Jimbimbibble

Why is this not in stock KSP? This mod seriously just rocked my world! Never making a spaceplane without these wings again! Thanks for all the hard work you did to make this a reality.

I see two potential issues. First, Ike has no atmosphere so a spaceplane is not going to help much. A regular lander would be better. Second, your ship will not be able to aerobrake very well because it will wobble too much. Make sure you pack enough fuel for a powered capture.

Before the devs made their own reentry heat, there was a mod called Deadly Reentry that did a pretty good job with RSS. Also, I'm surprised you're using stock parts. That's really hard in RSS because stock engines/tanks are really nerfed compared to real life due to it being 1/10 scale. You should look into getting more of the mods on the realism overhaul thread.

I agree that there should be substantial increase in thrust, but 5x? The TWR of the turbo and rapier dwarf anything else in the game at peak power and that's just not right.

I know that I can use the stock engine settings to get to orbit, but I'm just not satisfied with the way the devs tuned them. I'd rather they behave in a more sane and realistic way than have to pull up at 60 degrees to prevent disintegration. I'm no expert with float curves so I'm hoping someone who is may have developed a better cfg for the engines.

Hi everyone. Since the latest update the jet engines have become wonky to say the least, especially the turbojet. A plane I built with 2 turbojets that would have been fast (but reasonable) in FAR now burns itself up and accelerates at 6-7g when it hits its powerband. So, my question is, has anyone experimented with tweaking the thrust curve of the jet engines to make them more reasonable?

You can also get hyperedit, which has an option to modify velocity. If you want to do it with the save file I think you would change the eccentricity closer to, but still less than 1. I could be wrong though and the edit will splatter you into the ground, so try at your own risk.

If wings are backward in the stock game they make no lift, but this will certainly change in 1.0. The aero model is going to be completely redesigned.

The tail looks like it is not far enough behind the CoM. Your plane is pretty short compared to its width.

Even if you could build a 4000 part ship I doubt your computer (or any computer for that matter) would allow you to fly it. Maybe you should consider reducing part count. Even the best computer will start lagging around 500 parts.

A couple of versions ago the devs changed the length of a Kerbal day. It used to be a siderial day was 6hrs. Now a "normal" day is 6 hours and the siderial day is a little bit less.

If you're in career mode the R&D building must be sufficiently upgraded to transfer fuel. maybe that's it.

If your target is the Sun you could fly by Jool. Think of it as combining a bi-elliptical transfer with a gravity assist. You want to enter Jool's SOI from the rear and burn at Pe. The Oberth effect you get is huge and you can easily crash yourself into the Sun. I've gotten within 10km of the surface with 5k deltaV to spare. After burning that off I was still going 50km/s when I got back to Jool's altitude.

You might have serious issues if you make a track longer than 2.5km because the track would be larger than the load radius. It would be interesting to see what happens though.

So, my career mode save I've been working on for a month got corrupted. It was throwing around a bunch of Null Reference Exceptions and wouldn't let me enter the VAB, launch anything, etc. Fortunately I had a recent quick save that wasn't corrupted. So, my question is, why does this happen? I've done some basic coding but I haven't studied computer science in school so a good response should be pretty technical, but don't assume I know everything. Thanks!

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. The drag coefficient typically decreases as velocity increases for low-mid subsonic flight. Then, it increases and reaches a local maximum around Mach 1. Then, it decreases again and reaches its minimum value a little later and increases once again for very high Mach numbers. KSP makes no attempt to model this behavior. My best guess is that because of the very low mass of intakes, the devs had to do something to increase drag because intakes should produce significant drag, since they are large flat objects.

The stock drag model is horribly unrealistic so I don't think it's mimicking any real phenomenon. Drag coefficients in real physics are nonlinear and very difficult to calculate except for the simplest of shapes, especially when supersonic.

64 bit is labeled KSP_x64 and 32 bit is just labeled KSP.

There are two ways to do this. One way is to launch a single sat to the desired altitude, then phase the others into the correct position. KER will calculate orbital period and the phase angle between satellites. With 4 sats, you want a phase angle of + or - 90 degrees between them. When you launch the 2nd sat, you can calculate the required orbital period to move it into the right spot. The other way is to launch all 4 on a single ship and set its orbital period 25% higher than the desired orbital period and circularize one at a time. This is less efficient but potentially easier to fly.

You can complete contracts in the debug menu. This is a case where I think it's alright to do that because you did meet the contract conditions.

Which controller are you using? I also fly model aircraft and it would be really cool to fly spaceplanes with a real controller like that.

Plug it in and go to the key bindings setting. Try to pair the axes and see if it works. One thing to be aware of is the switches on your controller. Without knowing any specific details, it's hard to know which position corresponds to "1" and which corresponds to "0". You might have to play around with them to figure out which way they work because you will need to switch them on and off one at a time to bind them.

Read this. You should be able to select your language on this website. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_of_the_periapsis This is what you want to calculate. I don't think there is a mod which tells you directly but you can calculate the longitude of perigee from other data. Launch your ship into a circular orbit at the desired altitude. Wait until you are where you want your apogee to be. Slow down to get the correct perigee. I don't think I can explain it any simpler than this. Sorry if the tranlator doesn't work right.

Maybe that 1600km is measured from the planet's center? That would make sense.

It's impossible for a cone to provide total coverage of a sphere. There will always be a region near the poles where the satellite cannot provide coverage. This region is smaller the farther away you are and you only get full coverage when you are infinitely far away. However, it seems like you're interested in how far away you'd have to be to utilize the full range of the dish's coverage so that the dish cone is tangent to the planet. In that case, the expression you're looking for is r=R/sin(theta/2)-R where r is the orbital altitude, R is the planet's radius, and theta is the dish cone angle. The minus R comes from the fact that KSP measures your altitude from the surface, not the center of the planet. An expression for the maximum latitude a dish can serve (assuming the target's altitude is 0m, the sat is in an equatorial orbit, and r is at least the minimum value you calculated from the previous equation) is coverage=90-arcsin(R/(r+R)). As you can see, the only way to serve a sea level target at the pole with a sat in an equatorial orbit is if r is infinite.