Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'launcher'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 19 results

  1. Hello all! Just wanted to share a project I've been working on for entirely too long. I started out wanting to create a more generic launch platform for general use in KSP, but quickly snowballed into an attempted recreation of the Apollo Mobile Launcher and Launch Umbilical Tower. I remember seeing the outstanding documentary For All Mankind when I was a kid and absolutely -loving- the shot from the elevator of the tower going up and seeing the behemoth Saturn V squatting right in front of the camera. Further review informed me that this elevator was actually located on the Mobile Service Structure (MSS), but I was nonetheless inspired to attempt to recreate the launch-day experience of an Apollo astronaut. So far I have created the launch platform (with some interior, even), the ground support structures, the LUT itself, the hammerhead crane, the damper arm, and swing arms 9 and 6 - all with animations. As stated earlier, I wanted the user to be able to experience the actual route taken by the astronauts on launch-day, so I have included functionality to take the ground-to-pad elevator, walk down the mobile launcher corridor to the elevator room, ride the elevator to tower level 320', then traverse the walkway and crew access arm to the Saturn V command module. The screenshots included here are adapted for the FASA Saturn V. I'm trying to gauge community interest in this thing in an attempt to motivate myself to finish it. Here are some videos of the project: The Apollo Astronaut Pad Experience Demo of currently implemented features TODO: Swing Arms: Lights? Complete arms 1-5 and 7-8 Mobile Launcher: Add Blast Shield Tether Tie-Downs 0' - 80': Add equipment boxes, etc. Complete water pipes / quench stuff 100' - 360': Add equipment boxes, etc. Complete water pipes / quench stuff Complete Propellant pipes 200' - 300': Add swing arm walkway supports 300 - Bottom of umbMount z-fighting its support 320': Add escape lines? Car (9-seater)? 380': Crane 25 TON 10 TON sign
  2. Hello! Today, I've got a new toy. Everyone has made a basic orbiter with command module return capabilities, usually using the trusty ol' heat shield and parachutes, but I decided to try to build an orbiter that can land using a set of extendable wings, much like one of the proposals for the Gemini Program: Introducing the Mallard CSM-W: The Mallard CSM-W is a standard LKO crew module. The launch vehicle can place the orbiter into an equatorial LKO, and the orbiter has a few hundred m/s of on-orbit maneuvering fuel. The orbiter also comes with RCS thrusters, fuel, and a forward mounted port to allow for rendezvous and docking. The service bay behind the command module has two sets of wings with landing gear folded in at launch, which can be deployed prior to de-orbit and re-entry. Upon re-entry, an initial angle of attack of 90 deg will allow you to bleed off enough speed to keep temperatures low once you reach the lower atmosphere. Once you kill the majority of your speed, you'll need to look to land quickly since the lift-to-drag ratio is pretty poor. I've found it to be easiest to simply dive down to maintain airspeed, and then level off just before you reach the ground. Landing works best around 60 m/s, as it's decently slow but still above the stall speed. It can be landed on the KSC runway, or really anywhere else with sufficiently flat ground. Dumping the remainder of your maneuvering fuel before landing is also recommended. Action groups: AG1) Toggle lock on all robotics parts (locked by default at launch) AG2) Deploy wings and gear When deploying the wings, first use AG1 to unlock the robotics, then use AG2 to deploy. Once the wings are deployed, use AG1 again to re-lock the robotics parts. This is critical, as the wing parts are autostrutted to the command module, and will be unstable if not re-locked. Due to what I assume to be a bug, re-locking the robotics parts does not always work for all of them (usually the tiny hinges) so you'll have to check all 12 of them to be sure they are re-locked before re-entry. The game will display the "Cannot Lock Robotic part, Servo is moving" warning, even though none of them are still moving after being deployed. Not sure why this happens, but manually locking the rest of the parts does not take long. Here is a lovely gif of the wing deployment in action: Craft file: Gallery: I hope you enjoyed it! Here is my last post:
  3. Hey everyone! This one's so wild, it'll make your head spin! Most of us have tried our hand at building an artificial gravity station, either by building a conventional orbital station with a working centrifuge, or even building an entire spinning 2001-style vessel. Both are wonderful, but what if your Kerbals are going to be spending months on end not in zero gee, but on the surface of a body with a surface gravity less than that of Kerbin, like Moho (g = 2.7 m/s^2)? We can still put a centrifuge to work, but this time it'll be there to provide the additional acceleration that we need in combination with Moho's surface graviy to obtain a 9.81 m/s^2 net acceleration on our Kerbals, ensuring the long term health of their little (presumably) green musculoskeletal systems. To this end, I've developed the Rototron XVI. An artificial gravity surface base with the capability of reaching Moho with a crew of 32 Kerbals. When deployed on the surface, the centrifuge can be run indefinitely due to the combined ISRU refinery and fuel cell array. The station is constructed in LKO via two separate launches; one for the centrifuge and crew cabins, and another for the main engines and landing support structure. The crew of 32 is launched separately, along with an additional fuel tank that will be used to provide the rest of the delta-v we'll need to make the interplanetary transfer to Moho. A region near Moho's south pole was chosen as our landing site due to the abundance of low-altitude flat land, as the axis of rotation of the centrifuge must be as close to parallel to the local gravity field as possible to sustain constant acceleration. From left to right: R-XVI Centrifuge, R-XVI Crew Module, and R-XVI Landing Support Structure, Here is a link to a gif of it under rotation, KSP forums wont let me post it here The math on this is not terribly difficult. Typically, when constructing an artificial gravity station with the intention of simulating actual 1 gee acceleration, you work out the necessary rate of rotation via: angular velocity = sqrt ( 9.81 / r ) Where "r" is the perpendicular distance between the crew cabin and the axis of rotation. In our case, if we model the two crew cabins as point masses on the ends of massless rods under rotation in a uniform gravitational field, the acceleration experienced by the crew cabins can be evaluated merely as a function of the angle of splay of the crew cabins while under rotation (such as with a centrifugal governor). Thus, we need only calculate the angle of splay that will result from our desired total acceleration: Splay angle = arcsin( 2.7 / 9.81) = ~16 deg Knowing this, we simply vary the rpm on the main rotor while monitoring the angle display on one of the hinges until the splay angle settles in around 16 deg. Now, we see the launch, construction, landing, and operation: Again, here's another gif: I hope you enjoyed this, I sure enjoyed building and flying it. I don't have plans to post the craft files yet, but I will if it seems like there's enough interest. If you like crazy big spacecraft, you'll also like my last post:
  4. This is a stupid question, but can you use mods on ksp Xbox. Most forums say no, but the Xbox version still has a app launcher tab. I mean they completely reworked to game to make it xbox-compatible and wouldn't they remove it if it had no use?
  5. "Jeb, it's not a skyscraper if you build it somewhere without an atmosphere." "...A spacescraper, it shall be!" The SPACESCRAPER 0 is a fully stock tower. It has office space for 1,540 Kerbals, and can be flown to Minmus and landed in a single go. The launcher can place the tower on a suborbital trajectory, where the tower's 28 Nervas are used to go the rest of the way. Once in space, attitude is controlled via 16 Vernor engines instead of SAS modules due to the insane mass. There's also a small landing pad in between the upper and lower halves of the building to accommodate visiting landers. If you'd like to give it a go (even if just to fly it into the VAB, which I highly recommend), the craft file is here: The fuel for the launch stage comes in part from the tanks in the booster itself, and part from the mk3 tanks in the tower in between the crew cabins. Upon burnout of the launch stage, you should have only a sliver of oxidizer left, along with enough liquid fuel to power the Nervas to a Minmus landing. The remaining oxidizer is due to the two 2.25 meter tanks at the base of the tower. This is the fuel that will be used for on-orbit attitude changes via the vernor thrusters, so both have fuel flow disabled at launch to prevent their fuel from being immediately used up by the main engines. Don't forget to re-enable fuel flow on them after booster separation so you can achieve attitude control. While on orbit, it is not recommended that you use SAS until you make your final landing approach. RCS+SAS for attitude stability and control will gladly eat up all your RCS fuel in a jiffy, so attitude adjustments are best made using small manual RCS bursts along with 4x physics warp to save time while rotating (don't worry, the tower is autostrutted to the max). SAS is generally not necessary during burns, as the huge moment of inertia of the tower should keep its attitude more or less consistent during the burn, especially when performing a burn directly out of a standard time warp. Gallery: I really hope you liked it! Also, check out my last post:
  6. Hey! Continuing with my too-big launcher binge, I've got another whopper for ya: A multi-purpose interplanetary ship with ample fuel and propulsion, space for 70 Kerbals, and a variety of ports for expansion and utilization. It can be placed into LKO fully fueled in a single launch: Please let me know what you think! Download the craft file here: Also, Check out:
  7. Hey Y'all! I hope everyone is enjoying their time in quarantine, as well as staying safe and sanitary. It's certainly given me more time to muck around in KSP, so I've got something new to show. The Verdon S4 (named in honor of the late Verdon Kerman) is an interplanetary transfer vehicle that can be used to drive large and otherwise massive payloads around the Kerbol system. The design was put together to maximize the final TWR and delta-V when reaching LKO without needing a part count that drives your (or at least my) framerate into a slideshow. I've included a secondary vessel; a crew habitation module which will act as our payload for demonstration purposes. With room for 28 Kerbals, it also has six docking ports; one large port for docking with the S4, one standard forward port, and four lateral ports to allow for extra vessels to dock (landers, probes, visiting crew ships, etc.). S4 LKO Vac. delta-V and TWR for various payload masses: payload mass (t) delta-V (m/s) TWR 0.000 6951 0.44 25.000 6288 0.43 50.000 5654 0.41 64.323** 5428 0.40 100.000 4816 0.38 200.000 3760 0.33 400.000 2651 0.27 800.000 1688 0.19 **crew hab. module mass Craft Statistics: Verdon S4 (interplanetary vehicle only) Parts 27 Wet mass 603.235t Thrust (vac) 2,625.0kN Height 5.5m Width 5.4m Length 55.2m Verdon S4 (interplanetary vehicle + launch vehicle) Parts 142 Wet mass 7,342.700t Thrust (vac) 84,000.0kN Height 96.6m Width 13.5m Length 13.5m Verdon Crew Habitation Module (interplanetary vehicle only) Parts 97 Wet mass 64.323t Thrust (vac) 120.0kN Height 7.4m Width 5.0m Length 49.6m Verdon Crew Habitation Module (interplanetary vehicle + launch vehicle) Parts 188 Wet mass 4,890.064t Thrust (vac) 64,000.0kN Height 92.1m Width 9.7m Length 9.7m Verdon S4 on the pad Verdon Crew Habitation Module on the pad At Eeloo! To see this craft in action as part of a larger mission, check this out: KerbalX hangar:
  8. My launcher looks like this. I've owned KSP since 2013 and it's been like this for a long while over all versions I've played. The game works fine but the update feature doesn't work just like the picture illustrates. Any idea on how to fix this?
  9. I purchased the Direct Download of Kerbal Space Program in 2013, and played it here and there for a while until sometime in 2016, when I got tired of trying to figure it out at the time (I wasn't particularly good at it back then). A couple of weeks ago, I got back into it and began playing it again. It's been all fine and good, but there's one slight issue. For some reason, the launcher's background, which I would assume has an image behind all of its information, is blank, and looks a bit out of place. Furthermore, the place where the versions are supposed to be shown are blank (It says Current Version ID: - and Latest Version ID: - ), and I can't use the update button as a result. I managed to update the game manually from 1.2.2 to 1.4.5 or whatever it is now, but the launcher did not change during my update process. Other than these issues, the launcher itself seems fully functional, but whenever I launch the game it asks me if I want to allow the program to make changes to the computer, as if its some installation program rather than a game. None of these issues directly affect the gameplay, but they are concerning me a bit. Is there anything I can do to fix this? Thanks.
  10. When I start KSP 1.4.4 and the launcher loads it doesn't show anything. No version number or news or anything. It also won't let me check for updates or update. Any one seen this before and know how to fix it? I am pretty sure the only mod I have is MechJeb. Tried adding a screen shot, but haven't figured it out yet.
  11. Hey guys! So I'm back from a long break, and I have this question begging to get answered: I see large rigs like the stock Crater Crawler, and I wonder to myself, how the heck do you deploy something that huge? It doesn't fit the biggest fairings available, so what gives It's not even assembled in LKO, there's no docking seams! So tell me: how do you (in vanilla KSP) get something really huge up there and working?
  12. There's a new shuttle challenge, I had an idea for a small shuttle. The airplane stage wasn't hard for me to build, and it flys nice - holds prograde more or less by itself , generates optimal lift/drag ratio when in prograde hold , thanks to incidence angle on wings. I had the idea of putting a kickback on each wingtip to get the thing halfway to space. That's the easy bit right? Well, no. After I'd finished getting hung up on my own launch clamps, then the torque from the boosters sending me pitching up or down into a half loop crash, i found that the flight profile you get with solids doesn't play nice with the lift from the wings. On the solids, it accelerates harder and harder as the flight goes on due to fuel burnoff, we end up generating too much lift and steadily pitching up into a vertical climb, or even going over vertical. So we need to not build speed too fast down low, but we still need enough thrust in the first 15 seconds or you get another comedy takeoff. So, I'm starting over with liquid fuel boosters, since when has any shuttle program ever been about saving money anyway? Though i might need more than a pair of Reliants to get the job done... Here is the mini shuttle with a fail-tacular solid booster setup. micro shuttle.craft?dl=0 What it really needs is something that gets it to 15km+ at mach 3 or more, in a shallow climb (less than 15 degrees of pitch) - that way the upper stage isn't wasting it's meagre thrust against gravity for long, and is actually thrusting horizontally with some atmosphere to make lift from the wings. Basically the ascent the upper stage wants to follow looks something like this -
  13. Hi, I'm playing KSP for 2 months and have Some Experience, But to Some cause, I needed to re-start my Game and Now I'm in Early-Mid Carrer. As in this Phase Many, Build subassemblies for Fast and Effective Missions. Most subassemblies are Launcher. I want to Request our Modders to Create a Mod that creates a Report for a Launcher about its Specification. I.E. Weight, Thrust, Delta-V, Thrust Vectoring, Speed and most Important for Choosing a Perfect Launcher, A Launch Capability Report, about, Weight to Low Kerbin Orbit, Kerbin Stationary Transfer, Stationary Orbit and Trans-Munar and Trans-Minmas Injection Orbit. Plz Recommended An Mod or Create one, Its an Idea for Modders not a Planned Project. Plz ,Thanks
  14. It looks like ILS has decided to develop 2 stage of the proton to launch smaller payloads. they are going to use the breeze m as a second stage and remove the original second stage and expand the first. they also plan to make one with four engines instead of 6
  15. Dear @Kerbal Astronautics it's ready! Here comes a full stock Pegasus-Stargazer system called Chrysaor-Kalliroe. Coming from a old project started about two years ago it was not possible to create a TriStar-like carrier powerful enough a this time with the Whiplash being the only turbofan available. I threw away the carrier file and just keep the launcher in case of better days : Time passed by and a week ago I discovered the work of Kerbal Astronautics who made a Pegasus-Stargazer craft. It immediatly brings me back the envy to finish an incompleted work. And now with the Goliath available no way to step back again. The craft in available on KerbalX : Build with 93 parts, the carrier is powered by three Goliath engines and able to climb to 10 km before dropping the launcher, but at this altitude the whole system whill be about to stall. The best launch configuration is between 5-8 km, at this time the speed should between 170-115 m/s. Stabilize the roll as much as possible, keep the Y-axis a bit positive then drop Chrysaor as your will. Once free you have some seconds to stabilize a bit more if you need it then you can light up the first stage. The rest is more than basic and easy. Honestly it's the sole system with one of my shuttle I decided to ensure the whole control from the launch to orbit for the first time since maybe a year. Its whole stability is surpprinsing good enough to make it easy to fly. First stage separation after a minute. Second stage activation. . The third complete its function of circularization. The payload is a small relay satellite only built to confirm the system possibilty to place a payload of 1-1.5 tons in orbit. I decided to use its own engine to place it on a more convenient orbit for its limited capabilities. After these maneuvers some dV was still available. But to me the best part of the system is that : The carrier is recoverable with Stage Recovery mod. The whole flight album is available here :
  16. Greetings. Firstly let me just explain that I am quite new to the game as I have only been playing for a week or so. I'm having a bit of difficulty getting my Mun lander into orbit of Kerbin, let alone to the Mun. My main issue is loss of control - the rocket spins, flips and does whatever it wants, even with SAS enabled, whenever I engage the main liquid engine. It's fairly stable whilst using the initial boosters to get off the ground though...until I fire up the main engine that is... I have tried many different setups using my brain to design them but to no avail, so I thought i'd ask you guys for some help. I'm not asking for someone to design a rocket for me (i'm not that lazy), however if what I am doing needs to be binned, then I will happily accept any help that is offered. My lander and command module is 13T in mass...which might be my first problem. Here is a screenshot (not including AE-FF1 protective shell - is this needed?) without any of the many rocket designs I have tried below it. I have tried both slim and fat launch vehicles, usually with 2/4 boosters at the bottom. I have tried attaching some boosters further up near my payload to "tug" it unto orbit and that also doesn't work. Perhaps I need to learn more about launch profiles, perhaps just rocket design. Either way, I have been trying all day to launch this to no avail. I can get to 80km+ but when I try to round off my orbit, the rocket spins out of control even on quite a low throttle. Redesigning my lander isn't out of the question either. Does anyone have any tips, suggestions or help please? Many thanks in advance.
  17. Download at: Spacedock · Curseforge Parts some of which are in development which have changed in some aspects which will come soon. Here's a launcher of mine in my career mode, demonstrating the soon to be FX: What does this project do? Remaking vanilla launchers for a modern twist. Parts based on their real life counterparts with KSP theme (stockalike) Changelog Version 1.0 Initial Release Version 2.0 Added mid stage tank - a little bit bigger than the X200-32 Added mid stage engine with 1000 thrust (with alternative fairing texture) Added fairing base (and procedural fairing base) (Texture switchable) Added fairing (and procedural fairing) (Texture switchable) New textures for the upper stage tank and Kerbal X tank Removed smoke on engines Changed engine FX and added new ones Version 3.0 Remodeled most of the parts, removed old parts that are not remodeled yet Current version contains: -Fairing Base (Procedural) -Slant Cone/Sepacone (untouched but still used) Rocket Engines: -LVT-A (Poodle Equivalent, Based on ESC-A, Resizable) -KE-4 (Skipper Equivalent, Based on BE-4) -KE-68 (Mainsail Equivalent, Based on RS-68) -LV-T1C (LV-T30 Equivalent, Based on Merlin 1C) -LV-T1D (LV-T45 Equivalent, Based on Merlin 1D) -KE-180 (Based on RD-180, Update 3.0.5) Texture switchable and Resizable: -Long Kerbal X Tank -Mid tank -Upper stage tank -Decoupler (Recolored, same model) -Mk1-2 Decoupler (Recolored, same model) Known Issues/Problems Tweakscale is not that good at the moment in resizing automatically for my parts Sepacones sometimes have a very strong kick, I recommend reducing its thrust. The released version's Kerbal X has KW Rocketry struts, use this patch to solve that problem Recommendations: Aerojet Kerbodyne to match with the new launchers. Active Texture Management if running out of memory License: *Smokescreen in contained in package is made by Sarbian (and the rest of the developers that helped him, credit goes to them). Firespitter is made by Snjo as well as modulemanager and modulefixer.dll files, those aren't mine. I only take credit on my parts. If you want to help the development of this project greatly, you can donate some feedback or criticism.
  18. Hello, Just wanted to point out, that since version 1.1.2 the Steam launcher automatically launches KSP in x32, by default, instead of x64 like in version 1.1.1. If one would want to launch in x64 (most of us do), you would have to go to the Steam Library, right click on the game and click on "Launch KSP (64-bit)". I would like an option to choose which one it should launch by default, or go back to launchit it in x64 by default. Or some suggestion as to how to configure the launcher with the "Set launch options" so that the game starts in x64 when clicking on the shortcut.
  19. While updating to 1.1.2 through the launcher I noticed an error in red. The rest of the install carried on fine so I didn't look too hard. I got into 1.1.2, put a plane on the Tier 1 airstrip (one up from dirt) and all three wheels of a plane that worked in 1.1 were completely embedded into the ground. Throttling took ages to create speed because it wasn't just visual, the wheels are failing to function at all as wheels, and are basically just a rigid part grinding against the surface. When I hit around 22km/s the steering wheel in the rear exploded. So I went back to see what this updating error was, and if something had broken the install. I'm unhappy to report that the error is the launcher's updater trying to update a file that the updater itself has in use and won't release. (see screenshot above) I'm going to assume that this log file that wants renamed is just a log file, and doesn't affect the rest of the update process. Which means I have a good clean copy of 1.1.2 - the version that patched broken wheels from the 1.1.1 patch for the broken wheels in 1.1 - and this new version has broken wheels on a whole new level. --- Career mode doesn't work so long as you can't use the first wheels the game gives to you. You can't build your first plane. You can't do any of the site survey missions that take players to new biomes where they can legitimately collect more science. (You can, but players mustn't be expected to build crazy rockets, out of early-game parts, to deliver them to locations below 18km -- and I don't believe that's not how you intend it to be played.) Between getting an orbit and starting to run Moon missions all you can do is test parts and move tourists around. Building planes is not an option right now, even though it is exactly the intended path for players to follow and exactly what Mission Control emphasizes at that stage of the game. Dear Squad, THIS is the game of your game. You don't seem to pay much attention to the game of your game. Version after version, since 0.24, and well past 1.0 now, I have watched as this team has favored adding new parts and new game mechanics, tweaking the physics, altering atmospheric drag formulas, and developing virtually every other area of the sandbox in which the game takes place OVER THE GAME THAT TAKES PLACE. Your playtesters clearly do not have a script to follow to test career mode, and they should. This team, and I'm talking about the development team, needs to have more than just a soft-idea of what players will be doing with their newly unlocked parts as they progress through the career mode of the game. Mission control should be a central priority for you, as it is the conduit through which new players see what they should try next, as well as what the game believes them able to do with the tech they have, or will be getting soon. And at least some portion of your playtesters need to have a checklist of basic milestones to fulfill in each and every new iteration of the game that is passed down to them to verify that the path of the game -- most importantly the early game -- still works no matter the version. Because that's the GAME of this game. It's important. It should be the MOST important. I'm taking time to write this because you could not have released this version, or the two that preceded it if you had already taken this idea to heart; if it truly was a priority to you. Releasing, but over and over again, in this state evidences a mind that has been so focused on implementing a more expansive sandbox that it has come to devalue game progression to the point that it's okay for the Career paths to be completely and utterly broken -- if just for *this* release. It is not okay. It hasn't been okay since 1.0. And it should not be okay to you any more, or ever again. --- I will make myself available if you'd like to hire me to direct playtesting. That role is supposed to be filled by an impassioned critic who rubs you the wrong way. Someone who won't quietly let things like this slide. Who will demand your attention and challenge you to make it better every time. Right now, you're in the hug-box.