Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'launcher'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • 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
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Categories

  • Developer Articles

Found 9 results

  1. Getting a massive rover up there

    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?
  2. 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. https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9myyrt0vsj7v7s/Starswift 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 -
  3. 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
  4. smaller proton variants

    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 http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/22/smaller-variants-of-russias-proton-rocket-on-the-market/
  5. 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 : https://kerbalx.com/XB-70A/Chrysaor-Kalliroe-Pegasus-Stargazer 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 : http://imgur.com/a/Jsct4
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.