Pappystein

Is this why my .90 gemini Rockets were uncontrollable as well? All the other rocket capsules I have unlocked so far (I am only at the 90 Science threshold in my current carrear) are fine but anything with a Gemini and I have to re-create the staging at launch and the sucker is nigh uncontrollable (Spin and tumble from launch.)

Until I can afford my Saturn II INT-17 launcher I use what I call a Saturn IC build. Stage 1 is 4 J-2/J-2S/J-2X engines, and 4 H-1 engines. I hook 2 Titan 5 segment SRBs equipped with Real Chute cone parachutes (for recovery.) My CSM is launched fully fueled but I use the Trans-stage type CSM/Fuel tank vs Denny's as I continually have issues with the CSM's AJ-10 flaming out with Denny's CSM. I have action groups set up so I can shut down or start the J-2s and the H-1s independently of each other for efficient launch. Generally the H-1s are running while the UA-1205 SRBs are on and I have the J-2s set to activate with the Smart Parts at UA-1205 jettison (the UA-1205s and their Chutes are all jettisoned and deployed automatically as well. Yes this isn't a Real world LV but it is a great re-purpose of existing parts without going TOTALLY crazy. NASA even looked at this as a viable alternative to get larger loads into orbit before realizing the Saturn II would be cheaper (Saturn IB's first stage is much more complex than Saturn II's larger 1st Stage.)

That looks good. Hopefully It won't cause the random "Flameout" issue with the AJ-10 that Denny's Did (half the Time I would get a message saying no fuel and no Oxidizer when the fuel was full on the CSM.

It sounds like Real Chutes again to me based on the description of "The Whole Flight" Real Chutes has a bug that is forcing the deployment of the Float on the Apollo CSM at launch. In game this has no effect except to break up the amazing visual model. The Game actually things the floats are NOT deployed (they disappear and re-deploy with Parachute deployment.)

Actually this is great for progressive testing of your Rocket NASA style. I use it to test my Kerbal Emergency Escape System Automated (KEESA.) If she isn't properly tested Keesa can be a real pain in the hind-quarters. Diazo. Thanks for all your brilliant small mods. I have been using Vertical Velocity hold since your first release!

Question, I use FASA Launchclamps for many of my rockets (FASA is the core parts mod I use.) How does your plugin deal with launch clamps that mount under the engines or mount high on the rocket? THANKS this mod looks amazing and I am curious how it will help with my big Nova rocket builds.

Actually the multi-bell ejector on a toroidal Aerospike has been shown to be less efficient than other Aerospike designs (Specifically the annular ejector we more commonly see on the Toroidal Aerospikes.) What you get for the slight drop in efficiency is a reduction in cost, increase in reliability. I believe that a Bell-ejector Toroidal is not as ballanced between Atmosphere and Space as well. But I don't have numbers at had to back that up.

Since I haven't seen anyone else jump on this and since I am an aviation Historian with a engineering background... SAS/ASAS is like an Autopilot. Both use Gyroscopes (even the earliest Electric or vacuum autopilots had Gyros in them. The main difference, the SAS/ASAS impart control moment themselves. An Autopilot senses a change in directionality of the plane in question, then adjusts the control devices (Ailerons, Elevators, Rudders, RCS etc,) to bring the plane's flight path back on track. Modern Autopilots use a combination of GPS and Gyros to determine aircraft plotted vs real location and can self coarse correct.

I tried searching before posting this request so apologies if this was already covered. is it possible to have the All Moving wing surface useable as a FLAP? My Goal is a Variable Incidence wing ala F8U Crusader/ F-8 Crusader. Ideally it would use the standard flap settings for maximum deflection and allow 2 or 3 points of adjustment. I tend to make aircraft that are landing too nose high. This would allow me to reduce the chance of a tail strike on landing (Or Takeoff). TIA

Is there anyway to disable the Sideways decoupling of items strapped onto a Gemini Nosecone? Without loosing the ability to attach onto a Gemini style multiple parachute stack? IE if I attach 2 probe chutes to the Gemini nose cone, can I prevent their forceful ejection when I decouple the nosecone from the rest of my ship? Would the following code fix it? (yes I realize that this could cause issues with the seperation of the cap on the Docking node version) isOmniDecoupler = False explosiveNodeID = bottom TIA

Since you are using the Re-modded (is that the best word?) version of FASA for RO, you should ask in the RO threads. Frizzank has allowed his models to be used but the CFGs are made by others (and the CFGs control behavior in the game.)

And if you use this Plugin, supposedly you can blueprint out all the parts. Mind you I have not tried this (Too many mods already even with ATM) [removed link to defunct website]

Actually if you are in control of a part of the ship NEAR where the stage is dropping YES THEY DO. I had to abort a Saturn II launch (FASA) the other day due to FAR causing a Tumble. I was able to save the CSM and Crew but the stages (all had enough chutes to land at 9m/s fully fueled) all blew up. One took out my emplaced ILS simulation on Seaplane island. IIRC I had the same issue with DebRefund though so....

Actually for that altitude that looks about right. In a vacuum it should dissipate faster (Be less solid looking) A lot of the early Solid rockets were that flammy and bubblely looking. Look up Terrier BT-3 for a good example. Or SeaSlug from the RN. Both SAMs had REAL yellow smokey motors. If this was a modern Solid Rocket I would agree with you.....

No, lots of engines are falling through the launch pad if you don't clamp the rockets.. The LR-89 (Atlas Booster engine) is doing it on my little sub-orbital probe rockets. It isn't a weight issue but I had thought it was caused by one of my other mods.

I am wondering, Is there a way, without plugins, to have a single CFG file alter itself from one career unlock to the next. When I say Alter itself these are the things I am thinking about: Change Cost, Change Weight Add Features Change IVA files Remote obsolete features. For example, Could I create a single CFG file to use both the base FASA Gemini capsule and then when unlocked, alter the Gemini so that it is now the MoarDv Updated Gemini with Glass cockpit IVA, a lighter launch weight and a higher cost? I know that certain mods unlock more features as time goes by (MechJeb comes to mind,) but I have not seen any mods where EVERYTHING can change, nor have I seen one that did not come with a plugin.

Yes, Commenting out the Apollo Chute code in the RS Mod manager files works. it brings it back to the less than ideal default performance for that chute system. I think I am going to un-comment it out because we are talking about a broken animation, not a broken physics constraint. IE I prefer Real Chute's actual chute performance

Thanks for that info. I was just ignoring the pre-deployed floats. I have now commented out the Apollo Chute in Real Chute CFG (An ! at the start of every line of the Apollo Chute)

Is that ISP with H2+O2 or with O2+Kerosene? After all the fuel energy is a major percentage of the ISP calculation. I will try to work up a Engineer balance sheet and a mod maker balance sheet. It won't be pretty at first but It might be a useful tool.

With a lot of maneuver point planning I did a straight run in at Kerbin ONCE with the now titled "Easy" Gemini pack. I had the "gemini Lander" stage below it with spearatrons so that when I was less than 50m above Mun surface I kicked it to the side and had just enough time to maintain my typical 3.5m/s landing speed. Using the Vertical Velocity mod was essential to me landing that as it provides accurate VERTICAL speed (rather than angular speed the nav ball has.) With the realistic SRB one I don't think you can make it unless you have 4 or 6x the RCS propellant and external 3D RCS thrusters (Not the 2D thrusters that are Gemini standard.) I just do not think it has enough Delta/V to pop off the surface, Break munar orbit and do a direct approach of Kerbin. Generally I don't Use Gemini itself as a lander unless it is a game I am willing to use something like Hyperedit on. I have however landed the whole stack (Capsule + CSM components with the lander legs) on Kerbin. i was using some of BAC9's Air breaks as well as 5 Parachutes (Main, Drogue on the nose and 3 on the perimeter just below the RCS skirt.) Co-incidentally even though I no longer run B9 Aerospace, the standard Airbrake is a common fixture in my game now (created my own folder for such gems.) If you are putting the Air break on your capsule FLIP it UPSIDE DOWN because otherwise it will point your Capsule NOSE FIRST.... (Ignore this for Winged Gemini/) While I don't use Deadly Re-entry or similar mods, I DO like my capsule to fly properly. Two on the Gemini Capsule does amazing and since it unlocks before the Drogue chute, I use them (1 pair) as a drogue chute analog for my Gemini capsules.

Frizzank. Curiosity question. Should the H-1 engine be more efficient than the RL-10? For grins I put them on the Centaur plate and got better efficiency out of them (I did have to enable collision avoidance during construction to pull this off.) I get that the INITIAL RL-10-RD-xx variants were not as efficient as the H-1 (hence the sub out of the J-2 and H-1s for the RL-10s on various Saturn proposals.) But the later RL-10-RD-xxs that were used on Centaur are more efficient than the H-2s (at least I thought so.) Or is this something that would only be seen with additional mods like Real Fuels due to the different Fuel fraction mass caused by switching to H2-O2 based fuel?

I don't have any picture to post but I run an INT-18 with 4 "Edited" UA-1207 SRBs. 5 J-2S engines in the First stage (my own cfg loosely based on the FASA J-2.) Beyond the fact that it is again a J-2S on the 2nd Stage, it is stock Saturn IB after the first stage and boosters. Incidentally 1st stage fuel tank is the long tank (S-1C), not the stock (S-II) stage tank. I am using the S-II engine plate however. Edited = Altered CFGs (copied, Changed and Renamed to create duplicate entries) These follow MY formula for "real" in the KSP. I have successfully gotten a LEM + full CSM equipped Command module into Low Kerbin orbit. I did not have enough DeltaV to get that into Mun or Minimus orbit however (Given that Saturn II was a replacement for Saturn IB that is a significant growth in launch capability without a significant improvement in chances to get to the Mun.) My Use of the Saturn II is to get Station components to my Space stations around Kerbin in my sandbox game. After all the "Real" INT-18 should have gotten 66,000 kg into Low earth orbit. During Setup I calculate the load vs # Thrust required to pull a half gee of acceleration through lower atmosphere. That determines HOW MANY if any J-2S engines I have on at start. My calculations are Number of engines active = WAG. Just one MOL tank (or alternative lab/hab 2.5m tanks) I am just using my SRBs. The only exception is Fuel tanks and crew. I prefer my Titan IV variant running LR-89-AJ-11A, and LR-91-AJ-11A engines on UA-1207 SRBs (again my edited ones,) that act as the station tanker.. It has enough thrust to carry a Large Silver or White Titan tank isolated from engines into orbit with my stations, it costs less to launch and less is therefor lost after all recoverable parts are recovered (even if you fully recover all parts from a Saturn II, it still would LOOSE more credits than would be expended on a completely lost launch of my Titan IV tanker. SRBs, SRB decouplers, SRB seperation rockets nosecones = 2x cost (4 vice 2 identical SRBs) I think you can see how this is already going I have toyed with a Saturn II INT-18 sans the SRBs but the core package does not have enough fuel/thrust2weight to hurl a Big G system WITH RETURN capabilities into LKO. I tend to have an orbit in the low 70,000 meter range (or LOWER) as max when I only have de-orbit fuel left. Currently my re launched career is only unlocked half way through the Gemini Titan Packages (still have to unlock Winged-G, Big G and a few smaller things like Drogue parachutes and SRBs.)

So I was having the same issue. A "Nearly" Clean re-install (I deleted all my mods out of GameData, then Did a Refresh via Steam...) After 8 attempts by loading only one file at a time, I deleted RealChute out of my game completely. Verified that the game loaded. Noticed I had some issues with Stock chutes, so I re-downloaded again via Steam. Long story short, at some point back in the day an older version of RealChute had put a file in my SQUAD directory under Gamedata with stock chutes. I deleted that file, re-installed Realchutes and Viola! I am up and running on X64.

Guys, I am not as much of an expert on out of atmo stuff than I am in atmo but that protrusion appears to be similar to a same generation gimbaled (commonly called ROBOT) camera I have seen on several test aircraft. I have seen a similar lash up (structurally and shape wise) in a pod attached to various USAF test planes in the same time period (with the pod removed of course.) But if I am wrong it wouldn't even be the first time today.

So it is time for someone to make a stability enhancement dll file for KSP (that only works up to a fraction of the parent parts weight for reducing OP)? Or maybe Drag-less counterweights? it is too bad extending the antenna does not alter the CoG like it would in real life. Could actually make a PAM module that mimics real life (Spin stabilization during trajectory change but cancels out at end of burn.