Scoundrel

Welcome to the KSP forums! That is a nice little shuttle, and thanks for sharing it. The only recommendations I might make are: possibly replacing the skippers with quad couplers and aerospikes... though you might get heat issues there; for career mode, I would consider converting the shuttle into a spaceplane - it looks like your orbiter would be a great foundation for one - so you can bring back all the expensive parts.

Proportionally speaking, there's a lot wrong with this craft. But I think that, from the kerbal perspective, it sort of fits with how their universe looks, so I would consider it a spiritual replica more than I would an exact replica.

So I sort of rebuilt your rocket based on your pics, and my solution was to take an M-Beam 650 I-beam, attach it to the docking port, and clip it into the center of the 1st stage via the first fuel tank. I did the same with the side boosters so I could have independent fuel flow. I am interested in seeing how you end up setting things so that the side boosters reattach without misaligning.

Alshain is correct, this is the '66. As much as I don't mind the Abrams' movies (okay I hated that last one, way to butcher my favourite film from the TOS/TMP cast era), I particularly despise the '09 Constitution class for taking the worst features of TOS and TNG Enterprises, IMHO. As for doing a full sized refit/A in stock, even a half scale (err kerbal scale?) replica would be an absurdly huge number of parts, so I don't see it as something that could be done in KSP at the moment. Of course, that might all change with 1.0. Anyways, I'm glad people are enjoying the craft. If someone wants to build a lift vehicle for it, I'd be more than happy to post it and give them credit.

Apparently a few people didn't get the intended humour with my KDX Enterprise thread, and felt misled by my choice of title. They were courteous enough to express their disappointment privately and make a few suggestions as to how I could rectify the situation to their satisfaction. Rather than delete or modify the original thread I thought I would create a new one and talk about the 1701 replica and my reasons for not originally posting it. Also, as requested, I have added a 3 view of the ship (I don't understand why someone would want this since they're getting the craft file anyways). So why didn't I release the craft file? Honestly, it was just an experiment with gizmos I had made when .90 first came out. I was originally playing around with the ion engine file to see what would happen if I added the rapier multimode module and what the relationship was between electric power and throttle/thrust, and when I messed with the scale I realized that they looked like impulse engines. Thus the Enterprise was born, and from that the idea to build a practical replica of the NASA concept ship. Now this thing is useless for anything but cinematics or a "get this lump of junk into orbit" challenge IMHO, as it was basically an exercise in construction techniques that would allow me to explore gizmos and develop some skills for my 2001 themed career. The modified craft (which I have added in the downloads, and bundled the impulse engines with it) is flyable (once you get it to space) and very cheaty - perfect for cinematic work but nothing more. However the bridge is pretty puny so I don't consider it a craft worthy of the community, to be honest. I personally would look to better builders for a far more functional and practical Star Trek themed ship. So yeah, I honestly didn't think it was that great or that anyone would be interested in it. Here's the link to the files, which includes the stock version as well as the mod craft version: Curseforge

KDX Enterprise - 324 Parts Inspired by the ship that was inspired by the ship made famous by Gene Kerman (no relation to Gene Kerman) and his hit science fiction show Stellar Quest, our engineers have worked around the clock to bring you: The KDX Enterprise! With a functioning bridge, a working turbolift, a joke of a shuttlebay, actual time-warp engines and real glowing Kerman collectors, our barely functional, slow moving replica of the- hey wait a minute! You morons! You built the wrong ship! I said build a ship like the ship that was inspired by the ship, not build a ship like the ship that inspired the ship! Bad engineers! Bad! Now go back and build the right ship! EDIT: *Ahem* After an exhausting all-nighter, Kerbal Dynamics is pleased to present: The KDX Enterprise! (For real this time!) If your space program is struggling, we have the ship for you! The KDX Enterprise is specially designed to get you MAXIMUM SCIENCE! Can't even get enough science to unlock LV-909's? No problem! The KDX Enterprise uses the most advanced technology and end-of-tree science and propulsion equipment to allow you to travel anywhere1 within the Kerbin system to collect MAXIMUM SCIENCE! Features include: 8 kerbal capacity; 2 docking ports for landers2; 4 nuclear engines and enough fuel to pretty much go anywhere you want and back; 4 solar panels (so you feel environmentally conscious despite hauling up 4 nuclear reactors into space); and every science experiment we can think of - plus a communications antenna - so no matter where you go, you can always get MAXIMUM SCIENCE! So what are you waiting for? Download the KDX Enterprise now and start collecting MAXIMUM SCIENCE! http://kerbal.curseforge.com/shareables/227793-kdx-enterprise INSTRUCTIONS: Pointy end goes up If it wobbles too much, go back and suck all the fuel out of the rings, then try again Don't forget your towels ??? MAXIMUM SCIENCE! Notes: 1. With cheats enabled. 2. Landers not included.

A well thought out post, though I do find it amusing that I touched on most of what you are saying in another thread. Actually we do have second stage engines: the Skipper, the KR-2L, and (arguably) the LV-T45. They mostly have a lower mass than their lift counterparts (the Mainsail and the KS 25x4) and a lower thrust, but marginally higher Isp. Also the post Starwhip made pretty much sums up what I was going to say anyways. Okay, firstly there is an assumption that smaller bells = lower Isp. That's not quite how it works. What you are thinking of is over-expansion/under-expansion and its relation to the area of the nozzle exit, and how all that affects Isp. The thing is that we don't know if these engines use small plain ol' bell nozzles or if they use something like expansion-deflection nozzles, or dual expander nozzles, or dual throat nozzles, or plug nozzles, or <insert one of the other myriad advanced nozzle/throat systems>, which would explain why they have high vacuum Isp and small nozzles. Secondly, you are confusing an aesthetic choice with an actual physical working engine. I get people getting caught up in cognitive rationalizations, but the engines aren't reflective of actual engine parameters. They're made by artists who go "ooh, pretty!" and push polygons around until it looks cool, so don't get too caught up in them as engineering reference points. And thirdly, you can't compare a LFO engine to a hypergolic engine for Isp because they use two separate fuel types which have different Ve ranges. Yeah, rocket science is tricky stuff! Um... if your rockets are shaking themselves apart due to high Gs, then you need to be throttling back or use that handy thrust limiter function. FYI, the Skipper and the KR-2L are in fact second stage engines... for the bigger rockets. Unfortunately nobody can really see that since the actual problem is that Isp is treated as being linear and there is no Pe attribute for them from which under-expansion and over-expansion can be calculated, which results in our second stage engines making for perfect launch engines. It also doesn't help that virtually all of the engines with a specific power greater than 300 are SSTO capable. I too would love to see more engines! Gah! No! The engines in this game are already overpowered for a universe that is essentially 1/10 scale, and one of the reasons they are so overpowered is to ensure a high margin for error so new players don't get turned off right away. As I've stated above, all of the engines with a specific power >300 are SSTO capable, and cranking up the power will just make your suggestion of second stage engines moot. Heh, careful. People might take a statement like that as a claim of entitlement and nail you with it. But you are quite correct. We need to wait and see what 1.0 holds (and yes, the engines are being rebalanced!) before we can come to any conclusions.

Specific power for a rocket engine is calculated as (F*Ve/2)/mass in watts (I've listed specific power as KW/Ton), where F and Ve are calculated at Pa/Pe=1... which, since there isn't a Pe listed for the parts:mad:, I've just used vacuum stats as that is the peak F and Ve for the engine. That means specific power takes into account both TWR and Isp, and combines it into a handy number. An engine will have its peak Isp (and hence F) at Pa/Pe=1 (that is to say, ambient pressure and exhaust pressure are equal), so most engines IRL actually have a point in atmosphere where they produce the most thrust, as they will over-expand once in vacuum. The amount of thrust lost on a well designed vacuum engine is actually not that much but it is noticeable (this is because the optimal bell would be big and heavy, so it is shortened to save weight, which results in slight over-expansion in vacuum), and I don't think anyone anywhere has designed an engine where its Isp is actually lower in vacuum than at sea level... though it I guess it might be possible since the slope for over-expansion is much steeper than under-expansion. Interestingly enough, that engine would have a pretty high TWR at launch. And would suck. That said, you could have a lift engine whose Pe=1/2atm, which would have lots of thrust in the first 1/4 or so of atmosphere (ballpark guess: F would peak at around 10-12km), which would then taper off as it raced towards space as it would have a noticeably reduced Isp in vacuum. It's Isp in vacuum would still be higher than Isp at sea level though. Anyways I don't think we'll get that though as that would require Squad to assign a Pe for each engine and recalculate all the stats, or fudge* it from current stats... which is theoretically doable with a quadratic equation and a healthy appetite for derivatives. *I say fudge because the true curve isn't a parabola

The whole Isp thing isn't a big deal, IMHO. As the 5thHorseman pointed out, ship building is an iterative process of adding fuel tanks and boosters, and since acceleration already always improves from launch (because we're making smoke from fuel!), it won't affect the process most of us go through when building and flying a rocket... the new aerodynamics and engine rebalancing will make a much larger impact, IMHO. Though I will confess I'm curious about whether or not they're implementing Pe/Pa for optimal Isp, or if it's going to be some weird illogical linear thing so we get negative thrust on Eve. The other thing is that since TWR will be variable we may end up having to use specific power to compare engine (im)balance. Just for fun, here are the engines as they are now: [TABLE=class: grid, width: 600, align: center] [TR] [TD]Tier[/TD] [TD]Engine[/TD] [TD]Specific Power[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine[/TD] [TD]312[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]3[/TD] [TD]LV-909 Liquid Fuel Engine[/TD] [TD]191[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]3[/TD] [TD]LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine[/TD] [TD]242[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]4[/TD] [TD]Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine[/TD] [TD]235[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]5[/TD] [TD]Rockomax "Poodle" Liquid Engine[/TD] [TD]210[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]5[/TD] [TD]Rockomax "Skipper" Liquid Engine[/TD] [TD]393[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]5[/TD] [TD]Rockomax 48-7S[/TD] [TD]515[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]LFB KR-1x2*[/TD] [TD]556[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]LV-1 Liquid Fuel Engine[/TD] [TD]190[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]LV-1R Liquid Fuel Engine[/TD] [TD]190[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]O-10 MonoPropellant Engine[/TD] [TD]316[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]Rockomax "Mainsail" Liquid Engine[/TD] [TD]441[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]Rockomax 24-77[/TD] [TD]327[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]7[/TD] [TD]LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor[/TD] [TD]105[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]8[/TD] [TD]Kerbodyne KR-2L Advanced Engine[/TD] [TD]717[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]8[/TD] [TD]R.A.P.I.E.R. Engine[/TD] [TD]258[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]8[/TD] [TD]S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster[/TD] [TD]580[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]8[/TD] [TD]Toroidal Aerospike Rocket[/TD] [TD]223[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] *minus the integral Jumbo-64 fuel tank Generally speaking, an engine with a specific power of 300+ is typically SSTO capable (I've actually built an SSTO that used the O-10! It was as useless as you suspect...) in 0.90. It also shows just how crappy the Aerospike is despite being an end-of-the-tech-tree engine. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the hybrid rocket is better as a rocket than the one engine that should essentially be the pinnacle of chemical rocket design? Fun fact: if the Aerospike was on par with the Mainsail or 48-7S it would have thrust in the 350-400KN class! So yeah, in terms of gameplay, new aerodynamics coupled with engines being rebalanced means that I doubt we'll even notice the Isp fix.

K-monits (or kmonits, from Kerbal MONetary unITs) when I'm feeling scifi-ish, otherwise I just call them funds like everyone else.

So I briefly dusted off my (non-programming) game designer hat and thought about how the contracts system create a practical way to have a rival space agency operate out of the other KSC without turning KSP into an RTS. It would work as follows: A contract comes up. The player and the agency can either choose to accept it or ignore it. If the player accepts the contract but the agency does not, then the game plays as it does now. If the agency accepts the contract but the player does not, then the contract vanishes after a certain point and the agency gets the rep, cash and science. If they both choose the contract, then a timer starts up. The player must complete the contract before the rival agency does. If the player fails to beat the agency, then the agency gets the reward and the player looses. If the player succeeds, then the agency is penalized. Obviously this allows us to set a win condition for career mode as well: the first to n Reputation/Cash/Science wins, where n can be any number picked at the difficulty screen (don't worry it can be infinite). Of course the permutations of having a rival agency become obvious: A contract comes up (perhaps when the player is falling behind the agency) where the player has to rescue kerbals from the agency or retrieve a spacecraft… or even just refuel it. Contracts that establish bases and space stations means the agency has a presence in space that the player has to work around, either from debris that needs to be cleared or stations that have to be maneuvered around. The player and the agency can end up "fighting" over an asteroid in a tug of war (tug of Klaw?) as both sides try to get it to a specific orbit or land it at their respective contract locations. By now you are likely asking yourself "So is this idiot suggesting that the contracts just disappear or would there actually be an AI doing stuff?" and the answer is possibly. See, the contracts vanishing would likely be enough gameplaywise, but it wouldn't really be that satisfying as a player because it's not that immersive. On the other hand, we also don't want the game to chug because the computer is constantly calculating launches for two or more sets of ships and populating our universe with tons of lag-inducing debris. So we compromise: At its basic setting, a contract disappears when the agency completes it and, if necessary, the rival's flag pops up at the location specified in the contract (where possible) or a bit of debris. Either way, unless the contract was a component test or an altitude record, an object to mark the completion is typically loaded into existence. At the intermediate setting, in addition to the flags, the agency uses simple, low part-count premade crafts (based on the tech level of the agency) - be it a base or a lander or whatever - that pops up into existence at the location for the player to interact with. At the advanced setting, the agency does all the above, plus it uses a premade rocket (again, based on the tech level) that launches on rails (precalculated trajectories and launch windows) that the player could theoretically interact with. It would leave bases and debris and probes in its wake, though again, it would be low part count. Now I'm not suggesting that the rival agency have some sort of crafty AI... a built in contract bias would work just fine. For flying, it would only need the simple mechjeb-like capability to go to places and land, and strategically, the agency would be limited by the same kind of budgetary and technical restrictions that a player would have: not enough cash to make a ship/component to complete a contract? then the agency doesn't take the contract. Simple, no? The other neat thing about this idea is that outside of career mode, there could be quickgames in KSP where it is something like Race to the Mun where the objective is to beat the agency to a specific spot and plant a flag or drop a base or whatever. Simple challenges like that for players who want to play the game but don't have the energy, time or patience to invest in career mode, or who want to be challenged in specific ways (ala the Challenges subforum) rather than by random contract. Heck, maybe even add an editor where players can build challenges and set parameters for both the player and the agency, and then post them for other players to try out? Anyways, I've only spent a small amount of time working out this suggestions as it obviously needs to be fleshed out more and both the possibilities and the practicalities examined (perhaps it would change KSP's fundamentals too much, or would be too time consuming or complex to implement)... but just on the face of it, I see a lot of potential for this idea, so I offer it up to the community to be killed or nurtured as they see fit.

That is a nifty looking spaceplane! If you ever get around to doing a "2.0" version of it, I would recommend rebalancing your fuel tankage around the center of mass and plumbing the tanks so they feed to a central point, then plumb from there to the engines so you get balanced fuel consumption... then posting the craft file. For, um, science. It doesn't look like IntakeAir is a shortage for you, so you have a few options: There is the Tail Connector if you want something pointy and a little bit scifi. Not a fan of it personally, but that's must me. The classic Aerodynamic Nose Cone (though, to be honest, I hate that blue nose part) A Shock Cone Intake doesn't look that bad, and is preferable to the Aerodynamic Nose Cone IMHO (but that's just me) An Aerospike if you're really feeling Kerbal so you don't have to turn around to deorbit If you want something a little more complicated you could start with the FL-A10 Adapter, do a 4 Vernor radial around it (which will help with the pitching issue), and then cap it with a Standard Nose Cone or an Atmospheric Sensor... or even a Stayputnik. That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure one of the builders on here will have even better ideas.

I use temporary names for my vessels as they go through development cycles before giving them final project/model names. My personal favourites are: Iron Duck Ahoy Vey Ship Happens The Big Nasty Greenpig Shoot Low They're Riding Chickens There's a few more but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

I should have said it: nice station! They also tell me other things, but I'm not allowed to say what... I only ever end up docking a couple of ships at any one time - my Aries 1b shuttles 48ish kerbals per trip so I don't actually have to do many of them, and my Orion III is only there long enough to transfer kerbals to and from my station - so I just rely on 2 to 4 ports for my needs. I'm not actually that ambitious. But yeah, shielded docking ports mounted on radial attachments are probably less laggy than open ports... at least until you hit that critical mass of part numbers. Aye. Those gizmos have let me do some insane things, like build my 1/5th scale Space Station V replica using only 480ish parts (including struts!). I did manage a 1/2 scale but at 1700+ parts it wasn't that practical, and since it had a 150m radius it glitched every time I tried to launch it. If it wasn't for the fact it rendered my computer non-responsive, I'd have some trippy screenshots to show.

Dammit! We have the same ring setup! Now I have to change the ring on my station! Edit: Yes docking ports add to lag, but only if you have lots of them. The magnetic thing is always "on" so there's extra processes per port... or at least that's my theory. But yeah, I notice lag too.

All the above, plus rover wheels and some sort of PID controller to fix certain SAS modes. Also jittering apo/periapsis, but that might just be my computer.

Rune is correct. It's the infiniglide bug. Also the rover wheels don't have traction per se, as the wheels in KSP behave like small electric rockets so there's no actual torque or traction budget. It is why they can't be driven uphill without rockets or a lot of momentum. You can test this by trying to drive up the side of the launchpad from a full stop. You'll also notice that mass doesn't really affect top speed or acceleration. Hopefully this will be fixed someday.

I like this idea... though they would need to fix rover wheels first so we can do things like drive uphill and not flip when we brake.

Not that it means anything, but I personally like the game structure (minus the grinding ugh!) as it is, and I don't think it needs changing... though warp-to will be a welcome addition to the game. The only time I spend more than 5 minutes getting into the necessary orbit/launch window and performing a transfer is when I mess with spaceplanes. Or gigantic ships. Or race my Formula K around the Kerburgring.* It seems to me the OP should download hyperedit and just focus on the parts of the game that they like. *Yes yes I know racing rovers has nothing to do with getting into space, but you can give them an apoapsis for a few seconds if you use the launch pad as a ramp, so I count them as suborbital.

I too would like this in the game, as managing sticky notes for each craft is getting cumbersome. Also the glue residue on my monitor is starting to build up.

I like this idea, not just because it suggests a great way for a player to focus their gameplay priorities, but because it has the potential to add a narrative to the contracts so we don't feel like we're getting random missions spit out from a mission generator.

When I'm not listening to some heavy metal or hard rock, I go for something classical.

Not that my opinion is worth anything, but I think a catalyst would be a great idea for a hard mode. It would add some nice complexity and mission planning for more experienced players. I don't think it should the default in stock as I honestly believe things should be stupid simple so we can complicate to taste. Also I am leaning towards the opinion that resources should be split into LFO/Monoprop based, and xenon based resources. You get Xenon from a certain altitude at Jool and a few other places (using an airscoop); Monoprop and LFO requires drilling. Thus you have to take your destination into account when designing your ship.

Nice! I look forward to seeing how this turns out. Too bad Neomorph hasn't been around for so long... I would have loved to see your project merged with his navball project to form the ultimate KSP control panel. Anyhow, I shall return to the shadows, lurking ominously while looking strikingly dashing at the same time.

This is awesome stuff, sir! Though I do have a question: how do you access the radar altimeter display?