Jestersage

While I swore to myself to go stock only -- so that the ship I built doesn't get broken when Squad updated KSP --, I am starting to debate whether to play with Mods. if so, which one. The one I have heard are the KER, and another one that also help build; should I get them? Also, what are the other good mods? I was thinking of getting interstellar.

Obviously, there's no Candaarm in stock game. So if I want to make a drone with the KLAW, what do I need to make it works? Do I need to watch for thrust, the weight, the TWR?

So there's no way to go direct ascent with a lab to Duna without refueling?

My understanding of refueling in KSP is that it involves capturing an asteroid or landing on a planet/moon, and then mine, then covert them into fuel, right? If so, was there any real life plans (on paper only, duh) to Mars or Venus that also involve refueling outside of Earth? If not, I am trying to see if it's possible to do a Direct Ascent to Duna/Eve without refueling.

Is there a good sample for a single launch to Duna ship with lab on KerbalX? Money is not an issue.

While I have created a craft that is Lunex style and got it working, I am still trying to refine it so that it is as close to a replica as possible. So while I have read the Lunex pdf, I still have some questions: Does it have room for a Rover? (my understanding is that cargo will travel there seperately; my original version did have a rover) Should the booster be using the 3.5m parts (Saturn/Nova class) or 2.5m? (Unable to derive anything, since all they really said is "large booster". I used 3.5 in my original version) Which one is more realistic: using Solid Booster, Liquid Booster, or no Booster? (This one is literally a "use of liquid and/or solid booster) How many people does it carry in total? (My version can carry 6, but original plan is 3?) Is having nuclear battery realistic? (That's what my original version used) I do realized that lunex is mostly just on paper, but I do want to get the replica version done well.

The KSP Wiki stated that at later stage, it is better to rescue Kerbals than to hire. That being said, I only have 3 scientist, two of them are already assigned to a research lab. So should I hire a scientist? Or should I wait until another rescue mission pop up? As of now I do not have contracts that require me to hire more, but would like to have one extra for my Minmus trip.

Okay, I have 3 tourist mission to Mun that Have a total of 10 tourist (2+3+6). I have two ways 1 Mission at a time Do them seperately also, should I just extend my Mk-2 cap for the 6 tourist mission, use drone core, or use Mk3?

Good to know that performance is not affected by debris. The reason I am asking about "realism" is because even with orbital decay IRL, you actually have countries (eg: United States under FCC) that requires EoL satelliete to either have a perfect control burn to make sure it burns perfectly, or send it crash onto the moon or Heliocentric orbit.

Thank you. I was trying to reduce the cost of my Lunex further before uploading it to KerbalX. It works... at the cost of 350k. Actually 3 stages and whatnot. I suspect that 50k of that comes from using nuclear battery instead of the fuel cell.

I been goign through KerbalX in order to improve my stock crafts, and one of the best reference designs I personally see is those by Raptor 9. Two thing I noticed about his design: It has one less stage than the real world counterpart. His "titan V" is the Saturn V analogue, and it has one less stage. Should this be consider the general rule of thumb? Instead of using one large tank, he used two tanks that gives the same amount of fuel in the end (Once again, refernece his Titan-V. Is this due to TWR? If so, is this the correct way to do so?

On the other hand, the fact that most career contracts/farming just need one person pretty much proved how OP probe is. However, TBH, in real life Probe / Satelliates is pretty much OP. In practicality, there are really no reason to have manned flights except for prestige. Hell, MOL and Almaz was dropped precisely because probe can do better than having humans. What they really need is to make prestige useful; that will in turn make having a manned Kerbal program useful. For example, maybe make having science / prestige point grow exponentially instead of multiply/additive with more Kerbals on it.

Are these for Mk-1, Mk2, or Mk3 configurations? Also, Your Point 2 "Jettison the Terrier pods" makes it no longer SSTO. Just a reusable spaceplane ala Space Shuttle.

One of the problem with KSP is that many solutions offered here can be summed up with "require only one Kerbal". As a personal rule, I always insist on two at least, but I do have to admit it's definitely a correct answer. As long as you have a scientist and a remote controll core, you are good to go on anything. But here's my question: why does IRL manned flight require a crew of 2, except for basic testings? Even PRC just do one single-taikonaut mission (Shenzhou 5) before they go with 2 then 3 taikonauts. And are there mods that pretty much force you to go "2 or more" in order to be successful? Really dislike all these single kerbalnauts solutions.

Able to actually orbit given similar mass/fuel is good enough for me. As of now, my SSTO plan have about the same success as the Soviets. Ironically got myself a Lunex....

Another question I want to confirm: VSSTO is just not as efficent as the Standard Spaceplane SSTO, right? My understanding is that SSTO also used the lift from the lifting surface to achieve orbit.

As part of my continuous research, here's a question I been having In Kerbal: If SSTO is so great, why do we still use Rocket/Vertical launchers, other than the fact that it's easier to fly and construct? Also, it's a principle of mine not to fly any mission with anything less than 3 Kerbals once past LKO. Personal Agency policy. Perhaps I really need to install RSS...

I see. TBH more interested in replicating the launch vehicles of Earth (hence the large, expensive launch vehicles that I shown in other threads since Saturn V is a 3-stage design, not 2; you will notice the few design questions are the prototypes USA/Russia tried to make, ala Lunex and SpiralOS) So use RAPIER as jets only?

I decided to finally make a SSTO-to-minmus, simply due to "everyone is doing it". However, based on the samples of good SSTO (they have forum posts in here or KerbalX, can go to Minmus and Mun in the same mission) usually can only carry a single kerbal (max 2), and unable to carry much (around 2t). Is that part of the design constrain? Also, is it possible to make a SST-Minmus/Duna direct? Lastly, why do some people use Rapier on top of NERV? Can't you just go Whiplash + NERV?

Here's my question: Does debris affect the performance of the game? In terms of realism, Is it better to leave the debris, or should they be desposed / moved to somewhere else? If they should be disposed, would you prefer the realistic way (de-orbit or heliocentric orbits), or the Big red X?

Actually before all these... I need to figure out how to launch it. Currently my Rover/Mobile Base is too heavy and off axis. (I blame myself for that -- used a design form Kerbal) The thing is i really want to make a single body design. Maybe I should just go with my own design.

Okay, last report on this thread: I had gone with a Vector-based LRB such that it outputs 670N thrust; even though it burns shorter, it seems to be more than enough to take it to outer Kerbin atmosphere. However, I still can't just rely on the booster to complete the orbit. So I swapped it from Rapier to Dart + Juno, which allows me to orbit and deorbit. The tiny Juno is more than enough for course correction. I had tried two carriers: One is the same Mk-3 based version, which requires me to reduce fuel further to decrease mass. The other, using a lengthened Ravenspear Mk-III with more jets, allowed me to launch it perfectly. TBH, which carrier would be closer to the Spiral 50/50 carrier planet, Mk-II or Mk-III? The one on Kerbal X is Mk-III, but it can't even go supersonic!

While I had already landed a simple Mun Base (tower), for the next contract that requires landing a base, I am thinking of landing a mobile base on it instead. Issue is that I prefer to launch using VAB and rockets. And to do so I need to wrap it up using a fairing. However, the mobile base is basically perpendicular to the direction of a Vertical landing. Shall I either make it so that it fits inside a Mk3 cargo bay and have it roll out of the cargobay, or shall i do my best to put thrusters/RCS on the base? Also, once it completed the vertical landing, how do I control the thrusters so I can place the wheels on Mun's ground? Or do I really have no choice but to figure out how to use a Spaceplane to fly it?

Technically they are the same ship, except the first one use Aerospike + Poodle instead of 2 NERV (one thruster in return portion and one in lander portion). The second one also enable me to carry less fuel, and thus have a small cargo bay that currently have a Inline dock (can be swap for Science JR). Otherwise both have room for 6 total, as well as a service bay that contain a rover. The NERV version is actually capable to do a rescue mission around Mun, land, pick up even more passengers from the Mun Base, and then return home. Not sure if launch vehicle is overkill. The Lander/Re-entry vehicle is more or less perfected, as is the upper stage. Once my Aerospike version is tested, I will probably sign up on Kerbal X, since I am surprise there are no Lunex in there. Edit: replaced all Kerbodyne parts with the Rockomax parts, dropped the price to 180k.

By the way, how many Kerbals and other equipments can yours carry? Mine is 6 Kerbals + Rover and possibly a science junior.