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

[federicoaa]

Nathankell, small question:

In game I can see in the tech tree some nodes called thermal management (or something like that, I'm in office now), but those nodes are not in tree.yml

Btw, I have created a guithub account (same as in this forum)

[Framerate]

Well you should be getting negative reputation for that mission. Your administration policies are taking away too much reputation. Can they be set for over 100% reputation loss in the administrative building?

I'm pretty sure you got that backwards. Reputation in green is supposed to be the gain after deductions from policies, not the original value.

I'm running the 60% policy, and have done that since my 2nd launch, and it's been working well until this recent update.

[Rothank]

CRAFT file

Another kinda-Atlas. Lower stage is 2xLR89 (no sustainer engine!), upper one is an Agena B/D (B version engine with D's burntime, 2 ignitions with SRM ullage). Payload is an early 0.2t Sat designed for stock contracts (but max payload is 0.6t), can get to any LEO orbit with ease. Very easy to fly, with lots of delta-V for mistakes ;]

Avionics controls: early 2m (up to 120t) hidden under interstage on 1st stage, Agena avionics takes control after separation.

Also a question about the real Agena:

How come that Astronautix states this:

Status: Retired 1987.

Gross mass: 6,821 kg (15,037 lb).

Unfuelled mass: 673 kg (1,483 lb).

Height: 7.09 m (23.26 ft).

Diameter: 1.52 m (4.98 ft).

Span: 1.52 m (4.98 ft).

Thrust: 71.17 kN (15,999 lbf).

Specific impulse: 300 s.

Burn time: 265 s.

Number: 380 .

while the fuel for 265s burn itself (not counting instrumentation) weights 7.5t? In total, Agena made in KSP is about 1.5t heavier than the real thing (at least according to Astronautix, which isn't the most trustwothy source, as far as my experiences go)!

EDIT:

Another craft, guys, this is something i think you might really like!

I made an... ATLAS! That's right, not a look-alike, but a realistic(-ish) (including dimensions and mass, LR105 burntime might be off) early Atlas LV!

Orbit capable, stages LR-89s!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

IMPORTANT: Stage the engines at 174s (2:14) into the flight!

Hadn't tested it with a payload, but if it can make an orbit on it's own, then a kick staged payload will be even easier.

Pictured version doesn't have LR101 vernier engines, but the craft file is updated and includes them.

CRAFT

Now, if someone makes a shiny silver proc. fairing texture we can make it look exactly like a real thing

Need fuel lines for now, but I'm working on it!

Requires less parts than the currently included Atlas-Agena, as it uses only:

-proc parts

-proc fairings

-stock engines

-RP-0 avionics (made from stock models)

-fuel lines

Edited September 18, 2015 by Rothank

[Phineas Freak]

Astonautix mentions a Vac ISP of 300s but the highest performing Agena engine doesn't exceed 291s. With a quick replica i made (671 Kg empty - 6883 Kg gross) i can get 3m and 55s worth of burn time at an ISP of 291s. So 4m 24s doesn't sound unreasonable with a better ISP value.

I found another reference from Astronautix that puts the gross mass at 7160 Kg (meaning 4m 4s of burn time at 291s ISP).

Also for the Atlas, you can shorten the "skirt" for the booster engines by splitting the main tank into two and moving the interstage adapter further down the main body. Then you don't need to use a custom fairing texture and the only problem is to make a fairing with "fuelCrossFeed = true" to avoid fuel ducts for the booster engines!

[Rothank]

Yeah, you're probably right. That one was mostly a proof of concept, made in less than an hour. I'll probably improve the craft later today. Expect a better version in just a few hours ;]

Work update:

This Atlas is now more Atlas than my previous Atlas. Still, not as Atlas as the real Atlas.

Now working on correct staging, as for now the lover part breaks in two. It should be a single ring tho. Any ideas? (Other than that, i think i got pretty close, haven't I?)

And a launch profile, I'm bad at this when i don't have a 2nd stage!

Edited September 18, 2015 by Rothank
update on teh Atlas

[Lilienthal]

Recent upgrades appear to be somewhat save-breaking.

I just upgraded RO, RP0 and Kopernicus (and a few others), and found that

a) my surveyor probe was moved further up the tech tree, rendering my probes non-functional.

moved many of my contracts to other planets. (i.e. instead of lunar orbit, orbit around Io etc.)

This is to be expected and accepted, I don't think that's a bug or a fault by the mod maintainers, but just a warning. - I'll fix it using cheat mode and will be happy. .

[Laie]

Another craft, guys, this is something i think you might really like!

I made an... ATLAS! That's right, not a look-alike, but a realistic(-ish) (including dimensions and mass, LR105 burntime might be off) early Atlas LV!

[...]

Now, if someone makes a shiny silver proc. fairing texture we can make it look exactly like a real thing

For me, the shiny silver texture is the second from the left... but our installs seem to differ, when I load your craft, I get "**not found**" as a texture name (it renders the default, so no biggie). I wasn't aware that there are some fairings which allow surface attachment. The first I tried didn't and that was that.

Have you a had a closer look at mine? It's got the staging right, though it probably doesn't shed quite enough mass -- actually, it's too lightweight / has too much dV overall, but I'll be damned if I add ballast to the boosters just because. The Atlas is difficult enough as it is, no need to make it even harder.

I went for a single tank because I don't like what stacked tanks do to the CoM during flight, but if you care less, a conic/straight combo gets the shape pretty close. (quick check) You need to utilize them at nearly 100% to carry enough fuel at the given height, though.

Anyhoo, nice to see that I'm not the only one who takes an interest in that design.

Edit: if it takes three hours to write a post, one should check back with the thread first... your Atlas from 20:08 looks friggin' great! But shouldn't the weight be more like 120t?

Edit edit: in my install, I can reduce the number of nodes on a fairing base down to one, giving me a single ring.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Laie

[Rothank]

Actually, seeing your craft inspired me to do a real one!

For me, the shiny silver texture is the second from the left... but our installs seem to differ, when I load your craft, I get "**not found**" as a texture name (it renders the default, so no biggie). I wasn't aware that there are some fairings which allow surface attachment. The first I tried didn't and that was that.

Texture you failed to load is probably the StockGrey from Freedom's Procedural Parts Textures. In the current version i switched these textures for the stock ones (Stockalike and Atlas).

Edit: if it takes three hours to write a post, one should check back with the thread first... your Atlas from 20:08 looks friggin' great! But shouldn't the weight be more like 120t?

Thanks! And yeah, 113,050 kg.

Edit edit: in my install, I can reduce the number of nodes on a fairing base down to one, giving me a single ring.

Tried that at first, but side attachment goes crazy, not even talking the symmetry

I went for a single tank because I don't like what stacked tanks do to the CoM during flight

There's a workaround for that, but it requires using even more fuel lines (for now it uses 2, might need 3). IF I'm forced to use fuel lines I'll go with said workaround. Testing it now.

EDIT:

Alright, I'm done for today. Here're 2 pictures and a craft file.

craft file

Edited September 18, 2015 by Rothank

[chrisl]

Astonautix mentions a Vac ISP of 300s but the highest performing Agena engine doesn't exceed 291s. With a quick replica i made (671 Kg empty - 6883 Kg gross) i can get 3m and 55s worth of burn time at an ISP of 291s. So 4m 24s doesn't sound unreasonable with a better ISP value.

b14643.de is a better source for ISP and Thrust values. It's what gets used most for the values that come with RO/RP-0.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we have a part to represent the AJ-10-118F (used on the Delta 300, 900 and above)? I see the 118E as a configuration of the AJ10 (Mid) engine but can't seem to find a 118F which has about 20% more thrust and 13% better isp. Not sure if I just haven't gotten the tech for it.

Same goes for the AJ10-118K for the Delta II.

[chrisl]

There's a workaround for that, but it requires using even more fuel lines (for now it uses 2, might need 3). IF I'm forced to use fuel lines I'll go with said workaround. Testing it now.

What if you split the tank into separate RP1/LOX tanks? Make the upper 2/3rd into strictly LOX and the lower 1/3rd just RP1. That might for the CoM to most a bit more as expected during flight.

[arisian]

arisian: RP-0 is the closest thing to a Total Conversion that KSP has. I highly, highly recommend sticking to only the mods we require and the mods we support, otherwise you'll get all sorts of weirdness (as you found). RO 'recommends' TACLS, which means it installs by default; we most certainly do not 'recommend', or even suggest, USI.

Yeah, I know that, and I try to stick to it, but...there's just so much great stuff out there! First off, how can I live without quality-of-life enhancements like EnhancedNavBall or KerbalAlarmClock or ScienceAlert? I doubt those would conflict with RO/RP-0, but they're not listed as "supported" in CKAN. And then there's the fact that I think RP-0 is great for the "historical" missions; I've got no problem with more-or-less recapitulating history up to Apollo. But post-Apollo, the history is just kind of depressing. I want to simulate the alternate future, the one Gerard K. O'Neill envisioned! Sure, maybe heavy lifters turned out to be harder than he expected, and his population numbers weren't quite right, but it was such a hopeful vision of what the future could be. I want the version of history where funding stayed at Apollo levels, and the shuttle program didn't fail to meet its design goals for cost/reusability, and we wound up with permanent manned bases and habitats. And for that, I eventually need some parts that *aren't* purely "historically accurate", so I eventually start looking at things like USI Kolonization once I've worked my way far enough up the tech tree that I start wanting proper orbital habitats or moon bases, and AtomicAge so I can blast off using a (wildly impractical) nuclear lightbulb, and, and, and...

...and then I discover that I've added too many things, and everything breaks, and I have to wipe all the mods and start over with a clean install and a fresh game and go back to 1955 and try again.

I fully admit that none of my problems are your fault, and I totally don't expect you to support my non-standard configs; you already do so much fantastic work here, for which I'm completely grateful. I was mostly trying to figure out what was going on because I was confused, not trying to lay the blame at your feet, or make more work for you (though if you want more work, I have to admit that I'm really looking forward to RVE hitting a semi-stable release... ).

[NathanKell]

federicoaa: The tree.yml file was compiled from the .90 era (hmm, actually .25 era even, IIRC) Community Tech Tree. The 1.x version has lots of new nodes, which we're still trying to figure out how to slot in.

tree.yml doesn't define nodes itself, it only defines where parts should be placed and at what cost.

Great! Then the next step is to research how much the part you want to place would actually cost.

Frameratae: We don't touch how rep works, or how strategies work...

Rothank: Looks like a solid LV!

As to the Agena, shoot, I was supposed to look that up a few days ago. I'll try to remember.

Lilienthal: Dang, that's weird. I don't recall having moved Surveyor (it should be in the Landing node, did it move?) and an upgrade shouldn't have changed what contracts you have on offer at all

What node *is* Surveyor in for you now?

chrisl: We don't have a part to represent the 118F yet. In effect that's an improved version of the engine used on Transtage (still the 37/104/118 heritage, but reworked for Aerozine and NTO). K is a further development of that. We'll probably use the Aerojet-Kerbodyne 118K for that, then.

arisian: That's totally understandable. And certainly things like KAC are borderline required--especially if you want to see what the date actually is! (I'm addicted to seeing "1 Jan 1951" instead of "Year 1 Day 1"...we probably should recommend it in the RO netkan, actually.)

If you do find something you Just. Need. to play with though, consider making RO and RP-0 configs for it maybe? For most things, the reason we don't support them yet isn't distaste, it's just no one's had a chance to patch them yet.

The reason I reacted as I did was mostly USI in particular; the philosophy of the USI suite is more or less diametrically opposed to RO, so I would expect lots of weird things and breakages occurring from trying to get them to live together. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have ISRU and colonization in RO, just that, even if it's done from USI parts, they'll take an awful lot of patching. :]

[federicoaa]

I have an idea to base the price of the big foldable radiator on the ISS radiators, but the only information I could get is that they were developed by Lockheed Martin.

[Framerate]

Frameratae: We don't touch how rep works, or how strategies work...

Thanks for your reply Nathan!

I think the problem lies with that specific contract (crewed moon flyby) because when doing the crewed moon orbit yesterday my rep gain was positive.

On a different note, remember my probes orbiting and landed on the moon, that magically warped to Saturn's moon Iapetus last big update?

Well I save edited them back to earth's moon, and continued on. This last big update got them warping again. This time to Jupiter's moon Io, and since Io's diameter is bigger, my orbiting probe crashed :'(

Edit: If anybody finds themselves in the same situation the fix is to change REF = 8 to REF = 10 for the relevant vessel in the save file persistent.sfs

Edited September 19, 2015 by Framerate

[Lilienthal]

Lilienthal: Dang, that's weird. I don't recall having moved Surveyor (it should be in the Landing node, did it move?) and an upgrade shouldn't have changed what contracts you have on offer at all

What node *is* Surveyor in for you now?

It is in Landing now, but it used to be in Miniturization. (which made the Ranger III core completely useless.)

[Tom K.]

I'm a bit confused, I see all these advanced nodes (Atomic, Interstellar, colonisation, ...) which are currently empty.

I only use the required packs of RSS and RP0, following the advice of Nathankell but I'm wondering if I were to install Atomic age or some other mod, would that fill in the tree, or do these parts of the tree still have to be developped by the Modder?

I also read in the OP that this mod aims to work with as many packs as possible, is there maybe a list of which packs are currently fully integrated into RP0?

[chrisl]

chrisl: We don't have a part to represent the 118F yet. In effect that's an improved version of the engine used on Transtage (still the 37/104/118 heritage, but reworked for Aerozine and NTO). K is a further development of that. We'll probably use the Aerojet-Kerbodyne 118K for that, then.

Also can't seem to find the TRW TR-201 which I know was based on the LEM Decent engine. It's just slightly smaller, from what I've read, than the graphics we have for the decent engine. I'm still researching for the RS-27 in my career mode so I have a little time before I'd be using these upper stage engines. Just looking ahead, though.

BTW, do we know for sure that the 118F used Aerozine and NTO? I have two sources that list that engine still being with N2O4/UDMH (or RFNA/UDMH) but two other sources report Aerozine/NTO.

[yanivabo]

hello.

I have a question about Real Cute and Reentry over heat.

http://imgur.com/fq28vds

I'm entering from 300km AP to 65km PE I have 2(!!) heat shield but the parachute still burns up... what am I missing ?

thanks for any help.

yaniv abo

[NathanKell]

framerate: The "first" flyby, or the repeatable crewed lunar?

As to ref changing, that sonuds like an update to Koeprnicus changing the order of celestial bodies. Or did you install the RSS addon pack?

Lilienthal: Ah. Huh, wonder why it wasn't before, I have no memory of moving it >.>

Tom K: The tree still has to be developed, and parts placed and priced. If you install parts from unsupported packs, you'll just get "Non-RP0" parts for now...

As for the list, that very same OP lists them...

chrisl: It's an alternative config for the LMDE.

I feel fairly confident in saying the F used Aerozine and NTO, since you'd have a very hard time to get that Isp from nitric acid, and it clearly seems to be a post-Delta P attempt by Aerojet to get back on Delta, using the same propellants as Delta P (and Transtage and SPS, the latter both Aerojet engines). What sources claim it's not NTO/AZ?

yanivabo: Looks like the same DRE shield issue being discussed in the RO thread.

[Framerate]

framerate: The "first" flyby, or the repeatable crewed lunar?

Although the title does not state "first", I assume this is an one off contract based on the big reputation gain.

[Devilsgamer666]

Hello.

I have been having difficulties with RealChutes and I believe it is related to this/Realism overhaul, The problem in question being that i do not have the option on the right click menu to adjust it's size thus forcing me to use over sized parachutes. I installed it using Ckan so every thing should have been added properly.

Any help is appreciated.

KSP log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4ow84he8mljib4/KSP.log?dl=0

Visual example of error: https://www.dropbox.com/s/15kqkstk1rtwwqj/Realchutes%20error.JPG?dl=0

[Rothank]

Hello.

I have been having difficulties with RealChutes and I believe it is related to this/Realism overhaul, The problem in question being that i do not have the option on the right click menu to adjust it's size thus forcing me to use over sized parachutes. I installed it using Ckan so every thing should have been added properly.

Any help is appreciated.

KSP log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4ow84he8mljib4/KSP.log?dl=0

Visual example of error: https://www.dropbox.com/s/15kqkstk1rtwwqj/Realchutes%20error.JPG?dl=0

Realchutes DON'T support tweakscaling them. You can adjust their size and MUCH more in the action group menu, just like the engines. You simply go into the action group menu, click on the 'chute and there ya go, lots and lots of tweaking options for ya!

[Devilsgamer666]

Thanks. I'll try that.

It used to have it's own right click scaling menu even without tweak scale so that was why i asked.

[Randazzo]

Thanks. I'll try that.

It used to have it's own right click scaling menu even without tweak scale so that was why i asked.

The ability to change the chutes via right-click in the VAB editor is replaced by the action groups menu once you upgrade the facility and unlock the use of action groups. In RO/RP-0 you start with action groups unlocked, skipping over the early stage of scaling via right click.

[Devilsgamer666]

That's great to know. thank you guys for all the help.