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.

Laythe's proximity to Jool. The tidal effect is much, much higher than on Earth.

Mathematically it "only" needs to be x11 more dense, following the /11 smaller radius. Earth's density is 5.5 g/cm³, hence Kerbin only needs 60.5 g/cm³. This could be attainable if the core of Kerbin consisted of a superheavy synthetic element, like Unbihexium.

11.34 grams per cm³. Wait a minute. Oh. How embarrassing. LOL! I forgot the 0s. 100x100x15 = 150,000 cm³. Herpaderp. I considered having an exploration submarine, but didn't apply the concept to the whole habitat. Looks like I'm adjusting dry masses a bit. The question is, how would you move a submarine with >600 m³ internal volume, let alone the water pressures acting on it (the water pressure would be a lot more inconsistent if Jool has realistic tidal effects on Laythe), as you'd need to submerge quite the bit in order to have maximum effect from the ocean shielding. You'd also need a form of anti-beaching mechanism, due to the tidal forces.

This thread is meant to be a massive discussion, as I like to watch people be creative with the weirdest challenges. (You can be creative as you like, although below I will dissect Laythe's situation. Like using its oceans, you could always just fly in the water from Kerbin.) As a given, there's only a few things: Laythe is trapped in Jool's radiation zone, meaning you're adding some lead onto the base. Say this lead is 15cm applique to the surface of the module you're thinking of. This dictates the lead weight wL as being surface area in m² * 0.15 * 11.34. So if I had a 1 m² tile of protective cover, it would weigh 100x100x15x11.34, or 1,701,000 grams. Thats nearly 2 tons of radiation shielding per m² of surface area! Hence you take the surface area m² * 1,701 to yield your lead weight. Laythe has oxygen in its atmosphere, this can be utilized through deionization and radiation filtering, at massive electrical costs. Laythe has water in its oceans (presumably, considering the oxygen). Through similar treatment, this water could be harnessed to supply the Kerbals. It still costs megawatts. To increase self-sufficiency, one could bring plants. These would require (based on distance) the plants to have x5.2 more leaf surface area, to function like on Kerbin. Laythe has relatively little land, requiring precision piloting. Using these factors, out of pure curiosity, I designed my own base, but I want to compare it to other bases (using lots of lead, once my math was checked ). After mathematical correction of weight, it appears as if I can ditch this thought process for good and buy an excavator. The base consists of multiple buildings: Kerbal Living Quarters (x2 lead protection). This houses 30 Kerbs in a cylindrical building. Using the Hitchhiker as my source data to base off of: 2x2x2 (cube-ified) for 4 Kerbals. Hence 8 to 4 as x to 30. x is 60. This means 1 Kerbal requires 2 m³ of space to live in. Considering the Hitchhikers surface area, 56.3 m², all I need to do is take this times 7.5, as total surface area doesn't change, despite changes to r and h. This gives me 422,25 m² of surface area to cover, hence 717,825 kilograms or 717.83 tons of lead. I only elaborated on the additional weight here to stress how much of a factor it is. The hitchhiker doesn't have much weight to stand up to this colossus. Utility Building Alpha. This is the storage building for processed water and air, as well as reprocessing of waste water and atmosphere. It is not accessible, however still requires protection to keep the water and air at acceptable radiation levels. Lets say its outside is a duplicate of the Kerbal Living Quarters, giving 717 tons of protection. This time, the lead mass is substantially lower because of the increased dry weight. Lets make the UBA (which has 188.5 m³ of volume) weigh 4 tons before lead application. This makes the percentage of lead drop to 14.8% of its total dry weight.Or, in adjusted weight, it still doesn't compare. Utility Building Beta. This is the acquisition facility. It produces breathable air and drinkable water, at the cost of lots of tower. Lets twin this building to the UBA, but inverse its radius and height, making this one a bit flatter than the other two. It retains its 188.3 m³ of volume, however at 10 tons dry mass, to facilitate all of the processing equipment. Using extendable/deployable air ducts and water pipes, its surface area is increased substantially, by (say arbitrarily) 15%. This yields 717*1.15 or 824,55 kg of lead. This is just 8.25% of the total dry mass now.Still doesn't compare. Science House. As the name says, this is where science occurs. Given its duties, it has lots of interior space for Kerbals, reducing dry weight. In addition to this, the atmosphere of Laythe is analyzed here with a spectrometer and Jool's atmospheric behavior with a telescope. This means more lead. Power House. I choose to use a nuclear reactor for this, which is basically 110% lead anyway. The goal behind my thread here is a study of initial dry mass launched to Laythe, and then following supplements of Food or return-capsules. Lets say Laythe isn't a volcanic hell on top of the irradiated hell Oh and I'm coming up with a new idea, this thought never would've made the forum post if it weren't for me messing up zeros and thinking with much different numbers.

You need to try Osmium, it weighs in at 22.62 g/cm³. The densest element mankind knows of. Maybe Laythe has a gravitational artifact.

Another Austrian joins the ranks of the Kerbal Space Program. Most excellent my child. Ich kann auch deutsch sprechen, aber nicht schreiben weil ich in Amerika gelebt habe

Well, given my explanation it can still provide for nuclear fusion, despite there being no serious math behind it. I am quite aware of nuclear physics and its obvious that such a body cannot sustain fusion and would most likely just float about space as a rotating mass of gas.

I suppose my Jumbo tank with 2 docking ports and mechjeb as the pod have become way too overrated...

So, our given scenario is that a planet is being formed in an accretion disk containing many colliding bodies. Lets have look: From a game mechanical point of view, you will have to define what metals the colliding bodies are made of (in percentages, or wholesale, whatever fits your needs). The problem with colliding objects originates from angle of impact, mass and relative velocity (given M2 is always the approaching body): relative velocity Vr = 5 m/s and angle of impact θ = 0° and both bodies M1 and M2 have 50 kg mass then Only conservation of momentum will occur, as the angle 0° states the body to becoming from behind and gently pushing the other body. Think of it as billiards. Vr = 500 m/s and θ = 180° maintaining M1 = M2 = 50 kg then The bodies will smash into each other in a frontal collision, this results in M3 at a mass of ~ 66 kg and ejected mass M4 of ~33 kg (using your fractions, which are logical and approximate). Vr = 1000 m/s and θ = 0° at M1 = 100 kg and M2 = 50 kg then Once again conversation of momentum will occur, however, this time significant mass of M2 will be transferred to M1 (now 125 kg), which ejects mass M4 (~16 kg) creating mass M3 (formerly M1) at 109 kg and mass M5 (formerly M2) of barely 25 kg. M3 will be moving at around 500 m/s faster now. Vr = 50 m/s and θ = 90° at M1 = M2 = 50 kg then They are colliding at a right angle, meaning M3 will have a mass of about 33 kg, which is created by the collision of M1 and M2 and flying off at a 45° angle. M4 is the ejected mass consisting of the remaining 66 kg, which wasn't compacted into M3 or launched into its direction. Vr = 1000 m/s and θ = 90° at M1 = 1000 kg and M2 = 100 kg then They are colliding at a right angle, and M2 is completely consumed forming M3 (M4 is negligible this time), which is however flying off from its original trajectory by ~9° due to the impacting force. Given you can extract this information from the simulation itself, you only need to do some math (I could help with it). English Geology/Planetology: A rocky planetoid consists of several layers, namely crust, mantle, and the core. This can be differentiated into multiple different sub-layers: Earth's core consists of the solid inner core and the molten outer core. The Moon's core consists of only the solid cold core, not molten. The crust is usually defined as the region on the surface of the planet, Earth's being around 75 km deep. This surface is the most exposed to the cosmos. The crust can be reshaping constantly: Earth's crust is recycled in a 4 billion year cycle due to tectonic movement, causing earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The mantle is the region between the crust and the core, and in the case of the Earth, the mantle is mostly solid and the place where tectonic plates are molten and born (being consumed by the mantle or pushed out of the mantle). In contrast, the Moon's mantle is solid and cold. Adding on to this, many rocky worlds with significant gravity and (usually) a magnetic field an posses a gaseous layer, the atmosphere. Earth is able to do this despite its proximity to the Sun (magnetic field and high gravity). Venus also has an atmosphere, despite it being closer to the Sun and having a lower gravity. Venus only manages to retain this atmosphere because it consists of 96% carbon dioxide, a gas too heavy for the solar wind to effectively sweep away into space. Mars, however, also has a mainly carbon dioxide atmosphere, but due to its low gravity (38% of Earth's), the solar wind doesn't have to work hard to strip away Mars' atmosphere. On the contrary, gaseous worlds (like Jupiter), accreted more hydrogen and helium than heavier elements, resulting in them having huge atmospheres when compared to their solid cores. Jupiter consists mainly of hydrogen 75% and helium 24%. While this results in a much lower density than Earth's, the gravity is still higher due to the mass. Gaseous worlds still feature a mantle and core, however, usually the mantle and the core are the same thing, meaning they have a solid core simply due to the atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric development can be triggered by a variety of conditions. Earth and Venus contrast very well here: Earth used to have an atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide, however, once life evolved due to thunderstorms and hydrocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment), it used its surroundings to benefit itself: As we know, plants absorb CO2 and H2O (carbon dioxide and water) as well as sunlight in order to produce molecular oxygen. This is one fundamental building block for any planet to sustain animals, which do not produce O2 anymore but consume O2, producing CO2, creating a closed carbon cycle. Before plants however, chemoautotrophs ruled the planet, which don't require sunlight in order to produce O2 as a by-product. These organisms (now rare and located at deep sea vents, highly toxic to most organisms, but not these microbes) are the root for all life on Earth, being not only the first, but also those to set the stage for later organisms. Through billions of years time, the Earths atmosphere went from being highly toxic (containing CO2 and H2S) to containing more and more oxygen, which eventually made it safe to populate the continents with life (as water is a very good radiation shield, and before 3.5 billion years ago, the Earth had no magnetosphere and hence the continents were all radioactive hells which could kill you fairly quickly, not to mention the temperature.) The evolution into plants paved the way for animals to live without having chlorophyll themselves (some microbes were mobile, possessing flagella, but retaining chlorophyll despite their heterotrophic nature.) Earth's CO2 accreted with the planet, similar to Venus'. However, on Venus, a runaway greenhouse effect was produced, which resulted in the water there being vaporized and stripped away by the solar wind. Venus has always had a surface temperature too high to sustain life, which contributed to the runaway greenhouse.

cheat engine 6.1 or hyperedit...