NathanKell

A new RO has not yet been released. You'll need to download RO from source, i.e. go to the repo page and click "Download Repository"

Grabbed with pleasure! Ooh, it'd be very neat to see KSP's first actual jet engine, not just nozzle. Those early centrifugal flow compressors were gigantic...

Well, neither stock nor FAR support washout, so it would merely be cosmetic...

You might also want to look at the OnDemand code in Kopernicus (since biome maps and MapSOs generally are even worse sinks for memory than textures, since you can't upload them to the GPU and you need to keep them uncompressed).

Sure. Let me know!

REQUEST Given comments in IRC, and Laie's just now, RP-0 will be including more stock craft. Some planes, some sounding rockets, some early orbital rockets, that sort of thing. We'd love some submissions! The craft should: * Be easy to fly, and easy to understand how they work. * Demonstrate good construction techniques and be set up to build good flying and building habits. * Use only the required and recommended part packs for parts (no FASA/KW/AIES/B9), though B9 Procedural Wings are acceptable (probably required, for planes), and Proc Fairings / Proc Parts are indispensable. Here's some from me, though I'd rather use others' instead.

That actually just means they got heated up, no actual damage.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealSolarSystem/blob/master/GameData/RealSolarSystem/ContractModifier.cfg#L24-L26 Satellite contracts use those multipliers times SoI limit to derive the contract orbital altitudes (as SMAs). Since the SoI for 365 is rather larger, you probably want to decrease the multipliers from the stock values (in Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg) to somewhere between stock and the values linked above (for RSS).

Trollception: We've been using this, setting the from to the year you have, and the to to 1965. Rule of thumb is that fairly simple stuff (up to and including conventional engines) is about 20:1 R&D vs per-item purchase; hydrolox engines and capsules are more like 40:1, and I would guess the same for those sorts of probes. A fairly brief google arrived at this document, which seems very relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-88-130FS From that you should be able to more accurately apportion R&D vs manufacturing costs. chrisl: As with most of your requests, the answer is the same: Yes, that's a very good idea, now someone actually has to make it. (Note that the requirement isn't 400x150, it's "perigee above 150, apogee below 400", so anything from 300x300 circular to 399x151, to 285x185, etc, all will work.) Another solution here is duration and number-of-people-aboard records, as well as recurring contracts (i.e. first 12hr mission, first day-long mission, first 2-crew mission, first 3-crew mission, etc.) Hitokiri: We try to give engines fairly useful descriptions to aid in selecting appropriate ones, because it's true it can be rather complicated. If you're playing RP-0 with only the part packs we require (SXT and Ven's Stock Revamp) the supply of engines should not be so overwhelming--what else do you have installed? Part of the issue is that unlike KSP, where rockets generally vary between 10 and a few hundred tons, RSS/RO craft vary between less than a single ton up through many thousands of tons, and there are different use cases as well (throttling engines, engines that don't have to worry about boiloff, etc). If RO is too overhwelming, you might like SMURFF. But (ninja'd) as Laie says that won't work with RP-0, you'd want to use the stock career.

No. RF builds off SolverEngines; using RF without SolverEngines is rather like using RF without KSP, it won't load. Try manually installing RF from here? https://github.com/NathanKell/ModularFuelSystem/releases/download/rf-v10.6.1/RealFuels_v10.6.1.zip (Seriously, that issue you're reporting is due to a mismatched RF and SolverEngines, so clearly *something* is screwy in the install...)

This covers some workarounds, SlashTen. You'll note that RSS now includes contract modification to fix this and other issues, and I suggest 365 should as well. The issue: https://github.com/KSP-64k/64k/issues/14 The RSS patch: (you don't need all of it, and the multipliers for contract orbital altitudes etc should be changed, but the stock multipliers won't be right either... https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealSolarSystem/blob/master/GameData/RealSolarSystem/ContractModifier.cfg )

Uh, yeah, that's what I meant...certainly didn't expect that outcome though. :] Sorry, that's the limit of my theoretical knowledge here, maybe someone else knows better?

Ah, sorry, lunar orbit. Then you can scratch DOI/Landing, and Ascent. That leaves just TLI at 3300, LOI (Lunar Orbit Insertion) at 900, and Trans-Earth Injection at 900 (maaaaybe 700, it depends). 1900m/s (including some headroom) implies 7.5 tons of propellant for every ten tons of payload and engine/tank structure (a mass ratio of 1.75 to 1) assuming your engine can manage 345s in vacuum. Certainly you shouldn't be trying to combine TLI and lunar orbit ops; your TLI stage should either be combined with your upper stage, or be entirely sepearate (i.e. anywhere from 2-4 stages to lunar transfer orbit, then 1 stage for capture and return).

You need to stage more. As for delta V, for a lunar mission I'd suggest: 9000-9500 (depending on TWR and thus gravity losses) for orbit 3300 for TLI 900 for LOI 2400 for DOI and landing 2200 for ascent 900 for TEI

I'm just speculating; I'll ask Raidernick about it.

Post that on the RO github repo with your fix (PR best, of course ) and it'll be fixed permanently

Nope, that would be in the plugins.

The nice thing about quaternions is that you can just multiply them together. So rotation A combined with rotation B is just A*B. So to apply the new rotation on top of the existing vessel orientation, you can do vessel.transform.rotation = vessel.transform.rotation * newRotation.

I agree that SLS/ArianeV style is probably best for KSP if you're using solids. Titan/old-SLS style makes some sense, but doesn't seem right for KSP given the low burn times of solids, you'll be air-lighting rather early both in terms of altitude and horizontal velocity, and unless your core has so high a TWR that you're wasting mass on engine, you'll lose back some of the gravity losses you avoided earlier. For that style, though, it's worth considering using verniers (24-77s probably) for TVC during SRB phase.

I think it's because they should use Nertea's round solar panel plugin? Theysen: Lunar (stock) heatshield worked, got the same issue you did with the LEO one. Investigating.

Awesome! I haven't actually planned out the late tree except in regards engines, so your node selection looks fine. 1,000 USD in 1965 is 1 fund, so $1m in 1965 is 1000 spesos.

Now *that* is what I love to see! Great job! I especially like the way you broke it down into the three cases, and also broke down the losses into gravity and drag. I'd be very interested to see you run a similar setup, except with some strapons, since SRBs remain quite cheap and the vast majority of gravity losses occur early. EDIT: In fact since KSP engines throttle, you could get away with STS/SLS style boosted sustainers.

I think you want to apply the rotation to the vessel, rather than setting it, i.e. new rotation = vessel.transfrom.rotation * correctionRotation

Trolllception: Ah, excellent! RP-0's tech tree technically goes into the near future, we just haven't worked over many nodes past the mid 1960s. Indeed CTTChanges.cfg doesn't patch probe nodes beyond, um, whatever the probe node that Improved Insturmentation leads to (Miniaturization?). Feel free to patch them too then! (CTTChanges.cfg is organized by tier, and you can see that for most tiers I've patched and/or added nodes for PF and open cycle engines [rocketry], Hydrlox, and Staged, as well as sometimes more.) borisperrons: You installed RP-0 through CKAN? Verify that you have an RP-0 folder in your GameData folder, and that inside that RP-0 folder you have a file Tree.cfg. chrisl: I'll look that up tonight. I know part of the problem was that Astronatuix reported the dry mass of GATV as that of Agena D... And yes, Ravenchant (IIRC) was adding support for the ATK pack.

I will try to replicate then (again). Last time it worked fine for me. Can you post your complete mod list?