Jestersage

Fair enough. Would love to see how you plan to do the BG-body flap. On the other hand, the nice thing for Apollo style landing is that it's an all-up launch scheme. Obviously a Nova/LK700/LEK would be the easiest due to Direct landing, but even the Apollo-LOR is not too bad, since rendezvous and docking is easier around the Moon. Regardless, just because we can do Rendezvous/Docking, doesn't change the fact it is a pain in the behind. Feels like I need to baby sit each flight and go back and forth in tracking station. As for me, I am debating whether to go with a KVV poster at all myself. I think by not using KVV for soem crafts, it cut down the amount of time spend uploading craft and more on designing.

Didn't you consider leaving your STS Shuttle Vanilla?

Can someone do an explanation/discussion on the new engine plate values? Namely, why? the 5.0m plate is 1 ton with the short shroud!

For those that want to forcefully change the craft parts to the new ones, without doing it in KSP. NO GUARNATEES! USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! ///1.9/// // Skipper engine engineLargeSkipper_ --> engineLargeSkipper.v2_ // Mainsail engine liquidEngine1-2_ --> liquidEngineMainsail.v2_ //Correct errors back radialliquidEngineMainsail.v2_ --> radialLiquidEngine1-2_ // BACC "Thumper" Solid Fuel Booster (no change) solidBooster1-1_

Skip glide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost-glide. As stated in the article: "The technique was used by the Soviet Zond series of circumlunar spacecraft, which used one skip before landing. In this case a true skip was required in order to allow the spacecraft to reach the higher-latitude landing areas. Zond 6, Zond 7 and Zond 8 made successful skip entries, although Zond 5 did not. The Chang'e 5-T1, which flew mission profiles similar to Zond, also used this technique. The Apollo Command Module used a skip-like concept to lower the heating loads on the vehicle by extending the re-entry time, but the spacecraft did not leave the atmosphere again and there has been considerable debate whether this makes it a true skip profile. NASA referred to it simply as "lifting entry". A true multi-skip profile was considered as part of the Apollo Skip Guidance concept, but this was not used on any crewed flights. The concept continues to appear on more modern vehicles like the Orion spacecraft, using onboard computers." TBH, it's useless in KSP pure vanilla play, since Kerbals are fine with 8g re-entry. However, if you want to re-enter a bit more precise, skip glide is one of the way to to land further down. In real-life, skip glide is used for two things, aside from above 1. To avoid landing in place they have no business/ permission to. 2. Out of necessity, they want the re-entry to be more gentle, but retain the usage of capsule. This is used mainly either for delicate cargo return, or an astronaut who suffers physical issues, an re-entry from Moon or even Mars. A test scenario developed during Constellation is the following: Suppose an astronaut is physically injured during moon landing. How to transport that person from moon to a medical facility, either using ISS or even a terrestrial facility? Well, if that is the requirement to be consider "glide entry", I will try...

Is it actually possible to do a skip glide entry with a capsule in KSP -- and how can we tell it's such and not just "I have put the PE high, so it dipped briefly into atmosphere before coming in for a return" From what i can tell, the heat shields have some amount of lift, and I assume the lift value is designed for such purpose.

So in the old EDS plan (where EDS send both Altair and Orion to Moon), the Orion will be orbiting moon in a high inclination orbit that is achieved during TLI? So how much delta-V would be required if a change of longitude is needed?

Question about mission profile, and specifically more on Constellation/Pre-gateway: There is always a requirement to land on the Polar region. May I ask how are the seperate, descent, ascent, and docking operation was supposed to be done, especially under Constellation using EDS? I am trying to think of a few possibility: Capture by Moon so that when orbit inserted, the combined craft is high inclination. Stay in that inclination Insert into a low inclinatrion orbit, then Lander seperate, then land at pole; ascent at pole, then change orbit back to low inclination Both craft goes to polar orbit, then do the seperate, land, ascend, and dock in the orbit inclination Which one is the actual proposal?

Trying to figure out which docking port is better. No, seriosuly...

With the 1.9 Skiff revamp -- and nice looking graphics -- I am curious what is the point of Skiff. Skiff comes in two variants: 2.5m with 2.5 shroud, and the 1.25m mount with 1.875 shroud. Its current performance, in mass, a bit more than half of Skipper, while its thrust is a less than half a skipper. (so if one use 2x skiff, total mass is 3.2t, with thrust at 482/600 kn; comapre to skip's 3.0t, 568.75/650 kn). ISP is comparative identical, and once mounted to a stage it really make minimal difference if you need that amount of thrust (and typically you do, as it is a upper stage engine) So would someone provide a good reason to use 2x skiff instead of 1x skipper in 1.9 (namely bare variant), aside from looks?

Would you consider "surface redezvous" actually rendezvous, or just using such term for the purpose of stating mission profile? For context: Surface rendezvous, specifically that of Lunar Suface Rendezvous, is what used to describe the ILREC 1990s plan, in which a lander with lander with ISRU land first to deliver oxygen to the subsequence lander for the return trip. Another I can think of that is similar is the Mars Direct, where a lander land on Mars with ISRU to refuel, then once done, another craft will land; then crew depart on the first lander.

To expand on this: Note: lander in all the rendezvous procedure can be weaker because Mun/Moon have lower gravity, so need less TWR to ascent and descent, which inturns means less fuel need to be carried, but means less delta V Direct Ascent: using 1 rocket stack to launch 1 space craft, that goes to Kerbin Orbit, which goes to Mun orbit, then land on Mun surface, take off from Mun surface into Mun orbit, then from there return to Kerbin. KerbalX and a few tutorial use this method, and it is easiest, since it have no rendezvous. IRL, this require a large rocket, but for KSP, you can use asperagus staging or just go moar booster, as we have no budget to concern about. Requires a lot of delta-V since you need to carry the fuel all the way. IRL, proposals include the Nova rocket using the original Apollo, LK700, and the Original LEK earth (kerbin) orbit rendezvous: using 2 or more rocket stack, each carrying a spaceraft (possible configuration: 1 lander and an orbiter; or 1 lander and a space tug; or 1 lander and fuel tanker) that goes to Kerbin Orbit. In Kerbin orbit, rendezvous (docking) so both craft join as one. Then depend on architecture: Using orbiter architecture: orbiter use their fuel to launch both craft to Mun. Once in Mun orbit, Lander seperate, goes onto surface. Lander ascend to Mun orbit, dock with Orbiter. discard lander. Orbiter return to Kerbin. Using optimized space tug architecture: space tug use their fuel to launch both craft to Mun. Once in Mun orbit, Lander seperate and discard space tug, goes onto surface. Lander ascend to Mun orbit and return to Kerbin Using fueler architecture: fuel tanker, or fuel depot dock with craft and refuel the lander. Only lander goes to Mun orbit, then land on Mun surface, take off from Mun surface into Mun orbit, then from there return to Kerbin. Planned for SpaceX starship. Apollo/N1 Lunar Orbit rendezvous: using 1 rocket stack to launch 2 spacecraft (1 orbiter and 1 lander), that goes to Kerbin Orbit, which goes to Mun orbit. Lander seperate, then land on Mun surface, Lander ascend to Mun orbit, dock with Orbiter. discard lander. Orbiter return to Kerbin. Used by Apollo and planned for N1 Artemis (true) Lunar Orbit Rendezvous: using 2 rocket stack to launch 2 spacecraft (1 orbiter and 1 lander), both goes to Munar orbit on their own. Once in Mun orbit, two craft dock together (may or may not involve a spacestation.) Lander seperate, goes onto surface. Lander ascend to Mun orbit, dock with Orbiter. Discard lander. Orbiter return to Kerbin. Lunar surface "rendezvous": What is used to describe the LUNOX strategy. using 2 rocket stack to launch 2 spacecraft; 1 ISRU refueler and 1 lander. Each goes to Kerbin orbit, then Mun orbit, then Mun surface on its own. Once on Mun surface, ISRU refuel the lander (through refueling rover actually in the LUNOX plan). Lander then take off from Mun surface into Mun orbit, then from there return to Kerbin. Note that any rendezvous is quite difficult, but I find that rendezvous aroudn Kerbin/earth to be tougher than around Mun/Minmus.

Question: Do you want direct ascent, Apollo LOR, Artemis LOR, or Constellation EOR? I really don't think raptor9 have a Direct Ascent at all, event back in 1.4, 1.3 I recommend the standard KerbalX, tbh. Stock, comes with the game, and is DA.

Note: for 0.1.0, the KVV removed the white adjustment and FXAA adjustment; both of which i do not really use, except to adjust original's birghtness. Fortunately, GIMP come into rescue. As I want something closer to KSP standard effect instead of outline, You need to bump up brightness (located under "color" menu). Contrast will also provide some interesting effect that makes it a bit more cartoonish, so play around with it. Example of current KVV results with GIMP adjustment: https://i.imgur.com/CRwwGsz.png

Thank you!!!!!!! Also, whoever that maintain spacedock, please point to this version. Thanks

Also, what do I need to change so the Spacesky isn't a light show? I am very certain the view from outspace is... darker. (As noted, I am usign Astronemer until SVE return)

By the way, do I need the config file for EVE?

This is less of a "which one is the best", but more of "What i can use to replace EVE+Scatterer" So I think I start to run into some artifacts issues with EVE+Scatter+SVE on 1.8, which I used up to 1.7. Looking at the Update page, I found out that SVE (Which EVE use for texture) is now in some kind of license trouble, so texture is not available or something? (Someone clarify on this) Anyway, I need a list of recommendation of 1.8 visual pack. So far I only know of Astronomer's Visual Pack (and it have two version, Stock and Ad Astra -- what are the differences in laymen's term?), but do have concern about resource usage. Also, was looking at SiFVE, but it only go up to 1.6? Any other visual packs that does not use that much resources?

So it's been a month. I think it's acceptable for me to ask if it's possible to release some kind of beta or Alpha. If not, how we can compile it ourselves (yes, some of us are non mod makers)

So we need a bit more precise name -- because the "aerodynamic capsule that seats 2" can be either Mk2 Command Pod, which have the diameter of 1.875, or Mk2 Cockpit, which have a diamter of "mk2". And that affect atomospheric drag... which in turns matter if the performance of your craft depends on minimal drag. KSP drag modelling is simplified to the point that what diameter between the parts matter if and only if your craft depends on minimize drag to go to the orbit. So that means, if your craft is Horizontal takeoff, you better make sure there are no mismatch of diamter. On the other hand, if your craft is vertical take off (aka using a rocket), just wrap it with a fairing and go.... or even spam as rocket engines as possible. A perfect example are the numerous Orion clones (and in my case, Russian Federasiya), which is a 1.875m tank beneath a 2.5m capsule; and the Starliners clones that modeled after the recent test (eg: https://kerbalx.com/The_ShadowZone/Starliner-K2). If there are fairing, then the thrusters does not need to counter the atmospheric drag induced. But if there is no fairing, the thrusters need to counter it by being powerful and/or having the extra fuel to have the capacity to do so (or as we say around here, "Moar boosters") ---- The thing about this game -- just like in real world, is that there are no singular solution. There is a "relatively best solution", but may not be easy solution.

So I have a question regarding the gateway, because after 7 pages my eyes started to get dizzy. I do understand it have multiple proposal, ranging from 4 modules inline to basically a cross (look from the side)... so what is the current modules being proposed? (ignoring the proposal by Roscosmo, who had originally threatened to do their own thing, and the relocate-ISS-module proposals. According to the current wikipedia entry: (PPE -- ESPIRIT) -- Int'l Hab -- US Hab -- Roscosmos Airlock/multidock All inline Logistic modules/supply ship dock to the Intl's Hab. EDIT: According to Russian Space Web, seems what happened is that PPE split into two parts, the PPE and ESPIRIT

Hey Raptor9, thanks for being one of the best community builders and definitely inspire many people for their builds -- especially when looking through all the builds from beta to v1 to even now, watching how your craft build end up giving me a direction myself. And while Raptor9 already address it, he probably will focus on his real life. That being said, many of his craft are a good way to learn -- and there bound to be some disagreement between his build style and your own. My builds start out partly in a silent, positive protest against his very high part count of the v1.3(?) versions ((particular his Orion-inspired, which composed of Oscar tanks) -- then when 1.4/MH comes out, I know I have to make a low part count version instead. So as I refine my crafts so it approach his level, I also learn a few other things. And there are a few other build decision I disagree with him, just as no doubt people will disagree my build decision -- yet each have some good parts we can learn from. So thank you, @Raptor9 for being the end goal of many builders. For many others: climb that mountain. It's there. (Just don't copy it or simply simplify his craft!)

But in a way, to build something a noob can fly is a challenge in itself. So pretty much aim prograde is the best answer. (TBH, follow by fly and aim a x degree without further adjustment) I am not asking for others to build that one button rocket that is designed and setup to achieve orbit with no inputs; I am asking for that goal, which happens to be"one button rocket that is designed and setup to achieve orbit with no inputs". In any case, the main reason I ask this question is because I am wondering why my SSTO "ascensor" have significantly less downloads in comparison to a bunch of other crafts that are just as "non-standard", and I always look back, when I am a noob, -- and I realize that (aside from it's not optimized) step-based flight profile is more difficult for most people. That is where you and I think differently, I guess. When you say the last line, you may think of me "so you are trying to have someone to build something for the OP." But I see that to be challenge and the answer itself -- because the less control a customer need, the more we builders have to account things for, which is what make craft building interesting. --- I think the comparison of engineer vs management in terms of space flight: Whether to try to build a useful probe, or just strap some battery and radio transmitter and send it on an ICBM (sputnik); Whether STS should be a good TSTO, or make the space shuttle as happened to satisfy customer requirement of big payload and budget. It's a challenge, and they did it; they didn't say the schedule is too tough; they didn't say stop. They built it. They should have congrats themselves for finding a solution and not say "well, you have to fly it this way." Some call it overbudget. I call it a good product. Or something more relevant: Apple may have the best hardware, the best software engineer, but what make them successful, in my opinion, is that they actually have management hats. Customers say "I don't want to manage my stuff but stable"; linux say all these Command Line. Windows assume drag and drop. Apple just say "sure thing" and gave what customers want. Sure, user no longer have control, but they want it easy. And they can overcharge if needed. This is precisely what I mean by think less like engineers and think more like managers. Or for long term, we need engineers who can think like managers and marketers. Sometimes don't look at the evil, but that our moral, our "baseline" limiting ourselves.

While this advice is helpful to teach people how to make a good SSTO, it does not help with my question. In short, my question is more of "how to make an SSTO so that I don't have to learn how to fly", or in a more professional way (as in, creating crafts with other users in mind) "how to make an HSSTO that even a total noob can fly and get to orbit." Or to flip your proposal around, design an SSTO so that "You just need to adjust your SSTO design until you get it, each SSTO practice and plans are similar". A few things I can think of: 1) Anything that does not require adjusting trim and... not sure what else. Of course the SSTO itself is NOT efficient. I am not asking for efficient in engineering. Yet, in itself is a challenge. It helps take us from thinking like engineers and thinking like management

This is less of "how do I fly an SSTO carrying X ton of stuff to Y-km orbit", but more of: Based on what you recall, what procedure of SSTO (aka flight profile) would you consider to be easy for most players?