Chris_Pi

This - All-purpose RCS tug. Put it together ages ago when I got tired of using tons of monoprop and wrestling station parts around with other ships or undersize tugs. Been rebuilding the same basic layout as parts change since I can't remember when. RCS is symmetrical for thrust in all directions and fuel use doesn't shift the C/G, Which is a tiny bit high on the radial port on this one. Plenty of power, Nothing off-balance. All three ports lit up. Got it updated and waiting for my career game to catch up and be able to use again. Might need to move the spotlight for the radial port though. 1302 M/S worth of fuel @2260 kg. It'll drag around pretty much anything. Nice to be able to launch ships with no RCS and dock them to a depot with this.

Didn't expect the would work like that, But it fits perfectly with what's going on. They were just short of clipping through the doors, So definitely in that area. I'll cram them further back into the corners.

Getting some unexpected stuff (To me) going on... Have a SM-6A Service Module with four Stratus-V Minified Monopropellant Tank placed inside. When I jettison the shroud, The tanks pop loose along with it. Weird bug or is this actually supposed to happen? If it's working as expected any way to get them to stay attached?

So, I took the lazy way out and used an online calculator, But here's something - Using the tanker with the 6 vacuum motors replaced with sealevel ones it's looking like just barely to not terrible of an SSTO. So, Some assumptions: Depending on what slide you want to use from Elon's IAC presentation the SL motor's isp is either 334 (motor slide) or 361 (ship/tanker slide). DV needed is 8600+1800 drag losses+500 m/s for landing. I'm being less than optimistic on the last two to slant things towards underestimating payload. 90T dry weight, 2500T propellant/payload. Payload taken out of propellant load. 2590T liftoff weight. TWR 1.077 (310T/motor) 361/334 isp 10.9 km/s Target DV 334 isp: 10904m/s with 2.8T payload 361 isp: 10901m/s with 29.1T payload If the right answer is somewhere between those two it might be about right for tossing a Dragon capsule up to ISS. Probably not cheap but it could get test flights done while hauling paying payloads and without needing either the booster or the pad built.

Got to go with sea-level isp. Running a vacuum motor too low doesn't work too well. Now I'm curious. Might just inflict some math on myself. Will report back if I survive.

Someone over on NSF (Speculation: SFR (mini-BFR) as fully reusable Falcon Heavy thread) ran some numbers and apparently the tanker vehicle might be. Needs the outer engine bells swapped out for sealevel ones, But saying 50-75 tons to leo. Even if it's much less it gets the thing some flight history. Win-win if it can do it.

Thanks everyone - Sounds like this is about as simple as it could get. I'll have the tourists onboard, But there's over a million credits in those Mun flyby/orbit contracts so they're going up anyways. Nice to have their ship double as the needed hab space for the stations.

Right from the contract: "Have a facility supporting at least six kerbals" Exact same phrasing in both. Reads to me like they're counting actual occupants. If it was just empty seats "capable of supporting" would have been there I think. Both contracts need new stations, Planning on building and launching everything that will docked after accepting. I'm assuming "Built for" means that company's flag on the station, which is different for each. Not sure if docking a third part to both at different times is going to end up looking like the assembly (Station+tourist ship) is built for the right company or not.

A question about using tourists to fill out the Kerbal count on orbital stations contracts - Do they count towards the total for Kerbals not needing specific skills? I've got both Kerbin and Mun station contracts available, And the Mun one needs 9 kerbals aboard. As it happens there's also contracts for flyby/orbit for as many tourists. Can I fill seats with them to complete the contract? I'll need some actual crew, but not that many. Docking - I may or may not have anything but the Clamp-o-tron jr. available for a docking port. Since that won't transfer crew and tourists can't EVA can the contracts be completed by just docking the tourist-carrier to a station that otherwise meets requirements? The contracts are for two different companies and I'd like to use the same bunch of tourists to complete both.

This looks pretty darn cool. And i've only tried it going up so far. Kind of a shallow flightpath. Oh, Hey! New version. Going to have to launch something else, Now.

Putting the exterior structure on an adapter plate Sounds like the way to go - I usually decide whether or not to toggle it off on a rocket-by rocket basis rather than each individual wedge - This would do that regardless of what wedges were used. Especially useful for a cargo hauler going up to another vehicle - Exterior structure and fairing on the way up, Uncovered wedge once it's moved. I'm going to end up swapping out all my wedges again, Aren't I? ...With better wedges.

Well, that was quick. I was thinking maybe a quick note on the correct numbers then a week or so for an actual update. You do know I'm not actually paying you for this, Right?

Congratulations on your wonderful reason to be busy with other stuff. "No, just a few minutes. Somedood on the internet wants a typo fixed" might not go over too well. Best not to chance it. I think I can survive for a while without an official patch.

Just did a quick sabatier test run on the pad. Something isn't working right. Ran during daytime for 3 (Kerbin) days converting co2. Used up 15 hydrogen, 3 co2. Produced 0.6 liquid fuel and no water. Unless my numbers from the earlier setup I put my spreadsheet together are wrong, That should have been <14 seconds runtime for the co2 used. I'll dig into the config later today, But I'm thinking a decimal point got misplaced somewhere or something. TAC has the Kerbals producing co2 at the same rate as before so that's not it. One sabatier should run less than half an hour an (Earth) day to keep up with three kerbals.

Per the spreadsheet I've got that's slightly out of date (a couple versions ago) One sabatier reactor should be adequate for 150+ kerbals if you can run it non-stop. Three shouldn't be a problem. The Sabitier converts co2 and hydrogen into water and liquid fuel. It needs both inputs to run. Might that be your problem? Usually you have to run the elektron more than needed for oxygen production to make enough hydrogen for the sabitier.