Panaphobe

Do these new fairings (or the old ones for that matter) work with FAR? I saw in the early pages of this thread that they weren't working to start with and haven't managed to find anything in the later pages about them handling FAR drag.

Could you please provide a source for this? There are hundreds of threads on the internet about this topic, and somebody inevitably mentions that Squad said it's so they could have conic orbital predictions and / or time warp. Nobody ever provides a link, though.

Keep all the good info? As far as I've ever been able to tell, VOID has more info available than MechJeb - or at least different info. I've always found planetary transfer planning much easier with VOID.

Sorry if this has already been addressed elsewhere in the thread - I did some searching and didn't find anything though so hopefully this isn't an obvious repeat of a question: I really like flying with FAR, but I've recently started expanding my missions towards more interplanetary travel. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with how FAR affects aerobraking, or if anyone has any general (or specific) tips for precision aerobraking with FAR? With vanilla KSP there are calculators that will give you a periapsis to shoot for to get a desired apoapsis - I don't expect this level of sophistication with FAR aerobraking (although it'd be cool if we had it!) but I'd prefer not to plan a mission having no clue how much delta-v I'll need at my destination.

Why hang a wire down the side of your ship when you have a perfectly good metal spaceship chassis to use as an antenna?

You might be able to do this with ProgCom, which is a mod where you can manually pre-program (with code, not a GUI) commands into the computer. I only heard of it a few days ago and haven't tried it out yet since I'm waiting for RemoteTech to be updated to get back into KSP. In theory it should work, my only concern would be that even if you program the event while you're in contact RemoteTech would prevent ProgCom from actually executing its command while you're out of contact. If it works it'd definitely be a fun and immersive way to do unmanned missions!

...is this poll seriously already closed after a day of being open, or is there just some mechanic on this forum that prevents users without large numbers of posts from voting?

...I had no idea that this was something you could do. I assume that the craft has to be sufficiently far away from Kerbin for this to work, probably outside of its SOI?

When you say you're going to replace that, do you mean totally or partially? I hope you don't totally scrap it - the ability to have the computer point me normal and antinormal is the only quick and easy way to do an inclination change without otherwise altering my orbit. Unfortunately with maneuver nodes as they are now it's impossible to rotate your plane without also changing your apo- or periapsis, unless you want to tinker for 20 minutes with incrementally replacing small amounts of normal ÃŽâ€v with retrograde ÃŽâ€v. I'm personally trying to avoid having to use too many mods and I'll definitely need something to hold me normal/antinormal, so I know I for one would appreciate if you kept the flight computer component of your mod intact!

Sorry to derail the thread - I'm a big fan of this mod, I'm having some issues getting it to play nicely with the SABRE combined Jet / Rocket engines from the popular B9 Aerospace Pack. They're one engine with a toggle-able mode, so their parts files have the parameters for jets (atmospherecurve with velocitycurve) as well as the parameters for a rocket (another atmospherecurve contained within its own ModuleEngines). From tests with other rockets I've worked out how thrust is affected by this mod, and it seems pretty simple. I'll write it here, just in case I'm wrong someone can correct me: The Isp atmospheric to Isp vacuum ratio is the fraction that the base thrust is multiplied by, when you're at 1 atmosphere. I haven't done any tests to work out how it interpolates to get the value at intermediate pressures, but I don't think it's relevant to figuring this out. Before getting to what seems to be going wrong, here are (what I think) are the relevant lines from the B9 engine's part file: (These are from the jet mode) maxThrust = 640 atmosphereCurve { // Atm.P. Isp iTan oTan key = 0 1805 0 2.51E+07 key = 7.5E-06 1969 0 0 key = 0.0006 1658 0 0 key = 0.11 1853 0 0 key = 1 1600 -400 0 } (these are from the rocket part) maxThrust = 860 atmosphereCurve { key = 0 375 key = 1 330 } So, here's the weird part. The Thrust Corrector mod works perfectly for the engine when it's in jet mode. On the runway, thrust is reduced to 88% (1600/1805) of its unmodded value. Switching to the rocket mode, I'd expect the rocket's thrust to drop to 88% as well (330/375). The problem is, the thrust actually goes to a shockingly-low 14% of its unmodded value on the runway. The only way I can think of to reproduce the measured thrust reduction is to use the %F multiplier from the jet engine when it's not moving (0.85), use the jet engine's base thrust instead of the rocket's base thrust (0.85*640/860), and then either the rocket Isp to jet Isp ratio for both components at sea level, or both components at vacuum (both ratios end up with a final thrust reduction of 13%). Obviously, something wacky is going on here, and it seems to be stemming from the fact that there are two ModuleEngines nested within one module that B9 uses to switch between engine modes. It just seems doubly strange to me because I would think that if the Thrust Corrector handles the jet engine correctly, then I'd expect it to either handle the rocket correctly or treat the rocket exactly the same as it does the jet. Instead it seems to be pulling just one Isp value from the rocket, and otherwise pulling a bunch of data from the jet. Does anybody have any better ideas what might be going on, or what tests I could do to figure out what's going on? It's not the end of the world if I can't get these engines working, but they did look like they'd be fun for good-looking SSTOs. Thanks for reading, and extra thanks if you've got any ideas!