arkie87

I think it's against Kerbalism (Kerbal religion) to do a systems check

It would be kinda funny though... perhaps someone can make a mod that does this, and you could stealthily install it on friends' GameData folder on april fools day! And while you're at it, install a random failures mod as well

I actually think KER would have been perfect for this situation. You just illustrated an example where your spreadsheet template didnt work due to unforeseen circumstances (such as aspect ratio). Thus, you had to revise the design using your experience. You now have two choices: (1) Make a new spreadsheet template, taking into account the unforeseen circumstance, to see if your revised design is going to work (2) Build it and use KER to see if it will work I think #2 is easier/lazier, since, as you repeatedly point out, a spreadsheet template will only be good for a very narrow set of design configurations (though it is more useful within this set of design configurations), and so, you will end up making many templates. Once again, I can fully understand if that's the way you prefer to play, since I can see it being fun to make the templates. Personally, I would find it fun to write a code (mod) that can calculate deltaV, rather than using a spreadsheet

So, I've been playing career mode again, and in the early tech tree, its hard to do a gradual (i have FAR installed) gravity turn before you have proper control surfaces and/or reaction wheels-- i either fail to turn enough and end up being flung up high out of the atmosphere or turn too much and spin out and die; every once in a while, ill get it right... So what i decided is that while doing a proper gravity turn is the most efficient way of getting into LKO, it's not so bad to transfer directly to the Mun by burning vertically upward from KSC (during correct transfer window). Plus, burning vertically upward is relatively easy to control (less risk of spinning out etc).... AND..... BEST OF ALL.... It allows you to obey the #1 rule of KSP: MOAR BOOSTERS!!!!! EDIT: Other advantages of Vertical Ascent vs. LKO-to-Mun are: (1) Utilization of Oberth effect the entire time (vs. LKO, you waste the initial climbing part when you turn off pro-grade); nevertheless, even theoretically, vertical requires more deltaV than LKO to Mun for this particular case. For other planets/moons, this might not be the case. (2) With FAR, does not require control surfaces or reaction wheels or expensive thrust-vectoring engines to steer the craft into a gravity turn. Thus, strapping loads of SRB's and going vertical might be cheaper (in terms of Kerbucks) than using a mainsail/skipper and using thrust vectoring to get into LKO first. (3) Eyeballing is easy-- just aim 90 degrees in front of the Mun or Minmus; or burn at sunrise/sunset if you are going interplanetary at optimum launch window (4) With FAR, it is possible if you are too aggressive with gravity turn, you craft will spin out of control, thus, ruining the mission. (5) Optimum ascent path to minimize deltaV is very sensitive and its not necessarily so easy to hit every time going to LKO first vs. vertical ascent is easy to hit optimally every time. GoSlash27 predicted approximately 340 m/s wasted deltaV using vertical ascent method, but its possible to waste that going into LKO first, if you accidentally raise your apoapsis too high, stay too low for too long, turn craft too aggressively, or do something else sub-optimally...

Yeah, i also think it goes too fast in general. I think it should be one mission or more per science node, rather than being able to unlock multiple nodes with one mission. As far as im concerned, i "beat" the game once i unlocked all the techs, even if i havent purchased the parts...

Welcome to the forums! I don't know if i speak for everyone, but i really cannot imagine most people would support an idea like this (and if the tolerances are small, then this addition wouldn't really effect the game at all). I would place this suggestion somewhere in between making thrust vary with ISP rather than fuel flow rate (which is realistic, but doesnt drastically change the game) and random failures (which is also realistic, but really, really annoying). In general, I would think most people would rather squad, with its limited programming resources, dedicate its time to more pressing issues. Meanwhile, if you think it would enhance your experience, or if someone else out there agrees with you, then you can always learn to mod and make one

At present, you are right, it is easier to substitute X fuel tank for Y fuel tank in a spreadsheet than in stock VAB. However, if you use tweakscale (or if ever stock changed such that you only had one "fuel tank" part and used tweakables to adjust texture/length/diameter/fuel-type etc...) then VAB would be equivalent to a spreadsheet, no?

I agree a spreadsheet is better for constrained optimization, but, for using trial and error to design a craft (which is the case i thought we were talking about), i think spreadsheets and mods to calculate delta-V are at the very least equals, though i think VAB is more user-friendly. Returning to optimization: in my humble opinion, having a spreadsheet to automatically calculate the optimum spaceship/staging/TWR/deltaV/everything takes the fun out of the game, though, i would understand, if part of the fun for you was writing the code/making the spreadsheet template that would do those calculations/designs for you

E = m c^2 Energy is mass and mass is energy. If you are moving fast, you have kinetic energy, so, you have additional mass. This is also the reason that some elementary particles are said to have zero "rest mass", but have (inertial) mass, since they are moving and have kinetic energy

For a single stage rocket, with few parts, calculations are simple. But in the real world, it easily gets much more complicated than that... As others have pointed out: what is dV for a craft with multiple engines, each with its own fuel mass burn rate and ISP? And i think the reason it is "difficult", as others have said, is due to the looking up of information regarding the parts, and making sure to put them in the right column etc... the best analogy is it's like doing your taxes-- it's not necessarily "difficult" in terms of intellectual capability, but it is "difficult" to get the right answer, in the sense that it is easy to make a mistake...

I have to agree with 5thHorseman. How exactly is a spreadsheet different than the VAB? A spreadsheet has a UI whereas the VAB has a GUI, so i would vote VAB is easier to use and more interactive. Furthermore, a "template" for a spreadsheet is equivalent to a "saved craft" in the VAB, so i fail to see the advantage of a spreadsheet (other than learning how to calculate the numbers, and therefore, understanding the best/easiest/cheapest etc.. way to increase deltaV)

that's one way of looking at it. another way is that time itself slows down such that velocity, which is distance divided by time, cannot increase because time (which is in the denominator) increases too fast at speeds near that of light if that made sense, great! if not, dont worry about it...

"is killing the fun" or "killing IS the fun"?

Yes, you are saying that one of the requirements of the contract is to be within budget. I think that would be a cool idea, especially for harder modes i.e. rescue X kerbal from LKO spending less than 20k$.... One potential serious impediment is docking-- if you dock with another craft, to refuel, say, then how will it calculate your budget? I suppose it can require that you never dock the craft...

Any progress on spawning kerbals on surfaces? I would really look forward to such a mod! I want a REASON to be able to make targeted landings. I imagine its not as simple as copying and pasting the source code for the rescue contracts, changing the name to "surface rescue", and then changing the parameters which specify the orbit of the kerbal from altitude 100 km to 1 m? I imagine there is some code that specifies the orbit the kerbal is in, and so, you just have to change that code (i assume it looks something like how Orbit Editor specifies orbits). Also, any plans to spawn rudimentary spaceships/landers in orbit/surface of planets/moons?

How am i just seeing this now? Thanks so much!

Has squad announced any new rescue missions -- besides the boring ol' random kerbal stuck in perfectly circular LKO with full RCS EVA pack, no inclination etc...? If not, is there a mod that will add more diverse/interesting/challenging rescue missions? For instance, mix and match the following: (1) Number of Kerbals (1-3) (2) Orbit vs. Surface (3) EVA vs. In Lander If EVA then: (3a) Controllable when close vs. uncontrollable (i.e. he is unconscious and player must use claw to grab him) If in Lander, then lander has zero fuel and: (3b) Controllable when refueled vs. uncontrollable (i.e. must be docked with and hauled back into orbit etc...) What do you guys think? Does anyone NOT want this? P.S. I was thinking maybe its possible that if player recovers a spacecraft such as in 3b, they can unlock special parts higher up on the tech tree that the spacecraft contained?

Is it possible to use RCS while on EVA and on a ladder (sorry at work and dont have access to KSP at the moment to try it, but i'm pretty sure you cant or I wouldnt be asking)? If not, (and i'm pretty sure it's not), should it be possible? because then it would make nudging your ship back into the atmosphere and other small deltaV changes easier to do with kerbals on EVA and less dangerous if you accidentally spend all your RCS fuel

I wouldnt recommend ramming the ship, as you could miss and/or get deflected at some random angle, and have to use RCS to get back to the ship, thus, it's less efficient than just putting yourself inside the rocket's nozzle, and burning "up" into it (just make sure another jealous kerbal doesnt turn the engine on )

Docking without RCS isnt too bad if you are controlling a small ship (command pod, fuel tank, lv-909) that can spin around with reaction wheels on a dime... ive done it many-a-time when i was too lazy (read: forgot) to put RCS on the ship. I think most of my docks have been without RCS, and i actually learned to dock without RCS. That said, i dont usually assemble large ships in orbit...so maybe that's why im confused But still, learning to do all that so fast is impressive! Have fun with your green monsters!

Glad i could help! I posted that review because i feel it exemplifies what is so awesome/fun about KSP

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198073801743/recommended/220200/

Not sure why you think SoI idea is any more dumb than this? Most of the problems of using SoI can be handled by putting an asteroid/moon/planet in the center so you cannot enter the singularity-- all of this within KSP's existing engine. The problem with your idea (and the SoI idea) is that KSP, at present, cannot "increase" the strength of gravity or otherwise "manually" modify the orbit. The patched-conics solver uses the analytical solution to the 2-body gravity problem to determine what "on the rails" is i.e. you need to specify two independent variables e.g. apoapsis and periapsis and the solver can determine your orbit. A "lagrangian" orbit would not match the patched-conics orbit, and so, you'd have to get squad to agree to make an alternate solver to use under certain conditions, and since its WNTS, good luck with that

i suppose that would work (dont need ladders-- just close the bay doors when he gets inside), but i was playing career and dont have much unlocked yet. i suppose i could leave him in orbit for about a year or two and come get him (not playing with life support)...

Yeah, that kind of broad KAS-like system would be useful, and in my opinion, is required for the final release of the game. We need some way of assembling craft in orbit via placing struts and fuel lines, since docking ports, at present, are way too weak to hold large craft together under acceleration. That said, i think they should make docking ports much stronger. Nevertheless, a KAS-like system would make retrofitting existing crafts/rovers doable, and would be useful, especially if a part wasnt unlocked (in campaign mode) when the craft was launched. I also dont like the idea of tethers-- allowing kerbals to retrieve one another makes running out of RCS fuel mid-EVA relatively easy to recover from with the help of a buddy, but still dangerous...