NathanKell

@magico13 sounds good, and good luck with your various busyness! Regarding rollout, let's take Apollo 11 as an example. It was rolled to the pad on May 20th, but stayed on the pad undergoing checks (i.e. what 'rollout' really signifies) until launch nearly two full months later. So certainly the pad would have needed to be ready to receive it at the start of what KCT considers rollout, since it left the VAB and arrived at the pad all during that first day.

@magico13 in addition to the above, one other 'nice to have' bool: disallow rolling out to a pad while the pad is being reconditioned. Right now you can combine them, which kinda defeats the purpose IMO. And, uh, because I'm bad at this I have even MOAR 'nice-to-haves': the ability to set whether the KAC-created alarm has kill-warp enabled or silently ends, and the setting of a KAC alarm for tech completion (and facility completion) in addition to just vessels.

Yes, that would be the best, if we could grab the crew on the way up and make sure they head down. That said, I still want to prevent someone just leaving crew on the station indefinitely (at least for this crew rotation contract; remember these are just the first pass at station contracts).

@chrisl: Yeah, it's that last bit. The 2 crew on the station when you arrived might still be there 6 years later.

@chrisl: Then you would not be required to bring anyone home ever. Also, yes, unless we want to restrict the player to only ever being able to have one crew rotation contract running at once, multiples would collide.

@New Horizons RP-0 is not going to work with your setup, period. It's not modular or open like that; the list of requirements is exactly that, requirements. If you go changing them, or replacing bits of them (like with RF stockalike), it's gonna fail. @chrisl I am also confused why that contract triggered, because it should not. @nightingale any idea there? And yes, while modern continuous-occupation stations do crew rotation like that, the contract is an early first pass at setting up crew rotations. So it requires the empty station because other the sequence will get messed up--although the main reason is for knowing when to spawn the contract and apparently that's failing. Look at it this way: it would be much worse if the contract asked you to rotate out a crew that had only been there for a few days, and were possibly still in a contract to be there longer, than the fact that you need a day or so of non-occupancy. Yes, some contract packs do that sort of thing. RP-0 does not, and will not.

I've not had problems recently with them. There was an issue a ways back that @ferram4 fixed; make sure you have the latest FAR.

The rated burn time is exposed, it's just a bit buried. It's in the modules list (the scrolling list on the right of the 'more info' part tooltip when in the VAB/SPH and mousing over a part in the part list). The way it works, during the first few seconds of burn, reliability is lower (and so MTBF is lower), then it goes back to normal, then once rated burn time has elapsed it starts climbing, reaching 100x fail chance around 1.5x the rated burn time.

@Maxsimal ah, that's very relevant; I just did something similar and found the same issues. 1. "Fill Tanks" doesn't seem to work on RF tanks; is that a known issue? 2. I plan to add a "reset ignitions" right-click-menu option for engines when they are in the VAB, to fix the 'need to replace engine' problem. 3. Yeah, the flipping is a bit annoying. :] I need to check what the inventory effect is; I think I nerfed it at one point but that's because it should be very low for certain parts (capsules, say, or really anything short of a spaceplane that survived a reentry). @magico13 what ever happened to the 'modifiers per part' idea from earlier? That would be a perfect use case, we'd lower the inventory effect of some but not all parts. Indeed, I foresee four modifiers: * Inventory effect modifier. * BP modifier when building. * BP modifier when rolling out. * Launch cost modifier (for the rollout costs). (maybe: recovery time modifier?) For example, solids would have a low launch cost and rollout time cost modifier, and a nominal inventory effect modifier, but a slightly >1 building modifier. Capsules would basically have very high modifieres everywhere except Inventory (there very, very low, possibly zero).

@TiktaalikDreaming: yeah, even A-4b levels of wing are next to nothing compared to what 5-6t of mass requires...even with X-15 level alloys.

Happily, however, the 1948* and 1952 designs do work. * Suborbital only; but given X-15 rated shielding it would presumably be fine. LV. Apologies for spamming, but I figured those are relevant here. That reminds me. @TiktaalikDreaming I really need to actually, like, try this stuff out. And, gnu help us, place/price it in RP-0.

Yeah, pretty much everyone drastically underestimated heating (and overestimated lift) at hypersonic speeds. And that's true even for the very low-wing-loading Von Braun 1948 and 1952 studies. (Which, incidentally, is more reason to think Scott might be right that the whole A-9/10/11/12 scheme might be a backport of the 1948 one, rather than something genuine at the time--after all, even by the mid-late war it was clear that the A-9's "wing" design would do next to nothing).

Uh...that would be because the bottom of the proc fairing base is hollow. As you can see.

@ColKlonk yes, it's very possible to add launch sites. Here's what the terms mean. https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/PQSCity-and-PQSMod_MapDecalTangent @Bobdabiulder Yes, it is. @lextacy You'd use either Kopernicus or Custom Asteroids.

@Maxsimal check the F3 log. See what it says.

@Zarbizaure here are the Viking configs. Note they're not using the global config system yet... https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=viking And no worries. Take your time!

@coldblade2000 yep, should work: APAS will work with APAS. Apollo won't work with APAS, you'd need a docking adapter.

@komodo well, the point is a CVN would tow it out to sea and it'd launch from there. Hence the name. (Also the CVN would crack water and chill to get the LOX and LH2 for it--that's why a regular CV just wouldn't do.) Also worth recalling: It's a Nova*-class payload (1 million lb to orbit) but pressure-fed. With only two stages. So start with one of those crazy kilo-tonne mass Nova designs, and then consider it's now only 2 stages and has low efficiency.

Nope, you're not. Hydrolox is expensive, especially because it requires such special handling. You get amazing performance, but you do have to pay for it.

Yep, dat's nuts.

Welcome to the forum! First, mod questions should go in the Addon General Discussion subforum; hopefully a moderator can move this over. I'd suggest looking into the Realism Overhaul mod, and the part packs it supports.

To mangle Nietzsche, if you break physics, physics also breaks you. I really, really don't recommend doing any physics-breaking. As was said upthread, it's liable to end in tears.

Slight correction: part.mass will be (prefab mass) + (for each IPartMassModifier, GetModuleMass() ). Resource mass is still separate, but is cached in part.resourceMass.

@Phoenix1583 I posted the link for a reason. Please read it and follow its instructions. As it says, you need to provide that info or we can't help.

@hanhan658 If that's your problem, you have way deeper problems than inability to throttle. RO requires a different style of play, your old stock-KSPish style of playing will not work. See here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki/False-KSP-Lessons @smartdummies thanks.