[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

[NathanKell]

.12 sounds about right for Atlas V 551 going to LEO.

[HoneyFox]

Anyone know of a guide for very low TWR second stages? I keep falling back to earth and I can't upgrade the thrust

Use your 1st stage to raise your Ap to something near 400km if your intended orbit altitude is around 200km, once 1st stage is separated, aim your 2nd stage to around pitch +20~30 deg and keep accelerating.

But I don't think 0.12 is a proper value even for the upper stage, IIRC upper stage should have a TWR at least ~0.4. What's the weight of your payload and your 2nd stage?

[RedAV8R]

The AIES C1 orbiter pod is horrible. It looks nice and low mass and compact, but it flips over and burns up on reentry.

EDIT: I just noticed that the AIES antennas power consumption is not modified to be lower like the regular remotetech antenna.

Moved the CoM for the C1. Though I also increased the size to the appropriate scale like everything else. Did make one adjustment on the DF-RD of AIES whose consumption was off. The others seem in line with what RT2. If you disagree with things, I do need more details and/or detailed suggestions.

[coldblade2000]

I am using an atlas 5 401 with a 12t payload. Even with an apoapsis of 600km it is barely enough with the huge 14m burn I have to do.

[RedAV8R]

You do realize that an Atlas V 401 can't get an 12t payload into LEO right. It's only rated for ~9.75t for LEO.

Edited September 9, 2014 by RedAV8R

[coldblade2000]

Right now im not bothered with the craft itself, it is built to specs found on spaceflight101 and spacelaunchreport. I'm just looking for the best trajectory to use, especially with even lower TWR first stages. I can get you the .craft in "didn't add a trillion parts from different mods" mode.

[RedAV8R]

Again, you can go searching for all the trajectories you want. The Atlas V 401 CAN NOT achieve orbit with a 12t payload.

But I'd love to the play with the *.craft file. You can PM me a link if you want.

[coldblade2000]

Now that I checked with another source, it seems you're right. Give me a minute and ill get you a craft file. You'll only need procedural parts, KW, procedural fairings and soviet engines. Maybe tweakscale just in case

[coldblade2000]

Hey, I'm done, here's the link: http://www./view/x1ztivq0qac6znz/Atlas_441_no_extra_mods.craft

Also know that I often do accurate replicas, here are some of my replicas updated for 0.24.2: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealSolarSystem/comments/2fp5aj/hey_guys_remember_my_collection_of_real_life/

I currently have a Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Delta IV-M, M+ (4,2), M+(5,2), M+(5,4),Atlas V and a badly made Soyuz Fregat

Edit: I know it says 441 on the Atlas V craft file, but it is just a 401.

[frisch]

Deadly Re-entry issue (also posted on the deadly reentry discussion but no good ideas there).

I'm playing real scale, realism overhaul. For some reason the ablative heat shields don't seem to be working. Returning from a 3000km orbit. Set perogee to 55km. Use the 3.75' (~4000 ablative material), or the procedural heatshield with similar properties. Odin capsule. At about 50km, 7000m/sec, deceleration is <1G. Ablative material is starting to be consumed and the heat shield overheats.

I've done similar re-entries with earlier versions with no problems (and even some from escape velocity). I know how to do a gliding re-entry. Was there any recent change that would have prevented the ablative material from working? It seems the heat shield just gradually warms up and the fails at 1800 - with the capsule almost instantly destroyed afterwards.

Are real scale reentries working for other people?

suggestions are appreciated.

[RedAV8R]

Procedural heatshields aren't RSS rated so don't expect good results with those. Then I wouldn't use a perigee so shallow. That said, a new version of DRE is being made that pretty well negates any of this and we've found some new information as well that hasn't been incorporated.

[HoneyFox]

I am using an atlas 5 401 with a 12t payload. Even with an apoapsis of 600km it is barely enough with the huge 14m burn I have to do.

12t of payload? You should try using Atlas V 402 (with higher thrust for upper-stage) or 421 (with higher 1/2 stage separation velocity due to more boosters)

[coldblade2000]

Yea, I finally did everything perfect with a 422 (had easily enough time for 421) and got into a geostationary height orbit. Now the only problem I have is my craft got stranded up there and I dont know why. It isn't connecting to earth. I selected two antennas with enough range to point to Earth (kerbin) but they don't get connection. I can't find any reason why, it has enough range, battery, antennas, pointed and enabled to Earth. That's more of a RT issue though. I'll see if I can do some file editing to save it.

[HoneyFox]

Yea, I finally did everything perfect with a 422 (had easily enough time for 421) and got into a geostationary height orbit. Now the only problem I have is my craft got stranded up there and I dont know why. It isn't connecting to earth. I selected two antennas with enough range to point to Earth (kerbin) but they don't get connection. I can't find any reason why, it has enough range, battery, antennas, pointed and enabled to Earth. That's more of a RT issue though. I'll see if I can do some file editing to save it.

Dish antenna? Cone angle checked? Red dot(ground station) is in the cone?

For a dish antenna that has a very small cone angle installed on a vessel that is still orbiting Earth (which means it's still relatively close to the Earth), do not point to Earth ('s center point), but point to a ground station.

Edited September 10, 2014 by HoneyFox

[frisch]

How do I tell which heatshields are RSS rated? It was probably described somewhere, but I missed it

thank you

Procedural heatshields aren't RSS rated so don't expect good results with those. Then I wouldn't use a perigee so shallow. That said, a new version of DRE is being made that pretty well negates any of this and we've found some new information as well that hasn't been incorporated.

[NathanKell]

Alas there's no easy way to know, sorry. It's basically just

1. The stock heat shields that come with DRE

2. Any heat shields that are part of packs listed as "supported" in the OP. Proc Parts' heatshields are not supported.

[peadar1987]

I'm having a very slight cosmetic issue with some of the engines. Although they work as expected, things like the F-1 and the H-1 (seemingly all of the modified stock engines) appear in their fairings even when there is nothing placed beneath them. The fairings do not disappear on activation or staging.

Is this a known issue/feature? Has anyone come up with a solution?

[RedAV8R]

I'm having a very slight cosmetic issue with some of the engines. Although they work as expected, things like the F-1 and the H-1 (seemingly all of the modified stock engines) appear in their fairings even when there is nothing placed beneath them. The fairings do not disappear on activation or staging.

Is this a known issue/feature? Has anyone come up with a solution?

This is not a known issue, or a problem with Realism Overhaul. You've got a conflict in your install somewhere and/or you've got something else installed that is NOT approved...unless StockAlike or RftS is installed, in which case Realism Overhaul does not touch the engines and so therefore again not an RO problem.

I MIGHT be able to help you if you provide a log as you were directed to when you agreed to the terms and conditions by downloading this mod.

[peadar1987]

This is not a known issue, or a problem with Realism Overhaul. You've got a conflict in your install somewhere and/or you've got something else installed that is NOT approved...unless StockAlike or RftS is installed, in which case Realism Overhaul does not touch the engines and so therefore again not an RO problem.

I MIGHT be able to help you if you provide a log as you were directed to when you agreed to the terms and conditions by downloading this mod.

Okay, thanks for the advice. I think I've installed everything as per the instructions, so the next step would be to start again with a clean install, and see if that helps. I was just wondering if there was a two-second fix that was well-known before I went through all of that.

Edit: A clean install seems to have done the trick, so I'm not sure what was causing the problem. Probably placed a file too deep inside the Game Data folder or something.

Edited September 10, 2014 by peadar1987

[frisch]

Thank you

I'm afraid it leads to one more question. In the VAB is there a way to tell what parts came from what package?

The 3.75M heat shield seems to be from DRE, but maybe it was over-written by something else? In any case it seems to die on reentry at almost the same point where the procedural heatshield (with a similar amount of ablative material) dies.

Is there any chance of adding some sort of tag to realism overhaul parts in the VAB?

As always I appreciate the effort the modders put into this. I hope that realism overhaul is some day available as an add-on (for $$$ is fine) to the release version of kerbal (if that ever happens).

Alas there's no easy way to know, sorry. It's basically just

1. The stock heat shields that come with DRE

2. Any heat shields that are part of packs listed as "supported" in the OP. Proc Parts' heatshields are not supported.

[RedAV8R]

@frisch: Your question, brings up a further question. Do you have anything installed besides what is listed on the Required/Recommended/Supported list? If you do, then I can't and won't guarantee you anything. Furthermore, we could tag stuff (Actually we do, however there is nothing that shows at this time in the VAB), but if some other mod overwrites something, if it doesn't remove that tag, then you'll still show the RO tag, even though it's been modified elsewhere. That is why the list of mods in the OP is so important, we have specifically designed things to run with that list, and that list only.

Now personally, I use PartCatalog. It does separate parts into what mod it's from, very handy, and organizationally just plain smart.

Last, if every part you use is failing, maybe some more than others, then you need to look at your technique. Like I said earlier you stated you were using a perigee of 55km, that is way too shallow and I'm not surprised you are burning up. You've gotta raise that 2-3x what you've been doing.

[night81]

Bug Report:

Remote Tech 2 (1.41) does not seem to allow uncrewed operation of vessels with RO. I did a fresh install and repeated the test multiple times, the same issue always occurs. For testing, I build a simple rocket with multiple antennas, sufficient batteries, a remote guidance unit, and a capsule with a kerbal in it. Once I am in space I activate my antennas, and set them to lock on to mission control. While the kerbal is still in the capsule I can transmit crew reports. But when the kerbal is out of the capsule, and the remote guidance unit should be working, whenever I try to do something (such as transmit crew reports) I get "no connection to send command on". Note that all of this happens while there is a solid yellow line between mission control and my rocket, showing an active connection.

I tested remote tech on stock KSP and all worked as expected, this issue only comes up in RO. I had these mods installed with my RO test (all newest versions as of the date of this post):

Advanced Jet Engines

CustomBiomes (as part of realsolarsystem)

deadlyreentry

engine ignitor 2

ferram aerospace research

mechjeb2

modulemanager 2.3.4

moduleRCSFX (as part of RO)

RealChute

RealFuels

RealismOverhaul

RealSolarSystem

RemoteTech2

I have also found this bug in my installations of RO with many more mods.

Here is my log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n39x001zv7kxof3/Player.log?dl=0

Edit:

I have a station in orbit around the moon and its antennas are also unable to connect to mission control (I made sure the antennas were within their ranges, and activated, and powered). However they can connect to a base station I build that is sitting a few km away from mission control. Although this base station is also connected to mission control, I cannot transmit experiments from my moon station even when it is crewed.

Edited September 10, 2014 by night81

[frisch]

Thank you for the response.

I only have mods on the realism overhaul thread installed (unless I screwed up). All were downloaded in the last couple of days so I *hope* I have the most recent version of each. I didn't have parts catalog, I'll add it since it sounds like it makes this easier follow.

It could be technique, but I've done realism reentries a bunch of times before. This was at a shallow angle, low G forces. Its possible I would have skipped out of the atmosphere again, but at the time of the destruction the heating should have been modest. Feels like someone it wasn't using real scale heat shields.

I'll install parts catalog and see if it makes it clear what part I was actually using. I'll double check that I don't have any un-supported mods.

thank you for the help.

@frisch: Your question, brings up a further question. Do you have anything installed besides what is listed on the Required/Recommended/Supported list? If you do, then I can't and won't guarantee you anything. Furthermore, we could tag stuff (Actually we do, however there is nothing that shows at this time in the VAB), but if some other mod overwrites something, if it doesn't remove that tag, then you'll still show the RO tag, even though it's been modified elsewhere. That is why the list of mods in the OP is so important, we have specifically designed things to run with that list, and that list only.

Now personally, I use PartCatalog. It does separate parts into what mod it's from, very handy, and organizationally just plain smart.

Last, if every part you use is failing, maybe some more than others, then you need to look at your technique. Like I said earlier you stated you were using a perigee of 55km, that is way too shallow and I'm not surprised you are burning up. You've gotta raise that 2-3x what you've been doing.

[RedAV8R]

@night81: Great bug report. Looks like that's a result of adding RT2 to pods. So that'll be removed now. Again, thank you for your great report, details, and everything. If only people could use this as a model in their own reports.

[night81]

@night81: Great bug report. Looks like that's a result of adding RT2 to pods. So that'll be removed now. Again, thank you for your great report, details, and everything. If only people could use this as a model in their own reports.

You're welcome! I'm glad to contribute. Its really not that hard to read the instructions on the first page...