wisnoskij

Works for me on 1.7.0.2483 (WindowsPlayer x64) Any chance of updating the metadata so this works on ckan?

It appears to work for me. At least I deployed a single command pod to the launch pad and it automatically got like half a dozen science reports automatically. V1.7.0.2483

Fixed. The fairing was removed for picture taking. I see what you mean, I replaced a Mammoth with a tweakscaled TwinBoar and every metric was significantly improved. Unfortunately, I would consider that cheating (I only TS when their is no alternative). And the Results are in. Recap: A single 1967t $600K rocket (If anything I needed to add a little extra boost) Payload split into two launches: 625t $466K (I am not sure If i am missing something or it really is that much more efficient) I am really happy with these rockets, they were incredibly easy to build while the original was a huge Pain, I would add huge new stages and the dV would tick up a tiny amount. I might add two kickbacks (or smaller) to the first one, but it probably does not need it. The second one needs fins and the booster's fuel tanks could actually be orange tanks, but that would be overkill, so I might try to balance that better. When the two payloads meet in orbit, I need the total equivalent of the payload of the second completely full. What we really need are procedural solid fuel boosters, balancing the thrust verses the burn length is really important, but we simply are given so few options. I am tweakscalling up the second solid booster because that results in a far shorter burn time, the kickback burns for far too long imho. \

Any idea on number for how less/more efficient a bigger vs smaller launch is. Any examples of projects you have done? I will post some before and after pictures as I convert my current project to a 2-4 launch one, and see how it turns out Also, rate my design, I have been doing this weird hybrid asparagus staging that I think should be fairly efficient, but as far as I am aware I make up the design completely alone so I have never had any feedback on it and only have a few personal launches that I never tested alternatives to. Here is my current design (1967t). It is a mining mission to the Mun (Fairing removed for image). The payload (dry mass, with just enouhg fuel to land part of it and to start the mining operation): 115K kg, 312K cost. From top to bottom: Science/surface explorer, Ore tank, Mono Tank, Rocket Fuel Tank, Miner, Lander, Station, The rocket to list it all to orbit On paper it looks like it should work to get it to the Mun and Land it and some tested makes it seems like it is probably steerable. The launch strategy is a little unique as well: First off, I filled all the rocket fuel tanks in the payload, pretty much all it it will need to be transferred on route to the engines. The plan was to get to into a 70K-69K orbit with the center rocket still intact and hopefully a decent amount of remaining fuel. Decouple the engine (and nothing else, it should eventually burn up in the atmosphere), decouple the lander, and redock it to the station (turned 90 degrees) and then redock that with the top bit of the payload and use the landers engines to blast for the Mun. with the stantion under it and the rest of the payload docked to its top. Now back to the hybrid asparagus design. Well first off, I tweakscaled one of the kickback solid rocket boosters to be 3.75m, then I placed enough rocket fuel on top of it to fuel all of the engines for the time the solid rocket booster takes to burn out. So that is the first stage, then the orange tank stages will follow quickly after that, leaving me just the main rocket body.

This question in general, I think, and definitely my intent, was mainly about payloads that approach what KSP/my computer seem able to handle. Rockets so tall/wide that stock parts, the vab, and the physics just barely seem capable of handling fairly well. Splitting the payloads that I am talking about up into multiple normal launches that are easy to steer, create, and run smoother, will only make the project easier and quicker.

Are larger payloads always more efficient per mass than smaller ones? Is it always better to do a single assent (assuming a reasonable profile), or can it be more cost effective to do multiple ascents and then join in orbit? Is the only real limit the part count your computer can handle and your ability to keep the a rocket from wobbliness because of its large length, or is their a mathematical point where splitting a payload into multiple launches is more efficient?

What I would like to see is alternative form factors. Give us a 2.5m one that is just a little sliver.

Also, is there a way to clear all? I was playing around with this is a lvl2 building and while I don't think you can use groups/keybinding there you could play around in a window and rename "group1", "keySOMETHING1" etc. Now with an upgraded building that window is not available. I have some group given a random custom name, but now there is no way to rename it That window has been replaced by the giant 1: to :x list of action groups

Is their a way to control what the stock buttons do separately for on/off? I have a set of mod landing gears (sort of, they are stability legs from RoverDude's Konstruction mod). And they do not have a toggle action, and unfortunately both the "stow" and "deploy" actions are always available. It seems like the mod tries to call both everytime, and assumes one would be disabled, but since neither are it just does the last one on the list "deploy".

Thanks for this mod Roverdude, it is just want I needed. Can someone tell me if we are still supposed to delete all of the parts from Extraplanetary Launchpads except for the stake, or has that changed? I see base connection parts, which surprised me, back when I was following the full version long ago you were getting away from connected bases as they tended to explode, is that still an issue or did the squad fix the underlying issues?

Have you thought about sticking that lab in a cargobay?

FTT Phase II (just part of the normal FTT package) includes both those engines and gigantic orange and white ~striped~ tanks. Try filtering my manufacturer in the advanced VAB menu (Umber Space Industries). Alternatively, the largest tank is, I think, the most massive tank I have. I don't think you will be able to refine ore into Liquid Hydrogen unless you go with MKS or alternatively Near Future Propulsion contains the Liquid Hydrogen resource as well as tanks and its own refining process (it just sticks the option in the stock refiner). Maybe you don't have it unlocked yet? Oh ya, and I think I have that mod, it didn't cause any trouble for me.

Just tested the deployable airbags, and they seems great, and very very light. But they make me wonder why ever use landing legs? Even just 3-4 four of the small ones hold the tank off the ground.

Thanks for all your suggestions, will play around with them tonight and get back to you on what worked.

I am having a lot of trouble with landing legs on super massive "craft". I want to deploy a standalone ore tank with a mining mission to Minmus. Using tweakscale I created a (I think it was) 10m tank that held approximately 1,000t of ore. Deploying any normal legs just have them fall off the moment I deploy it on Kerbin, Maxing out tweakscale, 8 legs, all comically large, even for the huge tank, and they stay on but all instantly get damaged, such that they cannot retract. Presumably, it would fare far better on Minmus's rarified gravity; But I also want to sort of land on it to connect and shuttle it around. Presumably I would just be hovering over it, but invariably it will put some extra strain on the legs. Any ideas? It does not even have to be legs. For example, does anyone know if you can use Roverdudes airbags for this?

Playing around with the ramjet I have to agree it is balanced gameplay wise. It is not going to revolutionize SSTOs or anything like that. It is a workable airplane engine in low altitude kerbin, with basically no VTOL ability whatsoever. On EVE and Jool is has way more thrust, apparently with the higher atmosphere density; If you ever want to explore the atmosphere of either it will probably be your absolute best choice. Unfortunately, even factoring in the reduced gravity of Duna, its atmosphere is too thin to sustain any usable amount of thrust.

Interesting additions. The radiatrs look great, consider possibly putting out bigger ones; Taller or full ring. The main reason, last time while working with stock radiators, I chose the large fold out variety even tho the static performed better and were far less likely to be involved in docking accidents, was because I could replace 50 radiators with a single one, taking a huge chunk out of any existing or future game performance issues.

Hmm, OK. So figured out you have to turn on RCS for VTOL to function at all no matter if your craft is perfectly balanced or not. Does not actually seem to use mono keeping it stable but it does use a lot turning it. Which is fine in an atmosphere paired with the compressor function, but without that you would go through LOADS of the stuff. It really seems like we need some non mono-propellant RCS option for use on atmosphere-less moons. And like I said, it even seems like it is already using a non-mono solution, it is just that it is tied into RCS which necessitates mono usage for steering. So what am I doing wrong?

It that for stock or real, or both (does the material type effect it ability to withstand speed/heat)? Also, it is not just that I am unsure of when it is safe to deploy, but the ship will be destroyed before it is safe to deploy the chutes. And it is not so much hitting the central stage and hitting themselves, I am really hung up and saving all stages of a rocket. Also the change note indicated that the main chute had been changed to about 290, I think.

I am having a hell of a time with the reentry in 1.0.4. First off, I have never really understood drogue chutes, they are supposed to be for high speed, but no one has ever been clear on what even the general magnitude of the speed is. Secondly I have never used heat shields. I also am unsure of how the new radiators are supposed to work, presumably you would really really not want a radiator when reentering, since it would suck up the heat and transfer it to your ship. So far I have only survived by having loads of chutes and deploying a few that were destroyed but slowed be down enough to not burn up. I was also trying out realchutes, but it is really complicated. Also, is there a way to delay deployment on detached parts. I am having a lot of problems with detached boosters smacking into the main ship or themselves even with loads of sepitrons (I think they are bobing back and forth).

The utility pack contains the more specific parts in the Rework pack (a robot foot, for example). - - - Updated - - - So is that not ending now with the 1.0.3 release?

Most of the ones I have installed say they are incompatible Tweakscale blizzy toolbar Firespitter Core (which is used in quite a few mods) Filter Extension KER + MechJeb2 CapCom Contract Window + Scansat Coherent Contracts Interstellar Fuel Switch + Core KIS + KAS RCS Build Aid Field Experience StageRecovery BetterTimeWarp (I have yet to figure out how to even use this mod) CrossfeedEnabler CTT HeatControl + core All the NFT as far as I ca tell Contract Contract Configuration (but then CKAN is a few version out of date for that on) Ship Manifest Atomic Age Stock Fuel Switch RT2 Only USI Life Support out of all of RoverDudes mods that I had installed Contract Pack: ScanSat Lite Infernal Robotics FMRS ForScience Continued KerboKatz Utilities + Small Utillities SOC ET TAC Fuel Ballancer KW Rocketry Science Alert

I don't understand how other people have had so much trouble with the nuke. I added 0 heat management stuff to mine, run it for 30+ minute at a time, often and never have trouble. If anything I think we need hotter rockets now that we have radiator parts.

On the subject of docking washers. Even though they are named that we are not supposed to use them for docking right? "Do not attach docking ports directly (or indirectly) to IR parts. It will make your life miserable. You have been warned!" And by indirectly, you mean specifically as a leaf of a branch that is an IR part? So it all depends on the exact part tree layout? And this applies to the rework as well?

Ok, lets focus on a more specific question. Near Future Technology VS Interstellar. They both have far more varied and advanced parts. Both have more fuel types I believe. Not sure how either handle resource gathering. Or if either are extensions to the game or more like complete reworks. Both support community tech tree. I am not sure what their tech tree is like without it? I am not sure if either would include empty branches if I installed it and CTT. Neither seem to have decent demo/trailer videos to watch.