Cryocasm

I could so some modelling..

Basically, the node collider is a mesh that "sums up" the part in a nutshell: If its a coca cola can in space, and it has modeled surface detailing that does not extend beyond the module's diameter, your fine making a simply, 12-24 sided cylinder mesh that has the same diameter and that's it. 12 sides are preferable due to KSP symmetry, but other than that. Node colliders? Just set your modeling programs units to the Metric system. Then, once your done modeling, select the vertex of the "top" and note the coordinates, similarly for the bottom as well as any side attachment nodes. After that, its just a lot of fussing with rotation orientation of the attachment node, making sure that it can actually connect (node collider being of smaller magnitude than the attachment node) and so on.

How would I apply it in Unity/configure it properly for KSP though?

Is it better to animate in Unity or Blender, and how would one transfer the animations and configure them correctly? I want to make myself a nice cargobay with an opening door, and for that I'd need to know how to apply blender animations in Unity and configure the part to do it with a context menu option. Any help would be appreciated.

You're gonna want to add 300 km to those values, as the ISS swirls around the Earth between 430 and 230 km height, depending on when the last reboost was. As to your problem, your going to want to slap on a bunch of RCS thrusters and a big fuel tank and simply go out there and work at it. Make sure your only positioning the core module, or Unity, for this matter, to be the most accurate, least sluggish, and least laggy. You could go mess with the autom8tor API and see what it can do, but other than that, trial and error.

That's a bit hard, even the slightest perturbation would repulse them away from each other. The orbiting ring is fine, provided its a perfect trace of the equator and in equatorial orbit. The stand-still ring would need to counter compression by gravity.

42 billion dollars are nothing to countries today, that's not even close to the money stolen each year by assholes politicians from tax payers.

I've actually done the Gedankenexperiment, or thought experiment, pertaining to this question. Considering orbital construction, it would be orbiting, hence at completion, it would still be orbiting. This is still logical. Now lets think about stopping its orbit, making each segment stationary with a velocity of 0 m/s. It would require lots of power, as well as engines placed symmetrically (to avoid creating torque and crashing everything into the parent body), but in complete theory, it would never collapse, given the materials are strong enough to uphold the whole torus along the whole length. If the materials were too weak, it would be crushed, compressed, and would fall to the parent body.

With a slight jump in battery and solar panel technology, Mars is self-sufficient: All they need are excavators, cranes, dump trucks, and drilling rigs. In addition to that, Mars is very rich in Iron (which is why its red...), so local construction is not very difficult, given the few megawatts can be generated for an induction furnace. Construction would be mostly underground anyway, to provide passive radiation shielding. Mars' atmosphere is even 95% CO2, with a bit of tinkering and biogenetic engineering, just simply PLANTING PLANTS would begin generating oxygen. Water is available locally (albeit frozen), meaning humans are good to go.

I'm planning on founding my own company and sending a revolutionary design to Mars. Travel time ~2 months (1 leg of the trip), space for 300 people (although only taking 250, just for spare parts, rooms, n stuff). That's progressive thinking right there. I'm completely serious and not even nearly insane. I do my research and my math silently and on my own. I can only say my main inspiration is X³:TC's Osaka class destroyer. Although not that large, but on the pancake-method of construction. Also being built upon a massive cement cradle and launching directly upwards, similar to the movie Wall-E. The inspiration for the engine comes from the search and finding the most complex and thought-requiring propulsion method known (or possibly theorizing my own). On topic: Mankind needs to turn away from these puny fights over a few thousand m² on Earth and face towards the stars. Those trillions in wars can be spent exploring our Earth, manipulating it (graviton research, among other force-carrier particles), and optimizing it beyond belief (super-high yield crops with harvest times of 2 months). Its disturbing and heartbraking to look at mankind kill itself over materialistic values and "money", greed driven and cold. This Elon Musk guy is a good thinker, and a person with money that he's spending on the advancement of mankind, and that deserves respect.

Exactly, take it as a given that the game is the way the game is. Exactly my point. I haven't mentioned Vall and Tylo as I thought Jool would suffice as a tidal factor. Well, I took the situation for granted. I mean, you could just say, "screw it, its not realistic", but that's not challenging. Laythe is in the game and its fun to work with it.

Relatively easy, lets do some math, shall we? Assuming your lander is of the launchpad type, your going to be taking a bit of drymass for struts and decouplers with you. Assembling the lander, we get mass of around 12.5 tons wet. This consists of 2 lander cans (the 1m one), 4 legs, SAS, decoupler, the landing engine (Poodle) and the relaunching engines 4x white radial engines. The pod has 4 tons, + 500kg of parachutes, therefore 4.5 tons. The service module in KSP would only host fuel, engine, RCS, ASAS, and a decoupler. Say this is about 18 tons. Adding all of our masses, +5% struts, we get 12.5+4.5+18 tons, or ~37 tons of Payload mass. Now, using a rule of thumb, the total wet mass on the launchpad may not exceed 10x the payload mass. This is 100% doable. Say we duplicate the Saturn V properly, resulting in a Jumbo, RCS, 4x thrusters, and a Mainsail on the stage below the Munar Segment (lander, capsule, service module), we attain a Munar Injection Stage weight of around 80 tons, if we add in the struts. The Mainsail should provide more than 1.0 of TWR (thrust weight ratio, measured in newtons). Now we have 77 tons. We need 77000*10 = 770000 Newtons of thrust (I simplified gravity to 10 m/s, to give leeway). 0.7 Meganewtons aren't hard to accomplish. I actually overshot quite a bit with the Mainsail, but for Apollo-ness, we need it to be launched off into space or the Mün. So, "desirable" Kerbin surface TWR is 2.2, meaning we need the power of 2.2 total wet weight at launch. I devised a system using a Jumbo + Mainsail, 8x FLT-800s with LVT-T45s and a white radial engine on each fuel tank. This gave me a TWR of 2.23 at lift off. The final stage weighs in at 110 tons dry. This puts us at 187 tons, which is less than our rule of thumb, 10x37. Hell, this design even overachieves with nearly 1/2 the maximum wet mass, at 50.5% of the maximum wet weight, using the rule of thumb. Some nice info from Mechjeb gives around 5.1 km/s of dV. This should suffice for a trip to the Mun and back.

I stopped being bored in class, actually doing rocket math now and a boss at physics. Other than that, my steam games are only all unplayed and my life reduced to: Eating, Sleeping, Drinking, or Pooping, and KSP.

Well, obviously. It remains interesting to find theoretically (not even close to practical) possible solutions.

That's the problem, because your moving about with the submarine, meaning if your on the Jool-side of Laythe, your in lower pressure water (the water closer to the surface is pulled more by Jool, slightly, but more). Conversely, if your on the zenith or anti-Jool-side of Laythe, you have a lot more water pressure, as the "rearmost" water is being smushed against the surface. A base itself would "only" have to be strong enough to resist water pressure where it's dropped, as its immobile. The tides themselves don't change: Laythe doesn't rotate on its own axis. Those stresses would be even higher. You'd just have a variable water pressure environment, depending on your location. This also means that the optimal depth of the base changes. You need more depth the closer you are to Laythe's Jool-respective nadir. This applies for "floating" bases, which are at a certain depth and neither at the surface nor the ocean floor. Bases which have enough resistance (but costing lots of weight) could just sit at the ocean floor and not really worry.