SanderB

as I understand it's "say something about the poster above" but instead you have to complete the challenge of the last poster and post another (easy) challenge for the next person to come along.

Also I'd like to note that it feels like overkill to make the points linearly proportional to payload mass. I understand 500kg payloads should receive a penalty, but a 20t payload that is raised at 200$ per t surely should not receive more points vs a payload of 5t at 100$ per t, right? I think a formula like [Price / (payloadMass - 100kg)] is much fairer. It penalizes undersized launchers but not so much that a 5x bigger payload launched 3x less efficiently will outrank it by lightyears. ps. the reason I didn't include the 12 units of fuel from the payload in the launch price was because it was payload. The decreased mass is its own penalty imo.

Here comes entry #3 which is hopefully in the required format. #3.1 #3.2 Entry #3.1 Payload: 5.1625t T800 (4.5t) + T100 (0.5625t), 2 clamp-o-tron docking ports (0.1t). Cost per t: 88.91$ ( - ) / PayloadPoints: 58.06 (5162.5 / 88.91) Entry #3.2 Payload 5.1025t T800 (4.5t) + T100 (0.5625t), 2 clamp-o-tron docking ports (0.1t) minus 0.06t for 12 units of LFuel. Cost per t: 93.48$ ( minus ) / 5.1025Points: 54.48 (5,102.5 / 93.48) Average points: 56.27 I hope I've dotted all the i's this time. Nobody need watch the video files through to the end, they were comfortable and easy going flights a monkey could do with its hands tied behind its back, so just take my word for it . A few interviews were spliced in the footage because I was bored silly while flying the space-planes.

have you or anyone else attempted this challenge? I'm having an extremely difficult time descending and landing in a plane of a similar configuration because I cant control its attitude well enough.

I don't have a career save with anything unlocked, do I have to have the recovery screen?

Here is my second entry, slightly more optimized. Payload mass: 4.607t (0.1t for docking ports, 4.5t and 0.5625t for the fuel tanks minus 0.555t for fuel used from the payload.) Cost per t: 101.47$ (1016.29 units of fuel used from the recovered craft: 0.46$ * 1016.29 / 4.607t)

This is my first completely successful attempt. Payload mass was 1.165t (2 jr docking ports + 2 FL-T100 fuel tanks with fuel). Fuel used: 1040-432 = 608. Cost per t: 240.07$ (at 0.46$ per unit of fuel). http://youtu.be/OXLgvgNTldQ There's lots of space for optimization too, especially with a fuel planes because they can just offload whatever they don't need to get back to KSC in one piece. Cargo planes have to plan their payload fraction much more.

Thank you Yasmy, that is the same solution that came to me while falling asleep this morning.

Hi all, I'm trying to write my own KOS Hohmann Transfer script and I'm having trouble. I've managed to gather the True Anomaly, the Argument of Periapsis and the Longitude of Ascending Node of the vessel and the target. I've calculated the required phase angle for the insertion burn and I'll have no (foreseeable) trouble calculating how to perform it correctly. My problem is I can't get my current phase angle correctly. What I have right now is this: set Angle1 to obt:lan+obt:argumentofperiapsis+obt:trueanomaly. //the ships angle to universal reference direction. set Angle2 to target:obt:lan+target:obt:argumentofperiapsis+target:obt:trueanomaly. //target angle set Angle1 to Angle1 - 360*floor(Angle1/360). //normalization set Angle2 to Angle2 - 360*floor(Angle2/360).//^ set Angle3 to abs(Angle2-Angle1). Angle 3 is intended to be the current phase angle. As it is, it simply shows the shortest angle. I've been trawling over my math books and a few forums without success. I'm stuck. I don't know how to get the current prograde phase angle. Can someone help out?

I've removed all the module managers except the latest and moved the folder to C:\Games\ and the same glitches still happen. I've also tried reinstalling all the mods on a clean install (KSP 3, in the same new folder) and the glitches happen all the same there too. Latest log: http://www.filedropper.com/outputlog_3

my output log is here http://www.filedropper.com/outputlog_2 I've gone over the installation instructions. I've also checked the GameData folder. Every required and and highly recommended mod is in there. I've downloaded only from links linked in the main thread.

Hi all, I've been trying to get Realism Overhaul with required and highly recommended mods/packs working on a fresh install of 0.24.2 and I've ran into several glitches one which I've posted in the wrong part of the forum. I've manually and very tediously installed all the required and highly recommended mods plus MechJeb. 1: RCS Thrusters dont connect to their fuel tank. With the correct fuel in the tank (any fuel, I've tried all of them) the RCS thrusters wont fire on the launchpad or in space. Regular thrusters will give the option to automatically put the right fuel in the attachd fuel tank, RCS thrusters don't. 2: The RemoteTech transmitter on Earth like Kerbin is somewhere in the northern part of south America and there are no launch sites there. Thus its not possible to launch unmanned missions on day 1. 3: Coms relays placed at a couple hundred meters from the launchpad lose their antenna upon launching a new rocket from the launchpad. 4: The Mk1 and Mk1-2 Command pods weigh about 300kg, is that correct? They get no reentry effects because they are so light. 5: The Mk1 Parachute placed well inside fairings burns up "on reentry" while launching, this is with a max TWR of 3. One side of the procedural fairings will heat up (while going up through the atmosphere) by up to 300-400°C more than the other half. 6: While launching the camera will at some part of the launch clip down far below the rocket, or far above it for no apparent reason. I hope this is the right place to get some help to resolve these issues. I've tried several solutions to solve these.

I've tried a lot of fuels always checking to make sure the RCS is set to the fuel in the tank it is attached to. To me it seems like the RCS is not connecting to the fuel tank at all even though they are on the sides of it. For regular engines it'll automatically give me the option to put the correct fuels in in the correct ratios, for RCS it wont.

I have RCSFX in the folder at KSP 2\GameData\ModuleRCSFX\Plugins\Source is there a way I can move this to modded support?

Hi all, I'm trying to use RCS attitude thrusters (both stock and KW Rocketry) and it just not working. When I turn on rcs and use lateral or attitude controls, they dont fire, no fuel gets used. I've tried using stretchy tanks with HTP (With RCS set to HTP) and a few other RCS props, attached to a fuel tank with said RCS fuel, and a command pod with a kerbal in it. I don't know what to do. I've tried the regular RCS tanks, regular tanks with RCS fuel, stretchy tanks set to RCS cnofiguration with the appropriate RCS fuel, command pod with RCS thrusters and a little hydrazine/HTP inside and probably a few things I forgot but to no avail.

in the meantime are there older versions I can go back to?

I've installed all the required and highly recommended mods (and no others) for realism overhaul on a clean install of ksp 0.24.2 and now it seems the TweakScale mod and RealFuels arent interacing correctly. Fuel tanks with tweakscale show themselves as being of different mass compared to the info from the map view on the launch pad. (Ie. when launched on its own without anything attached.) this happens with and without fuel tanks, empty or full. The info display is accurate when I remove tweakscale from GameData, though I cant design sensible rockets without it.

I suggest using the Q value of FAR in flight data. Anything over 10 kPa for Q (dynamic drag) is a danger zone for anything that isn't facing close to prograde. Far above that you should really not be having sideslip of >3° or an AoA of >5°. Keep dynamic drag below 20k kPa. Also, you may be going down through the atmosphere too fast.

Thanks for all the great work Nathan. I personally would value it most if you put the other planets into their correct orbits as well so we have a complete SOL solar system in addition to our good old Earth and Moon.

ah i had not looked in the action group editor. Thanks!

im a complete ogre on this mod. How do I use it? How do i change engine types, fuel types, etc in the VAB. Ive tried many keyboard things and I cant figure it out. The mod seems installed as a few new engine and tanks have appeared but I dont know how to change their properties or fuel types.

its pretty easy to send 30 transmissions of material bay observations in a few minutes. Just put it on a hotkey (lets say nr 1) and push the 1 button 6 times and then 6 experiments of the material observation bay will show up (even though the bay actually opened only once) and you can click transmit 6 times. Now repeat that process 4 more times and you have 30 transmissions that will be transmitted electricity permitting for 4500 electricity in total. This will net you about more than 90% of the available science any day. Transmissions in the que will be transmitted eventually provided that you dont save and load, I think. I usually speed up time to whatever speed I need to cover the time it takes to regenerate power fast enough while the antenna is transmitting

if your going to skip more than 100s of days to to get to your resonance encounter you can just quicksave, alt tab go to the quick save (f5) file in the ksp folder and add Days * 86400 to the universal time (UT = #)of your save file (at about line 750), save and then quick load (f9) to save minutes maybe even hours of your time. Also I suggest always including 2 to 4 prograde pointed RCSs thrusters or small radial engines (on hotkey) so you can carefully adjust your orbit to get exactly the right encounter even though you might be several years away from it.

Based on the observations I've made so far the goo reports from Kerbin upper atmosphere have a diminishing returns of about 1/2 for every report that is 100% recovered. The formula that logically follows after a process of a little arithmatic transmutation is as follows. % = 1-(1/2)^n % is the % of the science that you can get from a specific sub-set of science reports (ex. Upper Atmospheric Goo Reports.) n is the number of times that you recover that science report (and thus gain 100% of the science from that report) If you use transmission with 20% efficiency instead the formula is only a little different as follows: % = 1-(9/10)^n My following conclusions for sub-type (ex. upper atmospheric goo) reports that yield 1/2 of the science at 100% recovery are as follows. Returning (via recovery) a science report 3 times yields 87.5% of the total science of that scientific sub-type. (This can be achieved by for example exposing 3 goo containers to the same atmosphere and recovering them from the same vessel.) For reports transmitted at 20% efficiency (thus yielding only 1/10) need be transmitted 22 times to get at least 90% of the science and 43 times to get 99%. For reports transmitted at 40% (Thus yielding 1/5 of the total per report) need be transmitted 10 times to yield about 90% and 20 times for 99% (and 30 for 99.9%, and so on). Science reports seem to behave like this inside the kerbin system. Soil Samples from the launch pad seem to have a rate of diminishing returns at 3/4. Thus it follows that given the opportunity it is better to send a report via transmission the appropiate number of times unless transmission is not possible for the specific type of scientific report. (ex: recovery of vehicle from minmus) Further scientific investigation will be committed shortly.

as long as you have electricity (ie. solar panels or RTG) you can transmit reports over and over and over again and get the same return as you would by returning the 1 report via landing and even more because you can repeat the same science missions (with diminishing returns). Its easier to retransmit the same science report 25 times than it is to send a spaceship and back 25 times.