Search the Community

An introduction In the 1980s, NASA proposed a concept for a permanently crewed Earth orbiting space station, dubbed Space Station Freedom. Freedom would be the US counterpart to the Russian Mir. But as time went on, and support for the idea dwindled, space station freedom was canned. Luckily, this concept would eventually evolve into the International Space Station that we have today, which you can find here documented in @Kuiper_Belt and @lemon cup's wonderful thread ISS Adventures! I decided to create this thread, to document the construction of my own version of the power tower concept. So where to begin As this is my first post and because I haven't made KSP images properly for people to see before, I am going to be starting of with some shuttle images I've created over the past few days. If you have any suggestions about where you would like to se me take this thread and how to improve it, don't hesitate to tell me! Thanks I'd like to give a huge thanks to @lemon cup for giving me advice on starting this thread, he is a HUGE inspiration to me and if you haven't seen his images, they're simply stunning. I would also like to credit some other creators who have greatly inspired me, so I highly recommend you check out their threads too! @Jay The Amazing Toaster with the awesome Kānāwai: Ares to Mars! @AmateurAstronaut1969 with the fantastic ETS Space Station Freedom! @Kuiper_Belt with the amazing Shuttle Adventures! Enjoy! The maiden launch of Space Shuttle Adventure on STS-10

1. In the Trip Planner the celestial body list is chaotic. I suggest a logical list, instead of an alphabetical one: Suggested: 2. In the mission planner, add the option to aerobrake where possible 3. allow for manually overriding dv requirements. Say a Mun mission. It will tell you that you need 860 dV to return from Mun Orbit to Kerbin Orbit, but I know you can do it with way less, say 300-400 dv. I want to be able to type that in so I don't have to keep remembering for every exception how much dv I can subtract from the total requirement. 4. Add the option to aerobrake where possible Ideally: 5. Completely manual missions Trip planner could look like this:

I saw this on the Orbiter Forum and wanted to bring it here: http://neofuel.com/index_neofuel.html Question: When you have plenty of water, just none to waste, how do you use it best? Do you use electricity and electrolysis to make hydrogen and oxygen gas? Do you make liquid hydrogn and liquid oxygen rocket fuel and use it in a known, highly reliable RL-10 family of rocket engines that really performs well? Or, do you just use it in a simple nuclear heated steam rocket, which performs poorly regarding rocket exhaust velocity, but delivers payloads in massive amounts when the mission delta_V is less than about 3 km/second? Answer: Simple wins. The original work expected to find water on the moon, and to have access tp perfected, advanced nuclear heated steam rockets. This story would have a much better ending if there were water on the moon, and especially on something with 100 times less gravity, instead of the moon. The breakthrough that makes this topic relevant is that the United States space research recently (from about 2000 thru 2011) found more than 8000 objects classified as "near Earth." (near Earth Objects, NEOs). About 1200 can be easier to get to than landing on the moon. And, the NEO's low gravity lets the landing craft launch about 100 times more weight off the NEO than launching from the moon. By comparison, the moon's gravity is "large". The technical paper tells why we thought using water as the rocket fuel reaction mass was better than using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen rockets for this mission. For me the answer is RL-10 all the way! But I digress, I'd like to hear y'all's take on this idea.

Recently I looked at the 'Show and Tell' and a question was "hammering" in my head, in ksp2 we will have nuclear power plants, large nuclear fusion plants, very futuristic things, but I was thinking about technologies that already exist on Earth and could be adapted for planetary colonization, here I mean geothermal power plants, the tidal/wave power plants (for planets with Water, in the case of the first for planets with large natural satellites, or on planets with water that stand around a black hole [yes I took this idea of that first planet that the Interstellar team visits {in case of the addition of a system of planets orbiting from a black hole}]), the power plants that use marine current to generate energy, wind turbines, Biofuel power plants that would use biomass/biogas (plants, organic waste produced by kerbais...), in KSP2 is already confirmed solar panels for the colonies, but and solar thermal power plants, they could be a more efficient means of harnessing the energy coming from the sun, In case water levels were added we could have hydroelectric plants. Do you think that would be a good thing to add or disagree?

The mod would consist of 2 parts: they will be Environmental Exposure Laboratories (E.E.Ls ). There will be a space and surface version of that part. Space E.E.L : Would be a deployable 2.5m wide module. when deployed, it would still be able to fit inside a 3.75 container. The main idea would be able to conduct 3 experiments (one on a plant, the other on an animal, the other on a fungus) by exposing them to the environment around them. Unlike any other experiments though, It would have a capacity of 2 kerbals, (0 when undeployed) and would have to have at least one scientist to conduct. The experiment would also take 1 kerbal day to conduct. It would have on-board electric charge and an openable container to store stuff (much like a service module.) However, it will refuse to inflate when on land due to "low structural integrity to be deployed in a gravitational sphere of influence" Land E.E.L : Would have almost the same features as the Space E.E.L, but it would only be able to be deployed on land due to "parts requiring gravity to operate" and would also have a different texture. Finally, it will have deployable little legs at the bottom. Both E.E.Ls would have separate logs for every accessible biome and would be designed by "Core Industries Research & Exploration Laboratory" or C.I.R.E.L This is so far only an early concept, and I personally lack the programming skill to execute it myself, so suggestions are fully welcome!!!

Yea, long title but pretty explanatory. This is a concept folding wing airplane based off of WWII US fighter planes, the Corsair and the Hellcat and this plane is able to fold it's wings vertically so it is able to be stored compact. This is a prototype and concept so the design of the hinge and it's efficiency deploying and folding them individually is sub-par. Also the visual appeal of the hinges are horrible so if anyone can design a hinge and a plane better than this please feel free to show. 128 parts, stock, SPH: https://kerbalx.com/xoknight/Rotary-Wing-Prototype-Folding-Wing-Concept-Plane Actiongroup 1: decouple wings to fold up.

You're looking at "engineless orbiter" from ShuttleVariations pdf. It's an extended Shuttle with only OMS engines and no SSME's. Looks pretty dope, doesn't it? Does anyone know how designers thought to get this thing in to space? Some say Area 51 has some spectacular tech in there, so does NASA hyper edit?

So, I made a Sequence of Events for a mars mission. Please check over and find my mistakes. Based on these images: Here's the doc link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/185skKDBTJWZuVYdBfrtV-jPX4jGNnn6B8WvXu0ATZY8/edit?ts=576ad760#gid=0 Have fun!

Hi everyone! Something itched me recently to blow some dust off my humble Blender modeling skills. Not sure if I'll have enough thrust to finish this little project, let alone to move past the initial design state. But anyway I'd like to share a concept of two radial command modules and their basic meshes. FH series Radial Command Modules are designed to be hooked radially onto parent parts. The core-facing 'skirt' should ensure seamless coupling with parent parts as small as 1.25m. Both modules have inward facing hatch, theoretically it should wind up inside structural fuselage if hooked onto it. The FH-1 is a single seat command module. It features upward(forward)-facing seat and external airlock in the bottom half. The FH-2 is a two-seat command module. The upper half is similar to that of FH-1, the bottom half features a side-facing second seat that could be used in landers. Although, its reversed position would require some appropriately placed additional reference part on the craft. Album: https://imgur.com/a/chQGw Blender files: https://mega.nz/#!pUEkRbJb!7hhUlcYG72Oct1f4uo9F1dsM8_nd5YnvXdxzknwE77U Shared under CC-BY-NC-SA If anyone wants to screw around with these, feel free to do so.