AVaughan

@Kernel KrakenGithub should have all the releases. https://github.com/BobPalmer/Konstruction/releases . I think v0.3.1.0 was the last version for 1.3.1. The Spacedock version seems to be very outdated.

You and @Ho Lam Kerman are both ignoring the problem that unless the descent module was designed to be refueled in orbit, then it is probably not possible to refuel it except on the ground, even if the ISS had H2O2 available. The necessary valves and fittings are probably on the outside of the capsule, and not designed to be accessed during flight. Regarding the ballistic descent being survivable, I think it will only be survivable if the descent module renters heat shield first. Without KSP's magical reaction wheels that requires the descent module's reaction control system. Which is fueled by the hydrogen peroxide.

There is also https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/95645-13x-seti-unmanned-before-manned-patreon/ , but it is currently unmaintained. Since it is "All Right Reserved", no-one else can pick it up, but there is also a set of patches to it https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/171481-14x-ubm-extended-techtree-configs-making-history-missing-history-and-more/ . (Whose maintainer is also lacking time to keep it upto date).

@Cubivore. There are apparently improvements to landing legs/gear coming soon with 1.5. In general I always recommend posting screenshots/craft files when you are reporting problems. Many issues are caused by poor design choices by players.

In stock radiators are still needed for drills and ISRU. Also when talking about realism, remember that in Apollo 13 the capsule got cold because the heaters were turned off to save power. ie Apollo 13 was radiating away more heat than it was absorbing from the sun. (Possibly it reached an equilibrium, but that equilibrium was colder than the designers/astronauts would have liked). So whilst heat management is something spacecraft designers need to design for, they don't always need to add radiators.

I thought the LES wasn't supposed to separate until about 40 seconds after the boosters separated. So the LES should have been available at the time of failure. The booster did seem to be turning sideways, so I guess it's possible that aerodynamic forces destroyed the LES before it could be activated. (It also possible that it was used and a translator mistranslated LES activated as LES jettisoned). If aerodynamic loads did destroy the LES before it could be used, then that sound like a design issue, and I think it's unlikely they could fix that and certify a new design in the next 3 months.

Personally I would much rather a regular new thread, than scattering the news over the week/social media. (I'm not saying that Squad shouldn't post news to social media, just that I'd rather check here once a week for news, especially since I don't use twitter or social media much. And I don't really want the news spread over a dozen forum threads per week either).

A couple of comments. The ISRU landers I pictured above both had the landing legs at default spring and damper settings. The lower the gravity, the more important it is to come in slowly, if you want to prevent bouncing. This is especially important for a discrete time step physics simulation (which is what most games use). The low gravity also make it easier to control landing speed. eg on Gilly I can touch down at less than 0.1 m/s by holding down control, and tapping shift anytime my velocity exceeds 0.1 m/s. That is something that won't work on a higher gravity moon like the Mun. For people having trouble with landing on Gilly, what touchdown velocity are you using? (As I said earlier for Gilly I had problems at 1m/s, but only minor bounces at 0.1 m/s).

I think most FH core recoveries will be drone ship recoveries. I doubt that RTLS recovery of the core would be possible often enough to justify the cost of building and maintaining a third LZ.

Part of the problem is First.craft is a little too heavy for that landing gear, the rest is another case of not enough damping. Removing the fuel in the centre tank, and increasing the damper on all 3 wheels to max removes most of the oscillation for me. (There is still some, but it takes off and lands fine for me). Landed on Exploring Gilly without any problems if I just left the landing legs retracted. (As 5thHorseman says, you don't need landing gear on gilly. Indeed, provided you come in slowly, and have a wide enough base, you don't need landing gear anywhere in KSP). Landed on the landing legs after a lot of minor bounces. Not a craft damaging bug, but again better damping would be good.

113 ton ISRRU lander on Minmus and Gilly. (This design can lift off from the Mun's surface, rendezvous and transfer 1.5 orange tanks of fuel to another vessel, and still have enough fuel to land safely back on the Mun. 2 orange tanks worth of fuel on Minmus or Gilly). Landed on Minmus at about 1 m/s. The springs in the landing gear compressed, and then extended and managed to push it up about 1m before it settled back down. No problems on vessel load after switching to space centre. (it did have a slight problem that the drills were located a little low on the body, and lifted the vessel off the landing gear when deployed, so I slightly tweaked the Gilly lander). Landed on Gilly and the lander did rebound in a somewhat unrealistic manner. (It would have been fine in arcade game, which is probably a more common use case for Unity than something like KSP that want realistic physics). On the second attempt I landed fine at 0.1 m/s. Again no problem after switching back to the KSC. Now I never said that there were no problems with landing gear, but at least for me, they aren't a significant problem. (Better damping of landing gear would probably reduce rebound, and would be top of my list of possible improvements. No idea how easy that would be to implement) Small craft landing gear seem to have been much improved since 1.1, and so has the bumpy runway.

Threads like this attract "me too" type comments/complaints from people who do have issues. I don't recall ever having serious problems with landers and/or legs either. A few minor annoyances, eg landers sliding down slopes, and landing legs that didn't have enough damping to prevent rebound when landing on Minmus at 2m/s , but no serious problems.

Personally, most times I use an adaptor part like that, it is just under a decoupler and an engine. Rather than a fuel tank adaptor, I'd prefer to have an interstage with built in decoupler that automatically adjusted to the diameter of whatever tank is above the engine, and the diameter of whatever tank is below the interstage. Since I sometimes use a spark engine below a 1.25m tank, I really do want it to look at the tank above the engine, and not just the engine itself. Personally, I think that that sort of conical interstage is more common than a conical fuel tank, at least in historical rockets. (I can build this with procedural fairing, but feel free to suggest other mod that add something similar).

There are multiple mods for this. Precise node. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/161855-14x-precise-node-continued-precisely-edit-your-maneuver-nodes/ Mechjeb also has a maneuver node editor that does this.

At a guess because you are trying to install into a 1.4.x version of KSP. RO and some of its dependencies haven't released 1.4 compatible versions yet, so there are no 1.4 compatible versions for ckan to install. In the meantime you should be able to install Ro in KSP 1.3.1. If you use Steam instructions on how to get a copy of 1.3.1 are a couple of posts up.

The press conference was disappointingly light on technical details. But that was probably to be expected from a briefing aimed at the mainstream press. Hopefully more details will be released soon.

Well the amount you need to eat/breathe/drink depends upon your metabolic activity. Kerbals are roughly half a human's mass so half the food/water/oxygen (per hour) of a human seems reasonable at a very rough approximation. Whilst surface area in the lungs and stomach/intestines might do the actual absorption, evolution will ensure that kerbals have enough lung/stomach/intestine surface area to absorb enough food/water/oxygen to meet typical metabolic needs. You can't simply assume that lung/stomach/intestine surface area will be one quarter human simply because kerbals are half human height.

As fourfa suggested for stock part then try Kopernicus with a 2.5 or 3.2 rescale factor. If you really want to go realistic then realism, overhaul with Realistic Progression Zero https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/162117-122-realistic-progression-zero-rp-0-lightweight-realismoverhaul-career-v054-june-15/& If you want a realistic 10x scale but without the added complexity/challenge of realism overhaul, then consider Smurff https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/117992-14x-smurff-simple-module-adjustments-for-real-ish-fuel-mass-fractions-180-02018-mar-21/&

Those engine bells look larger than the sea level engine bells on earlier renders. eg So they might be some sort of intermediate engine. Hopefully the briefing will provide more details. Edit: also a commenter on Arstechnica's thread said " Elon's claims that the BFS ship will be capable of single stage to orbit missions with a modest payload mass." I've not seen that claim before, but it would suggest that BFS is capable of single stage suborbital antipodal flights, with a "modest" payload (100 passengers?).

I wonder what would happen to the numbers for launching just the BFS stage from sealevel if you added another sealevel raptor (or several, if that results in overall improved numbers. Maybe remove some/all of the the vacuum raptors, again if that improves the numbers). That will give you higher sealevel thrust, and hence the ability to lift a larger fuel load. (eg the same fuel load as the BFS tanker, and still carry 100 passengers). Perhaps stretch the fuel tanks into some of BFS's cargo/Mars crew accommodations. (You don't need kitchens/showers/personal cabins/rec areas for 100 passengers for a sub-orbital hop. Life support should also be smaller and lighter). Edit: Also shorter routes could be practical even if antipodal routes aren't. eg New York to Brest or England, San Francisco to Japan. Honolulu to Brisbane/Japan/San Francisco. Not sure how much less dV that requires compared to antipodal routes (probably not much), but if it allows you to launch just the BFS, then that will reduce fuel + maintenance costs, and should also make terminals smaller and cheaper, and possibly allow them to be built closer to major pop centres.

Folding is hopefully faster, and they would probably prefer to have the rocket horizontal and undercover before Florence gets to close.

The boat could be a separate fare, and I did mention "costs associated with providing a passenger terminal/boarding passengers etc". SpaceX is an American corporation, who will presumably want to remain based in America, and sell tickets in America, and to Americans. (Not to mention keep launching US defence and national security payloads). I'm far from an expert, but I believe doing those things will require appropriate licenses from the FAA. As a US corporation I think that they need those licenses even if they are launching from international waters. Getting those licences will almost certainly require rewriting or waiving some of the FAA's existing rules that are written for airplanes, and which make no sense for something like BFR. There will almost certainly be opposition from Boeing, Airbus and established airlines to licencing BFR for commercial flights, since that could eat into their profits. They will almost certainly argue that BFR isn't as safe as an airplane. eg. They will probably argue that even if an airplane loses all it's engines it can still glide and potentially land safely. As I understand the BFR design, if it loses all it's engines, it can't land, and will crash. If Nasa refuses to human-rate BFR, then Boeing and Airbus will use that as a powerful argument, saying NASA doesn't consider it safe, so the FAA shouldn't consider it safe. They same arguments will apply if they try to get any other aviation body to approve it for flight.

I've had similar experiences. Often I design a rocket that will go to space fine if the first stage burns at 100% throttle, but with gravity turn's default settings the first stage throttles down too much and then the second stage pitches up trying to maintain time to Ap. I work around this by setting sensitivity to 0.90 at lift-off and then turning it down after the 2nd stage has burnt enough fuel that time to Ap stops shrinking. That means the time to Ap when the 2nd sage ignites is around 75 seconds or so. That gives a slightly underpowered 2nd stage (often with a TWR of around 1.0 at ignition) time to burn some fuel before the time to Ap drops low enough that Gravity Turn would start to pitch up. I'm wondering whether splitting the target Ap time into a user specified range would work (eg 45 to 50 seconds). If the time to Ap is below the minimum time, then pitch up, if above the max then throttle down, otherwise burn full throttle prograde. Would probably want to be defined per stage or by altitude or somehow scripted because you probably want a nice tight range when Ap is approaching your target orbit. Edit: You might be able to tie the tolerance range into the existing provision for fading out of a high time to AP at SRB burnout, by allowing us to set the liftoff min and max time to Ap, and the ending time to AP. Then interpolate min and max time to AP (or time to Ap at SRB burnout if higher) to end time to Ap, the same as currently.

If you change those numbers to 10,000 flights, (eg 3 flights per day, for nearly 10 years, which is probably closer to an airliner's lifespan than the 1000 flights you were proposing), with an average of 100 passengers per flight, then you get to $2230 per flight to break even. That is assuming $200,000 of propellant per flight, but has no allowance for any flight crew wages, maintenance costs or terminal cost/fees. I expect Musk is planning for BFR to be fully automated, and for an hour long flight, you don't really need cabin service. But you potentially do need cabin crew make sure passengers are seated and strapped in for re-entry, and you will almost certainly need some sort of maintenance and inspection program, and will definitely have costs associated with providing a passenger terminal/boarding passengers etc. If you can bump the number of passengers up to 250 and/or reduce fuel costs, (eg maybe make methane + Lox from water and atmospheric CO2 powered from solar panels, and amortise that over 10+ years), assume no flightcrew, and just a ticket inspect level of expense at the terminal, then maybe the numbers work. But all of that ignores the safety aspect. Personally I'm not sure that SpaceX will ever be able to get BFR man-rated by NASA for Earth launch/landing without some sort of concessions to crew escape in the event something going wrong during launch/landing. I expect that FAA approval of BFR for passengers flights would also be difficult. (Note I'm absolutely not an expert on what NASA or the FAA requires for Human-rated spacecraft, the above is just my personal and sceptical opinion).

If I recall correctly dV scales with the square root of the rescale factor, so 2.5x need about 1.6 times the dV of stock. (That isn't quite perfect, since atmospheric losses don't scale quite that way, but it is a good enough approximation to allow you to use stock scale dV charts for mission planning in rescaled systems).