Buster Charlie

Can you give me some hints on writing a module manager config to convert other mods NTR to be inline with your tweaks (Ie you modifed the LV-N) since I'd like all my NTR to be balanced against each other so I dont just pick the 'best' one and never use the other designs (even if just for visual variety).

I might tweak the design a bit this was my first version. My idea was drone core (I use life support, I might make a manned version just for a single crew transfer option) with the docking port pusher in front so it could dock to my space station port, grabber unit mounted in reverse so I could pull heavy loads (seems to wobble less than pushing) You can see I placed the two engines so the empty craft will have zero translation torque when empty but I realize this is a futile effort since It'll create a tremendous amount of torque once attached to a long heavy load. I'm wondering if it would be possible to define some preset configs with action groups. I have a procedural test weight, I could figure out some common load sizes and maybe use a action group mod to set the RCS value based on a few common size ranges... Now I am using mechjeb but even with manual docking mode the ship was spazzing out and basically wobbling everywhere. I don't normally have this issues with other tugs i've built, but maybe this is just extra powered and I'm not used to it. BTW those delta-v numbers are with me manually converting the core to have 360 of liquid only fuel. I'm intrigued by the propellant nuke, as i've built a few mono-only tugs to simplify logistics (Including a fun monopropellant-electric arcjet mod engine) but while I can see it having a lower ISP if the monopropellant is a heavier fuel, wouldn't it have more thrust (kinda like a trimodal NTR that uses oxygen as an 'afterburner'?) I'm only suggesting this because if it's lower thrust and lower ISP I'm not sure i'd ever use it, but if it was say lower ISP but higher thrust as a tradeoff, and maybe generated more heat so you can't run it as much, maybe that would make it more appealing. But it is your mod so have at it! BTW I got the engines to deploy and work I think I just reloaded it from desktop and it was active when I loaded into the ship, but just FYI about the 'deployed' bug. PS> I still want to say this is about the most exciting 'specific purpose' mod i've downloading, it looks excellent and it serves a very useful purpose for me with a very low part count compared to stock so I want you to keep developing this so much!

I Don't have a mod that lets me tweak the torque value, I used to have one but felt it was a bit cheaty to be able to double the torque with no weight costs (I know no cheat in a SP game but to me it seemed too easy) I'll try disably some of the reaction wheels and RCS and see if it works..

I'm gonna give this mod a try since I always try to support 'stock like' expansions and this looks great. I have no problem installing mods but I have around 60-70 (sometimes over 100) so I have to use ckan for a majority to keep track of updates. I'll install manually but I noticed you're on spacedock so I hope it can get ckan integration soon.

edit to be more clear: The engines get higher delta-v if I only have Liquid fuel when in LFO mode, which makes me assume they're not using the oxygen, but the Grabber core has Mono/EC and Liquid/oxy/EC mode. I assume this is a bug, so I manually edited the cfg myself to store 360 liquid (which seems to be the fuel switcher ratio (LF+O *.9 = LF only?) Anyway so now I have another issue. I don't have action groups unlocked so I manually engaged the engines, but only one of the engines engaged. Now it says can't start engine while stowed, but I can toggle it extended and back and it still says it's stowed. PS> This mod looks FREAKING AWESOME! Not just complaining, this will probably replace my cobbled together orbital tugs! PPS, I used RCS balancer to build the tug with no torque (besides the reaction wheel), when I'm carrying a payload it just FREAKS out, so i'm not talking about I can't translate very well, I mean, It just whips around like crazy? I tried reducing the RCS thrust to 25%, still freaks out. Very sad.

ckan?

It seems IRL NASA probably turns people away vs bribing them to join, so a wage vs initial cost makes sense. There is a mod that let's you recruit cheaper and easier, and even let's you pick your star level up to level 3. So maybe you could charge extra up front for higher levels to simulate training cost. But to be honest all of this made me think of kerbal life insurance cost. So maybe the cost per month is also related to your safety record. Edit: in line with the life insurance. How about this, kerbals at ksc get essentially no significant pay, essentially so low it's not. Noticeable. When they're on a mission they get hazard pay, the distance from home sets the rate. However like the life insurance idea, it's based on risk. So their hazard pay is actually reduced for repeat missions within a SOI. So the first orbit low I'm space is real risky, but after a few launches everyone calms down. So essentially it cost a lot to send a one off mission deep into space, but a minmus space station would quickly settle down since you'd be sending kerbals there so frequently that the risk is lower. Unless you kill someone. Each death would set back or reset the risk factor / hazard pay. Even better, sending experienced astronauts will reduce the cost because they're proven under fire And more competent . While we're talking about experience and cost...maybe you can have a strategy in which you pay your kerbals at KSC more, but this increases the prestige of KSC and increases the chance of kerbal recruits with some starting stars. I'm other words , paying them the bare minimum will keep the lights on, but throwing around some extra money might get you better recruita. And final thought... why is this a good idea? Because it gives balance to probes vs kerbals without life support being added. Right now, there is no reason to send a probe, but if you knew sending a kerbal would incur 5 years hazard pay, maybe voyager could be an unmanned probe instead? Conversely there should be a prestige bonus to offset the personnel cost.

I read that project tumbleweed was going to be about 30 twr, which is low for a booster stage lfo rocket, but better than 7 Iirc in the 60s they built a manned robotic maintenence vehicle in anticipation of refueling and servicing atomic bombers, so there is that. Ah here we go. http://kotaku.com/the-real-metal-gear-5556757

To quote Wikipedia "Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed; during the second launch attempt the N1 rocket crashed back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and exploded, resulting in the largest artificial non-nuclear explosion in human history."

This, right after they add a satellite craft type for all of us who run remote tech or SCANsat and don't want the map view cluttered up by non probes with probe cores.

I was going to say this looks like a fun and enjoyable bonus feature, but after that statement I realize how wrong and stupid I was to think I might gain gaming enjoyment. I'm glad you set the record straight. On a related note I would like to point out other features that are particularly 100% useless waste of developers times: All textures, and models - The simulation uses a hitbox to detect collisions so we really could play the core rocket simulation with just flat shaded collision meshes instead of higher polycount texture mapped meshes. All sounds - This possibly required hiring a Sound guy, or at least buying stock sound effects, all resources that would be better served at fixing bugs instead of frivolities. Lighting and shadow maps - If you need to represent the dark side of a planet for solar panels, then I suggest vertex lighting was good enough for the 90's it's good enough for today, and it saves a lot of time for bug fixing. Planets that are hard to get too or too easy to get to: Why bother put all this effort into a planet that is too hard to get to, if nobody can get there easily, then it's a waste of time because you'd be better off working on something everyone can enjoy! Also planets that are too easy to visit are 100% useless because they have no challenge and nobody will want to go to a planet that's too easy to go to! Career mode - Why are you taking time away from my Space Plane simulator to try and build a game mode!?! Science Points - Why is this even needed if we have sandbox mode? Seriously, waste of time! Get rid of the tech tree... WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE DIFFERENT SIZED FUEL TANKS! YOU SHOULD ONLY INCLUDE THE ONES THAT ARE USEFUL! WHY HAVE STUFF I DONT USE! WHY!!!!!!! !!ONE!!

The next logical step is your basically turn KSP into "the Sims " in orbit. Give the kerbals in a space station automated idle animations, they float around inside, go between modules on their own, sleep in their beds, go eat snackw, go do science. Then you add the life support and habitation and you basically got a whole new mini game . Use KIS to provide your kerbals with ways to entertain themselves, like a guitar to play ziggy stardust on.

I'm guess what I'm saying is its essentially magic, science fantasy, star wars. It doesn't appeal to me, you don't need to defend it, I'm not degrading or insulting anyone who is looking forward or thinks its super cool. It looks gorgeous, and I love you concept, but ksp has really set the bar too high for me.

Okay let's say you grant that concept, what kind of acceleration and speed are we talking about to do straight line intercepts that evenight lunar orbits? In the video I saw, the ship the size of a truck took off, aimed upwards, was in space in a few seconds, and then aimed at a space station, and flew straight at it. No deacceleration burn, no indication that you can even orbit it just looked like once in space you just possibly float. So let's grant a infinite delta v non reaction base mass less propulsuon, why not just use teleportation, Ifor you can travel faster than light, which is essentially time travel, why not just cut to the chase and use a tardis..

The main reason I'm not interested is after KSP I don't think I can play a "space"game in which you fly a infinite delta-v WWII dogfighter. I'm sorry ,I just can't enjoy "aim at the sky to go into space, aim at a ship to go to that ship, aim at a planet to go to that planet. I don't really expect the same level of detail as KSP, but being aware how orbital mechanics works to any degree has destroyed any enjoyment I get out of WWII flying in space

Simpler solution? Mechjeb for example can estimate how much flight time you will get out of a jet engine. So just maintain whatever altitude and heading the powered craft had, set a KAC alarm for 10 minutes before burnout, and run the jet for whatever it's fuel range is. If the player dosen't return when the jet runs out of fuel then run a stagereovery like parameter, asking if it has enough parachutes to land under the gear impact rating, if yes recover with funds, if no, destroy craft.

I think I watch for all mankind off Netflix dvd, it was pretty cool. IIRC it was done in the 80s, the documenatry, not the moon landing.

"Could you please elaborate on this? Not sure I understand. Do you mean changing the video recording time for specific events +/- seconds?" Yes, for example if my first stage separation has an interesting booster flyoff, I might want a few more seconds after staging to capture that. But maybe I only want that on a specific vehicle or mission. I'm just saying if I could get a few more seconds on some of the auto capture events I probably wouldn't need some of my custom captures. Everything else you said is golden. On another note. I'm just thinking of a orbital refueling space station, it's mission profile might be just a bunch of docking with random ships, and you obviously wouldn't want a 40 ship docking history stuck in the middle of a duna Mission So from the duna missions pov, it's launch, circulaize, Hoffman and dock with space station, fuel transfer, undock, transfer to duna, orbit, detach lander, reattach lander, burn to kerbin, renter, land. But then the duna lander detaches, lands, deploys a rover, reattached a Rover, takes off, docks with duna mission. The Rover detaches, does science stuff, reattaches. The space station, launches, circulaize, then just has dozens of docking events. So from the pov of the space station, nothing that happens after ships undock with it matters. So I can see how complex this can get. Best I could say is the rovers mission starts when it's deployef, and ends when it reattached to lander, even though the rover is traveling from launch to landing, it's like a sub mission. Because what if the lander left without the rover, and another duna mission picked it up? Or it never leaves So I'd try and keep every docking and undocking as its own self contained mission, but allow them to be linked/branched together as needed to maintain mission continuity

Love this mod, please add it to ckan! I want one that will let me play career with all features without having to manually edit the config file every time I restart a ksp install.

Love this mod, please add it to ckan!

Please upload to spacedock so I can use this with ckan again, love this!

To be honest I'd love to see a docking ports with the integrated docking helpers to replace the stock docking ports, just to reduce the part count. Maybe just a scaled down space y port?

Well. Apparently I'm stupid because I was unable to add the altitude module to jack all without it replacing all the entire menu with just the altitude module info. But I repeat myself.

I understand, I was pointing out I attempted a minimum escape system using stock parts, your saying I can use mod parts as long as they fit in a kis container, so I'll be interested in what I can do with this. Yesterday didn't happen but I hope tonight!

That would be amazing, I totally understand not taking anything up till after 1.1 I tried just adding the module to another part, but it replaced that parts right click menu with the smart part menu exclusively, so I donot know if it's functions can be Written to play nice.