Yaivenov

Just a stray thought, but now that we've got the means to get around I was thinking it would be nice to have some places to go to. I was wondering how difficult it would be to integrate some of the multiple solar system mods into Interstellar with a few interesting tweaks, such as those systems and planets being hidden until you "find" them via for example the Direct Planetary Observation experiment with the IR telescope. In theory we could add a whole new cartography and astrogation aspect the game with the concept of searching for other nearby stars, then developing a profile of what sort of planets they possess, charting their orbits etc. in anticipation of sending an expedition. Which then segues into colonization type efforts, establishing a self-sufficient station or planetary hub from which to conduct further and farther exploration.

I seem to be having some trouble with the mod. I tweaked the stats on the stock radial parachute in order to reduce part count (gave it the drag of approximately 10 regular radials) however the recovery mod seems to still treat it as if it were just a single standard-stat stock parachute when it computes the impact speed. What am I doing wrong?

I can confirm that the NFT solar panels do generate waste heat, and it seems commensurate with their energy production. That's why I was unsure about making megajoule generating solar panels as it might bypass the heat generation code (assuming that code is specifically looking at default energy resource generation).

Would the solar panels still produce the appropriate amount of waste heat?

@GreeningGalaxy: Thanks for that engine. So silly question moment, but has there been any thought given to an inverter-transformer-rectifier type part? Purpose being to take "electric charge" (kW DC power) and step it up to megajoules. This would give craft orbiting close to Kerbol a lighter weight power option.

Couldn't you guys use the naturally expected radius just divided down to kerbal scale? (1:10 based, very roughly, on Earth/Kerbin) So in the case of brown dwarfs, which are expected to be roughly the size of Jupiter (despite being much more massive) would give a radius of around 70,000km. Kerbal scale that down to 7,000km and you have a star that is about 2.3 times the diameter of Jool. It wouldn't be too hard to a compile a list of kerbal-scaled star radii.

Small question/request.... The situation: I've been having a blast with the antimatter reactors combined with thermal rockets and the like, and I've currently worked around the problem of starting with no AM by collecting some, then returning a canister of it to the spaceport before loading it onto a fuel bowser. New rocket going up, drive the fuel bowser over to the launch pad, and load a gram or two of AM and then drive the bowser back over to it's parking spot. The issue: While this has worked well I find the increase in part count and such to be a bit problematic for slower computers, plus the ever present hazard of my fuel technician tripping over a pebble and spontaneously exploding as they face plant on the tarmac. The possible solution?: Would it be possible to integrate recovered fuel storage into the space complex? Ie. a ship returns with a load of tritium or antimatter and when recovered the rare fuel is stored at the complex ready to be parceled out to ships at a later date.

Interesting. I think this might integrate into my interstellar (and other mods) game regarding making a good general purpose interplanetary VTOL craft (antimatter powered thermal rockets are fun).

Ooo, gimbal lock for the first few generations of craft instrumentation would be a neat kind of "extra-hard-mode" mod.

Just an aside, I really like the retexture for the solar panel. Even if I'm not using the ion engine I think I'll definitely add that to my collection.

That's awesome... and the thought of hauling around a GPS unit that large makes me actually miss the old PLGR units.

Yeah, there's going to be nay-sayers who wont be satisfied with anything short of a FRAPS film from install to landing, but I don't care, I found my first anomaly through cosmic coincidence! ETA: Just realized I need to add a dot to my Duna ribbon.

That was my thought when I took a look around my probe yesterday. I mean, what are the odds of dropping your non-mobile first probe on a planet, in an unguided descent (beyond, "hey, that crater floor looks flattish, I'll de-orbit in that general direction"), without any prior mapping of the area, and having it land within sight of an anomaly? "What a nice planet, lets start doing Scie-hey, what's that over there?" *zooms out and swings the camera view around* "!!!" Needless to say, there's now a Kerballed mission en-route to explore and flaggify the object.

Bit of a low-priority and selfish request, but would it be possible to add a numerical horizontal and vertical velocity indicator (VVEL, HVEL) to the instrument as well? The lines and pips are great for general alignment (and have made docking MUCH easier) but seem to lack the "resolution" if you will to allow for complete zeroing out of my translational velocity.

Love the minimalist approach, but a small observation and suggestion. There are times when the target velocity indicator isn't visible, reversed, or otherwise affected and thus less reliable for translational alignment. Perhaps a horizontal/vertical-only velocity vector could be added? Just a simple red line that stretches from the center of the target alignment indicator, in the direction you are moving along the two axis that are perpendicular to the docking port, and with a length proportional to your relative speed on that plane. (Quick edit because sometimes my brain tries to shift without a clutch...)

Fractal, I'm trying to add the waste heat factor to the solar array wings from the KOSMOS add on (I could just use them as-is, but that would be "cheating"), but I'm apparently missing something. I assumed I needed to add .cfg files specific to those parts in the Additions folder, with the appropriate part names, but I'm not sure what else needs to be added.

Alright, I'm in the process of building a very large couple hundred ton interplanetary ship that uses several sets of MDP connections, I'll let you know how it works. Oh, by the way... THANK YOU!!! I've been looking for something like this for a while. Update: So, preliminary testing, where I had RCS enabled on a 10 ton part assembly, and was using it to swing an 80 ton part assembly about madly resulted in no visible deformation of the multi-docking port node. Sorry I can't get more technical than that, Bob accidentally jettisoned the material stress analyzer when he decided to "go outside for a stroll."

How does this mod function regarding multi-docking port connections?

*goes back and re-reads his notes* ...and that's what I get for just going off my memory. Aero-50, more shelf-stable, thus better for long duration missions, but not used as a mono-prop. Doh. But by all means, go read up on FT processes. Seems like they'd be straight up this game's alley.

Hydrazine is a fairly simple molecule, N2H4. Just do a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, except instead of using carbon as your primary building block you use nitrogen. Liquid fuel (assuming LH2) plus nitrogen ice, plus a lot of heat and electricity equals hydrazine. Now most used mono-propellant isn't straight hyrazine, it's actually a mixture of hydrazine and unsymetrical dimethylhydrazine, usually in a 50/50 mix called Aerozine 50. USDH has a molecular formula of C2H8N2. Still smack-dab in the realm of a FT fuel synthesis, just add CO2 ice to the mix and shake well. Warning: Hydrazine and USDH is hypergolic when in contact with nearly all organic material: oxidizers, textiles, rocket technicians, etc. ETA: Just a side note, with FT synthesis, you can make any chain hydrocarbon you want with nothing more than CO2, H2O, and a butt load of electricity. RP-1 anybody?

Thank you, regarding the strut feet. And as for Jool/Jupiter, yeah, it was just kind of a let down not to get that final "crunch" of atmospheric pressure or an impact. Lots of excellent science made on the way down though! I usually go with some Saturn-1C boosters for the really heavy lift jobs, but I'm assuming you want a stock solution. Here's my fuel tanker I sent to Jool, it has a slightly greater mass of around 86.75 tons, boosted fully to a 100km parking orbit using 14 mainsails and 21 SRB's. This was done without touching any of the payload's own fuel, either mono-prop or liquid fuel. Fair warning, this is a 335 part count booster, but it sheds parts pretty quickly. After having trouble of getting the towers to release reliably and not hang-fire due to lag, I finally just made a tower-less assembly. That's right, it just sits on the pad until launch! The payload: The booster: Hard to see but important, there are radial RCS mono-propellent tanks mounted to the final mainsail booster so I don't have to dip into the payload's maneuvering fuel during launch. Noted launch events. Launch preparation note: The outer mainsails are starting with their gimbals locked, and the payload's mono-propellant tank is locked out to prevent use. A gravity turn starting at 8km and proceeding at 100% until 70km is utilized. Target apogee is 100km 1: All SRB's and the Stage-1 mainsails are fired. These mainsails are not asparagus stacked and are treated as a unitary booster (I know, I probably could have made this more efficient, but I did this for simplicity of the assembly at this point. 2: Stage 1 SRB Separation: Using terminal velocity limitation, the stage 1 mainsails will throttle back and allow them to save enough fuel to outlast the SRB's by a few seconds. 3: Stage 1 Separation: Stage 2 asparagus stacked mainsails fire. 4/5: Stage 2-4, 2-3 are shed during climb to 100km apogee. 6/7: During coast to apogee stage 2-1 mainsail engine is gimbal locked and RCS takes over attitude control. Stage 2-2 is shed during circularization burn. 8:Stage 2-1 is shed after fine-tuning orbit, with a surplus of 70m/s dV remaining. (Note: thrust was not limited to 20m/s, only to terminal velocity.) The clock is running! Max-Q (for my purposes anyway). SRB sep. and throttle up. Stage 1 sep. Stage 2-1 sep. proceeding through the turn nicely. Stage 2-2 sep. Main engine shut down and coast to apogee. Circularization burn. Sorry, missed the stage 2-3 seperation. Final orbit established, and not a drop of payload fuel expended!

I shall test and report back. Thus far whenever I try to strut TO the reactor it has acted as if I'm clicking on thin air. Also another concern is I don't want a bunch of expended strut feet excessively adding to the part count of my completed craft. ETA: Huh, the struts worked that time.

Fair enough on the fuel material. Any thought on the third "expended fuel" category so a player can easily tell how much fuel has been permanently used? Also, I need to ask as I'm having trouble with this right now, exactly how does one get a 3.25m reactor off the ground? The problem I'm facing is that the reactor model in game has NO attachment points on it's surface for reinforcement struts, thus it's only attachment to the lifter is the single point which immediately snaps under the 43 ton burden at even the slightest hint of acceleration (I attempted a slow take off throttle up with a mechjeb limited acceleration of 15m/s, and even that was too much for the single attachment point and on a few occasions just loading in was enough stress to collapse it).

Well that was fun! Decided to bring that research ship back home to Kerbal to collect the final Science from it's trip to Jool. Kind of disappointed though, the expendable probe I dropped into Jool's atmo worked great....except there was no land/impact, it just fell through the surface. Anyways, I just wanted to chime back in regarding the nuclear reactor since I asked a question about it just a little while ago... the 2.5m reactor, after approximately 14 years of operation (approximately because a docking/undocking of a resupply ship reset the flight clock) had permanently expended one quarter of it's fissile material. Talk about some nice life expectancy. Now, just some thoughts and suggestions I thought I'd toss your way, if you don't mind Fractal. Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) is a Uranium compound used primarily during the enrichment process, but is not the form used as fuel. The form "burned" in reactors is Uranium Dioxide. That is kind of neither here nor there however as the process you have in the game, of reprocessing your fuel for continued use, seems closest to the real world counter-part of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, where spent fuel rods are reprocessed and subsequently contain both Uranium and Plutonium isotopes which are re-burnt, reprocessed, and so on. So the first suggestion is that the fuel in the reactors be renamed from UF6 to MOX Fuel. The second suggestion, which may be more trouble that it's worth as I'm not sure how you have the code for this written at the moment, is in regards to being able to tell the current life-state of the reactor core in a more readable form. Simply put, adding a third fuel measure if you will, for the permanently expended fuel. The readouts thus would be: "MOX Fuel", "Depleted Fuel", and "Waste Isotopes". As the MOX is expended it converts to Depleted, from this the player can immediately infer that 20% of that will be lost during reprocessing to the "Waste" category. The "Waste Isotopes" (or perhaps "Fuel Waste"?) measure will give an immediate and easily discerned measure of how much of the reactor's life has been expended. *shrug* Just something I thought I'd toss out there, hope it can be of use.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind for future construction. As this was my earliest exploration ship I didn't have the available parts to make it as modular as I would have liked. Guess it'll be getting parked permanently in Jool orbit then.