Search the Community

Mission Update: - No Kerbalnaut Left Behind - Foreword: The mission is at an end. I think, collectively between this mission and the establishment of K.G.01 and 02 - that I have squish everything I can from Kerbin SOI - It is time to break out into the Kerbol Solar System in earnest. It was quite nice change of pace to build and fly Search And Rescue planes to pick up lost kerbals - experiment with how much Δv is needed to fly the distance. It took a few iterations to get the planes right - but the 3rd generation hit the mark I think. Mission Tasks: A. Develop a SAR seaplane - Success B. SAR mission for the crew of the crash landed SSTO Spaceplane - Success C. SAR mission for the crew of crash landed MLKO - Failure. D. Develop SAR land plane - Success E. SAR mission for the crew of the crash landed SAR sea plane. - Success Lessons Learned; Lessons Identified: Section A: SAR plane V1 take off from the boat launch. I have read that quite a lot of people found it challenging to make a seaplane. Once my SSTO splash landed a few KM off the coast of KSC I thought it was an ideal time to give it a go. I must say that it was a bit finicky to get the plane buoyant enough to float - the SAS strong enough to keep the nose from diving down and the engines air intake big enough to feed the engines. All in all the plane went through 3 design stages: Make a plane that could take off from the water, and fly straight. Give it wheels to be able to take off from a runway + extend the range. Update vehicle from Lessons Learned; Lessons Identified on Section C - range extension, as well as giving it a docking port for refuel capabilities. Model 1. The first step was making the plane buoyant enough. To my annoyance I quickly found out that the nose cones does not give any buoyancy what so ever. Only the the fuel tanks gives buoyancy. The prototype 1 were using the MK2 nose cone for the front and the back, angled slightly up. I had to add a empty MK2 JFT-400 on either side of the nose cone to make it buoyant enough. See spoiler for reference: The plane was now buoyant. It was time to find the right engine. I started by powering the plane by 2x J404 engines - the lift to weight ratio would have been fine for wheeled flight of a runway - but I quickly found out that you need a good lift to weight ratio to get out of the water. I replaced the engines with 2x J33. They needed bigger air intakes, so I added 2x Mk1 Diverterless Supersonic Intake + the circular intake and a XM-G50 Radial Air Intake - giving them more than enough air (otherwise I found that one engine would be starved of air before reaching speeds were the air intakes would suck in enough air for both engines to work) This gave me speed enough - but a new problem arose. The fact that the engines were placed higher than the center of mass, meant that they would work as a leaver, pushing the nose down. I added RCWs until the SAS had the strength to keep the nose up and clear of the water. But the plane kept getting heavier and longer. which meant that it was harder to lift off. to reduce length I replaced the front Nose Cone + the empty front MK2 JFT-400 for a single empty RF-AD-800. - lastly I angled the wings 4° to help the engines push the plane up and out of the water. The Result was this: The plane would now leave the water - but as soon as it was airborn the tilt of the wing would force the plane down - to counter this downward motion I deployed the two center control surface on the wings by 15° and deploy the tail control surfaces at -2°. See figure in spoiler. The plane now flies straight (to the point were you can auto pilot it) and I completed the first test flight - picking up the stranded Kerbals on the SSTO without issues. Its stall speed is was around 30-40 m/s - which is also the speed you need to land on the water with to not blow up. I added 2 aero breaks to help slow down for the water landings. Model 2: After a successful mission I had to get it to fly much longer to reach the desert. I figured an easy way to get more range would be to fill the empty tanks with fuel and give it wheels. Taking off from the runway and flying would mean that by the time It had to be boyant again, the tanks would be empty. After a test - I found that I needed more fuel so I added 2 drop tanks. That gave it a total Δv count of 57.500 Δv. See spoiler to see the addition of wheels and tanks. I was hoping that would be enough for the mission to the desert and back - alas I was short by ~100km. This mission proved that the plane would benefit from having just slightly more Δv - but also a way to refuel. Which lead to the final model: Model 3: By extending the pontoons with NCS 200 fuel tanks + some other minor tweaks(I found out I had flown without Methane in the two Mk1 Diverterless Supersonic Intake) , I increased the Δv count to 66.000 enough to theoretically fly 1500+km 140 m/s in ~4000 m altitude. When configured for water flying - the Δv counter is at 29.100 - and its take off speed is ~49 m/s. Section B: The SAR plane arrives at the floundered SSTO. After the plane had been developed it was a pretty simple to go pick up the lost kerbals. See spoiler section for detailed rundown: et voila - The Kerbals of the crash-landed SSTO was safely back on the beach of KSC. Section C: A map view at the time of dropping the drop tanks - gives quite the impression of the distance that needed to be covered. ~15.013km in total The next mission would turn out to be a lot more demanding. - The distance that had to be travled back and forth were quite long. several hours long. Unfortunately the vehicle was to heavy to be able to fly on 3x time warp (I could not get it to fly straight, but once the flight had been lightened on the way home, it was possible) - So I actually spend a saturday afternoon flying from KSC to the Pod in the desert. fortunately the plane was so stable that I could run it at 70% power and have it fly between 3000m and 4000m altitude. I just had to adjust every once and a while - because of the curvature of Kerbin. It gave a lot opportunity to admire the volumetric clouds, lighting etc. around Kerbin. After 526 km of flight it was time to drop the tanks and see how much the mass savings would improve the Δv counter: After the drop the Δv counter went from 37,538 to 40,368 - saving 170 Δv. I was starting to worry about the success of the mission. The plane had gone a little shy of a 3rd of total distance, tour - retour, and spend (if my math serves me right) spend around 33% of its total Δv. Which in theory should mean that I would be fine - however theory and real life seldom lines up - any deviation from an optimal outcome would mean the flight got short of target. And spoiler alert.. The plane would end up about 101 km short from the runway at KSC on its 1412km journey. Any way after a long journey the plane arrived at the stranded MLKO pod to the cheering of the crew that had spend a day or two in the desert. Pilot Shepke Kerman gives a safety instruction before boarding the flight. Landing the sea plane proved to be a delicate matter - the 4° angle of the wing means it can be quite difficult to perfectly line up the wheels to the surface - you see leveled flight means that the fuselage is angled 4° down. And with the snug placement of the wheels, you need to land on quite horizontal to the surfaces, to not blow up a pontoon or lose a wheel. After a few attempts and reloads I figured the approach and optimal speed. (around 30-40 m/s like on water and close to perfectly leveled to the ground) It made me think that maybe in the future the plane would not be so suited for land operations(not all terrain is as gentle as the desert). But being able to take off from a runway fully loaded to land on water once fuel had depleted the floats - still merited the wheels. Now began the tour home. - Where the tour west to the desert had meant a slow passing of the day - the tour back would result in catching up with the dark quite quick. The SAR Seaplane reaching night time - short before flying over the western shore of the continent KSC is located on. It was here I was starting to debate with myself weather I should press on for KSC or attempt a night landing. I decided to press on until the vehicle had 500 Δv left - as I knew that I might be in need for a powered landing, so fully depleting it would not be advisable.. Fortunately I had anticipated needing lights for landings at nights - so the plane was equipped for night landings. That being said.. not being able to judge if it was a suitable place to land, before a few meters off ground.. still made it a spicey experience. A crashlanding was completed, only destroying some of the landing gear in the process: For a detailed walkthrough of this mission leg - see spoiler section bellow: Section D: Version 1 of the SAR land plane on Runway 1 KSC. Making a land plane was not difficult compared to the Seaplane - I could remove the 4° angle of the wing, and subsequently the ÷2° of the control surfaces on the tail - meaning it was a lot easier to balance the plane. That being said - the SAS really wants to rock the plane up and down when flying.. to the point were the plane crashes. I found that if I limit the range of motion of the control surfaces from its maximum of 20° to 10° the plane will fly stable. How ever to land at low speeds the surface needs at least 15° to keep the nose up. Another thing that were important to me were that the Land and Sea version of the SAR plane could refuel each other. It meant that both planes sported the same front, and subsequently the same cockpit (but it's fine, it gives them synergy). I decided to give the plane a probe core - since the Sea plane was full, and I did not want to fly twice. I figured I could fly it without crew and be fine. Stats: Δv and take off speed no drop tanks: 58.450 Δv - 67 m/s Δv and take off speed drop tanks: 75805 Δv - 84 m/s Section D: The last crew of The Minmus Expedition finally safely back at KSC. after 26 min of flight, and 202 km covered the crew was safely back at KSC - the final Kerbalnauts of The Minmus Expedition was home after 55 days away from the safe confines of KSC. See spoiler section for detailed walkthrough of this mission leg: MISSION_ACCOMPLISHED Thank you all for indulging me in my adventure. I can safely say that I am looking forward to do my Duna Mission ark - were a lot of the scope will be launching very small vehicles and probes. I got my fare share of big elaborate vehicles on this mission. See you soon!

Part 11: Memory lane is not over yet WORK IN PROGRESS Leaping Mantis ends the circumnavigation of Vall, passing - sometimes by design, sometimes by chance - more landmarks encountered in previous Vall missions. 11.1) Return to the Great Wall range 11.2) The name of a mountain 11.3) Return to Rover Crasher peak What's this? I specifically said I wouldn't be visiting any other feature I visited previously. I said it would require too much of a detour. The thing is, Rover Crasher peak was 90° away from my path. The green monolith also spawned 90° away from my path. I connected those two pieces of information, and decided to check. Indeed, the monolith had spawned a stone's throw from Rover Crasher peak (more like 60 km, but still very close on a planetary scale). And the last biome, northeastern basin, can be reached just going down from the peak, in the same direction I need to go to reach the first flag. I previously decided to not steer away from my course for the peak or the monolith, but if both are close, I may as well take two birds with a stone. The stone in question being a 200 km diversion. Science recap

To occupy less place after killing them comfortably, and to need less efforts to cover with ground. How could three men be buried in one tomb? Did they die at once? Then why this burial composition is so strange. Usually people don't bury with hand put on another one's crotch like he's petting or protecting the neighbor. They either align or cross the arms. And the bones don't look lying straight. No gifts are seen. This also makes the sacrifice version less probable. The interworld travellers usually have a bribe for the underworld spirits. It was just a glamour cinematographic version of the native uniform, and I can see nothing caricature in them. For me, it's vice versa, the movie screenshots depict normal warriors of their tribes. They should look frightening for the other tribes, and a gentle nature is not welcomed when a normal practice is to hunt each other, or drill the prisoners' head (traditional for Chukcha and Inuit, based on the XVIII-XIX war reports), or scalping the heads (normal for the Northern Amerindians, despite of the modern nonsense that the Europeans had brought this practice; nowhere in the Europe they do it, just because a settled nation doesn't need to carry the souvenirs and have them lightweight, entire heads on the fence are good enough). Burning and piercing is a normal part of a tribal initiation, this also leaves a print, and illustrates the softness. IIrc, the Indians were successfully using force and violence against other tribes, while of course a missionaire can just give advices. "Righteousness" = "following the right rules, established for greater good". AI can't be programmed, it can be taught on examples. That process can be programmed. Exactly what Savonarola was doing. Everything excessively spent is a sin and should be prohibited. Including the Botticelli's paintings. "Decision" means "punishment for those who doesn't follow it", otherwise it's a "wish". For the punishment, the Wendat should have an intertribal mechanism to force any tribe to follow the decision. Otherwise is just an anarchy. If they had such mechanism, it doesn't look that their society was so much kind and soft, because the punishment is for the whole tribe, including innocents. Good people don't do so. 2000 km2 0.1 human/km2 = 200 hunters-gatherers 1..2 human/km2 = 2000...4000 steppe herders 10..100 human/km2 = 20..200 k peasants All local Siberian peoples (except ~1 mln Yakuts, who are medieval invaders), are 200 k in total, and that's more than was in early XX. Somebody had published a rather optimistic view on the tribal demography. There is no so much food in the forest, that's why the people turn it into plowland. The very place of 35x56 km2 is either for several villages of peasants, or for 2..3 tribes of hunters-gatherers. They are antagonists, they need the opposite. HG need forest, not field; P need field, not forest. At the same time once the agriculture appears, the peasant population exceeds the hunter-gatherer population by orders of magnitude, and inevitable conflicts force the HG either to leave the place, or to be assimilated. So, I'm afraid, it's a fantasy. Alive, but hidden. Also it's cheaper to pay for several guards than for a hundred of workers they guard. Just such practice competes with mass forced labour used by much stronger corporations, lol, so it's marginal or used in places which nobody cares about. Say, the mining in Africa. Of course, technically the children are willingly do it. But in fact, how could they reject? Labour camps and prisons of XX in all developed countries were also a labour force, cheaper than hired ones. For unqualified mass labour, like channel digging, stone crashing, or wood cutting. Btw, V-2 were manufactured by the slaves (prisoners), so even told rocketry.

The Comprehensive Colony Communications Archive (CCCA) Hello everyone! I've been seeing a lot of people confused about how colonies will actually work lately. We have received a lot of info on this over the years, but it's pretty spread out. That's why i took it upon myself to go through every Feature Video, Show and Tell, AMA, Dev Update/Blog/Chat and Interview and compile every bit of information we have about the KSP2 Colonies Milestone update, along with where and when it was mentioned. Do keep in mind that some of this info is years old at this point and may not be entirely up-to-date with the developers plans and goals anymore. Props to the KSP2 Knowledge Repository post, which served as a great independant resource to make sure i didnt miss anything. Thanks also goes out to @Spicatfor helping me go through the youtube interviews. If i did miss anything, feel free to let me know! I've highlighted the sections about (planned) core colony functionality and the features that are expected to ship with the Colonies Milestone. Do keep in mind that some of the core functionality (such as Resources) wont be in the initial release yet and will come with later Milestones. This post is also available as a PDF at the bottom of this page for easier reading, for those who prefer that. Enjoy! 1. Feature Videos · Colonies will have exotic fuel factories, such as metallic hydrogen ( + concept art) Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 1 - Next Gen Tech [Feb 20, 2020] · Pre-alpha captures of various colonies and stations Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 1.5 - Work From Home Developer Update [Jun 24, 2020] · More pre-alpha captures Kerbal Space Program 2 - Feature Videos Teaser [Oct 23, 2020] Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 2 – The Kerbals [Dec 21, 2020] 2. Dev Diaries · Colonies as one of the KSP2 Design Pillars (exploring next-gen space program concepts): - new features based on inspiration from expectations and the real world - but not on the level of complexity that dedicated colony builders have - minimizing micromanagement - colonies in function of serving ‘rocket gameplay’ How Colonies will work gameplay-wise: - Establishing a colony by launching inflatable modules on a standard rocket - Fuel is synthesized in-situ by this colony to refuel rocket> - Players bring in more resources to make colony self-sufficient - Colony grows to allow player to build and fly rockets from this new location - Orbital Drydocks and Mining Colonies are mentioned - Rearranging modules of a colony is mentioned - commitment to keep Colonies open to the modding community is made Developer Insights #3 – KSP2 Design Pillars [Apr 26, 2020] · Mention of being able to dock at each others colonies in multiplayer Developer Insights #4 – KSP2 Engineering [Jun 12, 2020] · Confirmation that Vehicle Assembly and Colony Assembly Build Interface (also known as BAE; Building Assembly Editor) will use same camera interactions Developer Insights #7 – KSP 2 UX Architects [Nov 27, 2020] · Deep technical dive into how Resource Flow will function, but no specific mention of their relation to Colonies Developer Insights #13 – KSP2 Resource System [Feb 25, 2022] · Inspiration for Colony parts is drawn from concept studies, physics treatises and hypothetical engineering trades. (No examples of such studies is listed) Also reveals new ion plasma engine which should be added along with radiators (as per Nertea), thus with Colonies (see Dev Insights #21). Developer Insights #14 - Part Creation [Jun 27, 2022] Nertea Talking About New Ion Engine [Aug 17, 2023] · Pre-Alpha Sneak Peak of a Large-size Pulsed Fission Drive (based on Project Orion). Likely to ship with the Colonies update (see Nate's AMA) Developer Insights #15 - Writing for Kerbal Space Program [Aug 30, 2022] · Connection between the Heating system and Colonies - core areas of heat management for colonies: heat-producing/removing parts & environmental heat sources/sinks (e.g. An ocean) - Environment will directly impact efficiency of Mining Colonies; being on a cold planet or being in the shadow of a mountain will result in ‘a bonus’, being on a lava planet will ‘pose a challenge’ - not getting rid of heat may result in nuclear meltdown - engines, drills, factories, and power generators listed as possible heat-generating parts for both Colonies and Vessels - atmospheres, oceans, sunlight and proximity/contact to surface features listed as possible environmental heat sources/sinks - pointing a torch drive at a colony will result in consequences - some parts/modules will be more prone to heating than others - mentions there will be ‘tools’ to understand and manage heating on Colonies and Vessels - heating model for parts and colonies will be based on average heat flux (incoming/generated heat on a part – outgoing heat = resultant heating on that part) - Radiators and heat sinks will pull heat from all parts - Thermal Flux and Extraction/Production (using Delivery Routes) calculations will always run in the background even when the colony is not being observed - the Colonies Milestone will introduce basic part heat management, basic radiators and thermal planning - More part heat managment, more radiators, exotic environments and more planning tools are planned to arrive later with the Insterstellar Milestone Developer Insights #21 - Rockets' Red Glare [Jul 23, 2023] 3. Show and Tells · Power generation modules for colonies - will progress from compact fission reactors to giant fusion tokamaks to next-generation Z-pinch fusion reactors Show and Tell - New power generation modules for colonies! [Feb 5, 2021] · Station and Colony Part Models: - Orbital Launch Clamp - Geothermal Power Generator - Colony Roads/Runways - Deep Resource Scanner - Wind turbine Show and Tell - Creating New Parts [Jun 11, 2021] · Colony Fuel Factories: From smallest to largest: Methalox Fuel Factory, Monopropellant Fuel Factory, Xenon Fuel Factory, Helium-3 Fuel Factory, and Metallic Hydrogen Fuel Factory Show and Tell - Colony fuel factories [Feb 19, 2021] · M-sized Bi-modal, extendable nozzle afterburning nuclear engine: NERV-US Will possibly ship with Colonies, as this engine has been functional but hidden (in its non-afterburning mode only) in the game since release. Appeared in an earlier Show and Tell as the ‘LANTR’. May be waiting on Part Heat Generation. Show and Tell - NERV-US [Oct 1, 2021] Show and Tell - New LANTR engine [Jun 25, 2021] · Procedural Radiators – Unconfirmed Show and Tell - Procedural Radiators [Mar 25, 2022] 4. AMAs · AMA Nate Simpson [Mar 24, 2023] 3/24 Discord AMA Answers Ask Me A Few More Things Q: Can you give any more detail about how the automated "trade routes" are going to work? Will we see ships automatically landing on / taking off from the launchpad or will it be more of a in-the-background kind of thing? How will the game handle changing delta-v requirements due to different planetary alignments? A: For delivery routes, we have clear steps. First implementation, crediting/debiting resources to vehicles and colonies based on duration. Second implementation might take into account launch windows and such. Someday, would be very cool to see vehicles coming and going. Not a promise, but a long-term aspiration. Q: Will certain resources needed for colony construction be planet/biome specific? A: The diversity of resources is what's going to make exploration mode so fun. Compared to KSP1 which was very self-directed (take temperatures, etc.), when there is a unique resource somewhere that gates your access to some category of parts/features - wow it totally changes the game. It gives you something material literally material, yeah the interplanetary/interstellar progression will really POP once you're able to dig up a specific thing that gives you a specific ability. Q: For the far off colonization update. How will buildings work? Will we assemble them ourselves by landing modules (or making them on site) and moving them into position, or will it be more of a prefabricated type of building system? A: We have a inflatable module that you put on a vehicle and once you deploy it - it's basically like setting up a camping site. It sets up a VAB-like interface. Using that and other modules, you can use resources to add even more modules to the colonies. There will be attach nodes and it'll be very similar to creating a vehicle. Also the same thing applies to orbital colonies. Q: Orbital colonies have been mentioned. Will they have a set orbit once the first part has been built, or will they be able to move with engines like other spacecraft? A: They can be moved and crashed, yes. Q: How useful will orbital construction be and how awesome are the colonies? A: Completely critical to the interstellar progression. You can't make a interstellar vehicle in a gravity well. Someone will definitely prove me wrong about that one day. Q: … Will players be able to share colony buildings (Once that comes out) and create? A: …So there will be the asynchronous progression - people dropping in and out of the server over time but slowly building up resources and sharing delivery routes between colonies. … Q: Will there more colony parts than what shown in the trailers? A: yes. Q: What kind of size range can we expect with colonies? Will all colonies be roughly the same size, or will we be able to have small 1-2 launch research colonies along with our gigantic industrial ones? Will there be any upper size limit? A: There's no plan for an enforced upper-size limit. It'll be similar to vehicles, it's made of parts - we want people to make it as large as they want. Obviously not all computers can handle massive builds, so there will probably be a player-dependent fps-based size limit. Q: "When we'll see other exotic fuel types like metallic hydrogen? Will they be added alongside some big update like colonies or will they be added before?" A: We will be bringing in new engine and fuel types across multiple updates, generally as they become instrumental to the progression. I suspect nuclear pulse will be next up, as it opens up the interplanetary progression quite nicely and is a good supplement to colony building. … Q: Will be possible to alter the surface on the planets? Like dig a pit or flatten an area for a colony? A: There are no current plans to do this - … - So yeah, we’ll keep talking about this. · AMA Shana Markham [Apr 20, 2023] Discord AMA 2 - Design Director Shana Markham Answers Q: Most players don't know how do reentry and land precisely. How will you teach players to land precisely near colony to deliver resources there, or will we get instruments to predict landing site for delivery paths? A: …Certainly when colonies comes out, advanced landings will be extremely useful. One of our writers (Jim Peck) did a knowledge-share internally about precision landings, and that taught us a lot about how in-depth that topic can be - and we have to figure out how to distill that down to make it approachable for new players. Q: How will the resources be distributed across so many planets in order to give the player a reason to explore every world? If resources aren't the catalyst for exploration, how else do plan on motivating exploration? A: … we want to look at the various resources on a planet and how it plays into your space program. Especially with colonies and exploration, you may want to build a mining colony - but perhaps it's really far away and it's annoying to get to. So instead you go somewhere else and build an additional orbital colony to help build resource pathways. Q: In the previous AMA it got said that colonies will be built using resources, but the resource gathering update comes after the colonies one, how will that work? A: Remember that question about the roadmap? This is one of the outcomes when everything is building on top of each other.. We wanted to make sure exploration is about exploration. Q: Will colonies feature automation gameplay (with-in the colony, so not the delivery route system)? It can look something like: 1) Resource extractor building mines a raw resource, 2) Resource refinery building makes a useable material out of it, 3) Assembly A: …We want to make sure automation is implemented to make sure the part of the game that is really important to us, rockets, continues to stay the main gameplay loop. Q: Will adding to orbital colonies be similar to how we already make space stations etc. or how will that work differently? A: Orbital colonies would follow a similar flow to terrestrial colonies and have the same toolset. · AMA Kristina Ness [Jun 30, 2023] AMA 3 - Art Director Kristina Ness Answers Q: Have the assets for the game been done? What does the art team do after the assets are made? A: Yes. The art team is actually, as is with most games, the art team is ahead…. our 3D artists right now are working on colony parts. All the science parts are already done and ready to go and they're all lined up. And so, they're onward to colony parts. (as of June 30th, 2023) Q: Will Kerbals be different colors based on what planets they originate from when colonies are introduced? A: That's a very fun idea. I have my own head canon about Kerbal colors. And we'll see. We'll see if that becomes canon. Q: When can we expect to see crew modules which require animations such as gravity rings, especially ones with cool deployment methods? A: Colonies!! I actually just saw a gif of a module very similar to what you are describing that I hope we can share soon. · AMA Chris Adderley (aka Nertea) [Aug 18, 2023] KSP2 AMA Series - Chris "Nertea" Adderley - Answers/Transcript Q: When colonies are implemented, will heat be required for habitation modules in colder environments? A: Not in the current design. We're mostly focusing on having players understand overheating as a concern rather than under-heating. Q: How will the "rotational" artificial gravity ring part showcased in the teasers and trailers work? Will we have multiple iterations of varying sizes? A: We're not really looking at specifically simulating different gravity levels in the game right now. It's not really part of our plans, but we do want to have, at least for colonies, different sizes of gravity ring, and not only different sizes, but different roles. A lot of different things you can put into gravity ring and a lot of different interesting gameplay you can build out of that. And that's a lot of different things you can put into gravity ring and a lot of other things you can build out of that. And that's all I'll say about that. Q: How is the colonies stuff going, there's been some recent concern on whether launching rockets will be free in science. If so, will that be an issue for progression? A: We are effectively designing our progression system in such a way that that's not an issue. I should clarify that as we're going through our milestones, the science milestone is going to be more similar to the science mode from KSP1. So you didn't really have cash in that mode in KSP1. So we're working within the same constraints in terms of that. In the far future when we have resources and things, we're often taking the approach that like, we want players to feel like they want to, they're able to do a lot of stuff from the KSC and from colonies. So I'm not gonna say launching rockets will be free. There's always going to be a cost associated with a rocket, but the amount of various resources that you might have access to at the KSC at different places is going to control what you can launch when. Q: I got the impression that there was going to be the potential for vessels/stations with truly massive part counts… is this still going to be a thing eventually, at least by 1.0? A: This is a core goal that we have in our game. It's like we need to scale things….We're gonna have a specific [performance] target for colonies, a specific target for interstellar, and then a specific target as we go towards 1.0. So the goal is to deliver more parts per ship, more parts per save, more ships per save, to make it so that you can truly have a curvil interstellar civilization. Q: What are your thoughts on greenhouses and simple life support with snacks for example? How do you see conveying that colonies are both real places where kerbals live and 'working machines' much the way vessels are? A: …We have some things in the works around Colonies that ape some of the ‘results’ of life support, which I hope will get at the idea of colonies being a little more kerbal-involved than just plunking Kerbals in a command part. Q: As a side question, stations and bases. Are these going to have something of a real use this time around, given that stations were limited to more or less just fuel depots in KSP1. I'm thinking more along the lines of long term research projects, with big pay-off for significant durations of time. Is there some sort of requirement to resupply the stations, perhaps required crew rotation, stuff like that? A: The progression we want to deliver for bases and stations mirrors IRL conceptions about how these things should work. You will start out with outposts that have limited utility – let’s call that KSP1-like. Fuel depots, maybe comms relays, etc. As you progress through the tech tree, you’ll get access to stuff that provides them with greater utility. That’s shipyards and docks, fuel factories, launch pads, etc. Eventually you’ll get the biggest parts, which are mostly focused on giving you the full capabilities of the KSC at a colony. A core piece of the utility in my mind comes with resource gathering (which is a ways off in the roadmap,) when the specific positioning and configuration of a colony becomes really important. Placing a colony with good access to progression-related resources and having easy access to heat management/power sources will allow you to build specific functions and cool vibes into each colony. Crew rotations and resupply are not currently something we would want to enforce. I hope that when we get resources and delivery routes fully operational though, that this is something modders will hit really hard because the framework of stuff like delivery routes will be there. 5. Interviews and Dev Chats · Colony parts will start appearing in Tier 4 of the tech tree and continue into Tier 5 Science and Tech Tree - KSP 2 Dev Chats [Nov 30, 2023] · ShadowZone Interviews Nate Simpson (2019) KSP 2 Developer on Multiplayer: "I Never Heard People Laugh So Hard" [Sep 6, 2019] - Base Assembly Editor to build Colonies similar to the VAB for craft - Colonies will use the same physics system as craft, so it will fall if you build too tall · Scott Manley Interviews Nate Simpson (2019) Kerbal Space Program 2 Developer Answers Important Questions [Sep 2, 2019] - Early Stage: Bring modular component that you build on site, inflatable module - When population grows you unlock some ISRU capabilities to unlock more permanent modules · PC Gamer Article with Developer Interview (2020) Space Odyssey: Our first big look at Kerbal Space Program 2 [Jul 1, 2020] - 'Boom Events' are mentioned as a player-initiated event that will increase colony population "through a method we will not describe" - Boom events will happen by making discoveries and unlocking new technologies, and have a variety of effects - Colony Nursery module is mentioned as an example, where a Boom Event will result in the creation of new colonists - Colonies will underperform when they run out of Power or Food - First time Food is mentioned! · PC Gamer Interview (2022) Kerbal Space Program 2 full interview PC Gaming Show 2023 Preview [Nov 23, 2022] - Use local resources to build colonies - Use local resources to build craft at those colonies - Orbital Construction will happen in a ‘sort of open space’ - Delivery routes to automatize a task -> build a resource extracting rover that brings resource to the colony. after doing it once, you can make a repetitive delivery so you continue to receive that resources · Shacknews Interviews Interview (2021) Kerbal Space Program 2 - Interview With Creative Director Nate Simpson [Jun 24, 2021] - As a colony grows, it will eventually become self-sufficient and not need external resource deliveries to expand anymore · Shacknews Interviews Interview (2023) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=easPDj-o06o&t=358s [May 2, 2023] - There will be between 200 to 300 colony parts · GrunfWorks Interviews Nate Simpson (2024) KSP 2's Creative Director talks Colonies - Interview with Nate Simpson [Mar 1, 2024] - Colonies will come with new kinds of science collection - Colonies will be placeable anywhere - ‘dozens’ of new colony parts - The Colonies Experience will be ‘whole’ at its initial release despite resources coming later, but will evolve as resources and delivery routes come online later 6. Sneak Peaks · An Orbital Colony Around Duna & Jool (video of rotating rings/arms in link) Colonies Sneakpeeks [Mar 15, 2024] This Document as a PDF: CCCA.pdf

update, I find the IR config but is only for canadarm 1 . . /////Canadarm 1 elbow joint servo @PART[ht_C1_elbow]:NEEDS[MagicSmokeIndustries] { @description,0 = Powered by Infernal Robotics - Next. This elbow joint can rotate 180 degrees back on itself. @MODEL { @model = htRobotics/Parts/ht_C1_elbowIR } -NODE[TopJoint] {} -NODE[BottomJoint] {} -MODULE[ModuleRoboticServoHinge] {} node_stack_top = -0.0934, 0.1909, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 node_stack_bottom = -0.0934, -0.1909, 0, 0, -1, 0, 1 MODULE { name = ModuleIRServo_v3 servoName = KerboArm1 Elbow axis = 0, 0, 1 pointer = 1, 0, 0 fixedMesh = armElbow_base movingMesh = armElbow_top isRotational = True hasMinMaxPosition = True minPosition = -180 maxPosition = 0 isFreeMoving = False electricChargeRequired = 2.5 isInverted = False isLocked = False canHaveLimits = True hasPositionLimit = False minPositionLimit = -180 maxPositionLimit = 0 factorAcceleration = 2 maxAcceleration = 2 accelerationLimit = 1 factorSpeed = 2 maxSpeed = 2 speedLimit = 1 factorForce = 35 maxForce = 30 forceLimit = 30 zeroNormal = 0 zeroInvert = 0 presetsS = -180.0|-90.0|0.0 availableModeS = Servo|Control //invertSymmetry = False soundFilePath = MagicSmokeIndustries/Sounds/infernalRoboticMotor // Motor loop sound path } } /////Canadarm 1 pitch joint servo @PART[ht_C1_pitch]:NEEDS[MagicSmokeIndustries] { @description,0 = Powered by Infernal Robotics - Next. This servo joint provides low torque rotation along the pitch axis up to 90 degrees in either direction. @MODEL { @model = htRobotics/Parts/ht_C1_pitchJointIR } -NODE[TopJoint] {} -NODE[BottomJoint] {} -MODULE[ModuleRoboticServoHinge] {} node_stack_top = 0, 0.1751, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 node_stack_bottom = 0, -0.1871, 0, 0, -1, 0, 1 MODULE { name = ModuleIRServo_v3 servoName = KerboArm1 Pitch Joint axis = 0, 0, 1 pointer = 1, 0, 0 fixedMesh = armPitchJoint_base movingMesh = armPitchJoint_top isRotational = True hasMinMaxPosition = True minPosition = -90 maxPosition = 90 isFreeMoving = False electricChargeRequired = 2.5 isInverted = False isLocked = False canHaveLimits = True hasPositionLimit = False minPositionLimit = -90 maxPositionLimit = 90 factorAcceleration = 2 maxAcceleration = 2 accelerationLimit = 1 factorSpeed = 2 maxSpeed = 2 speedLimit = 1 factorForce = 35 maxForce = 30 forceLimit = 30 zeroNormal = 0 zeroInvert = 0 presetsS = -90.0|0.0|90.0 availableModeS = Servo|Control //invertSymmetry = False soundFilePath = MagicSmokeIndustries/Sounds/infernalRoboticMotor // Motor loop sound path } } /////Canadarm 1 rotational servo @PART[ht_C1_rotator]:NEEDS[MagicSmokeIndustries] { @description,0 = Powered by Infernal Robotics - Next. This servo allows a full 360 degrees of rotation axially. @MODEL { @model = htRobotics/Parts/ht_C1_rotatorIR } -NODE[TopJoint] {} -NODE[BottomJoint] {} -MODULE[ModuleRoboticRotationServo] {} node_stack_top = 0, 0.0209, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 node_stack_bottom = 0, -0.0209, 0, 0, -1, 0, 1 MODULE { name = ModuleIRServo_v3 servoName = KerboArm1 Rotator axis = 0, 1, 0 pointer = 1, 0, 0 fixedMesh = armRotator_base movingMesh = armRotator_top isRotational = True hasMinMaxPosition = False minPosition = -360 maxPosition = 360 isFreeMoving = False electricChargeRequired = 2.5 isInverted = False isLocked = False canHaveLimits = True hasPositionLimit = False minPositionLimit = -360 maxPositionLimit = 360 factorAcceleration = 2 maxAcceleration = 2 accelerationLimit = 1 factorSpeed = 2 maxSpeed = 2 speedLimit = 1 factorForce = 35 maxForce = 30 forceLimit = 30 zeroNormal = 0 zeroInvert = 0 presetsS = -180.0|0.0|180.0 availableModeS = Servo|Control //invertSymmetry = False soundFilePath = MagicSmokeIndustries/Sounds/infernalRoboticMotor // Motor loop sound path } } this is the config, now the question is is there a way to add the config for only that piece of the kerboarm 2??? this is the CFG of the kerboarm 2 . . PART { name = ht_canadarm2_servo module = Part author = Benjee10 rescaleFactor = 1 TechRequired = advConstruction entryCost = 1200 cost = 100 category = Robotics subcategory = 0 title = KerboArm2 Servo Joint manufacturer = HabTech Consortium description = This servo allows a full 360 degrees of rotation. // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0 mass = 0.06 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 1 crashTolerance = 12 breakingForce = 200 breakingTorque = 200 maxTemp = 2000 // = 5000 bulkheadProfiles = size1 tags = habtech, robot, arm, canadarm2, kerboarm, rotate, hinge, servo, motor, move, MODEL { model = htRobotics/Parts/ht_canadarm2_servo } NODE { name = TopJoint transform = actuatorTopNode size = 1 } NODE { name = BottomJoint transform = actuatorSideNode size = 1 } MODULE { name = ModuleRoboticRotationServo servoTransformName = actuatorMesh baseTransformName = actuatorBody servoAttachNodes = TopJoint traverseVelocityLimits = 0, 10 hardMinMaxLimits = -180, 180 softMinMaxAngles = -180, 180 targetAngle = 0 mainAxis = Y maxMotorOutput = 200 driveSpringMutliplier = 100 driveDampingMutliplier = 20 motorizedMassPerKN = 0.0001 motorizedCostPerDriveUnit = 1 connectedMassScale = 1 efficiency = 0.75 baseResourceConsumptionRate = 0.01 RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge rate = 1 } } MODULE { name = ModuleCargoPart packedVolume = 20 } } I really hope that someone can help me

NASA is now opening up the Mars Sample Return mission to the commercial space approach. The usual NASA government financed approach is estimated to cost ~$10 Billion. But following the commercial space approach it probably could be done at literally 1/100th that at ~$100 million including launch cost. I had estimated it as less than ~$200 million using the Falcon Heavy as launcher: Low cost commercial Mars Sample Return.
 http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/07/low-cost-commercial-mars-sample-return.html This could get ~750 kg back from Mars with the Falcon Heavy as the launcher. However, it probably could in fact be launched on the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 can launch about a quarter of the mass of the Falcon Heavy to Mars, for all the in-space stages, so estimate the sample size returned from Mars of ca. 180kg. At a $40 million launch cost of the reused F9, then all together with all the in-space stages, the mission cost probably could be less than than ~$100 million. Such a low mission cost probably could be paid for by advertising alone. But to encourage participants to take up the task of such a fully privately financed mission, NASA could offer a prize of say $200 to $500 million to whoever could accomplish it, with some smaller incentive prizes to those who accomplish some key required steps. Bob Clark

I understand your point. Read the post left by Presto 200. If they allow me, I‘ll add this to the post. Do you like this idea? I think it checks your boxes. What do you think?

Rocket download here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V88bacJOnow65gsWFgV2mxYtl3Rm1bfe/view?usp=sharing

"It's this kind of exageration that makes it understandable why they wouldn't want to engage with the community right now." First and foremost, it will never be understandable and acceptable for a team creating an Early Access game to not want to engage with the community with the reason being "they are being mean to our game waah". If you really want to convince yourself of otherwise, you are more than welcome, but you'll remain in the wrong. Second, it is a fact the game is, indeed, a preview build (Early Access to what's yet to become a fully fledged videogame) that is borderline unplayable if you compare it with any other game that resembles it's experience and gameplay loop (in this case the only fair comparison would be KSP1). Current build of the game lacks most features of KSP1's vanilla gameplay loop, and those already present exist on a half-assed and unstable state. Existing gameplay loop (and this encompasses every aspect of the game you as the player interact with on a normal session: UI, controls, save/load, construction, flying) is unstable and utterly unreliable. Examples of these could be crafts spontaneously exploding upon loading onto the launchpad, or saving a long mission and realizing that loading that state results in your craft disintegrating itself for no reason or having its parts misaligned. Inability to reliably fly long missions due to parts drifting away from their original location on your craft. Rovers and wheeled vehicles are just... no. Delta V readings and maneuver node dV predictions literally don't work properly, which is the spine of this game if you want to do anything beyond LKO. Performance is atrocious on high end machines, so forget about high part counts (high meaning 200 parts and up, which is "normal" part count for any reasonable KSP1 project). I could continue adding game breaking issues that support my claim. Just don't tell me that they could have the right to go radio silent for not liking them and that you'd think it'd be okay. "You hurt your credibility by making claims like this" I think I speak for everyone who paid $50 for KSP2's Early Access when I say that the only credibility that holds any real value when it comes to this game is Intercept Game's. No one here has any reason to exagerate or tell you lies about how the game works when all it takes is playing it by yourself and realizing the rose tinted glasses don't hold themselves longer than the first 10 minutes of playtime until you encounter a game breaking glitch. Which again, it's fine. They exist. It's normal. What isn't normal is people trying to defend something as if their life depended upon it. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Imagine being one of the biggest Kerbal content creators, having been invited to most events and campaigns about KSP2 and realizing that a simple KSP2 video about landing a craft on the Mun and driving around with the simplest rover ever results in you considering going back to KSP1 and not looking back. Please, watch that YouTube video at the bottom just by skipping through (it's 40 mins after all) while listening to his complains and tell me with a serious face that KSP2 is totally playable as a solid game for 100+ hours again and that all he is doing is exagerating and hurting his credibility. I'm waiting.

I think this is a flawed way of thinking about the future. It's naive to think the same trends we see now and in the recent past will continue forever. People thought there would be flying battleships based on the development of airships in the early 1900s as a "natural" continuation of the technology, and it never happened. People thought there would be no more capital ships after torpedo boats made them "obsolete," also during the early 1900s. And people thought the adoption of nuclear power in the US in the late 1950s meant that by 1990 there would be a small nuclear reactor in the basement of every home in America. When thinking about this stuff, its important to think about the economy of it. Based on the size of airline fleets and number of total employees, I have seen estimates that it takes about 50-100 employees to maintain a single aircraft. How many employees does it take to maintain a single rocket? How much extremely specialized labor when compared with maintaining aircraft? Where is SpaceX going to get this army of ground staff to support their launch of 1000 Starships during each transfer window? In my state it costs about $300,000 to build a new home right now, minus permits and land costs etc. This is very close to the average US cost of 298,000 in 2023. For lack of alternative ideas, I'm going to assume SpaceX uses the "normal buildings in domes" design they have in the artwork on their website. Musk wants to house 1 million people on Mars. Let's say there are 4 people to a home. So $75 billion to build the habitats. This doesn't include the expensive domes, complete with life support on a scale never seen before. The domes will need to be even bigger because there will need to be room for the other aspects of the city. It won't just need more buildings, but a sewage system, schools, farms, the power source, and so on. So the dome will be enormous. The ISS has about 1000m cubed of pressurized volume and cost $100 billion or so in total. I'm going to be very generous and cut that in half, assuming use of robots will help cut costs, but then I'm going to add $5 billion for those robots. So let's say 1000m cubed of volume on the Mars base will cost $55 billion to build. The city of Portland, which is probably smaller than what the Mars city will be due to lack of farmland, is 233km squared area. I'm going to treat the volume of the dome as if it were a cube, and the extra volume that wouldn't be there on account of shape will go to the farmland. So let's just say to have good circulation and allow birds to live in it, it will need to be a generous 1 km tall (the artwork shows it higher). So, the volume is just 233km cubed. So, it would cost $233 billion dollars to build a pressurized dome for the city. From r/theydidthemath Let's be generous and use the lower estimate. About 250 sq km for 1 million people. Cost of dome + homes (minus maintenance, services, sewage, transporting dirt for farming, etc.): ~$488 billion. The article from Payload Space that estimated SpaceX's revenue I found put operating costs in 2022 at $3 billion. They launched 61 rockets in 2022, rounding that down to 60, we get $50 million to launch one rocket. How many Starships will it take to build the city? Way more than Musk theorizes. An interesting Seattle Times article did the calculations and the weight of a home came in at about 300 tons. So 300 million tons of material need to be moved to Mars for the housing alone. Starship 3 can bring 200 tons to LEO, and with 4-5 refueling flights could bring that to Mars. So 1,500,000 Cargo Starship launches would be required to send the materials, ignoring things like volume restrictions and what have you. Add 4 tanker flights per launch, and that would be 7,500,000 Starship launches. Thus SpaceX's operating costs including the launch of these rockets, in total, would amount to $375 trillion. This doesn't include the 10,000 Starships needed to launch the million colonists, nor the cost of launching the dome, dirt for farmland, robot laborers, and so on. And of course the associated tankers. Nor the actual cost of the materials themselves. These would be internal launches and thus generate no revenue. In contrast, the Earth's GDP in 2022 was about $100 trillion. Starlink had 2.3 million subscribers in 2023, and generated $4.2 billion in revenue. If Starlink somehow rose to 32 million subscribers and beat out Comcast to become the biggest ISP in the US, they'd have, very roughly, $63 billion in revenue each year. This doesn't take into account inflation. SpaceX alone could not pull this off. $375.5 trillion for the Mars city, and that estimate is low balled. And it won't even turn a profit when it is complete. It will just be a regular old city, but costing $50 million to send stuff to and fro on a good day. Contrast with how sending a 20 ft shipping container to Japan costs about $1,200 dollars. A Mars city will, in all likelihood, never turn a profit. And remember those failed predictions about technology in the early 20th century? Let me introduce you to some more bad projections. In the 1920s, people predicted the end of poverty, infinite growth, and even declines in culture because people were becoming so wealthy they wouldn't want to do anything. Then after the crash of '29, people were predicting permanent damage, endless poverty and unemployment, and no hope of recovery ever. So even though Goldman Sachs predicts the global GDP being $227 trillion in 2050, which maybe could put it at $1 quadrillion by year 2300- at which point the US GDP might be about $300-400 trillion (all at a rate of growth of $100 trillion every 25 years), that would still require a company with the ability to invest an amount equivalent to the US GDP in something they will get no return on investment in. All that assumes there is no Second Great Depression, no nuclear war, no AI disruption to the economy, and no disastrous damage from climate change. I really dislike the idea of things being inevitable. If we want something to happen in the future, we have to work for it, we can't assume it will just come to us. No one is really working towards anything right now, and I feel like that's just going to allow another bad cascade of events that will lead to great damage and set humanity back 50 years. Every generation has talked about something being inevitable, then had things turned on their head and started saying the other way around was inevitable. There is great collateral in the process. I wish for once we would recognize the future is unknown and try to shape it by our own will, instead of letting it take the trajectory set by people who are either in retirement homes or dead. Because it isn't a trajectory at all, just feeling our way through the dark with no interest in our existence beyond the present. ------ Okay, now for fun let's see when a company might have the wherewithal to fund its own Mars colony, based on these unchanging linear projections that I simplified. SpaceX's total revenue was about $8 billion according to that same Payload Space estimate. So 3/8 of that was operating costs. Assuming SpaceX's revenue can grow with the economy: maybe SpaceX and Tesla merge into one mega corporation, along with Twitter, maybe it produces the world's best mac and cheese, who knows. I'm going to use that trend as the GDP. So SpaceX's total revenue will be $16 billion in 2050, and $32 billion in 2100. I'm gonna round it up to $10 billion in 2023 so this is easier. So $40 billion in 2100. $64 billion in 2200, $128 billion in 2300. By the year 3000, it will be $400 billion. $800 billion in 4000, but let's bump that to a trillion. So it will be $3 trillion dollars by the year 8000. After that, it would take about 200,000 years for SpaceX's operating costs to reach $300 trillion dollars. The extra 75, also rounded up, to 100, would take another 667 years or so to gain. So SpaceX will have enough money to build a city on Mars starting in 208,667 A.D. By this time, two moons of Uranus will have collided, the Arecibo message will have reached its target, and Pioneer 10 will have passed within about 3 light years of Ross 248, a red dwarf, which circa 60,000 A.D. will have become the closest star to Earth for a brief period of time (10,000 years). Disclaimer: This is half serious attempt to calculate the cost of a Mars colony, half tongue in cheek criticism of statements that say things like "All we need to do is send some software engineers to Mars and the colony will be profitable." I did not check my math. The only really serious thing is my critique of making predictions about the future by assuming current trends will last forever.

Here is the A-25 Condor: the Program's newest improvement on the SSTO concept perfected by the A-19. The A-25, in contrast to the A-19, has a sleek, futuristic look: more like the SR-71 than the Skylon. Seen here is the A-25's predecessor, the A-19 Aquilae. Like the A-19, the A-25's job is mostly to transfer a lot of crew at a time to a station. Although the Aquilae is perfectly competent at its job, I wanted an SSTO with more crew capacity as it's gotten to the point where I need to launch a dozen kerbals at a time to my orbiting motherships. The A-25 has a crew capacity of 12 crew and 2 pilots and can carry some KIS equipment and BG experiments. The A-25 also retains the A-19's innovation of combining rudders and airbrakes (seen above). I originally wanted the A-25 to be able to operate with a higher fuel margin than the Aquilae, but despite having more fuel I ended up with less: while the A-19 had 200-300 m/s in orbit, the A-25 now has 100-150 m/s. However, by disabling the top RAPIER, the A-25's thrust is alligned with the center of mass, unlike the A-19 which required me to constantly pitch up while running the engine at full blast. And the A-25 takes off on its inagural flight! Aboard are Vaysa and Gemdrin Kerman on a mission to the low orbit station Cornerstone. This will allow us to test 4 important skills: takeoff, rendezvous, docking, and re-entry. It's become somewhat of a rite of passage: Merlin, Accipiter, the partial SSTO A-12 and the A-19 have all had their maiden flights to the station. Some of you may notice I'm taking off at an angle: this is because Cornerstone is at a high inclination. After roughly a day in transfer, A-25 Condor finally reaches Cornerstone. Seen here is Flight Engineer Gemdrin configuring the controls for a docking. And a successful docking! Gemdrin and Vasya exchange greetings with the 4th Cornerstone crew of 3 and offload some equipment, particularly some new life support equipment that was originally scheduled to be delivered by A-19 Aquilae. Re-entry is always tricky at an inclination because you can only leave at certain times and one often has to change inclination to meet the KSC. And we have landed! The A-25's first crewed flight is a success, which is certain to inspire the next generation of cargo-carrying SSTOs.

Mechanical power from water is easy and is more than 5000 years old, so that will clearly be a thing very quickly. Mechanical wind power is almost 3000 years old, both less concentrated and less reliable, but still pretty useful and should be back fairly quickly. Turning either of those into electric power mostly requires magnets and wire, so intermittent local power(like a flour-mill that doubles as a battery charger) should be reasonably common, but if it gets set up by someone with limited understanding of electric theory(such as myself) such a charger is likely to damage the batteries with every charge. Fortunately, batteries are more than 200 years old, so if you have copper and zinc, you can turn those into electrical power as well. Unfortunately, oil is of limited use without refineries, and refineries would be a primary target(tanks run poorly without fuel after all), so only chemists would be able to run vehicles until new refineries were produces(I think fractional distillation can provide something functional, but I would expect it to be hard on any engine that uses it) Straight crude could be burned as fuel, but would generally be inferior to coal, as liquids are harder to store and handle than solids. Wood would likely be superior to both where it is available, as it is much less likely to produce hazardous fumes when burned. So long as fuel reserves held out, food production would be in good shape, but would go down dramatically once farmers run out of diesel. Food processing would likely have issue before that however. Fortunately, it looks like almost all of the population is is major cities(86% in cities of 50k+ in 2020 for the US), so a drop in food production is probably not as critical as it would otherwise be. There would probably be at least a decade of 'everyone is a farmer' with the related loss of population to starvation before we stabilized and started growing again. Assuming no one was in a position where they could take advantage of our weakened state to invade.

Yeah. A net loss of ~$200 million in cancelled projects and severance packages. An approximate 5% reduction in the overall workforce. But a reduction in overall operating costs by ~$165 million annually. What really gets me about the article is that they are touting GTA VI as being the next big game, and it's expected to be the top-selling game of the decade. I know that Rockstar and Private Division are two entirely separate subsidiaries of TT...but one has to wonder how much management is shifting overall corporate focus to GTA, and how much that shift is impacting other titles such as KSP. I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just curious, is all.

And that's another issue with the developers using the up-vote process as a way to determine what bugs should get priority. As an example, docking is a critical component to the game; without it, you (not you personally, but you in a general sense of players) might not be able to go interplanetary, and will certainly not be able to go interstellar. But if nobody sees the bug, and therefore they don't up-vote it, the developers think "Well, this isn't all that bad" and they ignore it in favor of something else that's actually not important at all. Like in your example, the mission to get 35 science for landing 200+ tons on Minmus. That developers are relying on this system instead of using some common sense with bugs is mind-boggling. If they want to use the up-vote system to determine what non-critical bugs the community cares about should get fixed next, then fine. But don't prioritize something small over something integral to the game simply because a lot of people want more science rewards instead of being able to dock.

Is being done for centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteoporosis#Potentially_modifiable The bedridden patients and low-mobility people suffer from it even at 1 g. P.S. It's a remedy! The Martians should be fat and heavy! The potato diet is excellent for Mars. 0.4 g means 200 kg of normal body mass for a Martian. For Mars!!

Since you don’t have to open steam to actually play KSP2 it’s hard to draw any useful information from this. I have less than 6 hours logged, yet I’ve dumped at least 200+ hours into KSP2

Most of their plans were having anything common neither with technological/economical reality, like the original lunokhod on tracks (hi, lunar dust, 40 km ever) and with nuclear reactor or the rover train, following the lunar terminator in a travel around the Moon (hi again, lunar dust, 40 km ever), nor with engineer's common sense, like these ones So, while it's theoretically feasible to make a spaceship shaped as a statue of Icarus, more dull designs are usually preferred. I didn't know that, that's interesting to know. You are welcome. http://kbhmisaeva.ru/ The N1 was cancelled because it was too handcraftish, unreliable, and limited in payload due to its spherical tanks, enormous cross-section and countless engines. A cylindric rocket can be made (and it was done many times) longer, shorter, narrower, double-diameter bottle or cylindriconical, have lateral boosters to vary the payload. A cylindric shell of UR-200 first stage can be made a launch container for UR-100, the UR-100 made narrower to have a narrower container, of same cylindrical sections like R-9 stages, and when the engines and the gap obturator have gotten better, UR-100 can be replaced with wider UR-100N in original UR-200-wide containers. And all of that on the existing equipment, from standard section, just having them repurposed. And having every rocket matching the railroad car standards until the very late Energy central body. That's what an industrial way is. This spherical-conical snowman was able only to incompletely fill the tanks to launch less than the 95 t max. It wasn't able to carry more than that. So, Glushko just had burnt the heresy with fire, and started making a proper thing. The Space Race was a purely American shadow boxing. The Soviet people were aware of Soviet achievements when they happened, but knew nothing about failures. So, Sputnik, Lunnik, human spaceflights, and orbital stations were actively forced by the official propaganda, but I remember the very late 1980s, when the articles "Do you know that the USSR had its own lunar flight program?", "Look! We had a project of N1 superrocket" began to appear and were looking conspirologically. The official version was: "Meh! While they have sent the people to the Moon, we have done the same even without sending people, so what? Better look at our orbital stations, which they don't have." Also, every second believe that the Apollos were filmed in a studio, because of no stars on lunar sky and radiation belts killing everyone. The space doesn't occupy most part of human mind. Can't understand, sorry. They were afraid of success of what? It doesn't matter. The very way of the Saturn family engineering is typically industrial, like Henry Ford blesses. The Titan and Delta as well. Like UR and Energy, too. All of them are unified and standardized, all of them use existing parts of predecessors, all of them are made of lego. How do the engineers do? They take an alumagnesium alloy standard slab from the metallurgical plant, polish it with a milling machine, cut into standard panels, bend them to a standard curvature, weld fixed amount of them into a cylindrical ring, make its inner surface waffled with another milling machine, send it to the storehouse. They do the same for vessel heads of standard sizes, and for power set elements. They use standard industrial equipment for that, the more common - the better. The less experienced staff is required - the better. The less staff is needed - the better, ideally only automated machines. And this in turn means, the simpler are shapes - the better. Only cylinders, short wide cones, small hemispheres. No long cones like R-7 lateral boosters or the ... anticone? like the R-7 central body, or N-1 stage hulls, large spheres of different diameters like N-1 tanks (six diameters for 3 stages, almost all wider than a railroad car, and one or two wider than a regular river barge). Very excellent, when you can take ready-to-use parts from several different part manufacturers. They take as many cylindric rings of assigned diameter from the storehouse, vessel heads welded into shorter rings of the same diameter, stack them and weld together, making a cylindric tank of required diameter. When they need to make it shorter, instead of two rings with opposing vessel heads they take one with a double hemisphere inside, and make the tank ends nested. When they need longer, they add a standard section, when they need shorter, they take a section less. To reinforce it from inside, they use power sets elements of standard curvature and length, not bend thm ogively. When they need an ogive fairing, they don't bend it out in Tin-Tin rocket style. They stack a set of short cones. Looks worse, made easier. When they need the lower stage wider than they have or the transport allows, they make a bunch of existing narrower cylinders like in Proton or Saturn IB, instead of growing a 16 m wide something like for N-1. They always remember that the local (especially military) specialists are monkeys with grenades, and the farther from the rocket they keep their hands, the better for everyone. Ideally the rocket should be hidden in a faceless cylindric container, delivered by train, put onto the launchpad, and forgotten. Its self-control (leaks and so on) is also better to self-control by the rocket, lighting a red lamp if the pressure between the rocket and the container is changed, or some electric resistance or capacity is changed. Originally the plan was to deliver the rockets already fueled, but after realising that the experienced military hands will more probably crash a fueled rocket than splash the fuel while fuelling, the idea was rejected. So, they deliver it empty, put in, and fuel. To make a container for a smaller rocket, they take sections from the bigger rockets (UR-100x / UR-200), because they are. To make a command post, they take a container from the big rocket, put the post inside instead of a rocket, and hang it in similar silo (R-36M family). To make an orbital telescope, they take a spysat and overturn it (Hubble/KH-11). They follow same dimensional requirements forced by the railroad, so the Shuttle cargo bay ideally matches Almaz station, even when they don't relate to each other. They don't hesitate taking each other's designs to let the things be easy, thus ISS and Shuttle international docking port standard is a Soviet docking port for Buran with changed electric cable positions (while originally the Shuttle was going to dock to Skylab using Apollo-like port), while OKB-1 and OKB-52 designs sometimes have treacherously unusual diameters or perimeters in integer feet. (Actually, they have integer or semi-integer number of aluminium panels per cylindric sections, but somehow the panel sets match integer feet, lol). The way used in N-1 design is a typical barn rocketry. "Let's take all those water tanks, stack them like a snowman, fill with petrol and liquid air, and attach thirty rockets from dragsters. If we need more, let's just buy more metal sheets, cut and weld them manually, like we made the water tower." It's ideal for the barn rocketry, but absolutely bad for mass production. It would be normal for mass production if they were using mass manufactured tanks of standard size, attaching NK-33 developed from NK-15 after testing that in a dragster rally and mass produced. But all those part were not mass manufactured, they were dedicated. So, to make the N-1 kind of rational, they should be producing the set of its tanks as normal industrial vessels for liquids. To do that, in 1920s they should think: "We are going to standardize fuel tanks for farms and fuel stations. What if in the future we will want to stack them and make a rocket. Let's now calculate which diameters we need." It would be possible, as the N-1 tanks have integer capacities in cubic meters, but it didn't happen. The R-7 tricky shape is caused by the RD-107/108 engine. It's weak (80..<100 tf) and bulky (~2.5 m together with attitude thrusters). So, it requires a 2.7 m wide rocket, but can't lift a cylindric one, only the carrot, 2.7 meters at the wide end. It happened because after making RD-103M for R-5M, Glushko bureau failed for various reasons (high-frequency pulsations, too thick chamber wals, etc.) RD-105,106,110 of ~100 tf thrust, and he decided to make the kerolox engine of the lowest adopted thrust, 25 t (like V-2, but more robust and on kerolox). Combining a quad, and adding the 100 tf turbopump from the failed projects, he made the original RD-107 without attitude controls, ~100 tf. But as the attitude controls from 3rd party would crash the harmony, he developed the known RD-107 with 2 and RD-108 with four attitude thrusters, thus the engine became 75..80 tf, so too weak even for IRBM. So, the way they chose was to take a central booster as inverted carrot with RD-108, attach four boosters with RD-107, and thus R-7 appeared, It was three times overpowered (4 t warhead instead of the required 1.5 t), but it was even better because originally the warhead had 10x30 km error. Though, as the warhead department was failing the warhead re-entry, and there was declared an International Geophysical Year (the USSR, the USA, and the PRC had loudly declared their intention to launch the first satellite in that year, and immediately screwed it), Korolyov suggested Khrushchev to spend one headless R-7 from the storehouse to troll the 'Muricans with sat. Khrushchev was glad and agreed. Thus the first satellite flew into space. After putting five R-7 on military service and realizing that they are a total failure as ICBM, (they ordered to Korolyov / Korolyov asked them for) make a R-9A rocket. Korolyov was not punished for R-7 because the governmental order on R-7 creation was signed by the best people of the Soviet state, so whom should they accuse in that case. Kuznetsov bureau was making the NK-9 engine for it, and Glushko was making RD-111 as post-RD-107 with 4x40 tf chambers (like in the most powerful alcoholic RD-103M, but based on RD-107 design). Glushko was first, and R-9A was equipped with RD-111, raw and untested, so unstable. NK-9 appeared later and were used in the experimental global GR-1, based on the R-9A, and in the upper stages of N-1. Based on NK-9, the Kuznetsov bureau developed NK-15, and then NK-33 and its further family. Glushko suggested Korolyov to make R-7 bigger, give it six lateral booster, and replace RD-107 with RD-111, to make it 20 t capable, but to that time the UR-500 was more perspective and sane than another bunch of carrots on a huge rotating "Tulip", while the RD-111 was not properly finished, so the further R-7 and RD-107 upgrades were done by other bureaus. *** Now let's imagine that in mid-1950s the Soviet Governmental Commission had listened to the Korolyov description of R-7 and tulip launchpad, made a cuckoo sign, deciding that no ICBM and saved money is better than no ICBM and spent money, and totally dismissed him from rocketry and space, sending him to the rocket factory as a manager (the post where he was good). Obviously, no sat or Vostok is flying somewhere, Zenith spysat (closer to Corona or Sputnik-3) keeps being developed (irl replaced with Zenith-2 aka Vostok). Maybe the 'Muricans are the first in space, let them be happy, but more probably that in absence of Russkies in Space they keep screwing that space and finally lose the race again, lol. There is already 1.65 m Yangel's middle-range R-12 on pseudokerosene and nitric acid, replacing R-5M, and short-range SLBM R-13/R-21, all of them derived from R-11, derived from Wasserfall, derived from A-4. Next step is R-9B on UDMH and nitric acid, cancelled (due to then-weak engines and Korolyov's opposing to Yangel, who was formally his deputy) and turned into a family of IRBM and ICBM, i.e. R-14 and R-16. The size is the same as in real history. Thanks, railroad, for your 325 cm wide cars, causing R-16 1st stage 290 cm. Thanks, Thor, for your 8 ft (aka 244 cm) as the R-14 only stage. Thanks, R-14, for your 244 or 246 cm as the R-16 2nd stage. IRL also thanks R-9A for your 268 cm as R-14 shirt, compatible with the R-9A launchpad. Btw by taking a metal sheet 174x70 cm (or in case of Proton 200x80 cm), we can easily get some perimeters and diameters. From the railroad dimensions, we have 290 cm of max diameter inside a car, and 448 cm oversized. Thus, the widest part of Proton is 435 cm, but by splitting a shroud in quarters, we can have 570 cm wide shroud. Also, that's why the Shuttle cargo bay is 4.5+ m wide, exactly matching Salyut. Yes, thanks to the Roman horses. The A-4 is 165 cm in diameter, but twice as wide ~325 cm in wing span, so transportable straight by a railroad, or diagonally by a trailer which is transportable by the railroad. For wider stages only barges are appropriate. Barges can contain integer number of the Intermodal Containers of fixed size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications. Basically, they are 2.438 m wide. Taking intercontainer gap as 5 cm, we have standard barge payload zone widths: 2 containers = 2x2.438 + 3x0.05 = 5 m 3 containers = 3x2.438 + 4x0.05 = 7.5 m 4 containers = 4x2.438 + 5x0.05 = 10 m (most common) 5 containers = 5x2.438 + 6x0.05 = 12.5 m 6 containers = 6x2.438 + 7x0.05 = 15 m (river-sea class barge, avoid it for its renting price) 24 containers = 24x2.438 + 25x0.05 = 60 m MSC Gülsün (Notice the perfect match of the sizes and the Metric units. It's probably done by French or Germans to troll the Anglosaxons). The same dimension limits are also clearly visible in the automobile trailer sizes, and bridge standards. The railroad car is 22..25 m long, thus all rockets or rocket stages are shorter than 22 m. If they are longer, they consist of two parts, assembled after the railroading. The central UR-700 (9-block) booster and the additional boosters of UR-700 (15- and 18-block) consist of two main 4.1 m wide parts: fuel tank and engines, and oxidizer tank. Each is delivered by its own car. The lateral UR-700 (9-block) boosters has a third part on top, transfusion tank, consisting of 12 m high tilted cone and ~10 m cylinder. The central and lateral booster tanks of UR-700 (15- and 18-block) are longer by one 2-m high section, 7 and 5 instead of 6 and 4 rings. All of them are shorter than a railroad car. That's the engineers' way of doing things. Science is for nerds, who live in their Mathematrix. True engineers measure in train cars and barges by hands. That's the Way. *** So, in absence of R-7 and R-9 the R-14 and R-16 pair appears by several years earlier, and has same dimensions. The they are taken and used by OKB-52 in their development of UR family. UR-200 is a standard launch vehicle for 2.5 t orbital payloads (IS/US sats), and in this reality becomes the first rocket to put in LEO all three first sats, and something like Mercury (1.7 t), if they decide. Actually, it would be a 0.8 sized single-seat cabin of further LK-1 with some lifesupport aggregate attached below, like they prefer, with 2..6 orbits lifespan. Non-maneuverable, pure Mercury. By implementing the intermediate concept which led from 3 m wide UR-200 to 4 m wide UR-500, they would attach four lateral booster of then-coming-UR-500 with engines from UR-200 (nailed, not jettisonnable, like in UR-500, but with their own fuel tanks in every), enlarge the second stage to 2.9 m, and get a rocket with 5 t payload, ideal for Vostok (4.8 t) or simplified LK-1 (standard 2.511 capsule, but no maneuvering). Vostok is basically a stratospheric balloon cabin, used in many ways since Piccard created it first for FNRS-1, so its usage in a spaceship looks obvious, either as a cabin, or as a habitat. Basically, this gives Vostok/Voskhod and Soyuz. So, even if the very first ship was based on LK-1 design, it's very possible that Vostok would be repeated in this reality as the first day-to-week flight ship for basic experiments. The Mercury-like cone would anyway be airbreaking ballistically, at the same 10 g. Once RD-253 come into scene, a UR-500-compatible, 4.1 m wide, 250 t heavy rocket with twin RD-253, third stage of UR-500 as 2nd stage, with payload capacity of 6+ t, i.e. a total alternative for R-7 appears. It would be launching Soyuzes and LK-1. Btw, LK-1 has a triple purpose. Its rear booster (delta-V ~ 3 km/s) can put it in LEO, or send it from LEO to the lunar flyby, or return it from the lunar surface to the Moon (they called it LK-3). Actually, a rather multifunctional ship with that booster as integral part. It was replaced with LK-700 to increase it volume, to add two lunar EVA suits. Otherwise they should be getting out in undies rescue suits, and have just several minutes to plant a flag, listen the anthem, make a selfie, grab several nearest stones and jump back to the cabin. This would happen in early 1960s. In absence of N-1 distraction, the RD-270 is developed, the UR-700 appears first 9-block, then 15- and 18-block, up to 270 t payload. The UR-500 adopts NK-33 family as UR-500MK, then grows up twice, becoming a 70 t capable kerolox rocket. The next step is 8.8 m central booster with four expanded parablocks from UR-700 (15-block), followed by UR-700M of 12 m central body and seven lateral 8.8 m boosters, 700+ t of payload. As RD-170 was designed from the RD-270 turbopump and, they say, NK-33 ancestry, a RD-170 or quad NK-33+ still appears to make the rocket kerolox. Probably, the further progress would be possible only as a combination of Sea Dragon and Nexus, so they would wait for wiki article with its DIY pdf on it.

Basically, whenever I try to upload a new PFP, the forum says “Error -200” and "Sorry, and unknown server error occurred when uploading this file.

“Counterpoint” (from a more recent interview) But I also prefer the 200-300 estimate, @Genekermanisamoneylaundere

Imho we will see the V3 reach 160 meters of total stack: 90 for superheavy and 70 for Starship, with 5000 gross tons for superheavy and 2500-3000 tons for starship ( in normal and tanker configuration respectively), at 10k tons of thrust that's still a respectable 1.3 of TWR at liftoff. Utter insanity, and we are all here for this. In the end SH will have something like 20x350 tons raptor boost and 13x 300 raptor SL that gimble, and the starship will have 6x350 tons raptor vacuum fixed and 3x300 tons SL gimballing raptors, for a total of 11k tons for SH and 3k tons of thrust for starship. This will give a 1.5 TWR for normal starship stack and 1.2 for Starship in particular, and 1.4 and 1 for the tanker version. Let's do some math: So, assumptions: - Isp avg of raptor 2 sea level during ascent: 350 ( it's 330-360 at sea level and vacuum respectively) - Isp of starship during ascent: 370 ( sea level is at 360, raptor vacuum at 380). - starship empty weight 150 tons - superheavy empty weight: 300 tons - remaining props and deltaV for starship to deorbit and land: 950 m/s aka 50 tons prop at 350 Isp, and I'm being very conservative. (100 meters/seconds for deorbit like Shuttle and 800 m/s for landing) - remaning props and deltaV for superheavy for boost back and landing: 400 tons, good for 2900 Ms/s of DV - payload: 200 tons - so total mass that has to reach orbit: 400 tons (150+50+200) - DV needed to reach orbit : 9.2-9.4 km/s of DV ( probably even lower for starship because it has a lot of thrust so way less gravity losses, but it is a good ballpark). - total mass of 2nd stage: 2700 tons (2350 tons of prop, 150 starship, 200 tons payload) - total mass at stage separation: 3400 tons (2700+ 300 SH +400 SH prop for boost back and landing) Total weight of the stack: 7500 tons, 4500 tons are props for the 1st stage, of witch 4100 will be burnt before staging. So: 1st stage gives the 2nd stage 2700 Ms/s of DV ( if you want to calculate with a DV calculator: full mass 7500 tons, dry mass 3400 tons, Isp 350) 2nd stage DV with 400 tons of stuff ( 200+50+150) with 2300 tons of props burnt , 2700 tons full mass and 370 of ISP: 6900 Ms/s of DV Total DV: 9.6 km/s of DV total, way more than needed. I would say that that if they can make the raptor really to 350 tons for the fixed/vacuum ones and 300 tons of thrust of the gimballing ones, we are golden, and 200 tons of payload might be conservative.

Given the extreme environment of Eve, I’ve always wondered what effect this has on engine performances. The Vector, Dart and Mammoth are often recommended for Eve, but I never really saw any quantitative numbers backing them up. Fortunately, the staging interface in the VAB lets us set the environment to Eve at sea level and it’s only a matter of using math to derive Isp values from the deltaV values. As expected, I found that the Vector, Dart and Mammoth do pretty well while most other engines suck. Interestingly, the Thud also performs pretty okay. The highest Isp values for Eve are: Dart: 267; Vector: 152; Thud: 101; Mammoth-II: 97; Mainsail: 96; Spider: 74. All others are below 50 (except possibly the Rapier; I forgot to test that one). The Isp values translate to the highest thrust values: Mammoth: 1332; Mainsail: 501; Vector: 411; Bottle-Rocket: 230; Clydesdale: 228; Dart: 142; Kickback: 115; Thud: 92. Using Eve’s gravity of 16.68 m/s2 (1.7x Kerbin), the highest TWR values are: Dart: 8.5; Vector: 6.2; Hammer: 5.6; Mammoth-II: 5.3; Mainsail: 5.0; Thud: 3.5; Kickback: 3.3. Optimal launch configuration While the Dart has the highest efficiency and TWR, it lacks absolute thrust and an efficient engine is useless if it can’t get its payload off the ground. Since the delta-V calculation doesn’t account for gravity pulling the rocket down, I find that instead the most useful quantity for a launch is the total change in momentum (or impulse) that an engine can deliver, which is equal to the net upward force integrated over time: J = integral (F - g*(mpayload + mengine+ mfuselage + mfuel - R*t)) dt Here F is the engine thrust, g is the local specific gravity and R is the fuel burn rate in kg/s. We can assume that for most cases mfuselage = 0.125 * mfuel . The total burn time can be calculated from t = mfuel /R. The equation then results in: J = (g/R) * ((F/g - mpayload - mengine)*mfuel - 0.625*mfuel2) By solving for dJ/dmfuel = 0, we can find the amount of fuel for which the maximum impulse is achieved: mfuel = 0.8*(F/g - mpayload - mengine) Interestingly, this means that for every ton of payload, you need to substract 800kg of fuel to keep the impulse maximized. From this, we also get the optimal launch TWR: TWR = 1 + (F/g - mpayload - mengine) / (9*F/g + mpayload + mengine) This means optimal launch TWR is always <1.111, getting lower with increasing payloads and gravity, depending on the engine. By adding the optimal fuel mass to the impulse equation, we find the maximum impulse: Jmax = 0.4*(g/R)*(F/g - mpayload - mengine)2 Since g=16.68 m/s2 for Eve, and F, R and mengine are constant for each engine, the only remaining free variable is mpayload. Engine comparison As you can see, the Mammoth-II can potentially deliver the most impulse by far for any payload. In second place is the Vector for payloads below 12t, but above 12t the Mainsail would be a better second choice. Without any payload, the Dart has almost as much maximum impulse as the Mainsail, but that quickly drops off. However, to get the most out of the Mammoth, you’d need an enormous amount of fuel. Without local production, this would all need to be brought in from Kerbin and you would need to manage to land it on Eve without burning up in the dense atmosphere or smashing too hard into the surface due to the high gravity. So, maybe the best value to look at would instead be the maximum impulse per kg of starting mass. The math becomes a bit more complicated at this point, but the Dart would now become the best choice for payloads below 2.5t. Between 2.5t and 5.3t the best choice would be the Vector and for payloads above that the Mammoth-II brings the most impulse per kg: Now, do keep in mind that these are the values per engine. Given the LG size of the Mammoth-II, you could argue it should actually be compared to 7 SM or 3 MD engines for similar footprints. In that case, the Mammoth becomes completely inferior to 7 Vectors and would only be better than 7 Darts for impractically heavy payloads of over 40t. It would perform about the same as 3 Mainsails or 36 Thuds: 7 Vectors would however require much more fuel for maximum impulse than a single Mammoth. So yet another way is to compare the amounts of engines that need a similar starting mass to achieve their optimal impulses. For very large payloads, that would be the case for either 7 Darts, 3 Vectors or 1 Mammoth-II. For smaller payloads, the 7 Darts would deliver far more momentum, followed by the 3 Vectors: Staging configurations For a final comparison, I considered a payload of about 3t (a command pod, a Terrier, sufficient fuel for a circularization burn and some appendices) and an asparagus staging configuration. Using 7 Dart engines would require 3.6t of fuel for the center engine and 13t of fuel for each of the 3 outer stages (so 6.5t per engine), giving a total of 24,000 kNs of impulse and a starting mass of 58t. Using 3 Vectors would require 14t of fuel for the center engine and 34t of fuel for the outer stage (so 17t per engine), giving a total of 22,500 kNs of impulse and a starting mass of 70t. A single Mammoth-II would require 50t of fuel for a total impulse of 18,300 kNs, with a starting mass of 74t. Again the Dart comes out on top, but I do have to note that I used sea-level values for all stages. Performances of the Vector and the Mammoth would especially improve a lot while gaining altitude, while the Dart would only improve a bit. You could consider using a Vector at the center stage with 6 Darts on the outer stage, but the additional fuel for the Vector would then count as a higher payload for the prior stages. This makes the Darts much less effective and it would only result in a total of 19,300 kNs of impulse, while having a starting mass of 74t. In fact, since the Dart suffers so much from higher payloads, asparagus staging is probably not even the most efficient way to use it. Just using 7 Darts without staging would give us a much larger impulse of 43,200 KNs, for a starting mass of just 55t. Using drop tanks while keeping all the engines would be even better. Of course, this doesn’t account for the effects of drag as a result of the wider rocket and the increased acceleration, so the best results might actually be achieved by an in-between solution. Conclusion Given all these results, I would at least have to conclude that the Mammoth-II and the Mainsail are never good picks, at least not when they have to be brought in from Kerbin. The optimal choice would be to use Darts. For larger payloads the Vector is a viable choice to lower the amount of engines, or when stabilizers aren't enough and you really need thrust vectoring (which the Dart doesn’t have). The only advantage that the Thud brings is that it’s radially attachable, but you would need a lot of them to make them work. This was pretty interesting to work out as preparation towards the Under Pressure mission, but it's all just theoretical. I don't have a lot of actual experience with Eve, so I'm wondering how this all corresponds with your experiences.

Hi all Here's my entry - I'm already second place I made it with 11.77 tons. I have ~150 hours in KSP2 and ~200 hours in KSP. My first tries were without a reaction wheel as well but I found that way too annoying and invested the 75kg.

Neptune Camera Download and Releases (GitHub) Source Code (GitHub) Only compatible with KSP 1.10.X and above. Neptune Camera is a utility to add basic camera functionality to parts. Images produced by the camera are saved to the KSP Screenshot folder. The following features are present: Different camera types (Full colour, Red, Green, Blue, Ultraviolet*, Infrared** and Greyscale). Optional errors (dropped pixels) on images taken. Optional noise grain. Configurable FoV and resolution. Full colour cameras can produce separate Red, Green, Blue, and greyscale images if required. * The "Ultraviolet" images are produced with a Protanopia colour filter. ** The "Infrared" images are produced with a Tritanopia colour filter. Examples Here are a few tiny 128x128 images produced from the launch pad, using various modes of the camera: Here are a few tiny 128x128 images, demonstrating how the R, G, and B images can be stacked to produce cool "exposure effects" when the craft is moving: Result: Images of Kerbin, in ultraviolet and infrared respectively, with some general grain noise. A tiny 256x256, full colour image, with no error noise, and an animated sequence of frames. A live preview window can be toggled to view what the camera is currently looking at. Finally, images can even be stacked to create panoramas! Setting Up Neptune Camera If you're a part-modder, setting up Neptune Camera is easy! Step 1, when setting up the part in Unity, add a transform, with Z+ pointing the direction you want the camera to point (Y+ being the "up" direction). Step 2, add the Neptune Camera module to your part. MODULE { name = ModuleNeptuneCamera cameraTransformName = cameraTransform cameraType = FULL_COLOUR cameraHasCustomFieldOfView = True cameraFieldOfView = 70 cameraFieldOfViewMax = 110 cameraFieldOfViewMin = 20 cameraHorizontalResolution = 128 cameraVerticalResolution = 128 cameraHasErrors = True cameraErrorRate = 5 cameraHasNoise = True cameraNoiseMaxStrength = 25 cameraHasCustomNearClipPlane = True cameraCustomNearClipPlane = 0.01 cameraHasCustomTitle = True cameraCustomTitle = "Camera" cameraHasDisplayWindow = True cameraHasConfigTransform = False cameraConfigTransformPosition = 0, 0, -0.125 cameraConfigTransformDirection = 0, 180, 0 } A few things are configurable here: cameraTransformName - the name of the transform on the part to attach the camera to. cameraType - the type of camera this is (see below). cameraHasCustomFieldOfView - whether to use a custom field of view. cameraFieldOfView - the field of view of the camera. cameraFieldOfViewMax - the maximum field of view of the camera. cameraFieldOfViewMin - the minimum field of view of the camera. cameraHorizontalResolution - the width of the image produced. cameraVerticalResolution - the height of the image produced. cameraHasErrors - whether errors (dropped pixels) should be added to images produced. cameraErrorRate - the percentage % of the image that will be scrambled with error noise (whole numbers only 1-100). cameraHasNoise - whether noise should be added to the images produced. cameraNoiseMaxStrength - The maximum percentage % strength of the noise produiced (whole numbers only 1-100). cameraHasCustomNearClipPlane - whether a custom near clipping plane should be used. cameraCustomNearClipPlane - the clipping plane distance. cameraHasCustomTitle - whether the camera actions should be prefixed with a custom title (Allow multiple cameras on the same part). cameraCustomTitle - the custom title to use. cameraHasDisplayWindow - Whether a live preview window is available for this camera. cameraHasConfigTransform - whether to use a transform specified in config. cameraConfigTransformPosition - the position of this transform. cameraConfigTransformDirection - the rotation of this transform. Values will be defaulted if not specified in the config. You don't need to specify every value in your own config. Valid camera types: FULL_COLOUR FULL_COLOUR_ONLY RED_COLOUR GREEN_COLOUR BLUE_COLOUR GREYSCALE_COLOUR ULTRAVIOLET_COLOUR INFRARED_COLOUR A note on cameraErrorRate, though this runs 1-100, this value is actually 1-100% of a 10% maximum error rate. Therefore a value of 100 will equal 10% error, and a value of 10 will equal a 1% error rate. You can exceed this if you want, a value of 200 will equal 20% error - but anything above 10% scrambling is basically garbage. Why? I wanted a very basic camera util to capture space probe style photographs, I.E. Venera landers: Another major draw was the idea of creating multiple single colour images and stacking them, to get cool parallax / sliding / exposure effects. Compatible Mods TantaresSP Bluedog Design Bureau (Some support) Know any others? Let me know and I'll add to the list. Credits and Special Thanks This would not be possible without some major help setting up the render-order, culling, and taking care of various other technical hurdles encountered during development. Without further ado, major thanks to: @sarbian @sirkut @JPLRepo These guys are wizards, and it would take me months to get this working without them. My huge gratitude. Licence All Rights Reserved

A selection of my eclipse photos. Taken from Midlothian, Texas. Nikon D90 300mm zoom telephoto. ASA 200. f/11. A partial phase shot through a cheesy filter (made from the lens of some old eclipse viewing glasses, mounted in a cardboard frame). 1/30 sec. You can see the two sunspot groups that were easily visible on the face of the Sun. Diamond ring just before second contact. 1/1000 sec. This shows the inner corona and solar prominences. 1/30 sec exposure showing middle of corona. The reason any eclipse photo has problems looking anything as cool as the naked-eye view is that your eye has a much larger dynamic range than a photograph, so the inner parts of the corona get washed out while the outer tendrils of the corona are too dim to register. One can take a lot of photos covering a range of exposures and then combine them in Photoshop...I did that with a sequence of photos I took of a 1999 eclipse, but it was a lot of effort and I didn't get good exposures of many intermediate times during this eclipse. Below is a 0.6 sec exposure showing outer corona. The ghost image on the left is due to internal reflections in the lens. The corona shape for every eclipse I've seen has been different, and in this one the two spikes off to the left were most noticeable (although the dark rift at the bottom in the photo above was also interesting). Diamond ring after third contact. The largest prominence was visible in the lower right during this half of the eclipse. You can see that we were fighting some clouds that were moving across the face at this time. Cruise ships are a possible way around this problem.

I've built some pretty big stuff recently, and although it still requires the judicious placement of some struts manually, it's way, way better than it was before. My docked together Eve 10 stack on LKO must be like 200 meters long, and although the framerate on it is terrible and it occasionally develops phantom motions and shakes itself to bits apropos of nothing, it doesn't exhibit any wet noodle behavior that I've seen. As to the solution being "duct tape", i.e. autostruts, are you sure there is actually a better solution than that using this physics engine? If you call those "tack welds" rather than autostruts, it seems like a llegit solution to me. There are definitely much worse problems currently they should be focusing on before they try to improve their wobbly rockets solution, unless of course that solution is in fact what is tanking the frame rate.