NathanKell

The unit is somewhere around 4.28m^2, but not quite. It's a bit squirrely. It was kept for backwards compatibility with the old lift rating, rather than going to m^2 directly.

It's...the relative wing area. A wing with a relative wing area of 10 has double the wing area of a wing with a relative wing area of 5. It's saying "I'm wing area, but not in any units you know, so you can really just use me for relative calculations."

@cytosine glad you got it solved! That said, (a) it's still my problem because I am the RP-0 crew too (Well, it's another shared project like RO, I'm not in the least the whole crew), and (b) either way RP-0 doesn't change parts, RO does. RP-0 sets costs and tech requirements and that sort of thing. @stratochief66 is the guy who mostly does FASA configs--poking.

@Dman979 You need to do two things to circularize after apogee: 1. Lofting trajectory. Establish an initial apogee that is higher than your desired orbital altitude. Since you're circularizing on the way down, you want to hit your desired altitude when you reach orbital speed. 2. Pitch up after apogee such that you hit 0 m/s vertical velocity when you reach your desired orbital altitude (and when you reach orbital velocity, which should be the same time). @CliftonM doesn't sound like delta V is the problem here; the problem is insufficient time in space (can be solved by a higher-TWR, i.e.e shorter burn time for same dV, upper stage, or better vertical velocity control by pitch contorol).

Thanks. Fixed.

We're aware the PID has trouble. When we have time we'll be working on it.

@cytosine I believe we weld the stage together; what you should look for is S-I (or S-IB) stage, not just the plate.

@cytosine RO patches FASA, it's one of the many part packs RO supports. frizzank did indeed design his parts for regular KSP usage, but RO makes them real scale etc. Under RO, the Saturn I/IB first stage is indeed ~260in (I believe the base diameter was slightly more than 260in and the diameter around the cluster slightly less; 260in / 6.604m is the nominal diameter for the S-I/S-IB as well as S-IVB stages).

Grumman H4F Tomcat (Mar 1938): A redesigned Bobcat for increased speed, toughness, and pilot-friendliness, the Tomcat was one of the most heavily-armored piston-engine hunters built during the Second World War, a true product of the Grumman “Iron Works.” Introduced in early 1938, the first Grumman hunter to feature hydraulically retracting main gear, it included many additional changes to increase pilot as well as aircraft performance, using experience brought back by US volunteers in the French Civil War. The wings’ mount point was lowered to increase visibility and maneuverability, and the cockpit was mounted higher with a Mukerjee hood and pronounced downslope to the fore. All this offered significantly increased forward visibility in combat and when taking off and landing. Wide-track hydraulically-actuated gear gave the Tomcat enhanced ground stability and did away with one of the Bobcat’s most hated features, the manually retracting gear. More heavily armed, with 4x 20mm cannon rather than the Bobcat’s 0.50 caliber machine guns, and much more heavily armored, Grumman sought to make a much more survivable and effective combatant. The most important change, however, was the massively more powerful engine fitted to the Tomcat, a 2000HP radial in the early models. Only during the later days of the Intervention did the Tomcat see service, flying off Atlantic Fleet carriers in the Mediterranean. It was, however, the frontline USN hunter at the start of the Second World War, and continued in service on carriers too small for the Skyhawk and the jets. H4F-1: 8157lb dry, 10803lb loaded, 2000HP, 403mph, 4x 20mm cannon. H4F-1 "Jeannette" of VH-32 Redtails, USS Sambre, 1940.

v10.8.2 * Fix log spam. * Fix a typo in heat anim patch. * Fix bug with stock radiator interaction.

@BloodDusk Since when can CKAN not install FAR? You don't get support from ferram if you install FAR using CKAN, but there's a thread for CKAN FAR support in the support forum.

Define "easier." If using 2.5m rather than 1.25m parts for your Mk1 pod is hard, then I guess it's harder. But to me, that just means you've got a lower payload fraction, not that it's harder. Now, some of the limitations Realism Overhaul adds (like, say, limited ignitions, ullage, avionics, that sort of thing)--that makes the game genuinely harder. But I fail to see why "but I need a bigger rocket!!11one" is harder. :]

Same story: they have to survive reentry, interplanetary space, 20 K to 2000K temperatures, etc.

Who says kerbals haven't discovered airplanes or cars yet? They haven't discovered wings and wheels that work on any planet in the solar system, after a trip through deep space.And that can survive 1-2000 K of heating. That's a whole different kettle of fish from "kerbals don't know about airplanes or cars."

I'm happy to accept any PRs to give "stock" balanced science values for RSS bodies. The RP-0 ones are balanced for RP-0.

Because those engines use an obsolete category (Propulsion) instead of the correct 0.90+ category. If they have a stock engine module KSP can handle it, but if not, KSP will default to tanks. Ask the part mod makers to use the correct new engines category.

FWIW the Centaur in that drawing looks too short for its stated length. You might want to take the drawing into Photoshop and get the width in pixels of the Centaur on the 401 (known to be 3.048m) and compare it to the lengths, in pixels, then compute the meters.

@ss8913 remove the MJFARExtension dll. It's for the release version not the dev version, and will break MJ if you have dev FAR installed. ...ask me how I know. >.>

@Temstar Yes. But you said touchship not torchship. Hence my post, and my wondering if you were intentionally punning.

@Temstar No, using an engine to touch someone is Niven, not Heinlein. (Though you did go there after the quote, so...maybe it was a pun after all?)

Ah, I see. In that case I guess it does make sense to plop them in RSS.

The science defs are actually being done in RP-0, but thanks! I already chucked in your Phobos and Deimos fix, but I'm happy to nom the rest too. Public notice: between that and the atmosphere pressure etc work @OhioBob has been doing, and the fact that I'm no longer 1000% busy on tutorials, I'll be making a release soon. So. HALP PLS I could really use YOUR HELP (hi all!) in fixing up the launch sites for the next release! It's not that hard, there are docs --it just takes a bit of trial and error and KSP-reloading.

To put it another way: if getting the propellants to combust was all that mattered, you could start up your car with a match.

stack nodes, and the boosters having a stack node, would solve this, right? Just place the boosters without symmetry.

You're missing the point. THAT IS THE TANK. That's why it's called a tank butt. Tanks are capsules. The stage is made up either a combined-bulkhead single capsule, or two capsules with an intertank skirt. The stage also has forward and aft skirts. It's like you took a capsule and put a belt on the top and the bottom. KSP "tanks" are in fact stages with long forward and aft skirts (long enough so the skirt is as tall as the dome) and then a covering plate at each end. That's partly why it's so wacky to then have a closing tankdome as the top part of the engine...