N_Molson

Because Tuesday is Tuesday !

- Life Support (the basics : Power (fans, heaters...), O2/N2, Food, H2O, CO2, Waste, need for a reasonable cabin temperature...) - Atmospheric effects (aka weather, some sort of). Perpetual violent thunderstorms on Eve, dust storms on Duna, some rain/wind/snow on Kerbin etc...

Until very recently, Soyuz flights experienced extended radio blackouts. The last Soyuz modification finally includes a satellite link system, but that's a brand new thing. Blackouts are annoying but are not a huge problem in real life ('nauts have flight plans and procedures ; probes have programs that can run 'alone' most of the time).

The FPS improvement is really impressive on my side. Well done ! Also the KerbNet system seems really great. I especially liked the "complete loss of control for probes" option in the difficulty settings. With even more polishing, that v1.2 is going to be a great one !

Real-life fairings are quite heavy, even though they are made of composites. They simply would tear off under the dynamic loads if they were thinner. As said above, the values in KSP are Kerbal-scaled, so I'd say that 15 tons for a huge streched fairing like yours is ok. That would be like putting a huge fairing atop a Saturn-V in real life. The result would indeed be very heavy.

Hello, I fully understand, really this is something I did only because I badly needed to have that simple info displayed somewhere. I'm thinking to add Inclination too. Period and Inclination are really essential parameters for satellite networks building purposes. The drawback is of course that adding more information goes against the original purpose of the mod, which is to display clearly the bare essentials. Well anyways, my idea was : if someone ever needs this, he'll be able to watch more orbital parameters without the rather heavy Mechjeb or KER, that's all. So I'll add a fork in the GitHub as soon as I get time to do it, then you'll do what you like. As a sidenote I tried to add 1/10 seconds to get even more precision, but miserably failed. I succeeded in displaying them on the format I wanted, like '12.3 s' but the issue seems to be about the refresh rate, which never goes under 1 sec. I tried to play around with the update rate value you set by default at 0.1 s (which should have been ok anyways), but without avail. However I notice that MechJeb & KER don't get under full seconds either, so I guess this is related to current KSP limitations not allowing that kind of precision (floating point errors ?), right ? Just curious as I had a bit of headache about it As another sidenote, the mod runs on my 1.1.3 KSP version, although I don't use FAR.

I played around with the code and managed to add a 'Period' display that displays in min:sec your orbital, erm, period. I needed this to build a satellite network, quite handy. So, if DaMichel is ok and if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share the modified code.

I thought about it, but then the contracts rewards would have to be adjusted accordingly to cover the part cost. And then I'd think that something like x4 would not be exagerated. The idea would be that those items are prototypes, built on-demand by a laboratory rather than an assembly line. Also maybe they should be more "fragile" to reflect the "in-development" status. Like less heat, Q, or impact tolerances.

Just play and have fun ! Definitively not, though it could be refined a bit (there could be some kind of "availability" limitation for experimental parts) its part of the gameplay

Because the ground-based dishes have MOAR power ?

Thanks a lot, makes sense ! Yep, I'm using a "AZERTY" keyboard, and here we learn to use "..." for quotations, while the "QWERTY" standard uses '...' I'll be careful about that. EDIT : replaced all the " by ' in my craft designs, fixed all the problems. Nice !

KSP: 1.1.3 Windows x64 Problem: When AtmosphereAutopilot (Boris-Barboris) is activated, spacecraft can't be recovered, and KSP freezes. The "RECOVER" button does nothing, same for "SPACE CENTER". The toolbars disappear. The simulation continues to run, but there is no other way than Alt-F4 to exit. It is still possible to use F5 or Alt-F5 for saves. Deleting the mod folder reverts the situation to normal. Mods installed: - Chatterer v0.9.90 [26 Jun 2016) - RemoteTech v1.7.1 [02 Jul 2016) - TAC Life Support v0.12.2 [02 Jul 2016) - AtmosphereAutopilot 1.5.5 - ModuleManager.2.6.25.dll Reproduction steps: 1) Launch a craft and activate AtmosphereAutopilot "Master Switch". That's it, KSP gets in a frozen state, and you can't recover the spacecraft or switch to the Space Center. 2) Launch a craft with any kind of crewed pod. EVA a Kerbal. Try to get him back. You get a nice clone. 3) Delete AtmosphereAutopilot mod folder from Gamedata. Resume your "frozen game". Everything is back to normal and the clone is gone. Log: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5brcxNWL4akYzJUY0hEYXNHU1E

Hello, I'm getting an issue with the 1.5.6 "Dropbox Build". While it seems to work nicely on the fly-by-wire & autopilots side, it alas also revives the (in)famous "EVA Clone" bug. It's 100% reproducable, just EVA a Kerbal an board again (landed at Kerbin will do). Deleting the mod folder in "GameData" effectively slays the bug. KSP Version : 1.1.3, x64 Mods used : - Chatterer v0.9.90 [26 Jun 2016) - RemoteTech v1.7.1 [02 Jul 2016) - TAC Life Support v0.12.2 [02 Jul 2016) - ModuleManager.2.6.25.dll

Many Thanks for the update !

If you drive a motorbike, you put a helmet and should wear reinforced clothes. If you fly a spacecraft, you should wear a pressurized flightsuit. About the Soyuz launches, the Sokol IVA suit they wear weights 10-15 kilograms, is pretty much like wearing serious winter clothing, and could probably allow a short EVA, like an emergency crew transfer. In comparison, the Orlan EVA suit weights nearly 120 kilograms and is more like wearing a medieval knight full platemail, but provides all the required shielding and life support systems for more than 8 hours of EVA. I think it would be pretty cool to have different spacesuits for different uses (and different prices/mass) in KSP. As an example, the default one "MaxAbsorb Garment" has an extremely powerful jetpack, that isn't always necessary. They could also provide different levels of protection against collisions or "lithobraking".

I'd say that your directional antenna angle is too narrow. This should solve by itself as your ship gets further away from Kerbin.

"Pointy" doesn't exactly mean "aerodynamic". Early rockets had very "pointy" tips and fairings, not unlikely heavy artillery shells. Advances in understanding of the airflow behaviour at high speeds, stronger and lighter materials, engine throttle control during ascent, all made nowadays rocket look more "round" (in fact, they are somehow pointy and round at the same time, that's the trick ).

The pressure on every square centimeter of a spacecraft at MaxQ is really enormous. If you don't have a "pointy" end, the payload simply disintegrates. And the larger the cross-section, the worse the problem of course. Apollo and Orion have a windshield, its a bit different as a full fairing encapsulates the whole spacecraft and makes the cross-section larger. And the extra dead mass has definitively an impact on performance. Of course, the Launch Escape System itself is anyway heavier.

I like the idea. Put Musk in a capsule and ship the whole to Mars. That will be relief for our ears.

Like anything harmful, there are two parameters to consider : magnitude and exposure in time. If you keep things below a dangerous threshold, its OK. But the point is that you reach that treshold much faster with negative Gs than with positive Gs.

I can only sum up what has been said above : Spherical shape : no lift which means high-G Low Earth Orbit reentry, pure ballistic reentry. Invalid design for a lunar reentry : the crew would endure 15-20 G long enough to be killed. Valid for an uncrewed interplanetary spacecraft (small sample return capsule). Best possible shape in terms of available internal room and living space. Also, a ballistic reentry is easy to predict and doesn't require to master the complex issues of aerodynamics at transsonic speeds. Flown : Vostok, Voskhod (second one is a hasty 2-crew modification of the first one). No controls are required : if the mass is distributed smartly, the capsule will settle itself in the adequate attitude. A fairing is required, as a sphere isn't aerodynamic at all. Vostok fairing had a hole for ejection seat clearance. Voskhod had no Launch Escape System at all (it was too heavy and Khrutchev was in a hurry). Conical shape : generates lift, depending of the angle of the cone and the shape of the heatshield. Lifting body concept : at supersonic speeds, the capsule works as a wing, provided you can control the Angle of Attack (pitch/yaw control by RCS thrusters). That way you can play with the airflow pressure differential between the "below" and the "above" of the body. Flown : Gemini, Apollo. Recent US concepts share a lot of characteristics with Apollo. Mercury is a bit a special case, because it was conical, but did not generate lift or wasn't really designed to. Mercury reentries were ballistic (8-9 G). This approach makes a computer almost necessary to efficiently manage the AoA and the gliding slope. If the capsule isn't controlled, it will stabilize straight in the airflow, which means no lift at all : you get a ballistic reentry. The shape of the capsule limits internal space a lot, so the only way to improve that is to scale up, which makes the diameter larger, which in turns extends the cross-section (which is bad during launch and especially Max-Q). However, you can save mass as you don't need a fairing, only a cover for some parts like the forward docking part if any. It is then quite convenient to strap a needle-shaped Escape Tower atop of it. Headlight-shaped : an interesting tradeoff between spherical and conical. It generates nearly as much lift as a conical design, while providing more internal space, which also allows to reduce the diameter of the spacecraft. Flown : Soyuz (all versions). The issue is that it isn't aerodynamic enough to be put on top of a rocket. So you need a fairing anyways, and that means a more complicated Launch Escape System, especially in the Soyuz modular design case, and extra dead mass. An AoA close from 0° (or 180°, from the crew point of view) means a ballistic reentry. Actually this happened quite a few times on crewed Soyuz flight : if the computer controlling the AoA through the RCS fails, the RCS is instructed to make the capsule spin rapidly (roll channel). It proved to be an extremely efficient way to stabilize the spacecraft straight into the airflow. Well, it probably isn't very funny for the crew, taking high Gs + spinning on itself, but it works !

Alternatively, there is... the Klaw ! Well, it doesn't allow resources transfer, that's a point. That being said, there must be a hundred of mods around allowing it.

It definitively sounds like your entry angle is much too steep. For a munar reentry, I typically tune my Kerbin periapsis to 20,000 meters, for a velocity of 3,200 m/s at entry interface. Also, make sure you are reentering "Eastwards", just like the same way you launch. Else you'll have Kerbin's rotation against you, and it will add to your velocity.

I loved the idea of a hype tram. I mean 112 to 113 is some sort of intra-urban trip.

Make sure that all RT flight computer programs are closed. RT overrides the SAS.