Search the Community

watching now !!! ISS HD Earth Viewing Experiment http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

Can somebody make statics for Kerbal Konstructs for making some real life space centers like Kennedy Space Center(NASA), Guiana Space Center(Arianespace), Satish Dhawan Space Center(ISRO) and Kosmodrome(Roscosmos) and many more. I'm not good in modelling but can help in the texturing part. This addon can be a great boon to Kerbal Space Program's Engineers and Rocket scientists........ After all - Conquering the Space was Never this easy................... We need this type of well established Space Center, custom launchpads, lightning protection towers and many more.....

Nasa has put some 3D models (over the years it seems) on github. Does anyone has used it in their mod ? Is the conversion easy/even possible into unity 3D models ? https://github.com/nasa/NASA-3D-Resources

http://jalopnik.com/congress-just-mandated-a-human-mission-to-mars-1786994598 Science reporting sucks, and so does Gawker Media.

I am curious, with the discussion on new fonts/font rendering in the upcoming KSP v1.2, is it possible to drop in an alternate font into the game? The reason I ask, is I happen to have the font "Futura" on my system. Thanks to the research I've done for my custom Kerbal game controller, I've learned that NASA used the Futura typeface on their instrument panels in the Apollo program (and I believe on the Shuttle also). Anyway, I got the font, knowing I'll need it for my controller build. It'll be a desk mounted instrument panel, with real meters, indicators, joysticks, toggle switches, and even a real navball! I wanted it to feel as authentically "spacey" as possible, hence the reason I'm using the font NASA themselves used. Now, I know the font used in most of KSP's text is a san-serif font, much like Futura. What I'd like to know, is whether or not there's a way to get KSP to display it's text using a different font. Whether this can be done by replacing a font file somewhere into the KSP files, altering some file to reference a different system font, or whether a mod can be used to alter the default font, I'd love to know. I just REALLY wanna see what KSP looks like with it's primary font rendered in Futura (and matching my "cockpit" styled controller!

https://www.nasa.gov/open/researchaccess/pubspace NASA-funded research has been recently released to the public access for free, while it was blocked by a paywall before. This includes research funded in 2016 and afterward, and exclude any "patents, publications that contain material governed by personal privacy, export control, proprietary restrictions, or national security law or regulations ". You can find them in the link below, happy reading. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term="nasa+funded"[Filter]

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?

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/22/12256986/nasa-mission-patch-iss-guardians-of-the-galaxy Yep, that is a real, official patch which they will use. I just wonder if Marvel is sponsoring a ton of money to NASA for their name on the patch.

Recently I have been heavily involved in an ambitious online project on which I work alongside three massive space nerds. Best bunch ever. Their latest challenge for my graphic design skills, called for me to create a poster to commemorate the mighty Saturn V, what with the anniversary approaching (it was when I started), and commemorate it I did. Whether I did so well, is for you guys to decide. I considered posting this in the Fan Art section, but I think that's reserved for KSP-related fan art only. As is stated in the imgur description, you can get the A3-sized print-ready file, if you leave me a message at [email protected]

I am recreating all of NASA's Flights (And a few important ones that came before) in one save game. You will be able to fly any chosen craft, and complete the mission like it was meant to. This is gonna take forever... This will be all stock, no mods required (As much as it pains me... I will not use tweak scale). Starting from the Explorer 1, the first US satellite to orbit the earth, all the way to the present. Oh crap I am going to have to do 100+ space shuttle missions This is still heavily a work in progress. I will release a save to the public when I feel as I have enough content. Probably around 20-30 rockets. Until then I will post pictures of the next few rockets I finish. I would recommending subscribing to this forum to find out when it is updated... However, some crafts will not be exactly the same, due to KSP restrictions. For example, the Apollo missions (I have a prototype on my main save that I made months ago) will only carry one passenger because of size limits. Work Schedule Explorer 1: Pioneer 1: Little Joe: NEWS: While planning ahead for my work schedule, I came across project constellation, the cancelled return to the moon, and then onto mars. Do you want that, and other cancelled programs put into the save? Back from break... I got Subnautica. That explains it all. Pioneer 0-2 Are finished. Little Joe 1 is also finished. Pictures are here now. Next I am working on Explorer 7x. finishing project Mercury.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-suggests-nasa-pursue-prizes-and-gigantic-technology-programs/ I think a lot of people here have similar sentiments, but let's not forget that space prizes have a spotty history- Bigelow's Space Crew Transportation prize fell flat, the Google Lunar X-Prize has constantly been delayed, and a similar prize is unlikely to be repeated. Honestly, a more "CCdev" solution is probably better (Bezos apparently didn't like it tho, they felt NASA had too much involvement in it), with there being less of a prize, than a contract for spacecraft based off that design. This would likely limit that program to Orbiters (and possibly asteroid sample return missions/ asteroid probes in general, since asteroids and comets have huge amounts of variety, and a similar design can be used for each.) More specialized things like Mars Sample Return, and rovers could then instead be placed into NASA's Discovery, New Frontiers, and Flagship Programs- thus, allowing for more 'experimental' missions in those programs that can't use a common design, and putting less pressure on (esp. Discovery Program). After all, only "big" companies like LockMart, OrbitalATK, SpaceX, etc. would be able to compete, and similar things, like Mariner, using the same baseline design, were a success (though did it actually save $$$?). Only problem is Mars Sample Return ends up in the Flagship Program anyways. Probably not a huge deal, considering it's nearly a HUGE NASA priority (right next to Titan/Enceledus, and Uranus) and we already have the caching rover in development, and the orbiter being pitched to Congress. The pickup rover can be derived off MER, and a Pheonix-based lander carrying a rocket to rendezvous with the orbiter. That section only may just fit in the New Frontiers budget. I doubt that would work. Way too experimental and risky for a private company to get into (unforeseen difficulties in the technology), and especially nuclear reactors are something it would be difficult to even get funding. There's a reason NASA doesn't X-planes and tech development internally.

As above.

http://spacenews.com/house-bill-increases-nasa-planetary-spending-but-cuts-off-asteroid-redirect-mission/ But seriously though, if it was to be the precursor to asteroid mining tech testing, instead of pure pork, it might have actually survived.

this is my first time posting a craft here, but anyways. I have created a semi-realistic version of the Saturn-V with a Munar and command modules built in. garunteed 100% stock parts I had to add boosters to help stablize the rocket during early ascent do to the rocket having a wobbling effect. Speaking of Wobbling, when the rocket is around 20k-23k there is some difficulty controlling the ship. I recommend to only put it at half throttle until the second stage is activated. Other than that, the thing flies like a sturdy rocket, or a cow, mostly like a cow. Command and Munar modules The idea is to use the rest of the second ascent stage to achieve a long enough burn to set the ship on a flyby trajectory, decouple the Munar module, turn it around; and to attach itself to the command module where it would then decouple from the second stage soon after. Then circulize around the mun, undock, and land. After all said and done, the Munar Module (small tiny lander) take off, reandevous, and dock again. Where it will then transfer all resources/kerbals into the Command module to be taken back home to kerbin. here are some pics: Exiting atmosphere and into planetary orbit. Docking of Munar/Command modules Separation to prep for Mun landing SLowing down... Perfect Landing! NOTE: This craft is very difficult for beginner players, as docking and staging may seem extremely complicated with this craft. Edit: I ended up modifying the lander into a 2-stage ship, the top half will jettison carrying the kerbals to the command module using mono engines. I found that these were far more fuel efficent and compact than any other engine in ksp. Craft file coming soon Its right Here Tip: For those space junkies, you could follow the apollo missions flight path (free return trajectory), shown below.

http://apollo17.org/ Absolutely stunning, nothing else to say.

If you are in the Denver area, here is an opportunity to see a the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft before it launches in September 2016. You can also use the experience to help you model this and other probes. http://www.nasa.gov/social/osiris-rex-preview

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/it-would-cost-only-10-billion-to-live-on-the-moon-2016-03-17?siteid=yhoof2 The gist of the article is that it is analysis stating that if we really wanted to, for about $10 billion, we could have NASA set up a moon base much like how our Antarctic stations operate. It would do this through using spaceX rockets to get there, modified Bigelow Aerospace modules for the habitats, and a few other cost saving moves.

This is my first craft that I have put here (at least I think so). So, whaddaya think about it? Do you want to play with it? Well get it here! Thank you. You are welcome.

Hi ! I don't know if you guys heard about the new Nasa Dryden project to build a quieter supersonic plassenger jet. Lockheed Martin is designing this demonstrator called queSST I found the look super nice and tried to recreate it on vanilla KSP. I'm open to any improvement suggestions. Here is my creation : You can find this craft here KerbalX

NASA recently did research on a propulsion system that could get humans to Mars in as little as 3 days for a 100 kg probe, and a Manned (Much heavier) spacecraft in a month. Now, we do know this tech exists, like Starwisp, but if they can scale up the lasers (And power) needed (With either massive solar panels, or fusion reactors), we could send a probe to Proxima Centauri by the end of the century, and have it get there in as little as 40 years. Now, there's no telling of whether this would get enough funding (Or any funding), but if it did, we could have a very fast propulsion system that could allow us to explore to solar system quickly. So what do you think about it? And do you guys think building something like this would be worth it?

http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/ An independent safety panel, the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Council has recently published that it has growing concerns over "a continued and unacknowledged accretion of risk" in the SLS/Orion program, caused by schedule pressures and tight funding, and that there is an "apparent erosion of safety" in that program that could "put crews on future missions in jeopardy." One specific area of concern was the schedule for EM-2 (which has been stated by NASA to likely (70% chance) be delayed to 2022 or 2023), but that NASA is continuing to work to the 2021 date, which has 0 confidence of happening at 2021. The panel observed that NASA appeared to be making "safety trade-offs" to meet that date (though a test flight between EM-1 and EM-2 for SLS Block IB has been confirmed by NASA). The required development of the Exploration Upper Stage, which NASA is building for EM-2, and Orion life support testing were stated to be some of its concerns, along with changes to the heat shield, and "zero fault tolerent" Orion SM systems, such as propellant valves. The panel has suggested NASA keep Orion in LEO during EM-2, mitigating many of the safety risks - calling the current plan to test Orion/SLS in 2 missions (3 once the 'EM-1A' SLS Block IB test flight NASA now needs for EM-2 is approved by the govn't). Additionally, though SLS/Orion has received more money from Congress than what NASA has requested in recent years, the flat level of funding (the $1 Billion dollar NASA budget increase proposed by Congress has not yet been approved yet) Also, according to the Council, the budget for SLS/Orion is not layed out "to acheive needed design effort of a major program" (aka lacking direction). Speaking of direction, NASA's current "goals" for SLS/Orion has been critized for lack of detail, despite releasing a new report on how NASA plans to go to Mars and that more detail would do wonders to help it survive. Additionally, NASA's Commerical Crew Program was also studied by the Council, and has been given a much better view of it compared to previous years- where it was much more critical of it. According to them, there has been a "substantial improvement in openness and interaction"; on the other hand, there are still many challenges ahead, resulting in concerns over NASA accepting more risk, and that there is a "high likelihood of delays to the first test flights". Despite this, NASA has been recommended by the council to continue developing 2 vehicles for that program. One last thing, Orion now is using tiles instead of a monolithic heat shield. Let's see how this plays out... Let's hope this does not cause another "Challenger". If it does, at least we have a launch escape system...

( http://spacenews.com/nasa-offers-more-details-on-cargo-contract-decision/) As we all know, SpaceX, OrbitalATK, and Sierra Nevada were awarded cargo contracts for ISS resupply, using their Cargo Dragon V1, Cygnus Extended, and Dream Chaser Cargo. NASA has now come out an explained how the 3 companies were selected- proposals were evaluated by price, past performance, and mission suitability, with price being the most important, followed by mission suitability, and then past performance. Of the 3 companies selected (Boeing and LockMart gave proposals too, but their proposals were rejected) SpaceX had the best score of the three companies selected in mission suitability- (922/1000) followed by OrbitalATK (880/1000) and Sierra Nevada (879/1000); meanwhile, all (including Sierra Nevada, apparently) of the companies selected got a "high" rating in past performance (NASA is being very secretive for some reason this time around...) However, things get more notable when NASA evaluated the companies by price (though all were considered reasonable). NASA evaluated their price score on the amount of pressurised cargo delivered per $ (this is the most important type of ISS cargo, and is common on all cargo resupply spacecraft); assuming each company delivered half of NASA's ISS cargo per year. OrbitalATK offered the lowest price per kg, followed by Sierra Nevada, then by SpaceX, who offered the highest pressurised cargo price per kg. Of course, this is slightly misleading- OrbitalATK's Cygnus can only deliver pressurised cargo (along with disposal capability for ISS trash), while Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser can bring pressurised cargo, 500kg of unpressurised cargo, and ~3000kg back to Earth for return (along with disposal capability). SpaceX's Dragon can carry only ~3000kg of pressurised cargo, lower than its competitors, and ~3000kg of unpressurised cargo (however, the ISS almost never needs that amount of unpressurised cargo capacity), and brings ~3000kg back to Earth (the Dragon cannot dispose of ISS trash by burning.) However, this is still notable- SpaceX quietly agreed to deliver more launches for less pay than its fellow awardees with CRS-2. According to the official who made the final decision on who was awarded the CRS-2 contract, stated that the higer costs by SpaceX was due to the production and size of the Dragon V1 (cargo Dragon); having two production lines for crew and cargo Dragon (required due to the need to use different ISS ports for crew and cargo) along with an oversized rocket (due to Falcon 9 upgrades- it may be a good idea to revive Falcon 5, Elon) and small capsule volume (thus, able to carry less cargo- both Cygnus and Dream Chaser can carry more). However, NASA still belived the 3 companies met or exceeded their requirements, and thus, awarded all of them a contract. NASA has also confirmed Boeing and LockMart were the only others to submit CRS-2 proposals, but offered little information to why they were not selected.

Block II SLS is the final evolution of the SLS rocket. Using "Dark Knight" advanced SRBs, the rocket can carry 130T to LEO- however, the Block IB is intended to become the "workhorse" of the SLS for the near future. The Block II, on the other hand is expected to come online by 2028-2030. With SLS lacking money for payloads, the cancellation of Block II could free up money for a payload. However, the production line of the Shuttle SRB segments have stopped, so there are only enough for 6 SLS flights- at the minimum launch rate of 1 per year, the rocket would run out of boosters to use by 2026- leaving a launch hiatus of 2-4 years- a situation made worse if the rocket launches more than once from 2021-2028 in a year. Cancelling Block II would mean creating "drop-in"replacements for the current SRBs. So should/can NASA cancel Block II and use "drop-in" Shuttle SRB replacements, or would it not save any money (even though the new SRBs require new aerodynamic models and R+D?)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/02/nasa-enforce-early-switch-eus-sls/ It would seem NASA wants to move off the ICPS/DCSS upper stage for the SLS as soon as possible. The plan is now to only use it for the first EM-1 uncrewed mission. Beyond that, the rocket will fly in its "workhorse" configuration, with the larger Exploration Upper Stage, and all ground support equipment will be modified for it. What do you guys think? Will this open opportunities for more payloads?

So I was fascinated by NASA's new Orion spacecraft and I thought to myself "I could totally do that in KSP". Turns out I could, but my first result was terrible. Don't get me wrong, it looked the part, but the craft itself was incapable of doing anything spectacular. I then decided to do a spinoff of the Orion, what I call the Artemis (hopefully you all get that), and this is what I came up with. Statistics: dV = 5,130m/s TWR (Kerbin) = 0.25 - 0.48 Acceleration = 2.45m/s2 - 4.70m/s2 Crew Capacity = 3 Mass (Dry / Wet) = 19,089 / 24,445kg Parts = 43 Mods: Kerbal Engineer, MechJeb, Kerbal Inventory System, Kerbal Attachment System, Pathfinder, Procedural Parts I am actually quite surprised with how this turned out. The Artemis is highly capable of interplanetary travel once in LKO, acting like a crew shuttle more than an exploration vehicle. Despite this, it comes equipped with a full set of science equipment and 2000L of storage (thanks to KIS and Pathfinder). I think I'll be using this vehicle for long-term interplanetary missions when I need to ferry crew or basic supplies back and forth. The mods I am using are only there to make my life easier or add a small feature I quite enjoy. The craft can easily be converted to stock parts only if you'd like. Let me know what you guys think, if there is something I could improve, whatever, I love feedback. Also, show me what crafts you've made similar to this, I'm quite curious .