TheEpicSquared
-
Posts
1,456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by TheEpicSquared
-
-
-
-
3 hours ago, Skylon said:
Could i provide my rocket early? Actually quite excited for this thread. I plan to use Kerbal Reusability Expansion for this.
Edit: Will there be a launch site rental price? Maybe you could use Kerbinside/kerbal Konstrukts and and at an additional price Launch companies could buy, sell and rent their own launch sites.
I am still a bit unclear about how we generate profit. So the PPs pay the LPs? Or is it based on the cost of the satellite? How do PPs generate profit if at all?
Also, should we have one post for all launch vehicles? Are we expected to retire older vehicles? Could we use excess profits to speed up the R&D?
Sorry for question spam.
My long reply senses are tingling
1. Yeah, sure, you can post a KerbalX/Dropbox/whatever link early. It'll certainly help when organizing the OP.
2. I was thinking about that. I am using Kerbal Konstructs + Kerbinside, so maybe.
3. For now, we're only having the LPs getting budgets and having to make profits, to reduce complexity. That might change later, but for now, only LPs.
4. a) No, you can post your crafts as they build them. It'll be easier, since we won't have to look through pages to find your post.
b) You don't have to retire older vehicles, but depending on how that affects your budget, you might want to. It's up to you.
c) Ooohhh, that's a hard one. Using money to increase R&D makes sense, but I think for now, no, since that would add a lot of complexity, something me and @Oliverm001x are trying to avoid as much as possible.
Also, don't apologize for many questions! Questions are a good thing!
3 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:Just a thought on the rule: When a payload provider switches launch provider due to delays of operation, the launch provider should not lose the cost of a rocket. They didn't actually launch the thing and I think making them pay for it would be silly. I can understand a 30% fee for retrofitting it for a different payload though. Also, where are the payload providers getting their
from? perhaps they should compete for GKO spots or Government kontracts for science missions and be awarded accordingly. Obviously there would be incentive for PPs to develop versatile or modular designs to decrease development costs. A company that wins a GKO spot would have to fill it in a certain amount of time and then they would gain revenue from it for a period of time based of the size of relay on the satellite. Once the requisite period has passed their satellite gets deorbited and the slot goes into the hat again.
1. That makes sense. I'll change the rule on switching launch providers.
2. For now, to reduce complexity, the PPs won't be proper "companies", managing their funds, etc. That might change in the future, though.
2 hours ago, Skylon said:Mabye there should be a station/other destination in orbit and PPs could provide crew/cargo vessels to supply it. Also the station could be made up of vessels made by PPs, launched by LPs and sold to the government or used to speed up R&D or part development.
And yes PPs should get paid to have their Comsats used as relays, scanners used for...scanning...and also for tourist vessels to carry tourists, etc.
Is there any problem with LPs launching their own payloads? They would be paid by tourists or the government to do science and ferry crew/cargo etc.
1. Stations are going to be in the save, and PPs are allowed to provide vessels to supply it.
2. LPs can launch their own payloads. In that case, they'll have to follow the same rules as the regular PPs.
2 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:Exactly, a financial incentive for PPs to put payloads up. Also some LPs will also be PPs and therefore have cheaper operating costs.
Freaking forum merged posts
Well I've been preemptively designing some stuff for this, here's a pic to whet the appetite.
A Kerb-pod 5000 being boosted into orbit by the upper stage of a Tylo 1 lifter.
Looks awesome! But remember, Kerbalism is being used, so you might want to increase the living space. Just a tip.
2 hours ago, Skylon said:I think that tech level should also matter, since you could use a vector as a high TWR solution for your rockets, or an aero spike for higher efficiency.
Clarification please? If you mean that early rockets shouldn't be allowed to have high-level tech, I disagree, because in real life, startup LPs could always have another experienced company build their engines.
2 hours ago, Brent Kerman said:I think I'll be a LP. Two questions, is comnet on? If so, are extra ground stations on? Also, "No SSTO's". Are Rocket SSTO's allowed, or must they stage away while suborbital?
Edit: Oops, no rocket SSTO's. How is recovery possible of first stage unless you all but reach orbit? I'm not trying to be critical here, but seriously want to know how to do that. Mechjeb cant fly it unless it's in focus, right?
Awesome that you'll be a LP!
1. In the settings, CommNet and extra ground stations are on, but I think Kerbalism overrides the stock system with a system of its own.
2. Recovery of the first stage shall be completed with FMRS. I stage normally, fly the rocket to a parking orbit using MechJeb, and then switch back to separation using FMRS. I then let MechJeb recover the first stage (parachutes or otherwise), have FMRS auto-recover the craft when landed, and then switch back to the rocket+payload in orbit. Then I let MechJeb complete the mission. Hope that makes sense.
2 hours ago, Skylon said:Here is my planned company (I will post my launchers/payloads here also when the challenge is ready)
I present to you.....
SkyTech Aerospace
Bringing the sky closer to youFlag/logo planned, but I'm having trouble using an online generator, because when I convert it from .png to .jpeg it squashes it horizontally for some reason.
R&D:
Reusable Avionics Package (RAP)-1A:
The RAP-1A provides a high TWR Vec-1 (1.25m vector) engine, a guidance system (with RCS) and electrical storage. This will be used on the future Xarla-1A rocket first stage and the fuel tank will be decoupled (maybe not for later iterations). It will have added landing legs mounted on a sort of engine shroud, and parachutes for landing so it can be reused, lowering the cost of that expensive Vec-1 engine (I am worried about the 0.2 multiplier though). It will be 1.625m wide (assuming width ignores landing legs). Later versions will have better thermal protection/control and perhaps fuel or the whole first stage tank for propulsive landing.
Here is a static test fire of the Vec-1:
They determined that the thrust and ISP were as predicted from their readouts.
Static test fire and gimbal test of RAP-1A:
The engineers noted that the Vec-1 engine pushed forward upon firing, but this was quickly remedied by using titanium instead of the cheaper steel for the bolts holding it on (autostrut 
).
The gimbal tests were also a success, and confirmed that the engine would not hit the structural tube
Where is the modlist? I hope tweakscale is there...
Also, 35m seems to be a bit tall for 1.25m rockets. It allows for roughly 8 full size 1.25m tanks including engines and fairings. Allows for just over five for 1.875m tanks (scaled up from 1.25m)
Looks like you have a good start!
Good point on the dimensions. What do you think would be a good adjustment? 20 meters tall and 1.25m in diameter (excluding legs, wings, fairings, etc)? @Oliverm001x what do you think?
1 hour ago, Skylon said:Will you allow clipping of engines up to just before the bell?
Yes. Try to keep it realistic, though. Your Vector inside the hollow fuselage is fine, for example, but an engines clipped into each other are not. Same with fuel tanks.
3 minutes ago, 53miner53 said:I'm going to be a launch provider for this, I just need to build a rocket to do this. If it's not up tonight than don't expect it for a while due to the fact I'm going to be very busy soon.
I will be running 18537 Tech!
Flag: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0eMT8zRijNmN2RuczV6Nml5QWs
Flag may be updated as I go.
also: would I be able to also be a payload provider later on?
Awesome! And yes, you can be a PP too.
Glad to have you on board!
SpoilerBoom! All the questions in one fell swoop!
-
Imma going to answer all the questions when I get to a computer. Phones are soooo tedious...
-
Ok... so, -65-
-
I think you mean -63-, so I'll continue with
-64-
-
-
I think @munlander1 meant -60+, so I'll continue with
-61-
-
6 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
...the landings at least are on point.
Is that an unintentional pun...?
-
-
-
4 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:
I have a question about SSTOs. Can we use them as launch vehicles? Also I have never used Mechjeb and therefore have no idea how it flies.
SSTOs... no, because realism. It could change, though.
However, I'm not done putting all the info into the OP yet, so watch out for more clarifications later today.
-
7 hours ago, StahnAileron said:
Congress: Pfft, private spaceflight will never succeed...
SpaceX: Hold my beer.
-
-
-
-56- Fine. Join the negative side. Happy now?
-
Because... SCIENCE!
WHY AM I TYPING SO BIG?
-
Hello everyone, and welcome to my latest overambitious forum project:
EMULATING REAL LIFE IN KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM
This idea was conceived by me, @TheEpicSquared, and my friend, @Oliverm001x.
Description and information of this project
SpoilerRecently, I started a thread called Epsilon Aerospace, aimed at creating a save with only community payloads. This is very similar to @Kerbiter's SpaceY thread, unfortunately now defunct (although @Kerbiter has expressed interest in reviving it, maybe he can integrate it into this thread
), and @The Raging Sandwich's Commercial Launching thread, which unfortunately wasn't very successful.
So I started Epsilon Aerospace, which is currently in its early stages. And while it's going fine, with rockets being tested and launched, it was a bit monotonous, because there was only Epsilon launching. No other companies to compete against, no-one to collaborate with... it all seemed a bit drab.
So I started thinking about a way to have many forum users each have their own launch services, competing against each other for payloads (also provided by the community), that sort of thing. I managed to get @Oliverm001x on board, so we started thinking about a way that this would work.
After filling up four pages of a Google Docs document, we think that we finally have a format that would work.
So the way that this project works is like this:
Any forum user can become a Launch Provider (LP) and/or a Payload Provider (PP). Obviously, the PP provides payloads, and the LP provides launch services for said payloads. Based on some certain parameters, like rocket success percentages, selling prices, availability, etc (more info below), the PP can choose which LP to launch with. NOTE: Because of forum rule 2.2j, forum users can't have "companies", so to speak, to avoid "roleplay". Instead, LP names will be the names of forum users. For example, instead of me providing launch services under the name "Iridium Aerospace Systems", I'l provide launch services under the name "TheEpicSquared".
NOTE: For now, to make it easier, I will keep hold of the save file and conduct launches in the LPs name. To ensure fairness, I will be using MechJeb for EVERYTHING, so there is no possibility of tampering or bias. This also makes rocket design that much more important, because you have to make sure MechJeb can fly it.
CURRENT UNIVERSAL TIME OF SAVE
Year 1, Day 61, 0h, 0mCURRENT LAUNCH MANIFEST
SpoilerCOMPLETED MISSIONS
SpoilerIridium 1 - Demo Flight
Payload - DemoSat-1
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium 1
Launch date - Mission already completed
Launch site - Zebedee Polar Launch Facility
Launch description - The Iridium 1 LV successfully flew on its first flight, delivering the DemoSat-1 university-made satellite into a 90 degree, circular polar 150km orbit. The first stage underwent a recovery attempt, but the attempt failed because the first stage impacted the ground, exploding as it fell over. The second stage was successfully deorbited over Arctica after payload separation. Signal was lost from the DemoSat-1 shortly after separation, but that is an issue with the payload. Iridium I Flight 1 was a success.Arthur 1 - Demo Flight
Payload - 12 SkySat-0s, 1 SkySat-1B
Launch Provider - @Skylon
Rocket - Arthur 1
Launch date - Mission already completed
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Arthur-1 LV flew on its maiden voyage, aiming to deliver 12 Skysat-0 satellites and 1 Skysat-1B to a circular equatorial 500x500km orbit. A software issue (MechJeb spazzing out) caused significant D-v losses, resulting in a lower-than-planned orbit. However, the monopropellant thrusters on the Skysat-1B completed all further burns and all 13 satellites were deployed successfully. Arthur-1 Flight 1 was a predominant success.
Launch ReportAquila 1 - Demo Flight
Payload - 2x Garrob satellites
Launch Provider - @Brent Kerman
Rocket - Aquila 1
Launch date - Mission already completed
Launch site - Baikerbanur (KSC2)
Launch description - The Aquila 1 LV flew on its first flight, aiming to deliver 2 Garrob GCC satellites into a 150x150km orbit. Launch and deployment went nominally, but control was lost after separation because of a lack of an integrated antenna (it seems that the rocket was operating via the payload's antenna). Thus, recovery of the second (and first, for that matter) stage failed. However, the success criteria was met and therefore the mission was a success.
Launch ReportPimenova - Demo Flight
Payload - No payload
Launch Provider - @kerbinorbiter
Rocket - Pimenova
Launch date - Mission already completed
Launch site - Baikerbanur (KSC2)
Launch description - The Pimenova rocket flew on its first flight. Due to stability issues, the rocket underwent numerous flips and failed to reach orbit. Most of the first and second stages were recovered.
Launch reportBeggar I - Demo Flight
Payload - No payload
Launch Provider - @Numerlor
Rocket - Beggar I
Launch date - Mission already completed
Launch site - Zebedee Polar Launch Facility
Launch description - The Beggar I rocket flew for the first time, without a satellite payload. The rocket reached orbit successfully and the first stage was recovered.
Launch ReportFUTURE MISSIONS
SpoilerBeggar I - Demo Flight
Payload - No payload
Launch Provider - @Numerlor
Rocket - Beggar I
Launch date - Y1 D67 2-23
Launch site - Zebedee Polar Launch Facility
Launch description - The Beggar I rocket will fly for the first time, without a satellite payload. The first stage is reusable, and recovery will be attempted.Helium I - Demo Flight
Payload - Xsat-1
Launch Provider - @icantmakemodels
Rocket - Helium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Helium I rocket will fly on its demo flight, aiming to deliver the Xsat-1 satellite into geostationary orbit.Beggar I - SkySat-1B
Payload - SkySat-1B
Launch Provider - @Numerlor
Rocket - Beggar I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Beggar I rocket will fly on its first commercial flight, aiming to deliver the SkySat-1B by @Skylon into an equatorial 100x80km orbit.Titanium One - Demo Flight
Payload - As-of-yet unnamed comsat
Launch Provider - @Oliverm001x
Rocket - Titanium One
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Zebedee Polar Launch Facility
Launch description - The Titianium One rocket will fly for the first time, aiming to deliver a comsat to a polar 100km circular orbit.Cobra I - Demo Flight
Payload - As-of-yet unnamed Mun payload
Launch Provider - @CairoJack
Rocket - Cobra I
Launch date - TDB
Launch site - Baikerbanur (KSC2)
Launch description - The Cobra I will fly on its demo flight, aiming to deliver an as-of-yet unnamed Mun payload into LKO. The rocket might not be able to finish orbital insertion, as the payload weighs a bit over the 1-ton payload rating of the Cobra I. In the event of this, the payload will finish orbital insertion, and then make its way to LMO.Iridium I - Flesba TNASS & Vagbon I
Payload - Flesba TNASS & Vagbon I
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Iridium I will fly on its first commercial flight (and second flight overall), aiming to deliver the Flesba TNASS and the Vagbon I comsat by @StupidAndy into an equatorial 500km circular orbit. The first stage will undergo a recovery attempt. Odds of success for the recovery attempt are high, as the stage will land in water (if launched from the KSC), thus not experiencing much of an impact.Astral - Demo Flight
Payload - No payload
Launch Provider - @Mad Rocket Scientist
Rocket - Astral
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Baikerbanur (KSC2)
Launch description - The Astral will fly on its demo flight, without a satellite payload.Retrance II2 - Demo Flight
Payload - No payload
Launch Provider - @Abastro
Rocket - Retrance II2
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Retrance II2 will fly on its maiden flight, without a satellite payload. The rocket is reusable, and recovery of both stages will be attempted.Arthur 1 - MunNet1
Payload - MunNet1
Launch Provider - @Skylon
Rocket - Arthur 1
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Baikerbanur (KSC2)
Launch description - The Arthur 1 will fly on its second flight, aiming to deliver the MunNet1 satellites into an equatorial, 600km orbit.Samurai VXII - Demo Flight
Payload - No payload
Launch Provider - @KenjiKrafts
Rocket - Samurai VXII
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Zebedee Polar Launch Facility
Launch description - The Samurai VXII will fly on its maiden flight, without a satellite payload.Trinity - Demo Flight
Payload - Unmanned Zephyr crew module
Launch Provider - @quasarrgames
Rocket - Trinity
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Trinity rocket will fly on its first mission, aiming to deliver an unmanned Zephyr crew module to LKO for in-flight tests.Arthur-1 - MunDust-1
Payload - MunDust-1
Launch Provider - @Skylon
Rocket - Arthur-1
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - TBD, most likely KSC
Launch description - The Arthur-1 will fly on its third flight, aiming to deliver the MunDust-1 orbiter/lander combination into LKO. From there, the satellite will head to the Mun.Steve Pad Abort Test
Payload - Steve crew module
Launch Provider - @icantmakemodels
Rocket - N/A
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Baikerbanur
Launch description - The Steve capsule will undergo a pad abort test to affirm that critical systems are in working order.Copper 1 - Demo Flight
Payload - Demo payload
Launch Provider - @53miner53
Rocket - Copper 1
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Copper 1 will fly on its first flight, aiming to deliver a custom-built demo payload to a 100x100km circular equatorial orbit.Iridium I - AMPCS I 1-2
Payload - AMPCS I 1-2
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Iridium I will aim to deliver 2 AMPCS I satellites by @Andiron to keostationary orbit. First stage recovery will be attempted.Iridium I - Mod-Sat Comms 1-5
Payload - Mod-Sat Comms 1-5
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Baikerbanur (KSC2)
Launch description - The Iridium I will aim to deliver 5 Mod-Sat Comms satellites by @HobbitJack into a 45* circular 200km orbit. First stage recovery will be attempted, but success is unlikely due to the stage coming down on land.Arthur 1 - Corrmes CMES
Payload - Corrmes CMES
Launch Provider - @Skylon
Rocket - Arthur 1
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Arthur 1 will aim to deliver one Corrmes CMES satellite to a 3000km circular equatorial orbit.Vincin Static Fire & Pad Abort Test
Payload - Vincin Crew Module
Launch Provider - @Andiron
Rocket - N/A
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - Zebedee Polar Launch Facility
Launch description - The Vincin Crew Module will undergo a static test fire to validate propulsion systems. Following this, the craft will be refueled and a pad abort test will be performed to validate abort systems.Pixie-C1 Pad Abort Test
Payload - Pixie-C1 Crew Module
Launch Provider - @Skylon
Rocket - N/A
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Pixie-C1 Crew Module will undergo a pad abort test to validate abort systems.Iridium I - Vincin I+ Orbital Test Flight 1 (OTF-1)
Payload - Vincin I+ Crew Module
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Iridium I will launch the first of at least 3 orbital test flights to validate the Vincin I+ Crew Module by @Andiron.Iridium I - Vincin I+ OTF-2
Payload - Vincin I+ Crew Module
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Iridium I will launch the second of at least 3 orbital test flights to validate the Vincin I+ Crew Module by @Andiron.Retrance II2 - VDT Docking Target 1
Payload - VDT Docking Target 1
Launch Provider - @Abastro
Rocket - Retrance II2
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Retrance II2 will launch the first of at least two VDT Docking Targets. These will serve (predictably) as a docking target for the Vincin I+. Docking will be tested on OTF-3.Retrance II2 - VDT Docking Target 2
Payload - VDT Docking Target 2
Launch Provider - @Abastro
Rocket - Retrance II2
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Retrance II2 will launch the second of at least two VDT Docking Targets. These will serve (predictably) as a docking target for the Vincin I+.Iridium I - Vincin I+ OTF-3
Payload - Vincin I+ Crew Module
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Iridium I will launch the third of at least 3 orbital test flights to validate the Vincin I+ Crew Module by @Andiron. OTF-3 will be the first attempt at rendezvous and docking in space. The Vincin I+ will rendezvous with and dock to VDT Docking Target 1.Helium I - Xsat-2
Payload - Xsat-2
Launch Provider - @icantmakemodels
Rocket - Helium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Helium I will lift the Xsat-2 communication satellite into geostationary orbit. This is the second satellite of three in the Xsat series.Helium I - Xsat-3
Payload - Xsat-3
Launch Provider - @icantmakemodels
Rocket - Helium I
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - KSC
Launch description - The Helium I will lift the Xsat-3 communication satellite into geostationary orbit. This is the third satellite of three in the Xsat series.UNCONFIRMED @Andiron please confirm if I am the LP
Iridium I First Stage - Vincin I+ Suborbital Test Flight
Payload - Vincin I+ Crew Module
Launch Provider - @TheEpicSquared
Rocket - Iridium I First Stage
Launch date - TBD
Launch site - TBD
Launch description - A first stage of the Iridium I rocket will fly the Vincin I+ Crew Module to a suborbital trajectory to validate the vessel's in-space functionality. This will be launched before the three Orbital Test Flights.RULES (IMPORTANT! READ CAREFULLY!)
SpoilerRULES
Save file rules
1. I will keep hold of the save file, and do the launches (LVs and payloads will be given to be via KerbalX, Dropbox, etc). I will use MechJeb for everything, so there is no possibility of tampering or bias. Only design of rockets will affect launches.
Launch Provider (LP) rules: rockets, funds & time, and LP information
Rockets
2. Lifters developed by the LPs are required to be realistic. To ensure this, every rocket should be put on KerbalX, Dropbox, etc, with a link given to me, so I can validate the craft’s realism. If a rocket is deemed unrealistic, it will not be allowed, and the LP will have to make another, more realistic, rocket.
3. Rocket development will take place under several controlled stages, to emulate real life. First, the launch providers will develop a first iteration rocket, which cannot not exceed 20 meters in height (including a fairing) and 1.25m in width (excluding fins, fairings, legs, etc). This rocket will be your base rocket. The first iteration cannot be propulsively landed, however, recovery using parachutes is permitted. Again, realism. The rocket can be developed into several iterations, but a completely new rocket cannot be unveiled until a certain time limit (3 kerbal months) is passed. As time goes on, this time will decrease as LPs get more experience. This is to ensure natural progression.
4. Rockets cannot be SSTOs, spaceplane or rocket.
5. Launch vehicles cannot have any active reaction wheels. Use RCS instead (remember, realism).
Funds & times
6. Each LP gets a set budget. This is increased by launching missions for payload providers. Obviously, a launch will only generate a profit if the satellite launch sells for more than the cost of the fully fueled rocket.
7. Each LP must list a selling price for each of its rockets. Obviously, it helps if the selling price is more than the cost of a rocket, since that’s the only way to make money and prevent bankruptcy.
8. The profit from a satellite launch is added to the LP’s budget. (For example, if the budget before launch is 100,000; the cost of one rocket is 40,000; and the cost of one launch is 60,000; the profit is 20,000. This gets added onto the LP’s budget before the launch, which was 100,000 in this case. That means that the new budget is 120,000. Pretty basic maths.)
9. If rockets are reusable, the cost of the reused part can be subtracted from the rocket cost when calculating profit per launch. However, LPs will have to add back on the cost of fuel for the reused part, plus 0.2 (subject to change) times the cost of the reusable part, to simulate recovery and refurbishment operations. If an attempted recovery fails (for example a first stage that explodes upon landing), the cost of the reusable part cannot be subtracted from the rocket’s cost when calculating profit.
10. Development costs of a rocket is 5x the cost of the rocket. This means that the cost of the first launch will 6x the cost of the rocket.
11. Should an LP run out of funds, it can either declare itself bankrupt, and withdraw from launch services for a set amount of time, or request a funds injection from another LP. If the request is granted, the specified amount of funds will be given to the bankrupt LP, and the LP giving the money will have the specified amount deducted from their total funds.
12. Launch failures will have consequences. If the rocket and the payload are destroyed (due to a DangIt failure, etc) then the LP will lose twice the cost of the rocket, along with 1.5x that of the satellite. If the rocket is destroyed but the satellite is recovered intact, the LP will lose 1.5x the cost of the rocket, along with 1.2x the payload cost (for repairing costs).
13. If a launch failure occurs, that rocket cannot be launched for a set amount of time (10x the KCT build time of the rocket.).
14. Should a Payload Provider (PP) decide to change to a different LP for whatever reason (for example if a launch failure results in the grounding of a rocket), then the original LP loses 0.3x the cost of the rocket, for refitting the rocket for a new payload.
15. Each kerbal month, money will be deducted from an LP’s budget (2% of the company's budget). This is to simulate taxes, operating costs, etc.
LP information
16. LPs are required to calculate success percentages for each of their lifters. This, along with launch cost and other details, will be displayed in the OP, so payload providers can choose who they want to launch with. I will give you the info, and you work it out and give the numbers back to me, for me to display in the OP.
Payload Provider (PP) rules: Payloads and funds
Payloads
17. The PP must answer the following questions to submit a payload:
a) Payload name?
b) Payload provider?
c) Type of payload?
d) Payload price?
e) Payload mass, part count and dimensions?
f) Intended orbit (apoapsis, periapsis, inclination, any other orbital info)?
g) Short description of the payload?
h) Launch provider chosen?
i) Which rocket of the launch provider?
j) [OPTIONAL] Deadline - is there a specific date the payload needs to be launched by? Specify this using the kerbal Universal Time.
k) Any other info you think is worth knowing?
18. If a payload needs to be launched during a certain period (eg. a transfer window), the PP must specify the dates of the beginning and end of the launch period (using KSP Universal Time).
19. Payloads can have reaction wheels for orientation.
20. The PP must provide a KerbalX, Dropbox, etc link for the payload.
Miscellaneous rules
21. Launch vehicles and payloads can only use mods specified in the mod list. If you think that a mod should be added, PM me.
22. In the OP, I will keep a launch manifest of every single launch (much like the SpaceflightNow launch schedule). I will follow this schedule, unless unforeseen occurrences happen. For example, if there is a launch failure, that rocket will obviously be grounded for some time (see rule 13) before it can launch again. In that case, PPs can either switch to another LP (resulting in the LP with the grounded rocket losing 1.3x the cost of the rocket)
23. LPs and PPs are no longer allowed to make companies, as per forum rule 2.2j (the roleplay rule), so the LP's and PP's forum name will be listed instead of a company name.
INFORMATION
LAUNCH PROVIDER INFORMATION
SpoilerYouRocketsDevelopment related info
1. Launch vehicles must be realistic. This means:
a) No SSTOs
b) No 8-core-monstrosities-held-together-by-girders-with-the-payload-in-the-middle type of rockets
c) No futuristic components (especially engines) like FTL drives, warp drives, antimatter fusion engines, etc.
Failure to comply (wow, that sounds formal) will result in your lifter not "making the cut", so to speak. Post a KerbalX, Dropbox, etc link on this thread for me to make sure that your lifter is realistic.
2. The first iteration of your lifter cannot exceed 20m in height (including a reasonably-sized fairing) and 1.25m in width/length (excluding things like fins, wide fairings, landing legs, etc). This is because in real life, space companies didn't start out with massive Delta IV Heavy type boosters, they started small.
3. Rockets cannot be SSTOs, spaceplane or otherwise.
4. Launch vehicles cannot have any active reaction wheels. Use RCS instead (remember, realism).
5. For the first iteration, propulsive landing recovery is not permitted. Parachutes are, though. Propulsive landing can start from the second iteration onwards.
6. Development costs of a rocket is 5x the cost of the rocket.
7. For incremental changes, the development cost is just the cost of the changes + the rocket cost. For example, if the changes cost 5,000 and the rocket costs 10,000, then the first launch of this new rocket is 15,000. After that, the cost returns to normal.
Funds management related info
7. Your company gets a set budget at the beginning. This is given out case-by-case.
8. Your budget increases only if you make a profit on your launch (remember, each rocket must have a selling price, preferably higher than the rocket cost).
9. The cost of a launch to the LP is the cost of the fully-fueled rocket + 0.1x the cost of the rocket (launch expenses). As stated above, it helpsif your selling price is higher than this.
10. The cost of a reused part of a rocket (a first stage, for instance) can be subtracted from the rocket cost when calculating profit per launch. However, LPs will have to add back on the cost of fuel for the reused part, plus 0.2x the cost of the reusable part, to simulate recovery and refurbishment operations. If an attempted recovery fails (for example a first stage that explodes upon landing), the cost of the reusable part cannot be subtracted from the rocket’s cost when calculating profit (obviously). However, the 0.2x multiplier will still have to be added on, to simulate recovery operations and potential repairs to recovery equipment.
11. If an LP runs out of funds, it can either declare itself bankrupt, and withdraw from launch services for a set amount of time (assigned case-by-case), or request a funds injection from another LP. If the request is granted, the specified amount of funds will be given to the bankrupt LP, and the LP giving the money will have the specified amount deducted from their total funds.
12. The consequences of a launch failure are tough. If the rocket and the payload are destroyed (due to a DangIt failure, etc) then the LP will lose twice the cost of the rocket, along with 1.5x that of the satellite. If the rocket is destroyed but the satellite is recovered intact, the LP will lose 2x the cost of the rocket as usual, along with 1.2x the payload cost (for repairing costs).
13. If a PP decides to change to a different LP for whatever reason, then the original LP loses 0.3x the cost of the rocket, for having to refit the rocket for a new payload.
14. Each kerbal month, 2% of an LP's budget will be deducted from the total budget. This is to simulate taxes, operating costs, etc.
Miscellaneous info
15. LPs will calculate success percentages for each of their lifters. This, along with launch cost and other details, will be displayed in the OP, so payload providers can choose who they want to launch with. I will give you the info, and you work it out and give the numbers back to me, for me to display in the OP.
16. Launch vehicles can only use mods specified in the mod list. If you think that a mod should be added, PM me or @Oliverm001x.
17. LPs are no longer allowed to make companies, as per forum rule 2.2j (the roleplay rule), so the LP's forum name will be listed instead of a company name.
PAYLOAD PROVIDER INFORMATION
SpoilerPayload related info
1. The PP must answer the following questions to submit a payload:
a) Payload name?
b) Payload provider?
c) Type of payload?
d) Payload price?
e) Payload mass, part count and dimensions?
f) Intended orbit (apoapsis, periapsis, inclination, any other orbital info)?
g) Short description of the payload?
h) Launch provider chosen?
i) Which rocket of the launch provider?
j) [OPTIONAL] Deadline - is there a specific date the payload needs to be launched by? Specify this using the kerbal Universal Time.
k) Any other info you think is worth knowing?
These questions are also listed further down in the OP.2. If a payload needs to be launched during a certain period (eg. a transfer window), the PP has to specify the dates of the beginning and end of the launch period (using KSP Universal Time), or risk missing their window.
Funds management related info
3. PPs may have tourist vehicles launched by LPs.
4. The tourists will pay based on Kerbalism stats:
a) Time spent at the destination
b) The amount of entertainment at the destination
These will be set values, like a station in LKO, in Mun orbit, etc (TBD).
5. The government (me - I won't be biased) can pay for services on communication satellites, based on the location and orbit height. It must be "useful", so the satellite must have a good range and at least 2 low-gain antennae and 2 high-gain antennae that can act as relays. These prices will be determined case-by-case.
6. PPs must pay money (TBD) to the government to take tourists to government stations (via LPs of course). Alternatively, PPs can also make their own space station (with modules launched by LPs), and take tourists to that station. In this case, the government does not have to be paid.
7. Stations or extra station modules can be sold to the government, with the price based on:
a) Crew capacity with good Kerbalism stats
b) Science processing capabilities (science labs, experiments, etc)
c) Good and redundant power supply.
The government can contract PPs for resupply missions, including, but not limited to, cargo missions and crew transportation.
Miscellaneous info
8. The PP must provide a KerbalX, Dropbox, etc link for the payload.
9. Only the mods specified in the mod list can be used for the payload. If you think a mod should be added, PM me or @Oliverm001x.
10. LPs are no longer allowed to make companies, as per forum rule 2.2j (the roleplay rule), so the PP's forum name will be listed instead of a company name.
INFO REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT
Spoiler1. I will be the government. I won't be biased, I promise.
2. The government counts as a payload provider. It can contract an LP for a satellite launch, or award station resupply missions to one or more LPs. Again, I won't be biased when doing this. I will be taking into account things such as reliability and prices. I will NOT award contracts to an LP based on personal reasons. For example, even though @Oliverm001x is one of my closest friends, I won't award him a contract if his success percentage is absolutely abysmal.
3. The government is an all-powerful organization, with an infinite amount of funds.
LIST OF LAUNCH PROVIDERS
SpoilerSpoilerRockets
- Iridium 1 Launch Vehicle
SpoilerDescription: A small orbital-class lifter designed to put equally reasonably-sized satellites into orbit. Developed in-house by @TheEpicSquared.
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: 20.0m
Width: 1.4m
Length: 2.5mPart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: Rated for 4.5 tons, can possibly do 5 tons (warranty voided for a 5-ton payload, aka we won't pay you if something goes wrong).
Customer cost: 15,000 for primary payloads; 13,500 for secondary payloads
- Budget:
75,283
SpoilerRockets
- Arthur-1
SpoilerDescription: The Arthur-1 is designed and built by @Skylon
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: 19m
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 2.75 tons
Customer cost: 18,000
- Budget:
105,408
SpoilerRockets
- Aquila 1
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 1 ton
Customer cost: 25,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Artemis I
SpoilerDescription: First generation launcher of the Artemis rocket family, experimenting with engines with gimbal for steering and a high efficiency Aerospike upper stage engine.
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: 19.9m
Width: 1.4m
Length: 1.4mPart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 3 tons
Customer cost: 25,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Pimenova
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: N/A, @kerbinorbiter please specify
Customer cost: 21,000
- Budget:
16,616
SpoilerRockets
- Helium I
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 1 ton tested, 2 tons theoretically
Customer cost: 40,000 (!)
- Budget:
441,000 (government funding for a kerballed craft)
SpoilerRockets
- Beggar I
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: 7.3 tons
Dimensions:
Height: 8.4m
Width: 2.3m
Length: 2.3mPart count: 15
Payload capacity to LKO: 0.7 tons
Customer cost: 5,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Alpha/Mod.1
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 1.3 tons
Customer cost: 15,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Titanium One
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: N/A, @Oliverm001x please specify
Customer cost: N/A, @Oliverm001x please specify
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Cobra I
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 1 ton
Customer cost: 15,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Astral
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: 10.650m
Dimensions:
Height: 14.8m
Width: 1.5m
Length: 2.0mPart count: 22
Payload capacity to LKO: 1 ton
Customer cost: 4,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Retrance II2
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: 10.650m
Dimensions:
Height: 18.6m
Width: 1.8m
Length: 1.8mPart count: 22
Payload capacity to LKO: 2 tons
Customer cost: 4,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Theta 1
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: 22.554 tons
Dimensions:
Height: 11.6m
Width: 4.2m
Length: 3.5mPart count: 39
Payload capacity to LKO: 1.5 tons
Customer cost: 20,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Samurai VXII
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: N/A
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: N/A, @KenjiKrafts please specify
Customer cost: N/A, @KenjiKrafts please specify
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Copper 1
SpoilerDescription: The Copper 1 is a low tech and price launch vehicle with a reusable first stage and a second stage that can be used as a service module for its payload. Also can be launched without a payload and rendezvous with something to bring it further.
Mass: N/A
Dimensions:
Height: 20.0m
Width: N/A
Length: N/APart count: N/A
Payload capacity to LKO: 1 ton
Customer cost: 27,000
- Budget:
147,000
SpoilerRockets
- Trinity
SpoilerDescription: N/A
Mass: 28.430 tons
Dimensions:
Height: 19.7m
Width: 3.3m
Length: 1.7mPart count: 29 parts
Payload capacity to LKO: 4 tons
Customer cost: 15,500
- Budget:
147,000
LIST OF PAYLOAD PROVIDERS
SpoilerSpoilerSkySat Series:
SpoilerSkySat-1B:
- This is a commsat.
- It weighs 0.64t
-
It costs 5,000
SpoilerSkySat-0:
- Weighs 1.698t
- Made up of 12 cubesats (which can't relay) and 1 SkySat-1B
- Costs 25,151
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerGOSAR
Flesba TNASS
Vagbon I ComSat
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerComsat-A
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerMunNet 1
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerEpixnet-1
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerOxBoxSat
Crew modules:
SpoilerZephyr
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerMod-Sat Series (WIP)
RoveSystem Series (WIP)
RelaySat Series (WIP)
ProbeCore Series (Complete)
SpoilerSatellites:
SpoilerAMPCS I
Crew modules:
SpoilerVincin
CRAFT SUBMISSION THREAD
SpoilerPlease post all payloads and launch vehicles in that thread. For those of you who have already posted your LV on this thread, I kindly ask you to re-post it in the craft submission thread, for easy reference. Thanks.
KSP: EMULATING REAL LIFE YOUTUBE CHANNEL
SpoilerLINK
Please note: This channel is in its very early stages, and will be refined further over time.MOD LIST (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
SpoilerAddon Version Checker by cybutek
B9 Part Switch by blowfish
Bluedog Design Bureau by CobaltWolf
BoxSat by Deimos Rast
Community Resource Pack by RoverDude
Community Terrain Texture Pack by CaptRobau
CustomBarnKit by sarbian
DMagic Science Animate by DMagic
DangIt Continued by linuxgurugamer
DMagic Orbital Science by DMagic
Easy Vessel Switch by IgorZ
Firespitter Core by Snjo
Flight Manager for Reusable Stages Continued by linuxgurugamer
HullCam VDS Continued by linuxgurugamer
HyperEdit by Ezriilc
Interstellar Fuel Switch by FreeThinker
K2 Command Pod Continued by linuxgurugamer
Kerbalism by ShotgunNinja
Kerbal Alarm Clock by TriggerAu
Kerbal Construction Time by magico13
Kerbal Engineer Redux by cybutek
Kerbal Konstructs by Ger_space
Kerbal Krash System by EnzoMeertens
Kerbal Reusability Expansion by EmbersArc
KerbinSide by AlphaAsh
Kopernicus by Thomas P
KW Rocketry Redux - Graduated Power Response by linuxgurugamer
MagiCore by magico13
Maneuver Node Evolved by DMagic
MechJeb2 by sarbian
Modular Flight Integrator by sarbian
Near Future Solar Core by Nertea
Outer Planets Mod by CaptRobau
PorkJet’s Part Overhauls by PorkJet
Persistent Rotation by MarkusA380
ProbesPlus by akron
Procedural Fairings by e-dog
RealPlume by NathanKell
RealPlume - Stock Configs Continued by Nhawks17
RetractableLiftingSurface by linuxgurugamer
SCANsat by DMagic
SmokeScreen by sarbian
SpaceY Heavy Lifters by NecroBones
SpaceY Expanded by NecroBones
Stock Extension Continued by linuxgurugamer
Tantares by Beale
TantaresLV by Beale
Trajectories by Youen
TundraExploration by tygoo7
TweakScale by pellinorCREDITS
Spoiler@Kerbiter - For the original SpaceY thread
@The Raging Sandwich - For trying to revive this type of mission report
@53miner53 - For invaluable advice
@KenjiKrafts - For more invaluable advice
@Uace24 - For even more invaluable advice
@Skylon - For outlining the Payload Provider rules
@Oliverm001x - For co-creating this idea along with me
All the mod makers (there's too many to name) for making the mods used in this project
All of you, for participatingIf you think more people should be credited, please tell me. I would hate to leave someone out.
Thanks for reading this far. If you have any suggestions, they are gladly welcomed.
Post it in this thread or PM them to me and/or @Oliverm001x, and we'll see what we can do.
-
Cluck cluck cluck *poof*
Why do we exist?
-
Just now, Uace24 said:
Well we are allways open to new members along with other providers competing with us for community contracts and you under-build your moon orbiter so with practice you can do well in RSS/RO so would you like to participate in a little community competition ?
I guess, with a lot of practice, I could. But for now, me and @Oliverm001x are going to do a community competition, but on stock scale.
Again, you're welcome to join it if you want.
-
3 minutes ago, Uace24 said:
If you want to compete do this in RSS/RO and try to beat out the International Space Exploration Agency and Epix Launch Services. Could make a interesting community competition.
I would, but I'm absolutely abysmal with RSS/RO. The furthest I got was a highly elliptial
MunMoon orbit, with roughly 5 m/s of Dv remaining.
We are basically doing the same thing as you are suggesting, but in the regular Kerbin system. If you want to make a scaled-down version of ISEA or Epix, be my guest!
(more people participating is always a good thing)
-
-56- Join the dark side!
-
MOAR BOOSTERS!!!
How I SpaceZ?
-
from? perhaps they should compete for GKO spots or Government kontracts for science missions and be awarded 
).
Mission Idea: Emulating Real Life in Kerbal Space Program [WIP] [Submit a Payload] [Become a Launch or Payload Provider]
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
FMRS
I'm going to keep hold of the save, for less complexity, so you don't have to worry about turning off Kerbalism. Oh, and unfortunately you can't, by the way. Not in specific saves.
Also, you can't use Snacks, since that's not part of the mod list (I'll post it below)
MOD LIST:
Addon Version Checker by cybutek
Community Resource Pack by RoverDude
Community Terrain Texture Pack by CaptRobau
CustomBarnKit by sarbian
DangIt Continued by linuxgurugamer
Easy Vessel Switch by IgorZ
Firespitter Core by Snjo
Flight Manager for Reusable Stages Continued by linuxgurugamer
HullCam VDS Continued by linuxgurugamer
HyperEdit by Ezriilc
Interstellar Fuel Switch by FreeThinker
Kerbalism by ShotgunNinja
Kerbal Alarm Clock by TriggerAu
Kerbal Construction Time by magico13
Kerbal Engineer Redux by cybutek
Kerbal Konstructs by Ger_space
Kerbal Reusability Expansion by EmbersArc
KerbinSide by AlphaAsh
Kopernicus by Thomas P
KW Rocketry Continued - Graduated Power Response by linuxgurugamer
MagiCore by magico13
Maneuver Node Evolved by DMagic
MechJeb2 by sarbian
Modular Flight Integrator by sarbian
Near Future Solar Core by Nertea
Outer Planets Mod by CaptRobau
PorkJet’s Part Overhauls by PorkJet
Persistent Rotation by MarkusA380
Procedural Fairings by e-dog
RealPlume by NathanKell
RealPlume Stock Configs Continued by Nhawks17
RetractableLiftingSurface by linuxgurugamer
SmokeScreen by sarbian
SpaceY Heavy Lifters by NecroBones
SpaceY Expanded by NecroBones
Stock Extension Continued by linuxgurugamer
New Tantares by Beale
New TantaresLV by Beale
Trajectories by Youen
TundraExploration by tygoo7
TweakScale by Biotronic
You are correct. It's not realistic, so no.