Norcalplanner

This is the ongoing mission log for my Kapollo program missions for GregroxMun's Apollo Applications Program Challenge. This is being run by my space agency, the Kerbal Administration for Big Overpowered Orbital Machines (KABOOM). This is a general overview and is currently a work in progress. Individual missions will receive their own entries once I wrangle everything into a form I'm happy with. I've set the following goals for myself in completing this challenge. 1. Do something somewhat historical, and stay pretty close to the original design, at least until it's MLV time. 2. Showcase NecroBones' suite of mods, which I'm a big fan of. SpaceY has great 5 meter parts, including a monstrous quincux lifter engine. MRS and Fuel Tanks Plus provide additional parts to round out the catalog, including a 3.75m probe core (perfect for a S-IVB computer ring) and a 2.25 ton 2.5m LFO tank (perfect as a LM ascent tank). 3. Do something big and quasi-realistic that I've been meaning to do for awhile that was never done in reality. Right now the leading AAP entry is a Munar base assembled in situ using Apollo-ish hardware, although we may go to other planets or do a big wet-workshop space station. 4. No MechJeb, which I normally use a lot. I might break this rule when it comes time to assemble the Munar base and need to put down a whole bunch of modules right next to each other. 5. Only use solar panels on those missions which historically had them. Using fuel cells is a new and different thing for me. 6. No fuel ducts. All designs are serially staged, although I'm working on some MLV designs that include SRBs. With that out of the way, here's the overview WIP album: Some of these designs are not yet finalized, and I'm still not happy with the appearance and performance of some craft. My main Saturn V rocket is a bit too tall and has too much lifting power. My Saturn IB has performance that is bang on, but the design doesn't look quite right. I may end up calling some of these designs as good enough, or may revise them further. Constructive comments are welcome. More to come...

I may have to give this a try. I've done many things in KSP, but an honest-to-goodness Apollo recreation isn't one of them. Engaging planning/design mode...

Regarding Kerbal experience, it seems to me that we need a way to level them up without going all the way back to Kerbin. IMHO, what is needed is a big and heavy headquarters module (say 3.75m and 15 tons) which can be incorporated into stations, surface bases, or capital ships, where a visit is treated the same as returning to Kerbin for experience purposes only. You could require the Kerbal to transfer to the HQ, then use a bunch of power briefly (call it transmitting the promotion ceremony) and then the Kerbal is leveled up. You could even state that there has to be abother Kerbal present which has equal or greater experience than the Kerbal being promoted. It would provide yet another reason to build larger facilities.

For me, it was an old friend posting an xkcd comic that referenced KSP. Tried the demo, bought the game a few days later, and have been having a blast ever since.

I guess my point would be that both onion and asparagus have a place, and that what is best for a particular situation is going to depend on a lot of factors. Choosing the right engines and then tweaking fuel load in each stage, in addition to choosing what type of staging to use, is a bit of an art form. MechJeb or KER help tremendously when tuning a design.

What you're describing is a hybrid between onion staging and asparagus staging. Sometimes onion is helpful to keep a higher TWR for a longer period of time in the first stage - I tend to use a further modified onion method for that very purpose on extremely large rockets, with a core, an inner ring of six stacks that all stage at the same time, and an outer ring of twelve stacks (two feeding into each inner ring stack). Here's an example (from 0.90 aero days) that takes this to an extreme -

Breaking Mach 1 at 6 km without fairings or fins is going to create problems. If that booster is rated for 32 tons of payload and you're only taking up 20 or so, then your initial TWR is probably too high. Thrust limit or throttle down the engines to not break Mach 1 until 12 or 15 km and see how that works.

I know it sounds a bit goofy, but I mentally picture the KD25K as a 1.875m part. Things sort of drop back into place then. Still doesn't help the BACC though...

SRBs are peppy and cheap. They make the most sense at launch when used in combination with LF engines. I'll use them in most of my designs, even when it's a big asparagus-staged thing.

I thought about that, but this was docking a 25-ton craft to a 100-ton craft with a single medium docking port. None of the wiggle and mucking about that there was in older versions, just a click and then a sudden camera pullback showing the now-joined craft.

In the handful of times I've docked in 1.0.2, it seems much easier to complete the docking maneuver. The magnetic force seems stronger, and there seems to be a less exact alignment required before the game recognizes the two craft as one. Has anyone else noticed this?

Permanent tanks, combined with KJR, allows you to optimize your station for part count. A highly serviceable station/depot can be made with fewer than 25 parts.

In all the discussions, observations and complaints about 1.0.x, there is very little negative being said about the rebalanced engines. I consider that a compliment. While engines have certainly changed, especially with better Isp and thrust scaling, there's now a time and place for just about every engine in the game. Good job!

Turned it down a bit, but it's still on.

So would space planes have a slightly easier time if they took off at night?

Necrobones, I love your stuff and will wait patiently for however long it takes. :-)

Frankenstein: "Bugfixes GOOD!"

Val died in a puff of smoke because I had the audacity to go EVA after her pod had landed while still at 4X timewarp. Don't know if it's a ladder thing, a timewarp thing, or a ladder+timewarp thing.

If capsules are flying backwards, then it means that the KSP 1.0 launch is right up there with the Skyrim 1.0 launch, which featured backwards flying dragons. ;-)

Saw that the KR-2L had a sea level Isp of 170 and sea level thrust around 1,000. Someone mentioned that it was Isp of 340 and thrust of 2,000 in vacuum, so it's definitely an upper stage engine now.

With turbojets and LV-Ns, all you'd need to carry is LF.

So it looks like we have two data points - KR-2L SL Isp is 170, and LV-909 SL Isp is 85. Are there any other numbers that people have seen/heard?

Is there any written list of the updated engine stats? And how the thrust/Isp scaling works? We've already seen in the streams that KR-2L is now an upper stage engine only...

These parts are unlocked very late in the tech tree, so ISRU isn't an option until the end game.

Roverdude, Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions. As for myself, it is axiomatic that using something made by the developers as part of the game in the way it was intended to be used in the game is not cheating. If you use a different definition (it's overpowered - it takes some of the fun away - there's no way you could do that in real life with current technology) then all sorts of 0.90 also need to be considered "cheaty" - including thrust not scaling with atmospheric pressure, turbojets that take a plane into space, no reentry heating or mach effects, no life support requirements, no maximum G for survival, etc. In real life, ISRU is a thing. Mach effects are a thing. Reentry heating is a thing. Turbojets not working at mach 5 is a thing. With all those in the game, it's hard to call it "cheaty". Different from what you're used to, yes; cheating, no.