[Video] I'm Scott Manley and These Are My Kerbal Space Program Videos

[aceassasin]

Scott is a one of my favorite youtubers that play kerbal space program his videos where how i found kerbal space program

[illectro]

Lot better one IMO and lot more bang for your pounds. and it looks nice super quite and is Sekz.

.

That case is 3x the price, it's not 3x better so it loses on the bang for your buck equation.

The old system Was a dual core Opteron from 2005 with 3 gb of

Memory and a radeon hd4670 (obviously newer than the rest of the machine)

[Seret]

Love these videos Scott, keep it up. Until Squad catches up with you these are basically my tutorials for how to get into the game.

[Yamacrane]

I love these videos! Fly safe, Scott!

[segaprophet]

IMO Scott's channel and TheWinterOwl's channel have the best KSP videos on youtube. Fly safe man!

[illectro]

I've posted about 5 new videos but I haven't posted them here yet....

[BillWiskins]

Mr Manley, sir, I'd like to say that your videos are quite splendid. I largely avoid "Let's Play ..." or similar instructional videos - I think KSP is about spending countless hours trying, failing and redesigning before finally hitting that refined design that actually works - but I will always watch your creations. The 'Budget Cuts' series was fantastic and I do not mind admitting that I almost cheered when Wildorf Kerman finally managed to grab a rung on his rescuing ship.

Long may it continue, I say (and hope).

[Pyotor Gagarin]

I learned orbital rendezvous from your instructional video! I use these techniques all the time now. Thanks Scott.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Pyotor Gagarin

[r_rolo1]

Well as the youtube comments are quite short, better to do it here

You could probably do it with more/bigger parachutes. Your lander is way too heavy for those 3 small ones you used resulting in them snapping explosively ( you know, this is KSP, where everything is made out of TNT and structurally fails via explosions ) when opening, taking out your ship as well. If you had added more parachutes ( by eyeballing I would say 5 big ones would do the trick for your lander in Kerbin ), even if the capsule would roll out, after the opening of the chutes you would have time to use the capsule SAS to turn it ( or even the "land" command of the mechjeb landing window ). Not saying that part editing is not OK, especially in a case like this, though....

BTW, waiting for your new lander. I agree that the one you have there has margin for improvement

[illectro]

Here's the final lander development video:

Of course.... I made this a week ago, so don't feel sad if I didn't listen to your particular suggestion on how to fix it, unless you were able to send it back in time it didn't reach me until after I made this

Also, in parallel I was developing my interplanetary transfer vehicle and heavy lifter

[r_rolo1]

I definitely like your leaner lander ... aerospikes really are the best engine in game ( most likely they will get the nerf hammer sooner or later though ) and you can even engineer the delivery rocket in a way that allows those aerospikes to do lifting work since takeoff, making things more efficient.

BTW you could probably be more liberal with the landing legs in terms of touchdown speed ... to be honest, you don't even need landing legs if you use the MechJeb "land" button and if the land below is not too tilted, but even if you use the legs, they can hold a little more that 1 m/s . I routinely do 3 m/s landings in Kerbin and I've done some science long ago about the legs and even the smaller ones can withstand up to 16 m/s if the impact is pretty in the normal direction ( to reference that impact speed is enough to detach capsules from fuel tanks attached to those same legs ... without breaking the legs ). BTW I'm 100% sure you can even make a Eve lander that does not need burns to land ( since I already made Kerbin ones in pre .16 ) if you use enough chutes and time their opening right ...

[illectro]

More interplanetary simulation videos - here, I reveal my atmosphere probes which let me gather information about aerobraking around unknown planets.

And here's the arrival of the interplanetary transfer vehicle.

[r_rolo1]

I took some interest in your fuel lines drainage issue in the last video and, in the interest of science, decided to give you a hand

Unfortunately, due to what I already hinted you in the youtube comments ( rrolo1 there , in the slim chance you haven't noticed already ), it is pretty much impossible to get what you want in terms of fuel flow with the ship you have there. I have devised 2 solutions, working in a barebone structure of the stages that were giving you issues ( both are bolted to the ground for testing proposes in the saves ):

Solution 1 ( named 3 in zip file ):

It is the least radical one. I noticed that it would be indifferent stage wise ( well, almost ) to switch between the bottom tank and the two lateral ones in terms of rocket performance, so I did exactly that. I also put the fuel lines to the engine coming from the upper decoupler, but you could probaly do that from the central tank and save a fuel line ...

Solution 2 ( solution 2 in zip file ):

Instead of using the bottom tank, I divided it in 2 and putted them in the side. As you can see in the staging, the lateral tanks are grouped in 2 groups of two and they are connected and staged in "aspargus" fashion. To be honest, I like the design, but, besides not being really equal to yours ( thus, with possible problems in terms of center of mass and space impediments in the real rocket ), this type of design needs more struts ( I haven't put any, but you would most likely need atleast 4 ) and, due to the small struting provided by the fuel lines added to the non-radial symmetry of the fuel lines display, it tends to rotate and being less stable in general.

I know this will not save your kerbals that are in the iminence of trying to land a borked lander with a erroneous fuel line work and a Kraken eaten MechJeb but hopefully it will help you in .17 or even before.

Zip with both saves here . Oh, and fly safe

Edited August 30, 2012 by r_rolo1

[Mirage]

All I can say is thank you, you have really helped me get into this game :-)

[illectro]

r_rolo1 - You're referring to this video right?

I'm just happy that the mission is still completeable despite the 2 major problems.

[r_rolo1]

Yup, that video. I hadn't noticed you had not posted it already in here

[4 IN 1]

I have to say, I really like your SRB approach there.Its very kerbal.

[Caroliano]

Ok, commenting here is much better than in youtube. Basically repeating what I said in youtube:

The pure parachute solution can be made to work. All parachutes need to be well above the center of mass of the vehicle, so they make the ship point up more effectively. Once you are pointing up, you can make a small burn to avoid break up when they fully open, if needed, as Scott said in the video.

If you only want to get into orbit, you can do that with even less fuel and thus cut the weight of your lander by about 5 tons and still get 4800m/s delta-v. Of course, assuming the target planet/moon has the same delta-v requirement for getting into orbit:

Old image:

This is an old design I did (originally posted here, and no answer about the bug yet...) and it can be improved by removing the top decoupler, and maybe jettisoning the landing legs...

PS: Also liked the SRB approach. That solid booster has the highest Isp from all rocket engines in KSP. Not sure if it is a balancing bug.

[Da_Dumples]

Scott, you are one of those Youtubers that you just can wait to see in your inbox. I love your videos!

[illectro]

Thanks - well - here's another one for the inbox - actually landing this thing on the planet and then returning to orbit.

[r_rolo1]

I told you didn't needed the legs

Well, on Eve this is , as far as I know, the last input from the devs ( correct me if wrong ):

I'll help you guys out a little bit, here are the latest stats on Eve:

(may change, they've been changed up quite a bit so far)

Radius: 700km

Surface gravity: 1.7g

Atmosphere density: 5x kerbin

Rotation period: 22.5 hours

Semimajor axis: 7440000km

Eccentricity: 0.03

Inclination: 0.025

I've been developing my Eve going rockets based on this intel.

[illectro]

Eve looks like a real challenge for landing.... I'm guessing that spaceplanes would be a great option, especially if you can use turbojets, but that may not be possible.

Is there a turboprop? Or a Hot air baloon mod?

[kacperrutka26]

Scott, for a future challenge, would you be able to land on a planet/moon in IVA? That would be cool to watch because IVA is coming out on 0.17, like the planets

[illectro]

Possibly, but I think we'd need a specific IVA designed for a LEM style capsule, remember the windows in that were designed to look down.

(they also had a bunch of useful marking etched onto it.)

[AmpsterMan]

Scott, your videos are amazing! You are a really good KSP Let's player. Enjoying your videos immensely