Jestersage

Question re: MOL clone (LV-1C) On your old version, you have 4x RCS thrusters. On your new versions, there are no thrusters at all; is there any reason why you forgo it?

And the thing is an old Sandy Bridge-E. Good grief.

Now that I finally replaced the HD7770 with the 1070, I want something that can really wow it. Aside from turning every graphic settings to the max, are there are good mods? In particular, those cloud effects and etc seems to be good on videos...

You are in mirror mode. Press R to go back to Symmetry mode

Lander only: I love Raptor9's design, and this is one of his simplest one: https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/LV-4A-Armadillo-Thunder-4-Heavy. Some assembly required, require his EV-3 as a full package. And this kind of Windows Mentality is why people like Apple more -- they just tell you how if it's doable.

As part of my plan to recreate ESA Hermes, I also decide to make the MTFF. However, a basic question leaves me a few different designs: what is it? Is it a space station ala Salyut/Skylab? A "mothership" that have its own thrusters? A module of the Freedom for microgravity experiment? An ESA take on the MOL?

Before I go and try to figure it out myself, I just want to check if it's possible to build a pure nuclear SSTO to LKO? To Mun? (Inspired by this)

Yeah. Death Penalty is cheaper. Or Fallout Vaults I always come to under stand that any "vagrant colony" is exactly as it is: a prison colony, an out-of-sight, out-of-mind argument that sounds more humane on paper (hey, we are letting these people who are not like us to have their own space! No longer locked in prison cells!) but is actually worse. So whenever I think of this question in terms of the poor, I honestly does not expect them to actually survive.

But that's just a typical cycle Roman Republic + Empire: 509BC to 27BC, 27BC to 476AD (about 500 years if excluding republic) Spanish Empire: 1492 to ~ 1800 (300 years) British empire: ~1500 to ~ 1945 (about 400 years) Chinese Empire: ~2000 years, with splits and reunion from time to time. Ming Dynasty: 276 years; Qing dynasty, 267 years How did this thread become a talk about colonization? Thought it was about pessimism?

To begin with, the only way to provide both is to do the same as both planes, railways, and cars does -- make the launch cheap. In fact, building less rocket is actually the reason why SpaceX/Blue Origin can become viable. The other thing is to have a reason to go up

I think one of the reason we see the "prisoners/undesirables" happening is because the slave trade and the Australia prison colony showed it may be possible to do so, as long as you treat the passenger not as human but "human resources". I am confused about your question - isn't egalitarian access the same as general access?

As a Gundam fan, one thing I do notice is that: Western shows tend to depict colonies is where you send the elites up, while Japanese shows tend to depict colonies is where you send the undesaireable up. One thing that had been bugging me is that: while it's more likely for elites to migrate to "a better place", In general people tend to prefer to stick to the same place, especially the elites -- no one want to move unless they are forced to typically (Australia for example), or find a better place. So I would like to ask you: Which is better in terms of cost, sending elites up or send undesirables up? Which option is far more likely to happen? Can this kind of segregation be considered as good policy or not?

So... Super Mile High Club by the Chinese?

As a computer engineer, you tend to need to be pessimist (or perceive as pessimist) so you can build the proper use case and squash all the bugs. Otherwise you will have Apple's Battery timer.

I think that's a problem with "Stock only" is: what defines as stock only? While everyone agree with "using stock parts only" is one, is KER stock? Alarms? Timers? Reuse mods? Visual Mods? Porkjet Parts? As for the choices of drink, eat, and clothes, sometimes how they eat or drink or clothes and a mere outward sign to the way they think. In KSP, since it's a single player game, it shouldn't matter, but when people start to interact with each other, no matter how small or large, then all these choices matter. I would like to point out about Payday 2 (another game besieged by stock vs mods, kick vs no kick), until I realized that I can just point to the wall behind me.

Going to make that my signature. Now we just need a logo.

Stock elitism is needed to be honest. If we don't have one then, we should have one now.

I noticed you removed SR-19B. How come?

His old lv3a worked in 1.2, and since he is working on updating his design for 1.2, you actually see less fuel lines.

Mod-based challenge need to be upfront -- this challenge is written as if stock games have a similar chance when it is not. Also, mods tend to break not just a save, but the entire game, and with KSP now at 1.2.2... And the warning is more for that "Yes, this challenge will be skewed toward modded games." As long as they are upfront I will be fine.

Your mission: Launch a ship to Kerbin orbit, completely unguided (i.e. the only interaction you have is to hit the spacebar to stage), using nothing but SRBs. Background: This challenge is inspired by Ōsumi-5, the first successful Japanese satellite, launched in 1970. It was put into orbit aboard the Lambda 4S launch vehicle: a four-stage rocket entirely powered by solid fuel, that had no guidance or control systems at all. As described here, This immediately struck me as one of the most Kerbal things I ever heard, so naturally this challenge was the first thing to spring to mind. The rules: You must put a craft into orbit around Kerbin. It must be powered solely by solid fuel. No engines that are supplied by liquid fuel or any other propellant. So, basically, just SRBs, plus Sepratrons and/or LES if you like. It must have no control input whatsoever, other than the staging action This includes not just control input like WASD, but also adjusting tweakables in flight, adjusting staging in flight, etc. No SAS turned on. No active reaction wheels at all (not that this matters, with SAS turned off and no player input...) No aerodynamic control surfaces (fixed surfaces only). (again, not that this matters, with SAS turned off and no player input...) With the exception of two specific mod parts (see below), it must be pure stock only. No modded parts at all, other than specified below. No mods that affect game physics at all. No mods that affect ship control at all (such as MechJeb, or the flight computer in RemoteTech). No modification (e.g. via ModuleManager) any of the characteristics of stock parts. You can use the stock game's built-in editor tweakables, that's it. Mods that have no physical effect on the ship at all are fine (e.g. visual F/X like PlanetShine or Scatterer, or info displays) No timer auto-mods -- if you can use those, do the other one. No time warp allowed. This one's a bit subtle... it's to avoid a sneaky back-door way for the player to get some control of the ship. Turning on time warp will instantly stop all ship rotation, which is an unfair magical "stabilization" of the ship. So, don't. Physics warp is allowed as a timesaver, if you like, as long as you're not exploiting it to cause some sort of kraken effect. Submission guidelines: Just post in this thread, with the following items included. Please share your .craft file somewhere public (e.g. dropbox, Google Drive, whatever) so people can download and try it out. (The fun part here is that the .craft file is all that's needed, since no piloting is involved. Anyone can just hit spacebar on the launch pad and see how it flies!) Include either a screenshot or a brief description of your craft on the launchpad. Provide the following information (which, of course, can be checked by anyone who downloads your .craft file): Mass on launchpad Mass after achieving orbit Periapsis altitude Apoapsis altitude Orbital eccentricity. This is calculated as: (Ap - Pe) / (Ap + Pe + 2RKerbin), where RKerbin is Kerbin's planetary radius of 600 km (or 600,000 m... be sure that all three numbers are in the same units!) Payload fraction. This is defined as orbital mass divided by launchpad mass. The winners: A few categories here. I'll update as people post results. The "Just Do It" Award: Just get to orbit, by the above rules. Any orbit is fine. There's no "rank" or "top" here, it's just a complete list of people who have done the challenge and posted their results, in the order received. I'll include myself at the top of the list, due to my example above. (no entries yet) The "Precision" Award: Get into the most circular orbit, defined as having the lowest eccentricity. Top 10: (no entries yet) The "Efficiency" Award: Get into orbit with the highest payload fraction. Top 10: (no entries yet) The "Pee Wee" Award: Get into orbit with the smallest possible launchpad mass. Top 10: (no entries yet) The "Totally Kerbal" Award: This is a completely subjective category, based on my personal opinion. It's for listing people who go above and beyond the call of duty by achieving insanely ingenious things using only the above rules. Landed on the Mun? Orbited Kerbin and then landed on the runway? Got to orbit without using any of the allowed SmartParts mentioned above? Something else that makes people go, "holy heck, how did they do that?" Here's your chance to show off! Q: isn't there another challenge that is similar? A: Not quite! This one would actually allow stock players to have the same chance! When you use the timer/auto stage, your multistage rocket can go beyond spamming Seperatrons, as well as lower TWR as needed. You also get the delta V to actually established orbit -- 32 seperatron + 1 KD-25K just barely have 3467 dv, while have 3 SRB will yield only 3.5k dv -- both just barely clear the bare minimum dv needed to establish orbit in an efficent flight path. Even spaming KD-35K will not get you to orbit. In short, you cannot do that challenge without cheats and/or mods. I am attempting to do a copy of Ariane PPH. Just need to figure out the seperatron and we are in business.

@Snark, you still haven't address my concern that this challenge is skewered toward modded game. I would rather you just be honest about that as a fact, or do something for stock -- you should know that without the CHEATS from the mod, stock games cannot stage and will always lose out due to TWR (and delta-v -- 32 seperatron + 1 KD-25K just barely have 3467 dv) and etc. Or are you just trying to promote a mod? Just be honest, will ya? EDIT (x time) Checked your file: It requires mods. No go for stock.

So it's pretty much a mod only challenge, since a multistage rocket will give inherited advantages. Post a warning next time you want to skew a challenge for people who use mods, so stock only players can avoid having their hopes up.

Well, Some redesign is needed. https://imgur.com/a/kPSNQ The basic design is literally usign the EV-2A / LV-1A + titan5, remove the LV, then put in the rover and the lab. Since it was suppose to be used to use the upper stage for the trans-venus injection, I added a rockomax-8 fuel tank. However, it ran out of fuel before hitting venus. This would make sense, as the original plan utilize a wet workshop, and thus would have much greater fuel capacity. I am going to try strapping extra fuel tanks on the side, but that already made it no longer suiting your design philosophy (as far as I can tell) I may, however, show the ESA Hermes clone some time, which I built using your Thunder series.