fine. I then removed the lifeboat modules, leaving just the propulsion modules, and had the same result. Then I added action groups to decouple them and tried again. Still unstable after 30 seconds or so, but when I decoupled them, the rocket was able to right itself and fly correctly. Even just 4 of the propulsion modules was enough to destabilize the ship. This was using MechJeb's ascent guidance, and also just using manual control. Whatever I do, it starts out flying fine, but ends up flipping end over end after 30-30 seconds. But as soon as I jettison the DERP propulsion modules, it becomes flyable again. Any clue what is going wrong? None of my other ships have any problems at all like this.

I've been playing with ADIOS for a week or so, and am really enjoying it. But I've run into a few things on the tech tree that don't make sense to me. I realize that the tree is a work in progress, so please think of these as suggestions for possible improvements, and not as complaints. One thing is having to unlock heavy rocket engines before getting small ones. I was trying to design a rover with small engines for Mun & Minmus landings, and couldn't figure out why I didn't have any small rockets, until I finally discovered them after the heavy engines. Goddard was making small engines long before anyone was making big ones. Actually, it would be nice to reorganize the rocket engines more on the basis of efficiency, rather than size. Make the early engines be ones with low ISP, and work up to the better engines as one goes along. Hmmm, having to earn one's way to the heavy boosters also makes sense, though. Maybe base it on both efficiency and size. Start with a small and medium rocket that are both fairly low ISP, then have tech nodes with progressively better engines. Maybe 3 branches for small, medium, and large engines with a few levels on each for increasing efficiency, or something like that. But small rockets should certainly be available early, since that's how rocketry started. Another thing is having to go through pretty much all of the solar panels in order to get to the first Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG). In real life, we've been making RTGs since the 1950s, about the same time as the first practical solar panels were available. Having to wait until one has reached the pinnacle of solar panel tech before starting the most basic nuke tech doesn't really feel right. I think nuclear energy should be a parallel branch to solar. To avoid having people get something futuristic like Nerva too early (yes, I know NASA was working on it in the late 60s, but we still haven't actually flown one), just make it have a much higher science cost. I haven't made it all the way through yet, so I'm still trying to find some parts that I think I should have found already, like the basic PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container. Since it's basically just a tube with some seats installed, I think it ought to show up earlier than the multi-crew command pods. Command pods are much more complex, with controls and instruments and whatnot. Right now if I want to complete a contract for a orbital station (or one on Mun or Minmus) I have to stick multiple command pods on it to get enough crew capacity. That seems like a pretty kludgy way to have to fulfill those contracts. Maybe one branch for passenger modules and one for command pods, with increasing capacity/capability on each branch? Again, please accept the above as constructive suggestions, not as complaints. I think you've made a great start with this mega-meta-mod, and I hope you'll keep working on it to make it better and better. Thanks for all the work you've put into it. Keith

"East takes you out, out takes you west, west takes you in, in takes you east, port and starboard bring you back." - Larry Niven's "The Smoke Ring" I prefer the more generic "prograde takes you out, out takes you retrograde, retrograde takes you in, in takes you prograde, up and down bring you back." If you burn prograde, you'll end up with a larger orbit, which raises your altitude (prograde takes you out). If you burn outward (radial+), you raise your altitude, which puts you in a orbit with a longer period, which moves you backwards relative to where you were (out takes you retrograde). If you burn retrograde, you end up with a lower orbit, which lowers you altitude (retrograde takes you in). If you burn inward (radial-), you lower your altitude, which puts you in a orbit with a shorter period, which moves you forward relative to where you were (in takes you prograde). If you burn up or down (normal or anti-normal), you just change your plane, and half an orbit later you pass back through the same point. (up and down bring you back). It's kinda like a gyroscopic effect. Everything you do actually effects you 90 degrees off from what you'd expect.

There is a stickied thread for this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/85063-How-to-change-Unanswered-to-Answered

I just got a contract to test the PB-ION engine (which I have not yet researched). After accepting the contract, the engine is available in the VAB as expected, but I have no Xenon fuel tanks, nor do they seem to be available soon in the tech tree from where I am. While I suspect that I can probably fulfill the contract by activating the engine with no fuel tank, that seems kinda cheesy. It seems like a contract to test an engine should make sure the player has an appropriate fuel tank, or else make one available in the same way the engine is made available as an experimental item. This isn't an issue with a more typical engine that uses rocket fuel, or even monopropellant, because we have those tanks pretty early. But for parts with unusual fuels like Xenon, it would be nice. In general, I'm enjoying this mod quite a bit. It does add a nice level of challenge. Thanks for all the work you've put into it. Keith EDIT: Hmmm, I recently unlocked Probes (and finished the research), which says it gives me the ascent and landing autopilots and spaceplane guidance or MechJeb, but I'm not seeing those available in the MechJeb menu. I looked in the mechjebconf.cfg file (GameData\ADIOS\Configs) and it says: @PART[mumech_MJ2_AR202] { @MODULE[MechJebCore] { @MechJebLocalSettings { @MechJebModuleAscentGuidance { @unlockTechs = advElectrics } @MechJebModuleLandingGuidance { @unlockTechs = advancedelectrics } @MechJebModuleSpaceplaneGuidance { @unlockTechs = advancedelectrics } [sNIP] That doesn't look like it is in Probes. So at this point I don't know if the Tech Tree is lying to me about these functions being unlocked in probes, or what is going on. Any idea? p.s. Should there really be both advElectrics and advancedelectrics? It looks like you decided to change the name of the node but didn't change it everywhere.

I like how Chutes and Ladders are together.

Installing CKAN on a Mac: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-support/wiki/Installing-CKAN-on-OSX

Yeah, whenever I click on one of the "LINK" links for the other mods, I get a new tab with "about:blank" for the address, and the page is blank (not a big surprise, given the URL). This is using the chrome browser. Right-clicking on the LINK doesn't give me the normal menu with "Open link in new tab", etc. It just gives me the same menu that I ge when clicking anywhere else on the page. The browser doesn't seem to recognize that it's a link. Keith p.s. I second the request for MechJeb compatibility. Or maybe I'm thirding it, whatever.

They just launched. Everything seemed quite nominal. There was mention that the first stage did its re-entry burn and I think they said the had gotten video of it, but they didn't show it on the live webcast. They stayed with the Dragon capsule until it had separated from the second stage and had its solar arrays deployed, then stopped coverage.

If there were random failures I might use it. Things like engines failing/exploding. That's what the LES is meant for in real life. As things are, I'm pretty decent about making rockets that don't fall apart, so I don't really need it.

Bingo! That works. Thank you very much!

I've built a ship with a claw (Infernal Dynamics, not ARM) and I want to try and clear some of the orbiting debris that has accumulated. But the problem I'm having is that debris doesn't show on the map. I can see it in the tracking station if I click on the debris icon, but I need to see it in the map view from by cleaner vessel in order to find it. Is there any way to get debris to display on the map view?

Vladimir Chelomei's UR-700 design would have used a partial asparagus staging method. It would have 6 outer tubes (1st stage) and 3 inner tubes (second stage). All 9 engines would burn from the start, but each outer tube would have fuel and oxidizer tanks for its engine, plus either a fuel or oxidizer tank that would feed into one of the inner three tubes. Three 1st stage tubes had fuel tanks, and three had oxidizer tanks. All six 1st stage tubes would jettison at the same time, leaving the second stage with full tanks. Then stages 3, 4, and 5 were stacked on top of the inner 2nd stage in standard serial staging fashion. We'll never know if it would have worked, though. It was cancelled in favor of the N-1 booster, which we know didn't work (but for entirely different reasons).

You can put your docking ports on adjustable rails from Infernal Robotics so you can move them up and down to get them to align, even if they aren't perfect.

Try sticking on a large SAS module to give decent rotation w/o RCS. Also, your hitchhiker module looks awfully close to the ground. If your landing legs get compressed at all, it looks like it would hit the ground (but it's hard to be sure from the picture). I'd work on getting your resource tanks mounted lower, outside of your fuel tanks. Having them removable looks like it would make everything much more difficult, since you can't attach stuff like solar panels to them. Maybe consider having a solar panel attached to each modular tank so you don't have to have them attached to the lander? To help get the balance right on my ships, I use the RCS Build Aid mod. It's not just for RCS, It will show you if your engine trust is off center, and how bad it is. With it I can make landers with one drill on one side, and position other gear (kethane sensors, RTGs, science stuff, etc) to balance it out. I prefer not to use nukes on any of my landers. But my current designs are meant for Laythe and Duna, not airless bodies. I tend to use the aerospikes for their decent efficiency in and out of atmospheres. But a nuke has a much, much better ISP. We each have to live with our own self-imposed limitations. Finally, consider how much fuel+oxy it takes to lift enough kethane/water to make fuel and oxy. If it takes 2kg of fuel+oxy to lift enough kethane+water to make only 1 kg of fuel+oxy, you're going to have a problem. It looks like Moho probably has the deepest gravity well of all the bodies you plan to land on. Make sure it will work there. I guess with the ISP of the nuke engines, that might not be as much an an issue for you, but be sure and check, before you get stuck in Moho orbit with no fuel.

Try putting multiple nuke engines next to each other. If you don't very carefully rotate them to the correct angles, when the fairing blow off, they knock the engines off. Definitely not 100% visual.