[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[Pappystein]

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?

[NathanKell]

All RL-10s ever were about 1.5x as efficient as the H-1 on its best day.

Even the early prototype RL-10s got ~420-430s vacuum, and later got to 440 or more. H-1 was lucky to hit 290 in vacuum (rated at 289 although the RS-27A derivative did better), and launched at 255.

[Cdodders]

Does the standard Gemini capsule and SM have enough fuel to lift off from the Mun àand return to Kerbin?

[Pappystein]

Does the standard Gemini capsule and SM have enough fuel to lift off from the Mun and return to Kerbin?

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.

[Pappystein]

All RL-10s ever were about 1.5x as efficient as the H-1 on its best day.

Even the early prototype RL-10s got ~420-430s vacuum, and later got to 440 or more. H-1 was lucky to hit 290 in vacuum (rated at 289 although the RS-27A derivative did better), and launched at 255.

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.

[NathanKell]

You try running a H-1 on LH2, or a RL-10 on kerosene, and see what happens.

That said, H-1 is a booster engine with a low area ratio (optimized for low-altitude), running on an open cycle (gas generator, and the exhaust is just dumped; J-2 and F-1 at least exhaust into the nozzle). RL-10 is a vacuum engine with a high area ratio (in fact, it will flame out if you try to run it at sea level, or at least Very Bad Things will happen--flow separation is not fun) running on an expander cycle (much more efficient, only works with LH2 and with <300kN thrust).

You're going to want to treat the H-1 as the Mainsail, basically (with slightly lower Isp than the F-1), and the J-2 more like an LV-Tx with 200s sea level Isp, and the RL-10 as a megapoodle with 0 sea level Isp.

[frizzank]

Yea the thrust is way off from realistic, I will play with the values to get a more accurate experience to how they were designed.

The RL-10 is suppose to be the 1960's version and not the more modern variation.

[m1919]

Any chance of adding F-1 engine fairings without the fins? I believe later production Saturn Vs would have deleted these as they might not have been required and were only dead-weight.

Would also be great for building some of the other planned Saturn variants like the C-3, which had only two and later three F-1s on the first stage.

Edited August 25, 2014 by m1919

[Bruce In KC]

I'm not sure what I may have done wrong, but obviously I've mucked something up to get this phenomena of the pre-deployed pool toys:

http://i.imgur.com/kPfUnPb.png

I have removed and reinstalled the Apollo CSM files to no avail, so something else must be afoot. Any ideas?

Hi Jack, I ran into the same problem. I removed all of the add-ons from the game data folder except for the ones that came with KSP, and FASA. I added the previously removed add-ons in one at a time and restarted the game each time until the problem reappeared. The culprit seems to be the modulemanager 2.2.1.dll file. Now my Skylab Saturn IB crew transfer missions don't have the floatation collar and righting bags flopping in the wind for the ride uphill.

Bruce in KC

[KyleofKerbin]

Hey Frizzank, I would like to ask this:

Can I use your engine models as a BASE for creating my own? They won't look like yours and I'll make different textures, but I want to use them because they are so good and so that I can learn how to code KSP engines right! Let me know soon. I've got Blender ready!

[j-tk]

I've seen this answer before and can't find it now (of course).

With the LEM, once you touch down, I know you have to IVA to get out, otherwise it states hatch blocked-

anyone know exactly where the lever is?

[raidernick]

There is a yellow lever on the door as well as a black circular knob on each side above the door. You can open it both ways.

Edited August 27, 2014 by raidernick

[j-tk]

Thanks Raid!

[RocketBlam]

I'm trying to build the Saturn/Apollo rocket and I can't find the "LEM decoupler". Where is it?

And is there a .craft file I can download where it is assembled?

Edited September 8, 2014 by RocketBlam

[sp1989]

I'm trying to build the Saturn/Apollo rocket and I can't find the "LEM decoupler". Where is it?

And is there a .craft file I can download where it is assembled?

There should be a bunch of craft file in the download.

[RocketBlam]

I think I figured out how to build this. You place the "LEM Stage Separator" first (what the instructions call the "LEM decoupler" - the reason I couldn't find it), and build the LEM starting with the LEM Docking Cone, and build it from there. So you place the LEM Docking Cone, then the landing module, then the ascent engine, then the decoupler, etc. This is the only way I've found to place the LEM in the stage separator and have it pointed the right way.

The problem with this is that the LEM Docking Cone doesn't seem to work any more when I do this. I launch it, then separate the CSM, turn it around and attempt to dock, and it just won't connect. It's like the docking cone doesn't remember that it is a docking device.

[RocketBlam]

I think I know why this is now. Since you place the docking nose cone first, it is "attached" to something, so the game assumes it is already docked.

[frizzank]

Its a bit easier if you build the lem as a sub assembly and then place the whole thing on top of the decoupler in the bay under the CM. just make sure its not attached to the engine.

[Ksynix]

Is the Saturn V going to be useable with Realism Overhaul in the future? At this point I am unable to load the craft when I have RO installed, and when I try to build it myself some dimension aren't correct (clipping fairings for example).

[GoldForest]

Is the Saturn V going to be useable with Realism Overhaul in the future? At this point I am unable to load the craft when I have RO installed, and when I try to build it myself some dimension aren't correct (clipping fairings for example).

Frizzank doesn't have a Realism Overhaul file for his crafts/parts(that I know of), but you can search the forums. Dozens of other modders have made configs for pretty much every mod for Realism Overhaul. You just have to look. You the search box while in the addon release page.

[NathanKell]

If you're going to talk about RO, please go to the RO topic. (And yes, FASA is well-enough supported by RO. )

[frizzank]

Deploy-able rovers for your mun missions.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86343-Portable-Rover-Components-New-project-from-ASET-%28up-29-07-14%29

[sp1989]

Could you do pass on the TAC support for the capsules. Only 9 minutes of oxygen in the Gemini Capsule. Also I think there is a real chute problem or atleast the most recent version of real chute. In RO the chute start deployed and non RSS and RO the airbags are deployed. I made a big mistake and deleted the previous version. So if anyone can be so kind to post an older version of RC I would appreciate it.

[NathanKell]

Please don't report RO issues here. If you checked the RO thread, where they belong, you'd see it's a known issue in RealChutes, and RedAV8R is working on an RO-side fix until stupid_chris has time to fix the RealChutes patch.

The TACLS change is because in v0.9pre and v0.10 (current released version) TACLS switched to 1 unit = 1 liter, which means any parts offering TACLS compatibility will need to radically revise their resource complements.

[sp1989]

Please don't report RO issues here. If you checked the RO thread, where they belong, you'd see it's a known issue in RealChutes, and RedAV8R is working on an RO-side fix until stupid_chris has time to fix the RealChutes patch.

The TACLS change is because in v0.9pre and v0.10 (current released version) TACLS switched to 1 unit = 1 liter, which means any parts offering TACLS compatibility will need to radically revise their resource complements.

I was just mentioning it. I was the one who posted it in the RO thread. The deployed landing bags is an issue with stock KSP. Again I just mentioned the deployed parachutes. Also I can't imagine it being a problem mentioning it here that the parachutes are not working in RSS and RO.