Orc

Greetings all, At long last I have the money to consider acquiring the Breaking Ground DLC. However on Steam this DLC has received a lot of negative comments, especially those claiming that BG's features are mostly all covered by freely available mods. Do any of these negative comments contain a grain of truth? Are there mods that do what BG does, and are they (the mods) relatively bug free (my past experience with mods has been ... uninspiring...) ? I'm not going to be saving my money for KSP2, my current computer is way below minimum spec, and I don't have the capital needed for even modest upgrades. I am inclined to suspect that the negative commentors are just a bunch whiny preteens who are upset about not getting what they wanted or regretted the purchase later. The tone of their comments, their spelling and grammar, and the general uniformity of their comments suggests a lack of maturity, and a definite lack of appreciation for other people's hard work. Help? Thanks and regards Orc

Hi all, I think the most emotional, and physically taxing first for me was docking two space craft. I had been at for literal days before I got it right, and when it happened, well, I was kind of stunned, almost in shock. Since then docking has become a sort of relaxation therapy. Set up right it becomes ballet and your dancers gradually get closer together. A close second would be my first Mun landing. I did it back with the Version 1 Demo, so just the FT-2 fuel tanks, no Terrier engine, no vectoring engines, no big SRBs, no mono-prop using devices, no real reaction rings, no aerodynamic parts, and no third level upgrade for the launch pad or the VAB. The launch vehicle that got Val to the Mun and back was a pretty monsterous collection of short LF stages and SRBs, using almost every last part allowed for by the VAB, and every last gram allowed by the Launch pad. IT probably wasted 20% of its deltaV getting out of the atmosphere through just sheer instability. What landed on the Mun looked like something I'd use to get my first kerbal into space these days. Oddly enough when I've made similar vehicles or loaded the old vehicle files in the new versions I can't fly them. Once Kerbals got parachutes landing on every single building at KSP was kind of fun, and comes in at a close third. Has anyone ever managed to land on the 'bridge' between the two section of the upgrade R&D building? That is one spot I haven't managed. I usually miss and the Kerbal leave a face-impression on the walls as they slide down. Anyway, have fun. Regards Orc

Hi I was wondering if there is a folder in the KSP folder or a place online where all the loading screen images are stored. I'd like to use them as my Desktop background, and just page through them occasionally. I know I could just screen-grab and save but that seems impractical seeing as the images must be stored somewhere. How many images are there? I've been caught out thinking "Seen them all" and then suddenly I see Val or Jeb or Bob or... the other Kerbal doing something new. And I keep seeing people mention the Munar sandcastle. Does anyone have an image of that they could share? Any help appreciated. Kind regards Orc

Hi all, Before you start talking / debating Terraforming or settling Mars read the classics: https://www.amazon.com/Terraforming-Engineering-Environments-Martyn-Fogg/dp/1560916095 https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X and maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Project by Wernher von Braun Firstly keep in mind that these works are now older than the majority of people on Planet Earth. Zubrin lays out a technical plan to get humans to Mars (and back, which some folks think is important) using Space Shuttle era left overs. He addresses most of the technical issues, including long term habitation and dismisses the "sirens" that people raise against the idea (IIRC Go back to Moon First, Cosmic Radiation/ Solar storms, zero-gravity and bone and muscle wasting, human psychology, and probably a couple I'm not remembering). He does not address Terraforming, IIRC. There is apparently an updated version of the Plan using SPACEX equipment but I haven't read it. But all the key elements of living on Mars are addressed, shelter, food, water, breathable air, light and then heavy industry, energy sources, and how to make the fuel and oxidizer for your trip home. Martyn Fogg takes a much longer look at things, including the truly EPIC like changing planetary orbits (hint: It's not impossible just VERY EPICALLY EXPENSIVE, and you'll probably end up increasing the planet's overall mass in the process - it will still SUCK to be living there for a couple of thousand years, even after the project is deemed finished). Terraforming is the stuff of a species that has shed its one-planet mentality, and has learned to take the long view on things.Perhaps a species that routinely lives two or three centuries instead of six decades. Even the relative quick fixes like solar radiation collectors that focus the equivalent of several times Mars's natural energy quota on the poles take hundreds or even thousands of years to make a difference. You're playing a very long game when you want to change a planet's environment. That all said, in Fogg's mind, and his calculations Mars is the easiest candidate in the solar system. A couple of the Gas Giant moons look more favorably until you factor in the Gas Giant's magnetic field and what it does to charged particles in the solar wind. Hint: Jupiter has Van Allen Radiation Belts that make Earth's look ... well... quite inferior... humorous even. Despite speculation in the 60s and 70s of ''çloud seeding'' Venus's atmosphere it is a total freaking nightmare, its probably easier just to demolish it and redo. For those of you following the link to Amazon. Note: the book is out of print and the people who have it are selling it for ridiculous amounts. I got my copy new for less than 10% of the price being asked. If anyone knows who to contact about getting another printing done, or convincing the copyright holders to allow a PDF publication please do so. Von Braun? I included him for reference sake to show how technology can makes things change. I have a copy of an updated version of the Mars Project (updated during the early Apollo Project, I think). In the initial version he disregarded hydrogen-oxygen or kerosene-oxygen propulsion in favor of a ridiculously nasty hypergolic mix of nitric acid and hydrazine, because the hypergolic mix was storable even though he knew it had a much lower performance. Less than two decades later the same man recants and writes that even with LOX and LH2 lousy storage they're a better choice because the engines developed in the last two decades are so powerful and will shave thousands of tons and dozens of launches off the mission plan. Other things also disappeared or changed over the two decades. Initially all radio communication for the Mars mission would have been done through Morse Code, because of the mass of existing radios. By the time Armstrong and Aldrin touched down on the Moon they took TV cameras with them and were in constant voice contact with mission control. The manifest for Mars Project also included tons of coffee and mechanical computers for the multiple navigators, so that they could remain alert and precise while double checking each others calculation for the next trajectory adjustment. By the time that the Saturn V was finalized one of its stages (2nd I think) was carrying a 50 pound concrete ballist where a guidance computer would have been. The actual guidance computer had shrunk from a 50 pound monster to a sub-1 pound object in just five years. The equivalent computer today would probably fit on an SD card. Anyway, Mars awaits us. Who has the courage to go? If not this generation, or the next, then who? Regards Ork

Greetings matiasb, Congrates, you have taken your first (or next) step into a much wider experience of the universe. Awesome snap-shots too. How long have you been playing, and how many attempts did it take you? Kind regards, and well done. Ork

Greetings all. In one of the loading screens a Kerbal is shown chasing after what looks like half of a chocolate covered Oreo. Now it should be a MINT chocolate-covered Oreo but I think that makes it OFFICIAL: KOreo: the Official Snack of the Kerbal Space Program. Accept no Crummy Imitations. What is in the Cans from Sean's Cannery (it is Sean's right?, it's Jeb's Scrapyard and Sean's Cannery, right?) ? Anyway, now I'm hungry for chocolate coated Oreos. Well done everyone, and KSP. Kind regards, Snack responsibly. Orc

Hi all I'm always up for seeing someone else's work, especially if its function over beauty. I have flown some bug-ugly things in my time. You don't want to even know what my DEMO version Mun landers looked like when they were still back on the launch pad. Think it through carefully, no LF tanks larger than the FT-L 200, only the Reliant engine, and only the Flea and Hammer SRBs. I must admit to being disillusioned with the 1.875 m FL tanks and engines (the Pollux however ROCKS - try launching just a MK1 capsule with mono-prop engines on a single Pollu). I'm finding myself going straight to 2.5m tanks, and occasionally I'll use the Bobcat engine because I like its look, and it is an OK engine for lower mass rockets going to the Mun or beyond. I usually attempt my first Mun landing with a Terrier, and a Swivel, a big stack of FTL-400 or a couple of 800s, some of the basic one-panel solar panels, and some batteries. I almost always haul along a 2HOT, the barometer, 8 goo-pods and a Material Bay (Science Jr thingy). Later I tend to use a modified Kerbal X, with extra fuel tanks, some SRBs, a Hitchhiker and sometimes two passenger jet two seaters for transporting tourists. With some refinement you can keep landing that configuration on the Mun and Minimus until you don't have to worry about funds for forever. I haven't really used the new crew capsules much since getting Making History. Not dislike, just inertia on my part. Anyway, take care everyone. Regards Frank

Hi all and Spricigo, I tested out Spricigo's little lander concept. Used a MK1 Capsule, four bagette tanks, a few science tools, and the Spark. Awesome! I over engineered the delivery vehicle, had enough fuel on the LKO-to-LMO stage to get to LMO and reduce the combined vehicle's surface speed to 0 a couple of times over. Lift off and returning to Kerbin was the highlight of the mission. I pressed the wrong key at the wrong moment and ended up with a direct sub-orbital trajectory to Kerbin's surface. And then I mis-pressed the Warp control buttons and ended up with my Munar lander at 56KM altitude doing about 3100 m/s and everything glowing brightly. I thought I was going to plasma-rize Jeb for certain. Not happening today. Used the remaining fuel in the tanks to slow down a little, lost the solar panels and the 2HOT to overheating explosions but was still able to release the parachute safely just below 10KM and landed nicely in the desert highlands on the continent west of the KSC. Even managed to pick up a little extra Science there, hadn't used the barometer or finished with the highlands soil sample. Anyway, Spricigo, can you give us a look at the launch vehicle you used to get your lander to the Mun? I tend to use monsters that are over engineered in every way possible. Take care all of you. Regards Orc

Hi all Mun landings, the learning curve can be quite brutal, but the end result is extremely rewarding. Learn to save a lot, but especially before you start your descent. Try to give your lander a low center of gravity with widely spaced landing legs. I recommend 4 or 6 legs. 3 should work but it seems to just invite disaster when you find yourself landing on anything less than absolutely flat. When I was learning to land I would frequently add 4 x FL-T200 Fuel Tank to the sides of my central FL-T400 fuel tank and used those to mount the landing legs on. Hellva a drag on Launch from KSC but also nifty for helping slow you down when return to Kerbol. Helps with the stability on landing big time. Remember to make sure your landing legs extend well passed the bottom of rocket engine's bell. Getting to the Mun in one piece sucks so much if you can't get back home because your landing gear let your engine hit the Mun too hard. How big a lander are you trying to land? The OP mentioned two crew. Which ever way you do that it is probably easier to go with a single pilot in a MK 1 capsule. If you are landing a MK 1 Capsule with a FL-T400 or even FL-T800 fuel tank you don't need anymore landing engine power than a single Terrier. If you are having trouble controlling the Terrier's output right click on the engine BEFORE starting your de-oribt burn and set the thrust limiter lower. I would not recommend reducing the thrust limiter below 50%. Remember to set it back to full power before lifting off again You will need to use the LEFT SHIFT and CTRL keys for throttle control. Some times you can get away with LEFT SHIFT and X (Reduce Throttle to 0). If you are playing on a Windows machine beware of the Sticky keys app which will try pop-up every time you press the LEFT SHIFT key too many times. If anyone knows how to get around this I'd love to know. I've tried to disable it but it keeps coming back. Like everything else in Life and KSP keep at it and you will master the necessary skill set, and before you know it you'll be swamped under the relentless endless tide of contracts for tourists wanting to Land on the Mun, and for Science from the Surface of the Mun. And then the mega-funds roll in. ;-) Regards Orc

Please excuse me if this is a dumb question but are these rotor and prop engines stock to 1.9.1 or are they mods. I just upgraded to 1.9.1 and have one game that is advanced enough for serious aviation but I don't see any prop or rotor engines. The examples look awesome, and I've always wanted to send out helicopters to recover my Kerbals (and their krafts) from their landing sites. Help anyone? Regards Ork

Greetings all, If a computer upgrade is required then KSP2 will not be on my wish list. The current version of KSP seems to be running comfortably but a (large) number of newer games are demanding 8GB of RAM and more Video Memory (I think 4GB). Regards Orc

Hi all Moach wrote You are one of those annoying people with oral bacteria that doesn't produce folic (I think!) acid, which is what damages tooth enamel. You do realize you just got 99.99% of the people on Earth (and probably a few million Kerbals too), extremely annoyed with you. Some, perhaps, even hatefully annoyed. My random fact about my teeth, I had an extra one. When my adult teeth sprouted I got an extra canine (I think that is the proper term) on the upper left quadrant. By the time I was 17 it had to go because it (1) becoming painful, and (2) getting in the way of my tongue, making it sound like I had a speech impediment. Random KSP related fact about me: I've only EVER managed to land on the runway at KSC ONCE. And it was relatively recently, after hundreds of hours of play and dozens of landings in all sorts of crazy terrain (I once managed to 'land' an aircraft with some science experiments on the top of the mountains near KSC - it was a good landing in that Val got to walk away from it - it was not a very good landing because the cockpit and the science experiments were about all that survived the landing ;-) . Anyway, take care. Orc

Hi all, 90%-ish peroxide was a discussed oxidizer in the mid-90s. Some of us got particularly excited about the Black Horse / Black Colt / Pathfinder, which alas came to nothing. See: http://astronautix.com/craft/blahorse.htm http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/analog.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Horse_(rocket) There was also a proposal (at around the same time, I think) for kerosene+peroxide SRB-replacements for the Shuttle (which would have fold out wings and would fly back to a ultra long runway at the Cape). I think this is the original proposal: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228581282_High_density_liquid_rocket_boosters_for_the_space_shuttle The advantages of peroxide is that it is liquid in pretty much the same temperature / pressure range as the denser carbon-based fuels (no cryogenic cooling required). It is also hypergolic with carbon-based fuels so it auto combusts as soon as the fuel and peroxide touch in the combustion chamber. And siphoning off a bit of the peroxide through a silver mess generates hot steam and some O2 that can drive your turbo-pumps. That said peroxide is horribly dangerous stuff. The ultra-high purity stuff (like over 97%) is sensitive to shock, and might just decide to decompose from any vibration or contaminant. Filling up an SRB sized monster with this stuff would be... interesting. Despite this a number of respectable people in the American space community still thought high purity peroxide might be easier to handle than LOX. In 93 I briefly worked in a dye-house where 50% peroxide was used for bleaching. Even diluted down it was still horribly dangerous stuff, able to erase your finger (and palm) prints in a second, and capable of setting the cotton dust on the floor alight if spilled. Despite the otherwise, relatively haphazard approach to safety in the plant the peroxide was treated with respect, and the people who handled it did so by the book. Anyway, this is making me feel old. Regards Orc

Hi all, It is embarrassing to admit it but my first Kerbal was killed as a direct result of me not sorting out the staging order of a 'first flight' rocket consisting of a Mk16 chute, a Mk1 Capsule and a Flea booster. This was back when I was using the 1.0 Demo because I couldn't afford the game. The Flea shredded the chute and when the fuel ran out the whole thing plunged back to Kerbin. Since then Jeb has died repeatedly in so many different and obscure ways. Regards Orc

Hi all and farmerben in particular, Would you say that docking with the JR is harder than with the regular port? Why I ask is I recently did a "Rendezvous and Dock in Kerbol" mission. Because it was still relatively early in a career game I was using Mk1 Capsule and Jr clamp-o-trons. Getting within 3 meters was easier than I remembered it. Staying within 3 meters not so much..., getting the silly clamp-o-trons to clamp... well, much less fun. I do not remember having this much trouble last time I did a docking, which was with a pair of SRs joining essentially a large fuel tank to a Duna explorer craft using the three-kerbal capsule. Regards Orc

Greetings, I am pretty sure I can do the Satellite and Kerbal to LKO. But the Fly-by-Mun-and-Safe-Return, is that even possible? Can you cram enough Delta-V into less than 7000 funds? As for landing... well... I don't think I can even think about. I look forward to seeing what people come up with. Regards Orc

Hi all I can't say when exactly I did my first successful docking but it definitely took some time and a lot of patience to get right. My first "proper docking" (with docking ports and stuff) was preceded by a number of rescue missions where I literally rammed the target with a KLAW equipped vehicle. Hey, it worked! Before that I managed to kill several Kerbal crews because my aim was perfect but the relative velocity was, regrettably, much too high. While the earlier docking tutorials (version 1.0.1) were OK, I think the best advice (and encouragement) I got was from the people on these forums. Regards Orc

Hi all Nuke Posted yesterday at 02:15 AM (edited) there probably is a kerbal plushie on the iss right now. If there isn't (a Kerbal plushie on ISS) we need to start a campaign right now. Send Jeb, Bob, Val and... oh... oh dear... I can't remember the 4th starting Kerbal Astronaut's name. Something must be really, really wrong with me. I need a stat dose of KSP right now. Regards Orc

Hi all, The answer to the question depends on what your priorities are. Hunt down a copy of Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars. It clearly outlines why a Mars-First program is the only one that is going to lead to a sustainable program and one that yields real amounts of useful science. The arguments are (and I am paraphrasing from stuff I haven't read in a decade): (a) Mars is the safest place in the inner solar system. The Moon's surface might as well have a bull-eye painted on it when considering solar storms. LEO is only safe because of the Earth's magnetic field, and the opinion for crews to abandon their space station before any really big solar storms hit. (b) Mars has the biggest bundle of resources that can be used relatively easily. Mars atmosphere and regolith contains practically all the minerals and elements we need to build a permanent civilization, including water, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, iron, aluminium, carbon, silicon and uranium. The Moon has diddly-squat. The ice in the polar craters is quite inadequate for supporting a growing civilization (though it might do for a short term science base). The grand scheme to use the polar ice as fuel (H2 and O2 or as ALICE) would deplete the resource even faster than a growing colony.The rest of the moon is basically iron and aluminium with some trace contaminants. (c) Mars has gravity that is much closer to Earth's (about 40%). Humans can probably live healthy lives there without resorting to multi-hour workouts each day, and exotic pharmacology. The Moon has only 16.6% Earth gravity. LEO has nothing, unless you plan to use artificial gravity. (d) Because Mars has an atmosphere (for aero-braking and aero-capture) it is actually CLOSER to Earth in terms of delta-V than the Moon (not by much but it is). That means the same vehicle can deliver more mass to the surface of Mars. (e) Mars has a variety of energy sources, including 12 hours a day of sunshine, geo-thermal, and wind. On the moon you have 14 days of sunlight out of every 28. For the rest of the 28 days you had better hope your batteries hold out. (f) Mars is a whole new world of geography to explore and research. The Moon is just an overgrown asteroid with about enough geological interest as a square kilometer of the Grand Canyon National Park. Of cause if your goal is not to establish a meaningful long term program, and instead go for another Flags&Footprints Photo-op then none of the above matters. The Moon is a resource sink for politicians forwarding the interests of their constituents (which mostly don't including the humans that voted for them but rather the corporations that paid for their campaigns). If your motivation for Space travel is not creating the next stage of human civilization then you are in the wrong business and wasting your time and other people's money. Regards Orc

Greets all DDE wrote: > Hold the water, I prefer the lOx slurry. You don’t need the hydrogen and get some use for the oxygen extracted from > alumina... once you reclaim your graphite. Not a bad looking idea. A couple of issues might arise: 1) LOX. LOX seldom remains LOX anywhere in the universe for very long, unless you are actively cooling it. Water is mostly solid and occasionally liquid or gaseous through most of the universe. 2) Graphite. Refining CO2 back into graphite is not easy. It's got its own energy burden. The only process I remember involves CO2 + H2 + lots of thermal energy. I think there might also be a reaction that uses CO and CH4 but I'm not sure. Still, cool. Regards Orc

Greetings all Aluminium is super expensive to refine in the first place. If I remember my numbers right about 20 kwh of electricity per kg, which is why aluminium smelters are always next to big hydroelectric dams or have their own coal or gas burning power station. Aluminium's value is derived from its lightness (for a given strength) and its recycling cost. Recycling used aluminium (still aluminium metal, not oxides) is super cheap. This leads me to believe that the process described above is at least snake oil, and at worst out-right fraud attempting to part fools with their money. If you want an example of aluminium and water yielding a lot of energy look up ALICE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_(propellant). I am sure this is something Kerbals would do. Regards Orc

Hi all, Forgive me if it has already been mentioned but I'd like to see: a few of prop engines, starting with some anemic .625 m one to ultra powerful 2.5 meter, in between a couple of 1 m engines. Large fuel carrying wings that are not swept. Cylindrical or semi-cylindrical 2.5 meter aircraft fuselage and fuel tank parts, And a 2.5 m aircraft glass cockpit (yes I want to build a B-29 Superfortress and do a Bell X-1 supersonic flight). (I know most of this is covered in the Airplane Mod) A Klockwork Kerbal, an early pre-Mk1 Capsule 'probe core' that allows you to launch staged rokkets using the Flea and Hammer engines, before you risk your pilots. Each Klockwork Kerbal would be able to manage three staging events, and the Player would set the time for each event before the vehicle leaves the VAB. Given the limited amount of control options available at such a low tech level the KK is not expected to actually fly the rokket in any meaningful direction except, hopefully, up. A pure eye-candy addition would be a Memorial Garden at KSC, where a little (Kerbal Heght) Black Obelisk for each fallen (permanently dead) Kerbal appears. Back in Version 1.0 when all (AFAIK) Kerbal deaths were permanent I used to get his comrades to plant a flag at the Astronaut center or Admin building with the fallen Kerbal's name, date and mission on it. But if you still have to upgrade the facility you have to remove the flags. Another eye-candy feature that I would not mind seeing are landing lights for the runway and 'search light'' style beam lighting for the launch pad, to make your night time launches and landing more visually dramatic. I expect there probably is already a mod for this. Anyway, happy launches all, Regards Orc

Hi all I still have Version 1.0 on my laptop, as well as the demo. I don't run it very often because (a) I don't use the laptop nearly as much as I used to and (b) KSP doesn't run very well on the laptop limited resources. About 5 to 10 minutes between crashes, much less if I try to launch a 600 part mega-dreadnought SSTO. This is better than the desktop system I was using at the time, which crashed after almost every mission. The demo was LOTS of FUN, it completely sold me on the idea of spending real money on getting the full game, something that hasn't really happened since... maybe the late 90s. As I didn't have disposable income at the time I had to wait six months and ask family not to give me Christmas and birthday presents, to give me the cash instead. Anyway, Regards Orc

Hi all I've played a bit, perhaps hoping to recapture the glorious memories of Elite on SpectraVideo 328. I don't know if it is the different between being 14 and ... er much, much older than 14, but I really suck at OOlite. Is it much harder than the original or am I just so much slower. Flip side: I still rock at docking with the space stations. That skill set hasn't gone away. Regards Orc

For a limited definition of fun. Confession time: I have NEVER managed to land anything on the runway at KSC without it turning into a fireworks display. The flat area around KSC is much better. Heck the not so flat desert to the south western edge of the same continent as KSC is easier to land on. I've botched a couple of landings following extremely long (atmospheric) flights because of sheer physical fatigue (me, personally, not the Kerbals). And you can't (AFAIK) save during in-atmosphere flights. The botched landings tend to lead to a total loss of the vehicle and usually the crew as well. Since these are typically long range science gathering missions, coupled with multiple contract missions on the opposite side of Kerban the flight is long, the science is valuable and the aircraft is expensive. Maybe now that Kerbals have parachutes, and all Science onboard can be stored in a couple of the science containers (can't remember what they're called) I could build the plane so that I can jettison the Science for a safe parachute landing and then abandon the aircraft and let the pilot float down on his / her chute. Failing that, pack enough chutes on the actual aircraft to do a parachute landing. Cut the engines over KSC, circle a bit until your velocity is below 250 m/s and then pop open a dozen Radial mounted Mk16s. If that can't get you safely on the ground then your airframe was too big to start with. Anyway, most of the time I'd rather be landing on Minmus. Or salvaging some abandoned part in Munar orbit. Regards Orc