Eric S

I saw Europa Report on demand through Comcast as a "before it's in theaters" feature. It had an expiration date this week, so I'd expect that to mean it will be in theaters soon. Googling around gave me conflicting release dates of June 15 and August 2, with the latter matching up with my prediction. There were a few things that bothered me about the movie, but the science was far more accurate than I'm used to in movies. It was also pretty easy to figure out who died shortly after they revealed that someone had died (not a real spoiler, the reveal that someone died happens in the first 5 minutes, and then the movie starts bouncing around in time).

Basically, you're looking at two issues. The first is the way FAR works. It removes the atmosphere so that the stock aerodynamics doesn't affect the craft, and then computes the aerodynamics as if the atmosphere were still there. This means that MJ can't compute terminal velocity and will merrily take the rocket past terminal velocity and even the speed of sound. Limiting the thrust to about 20-24 m/s is about the only way to deal with that other than manual throttle control. The second issue is that rockets with too much aerodynamic drag (not the right term, can't remember the right one though) ahead of the center of mass tend to want to flip around and try to fly backwards. While you're aiming the craft directly prograde, it doesn't take much to overcome this force, but the farther away from prograde you're pointed, the harder it becomes to overcome it. Most of the reading I've done on FAR says that you shouldn't be more than 5 to 10 degrees off of prograde at any time below 30K. That's not "5-10 degrees is OK," it's more "some craft will flip out at 6 degrees, others can go farther."

I think at least part of the problem KER and MJ have computing the delta-v of jet-based rockets comes from the very limited amount of IntakeAir they start with. I've definitely seen times where MJ was computing the amount of delta-v based on a few seconds of burn time.

The devs have said that they plan on implementing reentry heat that doesn't require heat shields. Given that an LEO deorbit comes in over three times faster than an LKO deorbit does, I'd say that they've got plenty of room for that to happen. Deadly reentry went through a phase where it wasn't at all deadly because they were trying to keep things realistic. Won't happen, at least not because of that. They could balance the prices of engines so that one large engine is more cost effective than several small engines, but without including part failure or limiting fuel lines, even more realistic aerodynamics won't eat away at enough of asparagus staging's advantages to make it less useful than traditional stack staging. The reasons you don't see NASA doing asparagus staging is because it would be too many parts that if they failed would mean the end of the mission. From what I've read on launch problems, turbo pumps, which asparagus staging would have to excess, are the single most likely part to fail. Only human error seems to account for more launch failures, and that only because some launchers are designed to be able to handle a single turbo pump failure. The benefits of asparagus staging would also be reduced in reality because you'd be ditching lighter engines and lighter empty tanks. Asparagus staging in KSP is the natural result of engines with lower TWR, fuel tanks with higher dry mass, and totally reliable very high flow fuel pumps. KSP's aerodynamics actually play a very small role in that.

At this time, it only affects the kerbal's expression. They may have more effect when we can start training the kerbals to do more than go along for the ride. You need to have four or five (not sure which, I've heard both) approved posts before you can do that.

It depends. What I tend to do is cut the time of the maneuver in half, add two seconds (for throttle up time, since it's not instant in most cases), and burn that amount of time before the maneuver node. The idea is you want half of the burn before the mark, and half after it. Splitting it in half is a good enough estimate for most cases. However, if the maneuver is changing a large portion of your velocity, or if you're burning enough fuel that your TWR will change significantly, you might want to shift the timing. It tends to be very accurate, provided that you've run the engine since you last staged/switched to this vehicle and the burn won't significantly alter your TWR (it might even take that into account if the change in TWR is strictly from fuel consumption, I've never checked).

There is a docking camera, but it's a mod, not something in the stock game that you just haven't found yet.

I love the ion engine for more precise positioning of satellites, and I occasionally do ion powered missions just for the fun of it, but MechJeb babysits while I do something else in that case. Yeah, a 0.02 TWR would be excruciating, especially without MechJeb, though I did a trip to Jool and back with a 0.12 TWR. Between the low TWR and the fact the ship had so many parts that the physics engine couldn't run in real time, 45 minute burns were pretty common for that mission.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for a clean craft that looks like something NASA, ESA, etc. would launch. Sometimes I want that repurposed stock feel. Heck, before I heard that the devs don't plan on heat shields when dealing with reentry heat, I wanted the first inflatable heat shield to look like a kid's inflatable wading pool, duct taped to the end of the craft. I get both views, and even appreciate both. The same goes for mods vs stock on functionality. Unless I'm specifically looking at doing something stock, I don't shy away from mods that add balanced parts or new functionality. Which isn't to say that I don't also enjoy doing a stock-only challenge, as sometimes it takes more imagination. TLDR: If you're having fun and not interfering with other people's fun, you're doing it right.

Correct, it would have to be. KSP is rather restrictive on when it will allow the revert option because reverting rewinds time for the entire universe it's set in. If it wasn't restrictive, people could start a mission, switch back to the VAB, launch another mission, switch back to the first craft, revert it, and then the second mission would cease to exist.

You could probably even go so far as make the "Go to tracking Center" option highlight the craft that was the focus in the tracking center, if you went straight from the craft to the tracking center.

I think you're misunderstanding this suggestion. They're not saying don't fire the center engine until the side tanks drop, they're saying don't fire the center engine until the payload stage fuel tank is empty, and with the way the fuel is routed, it will be the first tank to empty.

That's probably the easiest way to do it, but it still has a few issues that I can think of. 1) You have to detect when and where to put the invisible struts. Trivial for people, not so trivial for computers, because if it's not accurate, it can add struts that aren't actually needed, increasing the workload of the physics simulation. Just detecting unconnected nodes that are close together would work for some cases, but I can see cases where it wouldn't (extreme part clipping for example). 2) If any connection in the part graph between the two pieces breaks, the invisible strut will have to break as well.

It would have a greater effect on your apoapsis, but it would affect periapsis. Aerodynamic drag is basically free retrograde thrust, and retrograde thrust mostly lowers the opposite part of the orbit that you're in, but unless you're at the periapsis or apoapsis, also has some effect on the rest of the orbit.

I don't know anyone that didn't get that feeling first time docking that didn't automate the docking :-)

It had rotPower at one time, but didn't have any last time I checked. I haven't tested 2.0.9 yet, but 2.0.8 worked fine for that. Did you install FAR? The way FAR works is by removing the atmosphere then faking the atmospheric effects so that the stock atmospheric effects don't get in the way, I think, so MJ doesn't see an atmosphere, therefore no terminal velocity.

That I can't answer. I've heard it claimed that it's a Unity limitation, but haven't heard of any independent confirmation.

I think msyblade summed it up fairly well. The only time I consistently beat MechJeb in efficiency is when docking. On the other hand, I've picked up a number of efficiency tricks from mechjeb. MechJeb also tends to be more precise than I am, since it's got better and more precise throttle control. Sometimes, however, MechJeb can get anally precise, and spend more time than you care to trying to hit perfection. On the other hand, you do need to understand what MJ is trying to do for those occasions where for whatever reason, MJ is doing it wrong. I'm to the point that I mostly use SmartASS to either execute maneuvers I planned, or to just point certain directions and wing it. I'll let MJ land sometimes, and if the craft is too squirrelly I'll let MJ launch it.

Actually, it's not, at least not by much. The tree structure that KSP uses to connect parts means that each part is connected to one other part (except the first part placed). The thing to keep in mind is that other parts can connect to that part, the limitation isn't symmetrical. As for struts, they actually step outside the normal part tree for the connection at the second end. They're a connection point and a direction, there is no reference to the second part. In fact, if you move or even remove the part that the strut connects to, as long as there's still something for the strut to connect to in that direction, the strut will connect rather than retract.

I'll agree with the "expect to be surprised" sentiment. There's just about nothing in this game that a scientifically minded 15 year old will have a hard time wrapping his head around.

That might work. I've seen this problem come up in rockets where you have two possible paths from an engine to a fuel tank, so if the center engine isn't running until after the payload fuel tank is empty, that could avoid that.

403 Nasa doesn't lose orbiters to lunar impact because the Moon's mountains suddenly became taller.

More realistic aerodynamics will barely bother non-extreme asparagus designs and doesn't make the top three reasons you don't see asparagus designs in real life. Look up one of the threads discussing asparagus design in reality for details.

I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure I was at about 4200m (not certain, was tabbed out looking at something) when I suddenly discovered that the wiki info was out of date :-)

Only you can define what mods are must have for you. For some people, MechJeb is a must have from the start, for others, they pick it up when they get bored of easily automated parts of the mission, some never do use it. Personally, I don't recommend using it until you find something that you just can't do, and then you watch how it does it (the 2.0 version actually creates maneuver nodes for most of the things it does, so you can take a look at what it is doing), or there's something you've done often enough that you're bored of. I don't see a reason to stay away from things like Subassembly Manager, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Kerbal Engineer Redux, Editor Extensions, etc. Kerbal Crew Manifest was a must have until 0.21 in my book, but not so much now. I do recommend you stay away from overly powered parts at least for a while. There are engines out there that take a lot of the challenge out of the game.