APlayer

I see - so you actually don't do any real aerodynamics maths, but rather use built in KSP functionality. This of course makes sense, but at the same time means I cannot reuse the maths. In this case, I will probably just approximate the drag force with a guess for the drag coefficient with the standard drag equation, which could be based off a basic description of the ship and later refined by the user, who may try the trajectory and check the results. And since my programs will largely simulate prograde burns, I will not really need to account for lift or other aerodynamic forces. As for the implementation itself, I was helped a lot on the #kspacademia channel, and they indeed recommend using RK4. I may try to help you implement that, but only on the maths and "translating it to a machine" parts, because, as I said, I know no C#, and have only marginal knowledge of OOP. You are also welcome to view my low TWR tool's JS code on GitHub which tries to implement RK4, but do note that it currently fails to calculate anything and finishes with all variables set to NaN. Thanks for the offered help! :-)

First off, I want to thank for an awesome mod, which accompanies me in all my KSP games since the moment I found it. Now, I am myself really interested in simulating and predicting trajectories, but unfortunately I have no idea of C#, so I cannot really understand what the code does. Could you ((I mean the contributors, but anyone who can help is welcome to do so) maybe either explain or even just give me the sources of the maths and algorithms you use in this mod? I am currently working on an ascent trajectory tool and on a low TWR vacuum trajectory tool, both in JavaScript. They could play well with your mod if someone ported them to a KSP mod when I am done. It's the ascent one that needs the aerodynamics maths, but I am also interested in simply your approach to calculating the trajectory, which could be useful to both of them.

Okay, I finally decided to try it myself. I had moons and planets disappearing, while on other moons and planets the terrain was indeed ReSS-altered. Tested with the newest Kopernicus. So, I guess you can say it is not compatible.

Aerobreaking... Source: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr512.pdf, page 19.

While my knowledge of scientific terms in Russian may lack, it is still one of my two native languages, and I believe I could collaborate on this. Additionally, I could help with a German translation, German being my second native language.

This is probably planned, but nevertheless, I would ask that such a thing would be configurable in the profile file. It is a nice thing to try, but honestly, I don't think this is something I'd want to play with permanently. Also, while I remember... There was a plan to make "sensor" science take time rather than be instantaneous. Is that still being implemented? If so, would it be possible to configure it so that a certain portion (20% maybe?) of the science is gathered immediately, while the rest takes time to be collected? This would make sounding rockets less useful than orbital ones, but it would still make sense to launch them.

Did anyone try this in 1.3? If so, how did it go?

Just a quick reminder, this mod seems to be 1.3 compatible as is, but SpaceDock still lists it as 1.2. Not an issue, but I think it's worth clicking that button to update it. ;-)

I assumed the current centrifuge was made by you? I would try to basically copy the part but change the model and animation. If it was not done by you, could you maybe provide some pointers on what you know about it, or whom to ask? Edit: Wait, no. I just found out (by actually looking at the part's source, should have done that right away... Sorry!), it was done by @mehka. I will poke him about that in the future. Sorry again!

@ShotgunNinja, I realize this would be a whole new story to do, but would it be possible to make the centrifuge smaller when stowed? This mod aims to add realism, and so I presume a big fraction of the users prefer the realistic, sleek launch vehicle look over kerbalized vessels that have overly large/no fairings at all. And the stowed diameter of 6.6 meters tends to produce exactly such shapes. Something that would at least fit into a fairing of 5 m, better yet a slightly widened 3.75 m one, would be much more practical. This would probably require a full remodel and rethinking the animation, but I am willing to help as much as I can. That is, I have limited 3D modelling and decent Photoshop skills for the textures. But I'd need someone to guide me on how to put it all together into a KSP part and help with the animation. Also, while at it remodelling the centrifuge, I am not sure if I am the only one whom it bothered, but I feel like it is wrong that it currently has a bottom diameter of 2.5 m and a top diameter of 1.25 m. This could be edited as well. To ensure backward compatibility of ships, the new centrifuge could be a new part and you would keep the old one as is. As for how it could be done conceptually, I suggest having a look at PorkJet's Habitat Pack. It has a 4 - seat centrifuge that inflates, and while the stowed:deployed ratio of it is not much better than yours (0.589 vs. Kerbalism's 0.611), the way it deflates allows to additionally fold the rings and make them smaller. My visual guesstimate is that you could, with such an animation, compress the centrifuge to up to one third of its normal size, which, in your case, would result in a diameter of about 3.6 m and just perfectly fit into a 3.75 m fairing. Alternatively, if you do not want to make such a drastic addition to your mod, I would love to do it if anyone here could help me with making the part and animation. However, I have never done a real KSP part before, I only have moderate 3D modelling knowledge and no idea how to do the animation, so someone would really need to help out with that.

Okay, so I desperately needed a part that adds additional ECLSS slots, but there seemed to be none, so I came up with this guy here: +PART[kerbalism-chemicalplant]:BEFORE[Kerbalism] { @name = LSModule @title = External ECLSS Module @category = Utility @description = Seeing the lack of ECLSS redundancy, mission control urgently ordered us to cenvert this chemical plant to an external ECLSS module. Guaranteed to explode only 147.28 % as often as the original. MODULE:NEEDS[FeatureReliability] { name = Reliability type = ProcessController title = ECLSS redundancy = Life Support repair = true // anyone mtbf = 72576000 // 8y extra_cost = 2.5 extra_mass = 0.1 } MODULE { name = ProcessController resource = _Scrubber title = Scrubber capacity = 1 running = true } MODULE { name = ProcessController resource = _PressureControl title = Pressure control capacity = 1 running = true } MODULE { name = ProcessController resource = _WaterRecycler title = Water recycler capacity = 1 } MODULE { name = Configure title = Recycler slots = 2 SETUP { name = Scrubber desc = Sequester <b>CarbonDioxide</b> from the internal atmosphere. mass = 0.01 cost = 250 MODULE { type = ProcessController id_field = resource id_value = _Scrubber } } SETUP { name = Pressure Control desc = Use <b>Nitrogen</b> to maintain the internal atmosphere at a comfortable pressure. tech = engineering101 mass = 0.01 cost = 250 MODULE { type = ProcessController id_field = resource id_value = _PressureControl } } SETUP { name = Water Recycler desc = Filter impurities out of <b>WasteWater</b>. tech = spaceExploration mass = 0.05 cost = 500 MODULE { type = ProcessController id_field = resource id_value = _WaterRecycler } } } } This adds a new part in the Utility category called "External ECLSS Module" with two ECLSS slots. It is an exact copy of the small chemical plant, copied and assigned new functionality by an MM patch. Also, someone please help me how to add this part to the nameless Kerbalism category...

Well, I somewhat got the launcher thing to "work". I have a good concept and parts of the implementation. Plan: There will be a completely modular system. Any parts are compatible (as long as they have the same diameter), which is ensured either by part design or necessary adapters. Two launcher "kits": A heavy launcher and a light launcher, of two stages each. Now comes the real beauty: The stages are interchangeable! Heavy first stage: 5 m bottom diameter, 3.75 m top diameter, recoverable Heavy second stage: 3.75 m bottom diameter, 3.75 m top diameter, recoverable Light first stage: 3.75 m bottom diameter, 3.75 m top diameter Light second stage: 3.75 m bottom diameter, 2.5 m top diameter Additional boosters standard for either type, 1.25 m in diameter, recoverable, up to 8 per launcher An additional, incompatible ultralight probe launcher, boosters for it This gives us five combinations of stages for different payload sizes, with precise tweaking done by boosters. The new launcher type is to be called "Neptune" with a short code for the configuration, totally not inspired by SLS. Payload mass ranges, to Duna intercept or high Kerbin orbit: Heavy 1., heavy 2., "Neptune 2B": 26 - 30 t Heavy 1., light 2., "Neptune 2A": 22 - 26 t Light 1., heavy 2., "Neptune 1B": 18 - 22 t Light 1., light 2., "Neptune 1A": 14 - 18 t Ultralight launcher: 5 - 8 t In the mean time, I constructed the light stages, the spacecraft to bring our Kerbonauts to the Hermes (Payload size: 14.5t, launch with "Neptune 1A0" to a Hohmann transfer orbit for HKO. It is somewhat a blend of Orion, Dragon V2 and Soyuz, but I went with "Orion" as name anyway.), tested and approved those for flight. Also I noticed I totally forgot about the rovers to investigate the landing area, so there's that too. The first stage recovery is "performed" by StageRecovery, although extremely precise flying could yield me enough time to do it by hand. It is pretty SpaceX style, powered touchdown, airbrakes for steering and stuff. The boosters are meant to be recovered by parachutes. So yeah, here we have a rocket which basically stole real life concepts from everything that was at any time considered for Mars missions and some that was not, combined those into one and is supposed to fly after that. As for pictures, that turned out to be the most time consuming part (Heh, publicity comes at a price! NASA, I feel you!). I'll make some during development, and post them all at once once the launchers are done.

I am having trouble with a script... I am trying to get a certain module of a part with -- SHIP:PARTSDUBBED("<name>")[0]:GETMODULE("<name>") -- but there is more than one module with this name. How would I get the second, third, ... module with the same name as the preceding ones? EDIT: ve2dmn on the IRC Channel found an issue raised on GitHub which described exactly this problem, and apparently there is an undocumented workaround, "GETMODULEBYINDEX(<integer>)" which gets a (you guessed it) module, by its index.

I have had trouble with having the crewed pods reach the Hermes' parking orbit at 7000 km. Any kind of Ares or SLS replica just doesn't have enough power... So I've decided to cancel this. No Ares (Heh, NASA wasn't the only one to do this, in the end) and no SLS, I'll make my own launchers that are better suited for the job. Edit: I guess nevermind that. I have just looked at NASA images and saw that they are larger by "one form factor", i.e. the rocket is thicker than the crew capsule. Now I know why they were too weak. :-)

With the Kerbalism rebalance update I am standing before some tweaking of all crewed parts that were already made. It is not much, though, but I have had little time recently. Fortunately, I will have more time soon.

Sorry for that, but I haven't had time lately, and I probably won't before Sunday or so. Pictures and stuff get delayed for now.

@ShotgunNinja As a person who first learned programming on a calculator with 24kB of available RAM and a 6kHz CPU, I am inclined to optimize the last bits. But you're right that an author should have full control over his mod, and if I think of it, it is more important than the minor optimization I propose. So just ignore my post.

I believe Kerbalism should bring all patches itself, ideally, to reduce "patch clutter" on a global scale. Because it needs comparatvely many patches for comparatively little spread. Example: Suppose a fictional world with those rules: "Kerbalism" needs 100 patches / mod on average. There are 2000 Kerbalism users. There are 100000 users of mods that requires compatibility, with 11 mods / user. Every Kerbalism install only "meets" 10 mods that require compatibility. Scenario A - Kerbalism supplies all patches. Kerbalism installs: 2000 Users * 50 Mods * 100 Patches = 1 * 10^7 RequiredPatches Non-Kerbalism installs: --- = 0 ClutterPatches 1 * 10^7 patches installed in this world, "Required to Clutter" ratio = 1:0 Scenario B - All other mods supply patches, Kerbalism does supply none. Kerbalism installs: (11 ModsPerUser - 1 KerbalismMod) * 2000 KerbalismUsers * 100 Patches = 2 * 10^6 RequiredPatches Non-Kerbalism installs: 11 ModsPerUser * (100000 Users - 2000 KerbalismUsers) * 100 Patches = 1.078 * 10^8 ClutterPatches 1.098 * 10^8 patches installed in this world, "Required to Clutter" ratio: 1:54.9 As you see, both numbers worsen by an order of magnitude in Scenario B. Of course this is a heavily simplified model and the numbers are likely very wrong, but a similar result happens with almost any numbers. Feel free, no, please do correct me on any mathematical or logical errors I may have made.

So, I am currently working on the crew launcher. I decided that the rockets will look like the SLS which, with some squinting and imagination required, actually worked out (kinda). The SLS Block 1B Crew is passing the final checkout, it flies like a charm so far. Equipped with an abort mechanism and lots of automation (SmartParts), you have next to no headaches flying it. Cost: 69,693 funds per launch, with the lower stage and boosters recoverable. Plus the landing part of the capsule, obviously. Total cost per launch, with recovered value subtracted: About 40k. Cannot say exact number, as the recovery percentage varies. This is half of the allocated budget, as recoverable stages were not initially considered. Automated processes: Launch sequence properly timed Automatic SRB staging Complex staging processes only need one key press Landing sequence Abort sequence Safety measures: Safe launch abort possible at any time, crew safely lands in the ocean Big fuel margins -> Early cutoff, one engine out scenarios both reach orbit Parachute redundancy Correction thrusters available at all times, even after an abort EC margins: 1.5 h (battery) + 15 h (backup generators) Other features: Powered capsule touchdown, Soyuz style Full unmanned guidance, can stand by until the Hermes returns from Duna and land the crew Redundancies for communications, RCS, Reaction Wheels Maximum abort G-Load: 6.35 G (during launch escape) aborts in a short phase have 7.31 G during parachute deployment Maximum nominal G-Load: 3.51 G in rare cases during parachute deployment Pictures following soon.

Here we go, I believe. Some testing would be appreciated, also thanks to @Baleurion who actually did the bulk of work for it. I only fixed a glitch, actually.

I think I fixed it.

I will see what I can do, before Monday. As promised in the Kerbalism thread.

I will try to slap someting together during the weekend. Sorry for the long wait, I hadn't had time when I first promised it, and totally forgot it after a few weeks.

Sorry for the long break, I've had a lot of stuff to do in real life recently and didn't come to play KSP. But now I built four more presupplies, two are identical, the rovers, one is for the science and one is for the life support equipment. Also, I made the relay and survey sats. Pics: Presupply 2/Life Support (SP2), Presupply 3/Science (SP3), Presupplies 4 - 5/Rovers (SP4, SP5): http://imgur.com/a/KGbeF Interplanetary Communications System "IComS" (IC1 - IC6), Planetary Surface Mapping System "PlaSMa" (SM1 - SM6): http://imgur.com/a/bGUn9 Next come the crew capsule, resupply and launch crafts. TL;DR for the following paragraph: The mission is in the budget margins - First mission costs 2,551,849.26 - 2,751,849.26 Funds, second and following cost 1,770,652.96 - 1,970,652.96 Funds. I am so far in my budget - all single use crafts and the Hermes' supplies cost 1,130,652.96 Funds, I include 150,000 Funds estimated costs for the crew capsules and resupply crafts. Seven of those crafts are of the "Presupply Form Factor", e.g. will be launched with the light kind of launcher. Five to seven (I am not sure how many resupply crafts there will be, I estimate one to three) will be launched by the heavy kind of launcher. That totals to 640,000 - 840,000 for the launch costs, thus we have a total cost of 1,770,652.96 - 1,970,652.96 Funds for a second or following mission. I planned for 2,000,000 Funds. The Hermes costs 461,196.30 Funds when empty, requires three heavy launches and one light launch. That equals to 320,000 Launch costs and 781,196.30 Funds total costs. The first mission costs 2,551,849.26 - 2,751,849.26 Funds. I planned 3,000,000 Funds. That is if we launch the satellite networks new for every mission.

It's quite easy to do by hand, I found out. Just post or PM me the config files for the Probes Plus antennae and I'll slap a patch together, if you'd like me to.