Cronos988

I just did that contract, the core did not overheat. It did immediately show an overheat bar that stayed there the entire time, but it never went to more than 20% full (that was when I staged in the upper atmosphere). Once in space there wasn't any problem. At what point does it overheat? How fast is the rocket?

Weird, I was unable to get this to work. Is there any naming convention to get the config to show up in the list? Since I am new to this mod: What exactly is the purpose of the special config? Is it just to make starting out easier (since you don't have access to manned cores early), or are there any assumptions that RemoteTech makes that aren't accurate for SETI?

Hey guys, I have encountered a weird issue with one of my early supersonic plane designs, and wanted to ask if somebody might be able to give me some pointers. I have a working basic supersonic plane, essentially shaped like a cigar with triangular wings (just put tip width to 0 and offset to 1.0). That's probably not the best wingshape but it works well enough for the first contracts. Now I have been trying to design a successor, which I did by essentially bolting three hulls together horizontally and adding wings to that. In a previous game, which unfortunately went pear-shaped due to me accidentially removing a mod, that same basic design worked fine. Now my problem is that the new contraption simply won't fly. It starts turning over one wing and the tumbles down uncontrollably, and I can't seem to find out why. It doesn't seem to be a problem with lack of lift since it even happens when flying almost straight up with a TWR of more than 1 and at over 200m/s. Additional stabilizing fins seem to do nothing. I am at a loss here - what could be wrong? It's a very simple design, 3 cigar-shaped fuel tanks in horizontal configuration, with main wings with evelons and winglets in the back for pitch and yaw control. CoM and CoL line up. Picture:

I like the idea. Maneuver nodes are the most common thing to use SAS lock on in space, so why not make it a tad more accuratre. I don't know about the challenge bit. What exactly is the challenge with locking onto a maneuver node currently? It is practically impossible to get a perfect alignment unless you want to fiddle for half an hour, which is not exactly challenge. Thus all burns will always be slightly off. Removing that allows for more complicated maneuvers and therefore more interesting missions. Also if you didn't want to use the maneuver node, why set it in the first place? Sure, but just because it wasn't the case previously it isn't automatically a bad idea. Though maybe the function should be somewhat in addition to the normal SAS. Maybe you could activate the lock on the maneuver node itself, and when SAS is engaged, it will move there. I don't think that would be too much autopiloting. You still set the maneuver node yourself, you still do the burn yourself. It is not like you would normally fry freely during the maneuver, heading is always locked by SAS. This feature would just make the already existing lock a tad more accurate.

Unfortunately, if you happened to exit the game (or, as it was in my case, your PC crashes) after reaching orbit (which means the game will have been saved) there is no revert flight option for you. It is do or die then, no way out of it. As I said, I am not against the feature, it is just that it came so sudden, it feels like a bit of a sucker punch when you first realize the new danger but it's already too late.

Report from testing the Aeris 3A: - On launch, has a slight tendency to veer off runway. - Rolls slightly left (or counterclockwise) when climbing, nose pitches up as a result. - after correcting the roll, maintains level flight with the nose pitching slightly down, as expected. Now engaging SAS: - Holds level flight - Upon pitching up, bounces back about 5° for every correction. Trying to move the nose up 5° does almost nothing (bounces approx. 4 degrees back down). - after the slight bounce-back, it holds the new attitude perfectly - corrects rolls very sharply, positively "locking" the craft in roll. - Does not accept any change in the yaw axis. It immediately bounces back, only allowing me very very slight yaw corrections. Edit: Upon further testing, "locking" the roll and bouncing back immediately from any yaw correction seem to be natural features of the craft, not specific SAS effects. SAS does indeed make the yaw more manageable, as the craft will not overcompensate any yaw input as it does without SAS.

Jebediah Kerman is dead. K.I.A. on a SSTO spaceplane test that went poorly. And I kinda feel very bad about that. You see, while I did know that we now have an actual crew on the craft that we can select, in my drive to test out the new SAS features and looks of the base, I launched a spaceplane and flew it around a bit, see what it would do. I did not pay attention to the crew loadout yet. The spaceplane eventually crashed. Thats not a big deal, I thought, happened dozens of times before. Except now, I suddenly have a Crew member who is permanently dead. Not just any crew member, either, but the most iconic of all Kerbals. I feel like I would have liked a warning before I go ahead and start actually killing Kerbals in what were completely normal "simulation" flights before. Now, I actually quite like the idea that we know actually have to care for the crew, build failsafe emergency systems etc. It adds a nice new design challenge and a touch of realism to the game. However, this being a sandbox mode, I do feel that there is a certain pressure on me now. No longer will I be able to just "test" a new Rocket quickly to see if any parts come off. Because if I do, that means a couple more names on the "lost" list in the KSC. I know dead Kerbals really don't matter in any way right now, but I will still feel bad about just ignoring them. What do you think about the matter? Do you feel bad about the Kerbals you accidentially killed in your current save?

Thats odd. I have a spaceplane that became completely uncontrollable upon re-entry in 0.20, and now flies beatifully in 0.21. It's odd, on the one hand, it seems to be easier now to fly somewhat un-balanced craft because the SAS "dampens" them enough to make them controllable. On the other hand, it does have a problem keeping a specific angle. All in all, active flying does seem easier to me now. I get the feeling that more than just the SAS has changed. Maybe aerodynamics were updated as well? That would explain the apparent divide between planes that can suddenly fly well and planes that suddenly don't fly anymore. Also, the new reaction wheels are not additive? That means there is no use to put more than one on a craft to get more torque?

I killed Jebediah! What have I done? forgot that the new SAS needs electric charge, lost control of spaceplane

That doesn't sound correct to me, though I have only very limited knowledge of quatuum physics. Anything as big as a rock will have it's potentials locked into that specific shape. Only single, unrestricted particles exist as possibillities. As soon as they get together, their waveforms collapse into a single possibility. It is still possible for objects to randomly change completely, but the likelyhood of that is so low that statistically it won't even happen once in the lifetime of the universe. The differentiation between the "physical" person and the person inside one's head isn't exactly unproblematic. And every instance of us inside the consciousness of other people isn't correct. Those are all only partial, sometimes completely incorrect, versions. One could argue that fictional characters do indeed "exist" in hundreds of very similar instances across the readership. But that is completely off topic now . You still need the entire data, though. And depending on the observer, you will need to simulate not only his consciousness, but every natural phenomenon he comes into contact with. If your simulated consciousness is an astrophysicist, that might be a lot of simulation to run. Anyways, the idea of only simulating a single consciousness seems theoretically possible. We have absolutely no idea how hard it is to simulate consciousness, but we might actually find out in the not so distant future. If the programmers of our simulation allowed it, that is.

"What if" that is the case? Well then nothing. Who cares. It is an assumption without any implications. I am under the impression that a perfect simulation of the universe would be the universe. The point of a simulation is to simplify things. So if this universe is a simulation, then whatever is simulating it must be more complicated. The Brain does not have a "reality flag" that enables it to discern between memories of reality and imagination. That is why, when you are dreaming, you do not realize that you do. You can also create real emotions by just imagining things. The fact that you cannot tell whether the deja-vu is an actual memory or not is therefore not an exception, but the rule. I blame selective perception: We probably constantly "remember" things that we actually only imagined, but we usually don't notice. It is only certain imaginations (like a deja-vu) that pique our interest enough to seem special.

What exactly would the purpose of a "hype-creating media group" be if the audience of that group consists almost exclusively out of people who already own the game?

Well the obvious follow up to that "what if" is "what would that imply?" If we frame the scenario in such a way that there is no way "out" of the simulation (unlike in Matrix), then what is the point of entertaining the theory? Pretty similar to many agnostic deistic theories, if it has no implications for anything it is utterly meaningless. Someone suggested reading Descartes, I think Berkeley entertained the notion that we are all just a simulation in god's head.

interesting discussion I am actually not looking for an everyday example so much, rather I am trying to understand how the transfer of energy between rocket And propellant works. If we assume the rocket is a barrel, and instead of a continous burn, a single projectile is ejected by an explosion, then the energy of the explosion is transferred to both barrel And projectile. But Intuition tells me that both would get the same energy everytime, equally split between them. Yet their relative masses and the speed of the entire system apparently matter. Looking at the explosion, I cannot tell why.

How is the exhaust "standing still" when the rocket is faster? Isn't the relative speed between the rocket and it's exhaust always the same? It might be standing still in relation to any other frame of reference, depening on the speed of the rocket and the energy released by the burn, but why does that matter? I mean it's perfectly obvious that if energy is a function of mass times speed squared, inreasing the speed from 100 to 101 increases the energy way more than increasing it from 0 to 1. I just don't see how the bullet/cannon example makes this any easier to explain. Does this have something to do with relativity, perhaps? The exhaust also gets heavier as it gets faster, and flinging someting heavier gives you more energy.