Search the Community

By adding them to the 'further modding' list. There are quite a few things I will want to show on the predicted trajectory using interactive markers (you should be able to click on them to get more details). Examples include aerodynamic events (free molecular flow to fluid flow transition, Mach numbers, instability), stationkeeping burns, long-duration burns (start and end). A maneuver node can be such a marking. When tweaking it, the new trajectory is computed using the dynamic integration (I really don't like this name, can someone come up with something nicer?). As for the interface for tweaking it, I think I'll go with a window and sliders; the current system has ergonomic issues. An interesting question is that of the axes. In stock KSP, we are always in a Keplerian orbit, so it makes sense to see burns as a linear combination of prograde, radial and normal. This will also work for strongly bound orbits. For weakly bound orbits, other axes may be useful. Remember that double precision limits the size of the system. The resolution with a 53-bit mantissa at the aphelion of Pluto is 0.8 mm, so you can't do much bigger. If I were to use extended precision (which is slower, as x87 is a scalar FPU, but I don't know how critical performance will end up being), the resolution at 1 light-year would be 0.5 mm. This would be much nicer for RSS. If performance really isn't an issue, I could try double-double (implemented in software, so an order of magnitude slower), which would give me an error of 0.01 mm at the edge of the observable universe (though for systems that big you'd really want GR, and I don't want to look at the curvature of that rabbit hole). I could talk about IEEE 754 quads, whose error at the edge of the observable universe would be 87 nm, but this is getting rather silly unless you're interested in molecular dynamics at the scale of superclusters. Anyway, I'm not currently in the planet-making business, and I hear PFCE is rather buggy (e.g. compatibility with FAR or lack thereof). I'm not sure if the problem of making a fully functional star, i.e., a star which is a light source, feeds the solar panels, etc. has been solved either.

Hi guys, first post here ive played this now for about 200 hours since Dec, and I am playing career with no mods, I was wondering if this has been discussed before, as I visit the discussion board quite often (daily) and decided to register and create a topic, this may be controversial, an some what unrealistic, but instead of randomly generating planets/surfaces, why not small/large objects like alien craft/artefacts shallow caves (for science samples or 'bonus tech' from a material sample) which could give a boost in science/rocket tech, and general excitement as one orbits a planet and sees some fuzzy object lying on a planet/moon that they have not been to, this would also put more 'Discovery' into the game as apposed to just the rocket science. Just a suggestion, id like some opinions on this, and will try to respond to all answers, and talk on this subject asap, as I am currently 'in work'...... and the bosses are lurking... cheers guys.

cant do much more, i am using a stock plane on stock points. And i have observed the missiles for the submarine aren't as powerful as someone would wish, and if you talk about float code, i have seen how several big chunks of the carrier even cutted at half can float by themselves, maybe this can be fixed by making a code or a script that forces the aircraft to float if it has X parts together. Thanks for the work you are doing, not many mod-makers would actualy answer most of the feedback users give them. I would honestly suggest for a more realistic-based aircraft carrier (4-5 wires, angled deck, maybe catapult, etc.) or to make a better way to spawn in the water due to bugs and glitches, but its up to you.

If you're going to include the parts, you might want to talk to the mod authors to make sure they're okay with you redistributing a modified version of their files.

It doesn't work with FAR yet. I've toned overheating down in the dev version already. As for progress, there are still things to do. Not to mention I didn't get a response from Cepheus yet. There are slight issues with aerodynamics, and robotic arm is untested with the latest version. Models are still being refined. If Cepheus doesn't respond before we're done with the models, there will be a public beta. If he does respond, then I'll talk to him about it. The current dev version would already be an improvement over the released one. We might soon have dev pics to show, but working out aerodynamics isn't the most spectacular thing to do. Oh, and check Dtobi's thread. He's contributing a little something as well. Also, I'll have exams in the next week, ending at 22nd. I'm afraid this means work is gonna slow to a crawl (well, it already did. I was doing integrals all day. ). After that, there might be a progress update. It also depends Ledenko's schedule, so don't hold your breath.

Hey I don't expect (understandably) that this suggestion actually get heard out by squad, simply because of the massive amount of suggestions in this section. However, I'd like your opinion: 1.Some member made a chart of the optimal engine to use according to the situation here: Mass-optimal engine type vs delta-v The result can be summed in this sentence: Use the atomic rocket for big payloads where twr is of little relevance and use the 48-7s for anything else. I know that engine stats are not the only thing that matters (radially attaching, height, price and most importantly part count) but the engines could probably be rebalanced much more precisely by using a data a chart like this than by guessing values by hand. Something puzzles me however: small engines as a rule of thumbs seems to mostly outperform large ones. Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to be the opposite? AFAIK IRL Rockets having a ton of miniature engines wouldn't outperform these having a couple large ones. 2. Ion engines in this game are considered to be of little use by many players because of how slow they are. I don't think their twr should be made even higher because its already unrealistically high, I actually think it should be decreased once there is a solution to decrease how much irl time you spend waiting after them. But that's not what I want to talk about. I think the ion engine should be replaced by a VASMIR engine with equal stats. I am not fond about including near future tech in the game, but according to the wiki page on this thing, its going to have a major real-life application in being used on the ISS as soon as next year, meaning adding it to the stock game would be less of a stretch than with the nerva. Its twr is higher than than a normal ion engine and most importantly it uses argon gas, which is much cheaper than xenon and can be used to justify a lower in game cost. Your thoughts?

True For that reason Venus is so important to science too. You are right about the 50% (quite less). I dint found it when I search it. I retract. Good analisys. But that was my real example? That is the only way? How I said. ECONOMICS IS NOT SO SIMPLE. Is like saying that hot air rises over the cold, and from there try to simulate the entire global climate. First you will not bring 5T of diamonds, it will be 5T of each expensive element or product that you found or develope in venus. In case diamonds are so easy to get. Then you will have that DeBeers would become in the main investment. You personally not need to do nothing, Nasa or other agencies are not the ones that would make money mining or wherever. You just build it, and they will come. Now you may think that it would not be good for DeBeers get so much diamonds becouse that would get down the price. That would be stupid to think. In that case they should stop all mining in earth and weight to the price market rise. First, Diamonds has a big margin of profits than even if they price gets down, the earnings are huge. But if the diamond price gets down a lot of companies would start to use it for their products to improve their quality. So the price rise again! Lets change a little, now lets talk about platine or other elements. If you bring so much of one thing. You can sell it to very low prices.. This would eliminate any other competence, so when their share prices collapse, then you buy them and control the maket. That is what China did with heavy elements. And like those, there is many other different strategies to make a business sustainable. The big true. All these resources are not renewable. Each time cost more to extract them. At the end of this century would be extracted almost all the resources close to the surfuce. For example, if you need resources that are just 30m below and you need open pit mining, then you need to remove first 30m depth multiply by many football fields in volume to start. That is not economic viable. So you reach a point when its more cheap deep 5m in venus than 30 at earth. And when that time comes, You need to be prepared with machinary already extrating resources from there. If you dont, our global economy collapse. It is like renewable energy vs Oil. It reach a point "to day" when any investment on renewable energy is more profit than Oil. This means that we never had it before to become economically viable? Not. We have it and use it since many years. But now we are ready to make the change. So debeers can get more diamonds but they dont want it? That is really silly. Diamonds are not easy to find. There is a lot of study to see where is profit to mine or not. About sulfuric acid, I never said bring that from venus! Sulfuric Acid is the most value chemical element to the industry. This mean that all manufacture process to make habitats and all you need to live there become cheaper. Also means that with extra energy, great temperatures and pressures at surfuce.. No oxigen at surface (here we expend a lot of money just to separate or remove oxide elements from metals) and acid sulfure. It becomes in a paradise for many industrial process. So you can develope products there for a tiny of their cost. Yes, you can live at craters shadows. But you also can sent a solar cell made of graphene with a brayton cycle to increase its efficiency much more close to the sun, and sent the power using a big laser aperture and a fresnel lens to focus the energy to earth. I dont know what is more efficient.

Spaceplanes and docking do benefit the most from analog control, whereas rocket flight benefits the least. If you go with a full HOTAS setup, you want to have enough buttons to never need to touch the keyboard. I used to run an X52 Pro. Now, that's a super-sensitive joystick and there is currently a Unity limitation that makes super-sensitive sticks hard to use. I personally would say go with the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro unless you really want a full HOTAS suite, but then you do begin to talk about laying down some cash (X52 Pro right now = $120-$140).

France and the UK might fight. Stateside, I hear little talk of invasion. Oooh! -- The 700 billion dollar military budget is mostly healthcare, impeding cuts thereto. -Duxwing

It's not just like different axioms, because the cartesian ontology doesn't end in reality, but in a flawed thought experiment made by Descartes. That's the root of the whole problem. If you attempt to trace the origin of your ideas, you'll eventually end up in the same place. We can talk about that in more detail if you want. It's not a claim. That's not in dispute. Changes in quantity can't effect ontological change. You don't reach the subatomic world by just dividing the atomic world quantitatively. At some point, you effect some qualitative change. Actually, the cheaters are those who claim sound is nothing else but its quantifiable properties, since they are simply ignoring the binding problem. Just think about this: how would you explain what sound is to someone who was born deaf? No matter how detailed and precise is your description of the quantifiable properties of the phenomenon, they simply never experienced the phenomenon itself. They may learn very well what the physical phenomena associated with sound are and what they can cause, they may even feel the vibration of a low frequency sound, they may even learn music theory and be able to read and write musical scores, but they just don't know what sound is. Not quite, but that's good enough. Precisely. For practical purposes, indeed, there's no problem, but then you're saying you're only concerned with utility, not truth. That's how science works, not philosophy. Sure. Frankly, if you're genuinely interested, I think you should just read the book I mentioned, Sungenis' Galileo Was Wrong. That's my starting point on the subject, and since you know the physics much better than I do, you may even figure out some sensible objections on that aspect.

I'm not saying we should use Teller-Ulam bombs for power generation, but that when people talk of breakeven fusion, they usually omit to say they mean in a small scale, controlled manner. Breakeven fusion is otherwise relatively easy to attain. By the way, what happened to Z-pinch machines? they used to be a big thing in fusion research.

You will need a Badass antenna and emitter to talk to that beast. I don't think any structure smaller than a University would have access to the resources required. The best hope would be for NASA to give all the info and hope someone somewhere has a transmitter able to communicate with the satellite.

Ok someone call Nasa for the specs, I think we could get something to talk to it.

Noooo! Don't bring facts and logic into a situation where one lets his/her emotions get out of control! Crazy Talk!!! {/end Sarcasm font}

i want to say named pipes is what they go by on windows. its pretty much the same thing as whats used on *nix. good luck finding a library that works on all platforms though. tcp/ip beats it out in this regard. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365590%28v=vs.85%29.aspx ive tried to use them before for other projects but i was never satisfied with the results. its just so much easier to use the loopback address (127.0.0.1) under tcp/ip. i kinda like the idea of being able to use network assets if i want to (like being able to talk to a tablet or a raspberry pi). you might want to keep the loopback as the default address though. it should be pretty secure since it will never leave the local machine.

No, I don't want all engine parts separate. Merely the inlet, precooler (optional), body (burner and, where applicable, compressor) and nozzle (with or without afterburner). As for how they'd talk to each other: they'll all have to be in-line with each other, so each engine would have a dedicated intake (radial ones would be also be assigned to just one engine based on their placement). I imagine the flow to works as follows: Inlet takes in air and determines it's properties, like mach number, temperature, density, etc. Those are passed to the next part in the stack, either precooler or turbine. The precooler just cools the air, without altering it too much. Then the turbine gets fed data from the part before it and converts it into exhaust data. Nozzle gets that and adds it's own corrections (including afterburner, if present) and produces thrust from that. Every part depends on what the part before it is doing, and only that. The only exceptions would be turbofans, with inlets being fed shaft speed from the turbine behind them. Now, the engine body be the most complex part, since it'd have to account for numerous variations. Ramjet and scramjet bodies would essentially be just burners and nuclear jets wouldn't be even that (just a heating element feeding from the reactor). On turbojets and low-bypass turbofans it would be the entire compressor+burner assembly, and also pass bypass data down to the nozzle. High bypass turbofans would be the most complicated of the bunch, they'd need a special inlet model which would also produce thrust. This might be best left for later, but if done, would also easily allow making propfans and even turboprops! I can see quite a few combinations possible with those.

You basically wanted inlet, compressor, burner, etc have individual parts, that's ambitious:cool: However that would be much more complicated. How to make different parts talk to each other? Maybe I' think about it later, but for now you can assume AJE=all these parts combined. Ferram4 told me to cancel all aerodynamic forces for inlets for now, which I did, for now. As for aviation in KSP, ferram made FAR, DYJ made wings, I'm making engines, what's left would be fuselage systems(make them with real size and weight, etc.), right? I'm not sure adding scenery and airports are possible:D

CHAPTER 60 DUNA ORBIT INSERTION *** Commander's log, entry 130 (422 days after deactivation). In less than an hour we're going to enter Duna's sphere of influence. Then we will know whether we made a right decision. I didn't write anything here for the past two weeks. I just didn't have strength to do this. I feel very tired. Whatever the next hours are going to bring, I'm glad it's finally over. The discussion how exactly should we get into orbit felt like it was never going to end. By the time we agreed that the best option is to execute orbit insertion burn everyone got really fed up with this... *** DANREY: Jeb? JEB: Hmm? DANREY: I said we're go for a trajectory correction. JEB: You did? How much time do we have left? DANREY: Uhm, we should start 8 seconds ago actually... JEB: Damn. I'm on it. RCS online. DANREY: Just be gentle with the controls. JEB: I know how to fly, son. Done. DANREY: “Sonâ€Â? JEB: I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that. DANREY: I mean sure, you are older than me but- JEB: Forget it. How are we looking? DANREY: Hmm... well, it seems like we're going to be 1.26 million kilometers short. JEB: I see. DANREY: Nothing we can't correct. JEB: Good. You may go now, I'll take care of the rest. DANREY: Okay. Uhm... Jeb? JEB: Yes? DANREY: Did you- JEB: No. Not yet. DANREY: We need to make that call soon, you know. JEB: I know. I'm working on it. *** There were a lot of options. Duna-Ike system is unique for a lot of reasons. There are only a couple of places in our Solar System when you can try aerobraking. The Red Planet is one of them and we already used this opportunity first time when we were here. But what's really making it special is presence of Ike. Tidally locked in synchronous orbit, its mass and diameter in relation to a parent celestial body bigger than any mun. Perfect for reverse gravity assist. But even with sphere of influence so huge in comparison to its semi-major axis I weren't sure we make us it to slow down. To do this requires luck, a commodity we've run out of months ago. *** NED: Okay, let's get through this one more time. CAMBO: :sigh: DANREY: Very well. The aerobraking- MALLOCK: Do we really need to be here? It's not like we're going to vote on it. NED: Yes, we do. I'm not a pilot either but I think we all should know what we're going to do. ROZER: Yeah. NED: Shut up. Continue, Dan. DANREY: Ahem. So, aerobraking. We did it already several times, we did it on Duna. However, the last time we tried this it ended... badly. Acceleration peaked at 2.9g and the heatshield temperature rose to nearly 3000 degrees centigrade. I don't think that “Proteus†can handle something like this. Moreover, Duna's atmosphere density is so low we would have to go 10 or 11 kilometers from its surface, just like the last time, which in case of any trouble means- NED: I think we all know what it means. DANREY: Yes. So, considering this and the fact that we have only 34% of ablative material left, which we have to save for Kerbin encounter in case of any problems, the whole idea of aerobraking is just terrible. What we need to do is to perform standard orbit insertion burn, which- ROZER: 80 tonnes. DANREY: What? ROZER: Eight or maybe even ninety metric tonnes of reaction mass, that's how much this is going to cost us. We're not talking about some minor correction – this is going to cost at least 3000 m/s. It's two thirds of what is needed to get from the surface to low Kerbin orbit. DANREY: That's not true. If we use Ike's gravity well to perform reverse slingshot- ROZER: Exactly - “ifâ€Â. How come you be so sure it's a viable option? DANREY: Even if it won't, it's still safer than going through the atmosphere at 3 kilometers per second. ROZER: So you agree with me that we're going to spend 3000 meters per second. Good. DANREY: What? No! ROZER: And remember that you are talking about using the engines for a long time. With acceleration at 1g it's going to take six minutes or more. Do we have a guarantee that the fusion cores can handle this? DANREY: We don't but we don't have a guarantee than “Proteus†can survive atmospheric entry either! ROZER: Chief Ned, what do you think? Can we count on these engines? NED: For six minutes? ROZER: On full throttle. Can we count on them working in 100%? NED: … ROZER: Well? NED: No. ROZER: No, we can't. This is your answer. DANREY: We don't have to use them on full throttle! We can use 20-30% of their power if needed. We would have to just burn a little longer. ROZER: Oh really? And what if the engines fail completely during the burn? DANREY: You are concerned about the engines? What if we crash? What if there'll be some problems with ship stability during aerobraking? What if it starts spinning violently, exposing every part of it to extreme temperature? What if it just falls apart? Huh!? What then? ROZER: It may happen, yes. But RCS is working. SAS is working. With aerobraking gravity and atmosphere are working for us – we don't need engines if we have physics on our side. But if the engines fail we may never be able to enter the orbit or get an encounter with Kerbin. Never. JOHNDON: Wait, what if we just used b-both ideas? We can slow down a little using the engines and t-then complete orbit insertion with aerob-breaking. NED: That's actually a good idea. ROZER: No, it's not. The engines still may fail during the burn. DANREY: We can minimalize the time needed for burn using gravity assist from Ike. The Oberth effect- ROZER: Is worthless if you can't get close enough to a celestial body. We may not get encounter with the mun at all. MALLOCK: Wait. I have an idea. What if we send LAMGML directly to Duna surface? “Proteus†will stay on free return trajectory and either way only LAMGML has to land in the base. DANREY: Well, considering our inclination and base localization... and delta-v needed to land, take off and catch up to “Proteusâ€Â- ROZER: It's not going to happen. It's our only lander. And what if something happens while LAMGML is trying to catch up to the ship? The last thing we need is more casualties. NED: You dare?! You dare to talk about casualties?! MALLOCK: Hey! DANREY: Ned, calm down! NED: Motherfraker. JOHNDON: Where are you g-going? CAMBO: I'll go with him. MALLOCK: sigh: DANREY: Damn... Anyway, these are the only options – aerobraking or insertion burn. There are no alternatives. Which means we basically have only one option, since aerobraking in our current condition is virtually lithobraking. JOHNDON: What's lithob-braking? MALLOCK: Crashing. ROZER: I can agree only in one thing – there are no other options. DANREY: So, what are we going to do? MALLOCK: Do we really need to decide now? ROZER: The sooner the better. So far from the planet it would take only few meters per second to change our trajectory. If we wait, it'll cost us more. DANREY: So what is it? Jeb? JEB: I'll think about it. *** I thought about this really hard. For every argument for one of the options there was always at least one counter-argument. The more time I spent on this, the more difficult it was to choose. And I had to choose. I run dozens of simulations with various results. Sometimes we crashed, sometimes we didn't. Sometimes the fusion cores triggered chain reaction. I started to have nightmares again. But in the end, surprisingly the decision wasn't that hard to make. To trust the lives of all of us on his idea was too much to take. I knew in my guts that this would end badly. And as long as I live, I'll do everything to make sure we won't end like this, falling in flames through the atmosphere like Icarus. I chose insertion burn. The last days before the encounter were spent on repairing whatever we can and securing everything – after months in zero gee “Proteus†was about to become a real mess if all these thing were to get caught by the grip of gravity again. Ned was doing his magic with the engines. Endless tests of RCS and SAS in dozens of scenarios. We decided not to change our periapsis – circular orbit at 400 kilometers is as good as any. We prepared the LAMGML. There were some problems with a cooling system but we worked it out. We aren't ready. But that's the best we can do. *** DANREY: I'm back. 50 seconds. NED: Could you please stop? It won't make a difference if we start the calculations 5 second later. DANREY: Sorry. JEB: Did you check them? DANREY: Yes, everyone is in position in case of any trouble. NED: There's always trouble. DANREY: Honestly, I don't know should I feel safe hearing this from our nuclear propulsion specialist. NED: You shouldn't. DANREY: 10 seconds. Now that's reassuring. JEB: Be quiet, two of you. We're about to enter target's SOI. NED: So? All we need to know is- DANREY: We're in. JEB: Calculating maneuver. NED: And? Do we have Ike encounter? PROTEUS: SIMULATION COMPLETED. DANREY: Negative. Frak! NED: What? Why? We did- JEB: We're too fast. 3,7 kilometers per second, required delta-V for a circularization burn at closest approach 3216 meters per second. NED: Is it that bad? DANREY: We have enough fuel but that's more than we expected. NED: Well, can't we do something to get an encounter? JEB: It would take more delta-v than we could gain from the slingshot. It's too late now. DANREY: … JEB: Let's run some tests – we don't have much time. *** JEB: Are you ready? DANREY: Yes. JEB: Good. Let's turn it retrograde. DANREY: SAS online. Don't you want to use RCS? JEB: We don't have that much monopropellant. We already used some kethane to- DANREY: Jeb, look! Duna! JEB: … DANREY: So close after all these months... JEB: Yes... but we're not yet there. DANREY: Don't you think we can make it? JEB: I depends on the engines, not me. DANREY: Ned said that he has done everything he can to make the work. JEB: He did. Let's just hope it'll be enough. *** DANREY: 30 seconds. JEB: Is everyone ready? NED: Aye. ROZER: Yes CAMBO: I'm ready. MALLOCK: We're ready too. JOHNDON: As s-soon as we're in range, we'll start checking the frequencies. JEB: Good. Remember to check the probes also. MALLOCK: And the station. Copy that. DANREY: 15 seconds. NED: Are you sure 25% is all you need? JEB: We made calculations for 3 m/s of acceleration, Ned. NED: Okay, okay. And Jeb? JEB: Yes? NED: In case- JEB: Don't. DANREY: 10 seconds, I'm starting the SAS. NED: Just... kodspeed, old friend. JEB: Kodspeed. DANREY: Five, four, three, SAS online, one- PROTEUS: MANEUVER NODE REACHED. ENGINES 24 PERCENT THROTTLE. JEB: Damnit! Dan? DANREY: Orbital velocity 3862 meters per second, 3196 to go. Are you feeling alright? It's only 3 m/s, you- JEB: I'm fine. Ned? NED: We're good. JEB: Time? DANREY: Two minutes twenty seconds to periapsis. JEB: Fusion cores? NED: No problem so far. PROTEUS: ENGINES 23 PERCENT THROTTLE. NED: What? JEB: It's under control – we're using reaction mass, our TWR is increasing. JEB: What is it Dan? DANREY: Nothing, no problem so far. It's just that we're accelerating really slowly. NED: You mean decelerating. JEB: It's relative. PROTEUS: ENGINES 22 PERCENT THROTTLE. JEB: How are cores looking? NED: Nominal. JEB: Really? NED: Why would I lie? They are in a surprisingly good condition, so far there weren't a single- PROTEUS: WARNING. INSTABILITY IN FUSION CORE B DETECTED. NED: Frak! I knew it was going too well! JEB: Is it serious? Time! DANREY: One minute! NED: Be quiet and let me work. PROTEUS: ENGINES 21 PERCENT THROTTLE. JEB: Copy that. Stay calm everyone, we- DANREY: Oh crap... Jeb, radiation levels are rising. JEB: What the hell? How? DANREY: I don't know, there's a spike in detectors readings... but it doesn't make sense! JEB: What doesn't make sense? Clarify! DANREY: There's no way so much of such high-energy particles can gather here! Duna doesn't have magnetosphere! JEB: Damn! We have to increase the throttle, we- DANREY: No, wait – radiation level is dropping. PROTEUS: WARNING. INSTABILITY IN FUSION CORE A DETECTED. JEB: Ned! NED: I'm working on it! JEB: What do you mean dropping? DANREY: I don't know, it's just like we flew through some irradiated cloud of- JEB: Debris? DANREY: Or reaction mass. From NTR maybe? JEB: That's impossible. DANREY: Then how do you want to explain- JEB: If it's not dangerous it's not important! Give me time and velocity – Ned, what about the cores? NED: I'm almost done with the recalibration! DANREY: Orbital velocity 1432 meters per second, 13 seconds to periapsis. JEB: Should we worry about the engines, Ned? NED: Done! Not for a next few minutes. PROTEUS: PERIAPSIS ACHIEVED. ENGINES 20 PERCENT THROTTLE. JEB: That's... great. Let's finish the burn. JEB: Dan? DANREY: Orbital velocity 1134 meters per second, periapsis T plus 50 seconds. We'll soon get into orbit! JEB: Good. Let's do this nice and easy. Any problems Ned? NED: Nothing, not at all. The fusion cores are performing better than expected to be honest. Maybe we worried needlessly? Hell, I'm almost sure now that even if we- DANREY: We're in! PROTEUS: ORBIT ACHIEVED. DANREY: We're in orbit! Velocity 907 meters per second! NED: Yes! We did it! We- what are you doing? JEB: A small test. PROTEUS: ENGINES 50 PERCENT THROTTLE. NED: Uh! DANREY: What?! But our calculations- JEB: We're already in orbit and we won't fire these engines for a long time, it's the only chance to test their performance before Kerbin transfer burn. We need to- PROTEUS: WARNING. INSTABILITY IN FUSION CORE B DETECTED. NED: There's your test! PROTEUS: ENGINES 18 PERCENT THROTTLE. NED: Uh! Are you happy now?! JEB: Yes, I am. Without- DANREY: Jeb. JEB: What? DANREY: We, uh, failed to circularize the orbit. JEB: Doesn't matter, we can always correct this. Did you hear this? We're in orbit – give me your status report. CAMBO: Thank Kod! No problems here. ROZER: RCS still nominal. JEB: Mal? Johndon? We're definitely in range now, did you receive something? MALLOCK: Well... NED: Huh, it's actually not that bad... What's going on with these fusion cores? JEB: Hush. Did you receive anything from the base? MALLOCK: No. Nothing. Not even a distress signal. It's just dead silence, Jeb. JEB: … JOHNDON: B-but... JEB: Yes? JOHNDON: B-but we didn't get anything from the sp-pace station either. And the automatic b-beacon should be still operating no matter what happened on the p-planet. This is p-puzzling. DANREY: You have our status on screen. JEB: Thanks. MALLOCK: We don't know what could it mean but- ROZER: We know very well what could it mean. And it probable mean exactly this. JOHNDON: The p-point is what are we going to do now. Shall we land and investigate the b-base? JEB: Not yet. We need check the ship before we do anything else – we have to be absolutely sure we can afford to land there. We- ROZER: Seventy five point six. JEB: Excuse me? ROZER: Tonnes. We've just used 75,6 metric tonnes of fuel. This better be worth it. NED: You little piece of- JEB: Ned, don't. We will find out about this soon enough. In the meantime, we have to prepare ourselves and “Proteusâ€Â. We're going to start thinking about landing later. And going to the surface... whatever we're going to find there, we need to be ready. Dismissed. *** MISSION STATUS ***

Wasn't exactly today, but finishing yesterday, plus a little background. I'm playing a completely stock Career, with very little play experience - didn't do any sandbox in 0.23, and only clocked about two hours play on the demo. Reverting and quicksaving are perfectly normal, but so far no transmission if any science at all is lost. Once I got the thermometer, after a quick jaunt to grab Kerbin's thermoscience, I decided to make a Mun landing, taking with me three thermometers, and planning to do my first biome-hop. That all went well-ish, if a little inefficient. Then I burned to escape. In the wrong direction (relative to Kerbin). So, almost no fuel, on a Kerbin escape trajectory, haven't quicksaved since launch. Good thing you've got RCS, Jeb, I thought. 10 monoprop in capsule, 100 in tank and another 160 from those four Roundifieds, 270 total should be just fine, right? Managed to pull out of Kerbin escape, left myself a hair away, and transmitted my EVA reports and Crew reports. So, with so little fuel, I needed to get right up to my 82 million meter apoapsis so I could lower the 11 million meter periapsis for aerobraking. 35 km should do it without being too steep, leaving me with a little over 5/270 monopropellant. 'Just' fine was right. Given that that was now 6 days or so away, I decided to leave it be and not timewarp it in for a while - get some other things done, like my first three successful SSTOs (One even put up my first orbital probe - but only barely, and I needed to quickload after I... let the plane fall back, killing the kerbal within...) and getting the first docking port research node. Started a first space station, too - but I think I'll talk more about that when I complete it. So, MunTherm's return. While up at the apoapsis, I realised that it was possible that my landing could be pretty hard, and there was a chance that my thermometers would be destroyed. Unacceptable! I had only recently learned of EVA data collection from a Youtube video, but it was worth a shot. Way up there, and for quite a bit around, thrusterpack EVA was utterly ridiculous. The frame of reference is continuously flipping and Jeb is wasting fuel trying to 'right' himself, only to 'realise' that he is now on his 'side' - I mean seriously, is this relative to Kerbin North, the lander's 'down', or gravity? KSP didn't seem to be able to decide. I noticed that I could reach two out of three from a ladder, but the other definitely required the thrusterpack, so I kept trying, quicksaving and quickloading as I lost control. Eventually, I gave up on getting the last reading this far out and (after getting the station into an okay-but-incomplete shape at 200km) warped in for an aerobrake pass. First pass was pretty normal - into atmosphere, stow solar panels, and out again a little slower. Got out and went for that last reading (much easier with an apoapsis below Mun orbit), and put my solar panels back out. So, all science in the pod, that's two surface samples and three thermo readings, meaning any return of even the slightest success means full value. Safe! Then, two more full passes - in, brake, out - before my final landing pass on this, my first multipass aerobrake. And then, disaster (almost) struck! Parachute deployed normally at 149m/s, full deployment at 500m altitude... and there's a sudden wrenching. Lack of struts was the culprit, along with using a single XL parachute to land the whole lander. If there had been radial chutes on the lander's fuel tank, or struts connecting to the capsule, most likely the rest of the craft would also have survived... Fortunately, that moment of forethought at apoapsis, that little doubt saying "But what if the lander doesn't survive?", and the watching of KSP Youtube videos saved the mission! Splashdown into the ocean, recovered - forgetting to take ocean samples, but that's fine - and that brings me up to the 300 science I need for Electronics, my first of the 300-tier technologies.

Sounds interesting. Its always easy to talk about this in theory, but to actually pull it off is a different thing. Might be useful to practice this before .24 with contracts and actual cash use comes. Possible difficulties: - actually build a solid SSTO that can deliver some cargo and land again - Refuel without KAS mod (which would make it really really easy) - pick up new module without infernal robotics/KAS - 4 pinpoint landings in a row at KSC (for me probably the hardest part) Might give it a go, if my free time permits.

Shuttles people talk about aren't the ones you built. That's a plane strapped to a rocket capable of lifting large space station modules!

While Monty's pushing ahead exploring ion craft that don't require solar panels , my head is still spinning with 'optimal solar panel layout'. I'm putting out this post to help collect my ideas (which I hope to shape a bit more; constructive input is welcome). # Goals The goal of optimal solar panel arrangement is to provide maximum power to ion engines, ideally with the least amount of solar panels (either in part-count, or in mass). The best case scenario is where ion engines can run at maximum throttle all the time. # Terminology (helping us think and talk in common terms) http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Terminology#Ship_Orientation FIXME: add pic w/ terms # Extreme Ion solar panel designs tri arrangement (Monty's Hades 1 , Mike's Xenon Impulse) 2x T arrangement (bi arrangement?), with some perpendicular (K08ia, jumpyed's Snail Ion) snow-flake arrangement (Jasonden_craft FIXME: get name) star arrangement (Lump_craft FIXME: get name) mono perpendicular plane MPP (metaphor_craft FIXME: get name) box ( jumpyed's Box craft ) # Variables and constraints There are two main variables/constraints we have to work with. 1) Foremost is the thrust-vector, which is fixed by the intended craft direction. The related variable is the craft ability to rotate about the thrust-vector (ex: using the Q and E keys). I found with my long craft and 2x T design (with a gap), that I could significantly improve electricity generation by rotating to certain positions. 2) We have the additional variable of solar panel arrays rotating around their mounts (except for the OX-STAT panels). # Observations Most Extreme Ion craft have a plane of solar panels perpendicular to the thrust-vector. This arrangement works best when the sun is front or aft of the craft. The worst scenario for these craft is when the sun is perpendicular to the thrust-vector (port, starboard, nadir, or zenith). Simplifying possible sun arrangements, the third scenario is when the sun is positioned somewhere in-between the two extremes. metaphor's Ike lander ion craft flip-flops these extremes, as its solar panel plane is inline with the thrust vector. Jasonden's solar panel layout can switch between a close approximation to a snow-flake, and a plane (or pair of planes). The tri arrangement, especially as configured by Mike, appears to be capable of the densest solar panel coverage. # Example Craft Below is an ordered listing of craft types in various sun arrangements. # tri, sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/J3sawcW.jpg http://i.imgur.com/tggwOns.jpg # tri, sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/35ocfRF.jpg # tri, sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/0wSClC8.png http://i.imgur.com/p9PQGOS.png http://i.imgur.com/uVjGP2l.jpg http://i.imgur.com/gddy4AM.png # note shadow on 1/3 of plane # 2x T (bi), sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/7BIKn4v.png http://i.imgur.com/9fRjBcl.png http://i.imgur.com/Uiwo4Fk.png # 2x T (bi), sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/8ZKt03q.png http://i.imgur.com/PscVcnM.png # 2x T (bi), sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/KUqToe4.png http://i.imgur.com/5fnJAJc.png # snow-flake, sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/MKRN9Fs.png http://i.imgur.com/uVL1b6d.png # snow-flake, sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/pGkocsH.png http://i.imgur.com/hGSKiH8.png http://i.imgur.com/pw6QRYR.png # snow-flake, sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/1ajn7tJ.png # note power generation vs http://i.imgur.com/uVL1b6d.png http://i.imgur.com/UkJY1DJ.png # star, sun front/aft http://i.imgur.com/p2ECTLm.png # MPP, sun perpendicular to thrust http://i.imgur.com/kOPFbBM.png # MPP, sun in-between http://i.imgur.com/KqXvHT5.png # Questions - perpendicular solar panels? - 'wavy plane' instead of flat plane? - best way to mitigate shadows cast by craft? kdonfede -- "Adding K to every word..."

First off.... FANTASTIC! 1) I'm going to be another malcontent and express my mild disappointment that it is not quite big enough to haul up station sized parts..... HOWEVER..... this gives somebody the opportunity to develop a string of smaller station parts that are sized appropriately. This isn't a big deal, it's more along the lines of "awww shucks." 2) The LRB's... why, oh why don't they auto sequence? I know, I know.... no expressed MechJeb compatibility but aside from not jettisoning the LRB's, MechJeb works just fine with the craft. External tank jets when it is spent. I managed a launch, station rendezvous, docking, de orbiting and.... well, lets not talk about my landing.... but that all worked well enough. Again, great mod. I have had a lot of fun with this one (at the expense of many brave Kerbals).

Love steam. I hated it at first (i must have been 12 or 13 years old at that point) But with internet being so readily available I dont see a problem with having to be online to play my games. My routers current session time is 102 days and should i take my laptop out and about i can just either log into a wifi hotspot or (more commonly) teather my phone to it. See Note at bottom. The biggest plus now is, other than x3 and the stalker series, all my games are in one place and i dont have to worry about lsing the discs or anything like that. If i want to delete a game I can but its still easy to find should i want to play it. Plus being able to just download a game with just one click...Im sorry but I'm a sucker for any system that reduces an entire process into one click. There will always be those who are worried about valve going bust and not getting their games back. I personally dont see it as a concern and (please dont take offense to this) feel those people are a little bit stuck in the past and afraid of change. Cloud computing and DRM are the way forward. Hell we even use a form of cloud computing at work...If our IT department screws up then the whole building is screwed. You just have to have faith! I love this new fangled DRM. Also, with the advent of steam...I havent pirated a game or even needed to pirate a game since i was a usefull teen (ha, i joke, i wouldnt and never have pirated anything). Steam just makes me lazy. Another thumbs up I want to give valve. Every time i open up steam I'm not bombarded by "we think you may also like these games" they just have the featured games page and im free to throw my cash at them as I please. Speaking of throwing cash at valve... summer sales will be on us before we know it NOTE: this was one of the big media uproars about the xbox always needing an internet connection. The majority of people who will be buying an xbox one will probably have a reliable internet connection. However the uk has pretty good internet coverage so i cant talk about remote villages in the various u.s states and other foreign countries.

This is not what I'm talk about. Only somehow change of rules since it become popular was electricity for sas but it's not matter much and do not change anything drastically. How terrain looks and how sas good don't change anything -you do the same things in the same way. Make things looks better and control easer it's just another part of making it more accessible for general public. And this is not about harder. FAR is not harder then stock just more resonable and DR is not any hard - but this is not as it used to be,- this is the main concern