BillKerman123

Did you just... yeah, you did! You forgot to explicitly say the SPH and Runway couldn't be upgraded without a point penalty! With that in mind, I give you the 94 point Mun mission! (I probably could have done it in 96 but then my computer might have exploded from rendering all the tiny fuel tanks...) Full Imgur album link: https://imgur.com/gallery/4Km6g85 The Mun rocket on the pad We made it! Rescue-1 on the pad standing by to retrieve Val from low Munar orbit Val and Jeb back on Kerbin!

Thats actually vey impressive. Neil and Buzz had about 11 m/s left for reference.

Unfortunately i couldn't find the patch on Github, so instead I looked through the KSP files and found the cfg that controls kerbal traits, and pasted your code into it. Amazingly, it worked! I actually cant believe that worked. Amazing! With that being said though, it would be nice for actual over-throttling to be in the game, where you can temporarily go over the engines throttle limit at the penalty of overheating, massively reduced efficiency, and/or the engine exploding. Unfortunately as I said earlier, i have no idea how to even start coding that.

Heres what I had in mind: (yes I drew that myself) X-33 dry mass: 28,600 kg X-33 payload mass: 20,000 kg X-33 propellant mass: 95,300 kg Carrier aircraft dry mass: 80,000 kg Carrier aircraft propellent mass: 260,000 kg X-33 Isp (Near-Vac): 400 sec Carrier aircraft Isp (High-atmospheric): 380 sec X-33 ∆V: 4,255 m/s Carrier aircraft ∆V: 3,024 sec We wouldn't launch on a conventional booster because the entire point is to have it be cheap, and developing a custom reusable first stage that can do retropropulsion and vertical landings is not cheap. Nor is it very efficient, if we go the aircraft approach we can use jets for takeoff, reducing the ∆V needed. I have a friend who works with Reaction Engines, and I can confirm first hand that Reaction Engines have no plans on developing Skylon (which is a shame considering how great of a launch vehicle it would be), and are instead focusing solely on SABRE, with the hopes a third party will build the LV. I presume the blueprints still exist, the X-33 wast that long ago, most of them will probably have been computerized. Even if they haven't, why would the blueprints have been destroyed? The biggest problem is probably whether or not the 95% assembled prototype still exists. Reaction Engines is willing to, there are making SABRE after all. And we can do the separation in a near vacuum environment, say, 50 to 80 Km. I agree, the problem is business / political. But with SpaceX continuing to develop reusable architecture, other companies may have to build reusable spacecraft of there own to keep up.

By the way, the latest Danny2462 video has a glitch in it identical to what you described.

Amazing mod! I've got some really good ideas on how to use it. Question though: could you make the wings slightly shorter so they don't stick out the back of the craft as much?

Ok, that's fine. I would agree that redoing the LEM should wait until you have all the other stuff ironed out first. On another note: the SheLab looks amazing, when you get to the AAP stuff you need to make one of those! And the little rover that it deploys. For that matter, any Lunar rover would be good, since currently, it's very hard to make ones that fit on the side of the MEM. Also, if the MOLEMs wheels are that difficult, you could just make the MOLEM ascent stage variant and the wheels can be borrowed from another mod, or from stock. For now, though, we can always stick to trying to modify the already existing MEM parts: https://imgur.com/gallery/y9DhLU3

Another question: Have you considered making it so you can toggle on/off the RCS redirector thingies on the LEM descent stage? The problem is they get in the way when you're trying to mount anything other than a LEM ascent stage on top, which makes making stuff for the AAP difficult. Which is another thing, have you considered adding more LEM variants for the AAP? You can make LEM shelters, etc right now but it would be nice to have proper dedicated parts for them. You wouldn't need to do too much work, just a version of the LEM ascent stage without fuel and more living space, maybe a bigger airlock assembly, and larger equipment racks. And adding in dedicated wheels for a MOLEM would be amazing. The MOLEM is an amazing vehicle and severely underappreciated. http://www.astronautix.com/m/molem.html http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollolmshelter.html And that's just two examples. There were hundreds of ideas for the AAP, from artificial gravity stations tethered to spent SIV-Bs, to Moon bases, to Mars missions. Of course, that's a lot of work if you want to make parts for all of them, but I think at least some of them deserve dedicated parts. And by the very nature of the AAP, such parts would be modifications of existing ones, so it will require less work. Of course, for now, simply being able to toggle the RCS guards on the LEM will suffice.

Thanks! For some reasion I never could find the dev version before.

Question: are the things you're showing here (specifically the transtage) currently available or are they a future update?

Do you know where to get the upper stage that's mounted behind the X-20 in this shot? I have the mod and BDB but I can't find it. BDB has the engine for that stage but not the tank.

Does anyone know how to calculate the kinetic jet energy rate per unit flow of propellant in a rocket engine given its thrust, propellant consumption per second, the velocity of the vehicle, and the energy content of the propellent assuming 100% combustion efficiency? Yes, that's a question straight from Rocket Propulsion Elements.

When I saw your post, I thought "I think I've seen this before, I vaguely remember Hazard-ish encountered something like that a while ago", and after checking, I found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhk1BPQxoHE - We see square orbits at 4:18, among various other things (the planets overlap), and we see the terrain glitch at the end. The square orbits I've never seen anywhere else. The Kerbin terrain glitch is known (it shows up in almost every Danny2462 video), and most of the other stuff you mentioned has been reported once or twice before, but to my knowledge never to that scale. I also have never heard of a loading screen glitching to that extent but based on my knowledge on how the loading screen graphics are created it could be a rare side effect of the Kraken.

It's not supposed to stay solid. The idea is it liquifies (or gasifies) in a controlled manner.

Is anyone continuing this? It was just getting really interesting...

Okay, what about something like this: Would that solve the problem? The only surface of the SCH4 burning is small and controlled. As the SCH4 burns, the heat melts the SCH4 behind it, which flows downwards and burns, and the heat rises up and melts more SCH4.

The reason I asked in the first place is because I'm trying to figure out how hard it would be for an amateur rocketry group to put a payload into orbit, and I thought having solid methane/oxygen as propellants on small rockets might be doable. I considered we could have tanks with solid methane and solid oxygen, and if the tanks are heated then the propellents will be a) liquified, and b) pushed into the propellant lines as they expand. I never considered doing a hybrid rocket style design, but in retrospect, that could work as well. Which one would be more efficient though? If you have the solid methane in the combustion chamber, then as it is heated it will melt, and the resulting expansion will rapidly increase the burn rate. This may be a good thing or a bad thing. In a conventional design, nothing very interesting will happen since the propellant will be gasified by the time it reaches the combustion chamber. I'm leaning towards the hybrid style design because the fuel being turned from solid to gas with the resulting expansion and increase in propellant burn rate should provide a lot of thrust, since as the propellant is liquefied and gasified the burnable surface area goes up very fast.

So a while ago there was a lot of talk about solid hydrogen, but what about other propellents/oxidizers? Octane (the closest thing to RP-1 I could find) boils at 398K and melts at 216K. Methane boils at 110K and melts at 90K. Oxygen boils at 90K and melts at 54K. Hydrogen boils at 20K and melts at 14K (with extreme pressure). So, if you can freeze your propellent enough to make liquid hydrogen, it should be no problem to make solid RP-1, methane, oxygen, etc. So why don't people do this? I've seen people talk about solid oxygen before, but all of the problems they found in it are easily dismissed by just heating it on its way to the combustion chamber, maybe using overlapping magnetic fields to cause internal friction (superchilled oxygen is magnetic), or maybe by wrapping the propellant lines in electrical heaters. Or better still, put heating elements inside the propellant tanks, so as the propellents heat up they expand and are forced through the propellant lines, negating the need for a pressure feed system (at least early on in the flight). And for interplanetary craft, it's even better, as it negates boil-off. So, why isn't it done?

I'm designing a nuclear upper stage for the SLS (to replace the EUS), and I have two unrelated questions: 1 - What are the dimensions for the Pebble-bed NTR listed on the 'Atomic Rockets' website? 2 - Does anyone know the dry and wet masses of the SRBs, and also, the wet mass of the core after SRB burnout?

Couldn't you use thrust vectoring (you might need up to 20* of gimbal though), grid fins on the S-IC, or the elevons on the shuttle for control? What if you used all of them?

Thanks for replying! 1. Yes, the Apollo-Mars surface missions are something I came up with. I was writing a paper (that I might not end up finishing) that discussed the best strategy to get to Mars, and I realized the plan I came up with could be easily(-ish) spun-off into the Apollo Era. 1.1. Actually, you probably wouldn't need a whole new family of parts, in fact in hindsight, you might only need the MEM descent stage, the Mars Surface Base modules, and the Orbital Propellent Depo (which could probably be made out of existing parts). 2. As far as I'm aware, the heatshield is wide enough to 'shadow' the LEM cockpit (I checked this with some of my friends at the British Interplanetary Society [yes they are actual rocket scientists] and they said it would be fine). Not that it wouldn't be a hair-raising ride, to say the least... 3. I agree, its a real shame that mod disappeared (at least I couldn't find it anywhere). As far as I can tell, there aren't really any good X-20 mods for KSP. I think Contares might have a good one, but I'm not sure. 4. Why is adding in a new part size a bad thing? I can't imagine it would take up much memory space, and it's not like Nova would need that many new parts. And besides, contrary to popular belief, Nova wasn't that insane of an idea (okay, it was a little insane...). It was basically just a scaled up Saturn V. 5. You may change your mind on that when you see this photo: LOOK AT HOW AMAZING THAT IS! 6. I think you can add categories manually, so there shouldn't be any reason it couldn't be done automatically. Though come to think of it, you're right - the part search function already has that taken care of. I also thought of a new suggestion: Ground bases and rovers for the Apollo Applications Program! That would be pretty cool to see. Also: Nuclear rockets and Ion drives. Both of them did exist in the early post-Apollo era, so it's not too far fetched. Plus I really want to make a Saturn V MLV-N! (see photo below for reference) And on the topic of nuclear rockets:

I'm terrible at writing intros and stuff so I'll just get straight to it: Basically, I think this mod is amazing as is, but there is still a lot of room for new features. Here are a few ideas I came up with: 1. We already have parts for Apollo-Venus / Apollo-Mars, but what about a set of parts for an Apollo-era Mars landing? So far I've come up with a few ideas. Keep in mind everything I am about to propose was designed in RO/RSS. The MEM (Mars Excursion Module) could just be a LEM with a larger descent stage and a heatshield (yes, I did the math and it works). As for the rest of the mission hardware needed, I've come up with a plan to use Saturn V Multibody's (Saturn V MLVs [yes I know MLV stands for 'Modified Launch Vehicle', but this ties in better to Eyes Turned Skywards, which BDB already incorperates]) to put a Mars lander, a refueling depot for the lander, and the Apollo-Mars orbiter into Martian orbit. Above you can see (left to right): A Saturn V MLV, the MEM with its de-orbit motor and its heatshield, the standalone MEM descent and ascent stages, and finally, the OPD (Orbital Propellant Depo). The OPD will also have habitation space so it can be the core module of a space station. I'll link more blueprints at the end of this post. For reference, the Saturn V MLVs can put 45t on a Martian intercept. First, two Saturn V MLVs put the MEM (without 30 tons of descent propellant [Aerozene50/NTO], its mass is 43 tons), and an OPD (which weighs 12 tons dry and has 30 tons of propellant) into Martian orbit (using aerobraking to capture). The MEM and OPD dock and the OPD fuels the MEM, then the MEM undocks and enters a close orbit with the OPD. Then two more Saturn V MLVs put two modified S-IVBs (added secondary propellant tanks [insulated], a heat shield, comms, radiators, docking ports, etc) into Martian orbit, each carrying 35 tons of propellant (LH2/LOX). The S-IVBs dock with the OPD and then wait. Another Saturn V MLV puts an A-MS (Apollo-Mars spacecraft) with an added heatshield onto a Martian intercept trajectory (a fast transit on a free-return trajectory, this minimizes risk and the time the crew is in interplanetary space). The A-MS aerobrakes into Martian orbit discards it heatshield and docks with the OPD. The A-MS is then refueled (the A-MS needs 65 tons of propellant for Trans-Earth Injection) and the S-IVBs (S-IVB 1 is docked to the OPD, S-IVB 2 is docked to S-IVB 1) undock from the OPD and the MEM docks to the OPD. The crew then transfer to the MEM, undock, land on Mars, perform surface ops (probably at a prepositioned base) for 1.5 years (definitely at a prepositioned base), launch, dock with the OPD, and then transfer to the A-MS. The A-MS then undocks and performs the Trans-Earth Injection burn (a fast transit trajectory). 150 to 300 days later, vehicle swings by the Earth. The Apollo CSM undocks, and captures into a highly elliptical orbit, from which it then enters the Earth atmosphere and splashes down in the Pacific. I think something like this could tie in very well to BDB, and of course would require a minimal number of new parts. 2. The X-20. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a Dynasoar in BDB yet. The X-20 was an amazing concept and had a lot of really cool space station and Moon mission plans associated with it (seriously, take a look at some of the Moon mission plans using the X-20). 3. Gemini EOR (Earth orbit rendezvous) and the Saturn C-3 were really cool (and very Kerbal) mission ideas. Basically, two Saturn C-3s would put a Gemini spacecraft with a trans-Earth stage and light (like open-cockpit light) lander, and a Trans-Lunar Injection stage into Earth orbit. They then dock and head to the Moon. After capturing into lunar orbit, one astronaut head to the surface and back in the light lander. Then the Gemini spacecraft heads back to earth. In real life it was scaped due to is small scale (one person on the lunar surface for a couple of hours), and its complexity/level of risk. However, I think something like that would fit very well into KSP! 4. Moonlab / The ability to launch Skylab with fuel in it, and have living space after the fuel is depleted (you need this anyway for Apollo-Venus / Apollo-Mars). Basically, if you launched Skylab with fuel in it, it could get into lunar orbit. This was something they actually considered for the Apollo Applications Program. Unfortunately, it got scrapped. In KSP it might work quite well. To make it useful you could program a contract that says 'Conduct long-term experiments on Microgravity and exposure to deep-space radiation around the Moon Mun'. 5. Nova. Do I really need to explain this? 6. Saturn-Shuttle. Basically, by replacing the SRBs on a shuttle with a modified S-IC (which would be reusable), you could increase payload capacity and crew safety. The main addition to BDB here would be the adapter to the shuttles external tank (the shuttle stack would be mounted atop the S-IC), and the reusability of the S-IC. 7. This one isn't new parts. I'm actually not even sure if its possible. Basically, you now how KSP has part windows, like 'Filter by Function' or 'Filter by Manufacturer'? Well, what if you created a custom one for BDB, and in it had sub-folders called 'Apollo' or 'Titan' or 'Skylab' etc. It could be really useful! I really hope you like some of these suggestions, if we're lucky we migh get some of them in BDB at some point! Thanks, -BillKerman123 More blueprints: https://imgur.com/gallery/zK4qiie