[How many plays "for real - with conscience"?]

I try to not cause any Kerbal deaths, and test fly rockets remotely before man rating them.

Just one of the objectives I set myself to give me something to work towards.

[Lagrange Points in KSP]

Why are we still having this conversation? It is on the do not suggest list, and ideas about implementing Lagrange points are a dime a dozen on these forums.

Because this is the general discussion forum not the suggestions forum. If you don't want to have the conversation any more by all means don't.

Anyway, L3, L4 and L5 you can already amoximate in game by parking in the same orbit as the body with the 60 degree phase angle. Likewise it would currently be possible for the devs to put some asteroids at the approximate L4 / L5 points for Jool in an analogue of the Trojan asteroids. They would be on rails so would stay in position.

That just leaves L1 and L2 which is a much smaller pay-off for the effort to implement and looking at it that way, may not be worth the effort.

[[20.2] KW Rocketry 2.4]

MechJeb 2.0.8 can't register Delta V stats on any stage made up of KW parts.

I'm running MechJeb 2.0.8 with KW and it's calculating DV, that might be caused by something else.

[[1.3.0] Kerbal Engineer Redux 1.1.3.0 (2017-05-28)]

Yeah I can confirm the SRB issue. SRB's radially attached don't update DeltaV calculations.

[Lagrange Points in KSP]

Is it not possible to add Langrange points without true multi-body physics?

Yes it is. With true n-body physics you are calculating the gravity of n number of objects, which means their mass, distance and relative position to each other, that's all a bit of a headache. But you don't need to do any of that.

For a start to get working Langrange points that are accurate enough for us you only need 3 bodies, your ship and the 2 bodies with a largest effect on your ship. That could be Kerbin and the Mun, or Kerbin and the Sun, depending on your orbit.

We can make it even easier by ignoring the mass of your ship (tiny compared to the mass of everything else) and the effect of other objects on each other (because planets and moons are on rails and don't change their vector)

So now we only have to calculate the net effect of two other objects on your ship, a much easier problem to solve but still good enough to give you Langrange points. How easy is this to implement in game? A whole lot easier than n-body physics! Easy enough to make it worth while? I can't answer that.

[Interplanetary Transfer]

Kerbal alarm clock is another great tool for planning injection burns. I have more success with it that Protractor but YMMV

[What mods will probably be in the completed game?]

I think it's highly likely we'll get something like the engineering mod. Maybe in a simpler format and automatic for every craft.

For me, being able to see TWR, DeltaV and all the other stats turned around the game from something fun but arcade, into a real space race experience with proper mission planning,

[[PART, 1.0.2] Anatid Robotics / MuMech - MechJeb - Autopilot - Historical thread]

Hello,

Is there any way with MechJeb to show the Pe and Ap of orbits planned with a maneuver node?

Currently I have to trial and error it by adjusting and hovering over the map view.

[Is asparagus the best staging system? (might contain science)]

When I first started playing I wondered why Asparagus wasn't used in real life. I assumed at the time it was due to the complexity of having so many stages and pumping fuel around stages, both these thing could lower reliability to the point where it wasn't worth it in a system where things can and do go wrong.

Now I'm more experienced in the game and have read quite a few books on rocket science and orbital mechanics I think the reason is as follows:

In KSP each part has a drag value, and causes drag regardless of how it is placed in the stack, in fact currently, aerodynamic nose cones actually add to drag not remove it. In real life aerodynamics fat rockets generate a lot more drag and tall thin ones so the benefits of Asparagus is lost with the extra drag (past a point).

A more realistic aerodynamic model is on the Devs to-do list so we may see Asparagus become less useful then.

[Why use Kerbals?]

I always test a design without crew to "man rate" it. But why not carry on like that?

Because Kerbals choose to go to the Mun and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!

[Any value in having SRBs after stage one?]

SRB's are always fueled up so for a military missile they are great, you can launch them straight away. For civilian use they have one big advantage and a lot of drawbacks.

First up, they don't cost very much with is good right? However:

1) They can't be controlled, which means once lit they burn until they run out of fuel. This limits what you can do with them and means they can't be turned off in a emergency or throttled.

2) The fuel and exhaust gas is really toxic, which has an environmental impact. The area around Kennedy Space Center is a nature reserve and is measurably damaged by every launch using SRB. Cars close to the launch site have their paint damaged!

[Part generator Version 2.X release / open beta]

I was thinking last night, have you looked at doing this with engines as well?

You'd need 2 engine models, a atmosphere version with a short bell and a vacuum version with a long engine bell.

Then you'd set the diameter of the engine (the height would automatically set based on a ratio) with the engine power being limited by the size and the ISP being limited by the power and the type, with vacuum engines having a higher vacuum ISP but lower power for a set size. Fuel and Oxidizer use are a factor of power and ISP.

You could take a step further and generate engine clusters, single, twin, row of three, square of four and cross of five. The clusters would use the same stats as above and scale the engine model down and fit it to a mount plate to give the different clusters. So I guess you would gave 10 set engine models (clusters 1 to five, for both Atmos and Vacuum) with the size scaled depending on the diameter of the engine set in the generator.

With both engines and fuel tanks we'd be able to custom design the most efficient booster for any payload!

[Reentry:1968 NASA Misson Planning and Development Project Apollo]

Brilliant find! I've been using Deadly reentry and had worked out a lot of stuff by trial and error. This gives me a much better handle on the situation. Now to install Ferram Aerospace Research so I can play around with generating lift on reentry (will have to make a pod with off center COG).

Does anyone know the Vacuum Pe for Kerbin?

[Part generator Version 2.X release / open beta]

Great mod, very useful for trying to copy real world stuff. I'll play around with some textures and see what I come up with.

[Whats the problem with DLCs?]

Looking at it from the perspective of what Squad have promised (everything free for people buying before the end of April) I think DLC is a great idea.

There are quite a few parts to the game that some players will want and others won't and it makes sense to offer these as DLC. That allows everyone to tailor the game to their requirements and wallets.

I absolutely agree that DLC is a great way to keep money flowing to the devs which means continued game development. The trick is to do a good job of selecting what will be DLC and what will be a free patch.

[Combining KW rocketry and Novapunch]

I love KW, the parts are very polished and 3.75 seems a good place to stop, giving you 3 good sizes of parts and plenty of options. The fairings are brilliant and I can't wait to use them with an improved aerodynamics model.