Jestersage

Thanks. I just found it too myself. Need to serarch it through the images...

Does using bigger hinge/servo allows better payload handling? I do know that using the bigger rotors allows rotational stability, espeically when using the S-type props.

Can we put a memorial of him in KSC?

So reading up on LESA (lunar exploration system for Apollo) on Astronautix shows this tidbit: So the question is, being 1968, How did NASA envision removing the payload from the standard "bottom-mounted" descent stage? AFAIK, at that time, there was no cranes, ATHLETE system, or even a Straddle-type lander (aka Lunox) planned.

So I am makign a plane with double prop, one on each side. I had double checked them such that one is clockwise and the other counterclockwise. Both at maximum output. The plane still row to the right once it lift off the ground. Even when I created contra-prop (so total 4 prop) to test the issue, I still have the roll. Thus, what may cause the issue?

Okay, so one of the Easter Egg is Neil Armstrong Memorial, on Mun. In the past, when the Kerbalmaps is running, we can just punch in the coordinate. Now that it's down, we need to do it my manual So base on this map of KSP wiki (https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/File:MunBiomeMap.png): -Which crater is it in? -where of the crater (north, west, south etc) -Just outside of the crater or inside?

So far, I discover that there are two possibility to use Fuel for prop plane: LF only, using the LF rotary engines LFO+Fuel cell, driving electrical prop Does anyone know which one is more efficient? it seems like they last a LONG time. Also, if one just want to have a front mounted engine, what is the efficiency compare to a Turbofan with the reverse shroud deployed?

Besides, all 3 can be remedied by either a RW, RCS thrusters, or the RV-1 Cub (which is designed to use with Kodiak but can be used for anythign else.

The AeroSpike, Kodiak, and NERV are the only others that does not Gimbal. Kodiak was basically a souped up Reliant at a cheaper price that fits three diameters, so if one want to build a proper sized Proton (ie not using vector), you can.

Okay, I think this confirm with the blueprint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX8-IXdABuc

Oops. I double checked. Astronautix wrote "Direct landing", not "direct ascent".

According to Astronautix, for Lunar Base building, Russians conclude a Direct Landing Lander is the "most practical method for emplacement and support of a lunar base, since lunar orbit rendezvous methods restrict possible base locations to a narrow band around the lunar equator." This can be seen in the Vulkan LEK Can someone explain the reasoning behind it? (Note: Astroantuix use "direct landing", not "direct ascend") So it's not what happen when they leave, but how they arrive. By Vulkan LEK, seems like it's just your standard DA landing profile.)

So unlike other builders, I can only revise the crafts one at a time. That being said, the "HuiMu" Spacestation is revised. Despite it being nothing more than a lab, a service module, and science experiment, I decided to delegate the HuiMu station as a low-techtree build (TL6) -- and thus, some stuff, even science experiments, are missing. If anyone encounter issue with using it at their career progress, let me know, and provide me your layout of TechTree. While the "Advanced Exploration" node is needed, others parts can be let go if I have sufficient info. Otherwise, I will gradually update my earlier crafts. The update also bring about a refinement in my Kerbal universe concept. if you notice at the top left of the poster you will notice a red logo, composed of Chinese seal script. The name for the organization, based in Dessert Launch Site, is currently known as TianPin Collegiate (天品公行） . Anyone that knows their pinyin will realize it's just a wordplay for the chinese word of dessert. In any case, a quick outline of the concept behind JS Hangtian. While Kerbin contains numerous manufacturer, the leadership that actually utilize the products for the spacecraft and exploration belongs to JS Hangtian, which oversees the overall process. The only requirement is that the craft they employ is efficent and have limited impact to the environment (IRL: CPU). However, the design was split between 3 different space agency/bureau: The KSC, the Woomerang Design Bureau, and the TianDian Collegiate (Chinese Analogue) Because of how they were formed, the design philsophy varied a bit too. KSC and Woomerang at first differ only by aethestic, with KSC prefer a streamlined look, while Woomerang goes with whatever works. However, the Ladle YiWCC shifted Woomerang to one that also start to count for best performance for the lowest cost, as they were frequently short in Cash. This is where TianPin Collegiate comes in: they provided funding to Woomerang, and in exchange they received what Woomerang had on paper. However, unlike Woomerang, TianPin was constrained by actual technological development , and thus HuiMu is a barebone design; however, due to the ample funding TianDian themselves have, they eventually acquired enough technology not just from their own research, but also from KSC themselves, and thus they shifted their design toward maximum performance. What the above backstory means is that KSC will be NASA focus, Woomerang is Russia Focus, and TianPin is technically Chinese focus, but with many of their designs also souped-up version of Woomerang and even that of KSC, which is what many of CNSA paper plans are.

I was originally thinking of just Prograde/Retrograde in terms of the Orbit... of course, by the time when they do drift out of the orbit's prograde/retro grade, there are other problem.

The thing is, it's one of those builds where I am trying to limit the technology available to the craft, so target lock is out for now (I know I can add the fly-by-wire hub if I really want to go that route)

Well, the target (passive side) would be space station, while the active side is a spaceship/capsule/plane/shuttle. Now the spaceship will assume to operate in stability hold position, and use RCS to maneuveur. Now, if you tell me that once I switch vessel view from the target to the active spacecraft, what SAS mode they operate doesn't matter, then I have my answer. (It's one of those based on the capability of the parts, select the right part for the build)

Based on everyone's experience, durign rendezvous, IF I enabled SAS on the target, which one is easiest: stability hold, or one of the orientation hold? (eg prograde/retrograde)

Hold off on the prop stuff for now (Engines are LF though)

You actually have a way to "kinda" bring it back by using RangerCorp -- by making a LKS or Kliper Clone (You will have to figure out how to resolve the miniport problem), and thus have a mid-size cargo plane at the top of the rocket stack instead. I myself actually experiment with them during my early gameplay eras (in fact my first Mun landing is done with a Lunex clone), and the benefit is that it's much easier to fly than your side-mounted SVR-23, while have the same wing mounted flight. It differ from your SVR-10 mainly due to the cargo trunk or the extra capacity cabin crew. Now of course I am going to go ahead, but seems like many people want to use your stuff. While you may not be as famous as Matt Lowe or Scott Manley, within this forum you do have some hardcore fans. --- Anyway, take it easy. I will go back to refine my stuff. I have to do it while you are away ;-)

KerbalX is the Stock Asparagus Staging Rocket: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbal_X Constellation MTV (Mars transfer Vehicle), aka Copernicus, is the planned Vehicle to take Astronauts to Mars during constellation period (pre-2001). google "Constellation Mars transfer", and you will eventually come across teh MTV in 3 different configuration: The initial 3 NTR, then 4 NTR plus extended inline and dropable fuel tank, then 4 NTR with "Star-truss" fuel tank. Around here, due to capability to build an actual Asparagus staged rocket, if it's normal rocket with no crossfeed, you can just call them Core+Booster. However, for NTR, the closest Architecture is actually Von Braun-Mars - not asparagus, but the side NERVA boosters get dropped off and return to Earth Orbital station. www.astronautix.com/i/imis1968.html www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunmarpedition-1969.html So how it translate to KSP is that, since people based it on these two designs: Design 0: No drop off at all. Typically used for SSTO. Design 1: Constellation approach: Put desire amount of NERVA at one end, and then put dropable fuel tank. Drop off tank when empty Design 2: von braun parallel-design: Strap a bunch of NERVA-booster on it in parallel. May or May not have crossfeed. Drop off the stage as needed while core stage burn. ay or may not have addition stage in serial. I really do not see other variant regarding Nerva. --- So your table is crating confusion because we do not know if they are hook up to each other in series, which is the second aspect of Von braun (second and thrid stage are serial-connection). The only conclusion that I can reach from your table is that, Assuming it is asparagus and counting from Bottom, there is a core stage, plus 15 other parallel somehow, then not sure what get dropped off each time. Then once the bottom's core stage is burned, 4th stage comes about, which have 1 core stage + 7 parallel... Otherwise, if they are all lit, then it's just your standard serial. --- If you cannot show your picture, my suggestion: just do one parallel stage. Design 1 Will be a certain size fuel tank with x number of NERVA at the bottom. Nothing get detach Design 2 is asparagus staging; 1-Core+2x. Drop 2 (balance issue) each time. No more than 1 parallel stack, but can attach as many around the core if needed. Eg: An asparagus with 1 core stage + 8 side stage. Using KerbalX construction, Fuel path will be in S shape (as seen in https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Asparagus_staging)

Hey Raptor9, since you played it longer than I did: Did you create the story first, or did you made the crafts, then start to create some kind of background of The Space Program on Kerbal? I see. I decided to go with 4~5m = 2.5m Kerbal, seeing how the Orange Tank would be analogue with Delta-IV/Atlas series.

Okay, I am still not too certain what you mean by staged rocket vs an aspargus. Do you mean staged as in, if a craft is of a given mass, staged means "nothing get dropped", using 1 of the thrusters, 2-simul means a orkcet with similar construction to KerbalX, 2 thrusters burned, before 1 of them get dropped off along with the fuel tank? Or are you talking about, say a clone of Constellation MTV (all of them same mass except the thrusters, they are for 1 thrusters, 2 thrusters, 5 thrusters)? This is the more common build method for Low TRW high Delta V builds AFAIK.

Just comparing notes. So unless they rebalance it so an uberpowered thuster comes out, 6x Kodiak or Skiff is pretty much the best option without going too costly. EDIT: I actually ran an experiment with your OV-4 with its Crowssbow-U stage. When out of CommNet Range, it needs 2 pilot to control the URM-2

Thanks. That confirm my understanding. Or more accurately, as there are only 5 "Probe control points" (The two RC series probes; Mk1-3; Mk2 Lander Can; MEM), with the latter 3 requiring two pilot, and unless an RC probecore is used, the number of pilot needed to control a remote probe does not decrease.

Clarified in OP. What I meant originally is indeed one single pilot-class kerbal (ie Jeb or Val, but only one of them). So based on your response: If both vessel A and B are outside of CommNet, with A being the Crewable vessel (with relay antenna, of course), and B being the probe: If A have one single pilot-class, any probe core, including OKTO2, can control B? If A have no pilot class Kerbalnauts, then it must be RC-series?