ruiluth

I realize that I'm almost two years late to the party, but why did nothing ever come of this? Is there a chance that it still could? I'm doing my best trying to get it working with Wine, but it's been hours and it's still not. I and many others would be eternally grateful if @Eunomiac or anyone else could help make a native Linux version.

Since I don't see a lot of posts in this thread, I just want to put a couple cents' worth of HYPE somewhere around here to let you know that this mod is loved too! In fact, I think I probably use it more than NFT and KA combined. Thank you for all your hard work, I'll be eagerly awaiting the updates!

That's a good question, I haven't actually checked yet... I usually wait a few weeks after a major update, simply because I use so many of them that something is bound to break between updates and I can only get so far on one version. So far 1.2.2 has worked very well for me and I had a good career going when 1.3 came out... So I may or may not update any time soon. I just checked, and it looks like they've all been updated except for Nertea's suite of mods (Near Future Tech, Stockalike Station Parts Expansion, Kerbal Atomics, Cryogenic Engines), which happen to be my favorites and the only ones I can't live without. And I know that he's working on a major overhaul and rebalancing, so it's sure to break my save when he does. I might be convinced to abandon my current save and start over though... Not sure. It is going to be a huge pain to find out which mods I have installed and get them all back again though...

This cockpit is great for my low-g lander. Does it void the warranty to take it to space? Anyway, there's one part I'm really missing that I'd really like to have: an inline airlock so that my kerbals don't have to depressurize the cockpit every time they want to leave the ship. Something like the Mk I Passenger Door, except with a hatch instead of just a door, and it wouldn't need to be as long. Like the inline airlock from KPBS, but for planes and landers. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would have use for such a part...?

Well, here's my latest creation. The viewer pod from Airplane Plus makes a great horizontal lander cockpit. This one has a docking port on the back, which means no room for an airlock, which means the cockpit has to serve as one. I'm thinking that an inline airlock like the one from KPBS would be perfect, sort of like the inline shielded docking port but an airlock instead. Kerbals could enter and exit from the sides no matter what crew parts you were using, and I could still have my docking port at the back. It would also work very well with plane designs in which you don't want passengers climbing through the cockpit to get out. I'd make it but I don't know how to model in 3d. Maybe someone else could?

Darn, I guess I can't use this mod then

Alright, I know I'm not the only one making landers like this: I love building landers using the 1.25m crew tank horizontally. However, it's really hard! It's difficult to attach propulsion systems without blocking the doors, and even moreso for the windows. There are no hatches either. Reentry is a huge pain. Am I the only one who wishes there was a better part for this? Some kind of horizontal lander part with more attachment nodes and a better hatch system? Maybe one that holds 3 kerbals? Does anyone already make one? If so, who? If not, would someone? Please?

I'll get on the hype train, and contribute some hype coal of my own: Once they've done the Localization Pack, they'll never have to do it again because it'll be done and 1.4 can be other stuff! Personally I'm all for getting basic stuff like this out of the way as early as possible, because it makes the base game more versatile and robust and gives modders more freedom earlier. Hype hype hype!

It seems that this is the solution to many problems, but where is the information on this? I never found it in any of my research and I can't find it now. Could someone help me with that? EDIT: Never mind, I checked the KSPedia and it was briefly mentioned there. I never check the KSPedia since I learned everything I needed to know before it was added. It would be a good idea to include that information somewhere else, I think...

That's exactly why I was hoping to get some help with this mod, and so grateful that I did! MKS is so much more interesting. Thanks to everyone who gave advice, I'll try putting it into practice tomorrow and report back, hopefully with more success!

I need some help. After literally days of research, I thought I had finally gotten to the point where I could work on setting up a kolony. This is what I ended up with: I dropped a shipping container with base parts, then landed the crew shuttle next to it and assembled the parts I had sent: the ball, an airlock, a lab, and an emergency shelter. I had so many problems during this process: The ball kept tipping over onto the shelter, which was the heaviest module, and when I expanded it it flipped up into the air. What you see is the result of a particularly lucky flip that landed right side up. The modules are too large to put in the kerbal's inventory, and therefore must be placed on the ground and leapfrogged to their destination. The airlock kept sinking into the ground and exploding when I tried to do this. These modules are extremely difficult to transport, especially the ones that require multiple kerbals to move due to weight. I brought an extra ball thinking it might add stability, but the crew tubes are so large that I couldn't fit a single one into the container. How are you supposed to get those there, or are you supposed to build them on site? Or are you just supposed to use the flex-o-tube instead? KAS struts like it seem to always cause hopping and clipping into terrain for me. When I transferred crew inside the base, their inventories apparently disappeared. Not sure if this is a bug with KIS but it usually works with other parts. The upshot of this is that the screwdriver I was using to put everything together is gone. I really like this mod and I've done everything I can to learn as much as possible about it, but this is just too tedious and glitchy. I can't kolonize the solar system like this. Am I doing something wrong, or do most people just put up with this? Should I be landing Duna modules in self-contained packages that aren't connected by anything, instead, and just using logistics to make it work together? This page does not seem to suggest that. I've found plenty of explanation for how the various modules interact, how to set up supply chains, that kind of thing, but I can't find any information about how I'm supposed to actually physically set up the modules. Everything I could find on the github wiki suggested that this was the correct way to do it, but at this point I'm really hoping it's not, because I'm about ready to just uninstall this mod and kolonize using KPBS or something instead. Thank you to anyone who can help.

That's a great point. I could probably reduce the number of reactors significantly by using more batteries and/or capacitors. Solar panels aren't an option for anywhere beyond Duna, and since Jool is my primary destination for these ships, some kind of reactor is going to have to suffice. Obviously, a uranium mine somewhere in the Kerbin system would probably lower costs immensely... Oh, I know what it is. I'm not using the patch that makes the NTRs have reactor cores themselves. If they required uranium too then they'd be a lot more expensive. That's probably a large part of it. I'll try it with that enabled and report back. EDIT: It seems that that patch makes the engines themselves cost 0, so the only cost you're paying is for the EnrichedUranium. That's probably an oversight... but it does seem like the NTRs are the ones that should be tweaked for balance.

I'd like to chime in about the balance of the MPDT. I really love them, both the concept of a high-thrust electric engine and the beautiful engine FX, but I just can't bring myself to use them. I built two test ships with something like a 17t payload to test them: My MPDT-powered ship, which used two of the largest MPD...Es and 3 FLAT reactors, had 10.7 km/s of dV, a TWR from 0.53-0.71, and costed 1.7M funds. My Kerbal Atomics ship, which used a Liberator and one of the 0.625m Stirling reactors to cool the LH2, had 10.5 km/s of dV, a TWR from 0.89-1.71, and costed 130K funds. I realize that an CCGC NTR is a lot more futuristic than a big MPDT, but the difference here is extreme, especially considering that they occupy similar levels in the Community Tech Tree. I'm not sure what to suggest, but something seems wrong here so I thought I'd at least throw it out for consideration. BTW, thanks so much @Nertea for making these mods, especially Station Parts Expansion. They're high on my list of mods I can't play without

I agree with this, and I'll add that it's really easy to extend home time in a multi-kerbal ship just by moving them all out and having them inhabit it one by one to get the maximum effect. The habitation mechanic is one of my favorite things in any mod ever since it forces me to build awesome giant interplanetary cruisers but at this point it is more of a roleplaying guideline than a mechanical requirement, since it's so easy to get around.

I've observed something similar. My Jool-III ship, on a mission to Duna, had enough hab space for 4 kerbals for 6 years. When I first launched it, they had 6 years of hab time and 8 years of home time. That was a little weird but it was okay. It got weird when I undocked the 3-person lander to descend to Duna and visit Ike. Jeb, Bill, and Bob had 15 days of hab time and 7 years of home time as I expected after a year-long voyage, but Valentina, who now had command of a much larger ship, jumped up to 42 years of hab time and 43 years of home time. When the lander came back, Jeb, Bill, and Bob reset to the same amount of time they had at the beginning: 6 years of hab and 8 years of home. Valentina was really weird, with 5 years of hab time and 43 years of home time. I'm not sure if this is even fixable or should be changed, but the point is that really weird things happen with hab time sometimes and that seems to be normal.

Just wanted to put this here to follow up on my complaint and say that I've figured everything out and I'm a happy space camper once again. This is the Jool-IV, seen here in life-support testing on the launchpad. She carries enough life support and living space to support her crew of 3 (1 pilot, 2 scientists) for almost 20 years. She has a dry mass of 106 tons and a wet mass of 206 tons. She can generate 9600 m/s of dV with her twin LV-N-GE 'Liberators'. Her predecessor the Jool III is very similar but on a shorter-duration mission to Duna and Ike. The Jool-IV is intended to travel to Moho and park there while it milks all the science from the planet. Major contractors include USI and Near Future Technologies for the ship, and KW Rocketry for the launcher. This is the kind of complexity and awesomeness I expect from designing manned missions. What I'm saying is, thank you @RoverDude for this amazing mod and I'm once again firmly seated on the bandwagon! EDIT: This thing costed a million funds to launch with 5m parts from KW Rocketry but it has 12,000 m/s dV so that's cool ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

This is my first time using this mod, and I like it so far. However, I've found one thing that seems really strange to me. When you click the "Fill" button next to a tank in flight view, rather than transferring resources out of other tanks into this one (like I thought it would), it simply magically fills the tank with free fuel, increasing the total mass of the ship. ...Is this intended behavior? I'm not above cheating on occasion and this might be useful, but that is not what I was expecting and one of my ships has a different amount of fuel than it should now. If it is, is there an option to disable it? Anyway, other than that, great mod and a worthwhile install. Thanks!

Thank you so much! This is exactly what I was looking for. This should definitely be on the wiki, thanks @dboi88! I apologize, you're right, I probably should have thought that over a bit more before I posted it. It was late and I was frustrated and it's easy to say mean things on the internet. I really do appreciate all the work you do and your generous attitude towards the community. I'm definitely going to give these mods another chance and try to learn how they work this time. Sorry again...

Am I the only one trying to build spaceships with greenhouses on them? No one seems to be talking about how the Nom-O-Matics are only producing a fraction of what they used to produce. The 25000-I, the gigantic one, can't even support two kerbals. I wanted to do a Duna mission but that's gonna be really difficult without greenhouses. I know there were changed made to them recently, but I thought those were reverted? And if this is intended, then what am I supposed to use for extending my supply of supplies? EDIT: I've been reading everything I can find on the subject. Just when I thought I had finally gotten the hang of MKS in 1.1.3, the entire system changes and all the converters work totally differently. Not to be dramatic or salty or anything, but I'm just gonna delete my entire USI folder because this is just too ridiculously complicated and inconsistent. If someone can explain that it's much simpler than it looks and it's actually doable, I might reconsider, but this news that the old greenhouses no longer work and the new ones don't even show their stats and are enormous is too much to handle. Which means that there really is no good life support mod out there anymore... which means that manned missions just lost 90% of their interest. Which means that KSP just lost 99% of its interest... Guess I'll have to play some other game til someone finds a way to fix this mess. Roverdude, I respect you a lot and greatly appreciate all the work you do, but why did you change everything up? It seems like software developers are constantly changing things just for the sake of change. It seems like every app on my phone get a new interface every year and Google ones every 6 months. Why can't we just find something that works and stick with it?

My testing indicates that there's actually very little difference between the "rapierspike" and just a regular rapier. How did you test it?

If you send me what you have and explain what clarinet music looks like I think I could put something together for you.

Just what I remember from high school and a bit of Google although high school wasn't very long ago for me and I enjoyed it. I wonder if @Cydonian Monk would be willing to put the story up (or let someone else do it) on an external site so it's easier to read just the story? Maybe a Google doc or some fanfiction site or something. I know for me it was a bit difficult navigating this thread to find the story posts when I found it.

I love these forums and this thread, we have such fun conversations *rolls up sleeves* Okay, so the first thing to do is figure out how much energy is released in the combustion. Before, I had CH3CN +O2 = HCN + CO + H2O. The structure of a molecule of acetonitrile is like this: So we have 3 C-H bonds, 1 C-C bond, and one C≡N bond. The total energy of these bonds in 1 mole of CH3CN is 3(413) + 347 + 891 = 2477 kJ/mole. O2 has 495 kJ/mole. Hydrogen cyanide is like this: Here we have 413+891 = 1304 kJ/mole. H2O has 2(467) = 934 kJ/mole. CO is a special case and has 1072 kJ/mole. So we have: CH3CN = 2477 kJ/mole O2 = 495 kJ/mole HCN = 1304 kJ/mole CO = 1072 kJ/mole H2O = 934 kJ/mole Total energy of reactants: 2972 kJ/mole Total energy of products: 3310 kJ/mole Uh oh! Our change in enthalpy is +338 kJ/mole. That means that this reaction actually absorbs more energy than it releases. So it will not actually produce any energy at all and in fact if water, carbon monoxide, and cyanide are combined, they're more likely to produce acetonitrile and oxygen than the other way around. Since water is present in the air, I think it's safe to say that if there is carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide present in any exhaust, it will not be present in large quantities for long because it will mix with water and oxygen in the air to form much less dangerous compounds. New conclusion: the plane uses some other form of propulsion and the reason that there's cyanide and carbon monoxide in the exhaust is because it was placed there to seed the atmosphere with poison for nefarious reasons!

Unfortunately, according to this document, on page 8, the products of propane combusting with nitrous oxide "consist mainly of nitrogen, water, and carbon dioxide." This is because chemical reactions tend to favor the lowest entropic state they can find. HCN is a more complex molecule than N2 or CO2, so the atoms in the reaction will not form it unless there are no less-complex molecules they could form. Because of this, I think what we need is something with only one nitrogen. If it can't form N2, it'll have to form N-something, and if we can balance it right, that'll be HCN. The best way to find out what reactions will result in this to find how HCN is actually formed. A quick google search shows that sometimes in house fires it can be formed when household products containing nitrogen burn with the air. Digging a little deeper, I found that CH3CN is a combustible molecule containing only one N. Better yet (for our nefarious purposes), according to this document it actually produces HCN and CO2 when it burns. That document describes in detail the various reactions that take place and three "zones" inside the flame, but I think for out purposes, fueling a rocket with acetonitrile (which happens to be liquid at room temperature and therefore suitable for fuel), we could get CH3CN + O2 = HCN + CO + H2O. Since CO and H2O have low entropy, there is little chance of this reaction producing large quantities of other products. So, if we mixed acetonitrile and oxygen at approximately similar stochiometric quantities, we would get the required products, cyanide and carbon monoxide. To find the correct ratio, we can use the molar masses and densities of each substance to find that for each liter of acetonitrile we pumped into the engine, we'd need approximately 459 liters of O2 at 20oC, or 2190 liters of air. The nitrogen in the air might mess with our stochiometry though so this was probably a rocket plane! Conclusion: This was a rocket plane running on acetonitrile and LOX.

Today I sent a six-part craft to Duna and Ike which had two mapping probes for each, a lander for ike, and the transfer stage had a big relay. Mission was a total success, although bad timing on a couple burns meant I had to waste fuel rescheduling them to occur within radio contact.