Search the Community

I had built what I considered to be a good "mothership" or "core" for sending probes, landers and other things off to the planets. It used a large spherical tank (mod), four nerva engines and various docking, power and science devices such as an ISA mapsat dish. Full, the ship weighs about 230 tons. Standard practice was to launch a fueless core (much much lighter) into orbit and then run fuel up to it. The large spherical tank holds about 7 orange tanks worth of fuel and the refueling ship I was using could reliably supply about two orange tanks worth of fuel each flight. I decided I wanted the turn-around to be faster between the launch of a core and the start of a mission to the planets! I started simply by seeing what would get the core off the launchpad "with some attitude" Eight orange tanks with mainsails. Then I did the same for the "Tanks, core and mainsails" package, working my way down, stage after stage. Lots of struts, lots of moving of various engines and lots of messing with staging as you might imagine! And oooh... the spectacular failures.... Finally... success! A ship which would reliably put over 200 tons into a 100km circular orbit, fueled and ready for whatever I wanted to dock on top of it. I've flown the core from Moho to Eeloo. Here is a picture of the final launch "package" in the VAB. It seems pretty stable on the way up, but I would be a bit scared to fly it without mechjeb. So the only mods used were sphereical tanks and mechjeb on this thing.

I been able to set up nuclear engines to operate on different fuels in VAB, but once set they can't switch in flight. IRL yes a nuclear thermal rocket engine can be designed to operate on a variety of fuels, but probably could not switch post manufacturing. For example H2O and H2 have very different properties such that being able to switch in flight would present all sorts of problems for pumping, the fuel element coatings, etc, etc. CH4 and CO2 present problems of carbon soot build up and then there is the problem of free oxygen and highly corrosive environment that fuels like CO2 and H2O could present, H2 present problems of metal brittleness and reducing environment. Fuel rods would need to be coated with or made of reduced compounds (metals) for H2, NH3 and CH4 but would need to be made of or ceramic oxides for CO2 and H2O. A pebble/dust bed centrifuged reactors could get over some of these problems by removing structural strength of fuel elements as a concern: as the fuel is then held in place by centrifugation rather then mechanical strength making opening up a larger variety of fuel element types and coatings that don't need to be strong and could operate with a wide variety of fuels. I would also like to go back to the point of hydrogen richness of LO2/LH2 engines. The modern Centaur RL10 engine operates on 20.3 kg LO2 and 3.5 kg LH2 per second (according to wiki). That comes to a stoichiometric ratio of 2.72 mol of H2 per mol of O2, ideally the ratio would be 2 for 100% combustion, so the left over H2 makes the combustions H2 rich, in total assuming 100% combustion only 4% of the exhaust by mass is the rich H2, with a outlet temp estimated at 3000 K that 4% has an ISP of 946, the rest has an ISP of 439: total 459. That is pretty close to RL10 measured vacuum ISP of 464. In short the realistic amount of ISP improvement from running hydrogen rich verse pure water output is ~20 s. So a rule of thumb we could go by is that a nuclear rocket operating at the same exhaust temp as LO2/LH2 (~3000 K) rocket should be 20 ISP seconds less then the LO2/LH2 rocket. We would need to bring up the temp by 300 K to make up the difference. 3500-3800 K is probably be best we could expect from even a drum reactor without going with a liquid core drum reactor: that would come to max theoretical ISP of 487 and 1050 for Water and LH2. A liquid core (drum) reactor is claimed to be able to get 1350-1500 ISP with hydrogen which would be a outlet temp of ~7500 K which I don't believe because even tungsten boils at 5800 K. A Gas Core though operating at 25,000 K with an ISP by my rough calculation (assuming nearly complete dissociation into protons and oxygen) of ~3900 for LH2 and ~1660 for H2O. I would like to see these options beyond just a NERVA facsimile in KSP (centrifugal) particle core reactor with ans ISP of 1050 using LH2 and a thrust to weight ratio twice that of the ingame NERVA (centrifugal) liquid core reactor with an ISP of 1450 using LH2 and a thrust to weight ratio similar to the ingame NERVA Gas Core reactor with an ISP of 3800 using LH2 and a thrust to weight ratio of say 1/4 that of NERVA and rapid use of nuclear fuel as well as some kind of means to prevent us on or near Kerbin because of all the nuclear waste it would spit out. I guess all of these could be on a tech tree from NERVA solid core reactor and up. Of course my favourite nuclear engine is nuclear salt-water rocket a continuous nuclear explosion engine that make Orion look stupid! Using dissolve liquidized nuclear fuel in water and making it go super-critical in a rocket chamber, adding alot more water to cool the chamber and as propellent mass average exhaust temps of ~200,000 K an ISP of over 6000 is possible (and that is using water!) Such and engine would also have incredible thrust. Of course ingame such an engine would need to be incredible expensive, big and prohibited from operating anywhere near kerbin or any other planet that could be habited without a space suit (and radiation shielded suits) because this engine spews radioactive waste.

I think your last paragraph hits on it perfectly. Water as a propellant is really no more than a curiousity in KSP unless it actually becomes part of the game to the point that you can mine water (or ice) and actually use it as a resource for your ships. Also necessary things for it to become meaningful is that we need to have costs and budgets implemented. Then, when you're low on funds, your deep space mission is struggling and then it starts to get meaningful. But one thing that has to happen (game standpoint) is that we need to be able to reconfigure engines outside of the VAB. The NERVA has the advantage that you can realistically pump a wide variety of things in there that you couldn't do with a chemically fueled rocket. (at least I don't *THINK* you can just chuck water in there... that's not going to work) I've got a config that I'm playing with that I can share where I've already implemented quite a few propellants. Water's in there but the rocket isn't set up to allow it to be configured yet. (not hard to do, just haven't gotten to it). In fact I pasted it in a message a few pages back but that one is a bit broken. I saw the neofuel site, that's one of the sources I was investigating; that's where I saw the lower values in the 200 range for isp but I thought it was for a hotter reactor. I was reading up on it again and they're assuming a reactor of only 800K. I'm not sure why unless there's a performance hit for heating it up too much, which you alluded to above. Which runs counter to everything else I've read on the subject, which says you want to heat it up (your nuclear propellants) to the point that it disassociates into its lowest molecular weight gasses. (so, not even steam at that point).

Using current technology we can't go that fast at all, voyager is acctually travelling slower than earth orbits the sun (hence it acctually gets closer to use for a few months of the year). NASA's Solar Probe+ will exceed 200 km/s, but that's using the Helios style sundiving strategy (only much much closer)

I am not quite sure if I understand deorbit mechanics or aerodynamic impact correctly... but as I see it there is a kerbal answer and a earth answer In Kerbal Space, I often use the kill all orbit speed and then burn my way into atmosphere almost straight down. Doing this at Kerbal I still end up hitting the 1/2 atmo barrier at over 500 m/s, sometimes without drogue chutes the regular chute die or rip off if I am going too fast. This means I still need a heat shield for re-entry at Kerbal, but I can usually get down to around 200 m/s at Duna - no heat effects but chutes fairlure is still a concern In Earth space it translates to almost 4500 mph hitting the 1/2 atmo point... I am pretty sure hitting that air density face first would crush you craft like a beer can hence the angled approach. Stone dropping on Mars would have similar effects. thundering down through the atmo so fast would damage or destroy any craft we've sent, and the chutes would prolly fail once deployed. I have not the math to figure out what vertical acceleration would act on the craft if you burned off all the lateral movement and hung the ship in space then let it drop. I do know that acceleration toward the ground would be a constant until atmo started to act as a break and even then acceleration would still be positive until terminal velocity was achieved. Also the fuel needed to stop even a small craft .... say a 4.5 tonne lander would be big, and leave little for the decel towards the surface. Maybe with very high altitude drogue's.... 1/4 km diameter canopies that release before the thicker atmo hits... might make it work tho. Alacrity

Click the little gear in the upper right and choose "View the album on imgur" If I'm going 200 m/s, it takes 100 seconds to go 20km, that's usually plenty of time to turn around and slow down. And the 100x rule basically keeps the rendezvous 100 seconds away for the whole close. As I approach, I slow down to keep the target about 100 seconds away. My rendezvous usually take 5-10 minutes total. It's certainly possible to do it more slowly. The 100x rule gives me a not-too-fast-to-be-uncontrollable but not-too-slow-to-be-boring sweet spot. (Lately, I've actually been doing them 2-3 times faster -- keeping the high velocity until I'm under 5 km or so.) If you look at the "Getting quite close" image, you can see "pushing" pretty well. I've aligned the ship's heading so that the retrograde marker is between the heading and the anti-target marker; the three form a line with the retrograde marker in the middle. When I engage my engines, the retrograde marker will get "pushed" away from my heading, toward the anti-target marker. (This happens because of simple vector addition.) When the retrograde marker is directly on the anti-target marker then my prograde marker will also be directly on the pro-target maker and my vessel will be travelling directly toward the target. The "Approaching the target" image shows "pulling", but it's harder to see because the prograde marker is close to the pro-target marker. For "pulling" prograde, you still want to set up the three markers (heading, prograde, pro-target) in a line, but this time you want the pro-target marker in the middle. When you fire the engines, the prograde marker will get "pulled" toward your heading and hopefully onto (or nearer) the pro-target marker. Nicely done!

Actually the ISP I listed was assuming a reactor temperature of 3200k (solid core, NERVA style). If you have some data that says you can get a higher ISP with water than 400 I'm interested in seeing it but compared to other articles I've found it's a pretty generous rating. Mostly everything I've seen on the subject of using water as a propellant in a nuclear rocket cited an ISP of no higher than 200. It's just not a very efficient propellant at all. It's something you'd use in a pinch, say if you were landed on Mars and the mission plan required you to harvest your own fuels from the environment. Something you'd use because you COULD Not because it were desirable. Honestly I'm not sure how to go about calculating it from scratch myself but I trust the 412 number because I trust the source. Project Rho. There's a wealth of rocketry related information there and I find it to be generally reliable. Sometimes annoyingly so

200, wow that is indeed low poly. I can't fathom which computer couldn't handle the 2600 poly version though. A lot of stock parts have more I believe. Some of my models easily break 6k on the complex large engines. You truly are a master of optimization. And your textures are gorgeous. Keep up the amazing work.

I have the RS-25 down to 2600 poly's and the low poly version I have at about 200 I believe maybe less. here is the 2600 version model

Shalidor: the unit for parts at the pad is 5l (200 per m3, 400/t of craft (excluding any stored resources such as fuel)). The problem is in the new pad's storage capacity. I'll be working on a new update with all my tweaks included. I hope to get it out in the next day or so (it seems skykooler might be away for a week or so).

How many parts? I get detectable lag before I get to 200 parts. The choke point is the CPU - it doesn't matter what RAM or graphics card you have, the lag is mostly the result of the single threaded physics calculations.

Hi, i love this plugin because i think a life support is currently big lack of KSP. I just started to make more fancy parts for storing, creating etc..... I have some questions: 1) can i have permission to continue? (question for original autor) 2) is there a interes for my parts? 3) can author help me with creating of parts, i am absolute newbie with creating a parts (just good blender artist). This is a photosynthesis module. * contains 8 tubes with special alga "Algae Kerbae" wich makes O2 from CO2 and Light * can create up to 200 units of Oxygen_TAC per day when fully sun illuminated (for 8 kerbalans) * contains also artificial lighting wich helps witch produce enough light for 50% of performance when module is in dark but consume lot of energy (maybe about 300 units/min) or add 25% of performance. this is just desired features for this module, nothing works now, i just need some help Well i want to make some other modules like half size of photosynthesis module, water cleaning module in vary sizes (consume energy and waste water => produce water), orbital garden module (consumes lot of energy and waste => produces food). Well.... maybe there is more posibilities to enchance TAC life support.... for example, harvesting sources on planets (water one leythe), then from water can be produced oxygen and monopropelant (in real on ISS is produced oxygen from water and waste product is H2 wich can be used as propelant). Chears, Jan (sorry about my horrible english)

Steam says 110, but I've played since Januaray, so probably 200 hours, which really isn't a lot .

I refer you here sir to the KSP wiki. Specifically: So in the case of 10^-1 (i.e. 10% of craft by mass is parachutes) of a 10 (or 20, or 200, or 2 million) ton vessel: (0.9x * 0.2) + (0.1x * 500) / x = Cd (0.9(10) * 0.2) + (0.1(10) * 500) / x(10) = Cd 50.18 = Cd

I now have looped horizontal tape scales and dynamically numbered vertical tape scales working. My number renderer currently only supports non-negative integers. So here is the in-game version of the mock-up PFD with a compass and a rudimentary altimeter: It can easily be changed to use an interval other than 1. Edit: The compass also needs a needle/marker, but that is quite simple to add, and not a high priority right now. Here is the latest config file used to generate that PFD: size: [512, 512] instruments: - ADI: # [x, y, width, height] coords: [74, 77, 316, 362] horizon: # [r, g, b] or [r, g, b, a] line_colour: [1, 1, 1] sky_colour: [0.0863, 0.8314, 1] ground_colour: [0.7843, 0.5686, 0] line_thickness: 2 pitch_scale: tex: pitch_scale mask_tex: pitch_mask # specified in pixels per degree increment: 6.33333333 bank_indicator: scale_tex: bank_scale scale_tex_centre: [157, 180] scale_radius: 159 marker_tex: bank_marker central_marker: tex: marker_1 tex_centre: [103, 4] - heading_tape: top_left: [0, 450] background_tex: heading_bg tape_tex: heading_scale mask_tex: heading_mask needle_tip: [200, 0] - altimeter_tape: top_left: [440, 0] background_tex: altimeter_tape_bg tape_tex: altimeter_tape mask_tex: altimeter_tape_mask digit_tex: myriad_num_16pt number_colour: [1, 1, 1] tape_number_top_left: [4, 8] needle_tip: [72, 256]

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/orbitalcon-redux-2/ Are Orbital Colonies Allowed too ? (We still would need to get Kethane from the Ground) Edit: Well, im in anyway... destination of choice is Vall. If KSC shuts down at day 200 you just could Launch everything beforehand to Orbit... or just lauch everything on one Window and fly all at once.

There are lots of examples over the forums. Also check out asparagus staging. I'd like to go for the simple brute force solution: it can get around 200 tons in orbit. The answer to not having them collapse is struts. There not visible in the picture above because they are all tucked away in the four gaps in the 'nine-pack'. Add them wherever you think should be some sensible reinforcement. If the rocket collapse look at where it breaks or check the flight log an make more reinforcements.

Sorry I bring up this post....Just wonder...any news? About getting this 200 tons to standard Kerbin orbit?

If it's only about $20 billion for one 4GW installation, it might happen. Elon Musk would probably build the first one, just cause he though it would be cool. But if it's more like $200 billion, We'll never build one. Much cheaper to build 4GW of solar panels. I think the future of electrical energy production will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels until they are completely exhausted, with solar, wind, and nuclear picking up the slack depending on the geography and political attitude of each country.

I have yet to obtain Ike.I never really go beyond 200 tons.And I'll give the persist when the military ships are in position all that's really left on my part. EDIT: Only one ship KSS:boom town I'll add the rest at a later date. Persist:http://www./download/tv83e2euobsyexy/persistent.sfs You took the word Heavy seriously.

Yup completely understand what your trying to say.. But let me try to help with some of the numbers that MC does. In the game in the fuel tanks the amount of Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer is not a 1 to 1 basis.. There is always more Oxidizer then liquid fuel.. For instance a RockoMax X-200 Fuel tank has Liquid Fuel of 1440 and Oxidizer of 1760. Now for the math. Liquid Fuel Is Calculated at multiplier of 0.7 and oxidizer has Multiplier of 6 so Basically Multiplier * Amount in this case .7 * 1440 and 6 * 1760. Will give you the cost.. Not including the cost of the tank which is 220. The multipliers have never been touched since I started working on MC.. Its the way Nobody had it set up. At first I didn't like it either.. But it soon has grown on me and I have left it alone. Not saying that we won't adjust it eventually though. Nathan has redone how parts are calculated but I still believe that fuels use the standard old way of calculations. I know its expensive and doesn't seem right.. But I adressed this problem before I started and the consensus was to leave it alone for now. (not everyone, but most) So Thats what I choose to do. Nathan did manage it most situations to make it for the actual part cost is more then Fuel.. (not by much) But I have still found that in situatuions were your bringing a lot of fuel into space that still might end up being fuel is more expensive.. which makes sense really since most of these are fuel trips to Stations..

Here is my Behemoth load carrier! The current record for largest load to a 200,000 m orbit is 100(ish) tons! My current biggest docking motor is on top there, the Goliath Sr. The 4 outer stages get it to altitude, and the smaller Skipper stage gets it into orbit. Here is the .craft file! https://www.dropbox.com/s/om6uvns5mocrblf/Goliath%20ITE%20MK-3%20Sr_.craft

Not true. A more realistic drag model would significantly reduce drag for all but the worst rockets. I think the delta-v lost to aerodynamic drag on a Saturn V launch was on the order of 200-250 m/s. I've done quite a bit of launching asparagus rockets using FAR, which does have a more realistic drag model, and the drag loss of a seven-stack asparagus launcher compared to a single stack launcher didn't come close to making the single stack launcher more efficient. Yes, more realistic drag will have a significant impact on the more... audacious?... asparagus launchers that are wider than they are tall, but that's really not the majority of asparagus launchers. Tiron has it right, the problem with asparagus staging in real life comes from the fact that asparagus staging is very dependent on fuel pumps, and fuel pumps are one of the most common non-human failures on launch vehicles. Given that asparagus' advantage over single stack launchers would get reduced just by the lower TWR of engines and higher dry weight of fuel tanks, it's just not worth risking a payload on a rocket design that is so dependent on such a weak link.

CHAPTER 19 DUNA TRANSFER BURN *** Personal log, entry 1 (32). I didn't write anything for a long time, but since I'm stuck in the LAMGML until they finish fuel transfer I thought I'll kill some time. Four months – a lot have changed. Technically this is my first entry, not a commander anymore. And not a pilot apparently. But I understand him, he didn't have a choice – I did ignore his order. Still, there are months before we get to Kerbin or Duna, so I hope he'll get over it. Unless KSC decides otherwise. They recommended additional sessions with psychiatrist for me – old survivor syndrome from the days of “Kadmosâ€Â, guilt about Bob's death, this kind of things. What a load of crap. They sent 18 people inside of a giant can to drift through space for months and they expect us to not go loony. I didn't breath the real air and drink something else than a processed urine for almost a year. The last time I walked was on the arid surface of Moho, tiny dead planet almost lost in the flames of the Sun. One of us died. And now we are here, floating aimlessly above yet another lifeless rock. But they insist on “psychological evaluations†and “uplifting the team's spiritâ€Â. Pathetic. Personal log, entry 2 (33). Done. My last flight for a long time, I suppose; maybe the last one. I don't care – it was the right decision. They can say whatever they want, but with additional fuel our error margin is much bigger. Safety above all, right? Personal log, entry 3 (34). Today the Dres exploration team has returned. I hope that Ned and his men will repair the AMU without which our mission is doomed. Ned's still angry at me, he thinks it was stupid to take such risk. He'll understand, in time. Personal log, entry 4 (35). After long deliberation they decided to leave it. “Broken beyond repairâ€Â, “safe randez-vous impossibleâ€Â, yadda yadda. Fools. So all that was for nothing – we can't continue the mission. They want us to go to Duna however and then decide – abort or send supplies. I don't think I care anymore. Personal log, entry 5 (36). Now this is crazy. To save fuel and make sure that there won't be more accidents the Dres exploration is suspended until further notice. We sacrificed four months to get here and now, with this cursed dwarf planet 200 kilometers below us, we have to cease all activities. What is even worse, they decided to execute transfer burn earlier, so we will spend here only 41 more days instead of 72 and THEN it'll took us SEVEN MONTHS before we get to Duna! I don't understand it at all. Don't they want these samples? Why are we here if not to explore the asteroid? If they are content with the orbital scanning, why did they send us here? And do they really think that ONE YEAR of almost complete inactivity after his death won't screw us all over completely? Why? What's the purpose of this madness? Personal log, entry 6 (37). Another long brake. I couldn't find strength to write. Every day is the same, mundane activities, artificial light, drinking piss. They have answer for everything. Microgravity and bone loss? Physical exercise and special diet. Isolation and loneliness? Full schedule and meetings in the social room. Stress? Loads of music, movies, manuals – Sid is even trying to learn his third language. But they can't hide us from the space and they can't give us a purpose, not after weeks of doing nothing important. 6 months and 40 days to Duna. It's not the emptiness behind the hull that makes us all anxious. It's the void inside. Personal log, entry 7 (38). Tonight's the night. Transfer burn. And 365 day of our journey. We're organizing kind of a little New Year's Eve, but no alcohol, burn is scheduled 8 hours after “midnightâ€Â. One year… We even have a torte. There's something really funny in this weird parody of a normal live but nobody's smiling. Personal log, entry 8 (39). And that's about it. We're leaving Dres for good. Tiny planet has a new satellite though – such a waste. So, we're on course and there's only 217 days left. Every time I think about it my hands are shaking. Seven months of NOTHING… Personal log, entry 9 (40). Last “night†I couldn't sleep. I was drifting through the main module when I heard voices. A lot of folks followed Sid's example. Three or four of the eggheads talking silently with BERTY, each of them in their sleeping station, each of them in another language. And he was conversing with all of them with this kind, optimistic voice he has. Why they even bothered with us in the first place? He's perfect in a way no kerbal can ever be. I talk with him a lot recently. He's in complete control of all the ship's subsystems, he can feel the space radiation hitting the hull and the hellish temperature inside the fusion cores. He's practically the “Proteus†itself, changing terminals, taking care of every vessel, keeping us alive. Like a ghost. A talking, sentient ship. And we all live inside him. Personal log, entry 10 (41). 125 day. First course correction. Successful. Next in a few weeks. Personal log, entry 11 (42). Nothing. Personal log, entry 12 (43). I watched the last movie we have on board. Now what? Personal log, entry 13 (44). â€ÂProteus†is very quiet lately. It freaks me out. Personal log, entry 14 (45). 153 days after the transfer burn. I think. Every day is the same. Personal log, entry 15 (46). Second course correction. BERTY is incredibly precise – 70 km from the planet, inclination 49 degrees. 45 days left. Personal log, entry 16 (47). It 's weird but as soon as we hit 30 days mark, suddenly it seems that blood starts flowing in our veins again. Maybe it's the mystery – of course we STILL don't know what exactly are we supposed to do there. I've heard some crazy theories recently and Ned is still joking about Sid's idea. But, what is more probable, it's because we all can feel that this is probably our last stop before coming back to Kerbin. The grand tour of the solar system aborted, the most advanced ship ever built ordered surrender – and all of that caused by the few tiny RCS thrusters. Personal log, entry 17 (48). Only two weeks left. We still can't see Duna with a naked eye but it's a matter of days before we do. Tiny red dot in a dark sea. Personal log, entry 18 (49). One week, one week, one week. Personal log, entry 19 (50). 6 days left. I can't even imagine how uplifting… BILL: Attention all personnel. Your presence is required on the flight deck immediately. JEB: Hmm? BERTY, what is it? BERTY v.2.0.8: It appears that there is an impending failure of the secondary cooling system of the fusion core A. JEB: What?! Are you sure? BERTY v.2.0.8: Yes. The system is still operational but it will fail within 72 hours. JEB: Can we fix it? BERTY v.2.0.8: I don't know, Jeb. [ *** MISSION STATUS ***

Holy crap, you can't run a craft with 190 parts? My desktop starts to lag at 450 (my craft that I made to go to Jool is named the KSS Veronica Lissioncorse (about 350 parts), and most of the payload delivery ships put the payload craft files over 200. That means you can't deliver my payload ), but it doesn't crash during flight. Mostly does that during assembly.* *All HIRP&DERP crafts require some assembly & batteries