Red Iron Crown

I thought SpaceX was the main component of Musk's plan to retire on Mars.

Not sure how that makes a difference. The condensation happens when you take it out of the fridge, the cold computer parts in a warm room are almost guaranteed to attract condensation. It's the same effect as someone with glasses coming inside on a cold day, their lenses fog up because of water in the air condensing on the cold surfaces.

So was Multiplayer, yet here we are with it on the roadmap. The plan is not written in stone. MechJeb integrated into the core game has the following advantages: - Guarantees it will be supported in future versions. - Makes the game more accessible for new players and players that, like myself, prefer the design and planning parts of the game to piloting. - Reduces tedium/repetition. - Allows MJ users to be eligible for support. (Modded installations are warranty void) - No gameplay effect on those who choose not to use it. Disadvantages: - More code to support/debug. - No one can claim MJ is cheating anymore. Personally, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. The way I see it, the biggest problem with MechJeb is the perception by some that those who use it "aren't really playing the game." As if piloting and manual calculation are the only fun parts of the game for everyone, or that everyone should have to play at the hardest difficulty level. I find this point of view condescending and elitist.

You mean after your interplanetary transfer burn? Maybe I should try this.

I hate doing this. It's wasteful of delta-V to cart along extra tankage. Those recommending pull instead of push have the right idea, just remember to disable the gimbals on the engines if they are so equipped.

I, too, can vouch for Clamp-o-trons being radially mountable without additional parts. If your install doesn't allow it, something is wrong.

I can't imagine MechJeb being abandoned completely, it's just too useful for too many players. It would be picked up by someone else if it stopped being supported. It's also one of the quickest mods to update for compatibility with new versions. That said, it would be better to have it integrated into the core game, where support is guaranteed. I'd imagine it's one of the most used mods, if not the most used. Edit: Ninja'd!

I'm fully expecting the 48-7S to get nerfed in the next update, like the aerospike did back in 0.18. It's simply overpowered, and even in this challenge where its thrust per dollar ratio is poorer than some alternatives it's still hard not to use it.

It's really hard to get a valid cost comparison of different launchers, given that they were built at different times with different capabilities, like the man-rating Simon Ross mentions. Though I suspect Soyuz, a man-rated design, probably has the lowest cost of all given the sheer number of launches that help amortize the development costs.

Nice mission report, Jasonden. Love the two precision landings. I've added you to the leaderboard.

Is it? I don't think the limiting factor was launcher availability. The modules weren't sitting in a warehouse awaiting the next shuttle vacancy, the design and construction of modules was an ongoing process. As was securing funding, which is another factor against monolithic station design. If all of ISS' cost had to fit in one budget year, it would never have gotten of the ground. Only by breaking it up into more palatable chunks over a decade was funding possible. The whole process of constructing ISS was a bit skewed by NASA's insistence that STS was the solution to all lift problems. Hard to say how it would have played out with disposable rockets.

Mass is the relevant metric because it's what makes something difficult to get into orbit. Volume doesn't appear in the rocket equation. You're also assuming that habitable space is the end goal of a space station, and maybe that's so. But Skylab was more of a spacecraft than a true station. It was not meant for permanent occupation, resupply was far more difficult than with ISS, and it had a very short lifetime in comparison. Of course a larger proportion of ISS' volume is dedicated to the support systems, supplies and experiments that make the station viable. Those interfaces that you dislike are what makes modular stations so flexible. You can dock many craft or modules simultaneously. You can change the design of the station as lessons are learned from early modules. You can reuse modules from old stations in new ones, as the Russians are planning to do with ISS modules for OPSEK. You can seal off damaged modules from the rest of the station, as happened aboard Mir. I don't mean to slag on Skylab here, it was a marvelous accomplishment for its time, and pioneered many of the technologies used in later endeavors. But modular design is the present and future of space stations.

ISS has 29,600 cubic feet of pressurized volume to Skylab's 11,290. More impressively, it masses 450,000kg to Skylab's 77,000kg, which is the really relevant metric.

Nice entry, Mr.Rocket. I've added you to the leaderboard.

I think it's the opposite way around, it was built in modules so that EHL wouldn't be needed.

So where are these heavy lifters? Why has no space agency built anything as large as the 50-year-old Saturn V if it's so much more efficient? Citation needed. An RC helicopter made from off the shelf components stomps all over full scale helicopters using custom designed, bleeding edge components, on a performance per unit mass scale. The world is full of examples of structures that work when small but don't scale up because of square-cube. It's the reason giant ants are impossible. It's the reason ornithopters aren't possible for anything other than trivially small sizes. It's the reason there are no large hummingbirds. Why do you think rockets are somehow immune to its effects? The assembly was done on the ground for ISS modules, in space was just docking and connections between modules for the most part. If it had been launched in one monolithic piece, as much or more in-orbit work would have been needed to configure it from something that was feasible to enclose in a fairing into a usable permanent configuration. Modular station construction is considered an advancement over monolithic stations for reasons of flexibility and removing the need for extremely heavy lifters. All future station plans that I'm aware of use the modular approach.

If you're ok with modding, Real Fuels lets you put any propellant into any tank.

You've asked people not to answer with the only correct answer. Start your new career, you'll have fun with it until 0.24 drops, whether that's weeks or months doesn't matter.

Well done, Mesklin! You've set the bar rather high, the design I've been working on comes in at $40k or so. Guess I need to optimize a bit more...

This is the part that makes it interesting, IMO. There may be parts that are overpowered when cost is a factor, and I think it's useful for us to discover which they are. And I'm finding that I'm analyzing parts by new metrics, like T/$, rather than the usual TWR and Isp. The LV-N, which is almost too good not to use in most missions, is almost too expensive to use in this challenge, at 8700. The 48-7S, though high performance, is expensive for its size. The cubic octagonal strut has an excessive cost, too. My usual "go-to" parts are not really cost effective. One of the irregularities is that the wiki pricing doesn't seem to be accurate. The Mainsail is 2850 in the game, but only 850 in the wiki. The Linear RCS is "only" 850.

So...not even a description of what potato staging is or how it works?

The description of the Support forum seems to suggest that mods make you ineligible for support: "A forum to get support for unmodded KSP installations and to report KSP bugs." (Emphasis mine)

I've used some laptops that, even with a new or recently cleaned cooler, are not capable of keeping up with a combined CPU/GPU heat load. Not all laptops are well or even competently designed.

I want to like ion engines, I really do. The high Isp is awesome, as is the challenge of designing ships with enough electrical power to run them. But I just can't take the ridiculously long burn times for any sort of useful payload. I have a job, a wife, kids, social life, etc so my time to play KSP is finite. A multi-hour ion burn, even with time compression, is not a good use of that time. I'd rather be designing/building something, or warping to the next maneuver node, or landing, or anything more interesting. If we had enough time compression to bring the burns down to 5 mins or so of real time, then I would probably use them more.

Economics are coming, so I've been trying to start taking the cost of my craft into consideration, which I've basically ignored so far. I'm finding it interesting to see how this affects part choices and craft design. So I propose a challenge: Duna for Less Goal: Land a Kerbal on Duna and return safely to the surface of Kerbin for the lowest possible cost. The Rules: Stock parts only, no parts adding mods. Kerbal Engineer Redux is required, for verification of cost in the VAB. The cost of the part is to be included in your costs. No cheating via HyperEdit, debug menu, cfg editing, etc. Control/design mods are acceptable, i.e. MechJeb, Docking Alignment Indicator, Editor Extensions, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Protractor, etc are all acceptable. If you use any of these that require parts, the cost of those parts will be included in your costs. You can use as many or as few launches as you like, however your score will be based on the total cost of all your craft used for the mission. Your craft cannot dock or otherwise interact with craft not counted in your mission cost. E.g. no refueling at an existing propellant depot. No command seats. (I consider them unrealistic for atmospheric landers/interstellar craft) Your Kerbal must plant a flag somewhere on the surface of Duna. Your Kerbal must return safely to the surface of Kerbin and be recovered. There are some irregularities in the pricing of parts, this is part of the challenge. No bonus for recovered parts/stages. (I know this is a bit unrealistic but makes the bookkeeping simpler) Submission Guidelines: Required screenshots of your craft(s): Each craft in the VAB, with the KER window showing the cost of all stages. Safely on the surface of Duna, with a flag planted. Safely on the surface of Kerbin, before recovery.Any other screenshots/videos are encouraged but not required. Scoring: Your score is the total cost of all your craft used in this mission. Lower scores are better. Leaderboard: 1. 6,170 Tigik 2. 8,112 Mesklin 3. 9,302 Jasonden 4. 42,757 Mr.Rocket 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I will update the leaderboard as time permits. The challenge will continue as long as there is interest.