[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Timbob]

The craft file for me shows 9152dV. But I always had alot of trouble orbiting the Gemini. I had to be pretty spot on because there's really no dV to spare. I use the Mechjeb ascent guidance and set the ascent path to start my turn at 100m/s, end turn altitude of 120km, final flight angle of 0 and turn shape of 50%. After launch I watch my Apoapsis and when it goes above 130km, I manually change the "Turn end altitude" to whatever my current altitude is. If I time it right, my Apoapsis should increase to just around 150km in the time it takes me to finish climbing. Usually I'll reset the "Turn end altitude" backt o 120 after I've passed 120km though it's not really required. Normally with Gemini that's about all I need to do but it's worth watching your Vertical speed. If it every get close to 0 while you still have fuel in the stage 2 tank, I increase the "Final flight path angle" just enough to arrest the fall, and slowly decrease that angle back to 0 as the last of the fuel is burned up. Usually, if I do everything just right I end up with 140km-160km Periapsis and 150km-200km Apoapsis. But it is very touchy.

Ok, so it's not just me then...

Gemini 8 launched into a 161 x 270km orbit and then rendezvous'd with the Agena's 298km circular orbit. So that craft just plain doesn't work. I'll have a go at rebuilding it with procedural tanks etc instead of using the stock FASA tanks to see if that helps. Maybe something in the craft is too heavy.

[chrisl]

Thanks! Sorted now.

v10.5

•SSTU configuration added for the Ares V and Orion capsule (thanks stratochief, JoseEduardo)

•SSTU configuration added for the ICPS and EUS upper stages (thanks stratochief, A1Ch1)

•SSTU core tanks reconfigured to handy sizes for RO, up to 10 metres (thanks JoseEduardo)

•SSTU RealPlume configs (thanks stratochief, A1Ch1)

What mod is SSTU? I don't see a reference to it in the Suggestions section on the OP but based on the changes mentioned above, it sounds like it's a mod I would like to include.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so it's not just me then...

Gemini 8 launched into a 161 x 270km orbit and then rendezvous'd with the Agena's 298km circular orbit. So that craft just plain doesn't work. I'll have a go at rebuilding it with procedural tanks etc instead of using the stock FASA tanks to see if that helps. Maybe something in the craft is too heavy.

I didn't say it didn't work. It actually works well all things considered. Oh, it's probably a few dV off from what the real rocket historically got but it's about as close as you're likely going to come. Keep in mind that the Titan II only put the Gemini capsule into orbit (and my apsis range is within a reasonable margin of error to the actual flights - better ascent profiles will have better results). From there all it's orbital maneuvers were handled by the RCS system which has a significant amount of dV available to it (somewhere in the neighborhood of 500dV). I've sent up multiple Gemini/Agena flights and have successfully docked all of them. Though I do admit that I tend to have the Agena come to the Gemini but that's mostly my being impatient (200dV with the agena happens alot quicker than 200dV with RCS thrusters).

[JoseEduardo]

What mod is SSTU? I don't see a reference to it in the Suggestions section on the OP but based on the changes mentioned above, it sounds like it's a mod I would like to include.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130034-Part-BETA-SSTULabs-Low-Part-Count-Solutions-%28Orbiter-Landers-Lifters%29-Dev-Thread-10-17-15

[NathanKell]

I hate to be all l2p, but...9167m/s is plenty to achieve the historical orbit. You just have to nail your ascent. 150x250km with the time to orbit and TWRs of Titan is about 9100m/s last time I tried.

chrisl: Launching without a parking orbit is slightly cheaper than orbit and later TLI, because in the second case your perigee needs to be above (the bulk of) the atmosphere, whereas in the first case you don't have to raise your perigee at all. However, in order to fly direct ascent like this, you need to launch during a launch window--if you do TLI from a parking orbit you get a window per day, but if you fly direct ascent there's only one a month or so (i.e. just like everybody at higher latitudes than the Cape).

[Timbob]

I hate to be all l2p, but...9167m/s is plenty to achieve the historical orbit. You just have to nail your ascent. 150x250km with the time to orbit and TWRs of Titan is about 9100m/s last time I tried.

Fair enough, I wouldn't be playing RO if I can't take a bit of l2p.

I don't really do mechjebbing so my launches have all been manual. Do you have a general launch profile I can follow? A lot of my smaller launches (I'm doing RP-0 so generally following the historical timeline) have been fine with a 100m/s+ vertical, pitch 5 degrees then follow prograde and adjust pitch to keep TTA around 0:45-1:30 until approaching Ap.

[stratochief66]

Ok, so it's not just me then...

Gemini 8 launched into a 161 x 270km orbit and then rendezvous'd with the Agena's 298km circular orbit. So that craft just plain doesn't work. I'll have a go at rebuilding it with procedural tanks etc instead of using the stock FASA tanks to see if that helps. Maybe something in the craft is too heavy.

I can definitely get the FASA Gemini craft into that orbit, sometimes a little too much higher on the AP. As Bob Fitch points out in his videos, there is a bit of variation from actual launch to actual launch, so one launch may have slightly more efficient engines than the next, etc. That can't easily be represented in KSP, so we go with a researchable standard ISP and thrust for the engines.

To make the Gemini a little easier to get into orbit you could take a little of the on orbit fuels from the maneuvering tank, or ensure the fuel cell is empty (LOX and LH2) if you don't plan to use it.

Also, for non-perfect launches (so, like all launches) I find the Gemini to be a super handy craft for adjusting your initial orbit using the orbital maneuvering engine.

For regularly attaining orbit, I would suggest a more aggressive gravity turn than usual, because it has a very high TWR compared to other American manned rockets. You want to aim for your altitude to be 130-160km when the second stage burns out, which allows more efficient fuel use. It is even worth it to pitch a little below 0 degrees later in ascent to manage that final burnout altitude. Good luck!

[Timbob]

I can definitely get the FASA Gemini craft into that orbit, sometimes a little too much higher on the AP. As Bob Fitch points out in his videos, there is a bit of variation from actual launch to actual launch, so one launch may have slightly more efficient engines than the next, etc. That can't easily be represented in KSP, so we go with a researchable standard ISP and thrust for the engines.

To make the Gemini a little easier to get into orbit you could take a little of the on orbit fuels from the maneuvering tank, or ensure the fuel cell is empty (LOX and LH2) if you don't plan to use it.

Also, for non-perfect launches (so, like all launches) I find the Gemini to be a super handy craft for adjusting your initial orbit using the orbital maneuvering engine.

For regularly attaining orbit, I would suggest a more aggressive gravity turn than usual, because it has a very high TWR compared to other American manned rockets. You want to aim for your altitude to be 130-160km when the second stage burns out, which allows more efficient fuel use. It is even worth it to pitch a little below 0 degrees later in ascent to manage that final burnout altitude. Good luck!

Thanks for the tips! I'll give it another go tonight and see how I get on.

[chrisl]

chrisl: Launching without a parking orbit is slightly cheaper than orbit and later TLI, because in the second case your perigee needs to be above (the bulk of) the atmosphere, whereas in the first case you don't have to raise your perigee at all. However, in order to fly direct ascent like this, you need to launch during a launch window--if you do TLI from a parking orbit you get a window per day, but if you fly direct ascent there's only one a month or so (i.e. just like everybody at higher latitudes than the Cape).

Hmm So wait for the correct launch window and then power straight to the moon? Or should I launch but wait till ap before igniting the Centaur stage? I have the tried to power straight to the moon (or at least the moon's altitude) but always seemed to be further from the needed dV than if I went into a parking orbit first.

[Lilienthal]

It is important not to power just up. The amount of energy you gain is proportional to your speed, so even on a straight burn to the moon (or Earth SOI), go as much as possible horizontally.

[chrisl]

It is important not to power just up. The amount of energy you gain is proportional to your speed, so even on a straight burn to the moon (or Earth SOI), go as much as possible horizontally.

Right, but you can't just take off, then immediately turn horizontal. Presumably you still have to do some sort of gravity turn.

[gleedadswell]

Hmm...the problem with electric charge seems to be making a repeat appearance. The craft has lots of charge, including in one of the probe cores. But the probe cores report "Not Enough Electric Charge". Oddly, if I time accelerate then the probe cores report "Operational", but as soon as I end time acceleration they go back to reporting insufficient charge. I have deleted the charge flow cfg in RP-0 (and checked to make sure that it remained deleted after a recent update).

In case it matters, the craft has two probe cores. One is a an early small probe core and the other is a Delta avionics unit.

This is the same design of craft that I had the trouble with before and I've never noticed the problem with any other craft. Could there be something wrong with the .craft file that is causing this??

Later edit: two additional oddities I've noticed.

1. Looking in the quicksave file, the charge in batteries etc. is reported as completely full. But in game they aren't full. i.e. the quicksave file disagrees with what is reported in game for charge on the ship.

2. Even when the probe cores report not enough charge (and RT says no connection as a result) I can still throttle up and down using z and x.

The behaviour is inconsistent. Some times the vessel will just "wake up" for no apparent reason. It does not seem to have anything to do with how much charge is on the vessel (that is steadily decreasing due to insufficient solar panels) and the map view always shows possible communications connections back to ground stations.

Edited November 4, 2015 by gleedadswell
subsequent info.

[Estebanium]

Hey guys,

I installed Realism Overhaul via CKAN and I'm experiencing lags during my launch. Each 40 to 60 Meters the Game will halt on and continue then. It's something like a stop-go thing. Down below you can see my installed mods and my KSP.log file.

I hope you can give me an advice for fixing this annoying thing.

• Picture of my mods
  
• Log File
  

[Rothank]

Hey guys,

I installed Realism Overhaul via CKAN and I'm experiencing lags during my launch. Each 40 to 60 Meters the Game will halt on and continue then. It's something like a stop-go thing. Down below you can see my installed mods and my KSP.log file.

I hope you can give me an advice for fixing this annoying thing.

• Picture of my mods
  
• Log File
  

Try decreasing SmokeScreen's particles from the standard 5000 down to 100,most of the stuttering is caused by smoke particles. You can find SmokeScreen's settings in the blizzy's toolbar.

[Estebanium]

Ah thank you,

I will try it out. I were recently able to launch a rocket successfully after deactivating all FAR assistance utilities, don't know how to use them properly.

Another thing are engines. By attaching another stage, the fairing is a bit larger than the rest of the rocket, this is really annoying. I don't know if I miss a mod, or if I only have to use the procedural parts:

http://imgur.com/a/0n4sV

[Theysen]

Ah thank you,

I will try it out. I were recently able to launch a rocket successfully after deactivating all FAR assistance utilities, don't know how to use them properly.

Another thing are engines. By attaching another stage, the fairing is a bit larger than the rest of the rocket, this is really annoying. I don't know if I miss a mod, or if I only have to use the procedural parts:

http://imgur.com/a/0n4sV

Use the procedural interstage fairing for this kind of stuff. They come with a decoupler plus offer space for guidance units so they can be hidden inside an actual spacing of the rocket and dont have to be in the tankstack. Procedural Parts is go to for RO

[Estebanium]

Use the procedural interstage fairing for this kind of stuff. They come with a decoupler plus offer space for guidance units so they can be hidden inside an actual spacing of the rocket and dont have to be in the tankstack. Procedural Parts is go to for RO

Are you meaning the Mod "Procedural Fairings" and "Procedural Fairings - For Everything"? If true then I have to research it, because I play the Carrier mode. I hope Realism Overhaul is configured for this mode...

[Theysen]

You need RP-0 for proper career in RO

[pozine]

You need RP-0 for proper career in RO

Well...You can still do a science career without RP-0

[MatterBeam]

How do I get the stock docking ports back?

I've deleted the Squad-Docking ports .cfg files, but all I've got is the small docking port (Jr.)

Why have RO or RP-0 removed the larger docking ports?

[Rothank]

Well...You can still do a science career without RP-0

And you'd be unlocking all the reworked engines completelly out of order. Guys, NEVER try to play career RO without RP-0, it totally ruins the balance of the game.

[Estebanium]

And you'd be unlocking all the reworked engines completelly out of order. Guys, NEVER try to play career RO without RP-0, it totally ruins the balance of the game.

Yes it was like a hard punch in my face after installing the mod and starting the carrier mode. It was raining rockets and I didn't even know how. Will try out RP-0 and hope it will be better.

BTW. Can someone provide a tutorial for Ferram Aerospace. I mean the calculator when you construct a rocket and the flight utility when you start a rocket. Both makes no sense to me..

[Timbob]

I hate to be all l2p, but...9167m/s is plenty to achieve the historical orbit. You just have to nail your ascent. 150x250km with the time to orbit and TWRs of Titan is about 9100m/s last time I tried.

I can definitely get the FASA Gemini craft into that orbit, sometimes a little too much higher on the AP.

For regularly attaining orbit, I would suggest a more aggressive gravity turn than usual, because it has a very high TWR compared to other American manned rockets. You want to aim for your altitude to be 130-160km when the second stage burns out, which allows more efficient fuel use. It is even worth it to pitch a little below 0 degrees later in ascent to manage that final burnout altitude. Good luck!

I gave it another go and with a more aggressive gravity turn I managed to get it into orbit. I had to do the final bit with the OAMS but it had plenty. Thanks for the help!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 5, 2015 by Timbob

[Estebanium]

Hey guys,

after my first attempts to launch a vessel I am now stuck. I can not launch my second stage, because getting the message "Vapor in feed line". Before I start the engine it will give me this message "Propellant unstable".

I don't know what to do, because the third stage works.

Here are some screenshots of my rocket:

http://imgur.com/a/7hchT

Edited November 5, 2015 by Estebanium

[Timbob]

You need to either start your second stage before your first stage cuts off, or use ullage motors to settle the fuel. Imagine you're holding a bottle of water horizontally with the lid off while holding it out of a car window. So long as the car's moving forward the water will flow out. If the car decelerates the water will slosh to the front of the bottle and the flow will stop. In a rocket this kills the ignition. You're trying to ignite it while the air is decelerating you and the fuel is sloshed to the front.

Also for the imgur album put the code of your album (ie mine in my post above is 6PaEZ) inbetween {imgur} {/imgur} tags (replace {} with [] though).

[Estebanium]

Ok I will try it out. BTW, I don't know how to implement my album here, because if I quote your post I will get only (URL)your album url(/URL) tag.<br><br>BTT. Physics is pretty awesome, I never thought about that, LOL.