Zzabur

After dozens of campaigns and about 2000h on the game, i restarted one with starting science and cash sliders maxed. I have never completed my own objectives in campaign, and I restart another with other objectives. All civilians in my Kerbin orbital station have died of starvation because i forgot to resupply them after Bob Kerman messed up with the snack stock. I have never watched a Scott Manley video since i start playing (0.14) :X

I am using SSTO for almost all my LKO flight, just launching stations and sats frm the launchpad, any supply or kerbin transfer are done in SSTO. You just have to be more careful when building your SSTOs.

THIS is a great Kerbal landing

Is someone missiong in the vessel?

You can warp x2-3-4 during burn. If it's still "not reasonable", you're free to use a higher thrust engine.

I had about the same issue there, and i found a way to deal with it. When reaching 28-30km, check your air intakes, then decrease throttle slightly, you'll earn a bit of air intakes. Continue to decrease slighlty, i found that losing control is because : -either an engine got less air intake (reaching very low intake like 0.05, it seems that it feeds engines from left to right, so right engines flameout a bit before left, and your plane begin to turn on the right) -either too much thrust for control surfaces (as they become less efficient because of less atmosphere) You need also to be almost at prograde 0° on the horizon to "build" your speed to 2km/s. I don't know exactly which is the main reason causing this issue at 30km, but i could resolve it by lowering throttle to keep control. I can reach orbit without using any space engine (just raising a bit periapsis sometimes with a second burn at apoapsis, but i often manage to reach periapsis >70km with only jets). If i keep full throttle at 30km, no matter how much SAS or winglets i have, i lose control.

no particular order : -MechJeb -USI life support -protractor -MKS/OKS -ScanSAT -KAS/KIS -Kerbal Alarm Clock -Karbonite -Crew Manifest -TAC fuel balancer Nobody can use more than 4gb (except on linux 64), i am also playing win7 +8Gb and can support a bunch of mods without any issues.

In my opinion, this is a matter of entry speed. I managed to build a few spaceplanes in 1.0.2 that can bring about 10 kerbins to orbit and refuel my space shuttles or stations around Kerbin. Before re entering, i burn retrograde like any other ships, actually, i try to brake a lot using space engines (got no RAPIER atm) between 70km and 40km. Just before 40km, i turn the ship prograde and then i can adjust pitch. The best way to brake is, as you said, a pitch a bit higher than prograde, i would say about 10-15° (big planes need a bit more pitch, aound 15° i found), you'll also move the landing spot a bit further. But i also could use some negative pitch ! You lose altitude and speed faster, generating more heat, but if you have braked enough before 40km, the plane can still survive re entry. So, using this 70-40km retro burn, i can adjust my pitch to land exactly where i want, if i see that i will land before the KSC, i raise my pitch until +10°, if i am missing it and fall into the sea, then i lower my pitch to -10° (only if my speed is low enough, or i will burn the ship before ground). In 1.0.2 career, i now only use SSTO to resupply because i don't lose much money as they can land at KSC in one piece.

I am european, so i wouldn't speak for american people. You're right, some people could live for 14 monthes in Mir, though it's still protected by earth's magnetosphere. I doubt anyone would surive the same trip outside Earth's magnetosphere.

So much unknown factors...Nobody has left Earth SOI since 1972, and it was for the moon, I highly doubt we can reach Jupiter with a manned mission in 25 years while we couldn't send a man more than 6 monthes in space around Earth since the last 40 years. We had the same discuss about Mars One, the MIT answer far better than me : http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/technical-feasibility-mars-one-1014 Lots of issues : food, water, spare parts, radiations.... I

Same here, i couldn't make a decent SSTO since 0.14 lol. But since 1.0.2, i made them easily, without even any RAPIER engines. I find the new model more realistic and predictable, I don't understand people who say it's harder than before.

That's why i am using Life Support mods. Staying far away from Kerbin means a lot of issues to deal with. I found it not realistic the way you describe it, but when you have to deal with life support, you can't just fast forward infinite times. Then you'll find challenging to resupply the lab station, you can also bring some crew back. Also sending 10 kerbals in space with life support for a very long trip can be difficult, so you wille have to send them with multiple ships. I use some mods to make the game more challenging, with life support, time based stuff is not only clicking anymore.

It looks like the same issue, it seems to happen mostly when i re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere with my scientific exploring ship, or when i reach high atmosphere with my SSTO, both got temp gauges. Thank you for your answer, I'll check this sticky.

KSP should run vanilla without any memory crashes, it happens only 2 minutes after loading any save, with small ships/stock parts. I am playing since 0.14 with tons of mods, i already crashed because of memory usage, but it happens when i run too much mods. In last version 0.9 32bits, i played hundreds of hours without any memory crash with about 20mods (FAR, USI mods, mechjeb, distant objects, scansat....) and huge vessels. Updating to 1.0.2, memory issues on a vanilla install after 2 mins in a 4 parts ship, it is obviously not working as intended, even in 32bits. I didn't had any of this kind of issue in 1.0.1, even after hours of playtime. Even using vanilla+ATM mod doesn't prevent early memory crash. There is definitely some kind of memory leak issue in 1.0.2 in my opinion.

About the same issue here, i got ctd after few mins, seems like a memory issue. I used to play 0.90 with about 20 mods and no RAM issues with vessels containing several hundreds of parts. Now i crash on <30 parts vessels and no active mods. I have this issue on any missions, but it seems to happen often when aerodynamic effects are displayed, but not only. Sometimes even 1 minute after loading a game, it seems very unlikely that i run out of memory under this circumstances, though i got sometimes more than 90% memory used after few mins without mods and small ships.

I played a lot of versions with KER+protractor, and no MJ. I installed MJ later because KER was not available anymore, and now i use only MJ and not KER. I liked KER, because it shows you about the same datas than MJ, but without any autopilot, so i had to learn every maneuvers without autopilot. After about 1000hours in KSP, i decided to install MJ, and now, i use the autopilot....for some maneuvers, because i became a bit lazy : -I use maneuver planning to create my nodes, but i often rework them to get the proper inclination when entering the other body's SOI -I use docking autopilot sometimes, for huge vessels, but anyway with some designs, MJ doesn't manage to dock when i manage to do it. Anyway, i am consuming far less monoprop when i dock myself. -Never used taking off/landing assist so i can't tell if they're right or wrong. I often land using ScanSAT within a 20m accuracy (to dock ground stations together) -I use a lot smart A.S.S. to keep the proper direction, because long burn are often boring (even while warping x2, for huge vessel i don't warp more than x2 while burning). Smart A.S.S. is an autopilot, but you have to tell him where to go. Now, i am using smart A.S.S. as vanilla commands and i know enough to correct some trajectories without any node planning (i use to meet the Mün or Minmus without creating any node, just burning prograde at the right time until i meet the body, if i am too far away, i manage to correct it on-the-fly without nodes too, just push target + and target retrograde ) I personally don't like to have some computer realizing a maneuver if i don't understand it myself. I think I should use autopilot only if i can realize the same maneuver without it, but that's my playstyle, i can't judge people using it for realizing maneuvers they don't manage to do.

Lol exactly the same issue here ! My first flight to Mün (in 0.9, got hundreds of landings on previous savefiles) ended at 110km peripapsis of Kerbin, Jeb had to do EVA to push the ship retrograde and return home ! He ended with about 1.2 monopropellant remaining in both ship and Jeb suit.

I am using this kind of design to get massive modules into orbit Don't trust the DV MJ stats, i could bring this launcher into orbit, this is a Mun planetary base using a karbonite drill, it has landed on Mun karbonite hotspot with....0/ms DV left ! Boosters are very useful to lower the cost of the rocket, but can be hard to manage with FAR if you don't use the optimal thrust. I could reach orbit with 3 space station modules (about 200t each) and the munar drill (though for this one, DV is really low and you must be very careful on DV losses). I am using FAR, TAC life support, karbonite, MKS/OKS, TAC CLS, scanSAT... The design is not very aerodynamic, i guess that using nosecones will make the lander too heavy. I can send you my .craft files if you want, but you have to use same mods, or you can pick up ideas on screenshots and build your own launcher. I know my launchers are ugly, but they are efficient, i almost always use a central propulsion with 4 liquid boosters around and solid boosters for the first step. As solid boosters are often not powerful enough to take off the rocket, i calculate the final TWR and use engines to get an optimal one : either SRB then liquid boosters then main engine (lightest top module) or SRB+liquid boosters as 1st stage then main engine, or even SRB+liquid boosters+main engine at the 1st stage, but then i often lower thrust to stay under terminal velocity. This is not the moste efficient design, but you need a lot of mower to lift these kind of heavy modules.

@LaytheAerospace : Thank you for your informations, I agree about : -What might exist between Chandrasekhar limit and Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit : we don't know exactly, but it could be a black hole...or something else from a neutron star to any unknown exotic stuff like strangelets. I assume it's a black hole in order to keep things easier, but you're right, it's certainly not ^^ -A black hole "eats" matter, often more than it radiates, but i wanted to show that even if there is no matter, no accretion disk, a stellar black hole would take ages to evaporate. But you're right, it's even longer because it tends to grow bigger. By the way, here's a nice article about formation of supermassive black holes soon after the Big Bang : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7787v2.pdf . And it's even worse than you said (that was worse than i wrote before lol) ! Because it seems that these black holes have moved a lot around young galaxies, and caught a lot of matter directly in it without accretion disk. So they eat, and they used to move to eat even more matter, so it seems that Hawking radiation will start to evaporate black holes when there is few matter remaining outside of BH in the universe (that was the main hypothesis before Hawking radiation, BH are going to eat all matter, then bigger BH will "eat" smallest ones, and then the universe will end as a BH containing all matter? Because it breaks thermodynamic laws, entropy should always grow with time). Anyway that means that even if it seems much too long to evaporate completely, i guess it's even longer because i don't take in account matter that fall inside. -Hell yeah, a 200t BH would evaporate so quickly that it would be more like an interstellar nuke lol. Again, i just wanted to show that smaller BH are far more unstable (theorically) than big ones. And i have to tell again that it's only hypothetical, like naked singularity. To create the smallest BH, assuming 3dimensions of space and 1 of time, it would require 10^19GeV, for proton-proton collision, LHC can reach 14*10^3GeV, so not even in dream....It's been theorically calculated that with extra-dimensions though, the energy to provide would be far less because of extra gravitational energy provided (source : http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1780v2.pdf). Anyway, all these calculations are a bit useless because we can't prove them by experience at the moment, no one has ever prove the existence of small, micro and primordial black holes, and i guess we won't get an answer before a very long time....if we ever manage to get one. @ZetaX : mathematics can seem "nonsense", it is indeed when you can't prove them by physics, but i rely more on them than on "guess" "thought" or "what should be". Math tells us what could exist, but not if it exists really, lots of mathematicals answers can't apply in the universe, as long as we don't know things like how much dimensions exist in the universe, we can't tell much about it. PS : Well, it seems that you are far more clear than me LaytheAerospace I would conclude and fully agree about this assertion :

I think you are talking about the singularity? the event horizon? If you want to CREATE a black hole, you need to compress matter to a density high enough for the mass to collapse. The higher is the mass, the more gravitational energy you get from it, so the less energy you'll need to create it. That's why black hole with mass higher than 1.84 solar mass can appear nowadays (not in all cases, it requires 3 or 4 solar mass to get a black hole for sure). In early times just after big bang, the universe energy was supposed high enough to create theoricals primordial black holes, but this kind of black holes can't appear anymore. If you want to create a black hole higher than 1.84 solar mass (Chandrasekhar limit), the total mass can collapse and create a black hole, for mass lower than 1.84 solar mass, you'll get a neutron star or even another kind of star, and you'll need to bring more energy to turn it into a black hole, and this energy becomes higher as the mass is lighter. Anyway, talking about Hawking radiation, starting from a 1 solar mass black hole (admitting you got enough energy to create it, which seems impossible at the moment), it would requires something like 2*10^67 years to evaporate, so far more than the total universe lifespan. Admitting you manage to get a 200t black hole (that means compressing 200t in a bubble of 3*10^-22 m, that's about the distance of the electron from the nucleus), the hawking radiation would evaporate it in 0.67 seconds. Hawking radiation is very important for small black holes, but is only theorical for stellar black holes. That's why we think that primordial black holes can't exist anymore, and why we think that most stellar black holes will remain the same until the end of time.... Anyway, a black hole small enough to fit into a planet, and assuming you can prevent the planet from collapsing into the singularity (which would require a very high angular momentum, and is still not demonstrated that a naked singularity can even exist), it would evaporate in a very short time. I guess there are easier options to get a higher gravitational energy. Sorry for my english. PS : the sun would turn into a black hole if you can compress it to a density of at least 1.84*10^19 kg.m^-3, and the event horizon would be about 3km radius and a singularity of about 9mm. It would fit inside a planet, but it would change drastically any planet trajectories around. Source : http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199

The smallest the black hole is, the more energy it requires because of higher density to collapse. It's why nowadays, a black hole smaller than 1.84 solar mass can't appear. If you want a smaller black hole, you need to bring more energy, and if you want a black hole that fits inside a planet like earth, it would requires too much energy to be created. Recent discover suggests that the LHC could provide enough energy to create a quantum black hole, but it relies on more dimensions, so this is pure theory. A supernova can create a black hole, but it won't fit inside a planet.

The energy required to create such a black hole would be really huge, i think it would requires more than the whole universe's energy.

In my opinion, i think no video games should be ever released, even no games at all, so we can all together get bored at the same time, no community splitting anymore.

I feel angry because some of my friends can't play KSP because they don't have a computer. As they don't have a computer, they can't play KSP with me. Because of that, Squad shouldn't release such game, people without a computer can't play it, it splits the community for me and my friends. Wait, then every video game is splitting the human community? Oh my god !

I guess it's possible to do the mission using extraplanetary launchpad mod....or try to get launch clamps about 12 000km long:confused: