Starwaster

The idea behind which is that currently, in order to raise the temperature of a part by one degree, you have to put enough heat into it to overcome its entire thermal mass. (thermal mass = mass * specific heat) Default specific heat is 800 but can be varied using a part's thermalMassModifier but STILL requires that the part's entire mass is used in the calculation Skin uses only a fraction of that mass. It's a modification of the existing thermal system.

The part's ModuleAeroReentry config needs to have skinHeatconductivity added to it with a value high enough to conduct heat to the skin. And possibly have the part's emissiveConstant increased to about 0.6 (being added if it doesn't exist) It probably doesn't have ModuleAeroReentry present so something like this added: @PART[rtg] { MODULE { name = ModuleAeroReentry skinHeatConductivity = 1.0 // no higher } } There won't be another Deadly Reentry update before KSP 1.0.3 And after KSP 1.0.3, this information will be outdated and either the problem will be resolved by changes in stock KSP and Deadly Reentry, or the problem will continue to exist but the cause shifted from Deadly Reentry to stock.

Ok, I've offered you an excellent solution already. The game is configurable so that your vessel can be made (nearly) flip proof without imposing on other people who don't want things your way. Do what I suggested and make the changes at the designated menu. If you want I can see if it could be made into a Module Manager style solution.

Link plz? I get only two results searching for it. This thread and Tantares ???

People, I don't think he's asking that the game be changed to suit him, he's just asking how he can fix things for himself. Why would you be against that? It's his sandbox he can do as he likes in it.

What kind of solution are you looking for? A stable design or pre-1.0 drag behavior? Because you can get the latter back if you Alt-F12 then click Physics then Drag. 'Apply Drag As Acceleration Instad of Force' (sic) is basically how drag was applied prior to KSP 1.0.... And you also have to enable 'Replace Drag Cubes With Spherical Model'

I concur. I hate that too. Let's take a look at the last TWO posts before yours. Note how Scout61699's post ends in a question? cybersol then tries to ANSWER that question. Do you see how this works?

Could be wrong .... But KWR style procedural fairing?

I don't know why that is. There are no tweak scale limitations imposed by Deadly Reentry.

Yet. ​

The inflatable was (and has been for quite some time) broken in various ways. The first (obvious) way in which it was broken was that if it were ever deployed and retracted (even in the VAB) forever after it would load into the game in a deployed state. When the craft was launched, the shield would be deployed for example. The other, not so obvious way, was that KSP 1.0 was not recognizing that the shield had expanded. Therefore it would not update its drag cubes or recalculate its radiative area. FAR likewise has never recognized that the shield was open and adjust its drag. My ability to workaround these issues has been compromised more and more with each KSP update and I am no longer willing to support it. Attempts to recruit others to fix the problem (linked to its animation) have not been successful. There's a 3.75m..... dunno about the 4m. I had no idea it was that big. Only that it fit nothing, nor did the other one that I removed.

Not until there is an official 64 bit release that is stable.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I have no idea, only you can answer that. I'm not sure what you would have used them for though because they were odd sizes that didn't fit any of Deadly Reentry's heat shields and they weren't in any of the standard sizes nor did they fit any other part that I've ever come across. The only time they were ever commented on was in confusion by people who had no idea what to do with these odd sized decouplers. So, I don't know. You tell me: Are you finding that any decouplers that you used are missing from this last update?

Porkjet, you're missing the control transforms for the FLAT docking ports again.

10,000 m/s as what... ÃŽâ€V? You can get to LEO. Maybe you need to do something about your ascent profile. Even stock aero in KSP 1.0, you're not doing the 'straight up to 5km then turn 45 deg' anymore. Start your turn earlier about when you hit 100m/s (you still do want larger parts though for heavy lift capability, but even stock parts can get you to orbit if you're launching light. It all depends on what you're launching)

Apollo for sure, but there were also proposals to use Gemini for lunar missions so either it was already capable of a lunar return / reentry or would have been modified to be able to survive one. (probably the latter) But anyway, re: the Mk1. It's not impossible to survive a munar reentry but there's not much margine for error. With its heat shield intact it can survive hull temperatures of 1600. When the shield depletes that drops to 1200. (so... assume it's made of beryllium copper alloy or something) You say you still hadn't dropped below 2km/s so it becomes a question of how long did it take you to drop at least 800 m/s worth of velocity? Once you drop below 1.2 km/s then you're probably ok. One thing I did with DRE is that I made the radiative factor equal the convective factor. That may have been a mistake to do but it seemed necessary in order to make space planes (with passive shielding only) survivable and feasible. If you want to try making things more challenging, instead of looking for anything to crank up, you might want to lower Radiation Factor. Default was 1 but that might be too low with this last version where I had to cut Convection Factor to 10 down from 40. Maybe try setting radiation to 2 or 3.

I'm sure that by comparison that you are capable of better work now than what is in Habitat Pack.... but you're being too hard on yourself. These are still great models.

No, that won't work.... but I am working on a plugin that will allow the original fairings to work properly with aero. It's been slower going than I had anticipaetd but it is coming along. (the problem with getting Animated Decouplers to work with the fairings is that it would only work for the cones. The side pieces wouldn't give coverage. What I'm working on will go into the fairing base and it will detect the fairing pieces and it will properly size the shielded area accordingly)

Magic.

That's not what he's talking about and there is a problem with occlusion for the ladder. I think. I just tested this out and it's behaving funny

Right right! Because everybody KNOWS that resources crossing decouplers must be magical..... One word people: UMBILICAL. Let this magic accusation die the miserable horrible death it deserves.

If you click 'Apply to All Symmetry Counterparts' then all chutes will receive the same 'parachutes used' setting. You have six chutes so you set 'parachutes used' to 6 and you clicked 'apply to all'. Now each chute is configured with that value (six). Each chute knows it is one of six chutes and each one will have an appropriately smaller sized canopy.

Low conduction is what protects against conducted heat, not ablation. And the shield has very low conduction but that doesn't mean no heat at all can get through. I say again: Use the debugging menu and see where the heat is coming from.

Use the debugging menu and enable thermal debugging. Right click the ladder during reentry to see where the heat is actually coming from. The only thing you're shielded from is convective. If heat is conducting through the shield then that could be enough to destroy the ladder.