MrZayas1

Hmm, I just strut my stuff up anyway, the update adding added part strength did nothing to me. I am not fased, all my rockets still look like a bunch of boosters and engines with strings attached to the It beefs up the part count tremendously the way I build rockets, especially when I first tried building them, the rockets would be like 400 parts, pluss like 100 struts XD

I built the Voidwalker as an entry for a youtube series, and I haven't heard anything back so I will put it on here for funziez! It is pretty versatile, it has air breathing engines for VTOL and forward flight, and it has Nukes for interplanetary travel. Along with Aerospikes for VTOLS and things. Hope you guys like it, it is around 300 parts, but it is mostly meant to be a space farer, not really an atmospheric plane but fly it how you like. (PS strange glitch with VTOL jet engines, they tend to make the spacecraft flip only when taking off from land, it is very strange.) Considering how long this took me to build, and finding out the kinks, I managed to land on the moon on one tank of gas. The .craft file is for the VAB so you have a launcher that gives you plenty of deltaV to get you where you need to go. I ended up just putting the spacecraft on a 100km orbit, and taking it on a test run. It performed all of the burns necessary to get to the mun and enter orbit, and it landed using the nukes to slow down originally, and the VTOL aerospikes to land. It was a very fun craft to design due to a lot of cramming inside the fuselage so it can get all of it's necessary things such as RCS and torque. Again, thanks for checking it out (if you do) and hope you enjoy using it, I have only went to the moon because it takes FOREVER on my computer due to like 3-4 fps due to the parts! (P.P.S Try using it as a space tug, its not covered in the warranty but I realized it might be good purpose, along with crew transport.) And make sure you use the parachutes ONLY in conjunction with VTOL engines, when the chutes open at <90m/s on kerbin they ripped the thing into peices, just warning you Dropbox link:https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf6w89j1481xuqo/AstroMekanix%20Voidwalker%20Shuttle.craft?dl=0

Are you using Steam or just the normal KSP installer?

Lol anyone see my post yet?? Last one on pg 107

So I saw this thread today and I have decided to participate. I made a Logistics vehicle, maybe an interplanetary shuttle. Depends on if you have space stations with fuel perhaps but I am sure that won't be too much of a problem. It is called the Voidwalker. Hope you enjoy and if you decide to use this let me know! The shuttle comes with a pretty nice launch system, and has plenty enough fuel to launch pretty far into space just using the launch stage if you are tight on fuel. I like it's design, it's the first time I have tried using many different kinds of engines, and I combined the aerospike and the turbojet and they both seem to function perfectly together! It was a cool find Again hope you like it, It's main purpose is crew transport so if you have to have station refills then this could certainly be a viable option. The plane itself is like 300 parts so don't freak out over the large amount of parts with the launch stage! You might even be able to put something slender on the back of the spacecraft and use it as a people + a little bit of fuel tug! (Not tested)After I posted this I took it on a spin. Using HyperEdit (not cheating) I placed just the spacecraft on a 100KM orbit, only the spacecraft, not the launch stage (which would have given it more fuel) and decided to take it for a spin. I wanted to see if it could land on the moon, and surprise surprise, I went to the moon landed on it, and returned to kerbin on a single tank of gas. It was a rather slow experience, and I'm sure it probably would have turned out better if it wasn't laggy but you know what can you do. So, on it's own, a rough guesstimate on it's deltaV could be anywhere from 1000m/s (using aerospikes constantly) to probably around 1600-2000m/s (Using NERVAS) So, it probably could go to Jool if you entered an encounter straight from launch using the LS, so I think I did a pretty good job. Obviously, if it could land on the moon, it could land on Minmus. The Reentry was actually perfectly stable, I pitched the craft up to about 35 degrees above horizon and it stayed there through reentry. (With SAS)I ended up not having fuel in my VTOL jet engines because of the way the pumps are placed, but I still had fuel for NERVAS. Just remember that the parachutes' jobs are to alleviate fuel consumption by VTOL Jets, and the VTOL jets are meant to slow your descent to around 40-60m/s before parachutes open in Kerbins atmo. Any more than that and the parachutes will rip the spacecraft apart on opening. (P.S I used the VTOL Aerospikes to land on Mun. And a description of the aircraft is in the popup window below it in game.) Action Groups: 1: Aerospike Engines (Forward) 2: Turbojet Engines 3: Vtol Jet engines 4: Vtol Aerospikes 5: Toggle Landing Struts 6: Toggle Landing Gear 7: Toggle Solar Panels 8: Toggle Strut Lock 9: Toggle Nuclear Engines Here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf6w89j1481xuqo/AstroMekanix%20Voidwalker%20Shuttle.craft?dl=0

Probably would not be able to build the cubesat in time but a new thread just popped up on the forums about a NASA launch in 2017 on the SLS for a solar sail probe to the moon to map for water near the poles of the moon. Maybe we could hitch a ride?? I mean, I am sure that a whole SLS launch will have some space left over, but since we aren't just dropping it into an orbit we will probably need an engine to land the probe on the moon to test the moss for gravitational effects. If I understand our goals correctly with this. Other than that maybe one of the future missions to mars we can hitch a ride onto also if we want to build the same cubesat for a Mars mission. Just a thought though.

I personally believe that if we are going to do something meaningful with a cubesat, we should send it to phobos, and land on it we would probably need a bigger budget, and even might have a sample analyzer on board like the one on the curiosity rover, but it sounds like it would be a groundbreaking feat for any community who is not "officially" part of space exploration don't you think? hope this happens tho phobos or not!

What really sucks is me and my father were IN cape canaveral to go to the space center, and the best thing was that we were going to watch the launch when it was scheduled for the 14th of June, so he was pretty depressed that the people at SpaceX had to postpone the launch for engine failure, but I had a martial arts tournament to go to so instead we saw St. Augustine on our way up to the panhandle

Today I was playing around with Ferram Aerospace and decided to try and build a small chain of SSTO's for fun. Here's the pictures of them. The first few pictures are of a kerbin-circumnavigating plane; cruising altitude 13km at around 900 m/s. The other SSTOs range from Mk1 being the least delta V to Mk3 which landed on Minmus. Hope you guys like them!

I just wanted to know, I do realize that this may not be important with the fact that there is no money or resource gathering in kerbal space program, but how many, or if any of you, use the turbojet engines in order to lift yourself out of the thicker parts of the atmosphere, I recently used this in one of my small payloads to fly a kerbol exploration probe out into space. http://i.imgur.com/qdqyHob.png' alt='qdqyHob.png'> It worked pretty well and used hardly any fuel, even though they have almost as much thrust as the LV-T45 engine, and you can use them up to around 27-35km in the atmosphere!

It would most definitely be a problem, because if you are moving from a body that isn't moving in space (not counting orbital movement) to one that is indeed moving, it's like walking in front of train tracks, because it is moving and you are not. Basically what happens is you either end up with a concussion, or a big red splat on the wall if it is moving fast enough.

I think that instead, the core should be stationary, having an arm that begins to rotate with people inside it to match velocities with the rotating section, meet up with the docking ports, and align itself so you can go into the spinning module. If like you said the ship docked onto the core, and it began to spin, the extra mass offsets it's center and it would begin gyrating wildly undoubtedly tearing the station apart

I think that maybe if there was a spinning portion of a station there would be a central column that is magnetically connected to the station, but not rotating to dock space craft, then there would be an airlock around it, that would wait until passengers press a button or something, and match rotational velocity with the station, and allow for transfer of crew in and out of the spinning lab. That's how I would envision it But the fact that it is spinning would make things need a little bit of power, to start the station up and keep it rotating. Things like magnetic friction might also come into effect because of the fact that sometimes magnets slow eachother down. We would have to talk to some scientists about it but sure that eventually we could create such a rotating station.

We live in florida, check out the weather channel you will see a giant storm above us right now! The street in front of our house is flooded over, this is a first for me and my family, but the storm should be over in at maximum 3-5 hours. Pray for us! I don't like the idea of having water in my house!

The question is not whether the rocket is reliable for this reason: Science does not indicate to us that a reaction is 100% controllable. Even the most expensive and powerful manufacturing computers have flaws sometimes, and rockets are the same way. When you create a reaction in a tube, with tons of pressure, tons of explosive, tons of payload. To be perfect, you have to calculate massive amounts of probabilities, before you even launch the thing. So if all we are going to do as a nation, as a space program, or as people, is worry about that 1% mortality rate, or the risk of explosions, well why is there even a space program? Do you realize, that in WWII millions of people were killed. In afghanistan, over 1,000 people have been killed. So really, I would have a better mortality rate, by tying myself to the side of a trash can filled with tnt with a redneck motor on it, and firing myself upwards, than war. So if we are soo worried about a 5%, 10%, or 15% mortality rate, ask our president why there are still soldiers in afghanistan which definitely has a higher mortality rate than NASA ever has.

I will next time! But i don't have any recording software ATM so yeah

Hey guys, just wanted to post about my very recent Apollo 11 style mission, I conducted it just today and snapped lots of pics, I am really proud of it and put lots of effort into building the stages and LEM. I had lots of fun, and the cool thing is, with the vehicles, there was just enough fuel to perform their specific functions. The LEM was hooked up to a poodle, and had only 30 units of fuel so I could deorbit it like the Apollo missions. And the Crew cabin jettisoned with about 1/3 fuel. Hope you guys enjoy had a lot of fun making this project!

Sent a mission to duna, sent probes to surface, two out of three legs upside down, i cried

I just got done making a backpack for kerbals that is like an external EVA backpack for longer fuel, and maybe orbital transfer for other ships. It is on my spacestation that is in a 45 degree inclined orbit right now, it is pretty cool

Wondering what you guys think of the new NASA development, the Space Launch System. I personally think that instead of making a new rocket, they should just stick to the guns of the past! They worked perfectly fine and we could give them a facelift, what do you think?

If the moon actually stopped spinning, and was freefalling to earth, I could imaine that the moon would drag earth closer to it before it collides. Because orbital force, that could be represented by centrifugal force, keeps the earth pretty much stable, even though the moon tugs it around a little bit. So as the moon moves towards earth, it continually pulls earth towards it just a bit, and as it gets closer, it's gravity is more intense. So I guess that would happen. From my original assumption, if binary stars orbiting eachother, one stopped dead in one second the other would probably fling off into space because of it's momentum with it's partner. Maybe that's how it is, I'm not an orbital scientist but that seems to make sense!

Well, your claim falling like a brick does have its instances. But everything glides, even if it is the smallest amount. This is why large planes have big wings, because it needs that lift to get off the ground. But gliding depends on the shape and surface are. My dad flies helicopters, this one to be exact. He had his own helicopter tours and his helicopter failed multiple times, twice. So, even though this helicopter design isn't very aerodynamic, it still allowed him to perform an autorotation to land using the little lift he had. Gliding a plane is much easier, because the wings add lift, which allow it to catch the air and fly further. But to be specific, everything has gliding capability, no matter how small, or how great. Even a brick, has some gliding capability, if little at all. But a brick's mass to lift ratio is extremely large on the mass side, so it does not glide. But a peice of paper, as you know is very light. If you try to drop one, it drops and floats a little bit because of the cushion of air all around you.

I have heard much about this problem, and it does ring my bell a little bit. But in actuality, it does seem as if it would be difficult to recycle one of those flakes of paint wouldn't it? I mean, for things like tanks, inoperable sattelites, that would be much easier, take a probe out to collect the debris, attach a bunch of parachutes to it, and deorbit it. Sadly, much of this costs too much money for too little payment or reserve. Unless you can send something the cost of a pack of paper into orbit, that can do this, it wouldn't interest much to people who are not conservationists. You see, it would be too much of a pain and cost to recycle space debris. This is why scientists have studied lazer deorbitation, because they can get rid of space debris, and at the same time, save money! Which in all actuality, is better for everyone, and the space programs who don't want to be hit by something going over 1,000 miles per hour! I woudln't either!

I figure that slowly but surely, if you have a space station in orbit for long periods of time, you get science, maybe as just a placeholder for parts that accumilate science. Not like overpowered like, but maybe one where you get one science point per 8 days, something like that so you get about 45 science per year, that seems pretty reasonable to me, maybe a little bit less. Seeing that you can just time accelerate days past. But I would hope that you could conduct experiments every year, such as radiation levels when earth is at summer solstice, winter, spring, or autumn. Or at different orbits, over time. In order to do these experiments it would take a whole year of waiting to collect all the data for science. So you could orbit each and every astronomical body in the game to collect data over long periods of time, this might be a good idea for different stations I guess. Hope that they do add more stuff to the game for stations though!