stoani96

I just realized that there are two seperate mission points to accomplish (build lab and facillity for 6 Kerbals), so i guess that it is possible to set up a base with multiple (2) buildings... .is that right??

Hey guys! Awesome Mod! The best, i would say, it just adds a lot more sense to the game, great work! But i have one question: How do planetary bases work? Has it to be one single building (craft) or is it possible to make, for instance, a Lab-Module and beside this two living-modules? Do they have to be connected?

I reinstalled KSP and the mod, now it works... :/ Tech, we will never understand it But thanks guys

Hey guys! Maybe I am too dumb for mods (i normaly do not use any!, but this one looks too good ^^), but my remote tech does not work I want to play career with it (of course ), but the parts do not appear in the tech tree... and in sandbox mode i do not need omni antennas to control an unmaned probe (even very far away from KSC), furthermore i cannot set a target for a dish. the only sign of the mod is the gui in map view and the new parts, but no functions.... EDIT: I also do not get a "working connection"-icon in the top left corner I just copied the content of the .zip into the gamedata folder, was that wrong? how is it done then? thanks for any help EDIT: just found out, that when i copy the "tech required" line (along with the rest) found in the RemoteTech_Antennas.cfg into the .cfg file of the part (antenna) (without the "%" at the beginning of every line), the parts appear in the tech tree... but remote tech itself does still not work... do i have to copy all these things in RemoteTech_Antennas.cfg to the cfg files of the parts??? that would be very very bad!

as far as i know, unity has a built-in function.... at least i've found an asset for n-body particle simulation (hardware driven) some time ago (some sort of GPU gems), so it should not be too difficult to build it in, but i think, that squad is just too "lazy" to do this; not only the work, but also the changes in gameplay and the testing, that this affords. sorry for my english

without reading any other posts here: Go back to school!!! There are two forces (simplified) on each thing in orbit: gravity and centrifugal force if both are equal, you have and perfectly round orbit if not, the orbit is elliptical and maybe even "hits" the surface of the object you are orbiting. formula for gravity: F = m * g zentrifugal force: F = m * v * v / R like you can see: in both formulas is the mass. if the mass increases the gravity increases too (we all know that), but also the zentrifugal force increases to the same amount!

i only read the initial post and i just want to give my opionion too The only thing i think is not okay is the balance... cause this one new engine is even stronger than the mainsail is more fuel efficient... so why should i ever use the mainsail again? ^^ of course the new engine is an "endpart". this thing with the asteriods: thats also just the balance! its no affort to change the appearing-rate of the asteriods, its more or less just a number in the code. one thing i love are the new stronger joints. in 0.23 it never ever would have been possible to have a standing 1500ton rocket without supports i think one big problem is, that there is no money ingame... so you can easyly build a rocket with 5 S3-KS engines and get nearly everything into orbit with them, without any real problem. but once you have a certain budget for your missions, you have to find other ways

you are right! they release a new buggy version a bit later....

Because with Sputnik, the russians have been the first ones who got something somewhere, where nobody has been before

sry but thats total bull excrement (<- I hope this is okay ^^) why? Cause, like you say, the terminal velocity does not exist! (on e.g. mun) Therefore this thumbrule is only okay on bodies with atmosphere! But thats more than logic ;D

Somethings wrong with (the most) guys in this community.... not meant bad! I ask for an explaination, why it is so! Not what the terminal velocity or something else is!!!! (i mean, its even googable!) If someone wants a complicated answer give him a complicated one, especially if he mentions that he has knowledge in aerodynamics!! If you do not know exactly why this is so: a) mention that you have no idea do not put your two cents in!(its kinda google translator, in Austria we say: "seinen Senf dazu geben", if anyone knows that) So again: A very special thank to tavert, who actually read my question and answed it and explained it and seems to have a clue (sry, i meant, has a clue!)

Thats right! Its just roughly and assuming that we look at a very short time periode (everything is constant), just to show how it works Because of the atmospheric curve, i think the twr also has to raise a bit during ascent, cause density is not decreasing lineary. But you can never do it really perfectly, that's perfectly impossible

PLEASE READ MY OWN ANSWERS ON THIS TOPIC! TWR has to be 2 to maintain terminal velocity, otherwise its not the terminal velocity

THANKS! It seems you are the only one, who really read my question... Its so clear.... How have i been so dump? 2 is not randomly, its the intersection of the two functions! Thanks a lot!

Are you kidding me!?!?!?!?!? Did ever ever saw a school from the inside? (its not meant badly!) (If you are talking about vacuum operations, what i do not belive, i want to a excuse right here!) A simple equation: Thrust = Weight + Dragforce The upgoing force equals the downgoing forces, if there is no acceleration, what we will assume. (Because if der is no acceleration, there is no change in speed, we maintain this speed) It seems we agree in the definition of terminal velocity. It is the speed at wich the force caused by the air(the so called drag) is equal to the weight. dragforce=weight if we put this in the formula from above we get: Thrust = Weight + Weight = 2*Weight As we all know: TWR is the Thrust-Weight-Ratio: Thrust/Weight=TWR with the formule form above: 2*Weight/Weight=TWR -> TWR=2 i hope thats clear now! Next one: 2^2=4 thats right, but to maintain a speed that is 2 times the terminal speed, you will need a TWR of 5... why? lets see: Thrust=Weight+Drag as we all know(if not, please use google) if we double the speed, we will have four times the drag. (v^2) So Drag=4*Weight Thrust=Weight+4*Wheigt=5*Weight TWR=5 To make it clear! I'm from Austria, so my english is not perfect ^^, i'm 18 years old and an budding aircraft engineer, so I've already got some knowledge about aerodynamics!

Is there an mathematically proof for that? 'Cause i think, there is not... I know what the terminal velocity is.... i'm a budding aircraft engineer.... (and even if not, i could use google...) Even if you are just 1m/s fast, you'll "get out of gravity" It will take a while untill you are in space, but it would be possible

Hello, can someone please explain to me, why it is so important to not be faster than the terminal velocity during ascent? (It seems to me important, because everywhere nearly everyone refers to it) My thoughts: If you ascent with terminal velocity(straight up of course), your TWR has to be 2. If you ascent with half the terminal velocity, your TWR has to be 1.25. (half the speed, quarter the force) If you ascent with the double terminal velocity, your TWR has to be 5. (double the speed, four times the force) A "optimal" TWR of 2 for an ascent seems very randomly to me.... so why it is so important(mathematically explained, if possible)? mfg

Okay, so how about show them with a red sign or so. 'Cause I dont know if it is very impossible (^^) or it is just about a stage or so(pretty close to a solution) And sry for the first thing, just did not see it :/

NOTE: I did not read all comments! How about an option to only use one diameter in a stack? So i do not get options like: FL-T400 Fuel Tank x2----medium diameter Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank x2----big diameter LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine x2----medium diamter and automatically replace the X200 with some medium diameter tanks. The main problem is: if you do this on your own, the calculations will not be correct, because the sum of the medium tanks is more than an, for example X200 EDIT: I maybe have found a bug... :/ Settings: mass 10t 12000 Eve 1.2 3 Asperagus atmospharic stats decoupler Disabled parts: Rockomax 'Mainsail' Liquid Engine LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor R.A.P.I.E.R. Engine Toroidal Aerospike Rocket Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank ROUND-8 Toroidal Fuel Tank Oscar-B Fuel Tank According to the display at the bottom of the page, more or less plenty of solutions are found.... but it does not display any of these... :/ also if i set the maximum number of stages to 1, it says "Most Optimal Rocket Design Found!", but it does not display anything!! EDIT: it seems, that it does display a random number of found desings(in case of 1 stage, a "optimal desing"), if the setting is impossible ---> Definitly a bug!

Just tried it once (and landed at the slope ) and had 30 units left. it was not a perfect landing, but (especially for that TWR and Landing orb) a pretty good one.

a true word!

Its like with a car: you are driving, lets say, 20m/s and you know you need, lets say, 5s to break. You will not travel all the 100m you would if you would go on driving with this speed! U know what i mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration Of course the node is not 100% correct and the speed is also not the same as at the node itself, but the main porblem is this! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=braking+distance

i did not watch any of the videos Of course its more precise to kill horizontal speed first! I also try to combine both: killing both vectors at the same time with 90-100%, but the horizontal one a bit more than the vertical one ^^. after killing the horizontal i cut off the thrust for a little moment, get into position and just go on killing my velocity. (Wow O.o, so much killing in here ) But i think we are coming from the subject here

thats unusual... i never had problems with the burning time... can you report about some detailed cases?

of course a "suicide burn" is more efficient! Just think logically! The longer you fight gravity, the more fuel you will waste. So if your landing burn is short, the percentage of wasted fuel is less. And a short landing burn is, of course, a single one with 100% of thrust ---> and i think that is called "suicide burn" (?) A big disadvantage is, that it is pretty risky. What i do: I try to burn one time with ~90%, so i will never crash into the ground(just more thrust) and i also can go back with the thrust so i get down the fastest way