NathanKell

It won't.

Which exact heat shield did you use? There are two 2m ones in RP-0 basic, and more in extra mods... Further, pics (in the VAB) of the craft you reentered with, in its exact reentry configuration, with info windows (KER or MJ) open if available.

ptr421: Guess who forgot to add an SPU! I did!

Guess I'll start things off! Craft files

Did I say anything about RealPlume? I said they require EFFECTS nodes, which are easy enough to make. That's your "workaround" right there.

That's very close, the difference is that: 1. Heat transfer coefficient is rho^.5 * v^3 but 2. If you go too fast at too low, you move from laminar to turbulent flow, and the heat transfer spikes up (over 30-100x IIRC) That means that you *mostly* have equal heat loads no matter your entry angle, but that (assuming you can stand the peak heat *flux* without the shield over-temping) it's better to go steeper than shallower. (That's ignoring the fact that that's merely the transfer coefficient, the temperature difference is (shock temp - part skin temp) and the shock temp is...fairly proportional to v) Only real way to lower ablator loss is to lower the lossconst in the MODULE, or try to keep the shield at a lower skin temp, but that's not terribly controllable because you need high temps from low Pes in order to capture.

Lucius: I suggest using RF Stockalike, it's what it's there for.

VesselGroup should persist. That's weird.

regex, send me the craft file? I'll see if I can repro.

Frizzank, thank you from me--and indeed from the wider RO community whose experience, as regex notes, you've enhanced immensely. Best of luck in returning to school and indeed in all your future endeavors, and hope you're never a stranger to us. Now, let's be real. Anyone who thinks it's not going to be still named FASA is...quite frankly missing the point. It's frizzank's (amazing) work, so FASA it remains.

Super psyched to see this picking up again! (And very sorry I let the old thread/project lapse). I'm happy to turn over the signup sheet etc to whoever wants it, it has most things parted out with various details on pre-existing assets.

You definitely need to lower the convectionFactor, as well as the mach temperature values. They were calibrated for stock KSP and will not behave right with rescales.

Confirming the issue. Indeed there's some trouble with the cfgs. For example, patch.cfg adds a *second* copy of ModuleLiftingSurface. As to AdmiralTigerclaw's issue, the problem is MODULE:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks] should be MODULE:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks|RealFuels] EDIT: Also Crzyrndm: Did the IPartMassModifier ever get implemented?

Not at the moment (KSP 1.0).

Are they still unavailable? Sounds like sarbian's server was having a hiccup, I can access it now...

Yeah, I'd second hattivat here, but even that might not be enough, fairing walls can be heavy.

Sorry, was away for a few days. Can you please (a) make the link public, and ( show a screenshot from the VAB ?

Smokescreen has some serious performance issues right now. When Sarbian has a chance hopefully he can improve it a good amount. As for the ideal specs, there really aren't any, other than moar CPU >.> (and a godly nvidia GPU on linux x64)

Yep, known issue, no further info needed, though you have my apologies it's there.

Ah, heh, I went digging and just narrowed it to that, and...see you have a PR from weeks back.

Laie makes the calculation just a couple pages back.

It depends on what's on the vessel. I got spam in a reentry of a Mk1-2 pod with all the trimmings, but I did and do not get spam with simple tier 0 sounding rockets and LVs.

If they're the only intakes you have in the first node, you have deeper problems than that. There should be the circular intakes (4 of them) and the radial intake too. Blue and white propeller? Yeah, you've got some install issues methinks. The ghost nodes are a known issue with Procedural fairings, they don't really cause issues and can be happily ignored.

I should note that that's merely a side-project (because I got tired of failure on my real project). I'm very close to being able to do it unguided using only Aerobee sustainers (i.e. the old tier 0, sans Taerobee). Here's the current unguided version: it almost makes it, except the final stages precess their rotation, leading to steering losses, and it's hard to have a high enough initial apogee to clear the atmosphere. All stages except the blue one, and the white one which has only 1 engine, have the nozzles canted for spin-stabilization. Continuous burn to orbit, as you can see from the staging list. My best with a variant of this (so far) is 250x60km. GigaG: Right now the only real disadvantage compared to Default is cost. RO doesn't model how weak they are in real life, nor how much more likely they are to suffer failure unless watched like a hawk.

Happy to help.