Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'reusable'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

Categories

  • Developer Articles

Found 10 results

  1. In honor of SpaceX winning the launch contract for the next X-37B mission (planned launch date NET August 2017), I decided to throw together a mockup of what the whole mission might look like. This was the first time I'd ever built a proper spaceplane. The only mod used was Tweakscale, because I couldn't very well get the proportions right without that. The booster does a RTLS landing; the X-37B does a once-around and re-enters. No RCS for attitude control on the orbiter. I saved in orbit before payload separation and I am considering going back and doing a Mun mission with the orbiter.
  2. In my recent career save, I tries to recover everything w/o disposable parts - separators, fairing, and heatshield. To achieve this, I usually design fully recoverable launch vehicles. e.g. I'm curious about how many of you plays like this - Have you played like this once? Is your playstyle involved with reusablity? Or would you rather dispose of anything you don't need?
  3. After all the advanced technology usage decided to take my knowledge down deep to the days of the beginning. This is space shuttle for small payloads, pretty small and pretty cheap. As this science stage has no proper wheels it lands in water. Everything but the boosters is recoverable. Price without the probe pictured is 14,506 credits (cargo is at the tail, since there is no cargo bay and drag in front would mess things up). I suppose an mk1 crew cabin would serve just fine there for crew transport as well. Struts are necessary since the command pod tended to fall off at landing ... and the front of the plane is normally not expected to fall off. Parachute is for reducing drag only, not used really. Takeoff is designed upside down due toe drag from the rudders, no point to fight it: Somehow forgot to take the screenshot from releasing the probe (had to go out to eva with the pilot and nudge it since it is so tight there). After detaching the probe pictured and doing the deorbit burn - i even had some fuel left (Jebediah knows he is in for a bonus). One must be very conservative with electricity though. Just remember one thing - there are no wheels, you have to land in water (at 50m/s horizontal speed it survives, or use the parachute (which i added to reduce drag only) and rocket engines to land on tail): Quite a scenic landing site. Full gallery from 2 flights can be found at http://imgur.com/a/naD3O
  4. Flight manager, we need it. Due to understandable limits in the physics bubble dynamics and not being two pilots at the same time we can't do things like launching rockets from planes or falcon like recoveries. And unfortunately it looks like development on flight manager stopped at about 1.1. Bit sad really.
  5. Hey all, I don't know how to do this more succinctly so I apologise but I will clearly label each section for your convenience. BACKGROUND It's my understanding that there is an umbrella system to dealing with debris in an attempt to encourage more efficient rendering and physics calculations in game. Basically the rules are that debris is over 2km from the main craft in atmosphere or on a suborbital trajectory then it is simply removed from the game. EDIT: Debris 25km from main craft <25,000m altitude = auto-deleted So in the case of recovering a spent stage from a launch, you would need to switch focus to the debris once ejected and stay focused on it till it touches down. Then if you wanted to actually get returned funds, it must have a control capable part attached (usually a probe body). I can't find a way around this and tutorials I have seen have been from a couple years back before the new aerodynamics system, so simply having a steep suborbital trajectory doesn't work so well for the ejected stage simply burns up. You might be able to help this with late tech larger heat shields but you're kind of stuck early in your career. QUESTIONS (read dot points below questions for further explanation) What is the point of having settings in the menu like "Max Persistent Debris" and "Tidy up debris cluttering KSC"? It seems to me that the majority of debris will be generated by launch vehicles and spent stages, which are likely to be left in atmosphere or a suborbital trajectory and thus they are going to be cleaned up by this umbrella system anyway. Could this umbrella system be a tweak-able option like the 2 listed above? Leave this option to the discretion of the user depending on the capabilities of their gaming system. Any ideas on how to recover stages early in career? CONCLUSION It just seems silly to me that you need to leave your craft effectively uncontrolled for the sake of guiding 'debris' back to the surface. Although I understand the idea of making sure the game is running as efficiently as possible, it seems to me that the 2 tweak-able options in the settings are there for that purpose but allow more user control. This umbrella system just seems more restrictive to me but please share your thoughts and ideas.
  6. HELLO ALL This "1 Station 1 Rocket" Idea is essentially the concept of using 1 booster stage that you may not recover by going into the VAB or SPH again. LEADERBOARD: to put a space station into an orbit of any altitude. Station MUST be 3 modules or more, each module must (tbd) contain it's own probe, batteries, it's own way to generate power and must be 1.25m and be a fair size, just... Honor code people, no cheeky .625m Oscar B sized modules. STEPS: - Build a booster stage to get the payload to a point where it can use it's onboard engines to boost it to orbit - Build a fuel truck to refuel the rocket after landing the booster - Build a crane to put the module on the rocket Put the module on the booster however necessary - Pack enough fuel in the modules to assemble a space station using only one rocket ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARD MODE: 1 Moon base 1 Rocket STEPS: - Same thing as station except put it on the moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCORING: I will keep a leaderboard of the scores, essentially you will be rated as to the mass of the station and rocket (KGs) minus the cost in funds (station and rocket), just so we have a cheap but large space station. (If you have a better idea plz comment)
  7. Previously I've tried to launch a SSTO but to no avail: you just can't seem to do that with low-tier tech. So I've decided to approach the problem with a different solution: a spaceplane on top of a reusable first stage. The design will be similar in concept to Dyna-Soar and Boeing X37-B.
  8. So after successfully reusing a medium booster to deliver smaller payloads to LKO, I set out to build a bigger, heavier and more capable reusable booster. Here is the result.
  9. Decided to make some stock reusable boosters. The result was actually pretty cool, ended up with 3 different versions. Check it out!
  10. We have many challenges about reusable, single-staged, and/or airbreathing vehicles. This one is about the viability of reusable multistage transport on a non-atmospheric body, the Mun. Create a lander consisting of two parts A and B. Part A must hold one or more kerbals, all in pressurized modules. Part B must contain some fuel and at least one engine. Neither A nor B may disassemble themselves any further. There are two ways to perform the mission, "ascent first" and "descent first". Ascent first: Launch from the Mun. While suborbital, detach part B and have it land back at the launch site. Reach a 10-km circular orbit with A. Demonstrate reusability by landing A at B's location and docking the parts back together. Descent first: Deorbit your lander from 10 km over the Mun. Detach B and have it reach a stable orbit. Land with A. Demonstrate reusability by taking A to a rendezvous with B and docking the parts back together. Screenshots of the following are required: initial orbit, if Descent first craft's initial mass situation just before splitting the craft part A after circularizing or landing part B after landing or circularizing craft's final state after docking final orbit, if Descent first Your score is the whole lander's full mass (tons) divided by the number of kerbals transported. Lower is better. No refuelling, teleporting or cheat menus during the mission. Information mods are allowed, active autopilots are not. Only stock parts or their equivalent rescales. My attempt: Leaderboard 1. SchweinAero: 1 kerbal, 1.76t, score 1.76