bigcalm

Final Frontier (my favourite mod of all!) Chatterer Some of the extra bits in KIS fit into this category - alternative helmet lights, walkie-talkies, cowboy hats, sunglasses. Probably all of the visual enhancement mods too (Scatterer, Stock Visual Extensions, Astronomers Pack, etc.)

Yes, it's the Connectors found near the top of the Utility tab. They're relatively heavy so you may struggle to get off the ground with the jetpack if they're carrying two of them. You can use either the wrench or the screwdriver to surface attach them to the vessels (and I think the other tools that come with the KIS extended bits). Another alternative is part of Roverdude's MKS mods - whereby if you have a pioneer or logistics module in one of the base pieces, a pilot on board and the vessels within 150 metres of each other, you can use the logistics menu option to transfer resources without needing any pipes or suchlike. A hosepipe is really, badly, missing from the stock game!

> I have USI life-support, so that means life-support is in the picture. Ok. So at a 700 day (or more) travel time, you probably want to look at Agroponics rather than recycling. 10k supplies plus recycling facilities will weigh a significant amount - I assume around 13ish tons. What agroponics can do for you instead is you take a small amount of supplies, a big chunk of fertiliser, and an agroponics module. The rule you need is: 1 Fertiliser + 10 Mulch = 11 supplies. So Kerbals eat supplies, turning them into Mulch. Agroponics module takes a pinch of fertiliser, adds it to the mulch - and you have supplies again. (Don't forget a mulch container, doesn't have to be a big one). What this effectively means is that fertiliser = 11*supplies. Typically for a mission of this sort I would start with supplying them with a couple of thousand supplies, a full 5k tub of fertiliser, and that is sufficient to keep them going for at least 15 years (I've not had a longer mission but I suspect it would be fine). My interplanetary crew transports are more limited by habitation time than supplies at this point. Here's my example around Dres. Approx 30 tons for the payload (much more for the Shunt!) It should be noted that you will need some machinery (500 will last for at least 6 years), and you will likely need a Scientist aboard - so if either is a no-go then stick with recycling. I think you should be able to manage an agroponics setup that will actually give you less mass than if you plan to go down the recycling route - and give you much longer supplies time.

A few here: https://imgur.com/a/q284G

Native (unoxidised, i.e. pure elemental form) aluminium is known to occur on earth - I don't think you need space aliens or to make stuff up to explain this pebble.

Sorry, yes you're completely right - Red Giant not Red Dwarf. Anyway. The whole question basically boils down to: How can you generate more energy than the gravitational binding energy of the earth in a very short period of time. 2.487 x 1032 Joules.

1. Wait 2. Sun expands into a Red Dwarf 3. ????? 4. Profit

Private, we need a runway up in the mountains. Sir! Yessir! On it right now sir!

This is entirely correct. The Eve launcher needs to get the tiniest payload that your mission parameters require into orbit around Eve - that should be your only consideration. If you want to then do something with what's in orbit, send a separate craft to go and pick it up. For what it's worth, here are some of my failures and successes. More is learned from failures obviously!: 1-man ascender - failure - too unaerodynamic - essentially went up to around 150ms and then decided it didn't want to go up any more and fly sideways instead (even after ejecting parachute assembly and landing legs). 1-man ascender. Failed. Again, too unaerodynamic, not enough dv to make orbit. However. Ripping the fins off the upper stage gave me this that made it: This is precisely the same craft as was shown in the previous pic, except without the fins on the upper stage (and obviously, landed). This made it to orbit so easily that I didn't even have to use the final stage at all, compared to the one with fins that couldn't make it. Lesson learned: Make it as aerodynamic as is possible. I've also been designing shiny new ascenders in the last few days to re-assault Eve properly. To test I now hyperedit to Eve orbit and go from there so I know they work before sending the real mission. A twenty man ascender. I'm helped significantly by parts from SXT mod (I think, it might be near future), notably, a 17-man crew capsule that weighs just 6.75 tons, and the wonderful Tsar-Pushkas engines that actually provide decent thrust at sea level on Eve and are 2.5m engines. Scaling this back a bit and replacing with mainsails should be highly do-able and replacing the crew capsule with a hitch-hiker pod should make it stock though - and get you orbit for 7. Really surprisingly easy to fly but if you don't land on flattish terrain, there's going to be explosions. As it's ISRU (in the middle can't see it in the screenshot, lots of non-fatal explosions on take-off), it'll take many many days to refuel before being ready to ascend. A 3 man ascender that's very nearly stock (I have a MechJeb and some supplies from MKS mods - all these really do is make the payload heavier). All tested, a little tricky to ascend with but has enough delta-v to cope with minor piloting error. Finally, the next pic isn't an ascender, but it does indicate how you can use heatshields as really draggy fins and keep your lander stable on entry to Eve atmosphere without burning up. I've used this strategy quite a bit:

Yeah, it was #2 in the original link . Actually, most of those are fine, except for #8 which, once you see it, you can't not see it.

You're missing how fast the fuel is burnt essentially. F = ma = momentum / time = (mass of fuel ejected * velocity of fuel ejected) / time = \frac{ m_{fuel} * v_e } { t } (NB. This is what m dot means, ultimately the derivative of mass by time, dm/dt ). So you'll need to find out how much fuel per unit time is being consumed in order to calculate thrust. Consider an ion engine - it ejects a very small percentage of its mass per second - giving it very low thrust, but because v_e is very high, it gives extraordinary efficiency - very high delta v. Compare that to say a mainsail engine, it's ejecting a huge amount of fuel per second, giving it very high thrust, but it's not hugely efficient because v_e is much, much lower.

Lunacy like this. I wouldn't even attempt it in KSP.

Have you ever designed an asymmetric craft? Well, the real world has some too -- https://hushkit.net/2017/12/05/top-ten-asymmetric-aircraft/amp/

The key with Eve ascent rockets is to make them really aerodynamic. Make them as slippery as a fish, add fairings as required, even closed intakes can help (for some reason closed intakes are aerodynamically very low drag). Oh, and have around 7000ms delta v (this should give you a margin). Of course, there's a trade off. Making it really aerodynamic means really tall and narrow. This is generally bad news for actually landing the damn thing in the first place as it'll tend to topple over. So you either have to compromise on aerodynamics or build out some Acme corporation landing rig. Landing and ascending from Eve really is hors categorie of kerbal space program.

Just found this screenshot. 28082.9 science. Basically, a Jool-5 type mission with lots of biomes.

Yes think you're right - it's part of Ground Construction mod - I've never used it (it's not part of USI by default): https://github.com/allista/GroundConstruction/tree/master/GameData/GroundConstruction/Parts/SpaceCrane

The SkyCrane (I assume that's what you meant!) is pretty much equivalent to 6 24-77 Twitch engines attached radially, plus a battery and a reaction wheel - the Delta V and TWR is roughly the same for both - it's not overpowered - it just uses one part rather than 8

Here's my notes on USI LS - I've not used TAC or the others so can't comment on those: Roverdude's MKS suite of mods allow colonisation of other planets and moons. They can be supplemented with Planetary Base Systems and Extra Planetary Launchpads. This means that you're no longer just doing exploration missions - you're going to stay at least for a while, and you have to worry about life support. If you then make the mission larger, you can start building a self-sufficient colony that can produce its own rockets and new Kerbals being born in-situ. This adds a significant level of challenge to KSP, and isn't recommended for the starting player - if you're comfortable being able to send 40 ton payloads to other planets though, this may be ideal for you, as this opens a whole new game. MKS adds two things you need to worry about: * Crews need plenty of room. This means additional crew cabins and special habitat modules to stop your Kerbals going stir-crazy. Essentially, if you give your kerbals too little room to move around in and no creature comforts, they will go on strike after a period of time and refuse to work (become Tourists). * Crews need supplies to keep them alive. Again, by default, they will convert into Tourists when they run out of supplies. * If a crew member becomes a Tourist due to lack of supplies, returning them to Kerbin, or placing them in a medical bay will make them revert to their actual profession. * Whilst it is possible to change the default behaviour of what happens when they run out of supplies/habitation, I would advise against it - I've mostly had them revert to being tourists due to an MKS bug rather than lack of planning on my part. Thankfully this hasn't happened for a while now. == Habitation == MKS is designed so that you can do almost everything Mun-related without having to worry about the above - crews can starve for a week, and cope with cramped conditions for a week. This also applies to transferring of crews - so if a Kerbal has spent the journey in a nice roomy spacecraft, they can climb into a cramped capsule for a week or so before going on strike. Improving the length of time that a Kerbal can spend in a craft is relatively straightforward. * Increase the number of crew cabins * Add special habitat parts - of the standard parts, the Hitch-hiker pod, and the Cupola both provide habitat bonuses. Each habitat module requires you to "Start Habitat" on those parts to give the benefit, and this uses a small amount of electricity. There are also numerous special habitat parts supplied with the mod, and if you need more Planetary Base Systems has more options. In addition, there are also "inflatable" parts, which also have the same effect - but these can be transported uninflated (i.e. not heavy) and inflated using Material Kits when they reach their destination (when they become significantly heavier). Some of the habitat parts add additional days to the habitability of the craft, others add a multiplier, so a combination of these two is best. * Within the VAB (or SPH), clicking on the green toolbar icon will tell you how long the crew can survive in a particular vessel based on the parts that you've added and the crew that you've assigned. Be slightly cautious of the numbers it gives you if you are planning on having different numbers of crew aboard - if you have recycling capabilities and calculations based on four crew members, and then add a fifth one for some reason, the habitation ratings will take a nosedive. == Supplies == Supplies can be added in the VAB or SPH - the containers in the Life Support tab contain plenty of parts that allow you to add supplies to your vessel. Improving the length of time your supplies last is more complex than habitation. * The easiest way to extend the duration of your supplies is to add Life Support systems. These either come as parts themselves, or are built into the crewed parts (e.g. Science Lab, Salamander Pod). These recycle a percentage of your used supplies, meaning that supplies last longer. All life support parts can support only a limited number of crew - adding a life support system for a single Kerbal, and then cramming a crew of seven in is going to mean your life support will basically be redundant. Water purification also counts as life support. All life support uses electricity. * The next way to extend the duration of your supplies is to use Agroponics (farming). This means taking Mulch and Fertiliser to create more supplies. Mulch is produced by your Kerbals when they consume supplies in a 1:1 ratio, and Agroponics will take Mulch and Fertiliser in a 10:1 ratio and convert it back into Supplies. This chain uses a small amount of machinery - more on machinery later. If you're sending crew to another planet, it's very worthwhile to use the Agroponics route for both the transit vessel and the final base, as agroponics ultimately means that your supplies last ten times as long. For multi-year long trips, add an empty mulch container and pack some spare machinery. * The final way is to generate supplies directly, normally in combination with the methods above, as raw supplies generation is very slow. Essentially, Substrate or Dirt plus Water will give you supplies, when using an Agriculture module and the Cultivate method on it. This chain also involves using a small amount of machinery. * It is possible to produce more fertiliser - this normally takes place when landed using an Agricultural Support Module, converting either Gypsum or Minerals into Fertiliser. Again, this requires a small amount of machinery.

Hmm would you survive at 100AU. Let's see, average energy from a type 1a supernova is 1.5*10^44 J. At 100AU away, if we calculate a sphere of that volume, that'll give us the energy per square metre. Energy / (4*pi*(100*150*10^9)^2) = 5.3*10^20 J / m^2. That's not a trivial amount of energy - that's equivalent to the power output of the human race for a year hitting every square metre of your spacecraft. Hope it's pretty sturdy! With a Type 1a supernova, the main remnant radiation will be from the decay of nickel 56 to cobalt 56 to iron 56 (stable). Nickel 56 has a half life of 6 days and Cobalt 56 has a half life of 77 days, giving a total decay half life of 83 days. However. It should be noted that the amount of Nickel 56 produced in a (type 1a) supernova will be vast - Wikipedia suggests 0.4-0.8 solar masses being produced, so the background radiation is going to take a considerable amount of time to drop.

I started with 1.0 and had pretty much exactly the same experience as Sprigo above. Capsule. Engine. Parachute. Launch. Check yo' staging. By rights I should need a degree in astronavigation, a passing familiarity with the Navier-Stokes equation, and a course in metallurgy in order to play this game. But actually, I start by bolting some bits together in the Vehicle Assembly Building - a command pod for the pilot to sit in, and an engine, described in the game as a "Big box of boom". Hit the launch button to move the design out to the launchpad, hit spacebar and off I go. The rocket fires majestically upwards with the grinning pilot at the helm. And then I realise that I forgot a parachute. It doesn't end well for either the craft or the pilot. So I learn from this that parachutes are important. So I add a parachute and repeat the exercise, hit space again but this time I put the parachute to fire at the same time as the engine. This time, the pilot doesn't die, but it's a terrifying flight and I don't go very far. Then I fix my staging - first the engine fires, then the parachute. Which is when I get to learn about aerodynamics, and why fins on the bottom are a good idea. This learning exercise is constant in KSP - every mission, even if it's a failure, I learn something more. I learn to put solar panels and batteries on satellites to stop them from becoming useless space junk. I learn that re-entry from orbit requires a heatshield to protect the delicate kerbal crew. I learn mysterious terms like Apoapsis, Hohmann transfer and Delta V. And that's the key behind KSP being a fantastic game - it is hard, almost relentlessly. But being hard doesn't matter - the fact that it's possible at all is the thing that makes it hugely rewarding, and it's with a craft you designed and flew yourself. Before long you'll be able to hurl cargo a billion kilometres away to an icy moon orbiting a gas giant, and land supplies 50 metres away from some tired and hungry Kerbals.

Just a minor nitpick - 5.51 g/cm^3 == 5.51 x 10^3 kg/m^3 Might be why you're out further on, though I couldn't see you using density anywhere. Also radians/s is the unit of omega (rotational angular velocity) not rev / s

Yeah, you basically need Kepler's Laws to solve. The wiki page linked will give an answer in spherical polar coordinates (which is what you need really). From this you can calculate the time t that the orbit intersects the body (you'll have to fudge the altitude of collision to either datum level or an approximation of what it's likely to be, or it'll get very complicated). You can then calculate how much the body in question rotates in time t, and thus, the exact lat long coordinates of landing. And Snark is correct above, Kepler won't help you directly with hyperbolic orbits, but that should be a relatively simple adjustment once you get it to work for ellipses.

The BBC has excellent ones. With comedy too -- Infinite Monkey Cage The curious cases of Rutherford and Fry More serious and topical -- Inside Science

Actually, this might be a really good idea. I've built an electric prop plane for Eve in the past - this wasn't ever intended to do anything apart from fly about slowly near the surface and explore, but it might be possible to scale it up. On board is a 1.25m nuclear reactor from MKS to power it, plus 2 electric propellers from the SXT mod for propulsion. It even has a small amount of fuel on board as I needed some ballast to get the centre of mass / centre of lift in the right places. I'm just testing to get some parameters here from my existing plane. * It really needs to be very aerodynamic - if I try to fly with the cargo bay open at ground level, it rapidly loses speed below stall speed and goes into a nose-dive. Even with the cargo bay closed it won't get much above 50ms in level flight at ground level. Even at 15k altitude I'm struggling to get past 70 ms. * I can run the reactor at 5% power with the two electric props running on full power. This means I can have at least 20 times the number of electric propellers without having to increase the size of the on-board reactor. * I can reach at least 20k altitude. It climbs slowly. Really really slowly. I launched the plane, started writing this post, and it's only just reached 15k altitude after about 15 minutes on4x physics-warp. I think it'll get to around 20k eventually, possibly higher. * Putting the wings, engines, reactor and other things on decouplers might make it even more draggy. Not good, but maybe we can avoid making it really draggy with clever design. How much delta-v do I need to get from altitude of 20k on Eve into orbit? Assume a standing start.

I thought this would turn up after flag-planting on Eeloo. Feel the terror.