-Velocity-

OK, so I fixed my undocking woes, at least for now. First, I "undocked" the vessels in game so that they were in the bugged state. Next, I found both afflicted docking ports in the save file, changed the dockUId to 0 for both docking ports, and deleted the entire "DOCKEDVESSEL" entry from each part. This allowed me to finally physically separate my ships.

I'm also experiencing a bug where I cannot undock my lunar module. I experienced a bug like this back in stock a long time ago, but I have not experienced it again for a VERY long time- like a year- and I had assumed it was fixed. I tried the instructions here, but they did not help at all. I'm also not sure that the symptoms are the same as the old unable-to-undock bug I got in stock. In stock, if I remember correctly, the bug manifested itself as the "Undock" action doing nothing at all. However, THIS bug DOES in fact split the ships in all ways but the most important- physically. The camera even re-centers to the new center of gravity after I click "Undock", but the ship I undocked cannot physically separate, it's like it's still glued on. I'll try some of my own save game edits. This is highly annoying At least though, I haven't had the RCS bug crop up again **fingers crossed**. It would be nice if modders interested in making KSP more realistic would start a unified team or something, with their own website. Instead of installing like 15 separate mods, we could just install one (which in itself would probably eliminate some bugs because it eliminates install variability and ensures compatibility), and all the modders on the team would know what the others were doing, so there would be less bugs introduced, and maybe there would even be some kind of bug tracker.

I'm talking about an entirely separate problem where the thrusters are continuously thrusting, consuming fuel, any time RCS is turned on. I'm getting this problem more and more frequently too, maybe it has to do with part count?

I'd prefer a mix. There are some features that are sorely missing, though. I donno if it's planned or not, but not having any clouds on Kerbin, Laythe, Eve, and Duna feels very wrong. For me, it strongly kills my immersion into the game to see these bodies without clouds. No other visual effect is needed as badly as clouds. Another change that might be nice, except for flag-planting, there is very little contract rewards for landing Kerbals on the surface of bodies. You don't even have to bring them back. IMO, there needs to be a "land and return Kerbal(s) from the surface of _____" contract! That was the driving "contract" for NASA in the 1960s! Additionally, an "occupation" contract might be nice, like, "have Kerbal(s) continuously on the surface (or at least, suborbital) of body ____ for time span ____".

LOL. You should have had him aerobrake into a near-circular orbit.

Maybe it only accelerated on two feet, like a motorcycle doing a wheelie I'm kind of joking, but kind of not... cold-blooded animals have to depend more on sudden bursts of speed than warm-blooded animals do. Maybe it was evolving towards true bipedalism but found some happy medium between. If there weren't "happy mediums" between quadrapedalism and bipedalism, bipedalism probably couldn't evolve.

I'm having a few RCS bugs. Frequently, not all of the RCS thrusters are firing (though as search of this thread says that they are ALL firing, it's just a graphics glitch that's making the plumes not disappear). Another problem I encounter is that sometimes, my RCS thrusters will not STOP firing! I can have Smart A.S.S. turned off, SAS turned off, be not touching the computer at all, and I have no game controllers (joysticks, pedals, etc.), but the moment I flip on RCS, all the thrusters will start firing continuously in a direction. It's like there's a "ghost input" in the RCS system. And yes, they are actually firing, it's not a graphics glitch- my velocity is continuously changing and propellant is being consumed. If I restart KSP, the problem disappears. Anyway, these aren't game-breaking problems, just annoying problems from time to time. Anybody else seen this? Also, I have another, unrelated question- do any tanks exist for liquid hydrogen that don't boil off? I tried the procedural fuel tanks, cryogenic version, and I was still getting hydrogen boiling off, but a much reduced rate. I'm asking because I'm beginning to think about doing Mars missions, and I'll need liquid hydrogen that doesn't boil off for my NTRs... right? - - - Updated - - - Which capsule? You need a heat shield on the 3-man command pod. The 1-man command pod is the only one that has an integrated heat shield. In answer to your second question, it hasn't happened to me.

You need at least 13 Jupiter masses to ignite the lowest temperature/pressure fusion reactions (with deuterium). An object has to have about 80 times the mass of Jupiter to ignite proton-proton chain fusion (which is the reaction that mostly powers the Sun). An object between 13 and 80 Jupiter masses burns dimly for some millions of years on deuterium (and, if bigger than like 60 Jupiter masses, lithium) fusion. Objects between 13 and 80 Jupiter masses are considered "brown dwarfs" (aka "failed stars") by many astronomers, though objects below 13 Jupiter masses might also be considered brown dwarfs if they were not formed around a star. (Personally, I just think we should call all large objects below 13 Jupiter masses planets regardless of where they formed.) ANYWAY, Neptune is about one nineteenth the mass of Jupiter, so it would have to be about 247 times more massive to ignite any kind of nuclear fusion in its core (and be at least a brown dwarf). It would have to be 1500 times more massive to ignite proton-proton fusion and be a red dwarf. It is by NO means a "failed star". If you're gonna consider Neptune a failed star, you might as well consider Earth a failed star.

That thing doesn't look like it would balance on its back feet.

Thanks again for this compilation of mods. There are so many changes that I'm forced to do a graduated series of ever more complex missions- just like real life! I have to learn what it takes to keep Kerbals alive in space, for example. I just can't go straight to the Moon/Mun or Mars/Duna like I can in stock. I built my first manned spacecraft last night, but I had to fly it on an unmanned mission first just to ensure that all the systems worked... I had no idea if I had big enough chutes, for example, or if the heat shield would hold for the re-entry trajectory I was following. Now, Jeb's in orbit, and I'm learning how Kerbals consume resources in space and at what rate. I'll need to know this to start my Moon program. Once I start the Moon program, I'll have to first launch an unmanned flight that tests the heatshield and parachutes- just like with Orion- then, I'll probably have my Kerbals do a test flight in LEO to make sure that the craft can biologically support them for the whole duration of a lunar mission, then I'll have to do a lunar orbital mission, and finally, I can do a landing mission! Once I start getting ready for Mars, it will be a whole new deal, I'll probably have to build a space station so I can study the life support systems/recycling I'll need for very long duration flights. Anyway, it's just really cool how a little bit more realism has re-energized my passion for KSP, made the game so much more realistic, and forced me to follow a more realistic path of learning and development. Thanks again to all the modders.

No, I said within 50-100 AU, not 0.8 light-years, which is like 50,000 AU. At tens of thousands of AU, there are plenty of gravitational perturbations from things like passing stars or molecular clouds to disrupt objects into retrograde or hyperbolic orbits. My point is that interactions between objects that are relatively close to the Sun (and stay relatively close to the Sun) are unlikely to transform an objects orbit into a retrograde orbit, the delta-V change required is probably just too high. That said, I wonder if a gas giant could modify a close passing long period comet- especially one that's already "sun-grazing"- into a retrograde comet in a single interaction? Anyway, I believe that the preponderance of retrograde long period comets is entirely or almost entirely explained by what the original poster believed, namely that it takes only a very small delta-V perturbation at like 10,000+ AU to transform your orbit into a retrograde one.

I doubt that within like 50-100 AU there's enough gravitational perturbations to force many or any objects into retrograde orbits. I suppose it might be possible to imagine a highly unlikely scenario where such a thing happens. Also consider that the closer you are to the Sun, the wider the range of velocity at aphelion that will result in you actually colliding with the Sun. You have to get through that range in a single interaction. A close passage by a planet is probably enough, but that is highly, highly unlikely. You also have to go through a series of solar system encounters where you use planetary gravity to brake your orbital velocity around the Sun to near-zero. That is probably even MORE unlikely. The only retrograde solar system objects I'm aware of are long-period comets, and the reason these exist is because their aphelion is so far away that they can be forced into a retrograde orbit in a single, low-delta-V encounter. I suppose we might find an example of an object in a retrograde orbit with a perhelion of only a few hundred AU, who knows, maybe less, but if so, it would probably have started out as a long-period comet that went retrograde, and then had its aphelion reduced by subsequent gravitational interactions with planets.

That's what I've always thought. Once you've been bumped out to the Oort cloud, at aphelion, it only takes a small delta-V nudge to flip you retrograde or hyperbolic.

Me too. There are quite likely to be Earth life forms that could actually live in some of these conditions, and if not, an Earth life form could probably be engineered that could survive using current or near future technologies. However, while we have a decent grasp on what constitutes habitability, we still don't know under what conditions life could arise. For all we know, conditions under the surface of those moons are very hostile to the formation of life. Martian life could conceivably have a common origin with Earth life, but the outer solar system moons almost certainly cannot be seeded via meteorites. They sit at the bottom of huge gravity wells, so meteors impact at very high speeds, and with the exception of Titan, they do not have atmospheres to cushion their impacts. All outer solar system moons have surface conditions that are lethal to all forms of life as we know it. Add to that, they are very far away, so materials blasted off of Earth (or Mars) has an extremely, incredibly low probability of impacting into, say, Europa, and even if a Earth/Mars meteoriod were so lucky, it would still most likely happen only after it had been floating around in space so long that all the biologicals it was carrying had died. So if we find anything living out there, it will almost assuredly be the result of a separate genesis of life.

Have you considered correctly orienting the galactic equator and putting in an Earth-realistic sky? I'd assume you can replace the sky texture just like any other.

Why couldn't you pseudo-model residuals by making the dry tank mass a bit higher? That's exactly what I did last night to finally get a satellite into orbit. I used those procedural SRBs. I didn't even need to adjust the throttle on my stages, the TWR remained "reasonable" through all of them. Thank you and all the other modders for helping to make KSP fun again, I needed something challenging. I can't wait till I get experienced enough with these mods to send a manned mission to the Moon or Mars. No, I've been launching with a fairly low TWR (like 1.3) and using reasonably low TWRs on my upper stages (like 0.5-1). Well, I WANTED to launch with TWRS like that, but a lot of the problems I was running into was just the limited selection available of engine thrusts, which I solved with the expanded/rebalanced stock engines mod.

It's Utah. The desert part. There isn't enough water in the soil to do that. It's dust, raised by the acoustic energy coming out of the SRB.

1 day of sampling data, but at what data rate? https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-data-logger-shield ^^ I did find this cheap arduino data logger this summer when I was looking for something like it for work, but it didn't fit my needs and never bought it. It would record to an SD card. You'd have to set up some hardware and probably do a little programming, like, for example, make a signal conditioning board for it so that you could feed the Aurdino's ADC a signal that was proportional to average power and that didn't turn it into smoke. You'd have to isolate your analog signal conditioning circuitry from AC, obviously, but that's not too difficult. Basically, how your signal conditioning would work would be to multiply the voltage across the AC load by the differential voltage across a current-sense resistor (in series with the load) using something like this analog voltage multiplier IC- http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD633.pdf Low-pass filter the output of this IC (you could use nothing more than a single-pole LPF using a resistor and a capacitor) so that you get the average power over like the last second or two, and have your data logger log that. I haven't done a project where I need to sense AC voltages, so I'm not familiar with how to best isolate your signal conditioning circuit from AC, but I could look it up if this approach interests you, and you don't already know how. The advantage to this approach: it's cheap. You can get Advanced Circuits to make you a two-layer PCB for only $33, and get the parts off Digi-key and Mouser. The disadvantage- obviously, it's gonna be more labor-intensive, and you need decently advanced electrical engineering skills, but if you say you have a bunch of O-scopes and probes, maybe you do.

Thank you both very much! Like I said, I knew that KSP stock must be unrealistic, because of how difficult it is to get like 10 km/s+ delta V with a high TWR the whole way (if it wasn't difficult to get 10 km/s+, it would be extremely easy to get to orbit in stock). I just was never able to figure out where the unrealism was creeping in from. So stock KSP's unrealism, in terms of rocket delta-V, creeps in through how heavy the rocket engines and empty fuel tanks are, and real rockets have very large rises in acceleration (due to decreasing mass but constant engine thrust) just before they stage? Also, thanks for the tip on turning off engines- I had thought of that, but I hadn't tried to make use of it yet, partly because it just felt inefficient. I've only built a handful of rockets so far in this realism overhaul install.

Actually, I think that's just dust that's being kicked up by the acoustic energy. Rocket launches are so loud they have to have sound suppression systems to keep the sound from reflecting off the pad and damaging the rocket. If the sound of the motor wasn't loud enough by itself to kick up dust, I'd be shocked.

There are data monitoring/logging devices that you could possibly set up, but they can be expensive. A key requirement- over how much of a time window are you trying to measure at one time? What is the smallest acceptable time window? Your requirements are a little vague, but an old oscilloscope could fit the bill, and wouldn't cost much if used. You could measure the voltage and current (using a current-sense resistor and a voltage probe- a lot cheaper than an actual current sensor) and export the waveforms its collects to a computer. But the time window it collects over would be short. Just make sure the o-scope can handle 120 VAC, which is actually a peak voltage of (2^0.5)*120 = ~170 V If you have a complex load (one with a significant imaginary/reactive component) you have to know the relative phase between the voltage and the current to compute the power, so simply measuring the current alone won't do the trick. Of course, the other key requirement is cost, how much are you willing to spend? Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about watt meters, there's really not something fairly cheap you can just buy off the shelf?

OK, I was curious if you guys could help me out with some things. I've installed Realism overhaul and most of the recommended mods (the biggest one I left out was Remote Tech). Keep in mind, I’m coming off playing stock KSP for like the last six or nine months, and before that, the most “serious†mod I used was like KW rocketry and B9. Nothing that changed the game nearly to the extent that these mods do. Anyway, to be honest, I don’t like the limited range of engines in the default install. I'd rather have a fully fictional set of engines that don't have any gaps in capability/thrust range that just behave realistically. They are also odd sizes, are extremely, extremely lightweight, and almost all have fixed throttles. That last part can’t be realistic, can it?! I’m pretty sure I remember while watching space shuttle launches Mission Control mentioning the space shuttle adjusting its throttle. They’d throttle down, for example, when passing max-Q. The inability to throttle any large engines combined with extremely lightweight empty fuel tanks means the rockets that I am launch start at a TWR of like 1.3 and end with a TWR of like 3, 4, or even more in some cases. I’m getting such a huge thrust I’m having a hard time doing a gravity turn, because gravity never really gets a change to pull my flight path down. So, what am I doing wrong? Is all this stuff- super lightweight fuel tanks, extremely high thrust, lightweight engines, fix-throttle engines actually realistic? I'm going to look some stuff up when I get the chance (like, the masses of various engines and their thrusts IRL, and the fueled vs. unfueled weights of some rockets). Also, I don’t think there is a single throttleable rocket engine intended for atmospheric use by default. I do understand that the stock rocket parts can’t possibly be as good as real life rocket parts, because it takes a lot of effort to make a launcher with like 10 km/s+ dV in stock, but are things really this good (and bad, in the case of no throttleable engines) IRL? Additionally, based off of my comments above, are there any specific additional mods or configs I should be using/setting? Finally, how do we get the nice, immersive clouds? RVE isn’t available on CKAN, should (can?) we install it anyway, or should we be installing EVE? Sorry if my questions seem a little basic, I'm just kind of on mod overload at the moment... I'm not used to all of these. I don't know where the configs are stored either.

I bet all those people who live in Svalbard are really looking forward to this one.

I know the difference between Ares I and V, I just mis-spoke initially, and then didn't fully fix my post. Again, I don't see how such a huge rocket is needed to launch Orion when the Ares I was at least almost enough. Orion weighs like 24 metric tons, isn't the SLS in its inital configuration supposed to put something like 100 metric tons in LEO? Does it really take a rocket with 4X payload capacity to put something into lunar orbit and back?

Ok, something I've never quite understood- Originally, Orion was going to be launched by this little thing called the Ares I. Now, we're going to launch it with this gigantic rocket called the SLS. I understand that Ares V was going to launch Orion to LEO and that SLS can launch Orion at least to the Moon. 1) I'm surprised that such a huge rocket is needed to send Orion to the Moon, as compared to the Ares V. Heck, I think the first stage of the Ares V was going to essentially be just ONE of the SRBs on the SLS. That's a massive increase in size. Isn't the SLS overkill for launching Orion? 2) What if we want to launch Orion to LEO?