Lexif

The Sputnik sphere was filled with nitrogen and had a pressure sensor. So it would detect any micrometeorite puncturing it. The micrometeorite rate was really crucial to know, because it determined if space exploration was actually viable. It's pretty much impossible to get any info about that from the ground, I think. Sputnik didn't detect an impact, so it was reasonable to assume that stuff you send up there wouldn't get holed immediatly.

The Wikipedia page mentions that they also had a radar reflector on the core stage to confirm its orbital parameters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik#Launch_and_mission But that section isn't very clearly written, and the source they quoted is russian, so I couldn't read it. I'm curious about this as well. The question is "what's a satellite?". I guess since the Sputnik was the payload, and the rocket stage only a means to an end, it doesn't count. But as the stage had a reflector on it, it might count as it was used for something usefull beyond launching the Sputnik. (Considering the state of knowledge about space etc. at the time.) I think the interesting question is why there are satellites without an engine -- if they don't have one, the last stage will be orbiting, too. So why detatch it, as you say? I guess the small Sputnik wouldn't decay as fast as the bulky stage. Edit: Ninja'd!

This quote might help. Maybe this was tweaked later, but I guess the same principle still applies. I would vote for a parameter to make this tweakable. But if your rocket explodes on the pad it's propably a bug.

The exe is only there for you if you want to make maps with different dimensions than the default. It's the default way to use the CSV data you can collect. You don't need it for anything else.

So you say renewable energy solutions including this space project are only for the rich and do not help the third world, but fusion will? Are you kidding me? The real problem in these countries is a lack of good governance and of access to education. I'm sure a huge centralised ultra-high-tech power station will last really long in Nigeria. After all, look at all their nuclear power plants! /sarcasm If you want to tackle real third world energy problems, try stuff like supplying poor people around the world with cheap ovens. They save a lot of expensive wood (people in some regions pay most of their scarce income for firewood because of the huge damand) and emissions are hugely reduced, and a lot less people die by accident. I guess the effect will depend on where in the atmosphere the energy is absorbed. That there is an equilibrium depends on a constant energy usage, but it will quickly rise. And "a few degrees warmer" would be catastrophical, considering that's the global average. But I guess that argument is just a distraction from the real flaws of this project.

Thanks, that's about what I thought. I remarked on storage to get to an upper bound for a comparable earth-bound project, not because I see that as an alternative. Say, let's use cheap solar panels and car batteries. My hunch is that you would still be off cheaper. The total area needed for such a project is not that big. About 125x125 km² for all of Europe's power needs if you trust this publication from Desertec (should not be more than an order of magnitude off ): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg That's about as large as all paved areas in Germany. (Got my data on that also on wiki, just to get an estimate.) But Desertec is pretty much dead, and I suspect that it was a scheme that made some speculator very rich. It was always a pipedream. But I guess the USA would be much better suited to such projects, deserts relatively close to the population centres, politically less problematic (in theory).

I wonder if you can't invest the same amount of money into lots and lots of solar panels in some desert, and create some way to store the energy for the night. You'd have to eat the transmission and storage losses, and the losses from the atmosphere, but would the solar sat really be cheaper? It might be seen as testing a potential weapon of mass destruction in orbit, and therefore be forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty and SALT2. If you are American and don't see the problem, ask yourself how you would feel about a chinese or russian power station like that. It might start a new kind of arms race.

No, it's regenerated when you load a vessel to the launch pad or runway. But this takes some time, so don't worry if your computer hangs for a minute or two.

I just started using Ioncross and by my calculations, you should be good for 10 hours without the scrubber. So if you can make sure you don't skip out of the atmosphere, you don't need to switch it on. If I didn't miscalculate, you need 166,66 of power to use the scrubber to clean out the 30 maximum CO2 of the pod. The pod has 150 power, and a mini battery ring on top gives another 200, so you can go more than 30 hours with that. Which should be enough for a large orbit after aerobraking. I also find I don't really need SAS for the reentry. Before the atmosphere gets thick, the SAS doesn't fight much, so it should use almost no power. Once reentry really gets going, the pod orients itsself on it's own (at least with FAR). I usually only use shield, pod, docking port and three sidemounted parachutes, and never ran out of power so far.

Have you switched CSV writing on? It scans now much more data points, and the write alorithm changed. From innsewerants' blog: Later: So for now it writes to the disk every 5 seconds, which causes a stutter.

Here is mine -- no guaranetees : @PART[probeCoreCube] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[probeCoreOcto] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[probeCoreHex] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[probeCoreOcto2] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[probeCoreSphere] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[probeStackLarge] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[probeStackSmall] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[landerCabinSmall] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[Mark1Cockpit] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[Mark2Cockpit] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[Mark3Cockpit] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[Mark1-2Pod] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[mk1pod] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[mk2LanderCabin] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[landerCabinSmall] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[cupola] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[seatExternalCmd] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } } @PART[crewCabin] { MODULE { name = BuildEngineer } MODULE { name = FlightEngineer } }

I was talking about using version 1.3 which was made for KSP 0.19 in KSP 0.20/0.21. There was pretty much no reentry profile that would work, so we got 2.x with the new features like g-load damage.

Please check if you put modulemanger.dll and the deadly reentry folder into the GameData folder of your KSP installation. And I seem to remember a problem when KSP was in the program folder of windows. Windows security functions might block module manager from executing there.

It's also at all the other longitudes at the same time. Blows the mind! Sorry, couldn't resist this.

That's it. With 1.3 it's pretty much impossible to not burn up in 0.20/0.21.

Do you use the 0.20/0.21 compatible version from this thread (2.3), or the old outdated 0.19 compatible version (1.3) from Spaceport?

I tried this mod for the first time today, and I use 0.21.1. Entering numbers works for me. The buttons didn't seem to do anything or closed the window (can't exactly remember), but I didn't really read up on all the functions and I'm new to this, so it might have been my error. So I also can't say anything about the "keep open" function. Win 7 32 bit in a window, if that makes a difference. See my signature for mods used.

Nice find, but I think there's some work to do to fix up the anomalies- Moho is also the nickname of the MohoroviÄÂić-discontuity, a boundary where the seismic speed changes suddenly. It's quite commonly interpreted as the boundary between the earth's crust and mantle, at least when you listen to seismologists. It never occured to me that it might be related to Moho's name!

Apart from the already mentioned Kerbal Engineer, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Crew Manifest and Procedural Fairings, I also recommend Maneuver Node Improvement. It allows you to edit the delta v numbers of the nodes directly, making the planning of interplanetary burns much easier. You can also change the conics mode in-game, which controls the display of your trajectory in the map window. It totally removes the stress of fiddling around with the nodes to get a small change. Edit: SubassemblyManager is also a must in my opinion. With that, you can save and reuse your lifters and other parts of your vessel easily.

I had no problems with the multithreaded version so far, except on one flight where accessing the surface panel collapsed the window into a grey line without buttons. That was while I was orbital, but in the atmosphere, and when I passed 70 km and left the atmosphere, everything went back to normal. I tried but couldn't replicate it.

Kaleb, I guess there will always be the option to modify the speed of light with a config edit, as it was in the last version. I actually turned up the speed of light by an order of magnitude. That way I could land a probe on Eeloo, the half second time delay that remained made it already noticably more difficult. In the new version, I might experiment with the flight computer to automate what happens when out of contact etc., like I did in the previous version: preplanning burns for orbital insertion etc. Also, maybe a few scripts to try different com paths when out of contact, or what happens when power runs out... But I guess I will increase the light speed again to land probes manually. I need the experience from manually landing probes to practice for my first manned interplanetary missions, especially with FAR and Deadly Reentry.

The part cfg lists the max temp for the 2.5 m heatshield at 1800°, while the pod is set to 1700°. But if I remember that right, heat damage also lowers the g-force tolerance. (But is this only when the part is visibly on fire?) So destruction by g-force might have its cause in heat damage. Edit: Ah, sorry, I misread your post. The mk3-pod can tolerate 1500°.

Some anomalies can be underground depending on your terrain settings. Have you been to Duna?

Well, it burned through all the heat shield and the temperature came close to exploding that, too. But then I was at 13 km, and heat dies down fast below that, but g-force gets a serious problem. That's kind of the point, I could also burn off the shield with some orbits at high altitude and have nothing left to get me through the thick layers below 25 km (with FAR). Look at your g-force indicator when you are at 30 km, for this reentry it was maybe 0.2 g at 31 km. You're starting to lose your shield, but you're barely losing speed. The shield isn't there to absorb all your deceleration, use it to lose just enough speed to be able punch through the atmosphere without getting your ship ripped apart by the g-forces. The ship was an Mk 1-2 with matching heat shield, ASAS, docking port and three radial parachutes on the pod. I just saw that I took screenshots of the Kerbal post-landing inspections, the ASAS shows severe damage, the parachutes are moderatly damaged. PS: And the shield exploded when the chutes fully opened, so it must have taken quite some damage after the ablative was spent -- must have been quite colse.

I just checked the screenshots from my last munar mission in 0.20.2, the only one with FAR + DRE + KER. I don't remember the exact details, but I have a shot of my capsule doing 3061 m/s at about 31 km. The orbit is 10000x10.3 km at this point, and the heat shield just lost 22 units (out of 1000). To bad I don't remember to what I set the periapsis, but I guess 15 km, or a wee bit more? The next shot 36 s later shows me at 15.8 km, with a periapsis of -3.5 km, half the heat shield is gone and I'm still going 2450 m/s. The temp is 880 at the shield and I'm pulling ~4 g. In the next shot, 10 seconds later, I'm at 13.1 km with 2000 m/s, pulling 5 g and the heat shield is pretty much gone, but the heat is down to 470°. Two seconds later, the shield was spent and heated up to 1470°. At this point I'm still pulling 5 g at 12.5 km, 1820 m/s. At 2.5 km, the three radial chutes can be seen partially deployed, I was doing 245 m/s with 2 g. That was propably the hottest reentry I ever did with DRE+FAR, maxing out both the g-margin and the heat shield. Riding the edge, a real nailbiter! I guess I came in at the typical speed for munar returns of about 3150 m/s. If you bleed off some speed with an aerobrake at 35--45 km, you won't loose much of your heat shield and get more elbow room with the g-loads.