Suzie's Brother Max

I just realized that I'm ******ed. Last time I used MechJeb I modded it to use it without the parts, and I was expecting it to work without parts out of the box. My bad, guys. I'll be here all week.

@Starwasher, in hindsight, my first attempt at diagnosing my own problem was pretty feeble, but that's the only bit that looked out of the ordinary. Best to leave the search for what actually matters to the folks who know what to look for. I've got Toolbar 1.7.1, but I was using the "Release" MJ 2.2 from the original post. I'll give the Dev version a shot and get back to you with the whole output_log.txt if the error continues. Thanks for the push.

Currently having trouble installing on 0.23.5, not showing up in the new Toolbar. Output log shows this at the end: MechJeb module MechJebModuleMenu threw an exception in OnDestroy: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at MuMech.MechJebModuleMenu.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MuMech.MechJebCore.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53) MechJeb module MechJebModuleMenu threw an exception in OnDestroy: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at MuMech.MechJebModuleMenu.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at MuMech.MechJebCore.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53) Any ideas?

I'm not sure if this is the best way to bring this up, but here goes. alterbaron's optimized ascent profile from an airless body from page 6 seems to imply a standard gravity turn from launch. Tavert, I've been stalking your math around the forums for a few days. Topic of interest here is that his profile doesn't include constant altitude burning, which you have proven fairly rigorously elsewhere. Does the physics not reverse such that a constant altitude descent onto an airless body isn't equivalent to a constant altitude ascent? Is one of these models flawed in some way? I'd appreciate some clarification here.

I'm probably gonna come off as completely n00b, but alas... What exactly is the aerospace model right now? As in what of realistic effects is modeled? I'm not afraid of the DiffyQ's and calculus involved(I'm an engineering student so even if I haven't picked it up yet, I'm sure I can get a working knowledge of the equations) I just want to what main effects to plan for. I've read about 40 pages of this thread and various google/site searches and I can't find a changelog or such that shows what's been added over time. Did I miss something?

A simple rearrangement says that Q = Fd /(d*A) = 1/2 * rho * v^2. So, max Q isn't max drag, but the max ratio of drag compared to the drag coef times the, in this case, mass. Assuming a single rocket stage for simplicity's sake means that Q is highest later in the stage, when mass of the stage is lower due to propellant loss and velocity is up because of the burn. I suspect, however, that thrust to weight ratio has a relationship in that it is what can push your velocity higher in relation to rho. As for the calculus, I'm thinking this leads to partial derivatives in order to get around the circular nature of the acceleration vector being determined by velocity but it's been so long that I can't remember exactly where to go without a refresher. And then you have to remember that if you're doing a gravity turn, your time at a given pressure altitude is longer. Boy this can get complicated quick. I'm gonna keep working on this. I'm interested in what you find out.