JD_

I don't see why the lunar gateway nor Orion spacecraft are needed when starship HLS has plenty of room for astronauts internally. The lunar gateway adds unnecessary complexity in my honest opinion. My 2 cents are that the lander should be a much smaller, yet fully reusable LH2/LOX design (so that in the future, water electrolysis can be used to fuel it.), and instead of using an unnecessarily complicated launch architecture, only 3 launches take place: one to transport a high efficiency transfer engine and fuel tank to orbit, another one to transport a habitation module, and a third one to transport the lander. This would be a "mobile space station" design that has just enough volume to fit all the necessary crew while the lander itself is compact and fully reusable design. This would allow the transfer vehicle to be easily expanded wherein the propulsion, habitation, and lander modules can be swapped out and modified as the need arises, and the transfer vehicle can also easily shuttle base modules for a lunar colony. This is far more efficient and conservative that multiple launches to build the gateway, >5 launches to refuel a single starship, and even more launches for crew delivery. Not to mention a LLO would be much more sensible than the NRHO.

I only have the size 2 so far haha. I also like using kebalism which makes kermanned missions (and scientific operations) much more mass intensive so the reusable architecture is nice.

I've recently started a new career save and my main Mun program uses a modular architecture built with a main transfer block, a habitation/laboratory block, and a one Kerbal lander for experiment and sample gathering. It's orbitally assembled so that each module can be upgraded as new parts become available, and I was wondering if this is a good idea.

Update: I found out the emancipator only has a limited nuclear fuel supply which can NOT be replenished, so I think using an array of them will be better as they will utilize all the LH2 available in addition to producing more thrust. Though I will likely redesign the superstructure to be more rigid. Furthermore I think this means I will have to set up a station module with spare emancipator arrays for replacement.

I know it exists. I made a space station once and docked a 5m upper stage to use it as a refuel point for shuttles and the like. Whenever I tried turning the station it would violently oscillate around the docking ports even after I tried all manner of autostrut settings. I don't really trust stock joints and AS is a big culprit of phantom forces and performance issues, so I think KJRn is just a more elegant solution. @Vanamondethe issue is less the docking rings and more the propulsion. The emancipator refuses to increase in dV regardless of the fuel tanks I add.

TWR of ~0.15 I want to use periapsis kicks. I'm doing this in a testing file before committing to the project in my career save.

I am lol. I got KJRn because stock docking ports love to buckle under any amount of thrust (and bc it's just the better way to play the game) but the issues I referenced are still present.

Title. I need to get colony supplies to Tekto on NFT parts and whatever I do just does not cut it. I simply cannot get enough dV out of my designs so I wanna hear what ya'll come up with. I'd like to use nukes because VASMIR's have asinine TWR compared to nukes (also using kerbal atomics trying to get an emancipator to work) but LH2 fuel isn't dense enough (Also using CryoEnginesRestock). Help is appreciated.

Does Skyhawk Science System include support for things like near future suite? and do the ISRU systems have support for stuff like Cryotanks? The additional experiments in conjunction with this kerbalism config seem interesting, and I'm wondering if you consider it just a BDB profile for kerbalism or an all round upgrade.

Thanks for the advice. The realism and resource diversity in kerbalism really interests me too. I like to use other mods like Cryogenic Engines Restock and NFAero for that same reason.

Update: I tried TAC-LS and honestly, I don't much like it SSPX and PET parts have various functions built in that work in tandem with TAC-LS, but the native TAC-LS parts are completely overpowered relative to SSPX and PET parts in terms of storage/scrubbing capability/etc. which drives up part count (they're also ugly as hell). However, I don't know if these conversion rates are any better for MKS/USI-LS or Kerbalism. Afaik USI-LS only adds storage containers, and kerbalism takes a similarly conservative approach, (in addition to scrubbers and a rudimentary gravity ring), but given SSPX and NFT are supported (or partially supported), I can use the janitor to handle extraneous parts. I'm currently favoring kerbalism as opposed to MKS/USI because of the radiation and universal vessel loading mechanics.

Hello, all I've been wanting to add a life support mod to my collection and have been torn between these three, I like the resource depth of TAC LS, the habitat stats/kerbal craziness of USI LS, and the fact that kerbalism has both. However, kerbalism's difficulty seems daunting. Should I take the plunge with kerbalism or use one of the other two? (I'd also like the LS mod used to be compatible with SSPX and planetside exploration technologies).

Does this mod include support for Space Station Expansion parts? (greenhouses, gravity rings, planetariums for entertainment, etc.)