Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'engineering'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website
  • KSP Pre-release
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Branch
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Modding Discussions
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Bug Tracker


  • Developer Articles

Found 10 results

  1. What would it take to freeze a human for upwards of 100 million years (enough time for the universe's structure to noticeably change) and still be able to revive them afterwards? Could i get to see the end of the universe? Pretty please?
  2. ETT is a pinwheel design that is grouped into branches of related engineering disciplines. Premise Do the Kerbals discover rocketry before winged flight? You decide. Both winged flight and rockets first options. I love to hear new ideas and don't be afraid to let me know if I have a part or two out of place. Listed on CKAN or Download at SpaceDock - May break saved games. Patreon Link or even better, contribute to the tech tree by adding a simple config of a/your part pack! New GitHub Repository for Contributors: Readme file has instructions. Scope A tech tree based on engineering/scientific principles... mostly, that is challenging to unlock yet fun to play through. Goals & Requirements 1. Branches of the tech tree based on engineering disciplines. 2. The Kerbals discover rocket powered flight before they figure out winged flight. (or vice-versa) 3. Unlocking the entire tech tree is not required but must involve flights to nearby planets. 4. Parts that generate science are spread throughout the disciplines and are not based on which branch you focus on (e.g. Flight, Liquid fueled, Solid, Exotic). 5. The player may unlock just the branches that they are interested in. Highly Recommended for FLIGHT FIRST option: Firespitter, SXT and/or KAX for propeller parts. Take Command to use the external command seat for barnstorming... I mean science. Highly Recommended for ROCKETS first: Interstellar KW Rocketry MRS SpaceY FASA Recommended for the tree overall: Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb for delta V calculations. DMagic Orbital Science to boost your science output. @Necro You can play this tree completely stock, but I believe it is the most fun with several part packs. The many nodes of the tree limits the amount of parts that show up in the editor which makes it easier to find the part you are looking for. Included: AIES by @carmics ALCOR by @alexustas AmpYear Power Manager by @JPLRepo Coatl Aerospace ProbesPlus by @akron CxAerospace by @cxg2827 DarkSideTechnology's Centrifuge by @Badsector DMagic Orbital Science by @DMagic DMagic's EVA struts and transfer pipes by @DMagic EVA Parachutes & Ejection Seats by @linuxgurugamer Extra-Planetary Launchpads @taniwha FASA by @frizzank Infernal Robotics by @sirkut KAS by @KospY Kerbal Atomics by @Nertea Kerbal Engineer by @cybutek Kerbal Planetary Base System by @Nils277 Kethane by @taniwha KIS (Kerbal Inventory System) by @KospY Konstruction by @RoverDude Launchers Pack by @Kartoffelkuchen KSP Interstellar Extended @FreeThinker Landertron by @XanderTek Lithobrake Exploration Technologies by@NecroBones MKS/OKS by @RoverDude ModPods by @TiktaalikDreaming MRS (Modular Rocket Systems) by@NecroBones Near Future: Electrical by @Nertea Near Future: Propulsion by @Nertea Near Future: Spacecraft by @Nertea Near Future Construction by @Nertea Procedural Fairings by @e-dog Rocket Factory by @RaendyLeBeau Rover Science Revisited by @theSpeare Real Chutes by @stupid_chris SETI Probe Parts by @Yemo Smart Parts by @Firov SpaceY Expansion by @NecroBones SpaceY Heavy Lifters by @NecroBones Station Parts Expansion by @Nertea Surface Experiment Pack by @AlbertKermin Surface Lights by @Why485 TAC Life Support by @TaranisElsu Tarsier Space Technology by @JPLRepo Universal Storage by @Paul Kingtiger USI Core by @RoverDude USI Sounding Rockets by @RoverDude USI Exploration Pack by @RoverDude USI Life Support by @RoverDude USI Survivability Pack @RoverDude Ven's Stock Part Revamp by @Ven Integrated But Untested for 1.3 Part Packs AntennaRange by @toadicus AoA Tech Aviation Parts by @martinezfg11 Aviation Cockpits by @Mallikas Aviation Lights by @BigNose Atomic Age by @Porkjet B9 by @bac9 Behemoth Aerospace Engineering by @greystork BDArmory by @BahamutoD Bluedog Design Bureau by @CobaltWolf Corvus by @Orionkermin Cryogenic Engines by @Nertea CryoTanks by @Nertea Deadly Reentry by @NathanKell Deep Freeze Continued by @JPLRepo FireSpitter by @Snjo Fuel Tanks Plus by @NecroBones HabTech by @benjee10 HoolganLab's Airships by @JewelShisen K2 Command Pod by @jfjohnny5 Karibou Rover by @RoverDude KAX - Kerbal Aircraft eXpansion by @keptin Kerbalism by @ShotgunNinja Kerbonov Pack by @Sam Hall KWRocketry by @Kickasskyle MechJeb (still needs a bit of MM work) @sarbian Mk2/Mk3 Expansion by @SuicidalInsanity Mk3 Hypersonic System by @nestor_d Mk3 mini expansion by @K.Yeon MOLE - Mark One Laboratory Extensions by @Angel-125 Monkey Business, Inc Parts by @blacsky33 Near Future: Solar by @Nertea OPT by @K.Yeon Procedural Parts by @OtherBarry Remote Tech RetroFuture Planes by @nli2work RLA Stockalike by @hoojiwana Rovers and Roadsters by @AlphaAsh ScanSat by @DMagic Solaris Hypernautics by @Carbonjvd Soviet Engines by @BobCat Stock Extension by @Lack Stock Launch Pad by @sciencepanda Stockalike Parts for Useful Esthetics by @TurboNisu Tantares LV by @Beale Taurus HCV by @bsquiklehausen I've made ETT compatible with the stock tech tree and @NerteaChris Adderley's CTT (click here). All the nodes are included, but not all are used in the progression. Thanks to all those who have helped me get this far, @yongedevil, @troyfawkes, @NathanKell, @Artfact, @Bahamut, @inigma, @odya-kun, @SpaceNomad, @linuxgurugamer Keep the feedback coming. Released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license. You are free to redistribute and modify the work so long as it is not used for commercial purposes.
  3. Hi, we all notice that when the radial decouplers are activated, they remain attached to the "root" part, so i imagine they still count as dead wasting weight, am i right? Or are they weightless once activated? Wouldn´t be better to vanilla be placed inversed? I mean, once activated, they would go out with the unattached tank or so. Trying to place them reversed, i sadly find they sink inside the tanks and im not able to even pick them for moving outside with the gizmo. Any idea if it is doable? Thanks
  4. Ok, so that was probably a bit of an overstatement to say that absolutely everybody uses canards all the time, but it still got me wondering... I had never heard of canards before playing KSP. I might have seen a plane with canards IRL, but I don't recall it if I have. Most planes that I see do not have have them (although this might be a biased sample as the majority of planes are passenger airlines, and have a very specific purpose and therefore a very specific design). If I were to draw a 'typical' plane then it would have wings and a tail with elevators, and I might even be able to stretch to a delta-wing with elevons. I'm not saying that they don't exist IRL, but they are just a lot less common (to me) So why is it this way? Probably about 30% of atmoplanes and spaceplances I see on this forum have canards. (Why) are canards better for KSP than in real life? Or to turn the question around, why don't we see as many planes IRL with canards?
  5. During my Engineering Design seminar today, my teacher mentioned the Kerstan Blunder. That's the quote directly from his slide. My question to you is "Did this mission happen?" I did some research online, and it didn't seem like the U.S. launched a Vigor probe, and it doesn't look like Japan or the USSR did, either. But what did you find? Was this just a misname? Was there a mission like this, but to a different planet?
  6. When selecting (non-wheeled) landing gear, how are you solving this problem: Given a landing mass, gravity, and anticipated impact speed: What is the correct gear count, type, spring strength, and dampening strength? I am using experience/guesswork to make my choices now, so answers in that ballpark won't help much. Looking for the mathematics behind the parts, or experimental results someone has collected.
  7. (I think this is a general question and not particularly related to any specific craft - but if a specific example would be useful then I can upload one later.) I recall reading that attaching items radially are affected by drag, and that items attached in a stack are not. What happens if you attach an RCS thruster behind a wing (where you would usually attach control surfaces)? Is that radial or stacked, and (more importantly) is it affected by drag? I think that I also recall reading that it doesn't matter how it has been offset and rotated, the item still behaves the same as if it were not offset or rotated. I assume that this means that I can make a RCS thruster look like it is attached on the body just behind the wing, when it is actually attached to the wing just next to the body? Final questing: do RCS thrusters work inside cargo bays? IRL that would not work, but I wonder if the game engine is simplified enough to get away with it.
  8. I am optimising a spaceplane that I successfully got to orbit, docked and de-orbited. It flies really nicely, has great manoeuvrability, can land really gently but could do with a bit of work getting it to dock nicely. It has 2 Mk1 Inline Cockpits, and I think that I want to change it for a Mk1 Crew Cabin. I am going to use it for crew rotations - no cargo. Detailed analysis if you really want it: The advantages that I see are that it does not require a pilot to be one of the crew that is rotating, as well as being marginally lighter and cheaper (20Kerbucks saved - woo) and the other specs are about the same. I could also use it for tourists too. Having a cargo bay has the small advantage that I can put other radially attached parts in there too to avoid drag (mechjeb is the main one). The big disadvantage is that if I loose power then I am completely dead in the water space, whereas if I had a command module I could at least manoeuvre using RCS or control surfaces, or fire the engine when I am pointing in approximately in the right direction. Another small disadvantage is that there are 3 things in the plane instead of 2, this makes it slightly longer and has more places for it going spaghetti on me (it does have enough lift to tear itself apart at mach3 under 10km altitude). I guess that I have a few more options in placing components wrt getting the CoM in the right place, but equally more complexity. Any more advantages or disadvantages that I have missed?
  9. At present, I use the small decoupler for small radial stages and the larger one with standoff for larger stages. Doesn't feel like good engineering to me. Cost aside, what does math say about when you should pick each of the five radial decouplers?
  10. (Aerodynamics aside) do adapters, like the two Rockomax Brand Adapters affect the structural integrity of a craft, or are they merely aesthetic? In other words, if an adapter is placed between a 2.5m tank and a 1.25m tank, is that design stronger in some way than a 1.25m tank connected directly to a 2.5m tank? Is there a (hopefully launch pad) experiment that can be devised to prove either case? What is the KSP stress model? How does it determine when two parts have undergone enough shear, torsional, or tensile stress for their connection to fail?