Search the Community

So, I've started this thing that's similar to Scott Manley's Galileo Conquest series, where you try to expand to the very edges of an unfamiliar modded system, made even less familiar by mods such as Research Bodies. The modlist is slightly different, and instead of Galileo's Planet Pack as the modded system, we have Kerbal Star Systems by @StarCrusher96 as the main focus of the challenge, a system which, if you include the stock bodies, contains a total of 125 carefully designed bodies! The challenge? Construct a base as self-sufficient as possible on each land-able body with specific mods and gameplay settings (I shall provide the specifics soon). As for me, I will record each day with anything worth noting in the spoiler below, including mission launches, mission endings, mission failures, etc.

Hello fellow KSPers. Inspired by @CatastrophicFailure's Alien Skies story, I'm running a career in Galileo's Planet Pack at 3.2x scale, deliberately not looking up anything about the planets. As a request: please don't spoil anything about Galileo's Planet Pack. I'm coming into this blind, using a combination of CactEye telescopes and probes to figure out what the system is like. Other key mods: FAR, Real Fuels-Stockalike, TAC Life Support, Kerbal Construction Time, Karbonite (with some custom Real Fuels configurations from some prior 6.4x stock system work), kOS, RemoteTech 2 (currently no communcations delay; that may change if I feel brave), and plenty of other mods. Funds rewards are set to 120%, science rewards to 40%. Note that the early posts are going to lack specific date information and even the year information will be outright guesses, but I'll try to keep better track in the future. Now, onto the good stuff The Astronomers of Gael The First Year: The Climb to Orbit Ciro shines upon us, as the Gael Space Center is finally established. It has been three centuries since the Transplantation, a mysterious event that brought our ancestors here from a world named Kerbin, a world much like our own. Fortunately, it also brought food, a library, many tools, and for some reason, the Kerbin Paper Airplane Museum. We now seek to go to the stars. Our ancestors suspected the Ciro system is in the same galaxy as the Kerbol system, and the answers of how we got here, whether there are still Kerbals on Kerbin, and why the food included RTG-powered freezers full of Minmus-themed mint ice cream await us in space. If the Transplantation was the work of a higher power, clearly, it has a sense of humor. Sounding Rockets to Space Before more complicated missions could be carried out, the Gael Space Agency was tasked with something quite simple: "how high is the atmosphere?" Our early missions peg this world's Karman line at about 98 km, as well as carrying out valuable experiments, such as exposing samples of several proposed propellants to vacuum (no surprise that the liquid oxygen boiled out). No van Allen belts were detected by this early effort, though they probably exist courtesy of Gael's magnetic field and the fact that we haven't all died of cancer. Program Kerbin: Suborbital Manned Flights The Kerballed project begins with relatively simple 1-Kerbal capsules mounted on 6-ton solid rocket boosters. Initial conclusions can be largely summed up as "yep, we can still go to space and zero-gravity, much like our ancestors did with their space program". However, the photographs delivered by Jebediah Kerman have been widely distributed, and the Gael Space Program has a line of tourists paying for suborbital hops... and the actual space program.

This aspect has been extricated from the necrophobic STS discussion and the like. Makes no sense to go on shooting a dead horse, but obviously some people get alot of pleasure out of it. So let them continue to live in the past, antiquated policies and luditic ambitions. This is a thread for the forward looking. In a past life we had the flexible although somewhat limited STS system which took part in repair of satellites, assembly of ISS and finally its no more, for better and worse. The ISS has a robotic arm and has involved itself in assembly . . . . . but it sterically hindered and its function and inertia limits its use in other occupations. So the question is whether NASA has a viable plan for a space factory or assembly station. I think that before you can build a station of that type you need to decide where its going to be. But we here in KSP are not limited by what any space agency thinks, since the powers-that-be (rattling the moderators cage ) endowed each of us with a brain, its best we put it to our own use and create. And as creators and artist we will tolerate the failings of each other but accept the critiques as a means of communicative growth. But the argument does have to be constrained by what is currently feasible. So for example we could could say build a launch pad in say Boca-Chica for that 50 kT rocket (toasting everything within a kilometer), but we currently cannot launch a fusion powered rocket, so that we cannot argue, place factory in polar orbit because i have a 'god'-mode drive. Lets premise the discussion with a global 'god' commandment that we all can agree on. That progress in space exploration is the target, manned when its appropriate or of benefit, and unmanned at other times. So that neither are we going to restrict one for the other or vice versa. Part 1. Physical Basis I want to use a kind of use a quantum perspective on Earth, we have to argue from a spatial point of view that Earth is a particle with an infinite number of dimensions which define its state, the same argument can be made about the moon. And we need to perform operations on both. If we are to compare it to an atom, the mass being the nucleus and we are electrons or photons that are being effected by its various parameters, depending on the operation. Within the dimensions are qualities (e.g. mu, axial tilt, atmosphere, . . . . .) all defined by dimensions. The reason I want to describe the earth this way is because its not a simple planet rotating on a axis perpendicular to its orbit about the sun so that depending the operation we can select a vector in that space and operate on it to see what happens (so for instance you can use a rotational reference frame, cartesian, change of basis, hamiltonian, etc). The structure is important but details are not until you want to use one then you fabricate the dimensions you want and create vectors). So for instance to assemble a certain set of functions are going to describe how you get information (mass, energy, operations .. . . people) from the Earth to the assembly point and the second how you get mass from the assembly point to an escape. In doing this we can define the energy required to create a particle and then to expel a particle along a desired vector (and all that the expulsion requires). Because of its extended dimensionality and because of this we are sometimes using complex spatial vectors in multiple reference frames. But the desire ulitimately to cross all these frames out and have an orbit to Mars, the Asteroid belt, Jupiter within the common inertial plane of the solar system (we don't have to worry about the galaxy). The math is very complex and I am not going to bore the abstract discussion with that, but just to say there is no perfect plane to go everywhere at everytime. I think everyone already knows this, but its not simply planar problem it is a 4 dimensional problem with other parallels(momentum, acceleration, dM/dt, etc). The broad definition allows us to compute on all operations define local outcomes create a change vector and move to a different system fluidly. Again details are not needed just the framework of testing various models. So the summary here is this. The Earth is a base of information, energy is required to project that into space. In our handwaving dimensional system there are three points. 1. a complex dimensional point denoted QSP-basis, its on the earth, 2. Mission basis, its a facility in space, this is the place were individual missions begin after all components are assembled 3. destination-basis a variable by which you want to go. There are two aspects of this model that are subject to change. 3 does not change, for example the variable Mars is always were mars will be. Once you designate Mars as the destination you, the global operator, cannot change where Mars is. We can dicker over a landing site on Mars, but that is something of submission specific details and for the sake our argument it outside of this thread and in another thread 'Exosystemic Space Stations'. So the concept here is that we have some control over (1) we can manipulate in real time (where we launch from, how much mass, and when within launch window) and likewise we can move (2) anywhere we want but it must be in our planetary system. And so the complexity of the potentials is immediately apparent. Part 2. Logical basis To frame the problem I will create the Query Space Agency .. .QSA, which is of course on Earth, where it is on Earth doesn't matter, but its not at a pole it could be in Russia, Ecuador or Argentina. QSA then has mission objectives. Mars is the default, Moon is a strong second, Asteroid belt is a third, NE-Asteroids are a collective, Venus is an option and Mercury tails the list. Each of these on the list have an ideal dV, which can only be defined in context. To get a feel how part one is essential. For instance lets argue the amount of dV required to get any where in the Solar system is X and that is the minimum required. From that point of view the potential is always realized from the lowest LEO possible and in some case LEO may not be achieved (point 2 is expeditiously removed on your trip to pluto). That is to say, while you are still have notable positive radial velocity remant from your lauch you burn most of the dV required to reach your destination. Ultimately this can be done from the lowest LEO and extracts the most energy from the fuel that the craft gains. Note that we switch to a rotational coordinate system to define radial velocity diagram for the rocket and this allowed us to maximize the Hamiltonian (Hl, lets call it the energy swap thingy KE---> PE KE-PE = SPE). The point we define as the basis is what . . . . . .it evolved during the burn becoming the basis at the end of the burn which the Hl could be predicted for the trip to the LEO, then change of basis and out of the solar system. We could then theoretically just point any rocket at any target in space, fire to lowest dV and we would have the lowest. Actually no, this violates the premise of the argument . . .we do not have a god-mode drive, or a god-mode drag ablation system, god-mode thrust, god-mode visceral fortitude for manned missions. Consequently the time spent in total vertical motion accelerating and fighting drag would consume more dV than making a tangential turn and burning along the tangent outward. This is trivial right? Not exactly, the two statement justify the commencement of missions distal to (1) at some location (2) where drag is not an issue (if you have a craft that is very bulky) and where the burn initiates always along the tangent. The counter argument is why we don't launch all mission from this 'sweetspot' in space, and the answer is most current missionswill have lower specific energy requirement than the sweet spot and can manage within the bulk maximum of primary. Thus (2) by definition is a secondary mission initiation site. In the same way returning an astronaut from the ISS can be seen as part of a different mission than his launch to ISS. So by the logic we can suggest there is a point in space (2) whereby for some manmade objects that are assembled from multiple launches of 1 (cost/risk) is a lower cost/risk than the most efficient launch from earth. The absurd argument is this, we have a function called an 'massive Aerogel' (mass as in huge manifold) in which we are going to use the Aerogel to land something on Mars. But the manifold needs to be formed, so we have a facility in orbit that, say forms the Aerogel and places it on the martian ship, the martian ship takes off and it bounces around on the surface of Mars (what it does on Mars we dont care, like SpaceX launching the fully formed vessel is our mission complete). Anti-god-mode restrictions tell us that we cannot form the Aerogel at Mars and you cant launch the Aerogel rom terra. Part 3. Decision basis. So then we list out all the possible (2) points that can be used for all potential missions inside of our (1->2) basis (contains all missions that are too high for direct, bulky to go direct, or massive to be launched from earth) The minimum dV requiement of each of these is defined along with fuel requirement of crew rotations, station assembly requirements .. . . . .and we get a spatial manifold around Earth at any given time that has one or more minimum. This means we could at some medium future point have several points. Part 4. Evolving (U) exceptional basis (4). The exceptional basis gives us new parameters (4) that we can use for change functions. Lets take an absurd argument. Today every amount of fuel but not power must come from Earth (excepting solar wind, photon push, cannae drives and oberth effects), at somepoint say J2040 we now have power that comes from an asteroid with a comet inside that has undergone system capture (although we care where it is in our system, we don't need to know exactly where it is to create a infinite dimensional state vector for it that can be operated upon, the details can be applied at convenience). This then includes the capture. So for instance the body crosses into the planetary system and then there are operations to capture it and exploit it. Then there are operations to associate its state with other states by association vectors. In associating the exceptional state with all the other (2) states we then begin to reoptimize (2) and indirectly (1) to take advantage of (4), so that (4) and (2) can change (3s never changes since its a target not a waypoint, in this since they are always changing but we never change them). So this is the framework for future technology in space, we work in space for a time and a benefit of this is that the total required-power metric decreases and operations evolve in response to this. The counter argument to this it that exception basis evolves and is not current. This is important to the creative argument, what it means is that any fabrication that assumes that the exception basis is current and not dU4/dt is just like god-mode thrust; its a violation of the constraints. This is not Star Trek you cannot create a transgalactic warp-drive by using Wesley Crusher's best friend experimenting in an engineering lab overnight to suddenly escape the borg. dU4/dt also means that there is a cost involved in the change of state that needs to be applied to other associated systems and that the faster dU4/dt evolves the higher the cost in resources to other aspects. That means that developing an exceptional basis creates a necessary trade off of resources. Here is an example, suppose you are using Space X to supply the transfer and load requirements to an interplanetary shuttle that drops stuff at mars then heads back and reloads. Although you can for instance extract argon from comets its not very efficient and most of the fuel goes to Earth, suddenly now there is a comet in orbit in which a huge amount of hydrogen and oxygen can be produced, so now what you are doing is hauling empty hydrogen tanks back from Mars, but still you need argon gas to route. You can convert to magnesium but theres a cost. In addition to initiate the new system there has to be tanks shipped from Earth, and your argon supply drops off, so the hydrolox tanks build up in Mars orbit. Secondarily manned resources on your station are shifted to the comet and equipment coming from earth is also shifted to the comet. So for a time, as a space tug, your operations slow down as with all operations on your basis (2x). In addition that asteroid or comet is a (3) that is converted to (4) and that conversion has a resource cost before it even reaches the system. This means that missions (2->3x) need to be cancelled and diverted to 2->33->4. The thread is long enough so I will just add a few statements. Although I am still working on the details of how best to use ION drives from Earth orbit, I foresee a best set of circumstances from LEO/MEO. By this I don't mean crazy low LEO, it has to be far enough up where the Sun covers most of the angular displacement * time of a craft in orbit over time. Particular with Solar +prograde exit vectors the burn optimum is beyond termination the Earth this means to expose the craft while burning the craft has to be significantly high or have lightweight and efficient batteries. The mass efficiency comes from the differential between chemical Ve (4700) and ION drive Ve (>30000) that, in essence you do not want to use chemical reaction energy propellants to push an ION drive with bulky solar panels. The point however I want to make that it is possible to use ION thrusters during most of the orbit without loosing dV as long as certain parameters are preserved (IOW not a continous spiral) and also it might be faster to do this than a spiral. So that even a weakly powered ION drive has some modifyers that can get it out of Earth orbit faster (for example using highest ISP thrust for some operations and lowest ISP thrust for others, such as at the rmin in an orbit or when making the final kick. The direction of thrust can be varied to keep the rmin optimal and even reversed at highest possible ISP (or even a photon drive). OTOH the orbitally-static stations are attractive in the sense that we can always have them in a state that is optimal for most outgoing vectors. The problem that I don't like about these is they generally are 4000dV vectors at Ve of 5000 or lower. I cannot see ION drives doing this thing since their best benefit is in the kick from the LEO/MEO Earth to its destination, and in actuality tolerates super-Hohmann transfers that markedly shorten time. But there are time constraints on some missions so crawling out of L/MEO to L2 may be the best means of doing this, and certainly saves alot of dV on ION-IP shuttles. The problem is that for an ION drive once you are at L2, you are no longer required, and if PL need to use L2 to use your thrust is really not of a benefit in the PL to L2 transfer. It could be of some benefit, perhaps a smaller number of kicks where solar (minimal) and ion contribute to the kick over say 2 days. The simple problem is that ION drives would be really really useful if they had more thrust and of course that requires a power supply that we don't have. If we keep in mind that energy maximization is all about dV @ V this means that if orbital minimum is a 6531 m its V = 7812 m/s and 5523 m/s at 13063 km. For each amount of fuel burnt at gives a change of energy of 7812/dV at 7812 and 5523/dV at 5523. This goes to 12000E/dv at and somewhat less than 11500E/dv for the starting 5523. Again so there is basically a loss of 1500E/dv by doubling the radius. Thats a heavy tax to pay in addition to circularization costs. But it increase the burn span by almost 80 degrees. Of course as the orbit expands you issues with timing of optimal burns that cannot be circumvented so it might be wise to thrust up the Drives by changing the grid voltage and increasing amps. The final comment involves the shuttle and its potential application to the problem that has been de-optioned. Most of the gateways are programs and are fixed in nature, therefore if program flaws occur there is essentially little change options. With a shuttle based assembly the assembly states can change, since the initial state X is only in a place where shuttle can reach, if the X assembly point then spawns other Xs the shuttle is no longer required, however inefficient it might be its functionality could be leveraged into other states, and those states would make the shuttle obsolete, which is desired.

hint to what i am using for planets nice pack @Gameslinx welcome to THE space program idea i have commited too a sandbox, youtube silent series of my latest endevours (UNCUT) (nope OBS hates the new PC so imigur all the way!) instaid of pictures which i dont understand how on the current forums the goals: to explore laythe for other life forms to allow for long term exploration goals like a long time in LKO stress test my new PC (yes this is a goal) test new means of space stuff backstory, a long time ago the early perhistoric kerbals, looked up they seen purple green and red they wondered what they were after which kobal communications were set up the smartest relocated to the peninsula that we now call the KSC these group of clever kerbals had an idea which the smartest of which robert koddard created a rocket using the pendulum effect. it failed then later he tried putting the engine nozzle at the bottom it worked but got unstable while transonic being coined by gene kerman, this was a great leap forward but the kerbals hadnt realised wings would help at first they tried wings at the top it failed and toppled over at 200 k/s (keters per second) this was in 100 KD in 110 KD after 10 years of intense kresearch and krevelopment they found out that wings at the top will stabalise the craft comeing into the atmosphere but when going out it wont work so they put wings on the same rocket at the bottom it reached mach 1.2 and exploded the kerbals were confused so a smart kerbal his nickname lord kerbin decided to launch a rocket himself with a thermomiter aboard and the heat was very hot 1000 degrees kelcius then it exploded so he wrote these words: "if we put a material which will ablate away through means of disapearing through heat we will have a sucsessful rocket" they attempted the change and suprise suprise it failed the SRB failed (yes i see you smiling @Plecy75) they took 5 years in working out cause of failure. they gave up and launched again it worked this time which is the same moment bob got scared and shouted "WHAT IF IT GOES BOOM!" this invisaged jeb to quickly sketch a "boom stopper" coined by bob of course, a piece of fabric designed to CREATE DRAG gene was furious saying IT NEEDS TO BE AERODYNAMIC HONESTLY JEB WHY jeb tested it out without any ground clearence of course he was in trouble from the KSC owner however it worked so the punisment wasnt needed then jeb asked why not put me in a tin can everyone thought that jeb was crazy this is the continuation of that story...

The Spacecraft insp. by ALIEN is back the name of this great Vessel is Nostromo and it works in KSP

Galileo's Colonials Gael has long been the home of Gaelans, but for too long they've forgotten to explore, they've forgotten that they're still explorers. Stagnation has enveloped Gael, stagnation that they can no longer afford. The nations of Gael united to create The New Colonial Alliance, with the aim of colonizing their solar system, innovating their society, and advancing Gaelan civilizations.

This thread is a showcase of the ways that I go about exploring everywhere possible in Kerbal Space Program. I'll be sending regular missions first, followed by long-term research missions and then full-scale colonies, to every planet and all of their moons. Now, what do I mean by "extended Kerbol system"? Well, of course I mean extended by the addition of numerous celestial bodies. In different saves (to combat lag) I will be exploring: Xen's Planet Collection, a wonderfully designed planet pack which adds moons to Eve, Duna, and Eeloo, as well as two new planets with moons of their own Outer Planets, a planet pack that adds analogues for Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto-Charon, along with several moons around each gas giant Various other planet packs that I come across and like the idea of. The save is a career game, but all rewards are maximized and all penalties are minimized, because I basically wanted a sandbox save with contracts. I've recently restarted the save for version 1.1.3 of the game, due to mod updates and the fact that my design style has somewhat changed. I had spent a fair amount of time exploring Duna and its moons (that mission is now outdated but it is still a good example of what I'll be doing in this thread), which I have images of as an example of what I'll be doing in future. A lot of images. 85 images to be precise. That album will be shown at the bottom of this post. I'd recommend flicking through it because Duna has had some modifications thanks to Xenonclave, as well as having a new space potato moon. A list of all missions relating to this thread can be found here. A showcase of all vehicles used in this thread (from game version 1.1.3 onwards) can be found here. This thread will probably also contain some discussion about my design process and the way everything modular fits together. There's three things that are significant about me as a designer: I usually prioritise aesthetics over efficiency. If something doesn't look good, I'll rarely let it take off. I love to make things modular. My launchers are saved as sub-assemblies, my upper stages are saved as sub-assemblies, my interplanetary transfer stages are saved as sub-assemblies, you get the idea. I am the sort of person whose approach to building a spaceplane is not a highly precise design process involving such 'fun' maths as figuring out how much fuel and oxidizer are needed to 4 significant figures. It instead consists of me being like "well this looks approximately like a plane, hopefully it'll work". Results vary from "literally the best engineered, most efficient, and easiest to handle spaceplane that has ever been constructed" to "it looks good but flies like a moderately aerodynamic brick". Anyway though, that's about it for an introduction to this thread. Now for an example of what this thread will contain, a Duna mission from an earlier save:

Seriously, as per title. The contract system loves to get stuck on demanding activities you don't care about in places you've already explored. Could we consider some of the following... Not having rendezvous/dock/crew transfer as an "explore" type contract at all. It's nothing to do with exploration. Ending all further "explore" contacts for a body once it has had a flag planted on it. If players have got this far, they'll either go back for other reasons, or don't want to go back. Having at least two explore contacts available at all times, and not allowing them to be the same body, or parent body if a moon. Increase randomisation of exploration contracts. Duna this week, Eve the next, Eeloo, Jool, Dres... any time, any order. Let players decide whether to take them or wait for next week.* Allow blacklisting of bodies for contract purposes. Literally a ticklist of "never offer me these". Allow players to nominate the target of exploration and provide bonuses based on that. * I don't often feel that RNG is a good answer in games, but in this case, we really need more RNG. I have put boots on Mars, Deimos, and Phobos, yet I haven't even been invited to flyby Venus or Jupiter (yeah, I'm playing RSS but that shouldn't matter to the contract system). It leads to a very silly progression and is likely to have players just ignoring the exploration contracts forever.

Hey fellow kerbonauts!! So I started a new career... and I thought; how many science is there to be gathered troughout the kerbol system? so all the expirements in all the biomes on all the bodies. not including: - station science - repeating science experiments - asteroid science - etc I started a new science career and edited the savegame so I could unlock the whole techtree. mods I use are only for convenience: Mechjeb RPM Vesselviewer Final Frontier Trajectories Astronomers Visual Pack Im planning to keep you guys up to date in the coming period on the findings of the Kerbol Exploration Program!! Parts: First Steps at Kerbin Roving the KSC Vessel introduction Kerbin Explorations part 1 Kerbin Explorations part 2 Kerbin Explorations part 3 Onwards to Mun! From Mun to Minmus with love KHASE KSR Mission Departure Party and Mohole (not) in one! Progress: Edit: Any suggestions for craft, explorations or other topics are welcome! Kreetings! Ferdoni

Pretty interesting site: http://lunarexploration.esa.int/#/intro

Dawn Industries & Technologies PSAs regarding the thread _________________________________________________________________________________________________ THREAD TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Dawn industries & technologies thread description 2) Craft file spoilers with download links 3) Recent updates and plans for the short term and future 4) Craft naming conventions 5) Term glossary 6) KerbalX Hangar links ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ LATEST CRAFT FILE UPDATE: Febuary 5, 2017 @ 9:30 PM PST (12:30 PM UTC) Dawn Industries & Technologies is a conglomerate comprised of: Dawn Aerospace Dawn Space Systems Dawn Industries Land Systems Dawn Communications Systems Dawn Shipbuilding Industries Dawn research labs Dawn R&D works All of the craft and subassemblies posted here are built with the stock Aerodynamics or Hydrodynamic model, and all are made 100 percent of completely stock parts or Squad produced mod packs such as Asteroid Day. While most of my designs are influenced by real-life aircraft, spacecraft, boats, ships, or projects concepts, they are in no way meant to be replicas in any way. These craft are built for function over appearance. If aesthetics can be implemented as well, that's great, but not to the extent it compromises functionality or significantly hinders performance or usability. The designs in this thread were not just thrown together to look cool. They are meant to have practical KSP applications ( ex. Kerbal Exploration Initiative (KEI), Capsule Recovery, Space exploration Space Mission Communications, Crew/Cargo Transport and Science Data production and collection,), and are thoroughly tested to ensure deficiencies in design are found and corrected before the craft is published on my KerbalX account. Each craft has been tested throughout multiple conditions, altitudes, airspeeds, fuel/payload amounts, and other testing conditions to find out where their limits and potential for improvement are, where I can improve them and where they perform best. Although this thread started out being focused on ships and aircraft, Dawn Industries & Technologies now includes designs for almost all parts of the stock game As my "fleet" of craft has grown and continues to grow, I have decided to set up naming conventions to eliminate confusion and clutter in the thread. I also have organized my craft into categories to 1) make the thread easier to navigate 2) to reduce clutter and time spent to find a craft. I'd like to thank @katateochi for his amazing administration, great support and incredible maintenance and development of the KerbalX website and for creating the KerbalX mod. The mod is a great tool for people that design craft and who want to share them with the world like me who would like to do that while they are playing KSP and designing craft or subassemblies. The kerbalX Website, Is an amazing fan-driven site that allows community members to exchange craft files of many different types form spacecraft to subassemblies for use, modded or stock. if you're love using the KerbalX site, please help support it by donating via links on the bottom of the main KerbalX page, it allows Katateoochi to keep the site up and running. I'd also like to thank @Raptor9 for making some really great craft and inspiring to make my own craft, and release them on KerbalX, and also answer my many questions and other people's questions about his craft. Check his craft out at his forum post Raptor Aerospace. it is a craft showcase containing over 150 different craft ranging from space capsules to modular space stations, modular exploration vessels, and to planes and to Rovers. In addition to @Raptor9 and @katateochi I'd also like to thank @Azimech for creating the first turboshaft Helicopter and many other amazing and interesting craft,. check out Azimech's craft thread forum post here on the forums. **To download a craft click on the spoiler for either the VAB or SPH, and then scroll down to the spoiler containing the craft type then scroll down to the craft's download link and follow the link to kerbalX and download it from there** SPH craft VAB craft Subassemblies Feedback is Appreciated on any of my craft or subassemblies Most Recent subassembly / craft file Updates (Last 7-12 days): None UPCOMING Future Updates to the thread / craft (Real-life Activities and Schedule permitting) -----Short-term Plans----- (Reference the first PSA at beginning of this Post) kerbin observation sat long range comunicaton satilite short range comunications sat science data brodcast / relay sat tracking and telemetry sat space teloscope sattilite asteriod observation sattilite science sattilite reusable upper stages ------Long term plans----- (Reference Both of the PSA at the beginning of this post) Deep Space Habitat (currently in concept form) vessel based off the Expeditionary Mobile Base from the US navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_(T-ESB-3) ( concept stage) boat based on MK-VI patrol boat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_VI_patrol_boat ( concept stage) a series of ground vehicles based on the HEMTT series of trucks used by the US military (concept stage) VTOL version of @Raptor9s C7 C325R airborne science lab (concept stage) Crew/cargo transport boat based off of @Castille7s Rage Runner and Rage Runner WC helicopter drone based on the the MQ-8 Firehawk drone (planing stages) KH-53K helicopter (prototype stages) KH-47D helicopter (prototype stages) reusable upper stages (planning stage) ** PLEASE CHECK BACK REGUlARLY FOR UPDATES ON DESIGNS, SUBASSEMBLIES AND NEW R&D CONCEPTS.** ** IF ANYONE HAS SCREENSHOTS OR VIDEO OF THESE CRAFT IN USE IN A MISSION OR USING IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN A MISSION AND WOULD LIKE TO SHARE IT , PLEASE SHARE THEM HERE IN THE THREAD, ALONG WITH YOUR STORIES OF SUCCESS, GLORY OR UNFORTUNATE RUDs AND EXPLOSIONS** Craft Naming conventions Glossary of terms used in thread KerbalX Hangars

There are older posts about this in the Lounge and Fan Works, but I'm interested in what the Science & Spaceflight audience thinks, and I think it's pretty clearly related to spaceflight. It also ties in to recent threads about manned vs unmanned exploration, which destinations should be prioritized, which technologies show promise, etc. (I discovered it today via a related link after someone else linked another story on the same site.) This PDF is a gigantic, extremely detailed chronological flow chart depicting a path from the status quo of 1989 into a future of space stations, off world bases, fusion propulsion, SSTO spaceplanes, and more. But rather than the science fiction author or KSP player you might assume, the author was an employee of Rockwell International's space division, before it was acquired by Boeing. http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/spaceflight/integrated-space-plan/ http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/rockwell-integrated-space-plan.pdf I'm curious how folks react to this attempt to create an overarching vision tying together all the challenges, opportunities, and dependencies of space exploration, historical relic though it may be. (It also amuses me to see a governmental contractor using such high-flown language as "Emergence of homo sapiens as an intragalactic species" and "Gaia proliferates". I have to wonder who they thought of as their intended audience.) It's wildly optimistic (lunar outpost established 2006-ish, includes a Shuttle-Centaur program), so we can take responses along those lines as a given. However, with some charitable interpretation you could argue that "second generation reusable spacecraft" is almost on time with SpaceX. Specific dates on the timeline aside, questions of interest include but are not limited to: Have any of the forecasts failed for reasons other than political will and funding---in other words, unanticipated technical barriers? Are there major critical paths or dependencies that are missing? Do documents like this have practical value, or are they pure feel-good PR? Does anyone know of a more up to date timeline maintained by a still-operating player in the space industry?

As title says, would you say SpaceX is doing better than NASA? Like in terms of planetary exploration and quite possibly how they do things different which makes them better. At the moment, my candidate is SpaceX. Musk seems to be making ambitious plans that really seem to be working out and with recycling boosters, they're probably better off with finances IMO. Now what's your opinion?

Hello there kerbonaughts! This post is particularly aimed at those of you with a talent for modding or a keen desire for a more real and progressive way to explore the kerbol system. I was watching some videos of various landers and rovers that have touched down on Mars (curiosity and Viking) , Titan (Huygens) and many other celestial bodies in our solar system when it occurred to me just how much information these un-maned devices have allowed us to explore the far eat reaches of our solar system. That started me thinking , I wonder if there is a KSP mod that can emulate this, one that removes the ability to look at other planets through the radar dish array at the KSC but instead requires the player to build space telescopes in order to see images of the target planet and then require te deployment of unmanned orbiters/landers/rovers to said planet in order to actually see it in detail and send maned missions following that. I did some digging and found 1 or two mods that implemented space telescopes but nothing quite like what I am envisioning. If there are any misdeed out there who may be interested in taking on this project , this is my idea thus far.... Firstly remove the ability for te player to see all other planets except kerbin from the radar array at the KSC, and then implement space telescopes .. If the player I thinking of traveling to a planet , the telescope with allow them to gain basic images of the target and identify its orbital path. next would come a rejig of the tech tree , putting these new telescope parts early on , followed by the unmanned technology that woul first be required to visit these bodies. once the player has discovered te planet/moon they wish to visit then they may send an unmanned mission (lander,orbiter or rover) to the target in order to gather information about the surface of the body (consequently 'unlocking' it in the radar array back on Kerbin so the player may look at it in more detail and decide weather or not to send a manned mission for science) Personally, I feel this mod would fit in nicely with the other realism overhaul mods that are currently out there as it is a more realistic progression of discovery, to identification to visiting new planets and moons, and therefore I think it would make a great addition to the kerbal mod selection. I say again this is just an idea that I think would be a lot of fun to play through , but I lack te modding skill to make a reality myself , so I turn to you, the fantastic community!!! Feel free to play with my idea as much as you like, but te premise of nothing else , I believe could serve as the building block for a potentially fantastic realism exploration mod. Thank you for taking the time to read through this and I look forward to seeing any ideas anyone has All the best Lord Lofty

This thread is no longer accurate or relevant, but I don't know of any way to delete it.

This is my idea for a space exploration road map. Not all of it is politically plausible. 2016: Orion program replaced with with the integrated space exploration vehicle, or ISEV program, which utilizes orion and a privately developed DragonRider with Orion life support and a service module in addition to a trunk. DreamChaser selected for ISS crew delivery, in addition to other spacecraft. BEAM on station, with good results. Bigelow begins developing a module to fit the dragon trunk. 2017: Commercial crew delivery begins. Exploration sats deployed. 2018: Insight launch, SLS test flight to the moon, Falcon heavy test flight, ExoMars launch, dragonlab in service, Nauka delivered. Mars cubsats delivered. OSIRIS REX mission. JWST. 2019: Falcon 9R flight. 2020: ARM vehicle launched. Bigelow station alpha on orbit. 2020 rover. 2021: em1, Taingong 3 construction. 2022: Lunar orbit station begins construction to support future moon bases and deep space missions. Probe to Apophis. Mars exploration landers/ rovers.Luanar base tests asteroid equipment. 2023: Europa clipper launch, Jupiter cubesat network, includes lander cubes. 2024: deep space mission from lunar station, flies to asteroid.Phobos satellites.Saturn titan submarine. 2025: SpaceX starts work on Falcon X. ULA starts work on Vulcan, ACES and ZEUS. 2026:Skylon test flight, Deep space mission.BA2100 launch. Shackleton crater outpost construction begins. 2027: Falcon X launch. NTR MTV construction begins. Taigong 3 finished. 2028: Deep space mission. Skylon comes into service. 2029: Phobos hab launched, supplies launched. 2030: ISS decommissioned. Skylon begins space station construction, International and corporate collaboration allow a 2nd MTV, with a centrifuge, to be built. 2031: Phobos mission. 2032:Moon base is enlarged. 2033:Mars supply run, Falcon X heavy, falcon XX in service, Phobos return. 2034: MTV 2 finished. 2035: MTV Embarks on mars excursion. Humanity becomes an interplanetary civilization! 2036: Venus landers sent. 2037: 2nd mars mission launched. Previous one returns. 2038: Space exploration becomes a huge business. Preparations are made for venus mission. 2039: Mars missions launch and return. 2040: Venus mission. 2041: mars outpost established, MCT Constructed. 2042: SpaceX begins mars colony construction. 2050:FUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2055: Space Elevator. I will be adding details and more events later, but for now, what do you think?

Hello fellow kerbonauts! Full-time career player here. So, some of you may already be aware of my thread about leaving Kerbin more seriously and actually approaching a real, mostly successful mission beyond the Kerbin system. You can find it here. Unfortunately, after my first stage of operations, it has slowed down a lot, and at the time I didn't have as great of technology (So I only had two things deployed to the Duna SOI at the time). Since then, I've been doing more research farming Minmus and Mun, and with about 80% of my tech tree completed, I decided to take the opportunity of the transfer Window between Eve and Kerbin. This time, I had just unlocked the Nervs, and I was super excited to try them out. As you can see, I had spent nearly 1 million funds to deploy that Flotilla, as I was very excited to meet Eve. Kerbal Alarm Systems was my best friend. Shortly before the transfer window, I was testing out the nuke on an Evian Exploration Vessel, which also carried three kerbals. I decided to Refuel a little and mine on Minmus, and after 40 some kerbal days, the transfer was on the Horizon. I had sent my first Kerbals beyond the Kerbin system for the very first time. I felt a little scared for them, but I knew at this stage I wasn't going to Land on Eve. I first wanted to establish an orbital station and a mining operation.

Scenario: NASA gets 1 Billion Dollars of money every five years (or $200 Million per year)to spend on any of the 3 planetary exploration programs (it might be realistic). NASA currently has 3 of these programs: Discovery ($450 Million cost cap), New Frontiers ($1 Billion Dollar cost cap), and Flagship (generally $2 Billion per mission). Which one would you fund? (Or would you make a new planetary exploration program, with a specific goal? [Remember that such new program would need approval by the gov't, and would need a specific goal, like test technologies (New Millemium), or explore Mars (Mars Scout).] Discovery Program: -$450 Million cost cap per mission, used for smaller, more focused missions. -Generally limited to the inner solar system + the Asteroid Belt (due to practicality, and potential budget overruns) -Examples of potential future missions include: NEO Scout, VERITAS, and Phyche. -Using the obtained money, can fund 1-2 extra missions every 3-4 years (current rate of missions, however, mission pace expected to increase, within the coming years, with either 2 future missions being selected this time around, or the next call for missions being in 2017) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Program New Frontiers Program: -$1 Billion cost cap per mission, used for medium-class, missions. -Able to go anywhere in the Solar System. -Examples of potential future missions include: Lunar Surface Polar Sample Return, Comet Nucleus Sample Return, and Venus In-Situ Explorer. -Using the obtained money, can fund 1 extra missions every 5 years (however, New Frontiers has been only sporatically putting out calls for mission proposals, so spending the money here will be more like fully funding this program- with a little extra left over) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontiers_program Flagship Program: -Generally $2 Billion in cost, used for high-cost missions designed to get as much data as possible from a single location. -Able to go anywhere in the Solar System, with more designed to go to the Outer Solar System. -Examples of Current Missions include: Solar Probe Plus, Curiosity. -Examples of Planned Future Missions include: Mars 2020, Europa Clipper -Using the obtained money, could accelerate existing flagship missions planned (Mars 2020, Europa Clipper) or use the money on preliminary work and instrument funding for Uranus Orbiter, for launch after Europa Clipper, once the money is freed up from the current flagship missions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_Program

People, any of you who might be still following this! The concept I was developing here was reformatted and is now on a new thread, Pathos 1 - The Story Extraplanetary Exploration and Colonization Welcome to the Pathos 1 Extraplanetary Exploration and Colonization programme. This programme's concept was created in 2032, and after twelve years of bureaucratic issues to solve, it was finally started in 2044. It's main premise is to grant Kerbalkind the expansion out of Kerbin into the main celestial bodies of the Kerbol System at start, soon to be followed by expansion towards other planetary systems. It's current objective is to setup bases or colonies in the Mun, Duna and Laythe, as well as setup infrastructure to grant quality-of-life improvements to the colonists who will be inhabiting them. Being such a large programme, it will be recruiting large quantities of kerbals and developing large amounts of hardware... as such... Crew Roster: Hardware Roster: Alpha-04 Launcher: With the aim of fulfilling the programme's premises, Pathos 1 was divided into smaller, more accessible projects, listed, so far, as: Project Apophis; Project Apophis aims at establishing Pathos 1's basic technological framework, to provide a base to which future projects will hold themselves on. It consists of the establishment of a functional base on the surface of the Mun, as well as a network of permanent ships in space to sustain it. Project Borealis: Project Borealis's aim is to setup, around the inner Kerbol planets (Moho and Eve, primarily Moho), a way to supervise Kerbolar weather so that missions won't be launched during high Kerbol activity, when storms are imminent. This monitoring is already made from Kerbin, but due to limits in both technology and physics, it is neither greatly accurate or delivered in a timely manner - Borealis will fix it. Mission Roster to be developed. Final words, mods and stuff...