NathanKell

The question is not simply "how much wing do I need to lift this." The question is, "for a given velocity and density, how much wing do I need for level flight with a sane AoA" For instance, at Mach 4, you don't need very much wing area. At 100m/s, you need lots (or you must fly at like 15 degrees AoA). The window you have open tells you. input speed and density and temperature, and it will report how high an AoA you need for level flight. If it's more than say 10 degrees at takeoff speed (0.3 Mach, say) and density (1.2), then you need more wing.

Yes, Squad doesn't have KSP open enough to allow that, the way most mods work is we have to let Squad's code do its thing and then undo it and redo it the way we want it. Same for this.

Lack, link me the old OP, I'll recover it. Moderators have Soooper Powers .

The solar panel fixer only runs because it's told to run in RealSolarSystemSettings.cfg. If you remove the power curve, it won't run. That's true for anything RSS does: like I said, RSS only does things if you tell it to.

That's not RealChute. That's Deadly Reentry.

You do need to know the units: how else can you figure out the (very important) thrust-to-weight ratio without knowing that thrust is in kN and mass in tonnes?

https://github.com/rbray89/EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements/raw/Overhaul/x86-Release.zip

Then don't have a solar panel fixer node?

Very true. I actually requested Sarbian add a combined Ap kick and inclination change maneuver since GTO->GEO has to be done manually if you want to combine them And yes, the impulsive assumption nodes makes is bad news. Centaur is bad enough, but trying to do the above on RCS rather than a solid kick motor is...heh. What I meant by the MJ point is that you can create a maneuver at AN or DN just to have the maneuver node icon as visible representation of where the AN/DN is. I don't know of anything that adds AN/DN indicators, though, sadly. Can look at how FinePrint adds them to its orbital conics and try doing the same for the active orbit?

You'll need to also replace the heightmaps and KSC's location or you'll see Kerbin and then at about 30km it'll switch to Earth.

Thanks. There's no need for a stripped-down RSS, RSS only ever does exactly what you tell it. If you only tell it to do those things, those are the only things it will do.

Yes, dreadicon's pull is in the 8.2pre release. As for your issues: you're getting some exceptions from KSPI. As to fuel tanks not being configured, I wouldn't call that a bug unless they *used* to be configured; it's just not-extensive-enough feature yet. I'll try to add them at some point, although PRs adding RF support to various parts are *always* most welcome.

icecramberni: Welcome to the forums! In order to get you the help you need, can you follow the guidelines in this sticky? Thanks!

I use MJ to do a "raise apogee at AN/DN" maneuver.

yes, I would put all the pngs in a folder and run DDS4KSP on them. That will be the easiest way to convert to DDS. Then you should follow my model of what to have loaded by KSP and what to have loaded by RSS (i.e. inside a PluginData folder). Dragon01: note these are braininator's new textures, not original RSS textures. capran: no idea about Bop and Gilly...or indeed the rest of it, sounds like maybe something misconfigured in the 1/10th config?

Yes, indeed there is! Add cost = (some amount of added funds) inside the CONFIG and that amount will be added to the engine's cost when in that mode. that's the same way you can set a node needed to use that mode. e.g. CONFIG { //kerolox cost = 0 } CONFIG { //hydrolox cost = 1200 techRequired = heavyRocketry // note, lower-case t in tech }

Starman4308 answered this ably, but I want to add a bit of real life context. Consider the Saturn IB launch vehicle. Kerolox first stage, S-IVB (hydrolox) upper stage. About 450 tons for the S-IB stage with 8 H-1b engines, 120 for the S-IVB stage with a single J-2. And yet the upper stage cost 50% more than the much heavier, eight-engined, 8x-the-thrust lower stage. And that's the J-2, which was not a high-performance hydrolox engine (well, high-performance in that they got an impressive TWR out of it, but it's still a gas-generator engine). You look at something like the SSME, with its 363/451s Isp (due to a chamber pressure of over 200 atmospheres!) and that thing cost a bloody fortune. Also, of course, hydrolox is dangerous to work with. The reason you get good performance out of it is that it burns hot and fast, so gnu help you if the stage cooks off. Let alone how deeply cryogenic it is, which makes transporting it very hard (and expensive). So the short answer is: yes, hydrolox really does have that good performance, if you're willing to spend 10-100x on your stage.

braininator, why would one ever want to do that?

Good to see Planet Factory planets back in action! Just a quick note--to comply with the Add-on Posting Rules your download zip will require a copy of the license. Also, you're shipping configs for both Distant Objects and for PlanetShine without mentioning it, configs which (a) overwrite people's existing files, ( collide, and © will override people's existing settings. Please fix that.

SSME: 363s at sea level, 451 in vacuum. RD-0120 is pretty similar. What matters for sea level Isp is chamber pressure. If you run a high chamber pressure, you can make even hydrolox work well at sea level.

Can you post pics of the wobbly craft in question to the RO discussion thread? We can take a look there and try to figure out what's wrong. Regarding keeping the interstage fairing attached: you have KJR installed, so you can indeed do so. Examine my staging list. The floating node on a proc interstage is the node with the (fake) decoupler in it, but KJR makes the fake decoupler real. That means if you attach the floating node to the place you want to decouple from (the bottom node of the central engine, or the bottom node of the tank if an engine cluster), then add your fairings but have them decouple the stage *after* the base's decoupler does, then it will work fine. Retros are suggested as well, of course.

johnsonwax: Nope, not possible. KSP loads all textures *before* MM processes cfgs. Textures are just textures, and they are all loaded, whether or not any models use them (let alone whether any parts use said models and textures).

thyriel: glad it works! 425km is a good bit short, my guess is if you go the full 500km after retro-fire you'll be right about 11G. Robotengineer: Yes, NASA does. (Seriously, you can use genuine mission planning software with RSS, because the orbits aren't made up. )

It's as smartdummies says. capran: it sounds like the issue is the same: open RealSolarSystemSmall.cfg and replace all SSColor32 with SSColor

Beduino: All parts that are not "100% certified" for RO will have that tag. However, in many cases there is an RO config, it's just not entirely up to date or correct. Kitspace: Roll control is usually achieved by one of five methods: 1. Control fins (Redstone / Jupiter-C / Juno I did this). 2. Multiple gimbaling engines (Titan did this). 3. Gimbaled turbopump exhaust (Delta IV does this). 4. Verniers (Atlas had these for when there's only the sustainer). 5. Attitude thrusters (most upper stages do this, like Centaur or S-IVB). Method 3 is unavailable to us right now, but all other methods work just fine in KSP. Regarding TWR, this sounds like either your stages are too large (use more stages) or that the dry mass of your stages is being underestimated. There's also the issue that RF doesn't simulate propellant residuals (usually about 0.5% of the propellants on a lower stage are left unburnt, and ~1% for uppers), which also adds to stage burnout mass and thus lowers TWR. Another thing you can do is to use verniers, and cut out the main engine when you have only a few m/s of propellant left. Then you complete the burn on (low-G) vernier thrust alone. This is also very necessary for precise apogee adjustment (and, indeed, how early LVs managed precise apogees). Regarding different payloads, while CoM being kept centered is important, height-wise it's less so. Also, the solution to delta V shifting when payload mass differs was to under-load propellants to still have the desired deltaV from the stage. ======= Starwaster, I think at this point probably the best answer is to just have a lower multiplier on RSS, and wait for RealHeat. I don't think DRE *can* be tuned to offer a deadly descent and a peaceful ascent on RSS, the math just won't easily allow it (due to how unrealistic DRE's [and KSP's] assumptions are).