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.

Thanks again for the replies, that really helped. I put some RAM intakes (with engine nacelles) at the tip of the wing, and lost the middle engine. That fixed a lot of problems, as the plane now takes longer to build up speed, but is much more stable and has a better intake/engine ratio. I actually found out I could do with 2 engines because I took off a little too steep in one flight, and ripped of my middle engine. The plane continued to fly admirably, so i changed the design. The backflipping is pretty much gone now, so I can handily fly the plane into orbit, without having to jettison anything! Landing is still a problem though, because with emptied rocket fuel tanks, the balance of the craft shifts massively, causing it to become uncontrollable upon re-entry. I guess I'll try transfering fuel around a bit to counteract that. For the time being though, I'll switch back to rockets and try getting a Kerbal to the moon (and back).

I did try and replaced a fuel tank with empty fuselage (though that was only possible for the front tank), which obviously shifted the CoG, but not by a lot. It still overlapped with the CoL. The odd thing is, even if I control how fuel is being drained, the craft still is very unstable, and I do not know why. Also, is anyone else having issues with that picture? It loads fine for me from different PCs.

Thanks everyone for the helpfull replies! Here is a screenshot of the plane. Where do I find the craft files to attach? http://postimg.org/image/d8cfo1hal/ The center of lift is now slightly behind and above the center of mass. The center of thrust is directly behind the center of mass, no deviation sideways or up/down. By attaching some canards to the tailfin as additional control, placing a piece of empty fuselage behind the cockpit and managing fuel tanks a bit, I have successfully gotten the plane into a 70KM Orbit. Took almost all the rocket fuel. However, these "fixes" are only addressing the symptoms, not the problem itself: Upon re-entering the atmosphere, the craft became completely uncontrolable, flipping different directions and going into a rightward spiral that I could not stop. It is obviously unstable. The question is why?

Hey everyone, As is probably expected from new KSP players, I can handily get a rocket into orbit, but fail to reach orbit with my (self designed) spaceplanes. I am not using any stock crafts because I want to get a feel for which designs work and which don't by myself. Anyways, I designed a fairly standard airplane: MK1 and Mk 2 fuselage, 3 Turbojet engines (one center, two attached directly left and right of the fuselage) with a delta wing shape and canards. In order to get into space, I have 2 aerospike engines each with it's own tank (the tank that is the same size as the MK 1 jet fuselage plus one Oscar , situated in the middle of the delta wing. Tons of intakes (about 14.0 air intake max, though I never reach that). After many tries, I can now get the plane to about 23 km altitude with a surface velocity above 900m/s. At this point, I have to essentially point the nose downward with all my might (or rather, the SAS does) to keep the airplane from just flying straight upwards and then start flipping. My angle will usually be at about 20° at this point (I go up almost vertically after liftoff, and after reaching 10KM point the nose downward to pick up speed). At this point, I usually am below 0.20 air intake, and as the intake drops below 0.05, I cut the engines to prevent uncontrolled flameout (that is, I shutdown all 3 engines via action group, took me a while to figure out that you could do that). Then start up the rocket engines. And then it happens: My nose pulls up and no amount of counter-steering helps, leading the plane into a backflip and eventually uncontrollable spin. Sometimes I manage to get it back under control, but at that point I have burned too much fuel to get into orbit. My center of mass upon take-off is just slightly in front of the center of lift, and the center of thrust is in the middle of the plane, as near as I can tell. Basically, all planes I designed so far have this problem: They fly very well up to altitude, but at about their max altitude, they start backflipping. I tried going slower, but while that sometimes prevented backflipping, it also made me fall slightly. Then I tried going faster, which seems to keep the plane controllable for longer, but fails as soon as switch to rocket power. Someone on the forum noted that this might be caused by the CoG drifting backwards as the tanks empty. That sounds reasonable, as the tanks empty from front to rear. I have no idea what to do to counteract that though. Any help is appreciated