SFJackBauer

Again, the LDEF and the Spacelab weighed a bit more than a couple of kilograms. I don't like being fanciful about "what-if" scenarios. But I agree that the satellite and probe launches could be done better by unmanned launches - perhaps. How many lives could have been saved by not spending on any rockets at all? How many lives could have been saved by not building stadiums for hockey, football or golf courses? How can this kind of argument even persist on today's world? And what guarantee you give that by not having the shuttle, lives would be saved? As for the disrespectful comments, don't you think that: Is disrespectful for those who have lost their lives both on Soyuz and the Shuttle program? We are talking about people here. Your last phrase indicates we agree on something. And I completely agree that the Shuttle program was far, very far from being perfect. But a critique have to have some foundation, otherwise it's just dissing someone's else work. When you have the effort in understanding deeply how something was designed, what were the constraints, the mindset, the original goals, and why some decisions were made, then you are in position to criticize. Just as a wild example, could you give me your opinion on whether IBM's effort on System/360 back in the 60's was worth the effort or just wasted money?

The LDEF weighed 9 tons. Other space exposure experiments and satellites were deployed and then retrieved back to Earth. Spacelab weighed 14 tons. Also, the SRTM, the most accurate Earth topography model, with 30m resolution, used worldwide in GIS applications, was performed in a Shuttle mission, which gathered 8 terabytes of data. From the shuttle were also launched the Galileo, Ulysses and Magellan probes, the Hubble telescope, the Chandra X-ray observatory, the Compton Gamma-ray observatory. And also several hours of the most beautiful images of Earth orbit in high-definition IMAX were recorded (bear in mind the IMAX equipment weighs hundreds of kilos). Really, I think that even some posts in this thread are borderline disrespectful - with the scientists, with the people that worked on the ground, with the astronauts, even with the people that died doing their duty. The success or failure of a program of this magnitude cannot be explained on one factor only. Hell, I'm not even american, nor russian, and I harbor the utmost respect for both sides, for their work was and is unique, extremely risky, but above everything, inspirational.

Hmm must be the heatProduction. Try lowering from 500 to 10 or something - I'll add it to the TODO list.

RealShuttle v0.1 Okay, a week ago or more I said I'd share the shuttle I was working on, but then 0.23 struck and... well everything stopped working. Now that the hurricane is almost gone, I can share it. Its the result of much head-bashing and hours and hours of frustration. Its 2300 tons of pure sweat and blood. For this it would be needed: - B9 Aerospace - latest FAR - latest ExsurgentEngineering - Hakari SSRB with HoneyFox EngineController plugin - ComponentSpaceShuttle ExternalTank, SRB Decoupler and SRB Separatrons - KW Rocketry for the super strut and nosecones - pWings 0.6 (have to rename the procedural B9 control surface to pWings_B9_Aero_Wing_ControlSurface_SH_4m, otherwise it conflicts with B9) - One engine from NovaPunch (its the NP_LFE_2_5m_BearcatSingle) - RLA Stockalike alternative engine models - DummyWeights - I refused to artificially increase the B9 parts masses, so to get closer to the real thing dry mass I had to use 10t of these ballasts) - The usual suspects - RSS, MFS, StretchyTanks, RO and my RealEngines configs >> Download << The two things that took absolutely the most of my time were the SRB separation and the re-entry. The SRB separation must be done wings level and with the vehicle at a stable attitude, or they WILL hit the wings. The re-entry I have done only from a 300km circular orbit - burn exactly at the longitude 125º 40' E (yes, the minutes of longitude are important). Burn until periapsis is at -40km, then turn around and hold 45º pitch until Mach 4, then take control and land. I DO want to write a thorough guide, but for now I'm too mentally tired to do it. I have put up two videos with the ascent and re-entry, hopefully this will be useful.

Just a heads up - the procedural B9-like surface has the same name of the B9 part, so they conflict in-game. Better rename it.

Was referring to the files inside the RealEngines folder. But nevermind, I found the culprit. Bobcat's SovietEngines comes with a ModuleEnginesConfig by default, so it conflicts with mine. I have updated the cfgs to delete these default configs, so you just have to re-download the RealEngines. RealEngines v0.3.1 - Fixed a conflict with Bobcat's SovietEngines. Link to download on this post.

Sorry should have been more specific. With the RealEngines I uploaded other cfgs that rescale B9, CSS and other small stuff. Try deleting those. Does RO have a B9 rescale? I have missed it entirely then... EDIT - I see now, Nathan must have included an old B9 rescale I did in the RO zip. The one I've uploaded with RealEngines is the latest, so yes, if you use B9, delete the B9_rescale.cfg inside the RealismOverhaul. Still it shouldn't be the reason of the lockup.

That's the only two - try removing the other cfgs leaving only the real_engines_* ones? If still doesn't work put up the output_log.txt.

You can live with AIES and KW only, since NP is such a colossal pack and RAM eater. what I really recommend is getting Bobcat's russian engines for lots of Kerosene-burning alternatives. I have published the engines list on Google Docs, so you can sort any way you want by thrust, or by modpack, or by type. EDIT - Ninja'ed - Yes! I will add the Space Shuttle engines in the next update. Point is - there will be no fictional engines here, so don't expect a baby-size SSME or something like that. At most, there will be duplicate in-game engines related to real-world engines.

I haven't found a place for the stock engines... yet! I do have plans for them. However KW Rocketry is fully done, and AIES and almost all NP. But I do recommend getting the other engines packs I list on the RealEngines post since there is no way to cover everything with only KW. The other big thing that is missing in relation to RtfSEngines is tech levels - if you are playing career you better off stay away from RealEngines for now. RealEngines v0.3 - Added minimum throttle setting for engines that support it - Adjusted RL10 Isp and RD-170 mass - Added in-game description for all engines - Updated B9 rescale to include all HL fuselage parts - Limited max TechLevel to 0, until proper TechLevel support is added Note that the updated engine list has information for restartability, but I haven't included the EngineIgnitor configs on this release - it is more complex than I thought would be for one work-day. It should be in the next update though. Link to download on this post.

@Nathan Take your time, happy holidays, enjoy and rest! Regarding throttle, I think throttle in KSP is overrated. For rockets at least. For planes of course its valuable and realistic, but I was surprised by how so few real-world engines have throttling capability. Of the 48 engines I have researched, more than half doesn't, and that includes orbital engines like the shuttle OMS, Apollo SPS and LEM ascent engine, and orbital insertion engines like the RL10, Aestus and AJ10-118K. The other side of the list, of the 22 engines that have any throttling range (from 85% to 12%), 13 are first stage engines! Meaning they are not intended to be restarted. The only engines that stand out on this list are those designed to work as part of a lander, that needs to be gradually throttled, like the LEM descent engine, and the SpaceX Merlins. Now one thing I am planning to do with the RealEngines is to separate the throttling cfgs and bundle it together with the EngineIgnitor cfgs, as they mostly make sense only together, so whoever does not want to be limited by the throttling range just have to delete one file.

Yes, since from last release I have done the whole HL fuselage - will post soon together with a new version of RealEngines. I have resized it to match the Space Shuttle cargo bay width of ~5m. However I don't know for sure to what size to resize the other fuselages. Any suggestions?

Engine exhaust FX is firing even after shutting down an engine. The engine has a minimum throttle defined. It does not happen when the fuel tank depletes though. Also it seems in the latest experimental the maxTechLevel bugfix didn't got in. Nevermind, works when creating a new vessel.

Normally a class would implement ICloneable to indicate it supports cloning, but I have no idea how KSP works internally so I don't know if it is applicable here.

*Rubbing hands* Working now on adding throttling and engine ignitor to the RealEngines cfgs. Having to care about the max acceleration your stage (with a non-throttleable engine) reaches at the burnout moment adds another layer of challenge when designing rockets EDIT - Some .git folders and files came with the latest Stretchy.

Imagine a cloud of particles, a nebula, in space. It has an initial angular momentum, although very small. As the time passes, at the center of this nebula, the particles that get close to each other start to aggregate and collapse into a protostar. As more and more particles get attracted by this initial bundle, the gravity well gets bigger and bigger, like a sink hole increasing in size. However a small fraction of the nebula will never collapse into the center... rather, it will fall into its direction but its too far away to become part of the star, but too close to be ejected into the surrounding space. This will eventual form a rotating disk around the newborn star, and the local clumping of this disk will eventually give shape to planets. The planets spin and its rotation around the star all comes from the initial angular momentum of the nebula, and its subsequent collapse. Now extrapolate this to bigger structures, like galaxies, and galaxy clusters. As for the universe itself, eh... that's complicated, I leave it to the real scientists to answer There are developing theories that point to a rotating universe though.

Pardon the intromission, but what stuff has a so urgent need to get into orbit? I see lots of people thinking of massive 100 or 200t lifters, but to lift what? In other words, what needs an Orion-class lifter that can't be done better with the current and next generation chemical rockets?

I don't get it, I am using 0.23 and B9 works fine, except for SABREs, but the community already have a temporary fix.

I guess you posted in the wrong thread Ferram forgot to update the version number on the UI. The download link is 0.12.3.

Yes. But it was a completely automated process. The trajectory was re-calculated by the onboard computers every two seconds. In only one mission (STS-2) the entire reentry was hand-flown, and by an extremely-proficient USAF test pilot which had flown the X-15 several times. In regular missions the pilot only got the stick once subsonic. In KSP, a no-inputs re-entry is predictable, you still have to hand-fly to land. If you maneuver while hypersonic, you can overshoot/undershoot by hundreds of kilometers. My experience has been the opposite, but I am using the latest FAR version. Flying 0º bank, 40º AOA (maximum drag attitude), at 80k altitude the vertical speed turns to positive and shoot me back, not enough to go back into space, but enough to stay in this cycle for so long I end up overshooting the base (my re-entry burn is 180º of longitude away from the landing site). What's your AOA at reentry? Because if its zero, then your sink rate will be too much and you will fall into the thicker air and burn up. Since I want to keep a fixed AOA, I am looking for another mechanism to modulate the vertical speed, for example using the body flap as a kind of airbrake. In fact the shuttle reentry was much more complex than I could explain here - there are several info out there in the subject, but my favorite is this, page 236 onwards: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584730main_Wings-ch4d-pgs226-241.pdf

Hi, me again There is some weirdness with flaps on my end. First, the actions "Increase Flap Deflection" and "Decrease Flap Deflection", when assigned to action groups, change the flaps only one step in either direction and then stop working. Also when in flight, and right-clicking and selecting "Deflect more" or "Deflect less" the surfaces visually do not go through all steps, only the first two. While typing went back and checked that it is the same bug you said you fixed for the next version, about the brakes max deflection being ignored. Same with flaps. Finally, the flaps to start already deployed when going to the runway, although at step 2. Is it for the pilot to not forget it for take-off?

You can certainly aerobrake a spaceplane here. But you have to control your descent rate, otherwise at some point the lift generated by the wings will skip you back. You control it by banking, which moves the lift vector from pointing straight up. Now another entirely issue is doing this and still hitting a target for landing with precision.

Fair enough. This is a greater problem with KSP modding architecture itself, the lack of a standard "mod manifest" file makes it hard to tell which version is installed, so each mod (at least the ones with a UI) ends up conjuring its own way to display it.

Not quite. MFS is a pre-requisite for everything, and comes bundled with its own engines.cfg, for people who don't want to play with RSS. If you install RealismOverhaul, it comes with also its own engine.cfg, so you have to delete the MFS file so they don't conflict. If you forget to delete, bad things happen. Hmm, I found an issue where, if I right-click an engine in VAB (to show the tweakables menu), the craft mass goes to NaN. Anybody else have it?

Nathan, for the engine compatibility issue, I suggest changing the file names of .cfg. Right now there are three possible files: - ModularFuelTanks\RealFuels\engines.cfg <- cfg for standalone MFS RFRM install - RealismOverhaul\RtfSEngines.cfg <- your original cfg for RO, rescaling engines to RSS - RealEngines\real_engines_stats.cfg <- my cfgs for real-world engines, also rescaling engines to RSS I don't see a scenario where someone would want use more than one of these configs - in fact this could lead to trouble since they overwrite the same stats. So we could agree on ONLY using the first file path, and then in RealismOverhaul and RealEngines we change the packaging so this file gets overwritten. This way the last one extracted wins, and there is no chance two of those could be alive at the same time.