Search the Community

Just wondering why the topic Component Space Shuttle V 5.0.1 (July 14, 2013) is closed when it is still active and being updated? It is linked from http://spacedock.info/mod/268/CSS-%20Component%20Space%20Shuttle Thanks! Link:

I thought I would share this on the KSP forums because of the common love of space games! I don't know if many people have heard of this game so I thought I'd let those unaware of this game, to now know it exist

I mean, how are they not rocket or space related? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3W7ch0oLeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfniG-AdSC4

I noticed that when i spin my spacecraft (while putting heatshilt still forwar into atmosphere) during re-entry my spacecraft slow down more quickly, it's very important since new realistic aerodynamic was implemented after game was released, in early access re entry was more easier, but i like the new aerodynamic because i like KSP "not because it is easy but because it is hard" ;-) I wonder does spining spacecraft was used in real life spacecraft.

I've just completed the test flight of my latest space plane. I wanted to see if it was capable of lifting a modest IRSU setup to Minmus. It could. So then we refuelled and went to Duna. Then Laythe. Then Pol. Then Eeloo. And finally we are back home. At 42 years, it was, quite literally, a journey of a lifetime. The only problem is, they've been cooped in a cockpit for 4 decades. Perhaps Podsy and Kirry are romantically involved, have a Netflix account or are just very, very good at travel chess. And if the former is true, there is then the problem that certain things should never be shared. That means no "Apollo bags". Maybe they went on EVA to use the bathroom ? Hopefully they had some consideration for their fellow kerbonaut, and sprayed a bit of RCS afterward. Or advised them to "give it 10 minutes" before going outside. What is the best way to give our Kerbals somewhere to swing a cat? Most of the crew cabins are about bums on seats, rather than letting our intrepid spacefarers stretch their legs. The 2.5M habitation module doesn't actually look all that homely or roomy. The mobile processing lab seems a little more welcoming, perhaps a crewhab + lab + commander's cupola is the best stock combo. But then mass piles up so quickly. And none of these options integrates well in a mark 2 fuselage. Perhaps if I download furniture mod, and just kit out one of the cargo bays, or are there any mods with a greater variety of habitation modules (eg. for mk2 aircraft) on offer. Nudging towards the dreaded real world, should extra living space add mass as quickly as command pods? After all command pods contain more than just a pressure hull, there's reaction wheels, batteries, life support, RCS, avionics etc. If you wanted to tack on a bit more pressure hull with a sleeping pod, tv etc. than would mass really grow as fast as volume. Eg. Vintage Mercury Pod 1.7 Metre Cubed, 1.1 Tons = 1.5 M3 per ton Contemporary Orion Pod 20 Metre Cubed, 10 tons = 2 M3 per ton ISS 916 Metre Cubed, 420 Tons = 2.18 M3 per ton

Ever got the crazy idea of moar boosters!!!! well what could go wrong ? Craft example My try : https://youtu.be/U6ezihm65EA I toke it on my self to build hell mother of moar boosters and ended in space faster then expected, Now it's your time, Build a stock craft and send it to space as fast as possible and as always rules are simple : No cheats stock only Rating is based on how fast you reach 70KM and will be done on 20/04/2016 So as always make sure you take screen shot \ video and post it in comment below. Good luck kerbals Results and ranking : Record holder : Nefrums with 32 Seconds 2nd place : Ultimate Steve with 35 seconds and escaped to the sun 3rd place : Pete- with 35 seconds and lot of fuel left 4th place : purpleivan with 35 seconds unmanned probe 5th place : spacebrick3 with 36 seconds All hail the 3.75M engines Thank you all for participating it was tons of fun and moar boosters. Stay tuned for more challenges every week

Hi, I want to show you a video in honor of the first manned flight in the world

Following on from the thread looking at "The Manifesto of the Committee to Abolish Outer Space": Without re-hashing what that weird "manifesto" is all about... Things like nebulae are often presented in literature using imagery from various instruments that record yet more various sensory data which is used to produce so-called "false-colour" picutures that use light enhancement, non-visible spectra etc that give these wonderfully colourful and impressive images of huge, light-year scale objects. In reality, if you were an astronaut in deep space and you stuck you head out of the ship (in a suit, natch), viewing with the naked eye, these objects would be nigh-invisible, due to the type and intensity of their emissions and generally diffuse nature. Are there *any* large structures that could be viewed with the naked eye in space? If you were, say 100,000 light years outside of the milky way (approx 1 milky way diameter) would it appear as a blazing spiral? Or something more mundane? Or would it be almost invisible? Is it possible for there to exist large cloud/dust formations that are emissive enough in the visible spectrum to be visible - from a distance that they would subtend a large-ish portion of the "sky"? I know that there are visible things, obviously, if you go close enough to them you can view things like planets and asteroids - black hole accretion discs would be quite impressive to see, though I'm not sure what the safe distance is from one of those (referring to hard radiation from the disc, not the hole's gravity) and if you could get close enough to it that it would just be a point of light. I'm looking for things of a more "grand" scale I guess, could you ever view a galaxy cluster for instance.

Many glorifies the main character as he fights heroically against discrimination in a world dominated by genetic engineering. Where people without genetic modification is treated as inferior. Unfortunately, this film glorifies the lies, deception and dishonesty.

I noticed that both astronauts and cosmonauts like to emphases they are pilot-cosmonaut, pilot-astronauts?

So does ANYONE remember the VERY old days of KSP, when every explosion was basically napalm and the space center had palm trees? It seems like most of the current players are either people who are obsessed with Delta-V numbers, or total noobs that just make a plane and manage to make it into an orbit with .5 eccentricity. There are very players left that I can find that aren't hardcore or just bad. I mean, Grand Tour missions are cool and all, but the KSP dev team has added something to destabilize the way people used to play the game: They have added all of these heavier and heavier boosters, with more and more efficient engines, but no new planets or moons. We have enough Delta-V with these new things to go interstellar, but the dev team hasn't yet added anything past Eeloo. Sorry if I am being a bit ranty and insulting. Like, if spent enough time, I could easily build a Grand Tour craft. But, I find it more fun to land a rover on a planet than a manned mission, in my opinion. Even though I have had tons of Duna missions, sunrise on another planet still amazes me in KSP. So why has the spirit of exploration and wonder gone over to the spirit of sounding accomplished and having large amounts of Delta-V? I mean, I still only use basic rockets, just because the acceleration feels more exciting than any ion engine. It still makes me anxious when I see re-entry heating lighting up my heat shield, even though I have gone through hundreds of re-entries. No matter how many parachutes I deploy, it will always relive me to see the g-meter rise and the chutes grow wider as they fully deploy. So what I'm saying is, why act like going to another planet is a routine thing that you get a little picture badge for when you can be thrilled by dust kicked up by your engine as you land on an alien world? Why settle for a tiny blue glow when you can see the trail of flame and smoke from a rocket? Why go for Delta-V when you can go for a craft that makes you happy? So put the wonder and adventure back in KSP!

Mostly profit. Thinking about the SES-9 mission and the idea of having a propellant depot in space with a tug to pull satellites into their desired orbit. Having an active propellant depot in orbit would be fantastic in terms of generally expanding our access to space, but unless it would be profitable, no one would ever do it. So...under what circumstances would an immediate-term (e.g., within the next five years) propellant depot and space tug system be profitable? Let's assume that the project would be undertaken by an independent private company rather than NASA. Let's assume it's not SpaceX or another current launch provider. Your primary customers would be comsat companies who choose to pay you some stated fee to tow their satellites into a desired orbit, though you could also potentially give the ISS boosts. You need at least one space tug -- probably several, to maximize your profit and to lower launch costs. Each tug needs solar panels, ion engines, a grappling or towing mechanism, and the ability to refuel in space (either by mating to disposable propellant capsules or by transferring propellant to an onboard tank. You'll probably want to buy two Falcon Heavy launches to start -- one for as many space tugs as you can fit, and one for your initial propellant depot. You'd then re-launch a Falcon Heavy each time you needed to top-up your propellant depot. Would anyone actually buy your services? How many comsat companies would say, "Hmm, instead of giving my satellite an engine and fuel tanks to push it into the desired orbit, I'll just pay these folks, and so I can make my satellite a little bigger and give it more capacity"? And would you be able to have low enough prices to actually save them money?

So, this is the start of the saga of my first Duna rover. And it hasn't been going well. I began with using my standard booster, the Heavy Orbital Booster Mk2. I developed the rover and IP transfer stage, and attached them, then built the fairing. I should have known that things would not go well when the main engines did not start when I first pressed space, which they usually do in this particular design. I staged again, and the rocket lifted off as normal, but with a slight wobble, which was unusual as this design had a quad-SAS core segment to keep it stable and maneuverable. At 6900m, I began my gravity turn. This is where things went wrong the first time. As I began my gravity turn, I realized why my engines hadn't ignited on the first stage. The rocket began tilting earthward, and I had the thought to zoom in to the fairing to see what was wrong. The IP transfer stage had separated from the rocket and was only held in place by the acceleration. As I began my gravity turn, it fell to the fairing and offset my center of mass. The rocket tumbled out of control, and I cut the engines and watched it fall into the ocean. I fixed that staging error and began the launch again. This time, the failure was even more catastrophic. It turns out that even with my faulty staging the IP stage would have fallen from its mounting. It was a heavy 2.5m payload on a 1.25m decoupler, and as I staged to my second stage, which had much higher acceleration for more efficient orbital insertions, the payload broke off the decoupler as I began my orbital insertion. It smashed into the main body and sent debris flying into the stratosphere, which luckily mostly burned up. I'm working on a new booster for this mission, due to the unreliability of the Heavy Orbital Booster Mk2. I'll post updates soon.

as above

In the vein of "beat Sputnik" and "1900s Space Race"... We all know it is much easier to get to orbit from Kerbin than it is from Earth. Kerbin has roughly the same surface gravity as Earth, but is apparently far denser and thus less massive, so the escape velocity is a lot lower. But is there any way you could get a planet or planetary system even more conducive to early space access than Kerbin? Rules: The planet has to be habitable by humans: comparable surface gravity, comparable atmospheric pressure and temperature at the typical habitation regions, comparable oxygen partial pressure. It also has to have at least a moderate chance of forming naturally; no Kardeshev-II alien geoengineering. No weird physics, either. What are the options? Perhaps you could have a world with less habitable surface space, but a higher rotation rate and bulge, so launching from the equator (even if the equator isn't as temperate as ours) gives you a nice boost. Maybe the atmosphere could be made of a collection of gases which are still okay for humans, but work better for an airbreathing engine. Perhaps you have a very low tidally locked moon with a strong common magnetic field, allowing transient magnetic gradients which can be ridden into orbit. Ideas?

Hey, I was wondering if there is a mod that allows for Kerbals to gein xp and level up by being or working in a space station. If there currently isnt a mod. I think it could improve the dynamics of stations by making them a bit more useful. Thanks for any help!

Im user of a social webpage for readers called wattpad, where you can post your own stories. I post a story based on space called "Eisntein's cage" (on Spanish, sorry), but i felt a bit dissapointed when i saw that other "science-fiction stories" (firtsly and mots hated by me: the zombie's ones) got more famous than mine and more quickly, when i knew that my story (here's coming my egotistical mind) were better. After that, i had that conversation with myself: "If the readers want zombies, should i give them zombies?" "No, dani, you can't, you hate that topic. You cant do it" "I hate the zombies stories of other people, but what about if i do my own story? Made a story that doesnt seem a zombie-like story, but that has them, and also had space, and all the pother things that made my stories mine". "It could work. Now, think. If you dont want a copy of other work. You need a diferent scenario." "A distant planet, with a little human colony" "Okey, it should be enough. Think about the disease that changes the people into zombies, think about the zombies. They cant be normal zombies, they should be special." "The Disease would be a virus of high complexity. The colonists would call it "Güestia"". the zombies wont be zombies, they will be "Heralds"". "Now you need to mantain the story as you write others. You need spaceships. You need an explanation about spaceships, you need and explanation about the entire colony." And after many thoughts, and a longer conversation, the base of my story appeared. Its short for now (i still writting, but it isnt the first time that i wrote an entire chapter, i read it and i say "it sint good" and i delete it. But im progressing. If you are interested on read it, here's the link: (If you speak spanish, theres also a link to the spanish version here) https://www.wattpad.com/story/63567731-taranis-english-version Also, i will be posting the chapters here, so the ksp community didnt need a wattpad account to see it.

I know that Atlas rocket that launched Mercury spacecraft was 1 1/2 stage but what that means?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utJv-gc4NwI This is from my favorite HBO miniseries From The Earth To The Moon

I do not have too much discernment in this topic.

Hi all this course started today! come join me and learn about space, its Free! https://www.edx.org/course/conquest-space-space-exploration-rocket-uc3mx-bia-1x About this course Space exploration plays a major role in the history of humankind. The cultural, political and sociological repercussions are extraordinary, and the amount of resources dedicated to space exploration is enormous. This aerospace course is a first step for those interested in learning more about the history of the space and the impact of space exploration on our daily lives. Each week we will focus on a major chapter in the history of space exploration accompanied by an introduction to the relevant technical topics to fully understand these historical developments. During the seven weeks of the course, we will follow the technical, political and cultural contexts that lead to the birth of the space age, uncover the evolution of space exploration from competition to cooperation in the Apollo and post-Apollo era and finally, analyze current trends in space exploration. By successfully completing this course, you will acquire the critical tools to understand the key events and developments of the Space Age. You will learn to solve basic technical and engineering problems of space travel, rocket propulsion, space systems, and human space flight. Course image: Rosetta at Comet (landscape) / Copyright: ESA/ATG medialab; Comet image: ESA/Rosetta/Navcam. What you'll learn The history of space exploration and its cultural, political, and scientific impact Fundamentals of aerospace engineering, including how to move in space and how rockets work The key aspects of space systems and the space environment Current trends and future projects in space exploration Oh that formatting :/

Hi everyone. I'm just wondering now that both KSO and SSP don't work anymore, if anyone is currently making or planning a Space Shuttle mod for 1.0.5? Thanks -Banana

I have an average skill on general ksp matters, and an improved, after so much failures, skill in flying, stalling and landing. Also, a decent knowledge of CoM, CoL, etc. Besides all that, I can't build a heavy space plane that gets into orbit with two extra fuel tanks, use them, dump them, refuel a space station and come back to Kerbin, Space-Shuttle-style. This is the only way in career to refuel a space station with minimal cost, I think (apart from the SSTOs, but don't get me started on building heavy SSTO) And when I say heavy, I don't mean the mass in tons, but I'm referring to the 3.75m diameter, the largest fuselages there are for space planes. I've been trying for a quite long time now, and making them survive both basic orbital manuevers and a landing is simply impossible. Yes, the CoL is behind the CoM, yes, I saw where the CoM and CoL are after the fuel gets reduced to the amount it has on reentry. I did the painful calibrations just right, tested the plane, most of the times it's fine. Yet still, after orbit, the thing seems to break upon the slightest bump on the ground or spin around (I have tested the very same plane, with depleted fuel, at Kerbin and works fine). I have tried different control surfaces, larger, smaller. I have landed a spaceplane on Eve, I have managed numerous missions with ordinal "flat" space planes, but heavy space planes just don't work for some reason. I just think the game doesn't like heavy space planes. Has any of you tried persistently and failed to build a heavy orbiter? Is anyone avoiding the heavy, 3.75m diameter design because of its impossibility to cooperate, or am I doing something incredibly wrong? If you have any working designs or images of a 3.75 orbiter or, better, SSTO, please help me, this matter is anything I am trying to do with ksp these days.

Hey guys, I am definitely not new to Kerbal Space Program, but I am new to this update. I have always played the alpha version of the game, and I was quite impressed. As you can imagine, I am quite overwhelmed with all the new features in 1.0.whatever it is. So, anyway, what are your thoughts on all these new things? Good or Bad? What are you confused by? What do you understand and wish to share with us? And, what are your ideas? PIS1211 (Pharaohs in Space)

I was looking at Scott Kelly's pictures of the recent snow storm to hit the east coast. While looking at it I was trying to understand the orientation of the picture and to see which cities were visible. After some time with Google Earth and Microsoft Paint I labeled what I could distinguish in the photo. Just wanted to share and maybe see if anyone can see if something is mislabeled. Scott Kelly's - https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/690865242327351296/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Labeled - http://i.imgur.com/6O7Kfv4.jpg