Gargamel

This has probably already been made, or at least discussed, but searching for it is kinda painful, so I'll ask again. I'm looking for a mod that will autu-dock a flying aircraft with another. Ie, air to air refueling. I'm thinking to use KAS to hang a docking port jr from a large tanker, and have smaller craft fly upto it and dock. My flying skills are not good enough to do so manually, I was wondering if there is anything out there that will do this. I already use BDarmory and PilotAssisant.

I believe, and it's been a few weeks since I launched anything, they do peel off even unopened. I do use the DP-10 (that's the sideways stick in a block right?), but it stays on the stage that brings me to a circular orbit, so I ditch it once I stage. It helps keep the part count down. But the more I think about it, maybe they don't, but yes I do use the Dp-10 for launch and orbit, then open the bigger ones. I did make a version of the DP-10 that has more range, but is offset with more mass and power consumption. I use that for unmannded landers and rovers where the comm sats are too high up for the regular one and I need constant communication during reentry. But there are things, not just antenna, that break off in the air, so sometimes fairings are required.

As @MalevolentNinja just pointed out, sometimes the mass of the fairings outweigh any aero savings you may get. But as a user of remotetech, most of my ships have antenna that cannot survive an exposed launch, so fairings are a must. I've also found a use for fairings when I have a large/long unstable payload. If I mount a few Quantum Struts on the payload facing the fairing, that helps steady it during launch. So it basically boils down to a per scenario answer. Does the payload require protection from aero forces? Does the payload have enough drag that the mass of fairings will result in a positive dv difference? This can also be offset by launch speed. A fast launch will (I assume) incur more aero drag dv loss, while a slow launch (through the thicker atmo), will reduce it. As each ship we launch is different in many aspects, it's very very difficult to say yes or no to this question.

If you're not opposed to using a couple mods, then I would start with Throttle Controlled Avionics. It's a mod specifically designed to adjust and balance thrust over multiple VTOL engines. The MK2 expansion pack and MRS engine packs have a few nice VTOL engines to play with. But for a "stock" build, I have made a functional VTOL craft using inverted mk2 cargo bays to hold engines, and used TCA to balance them. For a non stock build, using the above mods (and a couple other stock alike parts packs), I have a nice VTOL fighter system, plus an 18 engine VTOL "mother ship" designed to fly to a forward airbase, and setup refueling operations using KAS. It might soon have Air to air refueling too. At the very least, look at TCA, it'll help.

While this does infringe on Squads Copyright (although, you're in India, and I'm not totally clear on how the laws apply then), vistaprint is usually a one off service, not a store front like.... ummm..... I forget the name of the custom tshirt store front Cafepress. I can't imagine they'd be upset with this amount of free advertising, and well made too.

If you think about it, it's really not 4th wall material. Some "basic" physics math would reveal the mass of the body, and therefore it's gravity. You could then calculate the distance from the body before it's gravity has less effect than another body's gravity. That'd be the SOI as kerbal's don't use n-body math. Obviously we know the "SOI" for the planets of our system, or else the Apollo program would have been a crap shoot for landing and return.

The attitude adjustment changes overall/max speed I believe, that's at least I how see it and use it. It may help alleviate some of the problem as it should limit the excess thrusters to cap the max force applied. Maybe. Read hthe mechjeb wikis and play with the settings. I know it can do what you're asking.

Under attitude adjustment, you can tweak the amount of RCS burned. I'm not completely familiar with all the settings (lots of scary numbers lol), but there's a big % bar you can adjust for the amount of thrust used. For bigger ships, I raise the value to make them spin faster. Setting this to a lower setting might help your problem. There are a bunch of other RCS controls that I've played with over time to tweak ships that don't fly right. Also, another beautiful thing I found is the "show COM" button under attitude adjustment. Puts a red dot where your COM is, and When I build planes, I'll mark (usually with an inline antenna) where my center of lift is, and adjust my COM to stay in the appropriate spot. And if you can manually dock the ship, then you know you can do it. I'd just let MJ take control and dock it for you, save the hassle.

AS Glaran said, wrong forum. But..... What are you trying to do? There are multiple modules in MJ that require targets, not all work identical.

Another approach I use, I burn all my fuel retorgrade to start my reentry, usually about 1k dv. This drops me down to a managable speed that won't overheat. I'm going to have to try the higher AOA's approach too.

There is this thing called the internet.... it spans the entire planet... so what is night for you is day for another. That said, it is late, but I work 2nd and 3rd shift, so it feels like mid evening for me.

I for one would like to thank to @SirCmpwn for his thankless work in providing us a place unique to KSP to store and obtain mods. I guess that makes it not thankless, but too little too late. I for one would not be upset with a few ads on that page to see it stay running. I have no qualms against @SQUAD for what happened, it wasn't their doing. I read what @Jadedcat wrote, and I understand their position. Maybe curse can learn from this, see how a dedicated modding community was not happy with their product, and make changes (albeit minor) to accommodate those desires. But they don't have to. They have a business to run, as does Squad. But again, many thanks to @SirCmpwn, we're sad to see you go.

Huh... well this explains why test SSTO's were barely making orbit while the service versions with docking ports were doing fine. Good to know.

As to the fuel flow comment, theres a mod called ship manifest, it's techincally outdated, but works fine in 1.05. It allows you to set certain tanks to flow in, out, balanced, etc. I usually build a rocket with 2 or more tanks in the initial stage, and then have the fuel flow from the bottom to the top, keeping my COM above my COD.

Huh.... Thought it was just me.

I seem to remember a Manley video a while back that did the same thing, I think in honor of the NASA (ESA?) probe that landed on the asteroid that wasn't supposed to.

How true that was. I remember that feeling.

Just had a great one. Was landing a new space plane, had overshot the KSC, so I was coming in from the Esat. Fudged the landing, landed short of the runway embankment, stuffed the cockpit into the embankment, it exploded, but the rest of the plane bounced over, and landed perfectly on the runway. It ran the full length of the runway, then detonated when it hit the light at the end. My wreckage lands better than I do. Even got a screen cap.

That is waaay too long for the OP to read.

I believe it's in the settings too without having to edit a file. I'd be happy just to get one second per second, even if it's at a low (10-12) fps.

We're not there yet! It may have derailed, but it hasn't invaded poland yet. Well, by the time we're to orbital hospitals, I'd like to hope we'd have the space elevator up and running, it'd be one of the few safe ways to transport a patient to space. And back to the OP, yes, MJ would be the way to go for him. I'm a die hard MJ user, but in this case, I'd call it cheating. I did everything MJ does, manually, at least once before using MJ full time (A few times I had to watch MJ do it to learn it), but if you want to use it as a crutch to avoid learning something new and spectacular (how many of your friends can claim to know orbital mechanics??), then you are only cheating your self.

While the effects of zero g are well known, or at least recognized, on healthy people, I clearly think certain treatments for various diseases would benefit from zero g. For instance, heart failure recovery/treatments would benefit greatly from the reduced cardiac workload, allowing the myocardium to heal better. Cardiomegaly, CHF, orthostatic hypotension, just to name a few could see benefits from low/zero g environments. Not only that, but long term bed bound patients could suffer less side effects of long term care, such as bed sores. Zero G hospitals might make an excellent first step for rehabing various patients, while similar treatments on the ground would lead to complications and setbacks. Of course, effects of long term zero g would appear, but when the patient was healthy enough to start physical rehab, returning to earth would be a viable choice. And if we're talking hospitals in space, it wouldn't be a far stretch to imagine there would be parts of the facility that would offer low g environments (rotating sections of the facility) to start that process. As to the OP. Well, if you can't bother watching a video that lays it all out for you in easy step by step instructions, then I'm pretty sure there's a magic pill around here somewhere that will just teach it to you....

Errr wut? That was one of my first launches... Build the biggest rocket, point up, go fast! I didn't understand **** at the time and I went interstellar. Of course interstellar being what it is with the never ending Kerbol SOI

KSP is an abbreviation. An abbreviation is any shortened form of a word or collection of words. NASA, SCUBA, RPM, KSP, OCT are all abbreviations. But there are sub types of abbreviations. NASA, SCUBA, RPM, KSP, OCT are all abbreviations. An initialism is using only the first letters of each word to form a group of letters. KSP falls in this category, along with NASA, SCUBA, but an abbreviation like OCT (for October), does not An acronym is an abbreviation (initialism or otherwise) that is a pronounceable word. NASA, SCUBA, OCT are all acronyms (but to be honest, I've never heard anybody say Oct in reference to the month, only the base), but Oct is not an initialism. I know there's multi word acronyms that aren't initialisms, but I can't think of any at the moment (I was hoping the [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/behindscenes/colberttreadmill.html"]COLBERT treadmill [/URL]was one, but it's not). So by definition, KSP is an Initialism, but not an acronym, therefore it can't be pronounced.

Soooo.... England is it's own continent now?