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

[chrisl]

IIRC, the formula is r_total=r_low+sqrt(r_low r_high), or 200+square root (200*1000) = 647 (Gm) - So why should you have a connection?

I couldn't remember the exact formula. Thank you Lilienthal. That explains why I lost contact. I knew I had the wrong antenna for a Jupiter mission (though didn't know until I'd already launched) but I thought the range was closer to 700Gm. I'll just have to update my DSN again.

[chrisl]

The new "Delta Avionics Package [1.45m]" is granting "Local Control" when used with Remote Tech.

[NathanKell]

Bug, fixed in git. Sorry.

[Warp11]

The new "Delta Avionics Package [1.45m]" is granting "Local Control" when used with Remote Tech.

Just letting you know that a similar thing happens with the early controllable core. It displays "No Connection" and you can't execute any right click menu functions but you still have full attitude control. Signal delay for attitude control is not there either. It looks to me like steering is just bypassing remote tech on it.

[chrisl]

I'd like to request that a camera (for science) be added to the FASA Service Module. I know there was a camera system in the actual CSM but the only part we have is too large to properly fit anywhere on the vessel.

[chrisl]

I've got the FASA CSM on a trip to the moon. The CO2 Scrubber, LOX-O2 generator and Fuel Cell are all running. In the base craft, the CM has something like 72000 EC available and the SM has 28800. I've also got the "Apollo Service Module High Gain Antenna" attached and activated. And in the two compartments, I included a bunch of scientific gear. I've been taking science data and transmitting it back to Earth when all of a sudden I got a notice that there wasn't enough electrical power for the antenna. But when I look at my resources list, there was just over 72k available. After further investigating, the CM had a full load of EC but all 28,800 available on the SM had been used up. It was slowly being recharged by the Fuel Cell, but why isn't the EC on the CM being used? I should point out that the "fuel flow" for both EC batteries was on. I ended up resolving the problem but turning off the flow on the EC on the SM but I'm not sure why the CM's EC wasn't being used automatically.

[BevoLJ]

I've got the FASA CSM on a trip to the moon. The CO2 Scrubber, LOX-O2 generator and Fuel Cell are all running. In the base craft, the CM has something like 72000 EC available and the SM has 28800. I've also got the "Apollo Service Module High Gain Antenna" attached and activated. And in the two compartments, I included a bunch of scientific gear. I've been taking science data and transmitting it back to Earth when all of a sudden I got a notice that there wasn't enough electrical power for the antenna. But when I look at my resources list, there was just over 72k available. After further investigating, the CM had a full load of EC but all 28,800 available on the SM had been used up. It was slowly being recharged by the Fuel Cell, but why isn't the EC on the CM being used? I should point out that the "fuel flow" for both EC batteries was on. I ended up resolving the problem but turning off the flow on the EC on the SM but I'm not sure why the CM's EC wasn't being used automatically.

That may have to do with the ElectricityFlow.cfg. Nathan suggested I remove it and that solved all my issues. I believe it was removed a while back on Git so in next update that should be fixed.

[chrisl]

Maybe this is something I should ask on DRE or even "RealHeat" but how exactly is the ablator on a heat shield supposed to work? I'm trying re-entry after a lunar flyby of the Apollo CM. I know I'm coming in too steeply (intentionally so I can try various initial perigee values) but pretty much every reentry so far I've watched the skin temp rise up to 3500 (where the capsule explodes and I reload my save) but that Ablator never sheds more then 2-3 points. What's the point of having 848 Ablator on the Apollo CM if you don't even use 1% of that before overheating and blowing up?

[BevoLJ]

That sounds like some sort of temp bug, but dunno. I had the opposite problem happen to me. I did a direct lunar return with Gemini (LEO rated shield), but somehow it all worked out. I was going to lower my orbit prior to reentry. However I had used all my ignitions and somehow managed a direct lunar return. Still have no idea how I didn't blow up. *Shrugs* but I'll take it! =D My reentry perigee was 62km if I remember right. I was hoping to just aerobrake and not land but ended up just landing.

Edited October 22, 2015 by BevoLJ

[Nerd1000]

Maybe this is something I should ask on DRE or even "RealHeat" but how exactly is the ablator on a heat shield supposed to work? I'm trying re-entry after a lunar flyby of the Apollo CM. I know I'm coming in too steeply (intentionally so I can try various initial perigee values) but pretty much every reentry so far I've watched the skin temp rise up to 3500 (where the capsule explodes and I reload my save) but that Ablator never sheds more then 2-3 points. What's the point of having 848 Ablator on the Apollo CM if you don't even use 1% of that before overheating and blowing up?

I think the ablator is considered insulation, so heat transfer is a function of how much you have left.

As far as your re-entrys are concerned, aim for a periapsis of 50km or so and make sure you set the capsule to descent mode. This will offset the CoM of the pod so that it flies at an angle to produce lift. Once you are in atmosphere roll the pod so that your lift vector is pointed up. This will keep you at higher altitude for longer and let you slow down more gently. From a lunar return the Gemini pod (and presumably Apollo as well) actually produces enough lift to fly back up into space again- You can either do a skip trajectory that bounces back up into space and then comes back down, or you can keep an eye on your apoapsis and temporarily revert to a ballistic path by continuously rolling the pod if you start to ascend.

On another topic, I have a question about your Apollo build (assuming you're using FASA): Where in the tech tree are the covers for the side of the SM? I can't find them, and it looks really silly with huge gaps in the sides .

[Bev7787]

Thats it, after seeing all these people playing this, I am downloading

[chrisl]

I think the ablator is considered insulation, so heat transfer is a function of how much you have left.

As far as your re-entrys are concerned, aim for a periapsis of 50km or so and make sure you set the capsule to descent mode. This will offset the CoM of the pod so that it flies at an angle to produce lift. Once you are in atmosphere roll the pod so that your lift vector is pointed up. This will keep you at higher altitude for longer and let you slow down more gently. From a lunar return the Gemini pod (and presumably Apollo as well) actually produces enough lift to fly back up into space again- You can either do a skip trajectory that bounces back up into space and then comes back down, or you can keep an eye on your apoapsis and temporarily revert to a ballistic path by continuously rolling the pod if you start to ascend.

On another topic, I have a question about your Apollo build (assuming you're using FASA): Where in the tech tree are the covers for the side of the SM? I can't find them, and it looks really silly with huge gaps in the sides .

Yeah, I ended up with a 45km perigee that finally landed but I still ended up maxing out at over 3460 skin temp and still only used 3 points of ablation. To my mind that means the ablator isn't doing enough. I figured the temp would stay down until most of the ablator was gone. Maybe it's because RO combined the CM and Heatshield into a single part? I mean, it was a successful landing but coming within 40 degrees of blowing up and with more then 99.5% of the ablator left to burn off, just seems like the ablator isn't doing what it's supposed to.

As for the fairings, so far I've been using the pre-built FASA Saturn iB Apollo and FASA Saturn V Apollo Lunar craft files so I haven't had to build the craft myself. But for me the fairings are in the "General Aero" category.

[chrisl]

I just got a Contract Configurator error notice but I don't think it's directly related to CC. The report says there is a problem in the "flybyUranus" contract and goes on to explain that "Eeloo is not a valid CelestialBody". I'm not sure which file(s) changed the names of the Celestial Body's but it sounds like there may still be a reference to Eeloo somewhere.

[chrisl]

If you use RN US Probes with RP-0, the Voyager probe has been setup with a 2t avionics control package. Considering this the probe itself is only about .5t, this sounds great but with the Voyager PAM, the mass of the probe is just over 2.5t meaning it's not controllable. And unlike the Pioneer probes, Voyager was not spin stabilized. So I'd like to request that RP-0 increase the Voyager avionics package so it can control 3t (or 2.8t at the least). That allows it to be controlled with the Voyager PAM attached, plus giving it a small amount of space for some extras.

[anxcon]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137450-1-0-x-WIP%21-TestFlightExtended-v1-0-2

i was bored, made a mod to extend TestFlight with more.....uh....logical design feature......ya lets go with that

didn't like that TestFlight was engines only, so expanding it to....everything.....

list of existing failure modules can be found in the github wiki, someone making RO/RP-0 configs be nice

if anyone has suggestions on what failure modules to add, post em in my github

p.s. i don't read this thread much, so any ideas for breakage should go in mine/github ty

Edited October 25, 2015 by anxcon

[romanasul]

Can anyone give me any tips on building a proper aircraft? I can't seem to get it to take off even using flaps. I'm also attempting to build and launch the Bell X-1 but I can't get that off the ground either.

[romanasul]

Nevermind, I figured it out.

[Nerd1000]

Yeah, I ended up with a 45km perigee that finally landed but I still ended up maxing out at over 3460 skin temp and still only used 3 points of ablation. To my mind that means the ablator isn't doing enough. I figured the temp would stay down until most of the ablator was gone. Maybe it's because RO combined the CM and Heatshield into a single part? I mean, it was a successful landing but coming within 40 degrees of blowing up and with more then 99.5% of the ablator left to burn off, just seems like the ablator isn't doing what it's supposed to.

As for the fairings, so far I've been using the pre-built FASA Saturn iB Apollo and FASA Saturn V Apollo Lunar craft files so I haven't had to build the craft myself. But for me the fairings are in the "General Aero" category.

having the heat shield on the pod might be the answer. For my Gemini lunar flyby mission I removed almost all of the ablator from the actual Gemini capsule and slapped a lunar rated heat shield on the bottom, which gave me no issues. I've also done ballistic re-entrys from the moon and solar orbit using unmanned craft based on the Agena control core (Deceleration peaks at 8 - 9.5g, but otherwise everything is fine), so it seems like those lunar rated shields are the business.

For those curious about the rest of the flyby mission:

Gemini and its service module went on top of a Centaur loaded to IIRC 60% capacity. That arrangement was just light enough to get to orbit on a modified Saturn IB (I didn't have the full thrust J-2 unlocked, so I used an LR87-LH2 as the engine on the S-IB stage), and had just enough fuel and life support to do a free-return flyby. I would have preferred to do a proper Apollo, but it was 1973 and I hadn't unlocked advanced capsules or manned lander parts.

[Autochton]

Question, regarding parts prices. The description etc. says that prices are normalized to 1000 1965 US dollars per 'fund'. I'm getting some odd results, wondering if the normalization I'm performing even makes sense. I found a number stating that an Allison V-1710 piston engine (as seen in planes like the P-40 or P-38) cost ~$19,000 in WWII. The V-1710-89 I'm working with in RealPlanes started production in 1943, the -143 variant in 1948. How would I use this information to normalize correctly?

Here's what I tried. Time normalization was done via Dollar Times inflation calculator.

Starting with $19K for the V-1710-89 in 1943, and calculating their purchasing power in 1965, I got $35K. Then, for the -143 engine from 1948 (assuming a new engine had stayed at the 19K price point) I got ~$25K. Markedly less. Hence the weaker, older engine would cost $10K more than the newer, more powerful one, kinda broken.

Instead, I swapped the time points. I tried to calculate what $19K in 1965 would equate to in 1943 resp. 1948. I got a -89 engine costing $10K, and the -143 costing $14K. This makes more sense from a gameplaty perspective - more expensive engine being the more powerful one - but it seems somehow backward.

So what do? How do the rest of you convert prices for your parts?

[NathanKell]

While the -89 was 19k in WWII, by the time the -143 rolled out the -89 would presumably be cheaper. So say 25 for the -143 and 20 for the -89.

[Autochton]

While the -89 was 19k in WWII, by the time the -143 rolled out the -89 would presumably be cheaper. So say 25 for the -143 and 20 for the -89.

Okay... Now, that advice places me in an interesting conundrum. I have engines ranging from during and just after WWI (BMW IIIa, Liberty L-12) to close to the '60's (Duplex Cyclone TC). I was thinking of putting the DupCycTC in a first-tier tech node, since it's not actually around at the 'start line' on the game, so higher tech = higher price, no prob. So presumably, for the rest I'd have to figure a way to make them reasonably priced in relation to one another. I honestly don't figure on including the WWI/interbellum engines in RP-0, since they're not going to serve much real game use. They're more interesting for RO players who want to build replica Fokker D.VII's and such. But for the WWII-proximal engines (i.e. most of them), I guess I should normalize to 1950 and go?

[NathanKell]

That makes sense. I've been doing similarly: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/blob/master/tree.yml#L508-L547

[Autochton]

I'm now also noting some overlap between the engines I have and the engines provided by other mods. Not sure what to make of that. For example, I have the Double Wasp R-2800-65W, and the Merlin 46, both of which are already listed, if under a different name in the former case. along with the two Mercury and the two Shvetsov engines... Hrm. Seems silly to have multiples of the same engine, honestly. Might end up doing a bit of overview work of what sorts of prop engines are even available in the RP-0 mod list. Might be better to instead provide different engines?

[NathanKell]

The models you have will probably be better (though the KAX radial, and the new SXT props, are wonderful), so I'd say use them in preference?

[Zephram Kerman]

I must have missed something, because if this were a bug like it would have been already caught by someone else. Second-Gen Capsules won't unlock, even though I've completed research on Basic Capsules and Improved Instrumentation. All I can think of is it might be due to KSP crashing due to the memory leak, but I keep playing RP0 anyway because I'm enthralled.

Can someone suggest a way to get that node un-stuck? Thanks!