NathanKell

Dragon, sorry, missed this when you posted (top of page). Actually, it works out, because KSP cares only about the ratio of the numbers given in PROPELLANT blocks, not the actual numbers, and will dray however much total mass of fuel it needs to (given Isp) to produce the thrust you want. So if you, say, had a ratio of 9 LOX 1 RP-1, it wouldn't draw any more total mass; just more of the, say. 5kgs of mass it needed to draw that tick, would be LOX (it certanly wouldn't draw 9 units of LOX!) DresCroffgrin: yeah, but that shouldn't change the total burn time of the lower stage; the lower stage will always burn the maximum amount, the upper stage just might be cutoff early (when desired apogee achieved). All the sources I've found for the Titan 2-1 say 139s burn time, and I'm getting 148s. I'm guessing it's propellant residuals, since the upper stage is 4 seconds too long too.

Yeah, I was planning to do that next. Didn't realize they were off-scale until I used the ruler to check and came up ~4m short. It's actually not hard at all as long as all your nodes are on the centerline; you can just use the vertical scale factor as scale = (the scale outside MODEL{}), and then the nodes will adjust. I always use rescaleFactor = 1 when using MODEL nodes, the interaction is buggy. Interestingly, the first stage burns 10s longer than it should. Maybe the real TIIGLV doesn't burn all its first-stage propellants?

OK, got Gemini working. I had like 1-200m/s extra from an equatorial launch, now to try the 31 degree launch. Note that the vertical dimension hasn't been touched, and the FASA Gemini / Titan II GLV is only about 85-90% as tall as it should be given it's diameter. (Rescale factor was a uniform 1.22, or 2.5->3.05) The base is in lieu of launch clamps. Use a giant pFairings adapter--you can make it as wide as you want, almost. In orbit. Good gracious the OAMS has low thrust! 20 minutes to exhaust the fuel supply when thrusting forwards, for just 222m/s! Splashdown.

Ok, so, I added two more cloud layers. Now it looks freaking amazing. The unlit clouds when it's evening is still a bit of a problem though--any way you could get the sun's actual position and flip the normal?

Lucchese: tarnation, thought I'd fixed that. But I got it too, so...

(I should point out that for KSP as long as the Isp is accurate for the engine, all that matters is that the total fuel mass is correct and the ratio of the fuel volumes in the tank matches the fuel ratios in the engines. KSP doesn't actually care about propellant ratios, whereas in reality that would help determine Isp.)

Here is the conversion formula. For a given mass ratio Rm (mass of oxidizer to mass of fuel), and given Fuel density Df and Oxidizer density Do: Volume percent fuel: (1/Df) / ((1/Df)+(Rm/Do)) Volume percent Oxidizer: (Rm/Df) / ((1/Df)+(Rm/Do)) For RP-1 and Liquid oxygen, 2.5:1 yields .36 fuel, .64 oxidizer

To the extent of my knowledge, the total heat load of reentry is more or less constant; the question is how fast it is applied, and how fast it dissipates (for now putting aside the question of a detached shockwave). A shallow approach means the heat is applied over time but doesn't dissipate quickly because there's little air to dissipate it into. So it continues to build in the craft. In a steep approach, there's little heating in the upper atmosphere because you aren't in it long; by the time the massive heating starts in the lower atmosphere, you build up the same heat load, but quickly, and it dissipates quickly because you're in thick atmosphere. Usually the latter is easier for materials to handle...except that rapid deceleration at the end leads to crushing G force. The MFS idea...sounds good. I'll add a module for that in the next version. I think I can make it not interfere if you don't have MFS. Frederf, I've noticed stability problems too. I'll ask again in the FAR thread regarding stability.

Truga: I had thought I had fixed that, but I'll try again with Minmus's orbit. The problem is it'll go outside Kerbin's SOI if I give it too large SMA and eccentricity. Regarding the tech tree I'm very interested (obviously) but I'd ask if we could take the discussion to the tech tree threads in Dev? (Also, I want to point out that I made a non-controllable probe core that can still return science, for early unguided sounding rocket or satellite use, so you needn't only use planes at the start. I made it off RT1, but I'll release it as an addon for RT2.)

Dragon01, ratio is almost always given as mass ratio. KSP is the loner, in requiring volume ratios. If you look at the Volumes page I use for MFS here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvHneDAy4k99dDZYOHJraGpQc2VuMUxxU0FjSUp6NXc&usp=drive_web#gid=7 you'll see the conversions between mass ratio and volume ratio. For Kerolox MFS is set to use a mass ratio of 2.2:1 for kerolox, which converts to a volume ratio of .61/.39 That's the ratio S-IB used; S-V used a bit more oxidizer rich. I'm thinking of changing it to 2.5 all-round, since that seems more like what modern engines use. Ideally it would differ per engine (which MFS supports) but that takes a lot of work. I've finished Gemini-Titan II GLV, but interestingly despite having spot-on masses, Isps, and mass ratios, it's running out of fuel slightly before a stable orbit. Lucchese, thanks--will do!

Nope, just a bug with that mod; it renders to the same layer as the orbit paths. rbray is working on it.

FanaticalFighter, make sure you're tracking actual dV expended (not how much vac dV you have at the start of the flight, for example). If memory serves, drag losses on Saturn V launches were around 100m/s. If it gets over 500, you're doing something drastically wrong, IMO, as asmi says. Note that in MJ in order to find your actual drag losses, you have to take total dV expended, subtract your present surface velocity, your gravity losses, and your steering losses: that yields drag losses. Visari: are you using the clouds and city lights mod? Zoom far out on map view and zoom back in. Orbital tracks should reappear.

It's in the part if it's a heat shield part from DRE, or in DeadlyReentry.cfg if it's applied to an existing part. (or DR_B9 or DR_HOME if it's applied to an existing part in one of those mods) If you lower or raise loss rate, be warned: actual heat dissipation = dissipation rate * kgs of ablative lost, so if you lower the loss rate, you lower how much heat you dissipate. So you might need to change dissipation too.

Pretty sure the FASA ICBM base has the nodes near the right place. Don't know about the transforms though.

I knocked it down a lot for the next release, but I'm happy to add that.

Astronautix has the fuel ratios for Soyuz U and Soyuz FG engines. Yeah, Titan II GLV and Gemini is easier, but it's still wicked hard getting the spacecraft weights and Isps exactly right. Still wouldn't trade you though. asmi, I've been thinking about that too, but I think I'll leave that to you. I'm already maintaining like five mods, although with help. :]

Fractal_UK, I'd use that in a heartbeat. One way to distinguish between all the different otherwise-identical probe cores would be by shielding.

Actually DarthVader was asking about the base. You just need to add the module from the same size fairing base, and (this may not be necessary but) change the name of the side attach nodes to match if they don't already: node_stack_connect01, and node_stack_connect02

Yeah, I was about to post that we should just do kW-s, otherwise the battery size is insane. Woking on Gemini right now. I'll see about RCS; the problem is the game seems to only allow one type of resource for RCS, and even changing that is hard (you have to set the resourceName *and* call SetResource() on the RCS module). I'll see if I can make my own module later maybe. Maybe I could make a hack plugin with a fake single resource that, every time it's used, replenishes it from the appropriate bipropellant resources?

Oh right. Yeah. Start at somewhere between 200m for >1.8TWR, to 1.5km for 1.2TWR

Cool. Sorry to obsolete you. :}

Needs much thicker cloud cover IMO.

Starwaster: Apologies, you did. I must have not seen it, sorry. :\ That sounds pretty cool as a new part, actually! My sympathies on your pc woes...

Yeah, that's why I said the original SLS, called it Space Launching System, and gave a link. No way do I want today's SLS. :} p3asant: Fins. You want rockets to be top heavy, with the Center of Pressure (aka KSP's CoL) as far back from it as possible. Make sure you're using FAR, too. Make sure you balance width and height--the Saturn V was 110m high, a height:width ratio of approx 11.

SLS didn't light the H2 core until SRB burnout, I believe, so it's really more like parallel staging with the hydrolox as an upper stage. And this was way before closed-cycle kerolox...I agree now I'd go kerolox lower all the way. IIRC we went the LH2+strapons route because we didn't have closed-cycle kerolox, didn't even think it was possible. Go Russians!