CAPFlyer

Nice addon. Can I suggest that you swap the naming convention so that the SatID goes after the mothership name? That way you get 'Comsat 1' instead of '1 Comsat' (for example). Also, is there a way for it to check for conflicting/existing ID\'s (i.e. if you\'ve already launched 'Comsat 6', it automatically becomes 'Comsat 7')?

But it would have added a lot of parts that a people may or may not want. By dividing the packages along functionality lines it allows people to select what they want. Not everyone is a huge fan of Silisko Edition. Not everyone wants BACE. Not everyone wants Probowhatever (yes I\'m going to keep using that name forever), so by keeping them separate it allows that choice. Depends on what you\'re doing. If you\'re just looking to put a satellite into orbit and you have the Silisko Edition parts, you can do so pretty easily with 2 of the long 1m tanks attached to a LFE, a couple of boosters strapped onto the side, and the Probowhatever orbit engine attached to the satellite.

Nova, One thing I noticed and finally figured out why my rockets kept doing wierd things when using the Probowhatever pack parts. Your SAS on them is still the 'old style'. Is there any chance to redo them to 'killrot' like the Silisko Edition SAS so that I can have SAS on during launch and still control? I like using JordanCox\'s Intrepid and it relies heavily on SAS being used so having it off causes all sorts of problems.

I don\'t agree with this. Truss units don\'t by default have fuel pipes in them. I think there should be 2 types of truss, one with fuel pipes, one without. You should be able to use trusses to separate stages and isolate fuel tanks. This will be especially useful for very large long-duration craft down the road, especially if you have several different types of engines on the craft (i.e. you\'re using the start-stop plugin).

Actually, there is an official file structure - the one in the game. The game looks for plugins in the 'Plugins' folder. Thus, if you\'re going to have a folder that you put your plugins into, it should be named 'Plugins' just as if you put all your parts in a folder, it should be named 'Parts'. When you release an addon, you use the file structure the same as it is in the game for the game files. Any additional files (documentation, sources, etc) are the only thing that any 'community' would need to agree on if there was a decision to do so.

I use struts to stabilize the wheels on my probe landers for now, however, I\'d like to see with the release of the new multi-joint part some form of extending wheel strut that will fold the wheels in for flight and then extend them either horizontally for a stable base or out and down like landing wheels to clear the engine bell if needed.

Let\'s see - Kerbal Space Program Forum >> Addon Making >> Projects and Releases Looks like it exists to me right there on the first page. Kosmos Spacecraft Design Bureau

Nothing you can do about that until multiple connection points are supported. As of right now, you can only connect something at one point, not at multiple, thus the 'seam' is because the two objects are actually floating against each other with no actual connection.

Again, are you sure you have the newest version of the pack? On mine it separates fairings without a problem and the decoupling force is about right, it does push them apart some, but when I\'m dealing with very massive stages, it\'s not as much as with less massive stages or when I have un-balanced masses on each side, the push will be greater on the less massive side. That\'s how it\'s supposed to work since the decouplers now work within the laws of physics.

Are you sure you downloaded the newest version of all 3 files? They already rebalanced for 0.14 with the newest pack. Additionally, decouplers aren\'t intended to push the stages away. You need to use retro rockets or ullage motors to do it. That\'s how it\'s done in real life too.

I have one thing that\'s been bothering me. The Aeroshell is a command pod - why? Most Aeroshells are jettisoned after reentry and the main probe then lands separately. Is there any chance of changing the Aeroshell to a part instead? Otherwise, it\'s been really fun trying to make a lunar probe and rocket, especially using the ascent autopilot module that gets discarded once in orbit and the MechaJeb radial mount on the probe. I\'ve got 2 designs I\'m working on getting to land - one using the BACE Cargo lander, one using just the probe. Neither have survived yet. I keep figuring out how to inject them into a direct-impact course for the Mun instead of an orbit-entry. It\'s a timing deal on my end, but I\'ll get it eventually and take pictures. I\'ve at least got a couple of satellites in orbit of Kerbin and one in orbit of the Mun successfully all using your probes, so I\'m really happy. Thanks man.

Also, it\'s important to note that even the Apollo landers used an automatic descent system. If you listen to the Apollo 11 landing audio from NASA (available in many places), you\'ll find that Armstrong overrides the automatic descent and landing program after he and Aldrin realize that the original landing site is covered with very large boulders. Because of how complex something like landing on a specific spot from orbit is very difficult, use of automatic systems to ensure reliability and accuracy is kinda the 'norm'. We can only do it fairly easily here due to the 'relaxed reality' of the current physics system.

TBH, I\'m sure that Nova has been talking constantly with Harv and the other guys on this as he\'s 'keyed in' with them on a lot of things (remember, he supplied the landing legs for 0.14), so I\'m sure that if they don\'t already have full reports on what he\'s running into from here, they\'ve got e-mails or will get e-mails describing it.

Thanks for the feedback Jordan. I understand that it\'s not 'easy' to do with the way parts are done now and I realize it may not be the simplest implementation, but it\'s something that I think will add for more interesting things down the road once things like recovery becomes a factor (i.e. needing to have the ejection motors, SAS, and Parachutes to be able to successfully recover them) and it makes for using the boosters on other rockets easier because some of my own designs will have issues once more aerodynamics are introduced if the motors aren\'t present. As for the payload fairings, I\'m not a developer, so I didn\'t know if it was possible or not. Since it\'s not right now, then that\'s no problem not getting it. I\'m mostly concerned that they just clear the rocket when I release them anyway, not how they look while doing it.

Thing is, the real things use autopilot for almost all operations, so why not have it here? You can still make errors, even with the best autopilots. That\'d be why only 50% of the Mars Planetary missions launched from earth have succeeded.

Hey Jordan, not for this update, but for the SLS, have you considered maybe adding a modified nosecone that has a small SRB so that when you decouple them the SRB fires to effect separation (this is how the real ones are separated) and not change the decouplers? Additionally, I\'m not sure how the fairing decoupling works, but is it possible to 'spring' them so that the nose separates at a faster rate than the base? This is how the real ones separate (aka 'peel open').

Am I the only one that finds it funny that the only one scared that they\'re going so fast is the pilot (Jeb)? ???

Then this is the wrong forum. Your announcement goes in the 'Projects and Releases' forum. This forum is for getting help with development and editing and is exactly what\'s explained on the description of the forum.

Um, no it isn\'t. Open the map. The sea is to the EAST. The north pole is to the top. If you pitch DOWN after launch, you go NORTH. If you rotate to the RIGHT after launch, you go out to sea and thus are going EAST.

One more thing I\'m thinking of, but we need to see the launcher - how top heavy is it? If it\'s top heavy, then it\'ll do that too because once it starts tipping, it\'ll take a lot to bring it back on path.

No, the sea is EAST of the launch center. N | W-+-E | S As for the bias, a left or right bias is 99% fault of the spacecraft design. Make sure everything is positioned 100% symmetrically, use engines with thrust vectoring, and have at least a quartet of controllable fins on the base stage. This will usually compensate for any imbalance.

I think your list is pretty good, and no I\'m not trying to inflate your ego. Only other thing I can think of is that if you\'re going to do an SRB cap with motor, it\'d be nice to see a better linear decoupler as the only ones I have are so-so or designed for specific parts.

Looking good there Jordan. Can\'t wait to see your solar panel implementation.

No, he\'s not. The vast majority of users here don\'t care about MLP and most have gotten tired of the constant derailing of threads with MLP stuff. The fact the mods have had to lock down several threads because of it should\'ve been a clue for you guys to grow up, but it seems that not all of you can. I hate to put it this way, but at this point, I\'m fed up with it too. If you like MLP great - but this is the KSP forum, not the MLP forum. Leave MLP either in a dedicated MLP forum or thread put in the Role Playing forum. If you don\'t like that, then I suggest you find somewhere else to be disruptive because before the invasion of you guys, this forum was a pretty calm place. Then suddenly we get several dozen users that start ninja\'ing threads with MLP stuff and it all went downhill.

Not so. Once you get too far from light, the amount of power generated wouldn\'t be enough to continue powering the engine. Additionally, as your output thrust is very low for the amount of energy required, it will take a lot of very careful planning to ensure proper light gathering at both ends of your trip to provide enough power as your internal batteries will most likely not provide enough on their own and require at least some level of recharge to complete your acceleration and deceleration maneuvers. In fact, with Deep Space 1 and other Ion Drive powered probes in the real world, the issue has been less fuel and more battery capacity. As the launch vehicle constrains the size of the probe, it also restricts the size of the solar panels. To maximize the scientific payload, some loss in solar panel size was required to still make the launch and initial orbital velocity constraints, meaning that in all actuality, any true deep space probe (along the lines of the Voyager series) would run out of useful sunlight well before running out of fuel.