Pappystein

So I am playing in Sandbox right now to develop my new refueling station. I am using almost exclusively SSTU parts (I have a Stock Coupla, an RCS tank and some early unlock Solar panels) as the command point for the initial launch as all I am launching is a string of HUBs. I found a SSTU Solar panel that has no attachment node and does not attach well to the station parts. ST-GEN-DSP-ISS. I know this is part of the ISS-MST 3 dimensional mast solar blanket, but am wondering if the part can be re-purposed for other uses as well. I am thinking as a Side attach of a scaled down version for the DOS-PWR in lieu or in conjunction with the Top attach array. It would only be 2 dimensional like any side attached Solar arrays to the DOS family but it would give a potential bump in energy production from the DOS-PWR. Question. Would it be possible to have it and other Solar panels as unlocks for DOS-PWR? The Top hat array is useful but thankfully never goes below the core station part after deployment, thus allowing the possibility of additional arrays.

Thanks again to both of you for answering. I am currently only deleting a singular ModuleEngines* so the original code is OK. I will keep the second argument in mind for the future though! I am trying to make a patch for Bluedog_DB to give me several variants of the Delta Upper stage powered by their actual fuels. I have the engines working with the old code but Mechjeb and all other similar mods do not detect ISP because the first engine is the stock LF engine module I am trying to delete.

Just looking for confirmation on what I THINK I have already discovered !MODULE[ModuleEngine*] {} and !MODULE[ModuleEngine*] {} Are not the same. The First Example will delete any module that starts with the name ModuleEngine, the second will do nothing? My currently MMed engines all are showing two engines in KSP at the moment using the 2nd set of code. TIA!

So I flew the Titan 1 Guidance probe core today. I made a simple Modulemanager file to increase it's impact speed to beyond Quad-sonic and added the DMagic Seismic Impact hammer science device. I thought it was a great use for a re-purposed.. guid..err warhead. Two issues popped up. One related to my poor MM file creation ability (I have learned I have a LOT to learn yet.) The second, the one I am posting here about, is completely aerodynamic.... The Titan 1 Core with nothing attached ends up tail first like a space capsule instead of nose first like the Nuclear Warhead it...was. I then tried putting Airbrakes or fins on the tail end and they did not modify this tail first attitude one iota. Is this as designed? I assume the COM would have to be moved further toward the "nose" of this thing to change that?

Ahh I HATE when that happens. Not always but generally that means one of your dependencies were not up to date. When I was running CKAN I had that problem all the time. Since I have started manually adding individual root folders for each mod, it has mostly gone away. I will state what mods I was using when I had the issue: SSTU, Bluedog_DB, Blizzy's Toolbar, AquilaEnterprises (advanced tweakables on/off button), ASET props pack, Coatl ProbesPlus!, CCK/CRP, CTT, Contract reward modifier, Deployable Engines, DMagic (Orbital Science, Utilites, CAPCOM, Contract Reward Modfier, and Science Animatem,) Firespitter, FTMN_New, HeatControl, HideEmptyTechnodes, Hyperedit, Kerbodine+ (partial mod.) KSPRescuePodFix, KSPParachuteFix, KSPWheel, ManeuverNodeEvovlved, MechJeb2 (latest dev version as of last night.) Mk2Solar Batteries, NavHUD, PorkjetStockOverhaul, RadialStackSeperator, RealChute, RLA_Stockalike, SafeChute, SCANSAT, Bobcat's Soviet Engines, StageRecovery, Tweakscale. I have recently tried the place one mod at a time TS method. for this issue with no luck. SSTU OR Bluedog_DB alone with Stock and KIS/KAS would reproduce the issue. That was on a clean install.

To jump on the combined vs independent part design process. I am a huge fan of SSTU and the concept of modular structures/parts that can be re-configured in the VAB. That being said I also have Bluedog Design Bureau on my list of mods as well as Probes Plus. I like my science parts to be mobile and re-usable. My command pods should be alterable but I prefer the all in 1 approach given that modularity. My Entire DSN is based on your Quetzal probe core, a 1.25m battery, a large mono tank and 1.25m mono engine, a HGA and 3 SSTU solar Panels. I have 4 almost evenly placed in a Circular orbit between Kerbin and Eve. I am about to start launching 8 more for orbit between Duna and Jool to provide full system coverage.

@acolangelo I will follow up with the following. Densified fuel = MORE FUEL not a new ratio. That being said, the discussions I have had with @Shadowmage re tank capacities tell me there isn't much left in RW volume you can add. Lowering the temperature of RP-1 would only give you a tiny fraction more. Further, lowering your LOX temperature would see an even smaller incremental increase in Fuel capacity. The important thing here to note is... Using Densified fuel does not change your burn ratio. it however CAN change the ratio of fuel to Oxidizer in the tanks themselves. A Key thing to ask is WHY it was important for SpaceX to densify their fuel. AKA did someone screw up their LOX to RP-1 fuel ratios? (and the answer is YES they did!) Knowing a ***TINY*** bit about coding, I can see a LOT of work for a very limited use feature. Since SSTU tanks already conform to the "standardized" fuel ratios, there is no need to densify the fuel. Had SpaceX done a better job managing/estimating their LOX boil off they probably wouldn't be trying to cram more fuel in. But that is just my opinion. PS before anyone jumps on the "you hate SpaceX bandwagon" please note I think SpaceX is a large perccentage of the future for the US in space... maybe even BIGGER than NASA itself.

I had the same problem. However TweakScale did not trigger it (as I have TweakScale installed as well.) It was KAS and or KIS. I deleted both at the same time so I do not know which.

DUM DUM DUMmmmmmmm! I KNEW I was forgetting to do something! Thanks for the reminder. I have not played with that feature since I first started using SSTU before the Agena engine was even in the mod. @AbhChallenger Sorry I didn't mention that to you! Thanks @tater and @Shadowmage

Um, That is in-correct, the Probes that landed (not crashed) on the Mun all used bells similar in size to the LR-81.. The difference is most of them had their engines buried in the fuel tank, not external to it like how most KSP mods have their engines. I built a Lander yesterday with 5x 1.25m fuel tanks and 5 LR-81 engines. I successfully landed it on the Mun without issue.. My attempt on Duna was less successful as my chutes did not slow me down enough and I burnt through my fuel supply 100m above the Surface... KeeeerrrrrrSPLAT! Alternatively you can download Porkjet's Stock replacement rocket parts in the 1.2 discussion boards... There is a new "lander" engine in that mod. I have installed this mod and the associated MM file to hide the stock parts that SRRP has new versions of. The Rockets can have "boat tail" or standard ends and look pretty cool.

No problems in Stock scale, but I did set it to Direct approach (I didn't re-enter Orbit of Kerbin upon returning.) I also had an almost full tank at the start... the Stage below it had a J-2 and operated much like the Saturn IVB staged did for Saturn V Rockets. Suggest posting this where you got your SSRSS configs from. Some of the Bell LR-81 engines (Hypergolic with AZ50 and NTO) are what I use from SSTU for my early un-manned Mun-lander. It is HARD to land due to the height vs width issues. IE it needs very flat ground and a nice vertical landing with nearly 0 drift.

Um, WHICH RCS parts are you talking about. Please be clear with the exact PARTS you have an issue with RCS on. Please understand that a LOT of these parts that @Shadowmage has created are near scale replicas of real world craft. That means it is more likely your craft is not made well since these parts are set to mimic something akin to real life (where most of these parts actually exist and do/have worked.)

So I am testing out the new Communication feature in 1.2.2 I equipped a satellite with the BKT-A Solar panels to act as a relay anchor for my probes on other planets. and am in direct line of site to Kerbol at a circular altitude of 20000km above Kerbin. The BKT-A panels are deployed but not generating any electricity. my probe died of no ECs right after attaining my circular orbit. Is there another part needed to get these things to work / Is this a Bug I should report to the Github? Soo... I alt-tabbed back into the game and the panels Rotated 180 Degrees and started to generate EC. I will run more test launches and see if I can trace this down. <Edit 2> So I re-created the issue. It appears that things like the Mun can completely eclipse the panels even if the Panels can draw a Direct LOS to the Sun. I am guessing that the LOS calculation point is low on the mast due to the modular nature of the panels?

So I want to post an alternate mission sequence because Mods other than SSTU and Stock are out there. This should highlight the issues with tech trees.... Mods in use are -Mechjeb (with custom altered unlock points to bring them in line with next mod) -FASA (has earlier unlocks as I alluded to in my previous post for larger diameters to allow a full NASA to the early 1980s in a stock tech tree.) -Parts of Bluedog DB (the parts that I prefer over their FASA or SSTU versions, mostly Agena and UA-12xx SRBs.) -DMagic orbital Science/CAPCOM and -Staged Recovery (to save my parts for some extra cash.) Launch 1 is a Probe on an SRB, Launch and recover (basically the same as posted above) This generates ~8 science with the various science parts in BD/FASA and DMagic. Repeat Launch 1 with more science devices on board. Total science is close to 35 now Funds should be enough to unlock ONE building upgrade (I choose Tracking center.) repeat launch 1 with the SRB separating and having a separate parachute, Probe does science when it lands instead of in the air. Another 15 to 20 science (depending on where you land it. Expand the launcher with side saddle SRBs that then stage the central SRB. Repeat 3 times landing on different surfaces each time. Unlocking the 45 sci nodes now. Accept "Test ProductX on launch pad or in water" Run those missions, combined into as few missions as possible Go for Orbit (accepting the Reach Space and Orbit missions.) I prefer to do this mission with the Pioneer probe in FASA as soon as all the parts are unlocked, but I use a RT-10 as a first stage booster. I have my FASA Mercury Atlas for the follow up launch.. lets hope Jeb makes it back Should have funds to unlock another building upgrade and should be more than half way through the 45 sci nodes at this point. As you can see, I play the game differently than other players. I use mods other than X or Y single mod (my main machine has 64 mods installed, this laptop has 12 part mods including SSTU.) This right here is why the Tech tree fails. I can blitz through the science, where others dwaddle through. I have an idea for a solution, but it would involve a TON of Mod manager files (and while I have been dabbling in them I am NO EXPERT.) The MM files would incorporate the upgrade process to all parts in game and everything post the 45pt science unlocks would be to unlock upgrades.

I don't know if this will help but I was involved with some conversations a few years ago around Tech trees when careers first started. A Historical progression is fine, if you keep things historical. However, If you are not careful it will really bog down the game. In some ways, I think @frizzank did it right when he set up FASA in the stock tech tree. he brought the 2.5m size forward and focused on Maned missions. So my suggestion is move the 1.875 and 2.5m unlocks to earlier in the tree, This includes the non inflatable station parts (being available earlier.) Doing so frees up more nodes for later in the game that you need to achieve "balance."

Huh, Wonder how I missed this. I was TRYING to get the RD-170 engine family to run but the models themselves need to be rebuilt to reduce complexity... to avoid Krackening things. I am currently using the RD-183 3bell engine fine since it does not gimbal. What Raidernick posted above is a link to a thread for the Kosmos space station revival. There is no Kosmos Rocket reboot. Just the space station. @CardBoardBoxProcessor, I would love any of the Rocket parts you have. I will try to re-vitalize the engines but I am no model maker so I won't promise anything.

Just for clarification's sake, you mean you no longer support the forum they were once hosted on? Thanks!

If I may be so bold as to suggest this is AWESOME for the Station core parts! Also it is probably an easier way to unlock various part cfgs for tanks and the like yes? One request on the engine upgrade subject. Please don't use this for engine major variants. In my opinion, using the part upgrade to delineate minor upgrades to engines, like F-1 baseline to F-1 Late production for the Saturn V for example, would be great... however having the Upgrade path change from a F-1 Baseline to an F-1A or a F-1B would be career/craft breaking in many situations, I have instances where I am using multiple sister engines (J-2 and J-2S on the same craft for example.)

Yes, I have everything I have kept from FASA (all except Apollo CSM/LM and Saturn Tanks) and all I have kept from Bluedog DB (mostly Agena and Titan parts currently) converted already. The BDB parts scaled to sizes I prefer. Both Transtages (FASA and BDB) are successfully setup as multi-tanked sharing a maximum volume limit and restricted by percentages. I bumped the tankage percentage size to imply two tanks for a reduced fuel fraction as well. RE Docking ports, On my main laptop (i7 with 16gb) I will just run the FASA Titan based tug I developed with SSTU station parts until I can find/confirm a docking port bug. That way it is only a few parts not SSTU involved and easy to send a list of parts needed and MM cfgs if you need them.

@Shadowmage First, thanks for the help offline on my CFG questions! I think I have it all sorted. Eventually I will have all the mods I use converted off from interstellar fuel switch to SSTU.... Second, I have been playing your latest update in a new career on my test rig (an old core2-duo laptop with 8gb ram.) If anything, and I freely admit I could be imagining this, 1.2.2 with your latest update seems to run smoother with less scene change lag. I have not gotten it installed on my main PCs yet so I have not been able to launch a large space station to test the Docking port fix so lots of playing to go yet. Third, to clarify; the Wheel enhancements are only applied to the SC-E's wheels yes?

Sorry the Default Fuel on tank placement. Your tank is Default Fuel Type LFO. Was wondering the abbreviations or names for the other fuel types So I can place say, an Agena tank from FASA and have it already filled with NTO and AZ50 instead of LFO.

@APlayer you are correct in that this is more than just a balloon. There is some structure underneath, I was speaking in hyperbole to point out the fact that this is a skin that will contain atmosphere. The more you move it the more likely it is to fail. The Whole point of Inflatables is so NASA won't have to "design" a Saturn V class rocket.... NASA already has one designed. It is called Saturn V

So, a few delayed posts here... Busiest work year for me by far... 1) Semi Truck, I know that was for wheels but wasn't there a early 1990s TV show that featured a Semi-Truck that turned into a 7 passenger "Attack" Helicopter? Future path of SSTU?! 2) @tater et-al. Centrifugal Stations have such a huge mass that the mass of a person on the "ring" is so minuscule in comparison to the overall mass and inertia of the station itself that they are not an issue balance wise. Get all 200 kerbals at the same side however.... and you might get a small bump. This is part of the reason I don't think large inflatable Centrifuge stations are viable in Real-world or should be in KSP. The Sheer loss of mass from the inflatable to the solid "tinker-toy" style station makes them (the inflatables) un-weildly at best. Because sure, your HAB is light weight, but you have to launch literally tons of counter weights and Gryoscopic balance devices just to get it to rotate safely. A "Tinker-Toy" style would be more massive, and thus overcome the key issue. On top of that, have you ever seen an inflated Baloon that was a MOVING part in a device, A) stay the same shape, and more importantly B) survive? 3) @Shadowmage and Tater, I too am having issues with the docking ports again. I really wish someone could/would fork and update @Claw's work around. Shadowmage, I don't think this is something you are going to be able to fix inside SSTU without replicating Claw's work in your DLLs. UPDATED! An Idea, I was floating around in space and realized that the "Universal" Docking ports from @CaptainKipard seemed to not have issues in my game. The only real difference that I can see is they use a different way to delineate the Nodes. Might be worth looking at? As in Universal Docking ports: NODE { name = top transform = n_top size = 3 method = FIXED_JOINT } NODE { name = bottom transform = n_bottom size = 3 method = FIXED_JOINT } VS SSTU: node_stack_top = 0, 0.08796, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2 node_stack_bottom = 0, -0.05, 0, 0, -1, 0, 2 node_attach = 0, -0.05, 0, 0, -1, 0 4) a Question, in the CFG files what are the other Defaults can I set a Fuel tank to? I did not see a list of them in this thread. Maybe this info could be add it to the Wiki for people implementing SSTU tank process to non SSTU tanks? I am attempting to make a bunch of older mods parts work with the SSTU configurable tanks. The two I am most concerned with are H2/O2 and NTO/AZ50. THANKS!

Um, first I have a lot of respect for @CobaltWolf and @VenomousRequiem for their BDB mod. However, to call BDB a Continuation of FASA when no parts are in common is an out right fallacy. BDB chose several different approaches to NASA based rockets than @frizzank did with FASA. All that means is they are each their own unique Mod and one is not based on the other. It is the individual user who will determine which mod is right for them. I have BDB on one computer. And I have a heavily modified FASA on the other. In the end, I still prefer using the standard 0.625x sized parts that FASA gives vs the mixed sized parts that BDB gives (I can swap in more parts from other mods easier that way.) Sure my FASA Saturn V is too narrow to be exactly 0.64 scale, but the parts fit standard KSP gaming sizes and I can find plenty of mods that will cross pollinate without major issues or re-scale requirements.

@too yun If you are using FASA gears, they are broken. no eta currently on them being updated.