Ultimate Steve

You don't need to worry about launching anything until you've put together a plan for how the station will fit together. If that happens before early april, then someone can fly them for you. If I remember correctly, that's a texture pack. As long as it doesn't alter any of the properties of the parts, that's fine, but if it does, then no. Looking at the ReStock page, ReStock+ appears to be a parts pack, so no on that. You can have it installed, but don't use any of the parts from it.

Four part rocket. Mk1 pod, parachute, decoupler, solid rocket booster. I named it "Baby Steps I." It worked, somehow. In retrospect, I watched way too many KSP videos before buying it. It was the first game I ever bought and I was a bit nervous to ask my dad, so I researched every little thing about it, including every single tutorial, spoiler, etc. It definitely prepared me for playing, but if I could back, I would almost go in with no knowledge at all. I say almost, because with that brick of a computer I'd never have gotten far without already knowing how to play... The "Baby Steps" mission took like 10 to 15 minutes with all the lag.

The short version: Can the KSP community work together, under restrictions, to design a space station? The long version: Welcome to the KCSS! (Logo by @Rover 6428) (Partially inspired by the Commercial Space Station Design thread) (Also partially inspired by the numerous community space stations out there) Part I, The Premise It is year 10 of the space program, and the International Space Station is falling apart! Only a few halfhearted proposals exist to replace this station, few of which are serious enough to happen, all of which are too far into the future to make a difference. Sure, there is the Munar Gateway, but that is too far away to be practical for anything other than deep space research. This is where you come in. Investors have given you - all of you - 600,000 funds to build phase one of a commercially built replacement for the ISS, as well as the vehicles to crew and resupply it. You are fairly limited in what you can launch on, however. New rockets may not be developed, you are limited to current designs. You are limited to near future technology as well. The station must be multipurpose. It is quite a challenge. Is it one you are willing to attempt? In this challenge, participants will work together to plan, design, build, and launch a space station, eventually using savefile sharing to assemble it in Low Kerbin Orbit. Part II, The Requirements The KCSS must: Have space for tourists to stay on short or long missions Have at least one science lab, preferably multiple Have a dedicated airlock Have at least some refueling capability Be able to support multiple dockings at once Be able to generate significant amounts of power Recoup investment cost within 5 years of operations (flying tourists and researchers at a cost on commercial vehicles, or maybe selling fuel) Be able to change its orbit a bit Be located in a Low Kerbin Orbit In order to qualify as a scientific outpost, the station must: Have at least one science lab seat per researcher Have at least two other seats per researcher Have the materials bay, goo, thermometer, barometer, gravioli detector, seismometer, surface scanner, atmosphere sensor, sentinel telescope, and narrow band scanner on board. In order to qualify as a tourist destination, the station must: Have at least four seats per tourist Have at least one cupola module Everything else is up to the community. How many modules the station is comprised of, how the budget is divided up between the modules, planning the station, launch order, crew schedule, even the name of the station - It's all up to y'all! Part III, The Launch Vehicles There are several launch vehicles to choose from. No new launch vehicles may be developed for this challenge, and these launch vehicles may not be altered, except for fairing sizes, but each custom fairing will cost you 10,000 funds. Launch Vehicle 1 - Kerbal XM A derivative of the original Kerbal X rocket, the Kerbal XM was designed to place large payloads into far flung orbits, but can also take a large mass to LKO. Its evolved second stage can dock stuff, maneuver, and last fairly long provided you enable hibernation on the probe core. The Kerbal XM is man rated. 28 tons to LKO max. 3.5m diameter fairing, 12 meters tall, 7-8 meters at least 2.5m wide. 68k, retail price 77k. Features docking/orbital maneuvering stage. Flies once every 6 months. Launch Vehicle 2 - Muon 6 A successor to the Muon 1 rocket, the privately developed Muon 6 aims to offer access to space more affordable than most government programs. The Muon 6 is man rated. 8 tons to LKO. Max 3.5m diameter fairing, 9 meters tall, 6-7 meters usable 2.5m diameter. 26k, retail price 33k. Flies once every 3 months. Launch Vehicle 3 - Lyra Lyra is an old ICBM, modified with a new upper stage and fin system to support light satellite launches. It features a restartable upper maneuvering stage, perfect for rendezvous, but does not feature any RCS thrusters. 2.5 tons to LKO. Max 1.7m diameter fairing, 3 meters usable 1.25m. 9k, retail price 15k. Features some maneuvering capability. Lyra is not man rated. Flies once every 3 months. Launch Vehicle 4 - Sky III Sky III, successor to Skys I and II, is designed to launch medium payloads to low Kerbin orbit and medium-light payloads beyond LKO. It is one of the most reliable launch vehicles out there. It does not feature a docking or maneuvering stage. Sky III is not man rated, but can be made man rated for 30,000 funds. 16 tons to LKO. Max 3.5m diameter fairing, 35k, retail price 43k. Flies once every 4 months. Launch Vehicle 5 - Z-1 Z-1 is designed to launch small satellites to LKO and lighter probes to high orbits or moon-intersecting trajectories. It features a medium duration maneuvering stage, but no docking capability. Z-1 is not man rated. 2 tons to LKO. Max 1.6m diameter fairing, 3-4m usable 1.25m space. 11k, retail price 16k. Orbital maneuvering stage. Flies once every 2 months. Potential Launch Vehicle 6 - Sky IIIA Note, picture is with test payload attached. Actual cost is 37,690. Sky IIIA was born when @Barzon Kerman requested an upgrade for Sky III because one of his modules was slightly overweight. Sky IIIA can get at least 19 tons to LKO, 20 if you push it. It has an extra set of boosters. However, it may not be used unless you pay the development cost of 15,000 funds. 19 tons to LKO. Same fairing as Sky III. Costs 38k, retail price 47k funds. Considered a Sky III for scheduling purposes. As in, 1 Sky III or Sky IIIA can fly for you every 4 months. All modules must be launched with full RCS capability to dock themselves unless the module is launched on the docking capable Kerbal XM. No docking with just the engines and reaction wheels! Note: the flight rates only become a concern when resupplying the station. For station construction they don't matter. Note 2: All payload numbers given in approximate tons to a 120 kilometer 0 degree inclination LKO. Note 3: When calculating launch costs, use the retail price and not the actual price. Note 4: You do not have to use all of the launch vehicles, but it is recommended that you spread out in case one gets grounded! Part IV, User Participation Here's how this works. Each user may propose as many designs as they want to, but may only contribute one (or two if there are eight or more modules) module design and one crew or cargo vehicle design maximum to the final station. A person may launch 3 total modules, if the number of designs accepted stays at two, allowing for some identical modules. The participants must agree on the budgets for each module (including launch cost), which modules will be flown, in which order they will be launched, who will launch each module, where on the station they will go, and crew schedules. A loose plan for these six things must be agreed upon before the first module is launched, but plans can change during construction, but not significantly. For instance, a budget overrun could lead to a module being cancelled or redesigned, and orientation problems may lead to modules being rearranged. In addition, the orbital altitude and name of the station should also be decided before it is launched. Once a plan is agreed upon, I will create a save file and pass it to the first person in the lineup. The subassemblies for the launch vehicles will be distributed earlier. Once he/she is done he will reupload it and pass it to the next person, and so on. Between each launch, there is a probability that a random event will occur. Part V, Random Events I will randomly select one using random.org and it will happen between flights. For events with subdivisions, random.org will also be used. There is a 50% chance of one event happening between launches, a 40% chance of nothing, and a 10% chance of 2 events. A launch vehicle has suffered a failure and will be grounded for the next three station assembly flights! Modules may be delayed or switched to another launch vehicle. One of your crew or cargo vehicles has been deemed unsafe and will require an additional flight test, coming out of your pocket, before it can be used on an operational mission again. Options include flying that flight or cancelling the program (cancelling waives the 2 providers rule, but you cannot have 0 providers). One of your crew vehicles has come under scrutiny. Nobody may fly on it until a pad abort test (out of your pocket) has been performed successfully. A rich YouTuber has paid you 50,000 funds to visit the space station. He is fine with riding on test flights and visiting an incomplete space station. You can accept or decline. An advertising company pays you 100,000 funds for the launch of a billboard module with their logo, a triangle with a circle inside and outside it, onboard. You can accept or decline. An upcoming module has been dropped. Parts can be salvaged, but that module will have a 50% cost increase. A new government space program has announced that they want to fly their crewed spacecraft to your station. They give you 75,000 funds but you must launch their really odd docking port. You can accept or decline. Depressurization alarm! Your station has depressurized. The crew must immediately be evacuated on their return vehicles. A new mission with at least 3 crew must be launched to fix the problem. A contractor has failed to deliver on time. One module is pushed three launches back because of delays. A politician got involved and finds a reason to cancel one of your upcoming modules. You can pay 50,000 funds to have this ruling overturned, you can cancel the module, or you can design a new one. An anonymous lottery winner donates 25,000 funds to the project. One of your critical buildings has collapsed and you must pay 50,000 funds to replace it. One of the launch companies has given you a free launch on their launch vehicle in exchange for one tourist or researcher flight in the future. You can accept or decline. A global recession has happened. Tourist bookings go down and your money has less buying power. -15% current balance. Two satellites have collided. As a precaution you must adjust your station's altitude by 20 kilometers in either direction. The ISS is being decommissioned. The KSA has offered you one of the more modern modules if you can build a space tug to come get it. The Kerbal XMC-15 is running a bit low on fuel and needs to refuel somewhere. If it can dock, you earn 20,000 funds but lose 180 liquid fuel and 220 oxidizer. Due to increased safety concerns, it is mandated that your station must have a permanent escape vehicle that can seat at least 3 attached to the station. You may want to keep a bit of the budget open as a contingency... Part VI, Commercial Vehicles, Crew Rotations, and Resupplies In order to fly tourists and researchers to your station, you need crew vehicles. For various reasons, the only ones currently available are too expensive or too overpowered to be of any use to you. For redundancy, 2 crew carrying craft and 2 cargo carrying craft must be designed. Each craft must be flight tested once, and the money for that comes from the initial 600,000 fund budget. These test flights must not be manned and must not carry cargo, and must be flown to the station early on. Each additional craft flown must be paid for via a budget excess or paying customers. The amount of supplies required per year is dictated below: Each Kerbal on the station requires 1 ton of supplies per year. Each researcher on the station requires an additional 1 ton of science experiments per year. Station maintenance and other stuff require 5% of the station's mass in supplies per year. For instance, a 6 person, 50 ton station with 2 tourists and 4 researchers would require 12.5 tons of supplies per year. You can charge rates for flying tourists, scientists, and launching supplies, but the prices must be "fair." Once station assembly is complete, one year's worth of crew rotations and resupplies must be carried out, but after that the challenge will be complete, to keep this from turning into a grindfest. If crew and cargo vehicles are reusable, the cost of that vehicle will be dropped to 33%. All crew vehicles must adhere to man-rating guidelines: Backup parachute Backup electrical systems Can land on both water and land Must possess a launch escape system that will work at any point during ascent Must have a docking port Must have full RCS capability Must have an antenna Must not use EVA seats Must be able to function without crew on board Must launch on a man rated launch vehicle Overall, one SSTO spaceplane proposal may be accepted, if not 0. I said no new lifters, but I'll make one exception for a spaceplane. The government is intrigued by this idea and will pay for one SSTO to be man rated if it can meet these guidelines: Can go-around on landing No solids except in abort system At least some margin Adhere to all of the normal crew vehicle guidelines I will make the final decision on man rating and will provide suggestions, etc. Part VII, Technology Restrictions We don't live in the future, and some technologies are expensive to get approval for! In the design of the modules, crew vehicles, and cargo vehicles, you may not use: 3.75m parts Nuclear engines ISRU parts (not sure why you'd want to, though) Mk3 size parts Ion engines and xenon tanks RAPIER engines The Advanced Grabbing Unit RTGs Inflatable Heat Shield Part VIII, Mod and Gameplay Restrictions Gameplay will take place in stock 1.6.1, no making history. Visual and informational mods are allowed, but nothing that changes the physics is allowed. Other part mods can be loaded, but no parts from them can be used. No cheating! No use of the debug menu, persistent editing, cheat mods, etc. You can quickload and revert, but try to keep it to a minimum. CommNet is enabled. Difficulty options are normal. Part IX, The Future I worry that I have made this challenge too hard and involved. If that's the case then I'll repost with fewer restrictions, but if people get into the challenge (and I hope you do!) then there may very well be a Phase II to this challenge, or even a Phase III. Part X, A List of Things to Consider In general: FIRST OF ALL STAY KIND AND CIVIL. This challenge may require a lot of decision making and possibly debating. I've seen how well the forum deals with it, and I'd love to maintain that standard. Second of all, no roleplay. This should be a given, but something like this could eventually go that way with some bad luck. Third of all, not everyone has a beefy computer. Don't spam parts, and if someone has a bad computer they should launch early on, otherwise someone else can launch it. I won't impose a part limit because I trust y'all, but keep it within reason. For the station: Take the station requirements and refine them into a station design Assign budgets and rockets to each module, assign each module to a person Same with the crew/cargo vehicles Come up with a launch schedule Come up with a crew/cargo schedule and pricing for three years Launch test flights, station modules, and the first year of operations Stuff to keep track of: Overall plan Budget Stuff to launch for the station: Radiators Solar panels Batteries Labs Habs Cupolas Docking ports A docking tug? Science experiments Maybe escape pods? Antennas Command center Engines for re-boosting This list is not complete, it's a general outline to make sure that some of the simple stuff isn't forgotten. Part XI, Progress on the Station: Here I'll write up any progress, plans, or proposals made on or for the station, as well as launch progress, save files, and lifter subassemblies. Launcher subassemblies: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yz4sH7AvU5UA9qF1gIpha_Bt91FQF3w8?usp=sharing Current participants: @Rover 6428 @Barzon Kerman @Johnster_Space_Program @MSA @VA7NFH @Alienwall @fulgur @swjr-swis @GRS @MiscelanousItem Current plans: Part XII, Rules Updates Over the course of the challenge, there have been several unexpected scenarios. Here are some niche case rules: "Simulations" are free. For reusable vehicles, for simplicity, you need not consider construction costs, only operational costs (1/3 vehicle cost). You need not "build" multiple, you can have two docked to the station at once but only pay 33% for the cost of each vehicle per flight. In real life this would obviously be different, but I'm trying to simplify things a bit. As far as the "2 modules and 1 vehicle" limit, permanent escape craft count as a module. At all times the number of seats in descent vehicles must be greater than or equal to the number of Kerbals on board the station. Part XIII, One Last Thing This is a very complicated and experimental challenge. I will do my best to answer any questions. I can't offer station building advice, though. I hope this is interesting and enjoyable for you all! Have fun!

I tried to think of something that could be done with magnets, but after some research I discovered that magnets can't really orbit each other. Plus the capsule is probably magnetic to an extent and that would throw it off. I may think of something else... Wait... I think I have an idea. OoooooOOOoOoO)0)oOoo)()()()()OOOOOOooOOOo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On March 14, 2019, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine sent this message to NASA employees and contractors: Yesterday, I was asked by Congress about the schedule slip of the Space Launch System and plans to get NASA back on track. I mentioned that we are exploring the possibility of launching Orion and the European Service Module to low-Earth orbit on an existing heavy-lift rocket, then using a boost from another existing vehicle for Trans Lunar Injection. Our goal would be to test Orion in lunar orbit in 2020 and free up the first SLS for the launch of habitation or other hardware in 2021. This would get us back on schedule for a crewed lunar orbital mission in 2022 with the added bonus of a lunar destination for our astronauts. We are studying this approach to accelerate our lunar efforts. The review will take no longer than two weeks and the results will be made available. Please know that NASA is committed to building and flying the SLS for the following reasons: Launching two heavy-lift rockets to get Orion to the Moon is not optimum or sustainable. Docking crewed vehicles in Earth orbit to get to the Moon adds complexity and risk that is undesirable. SLS mitigates these challenges and allows crew and payloads to get to the Moon, and eventually to Mars, safer and more efficiently than any temporary solution used to get back on track. I believe in the strength of our workforce and our ability to utilize every tool available to achieve our objectives. Our goal is to get to the Moon sustainably and on to Mars. With your focused efforts, and unmatched talent, the possibility of achieving this objective is real. Ad astra, Jim Bridenstine

There's not much within 23.5 miles of me...

IIRC Dragon 2 is rated for at least 7 days of free flight, I'm not sure if that is enough, though.

Chapter 11

Chapter 10

Just throwing out crazy ideas -- I wonder if they could launch the Dragon 2 / Falcon 9 from Vandenberg, during the retrograde launch window (so the rocket would go mostly west)? I would think it has enough delta-v -- though it would require a more inclined orbit than launching everything out of the Cape. Of course, they don't have the crew infrastructure out there now, but maybe they'll eventually want it anyway (or NASA could make it worth their while). Why would you want to send Dragon into a retrograde orbit? You can't exactly get to the ISS that way.

I'm a little confused about these numbers. Are you talking about getting from LEO to the Moon and back? With a full Falcon second stage, but no hyrdrolox upper stage? Yes. Launching the whole thing on one mostly off the shelf rocket eliminates the need to create docking hardware. I like the DCSS + Orion on FH scheme more. RL10B-02 has an ISP of 462 s, DCSS mass 30.7t wet, 3.5t dry. Should be more than enough dv. True. However, rockets are not lego, and DCSS plus Orion is really big for FH. Also, facepalm, S2 mass isn't included in propellants, so FH would actually do 2.57km/s, still not enough though. With your method, we have 1t of misc hardware, 26t Orion, and 31t DCSS. That's 58 tons. That leaves 4t of propellant in the Falcon stage as well. Dry mass of 31 and mass of 58 gives 2.84km/s. The extra F9 propellants would give 213m/s, for a total of around 3.05km/s. Orion would still need to use its service module a little bit, but not much.

348 s. Ah. I must have had the numbers for the normal Merlin 1D in a vacuum, not the vacuum version in a vacuum... One sec... That wasn't much better. 2.36km/s with an expendable FH.

Hmm... Orion CSM: 26 tons Falcon 9/Heavy second stage dry mass: ~4 tons Mating equipment: ~1 ton? Total: 31 tons Merlin vacuum isp: ~311 seconds 90 tons total, 59 tons of propellant gets you 3.25km/s of Delta-V. So it cannot be done with a single expendable Falcon Heavy. ...But, with the propellant we have, max 31 tons for a total mass of 62 tons, that gives us 2.1km/s. Orion's service module has 1.8km/s IIRC. If the service module propellant was used, and the mission was only a flyby, then it could work in one launch. Plus, Block V has had some upgrades that we haven't seen numbers for. Maybe it has a few percent more performance than it previously did.

 Isn’t 39A already plumbed for hydrogen? Oh, right! But it hasn't been used in like 8 years... It could have been altered, disabled, or it could have worn out in that time.

But then EM-2, which would presumably use EM-1's SLS, could potentially be the first flight of a rocket but still be manned. I heard that they may use ground testing as a substitute for flight testing... Hmm. Also: If I were them, I'd choose Delta IV heavy to get Orion into LEO as it's more proven, and has flown EFT-1, and then Falcon Heavy to boost its full stage two to orbit for cost reasons.

I've mentioned storage before, but if you look at the interior of the ISS and roam around a little: https://www.google.com/maps/space/iss/@29.5602853,-95.0853914,2a,75y,223.98h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szChzPIAn4RIAAAQvxgbyEg!2e0!7i10000!8i5000 You can see just how much of the space is used for storage. I'd wager that any single module space station launched on a Falcon 9 can't really be used as a research station to any significant capacity, and would have to have multiple modules.

Hi, I'd like to say thanks for this mod, it's been great. I'd like to submit a bug report, however. I'm using the 1.3.1 version of the mod, so it may have been fixed, but I don't think it has been, so it might be something you want to look at. I had a "Space Camp" contract spawn with a tourist who had the same name as one of my astronauts. The game decided to deal with this by deleting the tourist and keeping the astronaut. The contract wouldn't register without her on board, so I put her (astronaut) on the rocket. After the mission was over, the contract despawned the tourists, and that astronaut with the same name as the tourist. So, in short, the contract ate my astronaut. Luckily she wasn't a really important astronaut, but still. I don't know if this an issue with all tourism contracts or just this mod. If it's an overarching issue I'll report it on the bugtracker, but if it's not, I'd suggest adding a filter so that the contracts don't spawn with the same name of an already created astronaut, unless what happened to me was extremely rare, in which case it probably won't be worth it. Thank you!

If the station in small enough, 2 things: Why go to a 200m^3 station with cramped quarters and a bunch of stuff that is hard to change out when you can outfit a 1000m^3 starship on Earth with all the equipment you need and park it in orbit for a while? Especially for tourism. But I can't argue with long term research, you're right, that will need a dedicated facility, but I don't think there are too many experiments that need timescales that long. The small station will be made at least partially obsolete by the first station to be built using huge modules lifted by these large lifters. Granted, it will take a while for this station to be built. But you do have a point. I think I overemphasized the time constraints we're under, it's not going to become obsolete overnight.

That doesn't add up. KSP engines have way better TWRs than that.

Okay. So, I think we know our constraints better. No Starship, only current Launch Vehicles Must have a purpose, can be tourism, science, other applications, all of them, or some of them. A thing to think about: If Starship, another cheap SHLV, or maybe even New Glenn reach operational status before our station can make a profit, it probably won't. And from that, in sequence: Our station shouldn't be too ambitious if it needs to stick with current technology, or else it will get stuck and become an irrelevant money sink. Our station should aim to become operational soon so we have time to make profit. Our station should use proven tech, and should be small-ish so it can be built in time. I mean, obviously, it's never* getting built, but with the lessons learned from that station we could then build something more ambitious in the potential Starship era. If we're sticking mostly with proven tech, orbital construction is out, at least to a certain extent. Artificial gravity is probably out as well.

We should probably stick with two business cases that have been proven to exist, at least to a certain extent. Tourism, and research (selling capacity to NASA or similar).

And in terms of raw thrust it has more than the mainsail and about the same as a Twin Boar. Also, do you think that the Vector is overpowered for its form factor? Well, Raptor is twice as powerful, more efficient, and most likely way lighter than it while fitting in almost the same size!

...! I thought when he said "next week" he meant at least a week, but here we are three days later... We could see static fires this week! And if all goes well, a hop test next month should be less likely than a hop test this month!

Now I want to build this in KSP but I'm always short on free time and I should be writing Voyage...