thorfinn

I experienced the same problem in the VAB screen - tried to get a screenshot but recorded just a blank. Shortly before performance started getting low, and then KSP crashed.

So true westamaflash: no, unfortunately the ground is just a surface as usual... they will touch it with their tips. You might want to build a stick tripod to get a precise angle (they won't break easily)

Tandem wings work, on the other hand. (Though going Mach 5 with them is also probably not the best idea)

In FAR they are very powerful, in stock much less due to the souposphere. The Isp figures are quite modest in fact, it's just that mass ratios are good and going straight up isn't THAT difficult. If you want to depress performance across the board to force stock sized rockets in FAR (or whatever other ratio), there is a special mod by Ferram for that.

It's hard to tell what could be going wrong from this... I don't know, maybe take a look at this one: it got to orbit with FAR. Can you see any substantial difference with what you're doing, and where?

In an atmosphere, the rockets will fly very straight with use of proper winglets. Of course, since they are unguided, the trajectory is very sensitive to launch angle (10x more true if you are using FAR). I haven't used them much in vacuum, but spin-stabilization would work there.

Just one more suggestion then I shut up: if you extend the battery life to about one hour, people will be able to get sounding rockets to orbit and back - provided they master the gravity turn. And tinkering with your unguided parts made me learn something about it even after playing this game for so long...

No, no, I don't want you to make probe cores or whatever: I just wanted someone to prove me wrong (And I had too much fun with your minirockets not to post something about it in the forum) I think I will spend some more time trying to get one in orbit just for the hell of it (where the thermal battery will die in 10 minutes without accomplishing anything, of course, but who cares) Edit: done it It wasn't so hard after all (and I learned something: spin stabilization is more powerful than I expected)

@Nathankell: I tried, but you would need need a veeery low trajectory that stays in atmosphere very long: getting almost horizontal with still enough air to catch wings. And at apoapsis you will be pointing up anyway (granted, I suppose you could be flat enough to still get into an orbit)

The sticks are slightly frustrating (even if terminally cute): with no control at all, this will easily get to escape (in FAR) but there is no way to put it in orbit (am I mistaken? without turning around, there is no way to circularize...) By the way, slightly canting the winglets (as I did on the 3rd stage here) will spin the rocket and make them go straighter than arrows And I can see some use well further in the tech tree for these things, the TWRs are excellent - so much that if you don't use the limiters burning up isn't hard at all when you play with tiny payloads. Two things I'd like to point out: three out of four canisters are named "meteorological package", even if the textures say otherwise, and Engineer is thoroughly confused by these rockets (I suppose it doesn't "see" the integrated decouplers)

They autostage even when surface attached? Sweet! (Juno 1 recreations become even easier)

I learn from today's dev notes that SAS has been (finally!) modularized. When 0.90 rolls out, would you be interested in making the functions of this mod parts of the new SAS system? (SAS logic would be bound to the Kerbal "flying" or to a probe core, as I understand it)

You might be interested in this stuff: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/102502-0-25-Sounding-Rockets%21-Start-small-Dream-big%21-0-0-1-2014-12-09

OK, it's mostly a matter of convention: I would have called that "negative" because the elevator commands pitch down when the AoA goes up. Then the negative setting would be for canards, with your convention. But, would there be a use for the "make this less stable" setting?

Hi, just passing by: did you have any time to work on stationkeeping, maybe, or are you leaving it for later? (I'm curious to know what solutions you would adopt)

Fuel grain and oxidizer tank are intact, with no breaches and no burn-through. Seems like I might owe an apology to the rocket designers.

Also, without being disrespectful, I think they were in it for the thrill just as much as the future customers. You don't get to fly a rocket plane anywhere else in 2014 after all. ...I start thinking that somewhere along the way they forgot how literally they are playing with fire.

...well, OK, if they didn't then they REALLY are careless crazies. Are they really? I was hoping they were not THIS bad, even though the previous N2O accident left me with a lot of questions (it's a known monopropellant, explosive decomposition is always a possibility...)

The thing can't fly unmanned, so that was out of the question. What I don't understand is how they managed to exit the craft, since it doesn't have ejection seats either, and get gravely hurt later. Unless the aircraft just broke up around them and the baro switches opened the chutes automatically...

Agree on all counts then Sorry for the TAC LS thing I tried it but just find it a bit too complicated for its own good...

I think that 1 and 4 should go together: since the most realistic way of limiting our capabilities is limiting payload, and the size 1 engines are sized for the Mk1 pod, I have thought more than once about a mod that would start with size 0 engines only. Actually I think that the only things missing from the stock set that would be required for that are size 0 SRBs, and maybe a less OP version of the 48-7S as the starting liquid fuel engine. I think I remember that there is a way to create scaled clones of existing assets just by .cfgs? Then maybe just a scaled down BACC with modified stats could be the size 0 SRB... oh, and scaled down 2-3-4 way adapters. Size 1 tanks would be fine at the start, though. Just with the size 0 engines and a bit of creativity one could achieve manned orbit anyway. Then the first LFO engine could be the 909, and then you get the LV-T series. On the other hand, I agree that SAS should be downgraded, like Stock Rebalance does, but no more: the underlying reason for SAS is that nobody likes being stranded because you ran out RCS fuel for rotational maneuvers Or, well, maybe someone does like it (the TAC LS crowd, I suppose) but it tends to be veeeery unfunny.

....one of these days someone will explain me how a conversion between mildly compressed raster formats can take 3 SECONDS in Unity. Or maybe I don't want to know.

...don't worry man, i was just interested in having a sane tech tree and a Mobile Lab that is worth something I intended to use this with SRB and Porcedural Fairings, and I'll let you know when I try... which will take a few days at least, I have a blasted report to finish. Thanks

Good news, now my Black Widow isn't a paperweight anymore. What do you mean with "Acceleration-based discrete inputs" though?