WafflesToo

Yup, pretty much how I did my communications satellites for my Remotech playthrough.

It's not so much perfecting the altitude as the period. If your orbital period is six hours and your orbit is REASONABLY circular then you will say pretty much in the same spot in the Kerbin sky.

Did some more checking, and the recyclers on units that are not being actively controlled are indeed working BUT power generation is not. So what's happening is the batteries go dead and then the recyclers quit... Doesn't matter too much since your Kerbals die if they go without power for 2 hours anyway. I haven't tried RTGs to see if it makes any difference... gimme a minute. EDIT- Nope, RTGs don't work either and that's definitely what is happening. This... is a problem.

I think your charts were the ones I was thinking of (god the 48-7S is OP , wonder how they'd fair now?) I'm not usually concerned with TWR for my cruise-stages (landers are a different story though ) so the limit is of some interest to me. I haven't sat down to analyze the curve yet to find where the point of diminishing returns (and thus the effective stage limit) is at. Jet engines are such an enigma to me I don't even have any idea how the calculations for those work.

I hate... no, I DESPISE advice like this. The argument "it's not cheating, its a single-player game" holds no weight. We have a community, we share designs and ideas, we challenge one another, we look at what each other is doing and there is NOTHING more frustrating than losing a challenge or banging your head on a wall for hours before realizing the results you were trying to mimic are impossible because the install you were looking at had hacked values.

Eh, I've experienced all of these but the docking bug (but I've witnessed it enough times on a few YouTube videos; Kurt J Mac and Manley have both run afoul of them). The worst one has been the random explodie-parts. I've been playing the game for over a year now and hadn't run into any playthrough-destroying bugs before now. I have to agree with you that 0.22 has been the buggiest version of the game thus far (well, plus I hate the SAS function now. It's too stiff, give me the one from 0.21 any day). Have to go with FITorion's advice though; this is still an open-alpha so patience is going to be required of us.

I think I may have stumbled onto a bit of a problem here... I sent a small 'space station" (okay, three guys in a crew tank) into orbit to see how they fared, how long supplies lasted with the recyclers, whether the recyclers worked when I wasn't looking (they don't BTW), etc. The problem is when I leave to look after another mission and come back I find the electric charge is completely depleted. The only thing I can think of is the life support and the recyclers keep drawing power when I'm not looking BUT the solar panels don't generate charge. Does this sound about right? I'm wondering if a fix can be found for this somehow or it's going to spoil my future plans of establishing outposts.

Ohhh so many. Lets see... Project Daedalus-Icarus. Launch two ion probes, send one on a trajectory out past Eeloo while the other picks up a sun-skimming trajectory (I'll let you work out which is which on your own ) . Purpose is to gather solar intensity data at different altitudes. Launched last night but it's too early to get any meaningful data. Project Goodfellas. Send three Kerman into orbit for an extended period. Purpose is to test the recyclers in the TAC life support mod, find out if the still function even when not under primary control as well as gathering data on decay rates for air and water supplies to compare with mathematical model prediction... also gather footage of test subjects for use in a reality TV drama Project Redplanet FINALY send a manned mission to Duna... Just one of those things I never got around to doing. And the big one... Project Gossimer's Flight. Send three Kermans on a tour of the Korbin system in a 10 ion-powered solar jammer

Go away troll, nobody wants you here. The Minecraft forums are over there.

LOL! IKR?! If they know their orbit is crossing a "cloud" debris that is on the same period as their's why NOT use the RCS to change your orbital period? It beats getting savaged every six hours and most certainly beats the dramatic dive into the atmosphere

I'm pretty sure it can be done. I did it carrying two cans of fuel, but barely touched the second one. If I hadn't been carrying the extra mass I probably wouldn't have even needed that much.

I've noticed a sharp increase in Kracken attacks in my own play through. A space plane lost large portions of its wings during a landing approach (the terrorist group G.L.I.T.C.H. claimed responsibly for bringing down the Pelican). I've also had two rockets explode on the launchpad BEFORE the physics loaded (it was like watching Wile E. Coyote standing in midair for a moment before falling ). Strange stuff.

Thanks. The support can were done by Regex so I don't really want to go messing with them. The simplest solution I have for right now is to just delete the *.TGA files for the containers. I'll see if I can get Regex's permission and package the whole texture pack together under the correct format. Done and done. All of the textures should be the correct format now so installation should be a breeze

Finished the work Regex started (with permission of course) and retextured the hexcans and recyclers to match his original work. Uploaded it here: http://www.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/221356-tac-ls-retexture-pack-v1-0 Enjoy all

It kind of smacks to me of being somebody's baby

Energetically speaking, Moho is one of the more distant planets from Kerbin. I haven't tried it yet, but I think it might be cheaper to use a bi-eliptic transfer instead of the more traditional Hohman maneuver. The real trick will be finding out if I'm any good at pulling off a bank-shot

Thanks. It feels like one of those things that should've been obvious, but I guess I hadn't thought about it like that before then. I'm sure that there's a point of diminishing returns that you run into well before the limit, but I haven't sat down and run the numbers to see where it lies at.

That was my first thought too... but even having it there can be a temptation to even the most stalwart heart (especially after what felt like a well-earned victory turned to ash and raining rocket parts from a random Kracken attack). ...well, actually it was raining spaceplane parts, but you get my drift

First, don't panic. Second, turn off your RCS Finaly, wait for your Kerman to rotate around until he's straight up and down and reactivate his RCS pack. He should stabilize straight away. Good luck!

I was looking through the KW rocketry parts the other day and comparing them to the vanilla parts and I noticed that the KW rocketry fuel parts had a mass ratio of 10-1 while the vanilla parts all have a ratio of 9-1. Contemplating the consequence of this, it kind of hit me; there is an upper maximum limit to how much dV is possible with a single-stage rocket no matter what you do. Because the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation works off of this ratio it is impossible to build a rocket with a mass ratio greater than it. So for an LV-30 or LV-45 with stock tanks this is 9.81*370*LN(9/1) or 7,975 m/s An LV-909 gives us 8,406 m/s And the LV-N is capable of 17,244 m/s If you're into RCS ports you're looking at 9.81*290*LN(17/2) or 6,088 m/s Ion engines have an upper limit of 9.81*4200*LN(12/5) which gives us 36,071 m/s Of course we're looking at this from the impossible assumption of 100% of the mass of the vehicle being fuel tanks, but these are the limit values you should start to approach as fuel tank mass starts to dominate the mass of the stage. I know someone plotted these out more fully than this, but I don't think they pointed out that there was an unbreachable ceiling to the equation. Anyway, food for thought I suppose.

A combination of #2 and #3 really. A separate CSM means not having to haul the return fuel down to the surface and back again. It doesn't have to be a manned CSM either; here's my favorite one. A two-stage lander that leaves the bits not required for re-orbiting the crew means you need to bring less fuel for the ascent... which means you need less fuel for the descent since you're lighter. It's one of those great snowballing things BTW- 1.5m/s? Well done, I mean that. Beat this: 0.1 m/s

In most cases, you really should use the 48-7S; it even outperforms the Mainsail in almost every single way... I more-or-less have been trying to not use it because it feels like a cheat and WHEN it gets nerfed I don't wanna feel too reliant on its godlike performance. LV-30 sees a ton of love from me for a variety of uses from launchers to spaceplanes (90% of the benefit of an aerospike doesn't even get used because you're on jet engines until you're well over 20km). I don't really use the LV-45 much outside of a second-stage engine on my launch vehicles where I get the best use from its vectoring thrust. I use the LV-909 for almost all of my orbital maneuvering and lander needs beyond that (even sent a 40t mission package to Duna on one once). I do wish there were an engine that was in-between the two though... just because sometimes you need about 100kN of thrust but only have space for one engine. Ohhh, the Poodle? Never use it.

My current career mode lander masses 8 tons and has two and it felt really jumpy on the throttle. Just unlocked the 48-7S on my last mission which should make it a touch more docile. It's not really a great design for a novice though because the landing legs are too close together. OP might be interested in the other lander design, the one with the landing legs on outriggers as a possible solution.

D'oh! Missed that tidbit. But five of them on a 15 ton lander is overkill and a half. One would be sufficient but without fuel ducts I don't know how you'd rig it. My advice still stands though... as soon as you unlock it. (God that engine needs to be nerfed)

You say potato, I say potahto...