Starwaster

Let me know if you have problems, I'm thinking about other possibilities to make it more reliable.

Not even when that rolling combines with pitching / yawing to throw it off course? What do you think its response would be there if not to follow up with even more yawing and pitching to try to correct. Now it's not only pointing the wrong way but the roll it was trying to do also requires corrections. That's trouble enough in stock, let alone with FAR when you're climbing out of atmo. Fortunately I was out of atmo when it happened It's not a communication issue btw, we clearly just don't agree on the contribution it has to the problem

Try this to fix solar panels. Requires modulemanager 1.5 or 1.3 + sarbians extensions. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ba5ss8oqi5jytmg/RSS.Solar.Fixer.cfg

No roll was necessary. On manual, just holding down pitch was enough.

Edited the development build files. Commented out the texture lines (not sure that was necessary but assumed it was) Added the following: MODULE { name = FlagDecal textureQuadName = module_id_symbol } Not really scaled properly because it stretches to the edges of the quad but it's for demonstration purposes anyway.

MJ definitely has issues when it comes to selecting the simplest path to a goal. At the least, in certain circumstances. Given a situation where it is already lined up such that a pitch will be sufficient to orient it 90 degrees to its long axis and then instructed to perform such a maneuver, it should not begin yawing and rolling as well. Or pitching and rolling when a yaw would suffice. I just watched that happen. If there's logic involved that makes it want to roll to some desired orientation then can't that wait until the requested orientation is done?

By propellant mass, LH2 will always outperform other fuels. As MAKC said, because of its lower density you need more of it, if you are trying to achieve the same Delta-V as a similar stage with a different propellant. So, to answer your question, you first need to know what your goal is. If you need more Delta-V in that stage then consider going with a denser fuel. If however you need a lighter stage then you go with the LH2 mix. With a nuclear engine your choices are limited in RF to just the LH2 so you need much larger tanks. The Real Fuels link in my signature gives more fuel options for nuclear engines, but it's still a WIP.

Where do you get the camera's altitude then?

I've had suspicions that MJ might behave like that myself, but there's too much unknown about your pictures to consider it damning evidence. At worst, it might only be guilty of poor responses to forces that are already acting to throw your rocket off course. You're at a critical point in your ascent where depending on your velocity and heading, you could go severely off course beyond MJ's ability to compensate for (considering, FAR and RSS) Also, What FAR corrective features are enabled if any? FAR does provide control inputs to the rocket and they can fight each other.

FYI, those are the same pictures of you at about ~24km

FAR, MJ, DR, Modular Fuels Parts: KW Rocketry, Procedural Fairings

When you refer to multiple KSCs, are you going to try to make it possible to launch from them?

Yes, the autostrutting is why this design evolved. As long as the four engines are properly strutted to each other it's pretty stable. If not, they tend to flop around and spray rocket exhaust about the landscape at bad angles until an incident occurs. On stock-sized Kerbin I typically filled those tanks with LH2/LOX, Put throttle limits into place and let it and it was pretty sufficient to get it into orbit. That won't work here of course; not enough DV. But anyway, FAR will actually properly detect the shape if I invert it? (I see what you're getting at, it's not so blunt at the tail end because it doesn't have the Hab sitting up top) Also, let me bounce the ascent profile off of you. Shape was 100% because I wasn't sure how much I could get away with so I didn't want to treat it like I would a traditionally designed rocket. I forget exactly what altitude I started it at, maybe 10k...ish? Well, what does Mission Report say? If the explosion doesn't destroy the ship outright, you can access it by pressing F3. It will tell you about structural failures and part overheating. I've heard about that sort of thing happening with Deadly Re-entry, but I think that was awhile ago - older versions. Debug log or output_log.txt might tell you something too.

Here is a pictorial record of my attempt to launch an old reliable lifter in RSS+FAR+DR. To be honest, I didn't expect much here. I felt for sure that FAR would take one look at it, laugh hysterically and then contemptuously backhand it into a pile of 'Unplanned Disassembly'. To say nothing of launching it on an RSS-sized Kerbin. So in that regard, it exceeded my expectations. Unfortunately it was a little short on DV and the ascent profile possibly a little too cautious for the amount of DV. Also, towards the end of its flight it experienced some strange torque and bending of the craft. Maybe because I only strutted the lifter and not the payload (a space station), which was fine as long as it was contained within its PF shell. As soon as the shell was jettisoned the station began pitching wildly and the attached crew pod threatened to snap off. I suspect also that maybe I shouldn't have had so many FAR controls enabled once it left orbit? Maybe some conflict there with MJ's SmartASS? Ah well, it's back to the drawing board. Oh, and to give an idea as to scale, those are 3.75m tanks and engines on the side.

To expand on that answer, the two MJ parts already have tech tree integration. you have to do nothing else but unlock the flight techs. the more you unlock the more mj functionality you get. if you want to integrate mj with other parts like command pods, look just a page or two back.

ok, so how much is in each tank?

It's tricky. First you have to calculate by mass. Then convert that to volume. If you get it wrong you end up with leftovers in one of your resources. (Hey you've got ullage now...)

Just a little off the top.

Make sure you have the latest version of MFSC and Nathan's latest Stretchy Tanks files.

By updating to the latest version

It is a problem with Modular Fuels. MFS is running into a problem with SRBs that have ModuleFuelTanks added to them. The following error is generated once for each SRB over two. NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at ModularFuelTanks.ModuleFuelTanks.UpdateSymmetryCounterparts () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ModularFuelTanks.ModuleFuelTanks.OnStart (StartState state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.ModulesOnStart () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: Line: -1)

It is truly ominous. It must be destroyed. Kill it with fire!!!

Syntax looks correct, that should work. Except for the spaces on line #1. Are those just there to make it easy to navigate? If not, if they're in your working copy then get rid of them. Aside from that, it should only be applying the patch to all parts that have any resource node. Edit: Can you verify that it's ONLY appearing in PARTS? That is, can you go check to see if it's applying to non-PART nodes as well? (i.e. INTERNALs, etc)

need more data! maybe a picture of the craft involved? how you go about docking and when/where you ran into trouble?

No, I've been seeing this bug since long before 1.5 came out. It has a much better chance to be something in MFS than ModuleManager. There would have to actually be a patch file making changes to the SRB altering symmetry.