[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.53 June 12

[chrisl]

chrisl: I'll look that up tonight. I know part of the problem was that Astronatuix reported the dry mass of GATV as that of Agena D...

And yes, Ravenchant (IIRC) was adding support for the ATK pack.

Yeah. I noticed that Astronautix had the GATV and Agena D listed with the same weight. I'm assuming GATV would have been a bit heavier since it included everything on the Agena D plus the docking port. I don't suppose there is a good online resource available for things like wet/dry mass of rockets?

[Trolllception]

I've started the US Probes integration but will probably need more time to try to figure out prices or node placement for the later tech. It might be easier once there are more options later in the tech tree. I've got a fork if you want to look at it but will submit a pull request once I've had a chance to look things over and dwell for a bit. Whats the conversion ratio from 1965 USD in millions to spesos?

http://imgur.com/1ro41IC (Excuse the cruddy document Onenote won't paste tables in Linux.)

https://github.com/droric/RP-0/blob/master/tree.yml

Ooh it looks so nice and all in the tech tree and stuff. Now it doesn't feel like cheating to use these parts.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Trolllception

[NathanKell]

Awesome!

I haven't actually planned out the late tree except in regards engines, so your node selection looks fine. 1,000 USD in 1965 is 1 fund, so $1m in 1965 is 1000 spesos.

[borisperrons]

The x-planes only come in the second node, which is so cheap as to be almost free (1 science IIRC).

Yeah, but, well, it's simply not there.

Edit: foreseeably enough I was running on an old MM version. Now all is good.

Edited September 15, 2015 by borisperrons

[Trolllception]

I got another question. I found the prices for some of the more recent Satellites/Probes, is there any conversion from current day price to 1965 US dollar price? The Magellan probe has a listed price of 287 million USD or 287,000 spesos which seems a bit high for a probe. The listed prices do not show exactly how much the probe costs versus development costs. I could assume that 287,000 would be the unlock cost while the cost of the spacecraft could be 15% (43,050)? Has there been any discussed rule of thumb for the pricing? I also expect to do some heavy balancing of the US probes especially when it comes to probes which contain ION engines. I think I will split up the more advanced probes into respective propulsion nodes so that the ION powered craft would sit in the Ion propulsion node.

This inflation calculator would give the probe the following price.

Unlock - 61,415,637 or 61,415 kBucks

Cost - 9,212,345 or 9,212 KerbalKash

I will apply this to whatever probes I can if this sounds appropriate.

[chrisl]

So we have the "Human Orbial (1/LEO)" contract which is great when you're at the Mercury capsule stage. But the reward is too low when you're using the Gemini. Are we going to have a "2/LEO" and later a "3/LEO" option with higher rewards at some point? I also noticed that the 1/LEO contract always seems to have the same "400kmx150km for 9hrs" requirement. Any chance of later contracts coming with a more random set of requirements? Would really be nice to see a "2/LEO" contract that required you to use GATV to boost the Gemini capsule to a higher orbit. And longer duration flights/contracts would also be cool when you've using TACLS.

[Rothank]

2/LEO might not be the best idea... Ok, it's cool and historical, but forces ppl to use the FASA pack, as there is no stock or SXT 2-man pod.

3/LEO on the other hand...

[Hitokiri]

I really do like RSS and idea of career game is perfect, however I have one big issue with game so far: number of engines (and their variants) introduced by RO and other required/recommended mods is overwhelming, and I really don’t mean it with any positive connotation.

I just finished mi Sputnik-like mission - unlocked so far few nodes up to basic rocketry and Early probes and just now "basic capsules" and I have 28 engines available and some of them already how variants! This is madness, for game it doesn’t server any purpose and normal person cannot orient in types and variants of engines. I understand that it in RO it server purpose so guys can create those beautiful replicas of historical rockets, but for RP-0 it feels so off. I even do like everything else about the engines in RO (different fuel types, ignitions - this is really great and make additional fun/challenge)

Or maybe RP-0/RO is not for me - what I was looking for was playing KSP in Solar System (or similarly sized system) for additional challenge and play it as career. So is there any solution how to get around the sea of engines?

So is there any solution?

[Laie]

2/LEO might not be the best idea... Ok, it's cool and historical, but forces ppl to use the FASA pack, as there is no stock or SXT 2-man pod.

Truth be told, I consider the FASA pack nearly essential for RP-0. Mostly for educational reasons, a good look at the prefab vessels tought me a lot in just a few minutes; also convenience: I wouldn't want to build the Explorer's 1-3-11 booster from first principles, and the Atlas stage-and-a-half is pretty complicated to do otherwise.

Or maybe RP-0/RO is not for me - what I was looking for was playing KSP in Solar System (or similarly sized system) for additional challenge and play it as career. So is there any solution how to get around the sea of engines?

I felt the same. One gets used to it pretty quickly; making my own custom categories also helped a bundle in cleaning up the mess. Once I sorted them into lifters and vaccum engines, and weeded out all the stuff I hardly ever use, there wasn't much left.

If you want to play career in RSS, you have no other choice. Stock career doesn't work in RSS, and while there is a mod that provides stock parts with RSS-usable stats (SMURFF?), I'm afraid that it won't go over well with RP-0.

[NathanKell]

Trollception: We've been using this, setting the from to the year you have, and the to to 1965. Rule of thumb is that fairly simple stuff (up to and including conventional engines) is about 20:1 R&D vs per-item purchase; hydrolox engines and capsules are more like 40:1, and I would guess the same for those sorts of probes.

A fairly brief google arrived at this document, which seems very relevant:

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-88-130FS

From that you should be able to more accurately apportion R&D vs manufacturing costs.

chrisl: As with most of your requests, the answer is the same: Yes, that's a very good idea, now someone actually has to make it.

(Note that the requirement isn't 400x150, it's "perigee above 150, apogee below 400", so anything from 300x300 circular to 399x151, to 285x185, etc, all will work.)

Another solution here is duration and number-of-people-aboard records, as well as recurring contracts (i.e. first 12hr mission, first day-long mission, first 2-crew mission, first 3-crew mission, etc.)

Hitokiri: We try to give engines fairly useful descriptions to aid in selecting appropriate ones, because it's true it can be rather complicated. If you're playing RP-0 with only the part packs we require (SXT and Ven's Stock Revamp) the supply of engines should not be so overwhelming--what else do you have installed?

Part of the issue is that unlike KSP, where rockets generally vary between 10 and a few hundred tons, RSS/RO craft vary between less than a single ton up through many thousands of tons, and there are different use cases as well (throttling engines, engines that don't have to worry about boiloff, etc).

If RO is too overhwelming, you might like SMURFF. But (ninja'd) as Laie says that won't work with RP-0, you'd want to use the stock career.

[NathanKell]

REQUEST

Given comments in IRC, and Laie's just now, RP-0 will be including more stock craft. Some planes, some sounding rockets, some early orbital rockets, that sort of thing. We'd love some submissions!

The craft should:

* Be easy to fly, and easy to understand how they work.

* Demonstrate good construction techniques and be set up to build good flying and building habits.

* Use only the required and recommended part packs for parts (no FASA/KW/AIES/B9), though B9 Procedural Wings are acceptable (probably required, for planes), and Proc Fairings / Proc Parts are indispensable.

Here's some from me, though I'd rather use others' instead.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[nablabla]

hi,

I have a thing in not-orbit, what do I need to turn on RCS?

I throw away my big and heavy avionics, was that the mistake?

What about the probe cores? can they do something like that?

so how can I builld small probe, if all the avionics packages are so heavy?

best regards,

â–¼

[BevoLJ]

NathanKell: What all is needed to add a part pack into RP-0? I really like Raidernick's US Probes pack and although I tried using the soviet probes the US probes feel so much closer to home and appropriate for someone living in the US. I used the probes in a short career with RSS/RO without RP-0 and they felt to be extremely well balanced with RSS/RO and think they just need tech tree placement. I also loved the usage of the SRM's and Retrorockets used that are true to life. I feel like the SXT/Vens probe parts are a bit limiting because their size is so much larger/heavier than probes launched in the early space career (Explorer-1 being an exception here). Not sure how much work needs to be done for avionics for probes like these.

OMG, I would love this! RN's US Probe Pack is absolutely brilliant & one of my favorites.

[Lack]

I could add a few US probe models into SXT for RP-0 to use. Something like the vanguard satellites wouldn't be a problem.

[Hitokiri]

If you're playing RP-0 with only the part packs we require (SXT and Ven's Stock Revamp) the supply of engines should not be so overwhelming--what else do you have installed?

The only other that add engines is Advanced Jet Engines that is required by RO. The others on top of 11 required and recommended by RP-0 and 30 required and recommended by RO I installed is ScanSat, Chatter and ScienceAlert.

So is there any list of all engines and its variants with its characteristics and connected informations about fuels?

[Sput42]

Speaking of example vehicles... let me take the opportunity to thank everyone involved for the stunning Saturn V/Apollo replica that comes with FASA and RSS/RO. I'm currently re-enacting the Apollo missions just using the replica, without any tweaks on my side (other than adding a launch tower for looks). I mostly use real NASA sources for figuring out the numbers (such as ascent trajectory, orbit heights, burn times etc.), and they work just fine with the provided Saturn V. There's exactly as much fuel (water, food, oxygen...) in the various stages as is needed for the NASA-defined mission profile. Not only that; but the recent updates setup everything correctly - ensuring that staging works as it should, that fuel and other resources get drained in order, that I'm not using the RCS fuel from my capsule when I still have a S-IVB, and all that... just works out of the box.

So, yeah. Thank you!

[Randazzo]

REQUEST

Given comments in IRC, and Laie's just now, RP-0 will be including more stock craft. Some planes, some sounding rockets, some early orbital rockets, that sort of thing. We'd love some submissions!

The craft should:

* Be easy to fly, and easy to understand how they work.

* Demonstrate good construction techniques and be set up to build good flying and building habits.

* Use only the required and recommended part packs for parts (no FASA/KW/AIES/B9), though B9 Procedural Wings are acceptable (probably required, for planes), and Proc Fairings / Proc Parts are indispensable.

Here's some from me, though I'd rather use others' instead.

http://imgur.com/a/6pFxs

Hmm. Point 1 and point 3 I think I've got... not sure about 2.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134298-Realism-Overhaul-Low-tech-aircraft

They're also not really based on anything "real". heh

[Trolllception]

OMG, I would love this! RN's US Probe Pack is absolutely brilliant & one of my favorites.

It's already done. I'm just working out balancing of some of the parts before I submit it to the RP-0 repo. Should be no more than a week till I submit it.

[chrisl]

chrisl: As with most of your requests, the answer is the same: Yes, that's a very good idea, now someone actually has to make it.

(Note that the requirement isn't 400x150, it's "perigee above 150, apogee below 400", so anything from 300x300 circular to 399x151, to 285x185, etc, all will work.)

Another solution here is duration and number-of-people-aboard records, as well as recurring contracts (i.e. first 12hr mission, first day-long mission, first 2-crew mission, first 3-crew mission, etc.)

Yeah, I know you don't have to hit exactly 400x150. I was just keeping my post word count down. I've tweeked parts galore, and even created my own parts (though always reusing existing graphics) but I've never even looked at creating or even modifying contracts. Maybe I'll see if I can't figure out how that works and submit some possibilities.

Unrelated to the above, I inadvertently noticed that "boil off" only happens to the active vessel. I don't suppose there is a way to fix it so that boil off works even when a vessel isn't active?

[Laie]

First satellite, closely modeled after the Juno/Explorer-1. Slightly overpowered.

http://ksp.schnobs.de/stuff/1st_Satellite.craft

(as this is getting a lot more downloads than it deserves: with "closely modelled" I mean the technical part. I managed to squeeze 1/3/12 SRBs into a package that works, without too much bulk or weight. It is by no means a replica.)

Edited September 17, 2015 by Laie

[NathanKell]

nablabla: Controlling something (via RCS or otherwise) does indeed require avionics. Most early probes do not come with avionics.

Lack: Awesome! You're super generous, as always. I'd say fittingly the first priority would be Prospero and Ariel and Alouette, actually, since AFAIK those aren't made by anyone yet and because (obvious) reasons.

Hitokiri: Ah, right, jets. I was thinking only rockets. The engines should provide fairly good information about themselves in their tooltips, including the performance stats and propellants used by each variant in the Modules list, and a written description in the main tooltip. What engines don't have good enough info right now?

Sput42: Awesome! Full credit to stratochief and before him RedAV8R for awesome work there.

chrisl: Great! Contracts are actually pretty easy to make, and have exceptionally good documentation on the Contract Configurator Wiki. I'm happy to help you get started, too.

Regarding boiloff, it's supposed to affect unloaded vessels too (as soon as you load them). Is it not?

Laie, Randazzo, great!

[chrisl]

chrisl: Great! Contracts are actually pretty easy to make, and have exceptionally good documentation on the Contract Configurator Wiki. I'm happy to help you get started, too.

Regarding boiloff, it's supposed to affect unloaded vessels too (as soon as you load them). Is it not?

Not as far as I can tell. I launched a Titan 3E with a 500kg probe to Mars. After the ejection burn, I still had about 1/3rd fuel left on the Centaur stage. Normally for an interplanetary flight I'd dump the Centaur after the ejection burn but I knew I was going to make some very minor course adjustments and wanted to use the Centaur's RCS to make those adjustments. First adjustment wasn't going to be until 120 days into the flight, though, so I went back to mission control and did other stuff. Day 120 comes around so I jump back to the flight and my Centaur still have something like 2500dV of fuel. I can't say for sure exactly how much fuel I had after the ejection burn but I assume that a 120 day flight would boil off basically all the LH2. Unless the "Centaur A/B/C/D/D1" tank as a lot better cryo insulation then I was expecting.

[NathanKell]

Huh. OK, I'll take a look and see what broke...

[Hitokiri]

Hitokiri: Ah, right, jets. I was thinking only rockets. The engines should provide fairly good information about themselves in their tooltips, including the performance stats and propellants used by each variant in the Modules list, and a written description in the main tooltip. What engines don't have good enough info right now?

I didn't mean it in way that description are not informative enough, the opposite is true, they are super descriptive. What I was looking for was some sort of list with information about engines, so I can wrap my head around it summarily, something like this maybe: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines

If no such list exist, I will be happy to prepare one from sources.

[Thomassino]

Hello

I have just started RSS/RO/RP-0 career mode, and i have no contracts in available window. In newest RO playthrough on several YT channels I saw there contracts like: Sounding rocket medium, low etc. or X-planes, but my window is empty. Altitude and speed records contracts are there in active contracts. Can you guys help please?