diomedea

That being the case, your find is interesting. DRE works fine in my tests, even on hard mode. I don't use RSS, but think it is totally OK by itself. But the combination of both DRE and RSS is lethal. Now, that makes totally sense: spacefaring from Kerbin is much easier than from Earth. The re-entry speed of 5500m/s you measured is totally within the range of speeds for ICBMs IRL. Anyway, I don't think IRL it would be possible to use a ICBM to deploy cargo. The warheads can arrive intact because optimized in size and profile so to cut through atmosphere at extreme speed, actually almost insensitive to drag (drag would increase CEP, Circular Error Probability). Your payload however isn't designed to sustain lithobraking at Mach 10 or more, so you want to decelerate before. The best way to decelerate at such speed is by aerobraking, but to do so properly your reentry profile must be shallow, while ICBM warheads go down deep. Problem is, with any suborbital profile you don't get a shallow reentry: to do so you need to get to orbital speed, then go retrograde more or less when over the antipode of the place you want to "hit".

Bene, Pinolallo, tutto giusto. Se interessa approfondire ulteriormente, la propulsione atmosferica a velocitàipersoniche viene ottenuta con motori scramjet (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet), una variante dei ramjet molto semplice come costruzione ma la cui efficienza dipende enormemente dalla velocità. Iniziano ad esercitare una spinta apprezzabile ad oltre Mach 3, ma occorre ulteriore velocitàperchè la loro potenza permetta di accelerare ulteriormente (intorno a Mach 4), l'impulso specifico raggiunge il massimo verso Mach 6 e comunque permettono di continuare ad accelerare, secondo i modelli, fino a tra 12 e 24 Mach. Ovviamente per operare a tali velocitàpossono essere impiegati solo a quote molto elevate. Quindi uno dei problemi principali dei progetti in corso è come arrivare alla quota e velocitàdi innesco degli scramjet, il che richiede in genere un altro sistema di lancio (velivolo madre ipersonico, o motore a razzo). Un altro grosso problema è dovuto al basso rapporto spinta/peso degli scramjet, pertanto l'accelerazione è lenta: il tipico profilo di volo di un ipotetico SSTO a scramjet che si immetta in orbita terrestre, prevede non meno di 20 minuti di accelerazione continua alla massima potenza per raggiungere la velocitàdi immissione in orbita. Chiaramente il consumo di combustibile è molto elevato, ed il conseguente peso del combustibile rappresenta il maggior problema da superare nei progetti. Se poi aggiungiamo che il combustibile ideale per tali motori è l'idrogeno liquido (quindi con peso specifico molto basso), ci rendiamo conto che anche il volume del combustibile è un serio limite.

While I don't use RSS, I have DRE set on hard mode and, till now, no problems. I recently made a direct reentry from a high transfer orbit with a Mk1-2 pod shielded, speed more than 2500 ms @35000 altitude, went really hot but all well in the end. Then I see about your ICBM profile, build a rocket to make the same, launch and all goes right: the payload gets hot @ 750°C (max speed while falling 1500 m/s) but survives and is destroyed at the impact point. I suspect the issue may lie with the Reentry Vehicle (RV), as you know, in reality ICBM RVs are just the warheads and those are simple and robust enough. My RV was just a Sensor Array Nose Cone. But you're talking of something requiring fairings to withstand the reentry (real ICBM fairings are dropped outside the atmosphere) so your "payload" must be much more complex than a warhead, and complex vessels may hide weak points. It could be a single component failed due to the drag, and the whole structure of your RV collapsed as a result.

I'm testing the new version: will PM you shortly.

Well, this version surely talks a bit, was showing something like "VOID_Core loaded..." in white text in VAB and flight. However, no VOID icon and no VOID window at all appear. That is with an almost clean install (just MechJeb and PreciseNode, beyond VOID of course), not the install I play with, so to minimize interference from other mods. Below the output_log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/frjhth6959n545r/output_log.txt BTW, I checked back with the released version 0.9.141 on my main install. That works, but for the issue with the skin I initially reported. Configuration window rocks there.

Ringrazio moltissimo per questa precisazione, come pure per le interessanti informazioni riportate successivamente. In effetti nel passare dall'argomento spazioplani agli SSTO è facile finire col generalizzare, è mi accorgo di averlo fatto (caso da manuale di visione a tunnel). Diciamo che la risposta è stata adeguata alla domanda, in quanto questa correttamente era intesa per "aerei" e quindi solo mezzi in grado di sostenersi in atmosfera (portanza...). Ma impropriamente l'ho spostata agli SSTO, di cui va molto di moda parlare, ma che non sono esclusivamente i mezzi tipo Skylon e affini: il LEM rientra perfettamente in quest'ultima categoria.

If your issue is just about the KCT icon (position and/or interference with other mods, very important issues actually to set correctly), everything should be set correctly by using the plugin currently under development here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60066-WIP-Toolbar-Plugin-Common-API-for-draggable-buttons

I suspect all this interest about the icons is actually taking away from the mod itself. For how good the ones already provided are, making new ones is not a big effort (I already did a few more), so everybody can actually build his own set. The issue should remain with the plugin, to identify all reasources defined in game, and to associate an icon going by the same name (if such one exist in the mod icon folder) or to default to a simple abbreviation (if no such icon is found). We may see a number of users with an artistic inclination come and propose their own set, in future. What I would ask is for this mod to allow any such new icon to be recognized and used in game. Correct icons must match a standard, like for the existing ones the correct names being "img_XXXX.png" with XXXX the name of the resource exactly as defined by the relevant script. Dunno if the .png dimensions mean anything to the plugin, so better stick with 32 x 16 as standard (however artists may try otherwise). Another thing I would like to see is a possible choice of skins for this mod window. Matter of personal preference, but the standard skin with KSP is not always the best to see, and different users may need to set differently to better see things.

@ toadicus: tried this last, twice on my main install then on a clean KSP install, however it doesn't show ingame (neither Flight nor VAB). As if it did not load. BTW, happy to help!

After removing the config.xml, all is well for the next time the game loads. However, a config.xml file is recreated (I see it is marked with the time for when I leave the game). Restarting with the new config.xml brings back the problem. I have to remember to cancel that file each time.

SSTO giàesistenti in realtànon me ne risultano. Ci sono molti progetti, qualche velivolo sperimentale, alcuni programmi più o meno segreti di carattere militare. In realtàriuscire a trovare una configurazione ideale per la propulsione a quote molto diverse e nel vuoto non è per nulla semplice. Se ti interessa qualcosa di specifico ripasso la materia e ti rispondo, la propulsione aerospaziale l'ho studiata molti anni fa (parte del corso di missilistica) e sicuramente devo aggiornarmi (sebbene i concetti non siano cambiati).

No, you really don't know what I'm talking about. However I said. Simulations have been conducted to see, extensively, hoe planetesimals grow and clear their orbit. There is no doubt left that no chance exists for any other body of the same size to remain in the same orbit. It would simply not be stable. We are talking billions of years, but that is the end result. And it takes billions of years to develop an environment able to support life. So the answer is no, it can't do. And please, don't even try to consider binary those that IAU negates to be.

OK, I have a pattern and a possible way out. Redid the whole fandango with install, change .dll and so on. With the latest released VOID version, even brand new install, still VOID windows did not follow the VOID configuration, but remained fixed to one skin. Can't say if they take a skin from another mod, which one it is. With the newest VOID.dll and the config.xml file that VOID wrote, the configuration window remains empty. Again. Deleting only the config.xml file so to let the new VOID.dll recreate it, all is good. Please see if that all could be useful, hope it helps making this excellent mod easier to install for everybody.

Neither of the two new mods did any effect. I am going to delete and reinstall VOID from scratch, however in case this could someway be realted to a wrong config file (that I am going to delete as well), here is mine: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezmcgd8ft94alxy/config.xml.

Did that, please find the output_log here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/frjhth6959n545r/output_log.txt I bet the issue is tied to one of the two new mods I installed today. Will exclude them one at a time and report back the soonest.

Scusate la pedanteria, ma continuo a notare post dove viene scritto "perielio" o "afelio" nell'indicare gli apsidi inferiore e superiore dell'orbita attorno ad un pianeta, che nella maggior parte dei casi è Kerbin. Posto che tutti sanno la differenza tra i due apsidi di una stessa orbita, nella generalitàdei casi di dovrebbe parlare di "periapside" e "apoapside". I termini "perielio" e "afelio" sono riferiti esplicitamente ad orbite attorno al Sole (che in greco fa "Helios"), come invece "perigeo" ed "apogeo" si riferiscono specificamente ad orbite attorno alla Terra. Per maggiori dettagli rimando a chi ne sa più di me: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apside Non che la cosa abbia poi troppa importanza su questo forum, tanto ci capiamo. Ma potrebbe capitarvi di prenderla come un'abitudine e finire col fare una brutta figura con qualche amico un pò meglio informato di cose astronomiche.

Definitely yes, that DLL works, I can close the HUD keeping remaining windows with the skin a chose. Anyway, with this DLL the configuration window opens but is empty, so I cannot use any control to modify skins or other settings. And you are right, my KSP is pretty heavy with mods. Now you have kind of suggested an idea: wouldn't be possible to have a "master setting" about the GUI for all mods? Do you think modders may agree with a common standard here?

Con riferimento all'ultima versione della DRE (v. 4, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54954-0-22-Deadly-Reentry-Continued-v4), si tratta dei parametri nel file di configurazione "@temperatureExponent =" e "@heatMultiplier =", che da istruzioni devono essere modificati a seconda della realisticitàdel gioco e della dimensione dei pianeti. Dato che le prove le abbiamo condotte su Kerbin alla dimensione normale di KSP, il parametro che interessa è "@temperatureExponent" che viene raccomandato nelle istruzioni di settare a 1.12 per realismo, tuttavia al post #431 l'autore indica di settare a 1.17 (ovviamente un esponente maggiore comporta maggiore aumento della temperatura per attrito). Andrebbe comunque notato che il DRE non sembra modifichi gli effetti dinamici (intensitàdel drag), a differenza del FAR; quindi la controllabilitàdel velivolo dovrebbe variare solo per effetto di FAR.

I fail to read where is said that energy grows exponentially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect), instead it grows linear with speed. For a given orbit, the effect is maximum where speed is the greatest, that is at periapsys. Of course a lower periapsys means higher speed, therefore higher energy due to the Oberth effect. But the limit for a low periapsys remains the radius of the principal body.

If our moon would have been heavier, it would not have entered a stable orbit with Earth. The Earth-Moon configuration cannot be called binary, one body is clearly much bigger thus it made the lesser one stabilize its orbit around. Pluto-Charon, as somebody else already pointed out, cannot be considered as Pluto itself is no more to be considered a planet. Being so smaller and unable to support life itself, Pluto is more similar to one of the remnants from the protoplanets. Due to the extreme size of its orbit, it just needs more time to complete the process, and then Charon will be no more... BTW, Charon's mass is just 11,6% of Pluto's: not really big enough to be considered of similar size. I would not consider the two as forming a binary system. The IAU classifies Charon as a moon of Pluto, having so far rejected to define the two as a binary system.

I believe it is impossible in reality to have two bodies of comparable size, so to be both able to sustain life, to create a binary system. Given the size, only one such body may orbit a principal body (star or gas giant planet). As to why, it has to do with one of the most credited theories about planet formation, the planetesimal theory. I remember to have read (sorry I can't find where, probably an article on Scientific American) of a number of simulations being conducted, always to demonstrate that every time a body large enough forms, it eats all other planetesimals in the same or close to its orbit, given enough time. Therefore it would be impossible that two similar bodies form in the same area. A different scenario may involve planet migration, where a close encounter with a larger body alters the orbit of a planet. And it is possible that a deviated planet gets very close to another of similar size, but then it would require magic to stabilize both of them in a same orbit. While interacting in a yet unstable orbital configuration, it is most probable that one gets more energy (at the expense of the other) so to pull out, or the lighter one loses energy and falls.

Excellent. I'm waiting about that solution too, very happy to know you are on that as well.

I am not sure if the search/load feature would do. Believe other mods defining and implementing different resources don't necessarily have icons for them in a format consistent for your mod. Certainly would be required to have some sort of check at loading time, to see that all resources defined are managed; that would also mean your mod should start after any other to do that properly. Nice idea to have different sets of icons, to meet personal preferences. Believe it should be easy enough to implement. Anyway, I like your style and will try to make other icons in the same. I will PM you after compiling a list of resources, and in case of images.

I was waiting for this merge to happen and DL the mod. Good job, congrats to both authors. I was unable to move the button (opening this mod settings) around in the main flight window: can't find anything in the install dealing with its position, either. I would suggest then to allow for some form of configuration on the button position. Thanks.

Very nice. I was waiting for your new creation, and it is as good as I could imagine. Waiting for consumption rates to be implemented, those are really needed and should greatly benefit from a better GUI, I hate the simple -/+ numeric indication of stock resource indicators. What would take to make custom icons for other resources? I would like to have for all the ones used by other mods, would make the .png files myself, however how can new icons be linked with the plugin? EDIT: well, found by going through your source, need to mod settings.cs and recompile. Will try to do that for myself.