Norcalplanner

All I know is that I gained greater faith in Squad optimizing the code after certain well-respected modders were brought into the fold.

I use KJR all the time. I love it, but I realize not everyone else does. Solution? Make stronger joints either an option you can adjust, similar to reentry heat, or tied to a technology you research or an upgrade to the KSC. Personally, I would love more upgrade options on buildings - imagine a "wing" you can add to the VAB to make joints more rigid, or a new building you can add to the R&D complex which changes how science labs operate, or a new dish you can add to the tracking center which allows you to set KAC style alerts for when vessels are going to change SOI.

I've found it helpful to add reaction wheels and O-10 engines to a truck/rover which docks with things on the ground. The ability to jostle the connection in this manner, in addition to clever use of landing legs, has saved my bacon a few times.

So Pegasus and Sleipnir replace the Impulse and Big Impulse? Or do the Omicron and Sigma replace them? If it's the latter, I have some landed probes with tiny landing legs that aren't going to reach the ground anymore.

Interesting! I'll have to check this out in a new career save - I'm using far too many of the old flat impulse and big impulse engines in my current career to simply convert over. If you don't mind me asking, why all the interest in dual mode stuff? Is it a realism thing?

Photos and/or craft files would help. :-)

This sort of design was used extensively in the later entries of my Cheap And Cheerful rocket payload challenge. Even without using Stage Recovery, a number of entries were less than 700 funds/ton to LKO. This technique was also proposed IRL on one of the Saturn V MLV varisnts which was never built.

Just to expand on my earlier comment about launching large stations, this one was launched in two parts. Total mass is 700 tons. Mods include Station Science, Stockalike Station Expansion, Fuel Tanks Plus, and SpaceY, plus KJR to help it stay together. Both launches used about 5,500 m/s of delta V because of the inefficient launch profile.

Yep. If you're comfortable building big rockets, it's also possible to send up a large station pre-assembled. The trick is using an extremely inefficient launch profile so that aero and structural issues aren't so overwhelming.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I launch rockets using a hybrid approach. I use MJ's SmartASS function in surface mode and click my mouse a lot instead of pressing "d" a lot. The thrill of manual launches combined with the precision of automation is my happy place.

The Goblin was carried inside one if the bays of the b-36 posted by El coyoto. I saw it st Wright-Patterson 20 years ago.

I nominate the Bachem Natter. A rocket plane that launches straight up with 4 SRBs attached to the side just screams "Kerbal!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

Used to be an urban planner. Now I work on the private side of commercial development, frequently by navigating the byzantine regulatory processes that I used to help administer.

Thanks for the replies. I'll check out those recommendations.

So I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on a new system, and have the broad parameters set. Primarily for KSP, but also for things like Fallout 4 and some 4x strstegy games. Parts include: i5 6600k 16 gb ddr4 ram Z170 mobo Gtx 960 gpu (4 gb) 24" 1080x1920 monitor 500 gb ssd Reuse existing 3tb data drive What I'm still looking for guidance on is power supply, case, cpu cooler, and what type of ssd to get (likely m.2, but could go either sata or pci 3.0). I'm also looking to make this system as quiet as reasonably possible. Any advice would be appreciated.

Nich, I recall reading something recently by NathanKell stating that a blunter object going fast enough will generate a boundary layer effect and therefore result in less heat transfer to that object. The context of that discussion was capsule reentry, but it may just be that the shielded docking port generates a similar result. OK, i just found it:

I think good speed fuel pump used to allow you to drain tanks bottom to top, so that's one potential solution. The other solution I use all the time is to use the double length tanks in fuel tanks plus. But hey, if speed brakes work and you enjoy it, then have fun.

I think it's been doing this for quite a while, but I wasn't able to find anything definitive just now on the KCT thread. I remember some other mods (such as SETI) specifically recommending leaving the funds penalty at 100% for just this reason.

I really enjoyed reading through this. Have some rep. One thing I have to ask, though - is the struggle for funds intentional? KCT uses the contract penalties percentage as a modifier for facilities upgrade costs. By choosing to go with 200% penalties, you're making all your upgrades cost twice as much. If that's intentional, and you enjoy the challenge, then have at it. But on the off chance that it's unintentional, consider reducing the fund penalties percentage to bring down the upgrade costs.

Just wanted to say I'm really liking the new build. Not using the missions too much because I have probes and ships heading to multiple locations at the same time, but I'm really enjoying bonuses for big launches, boldly going, and slot machine in my current 3x career game.

Thanks for explaining what I had sorta figured out by trial and error in my current 3X scale game (where Kerbin orbital speed is around 4 km/sec). I've found I use up less ablator with a 20 km periapsis reentry than a 40 km periapsis reentry with a typical capsule and heat shield combo.

Glad to see another 3X aficionado out there. It seems to be the right mix of challenge and fun. I'm still using mostly stock parts, with a few stockalike mods (MRS, SpaceY) that give a few more options in the size department. Definitely makes reentry a bit harder - nearly everything ends up with a heat shield.

Or you can play RSS/RO, where the SRBs have a soft cutoff rather than a hard cutoff. Right click on the SRB and watch when the thrust level starts to fall off, then stage then.

If we did create weight classes, I'm thinking that the payload cutoffs should be less than 10 tons, and then 10 to less than 50 tons. We could label them lightweight and middleweight divisions, and then everything 50 tons or higher would br considered hesvyweight. However, work is ramping up again, so I would need some help in scoring and keeping up the leaderboard. Meithan, would you be willing to shoulder the burden of implementing your idea? If so, we can pm to work out the details. I'd also appreciate hearing from others on the proposed change before we commit to this.

Slashy and maccallo, Both of your recent entries have been added to the leaderboard. Sadly, my screenshot folder got screwed up so I lost my evidence of my flight, so I won't add myself to the leaderboard. Given that it took many, many tries to finally eke out an 80 km by 1.1 km orbit, I'm not anxious to repeat the exercise anytime soon. I'm going to be busy the next few days, so I may not be able to update the leaderboard (which is very difficult to do on my smart phone). Keep it up, but it will be awhile before the OP gets updated. I also think that while we've learned a lot, we're also reaching a period of diminishing returns. I'm going to set an official end time for this challenge of Saturday, February 20th, or whenever 1.1 drops if it comes out before then. Thanks to you two and everyone else who participated for pushing the boundaries of rocket economics further than they've ever gone. Norcalplanner