Jestersage

I think it depends on what one mean by "building a craft". The fact that you can store probe cores (or even command pod as stated) means if you just want to cobble a relay sat (which really just need a probe core, a relay antenna, power source, battery, and maybe engine + fuel tank), you can do it. The question rather becomes when would it be better (outside of fun factor) to send parts up and assemble, instead of just sending modules.

To everyone's recollection, aside from those in 60's (Apollo, N1-LK, LK700), are there any other single launch-stack lunar missions? (not direct ascent, just single launch stack) Specifically, during the numerous revisions from Constellations and Side projects (eg DIRECT and Jupiter rockets), were there any launch profile that just need one launch to the moon?

However, it does not intersect other parts. In fact, it doesn't even attach to any parts (except the originating part) Okay, I don't know WHAT actually cause it, but I found that it could be due to merging a craft A to craft b before I set up the change; when I go the other way (craft b to craft a), fuel line works fine.

I was trying to update an existing a rocket with n asparagus stage, and decide to go with good old fashioned fuel pipes. What I found weird is that in the existing craft, I cannot attach a fuel pipe going from the outside tank to the inside tank. This forces me to make a replication of the stage as a seperate craft (in which case I can attach the fuel line from outer tanks to the center tank) and merge it to the old craft. Does anyone know what settings etc may cause it?

Use the unofficial 1.9.0.3 EVE: https://github.com/R-T-B/EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements/releases I thought he made a 1.9.0.5, but not sure where it went.

So the bulkheadProfiles not only matter for the actual attach point, but also the klaw itself? (I mean from a programing PoV, what make it large port is the stat that is loaded)

I was checking the text-compare of the part.cfg (AGU) to the smallclaw.cfg (AGU jr), and found that except for the mass, node attach value (second value, 0 vs -0.06) and bulkheadProfiles (size1 vs size0), and of course Mesh/variants values, I do not see any difference. In that case, aside form looks, are there any thing that differ the AGU jr from the standard AGU in terms of grip strength, mass/volume it can hold etc?

Oh okay. Was trying to design one for myself, and I ended up looking at Raptor9's Scout-outrider clone for reference and inspiration, but of course he used quite a bit of fuel in his design (but no fuel in the lander). Of course, I feel like he purposely combined both Galileo (namely, the solid state trasnfer stage) and Cassini into one mission Going to try it regardless. EDIT: Michal.Don replied back. Gonna do some test with the different fuel amount -- if I can get a badge out of it that's a bonus, but more interested in a Jool probe myself.

Question: May I ask why the Cassini-Huygen challenge have the restrain of "a single R-12 "Doughnut" (left) for the Cassini probe and a single "Oskar-B" (right) fuel tank for the Huygens lander"? Specifically: 1) Why the fuel limitation? 2) Why there's even fuel on the Huygen? To my understanding, Regardless of Galileo atmospheric probe or the Huygen, the lander does not have thrusters for deorbit landing, but instead realy on Cassini for trajectory, and use parachutes?

I just realized I had not visited my own forum page for a long time. Anyway, my newest creation is "Talaria" mini shuttle, mounted on top of Ariane 5. In short, an ESA Hermes clone As stated in the page, I changed the stock Ariane 5 by removing the internal reaction wheel, as well as changing the mainsail for skipper not just for budget, but also its capability. In a way, this is the publishable form of one of my first builds. Start out as one of the side mounted mini shuttle built by a famous builder, as I gradually swap parts out and made it easier for me to fly while having a large enough cargo space, eventually none of the original's outline left.

Quick logistic question: if the challenge will only use https://kerbalx.com/sturmhauke/SAI-40t-Fuel-Pod, I am going to remove my revision. (It was made originally to account for the part-mass change due to the numerous reskins, and I needed a test for my shuttle.) EDIT: Removed. the new one have lower part count anyway.

So recently I noticed that loading some low part count craft (120) in the VAB induce frame rate drop occasionally. Is it due to game optimization, or should I run furmark to see what is wrong with my graphic card? Specific action: It was when toggling a Service Bay that is contained within a payload fairing i start to have frame rate drop. Does not have issue during flight Of the two other games I played, I have no issue with Apex, while Hyper Scape keep crashing once I landed. Spec: win 8.1 3930K 1070 (non ti) 64GB What I have done so far: Applied Windows update Installed newest GFX driver. Tested it without mods (only have Squad and Squad expansion folder) Mods: KER AVP and dependency, inclduing scatterer KerbalX Craft manager EDIT: This now become a request for second check. I realized it only happen if I open a payload bay, with context menu open... and I recall I had AeroGUI enabled. 1.10 somehow have permanent AeroGUI, but trying to run AeroGUI (which I guess meaning Physics) in VAB/SPH seems like a bad idea, especially parts that affect physics. Someone please confirm it's just AeroGUI in Context Menu of VAB that cause stuttering.

The problem with designing for self vs designing for publishing (and others to use)... Oh well. will have to think about it.

So I am building a spaceplane, and is currently debating how many mono-tanks -- and thus, how much parts -- should I actually have on it. I am looking at this, but the only answer that I can even find is at the end, implying about 5-10 unit of mono per ton with the desired payload. So what is the rule-of-thumb of monoprop amount, if one desired this ship to be able to dock to a station in LKO?

Incidentally, the adapter concept is actually used as a PMA

Okay, but what if I want to extend by crossrange/downrange? Does lift matter in that case?

I am trying to design a semi-shuttle (that is to say, horizontal atmospheric entry before using parachutes), and I am wondering how important is the lift capability of the wings. EDIT: In particular, it is about extending its crossrange and downrange All I know so far is to place the CoL behind the CoM.

Either some thing is wrong with the update, or this is not the variant added

There are 2 DLC released for KSP: MH = Making History, the first DLC. Contains 5m parts that allow Low-part-count builds of SaturnV/Apollo with accurate aesthetic BG = Braking Ground, the second DLC. Contain motor parts Due to there are DLC, there are no concerns whether an update to base game will break them, unlike mods such as Inferno Robotics (mod analogue to Breaking Ground) or BlueDog Design Bureau (mod analogue to making History that even I must admit is much better) Vanilla = no DLC guarnteed. Stock can mean either Base Game with any DLC, or no DLC

There are 2 kinds: Those that use DLC (namely MH, but possibly BG), and those that are vanilla. Unfortunately, both of My Saturn V require DLC.

This is not one of those CoD game where there need to be news every week/month.

Maybe you can upload it to kerbalX? Not everyone have Steam.

Do fan shroud provide benefits? If it does, assuming SPH orientation, does it matter if the pylon side face forward or not? Have anyone tried performance experiment by rotating the shroud along? Does it provide benefit in such case?

Those holes are caused by RCS thrusters?!

OPSEK (Russia), China Large Module Space Station (china), and various Commercial Space Station such as Axiom and etc. (US AFAIK have no plans for new space station)