longhornchris

Base KSP works. I think its mod Manager but I can't be sure. edit - what I get for posting w/o hitting refresh. @ferram - I hope you can chase it down soon. Stock aerodynamics is... painful and FAR makes thing much more intuitive. Until then I'll be patient.

I'm going to go back to a clean install and see if I can get it to repeat. If so I'll start a bug report thread.

I've got the exploding decoupler problem too. I think its related to the decoupler force because if i decouple a partially full stage it behaves fine but the stage goes flying off way faster than it did in .22. A mostly empty stage flies away much faster. If I decouple the same stage empty then it explodes and takes part of my upper stage with it. I can work around for now but its annoying.

I took a shot an put it and B9 in, looks to be working.

CO2 isn't chemically stable at extremely high temperatures, especially when near carbon. Get it hot enough and you will get carbon monoxide... and the reactor gets damaged.

Yeah, a lightweight drag brake would melt. Worse, in real life the deployed drag brakes would create all sorts of complicated shock flows which would allow high temp plasma to get to the structure. In real life, the key is to maintain a detached normal shock to keep temps at the hull down. Blunt structures are great for this but sharp points and edges allow the shock to get closer. The edges around deployable drag brakes would likely allow the shock to get too close. There are exceptions, such as ICBM RVs that can survive an attached shock but they also only have to survive till they are low enough to detonate, rather than actually survive coming to a stop.

Bingo, although there are a few other stipulations to go with it. The NERVA reactor design was a graphite core, so anything that will oxidize carbon is a very bad thing as it will cause the reactor to eat itself. Furthermore, anything that changes the nuclear reaction (strong neutron moderators or reflectors) would make controlling the reaction difficult. Hydrogen is the best choice but storage is a pain in the ass and hydrogen embrittlement can cause issues with certain metals. For long term storage, water, methane, or other hydrogen rich molecules may work better if they can be electrically or thermally split before being fed to the reactor but you have to do something with the leftovers. Water has the advantage of providing O2 for the crew. Also, in theory a hydrogen design's exhaust isn't radioactive, barring any tritium production which should be small. Reactor bits that get in the exhaust stream would be radioactive... but if there's a lot of that you've got bigger problems as the engine is eating itself. Another option besides the NERVA is the molten-salt rocket. Instead of pumping inert reaction mass through a nuclear reactor to heat it the idea is the fuel contains the fissile material along with a lot of inert material that will boil. The thrust chamber is still the reactor. As the fuel is pumped in it goes critical, and is ejected. The design runs much, much hotter than the NERVA design and the exhaust is very, very nasty but its got a really good ISP. Additionally, storage of the fuel can be tricky as you need to keep it from reaching critical mass except when it gets into the engine.

The Shuttle had a very good reason to have the coast phase. At ET separation the tank and shuttle aren't in orbit yet, so w/o the OMS burn the shuttle would follow the tank back in. During the coast, the shuttle would run a last systems check to ensure the vehicle was safe to enter orbit. Key to that was ensuring the bay doors opened so the vehicle was thermally stable (heat rejection is a major concern in real spacecraft... not so much in KSP). As for other vehicles, part of the concern is having enough thrust for the circularization burn to allow a coast phase. Most upper stages are low thrust, so the burn has to start early enough that for a low orbit there really isn't much time for a coast phase.

In answer to your direct question - after 4 collects in most areas nets you as much as you are going to realistically get. With that said, if you have enough power one is enough, although 2 for symmetry makes it clean. I generally only fly several if I'm doing a return mission - i.e. early on when I don't have solar panels or batteries an can't afford the power. My early suborbital and orbital craft usually have lots so I can get as much science returned as possible.

Sarbian - Thanks for the update. I do have a bug report. When flying a ship with only 1 crew module you can't de-select the module so I've got a lander with a yellow highlighted crew cabin.

Just to add one more note. From the space center you can launch to any inclination because its at the equator. When taking off from any other location the minimum inclination is the latitude of your launch site. Keep that in mind when trying to takeoff from other planets.

Yeah, except monopropellant on real spacecraft is typically a variant of hydrazine which can be used as both a monoprop or a hypergolic biprop using nitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer. As a monoprop, a catalyst is used to cause the hyrdrazine to decompose energetically. This is not what you want as reaction mass for a nuclear engine. Hydrogen is nice because it provides the best thermal ISP being a light molecule thus the most kinetic energy for a given thermal energy. That said, H2 is tough to store and causes hydrogen embrittlement so there may be other options. Using an oxidizer would just be bad though as the reactor core in the NERVA design has lots of graphite as a moderator. I think, given that there is now Fuel (Jet), Fuel/Ox, Monoprop, and Xe (and that's just stock) I think its time to add in Nuke fuel... force people to make harder design decisions.

You forgot rule number 1 before starting an EVA... Quicksave! Transition to EVA has screwed me a few times... or for some reason my Kerbal is off the ladder and starts floating away. I feel your pain, I too have lost Kerbals on EVA because I suck at EVA RCS driving except on planets (Mun, Minimus) where I have a reference frame and can always let gravity take over.

The close your landing gear manually trick is also good for landing rovers. I used this to land the rover on its tail (tripod) and ditch the radially attached tanks (landing fuel, leftovers not needed). I raised only the gear on the 'wheels' side of the rover and it gently dropped onto the wheels. After running around Mun for a while, I used SAS to tip the nose high (another neat trick). I couldn't get it back onto its legs, but it was enough to fire the engine and get off the ground (Mun). After getting some altitude I was able to pitch up more to clear the mountains and eventually make orbit. One more SAS tip/trick and warning. SAS is great to help keep a lander upright when you land on a slope BUT be very careful when you disable it. If your control indicators are't zero (i.e. SAS is helping keep the lander upright) tap the 'F' key to null out the SAS. If the lander starts to fall you need a better spot to land. If you make the mistake of having your 1 Kerbal go EVA and you don't also have a probe core onboard (say mechjeb) then the lander will fall over... as Jeb found out the hard way on one of my early landings on Mun. Getting out of that mess was... interesting.

There are a few issues at work here. As someone else mentioned, it's likely that your boosters need struts, and you should disable gimballing to be safe. That said, FAR adds in a more dynamic drag model that includes cylinder drag. Furthermore, as fuel burns the com of the rocket moves up and makes it more unstable. I've found adding 3 or 4 canard type wings (the ones with control surfaces) to the bottom of the core rocket makes a huge difference. Don't put wings on the side boosters, if they flex it will really mess things up and it makes separation events dicey. Also, use the FAR setting to disable roll control. The wings will keep the rocket stable and minimize roll while providing pitch/yaw control. Adding reaction wheels helps too. If the rocket is still too twitchy reduce the allowable control deflection in the FAR panel. Before launch open the FAR info window. During flight monitor the dynamic pressure (Q) term. Its driven by speed and air density, so it goes up as you go faster, down as you gain altitude. Whenever launch broadcasts mention Max-Q this is what they are talking about. When it's big (depends on your rocket) make gentle movements.

Eh, if an update forces me to start over then it means more practice with early missions. I've restarted career mode several times, usually due to a mod update breaking something. Each time I get better at getting early science, landing on minimus and mun, and generally doing more with less.

Actually, they sort-of do unless they spend a lot of money to build a custom fairing. The fairing aerodynamics are important and thus rocket manufacturer's only offer a few sizes, so most of the time you fly the lightest one that will fit the payload. Of course if the mission is expensive enough then a custom fairing may be merited BUT its the analysis that says it will work that costs a lot of money, not the actual fairing.

I've got crew manifest installed so I can move kerbals between modules, but as such I have a 'no transfers through fuel tanks' rule. Really, it means either docking ports on habitable modules or having closed structure, like empty fuselages, adapters, or couplers between docking ports, and no mini-docking ports (too small). Basically I have to be able to see a path for the Kerbal to move around. Also, for planes no air through fuel tanks. Empty fuselage is fine, but no fuel tanks because there isn't room for ducts. I've got FAR installed, so fairings are a must once available - procedural fairings are nice here. Finally, I try to consider Kerbal comfort for interplanetary missions. Spam in a can is fine for Mun or Minimus but for anything longer I like to give them some personal space.

Well, there was another suggestion I was going to make, but its a bit more long-term and would be difficult to implement. Have Kerbal traits have some impact on the mission, such as "piloting and science" so a kerbal with high science gets better data from reports, sample evaluations, etc while a Kerbal with a better pilot can do something (say more accurate SAS... this gets complicated though). Or - have 2 classes of Kerbal - pilots and mission specialists, like we do in real life. You can't fly w/o a pilot but you only need one or you can put a probe-controller on so you can fly with non-pilot Kerbals (ex. space stations). Mission Specialists get better science from crew reports, EVAs, sample returns, etc. If/when science labs become available (for say sample analysis w/o return to Kerbin or general experiments in space) they would only operate with mission specialists in the module (along with power an whatever else they might need).

The math is definitely out there, I have a textbook from grad school where the entire class was dedicated to atmospheric entry and (basic) hypersonic aerodynamics. In short, its complicated and difficult to post in a forum. Moreover, while the math is consistent, I know my textbook has Earth numbers, not Kerbin numbers and I'm too lazy to collect the data needed to properly get Kerbin numbers (although it looks like Mechjeb has them for stock KSP, not FAR). That said, there are some basics things you can do in KSP to make it easier for precision landings. First, realize that FAR greatly changes the impact of things, and Deadly Reentry will (of course) limit your ability to simply fall. With that said, the game is consistent so the same entry angle, velocity, and craft drag should result in the same general landing spot. This will take some practice but you should be able to get an idea of where a craft will go. Best bet would be to get into a ~75km circular orbit every time and learn what it takes to and from there. consistently. For practice, the circular crater / island is a nice target too. Other things to remember - The orbit path indicator in 'map' mode doesn't know about drag or parachutes - so aim long - When coming from Mun or Minimus, remember Kerbin rotates - for prograde orbits aim long or get aerobrake into a near-circular orbit first - Wings can help cross-range if your aerodynamics are good - I play with FAR so this does require some clever design, balance, and/or a lot of SAS torque to pull off but it can be done - Rockets can give you lots of options on entry if you have enough fuel and are high enough - You can cut parachutes... but if you do make sure you've got plans to stop using other methods - If using FAR, the FAR data is useful for cross-ranging or working min/max drag profiles

Even from an incline Mun orbit, the easiest way home is to make sure you exit Mun orbit 'retrograde' to the Mun's orbit around Kerbin. You always want to burn 'prograde' for whatever orbit you are in in the Mun frame, but where you place you maneuver node will depend on the direction you are going when you takeoff. From takeoff, you want to go either 90 or 270 from liftoff as this gets you the minimum inclination from your launch site (unless you are docking with an in-orbit transfer vehicle). Once you've got a good orbit (I like 8-10km just to be safe from mountains) drop a maneuver node, stretch it out till you get a mun escape, then pull the time around so the escape sends you out opposite Mun's orbit. This will minimize your Kerbin orbit PE. From here, increase the burn then adjust the time to keep your escape at the same angle an your Kerbin PE will shrink. Get it where you want and execute the node. If you do it right your Kerbin AP will be right around Mun's orbit, while the PE is wherever you want it. If the AP is well above Mun's orbit the your burn isn't optimally timed. As a note, I've got a maneuver node editor to help with this process, much easier than using just the maneuver gizmo but the concept is still the same.

One other thing, it would be really nice to have a 2m Materials experiment for use with the larger vehicles.

So, I'm sure some of this has been posted in other dev threads but I wanted to put all my ideas in one place. Sorry if some of this is repeated, and I know some of this is available in mods. Under crew management, I still keep the Crew Manifest mod installed because it allows me to add Kerbals on the launchpad (because sometimes I forget) and because it allows me to move Kerbals around inside my vehicle. It makes sense that Kerbals can move through Clamp-o-tron size ports or larger (no Jr ports). I follow self-imposed design rules, like Kerbals can't transfer through fuel tanks and batteries, to keep realism but I hate having to go EVA just to move from a capsule to a lander or from a lifter into a station. For science, I have a few ideas: First, it doesn't make sense that crew reports are a 100% but EVA reports are 50%, nor does it make sense for sensors like the thermometer to have reduced transmissions. Anything where a Kerbal is going to read an instrument should be either no transmission penalty (reduction) but should be lots of data. That said, mystery goo, materials lab, and sample returns should have a transmission loss since its more valuable to bring it back to Kerbin where the scientists can study it up close. Another option would be to have a 'lab' module that can fully exploit the materials, but require a lot of resources. Next, if would be great to have sample return containers and data storage containers. Sample containers could hold surface samples, or mystery goo and/or material study after exposure for return to Kerbin. Data storage units could hold 'transmission' data rather than sending over a radio - use less electricity but it has to be brought back to Kerbin. Also, data could be transferred from one storage unit to another or transmitted later. Finally, have Crew and EVA reports be Kerbal-dependent, i.e. a 2nd report from the same Kerbal at the same location has no-value, while a report from a different Kerbal would have the reduced value.

When using FAR, there are several rules that have to be followed: 1: Tall and skinny is key as is having a rigid structure. More struts help, as does Ferram's joint reinforcement mod 2: You don't have to use fins, but they help a lot to make the rocket dart-like so it at least wants to go in the right direction. 3: Small changes in direction while in the thick atmosphere. Personally I turn 'early' to around 5-10deg East very early in the flight (before Mach 1) to get some prograde motion and then wait till I'm out of the light blue to turn more. 3a: As a note, if you have trouble with this hit capslock first 4: When using radial liquid boosters, use the fuel crossfeeds if you have them to keep the COM as low as possible in the main stage. 5: SAS modules are very helpful. I notice during ascent for some vehicles that SAS/Engine Gimbals/Aero surfaces are having to fight the Aero Torque trying to tip the vehicle over. Having enough control will keep the vehicle in the stable region, not having enough will cause the 'yaw' to rail and eventually have the vehicle tip. 6: Remember dynamic pressure is a function of speed and altitude - so either turn while going slower or wait to get higher. DON'T attempt to turn near MaxQ or badness will happen!

My apologies, I was keeping up with the thread but lost track of the conversation.