Clamp-o-Tron

I'm glad you found a use. FYI, you can simplify this a lot, by simply changing the localization name instead of the in-game title. @RESOURCE[Aerozine] { @displayName = Heptyl @abbreviation = Hp } @RESOURCE[Nitroxide] { @displayName = Amyl @abbreviation = Am } For the ratio changing, you would have to just change my config files. Maybe I'll implement settings as to fuel mixtures.

Thanks. I'll include these in the DEV branch, with credit to you. Some internal things have changed, so I'll fix that for you.

I don't believe it has direct configurations, but any incompatibilities that would have prevented one from making some have been fixed. I'm working on a bit of a universal patch so per-part configurations won't be needed! A little preview:

What? Aside from space lawyers, there are quite a few problems with this proposal. I'll just stick to this first post, this first paragraph even, just to avoid reading several thousand words on the subject. This will be a response to the first paragraph, not the current theory however it stands. So as I understand this, the fission/fusion reactor and battery refers to power generation for ship systems and possibly propulsion. So... resources extracted from the sun? The sun is 99.5% Hydrogen and Helium, both utterly useless as building materials, and most of the rest is Oxygen or Carbon. You might be able to get away with Carbon, but IIRC much of it is buried far deeper than possibly accessible. Why does it need an atmosphere? Where are you getting an atmosphere? If for crew support, atmosphere is probably the wrong word, it would be more like a "pressurized, breathable environment". We've gone over this before, but recycling oxidizer (or any other reaction mass) is inefficient and quite detrimental to the performance of the spacecraft because you are removing your 3rd law recoil from sending the reaction mass out the back of your ship. Not to mention the extreme difficulties of recapturing only a specific part of the exhaust, since in an ideal chemical engine and any chemical engine that doesn't blow itself up due to a hard start or combustion instability, the propellants will be mixed quite well in the exhaust gases. In fact, there should also probably be a chemical reaction between them that takes place during combustion, such as H2+1/2O2= H20 (Space Shuttle Main Engines, RL-10, J-2, Vulcain, RD-0120). There won't be an oxidizer in an ion drive, nuclear thermal propulsion, or any kind of fusion. I assume you mean an ion drive or some sort of MPDT, since you mentioned magnets. So you do mean an electromagnetic propulsion system of some kind. How exactly are you going to get the propellant? Is the propellant the atmosphere? Oh no I think that's what OP means. Atmosphere doesn't just magically regenerate, of course. And although Oxygen and Nitrogen are usable as ion drive propellants (see: my man Manley), they have much lower densities than the primary propellants used such as Xenon and Argon (and Radon if you are brave/have a death wish), which means much more tankage used, which means our friend the rocket equation will not smile upon the situation. I'm not going to specifically answer a lot of which is in this thread, except for a few major themes: 1. No, shining a laser on your ship at a solar sail would neutralize your velocity. 2. "Could this use something as simple as magnets physical positioning to produce thrust?" No. Many people much smarter than those who frequent the KSP forums have looked into this, and have seen nothing. I do not count the EM drive as something, as the scant evidence that it works is in no way enough to adjust my priors. #bayesianforlife 3. Sustaining hydrogen-hydrogen fusion in a basketball-sized reactor is either physically impossible or merely impossible with any conceivable technology. 4. The sun loses mass as it fuses Hydrogen, as has been said. 5. The energy required to reach lightspeed increases exponentially as you grow closer to it, so your velocity will grow logarithmically with more energy you add to the system.

Yeah, this is a problem I've experienced. If you have any solutions, please tell. This is exactly what I would do.

The question is: would you put a crew in a F9 first stage? If not (which you shouldn’t), then the Starship crew-rating will take a lot more than Raptor certification.

Ok, thanks. I thought I had all the Agena stuff, but apparently not. RCS is very much WIP, but thanks a lot for the bug report.

According to the press conference earlier yesterday, Stennis has several backup engines to swap out on-site. According to the director, that could take about 15 days, leaving margin still for a 2021 launch. So while the tank sections aren’t replaceable, the engines can be interchanged. Although SLS hasn’t had the best development process, it’s useful to remember that with traditional systems, the kind NASA has to cover their ass with unlike a private company, delays are to be expected. The Saturn V had major issues before it was the reliable launcher it became. The Space Shuttle was meant to fly in 1977. Although SLS shares a large amount of commonality with the Shuttle stack, a large amount of stuff is new, like the new core stage, 4-engine configuration, 5-segment SRBs, the ICPS and EUS, not to mention an entirely new crew capsule. 5 years of delays? Maybe not a good sign for management. But now that we have it (almost) ready, I say use it. Much has been said in this thread about SLS’s uselessness, limited applications, and high cost. But it fills a core part of the Artemis program that nothing else can do. It’s the only thing than can send Orion to NRHO, save some very odd Falcon Heavy-ICPS configurations. It will be the best way of launching heavy cargo to LEO to make an MTV (I remain a Starship to Mars skeptic). It will launch science missions like Europa Clipper. It can and will evolve, as we already see with BOLE boosters and EUS, as well as possibly Pyrios. It is being manufactured for cheaper with RS-25E and soon RS-25F main engines. SLS will be the only way for crew to access the moon for a long time, even if MoonShip pans out, it will not make sense given how Starship development has gone compared to prior expectations to launch people to NRHO solely on Starship. Is SLS the best architecture for return to Luna? No. Is Starship? No. I would have chosen a plan with something like a cross between EDS and ACES. But SLS is what we have for the time being, so we should get used to having it as our launch vehicle for human Lunar access. It’s not a paper rocket either, we’ve got a ton of flight hardware in the public eye, despite the long time it took to make that stuff.

Conjunction of Jool and Lindor. Can you spot it?

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1350575369724850176 https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1350576687415767043 Why won't they embed?

The callout for MCF was just as the TVC tests were meant to start. I think it's a gimbal failure. Glad that it was a smooth shutdown and the engines are intact.

!!!

This- also, NASA doesn't really do rapid prototyping for that reason. SpaceX can waste hardware as it was never really meant to fly missions. SN8 was never meant to carry out a serious orbital flight, so its destruction wasn't an impediment to the development program. However, if the Artemis-1 core stage RUDs tomorrow, that will be CATASTROPHIC because there won't be an Artemis-1, and the test stand at Stennis will be destroyed.

Only the Destiny Airlock does IRL, so use the "Quest" airlock. Or just EVA from the visiting ship.

Yes!

Yet another reason to take all the precautions and stop spread... Although we're down from the early December Thanksgiving spike, the Christmas spike should begin about now, and it will not be small. B.1.1.7 will also give us a hell of a ride.

GR-8 stream is scheduled! Set your reminders, because it’s still a while away.

I think Scott really likes FFT- he made a video on the NSWR and now these!

New NASA animations of Artemis-1, which I assume is source for PR materials: Artemis I – SLS Launch and Mission Animation – Jan 2021 | NASA Image and Video Library Won't embed, but it's worth a click.

If you use CKAN, you can just search for it. If not: Scroll down to the Downloads section and click on version 4.1.4, then do the normal mod installation process with ModuleManager.4.1.4.dll ending up in your GameData folder.

Do you have Module Manager? I assumed you did because I thought that was a requirement of MechJeb. Go install it if you haven't and want my workaround to do its job.

You can work around this by closing your game and creating an empty folder in your GameData simply called "MechJebUnlocked". This will cause MechJeb to give all the modules to you, always.

You are playing in career mode, right. Some advanced MechJeb modules are locked behind technology nodes, as detailed by (only!) this 7-year old Steam forum post: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=193177293 If you don't have that module, you probably don't have the other two, so you can't really do anything. Sorry.

First open the MechJeb tab, and press the button that says "Ascent Guidance." Type in the approximate orbit of your target (I always go 10% lower if that's outside of the atmosphere, to save a spot of delta-V and time in rendezvous.), and enable guidance. If all goes well and your rocket is built well, you'll reach orbit. Next, close that window and pull up the "Rendezvous Autopilot". Set your destination as target and enable guidance. After you arrive within a couple hundred meters of your target (you may want to manually disable the autopilot, as it gets buggy very near to the target), find a way to right-click on any part in your target vessel, with a bit of messing around with the camera, and click "Aim Camera". This will help with accuracy as you right-click on your docking port and set it as your target. If this option doesn't show up, get your ship closer manually until it does. Reset your camera now. Finally, open MJ's "Docking Autopilot", right click on your docking port and select "control from here". The yellow warnings on the Docking Autopilot window should go away, and you can enable it to take you in to dock (with significant RCS thruster use, but that's a small problem).

For the complex. Ore-based will disable if RR is installed, unless people actually want to play with it over the (IMHO) better chains.