Pipcard

Okay, I just reuploaded the images for mission 43-57. Again, I was too lazy to backup missions 35-42 before imageshack deleted them, so I apologize for that. Also, the links in the table of contents of the first post should be working again. edit: I guess maybe not, as some just take you to the bottom of the page for some reason.

LOX and liquid methane, not LH2. Also, methalox does not need helium for pressurization.

That's why "gravity" was in quotes. Here are some of the slides (no official .pdf yet)

23:30 - BFR spaceships will dock end-to-end and use milli-g thrusts to settle the methalox propellant during transfer.

Right now, I'm considering using the Outer Planets Mod. More exploration, less base micro-managing.

That has got to be most epic ship I have ever seen in KSP with those 50-kerbal apartment complexes from the Civilian Population mod.

Thank you for participating in this survey. This survey was also conducted on the forums for NASASpaceflight.com and Orbiter Space Flight Simulator. A table and pie charts of the results are shown below.

It's been two years since I last did anything with KASDA (sorry, I haven't restored the images from Missions 42+ yet). I got a new computer that's capable of running all the fancy visual enhancement mods last year. I recently tested my save on KSP 1.3, and it mostly works (I had to fiddle around with the .sfs file, specifically for one of the Near Future Construction truss parts), except for Kerbpaint (there's a test release that works for 1.2.2 but not for all the parts, and there's some weird shadow glitches); sadly, this means that Negi Star loses everything that makes it a Negi. The reason why I haven't been doing anything is because I've been lacking motivation on what to do in between those epic crewed interplanetary missions. They were supposed to be the major milestones, and only doing a couple of missions in between in which I simply add modules to bases on Minmus or the Mun made everything feel somewhat empty and meaningless. This thread started when KSP had no official career mode, so this was basically a pseudo-career of what I thought was a natural progression. But not doing any contracts, or actually obtaining science points, also felt meaningless. Lately, I had been thinking of adding challenge and complexity by using RoverDude's USI Modular Kolonization System and Life Support Mods, to make base construction more meaningful and rewarding (i.e. actually having to work with resource mining, logistics, and supply chains in order to get a self-sustaining colony; not just dropping some crew containers down, docking them together, moving 39 kerbals in, and saying that you've colonized the place). I've also been watching some of Wiseman's "Multiplanetary Species" series to learn and be inspired.The problem is, I'm not sure how to go about this. Should I: Add MKS and USI Life Support to my current save, starting with Mission 95? pro: more challenging, functionally meaningful, and rewarding end goals (when it comes to base building and colonization) - especially when there's no career mode (however, this may be less tedious than having to do it in career mode); eventually being able to launch things from Minmus instead of Kerbin; more meaningful operations such as having to periodically rotate crews on a station or base and send resupply ships (until the colony is self-sufficient) like a real crewed spaceflight program con: everything may become more tedious because of MKS (lots of missions to build the Minmus colony and colonies on other worlds may become boring); all the added mass needed for life support and habitation space, especially on interplanetary missions, makes the addition of the mod seem very inconsistent with KASDA's prior missions (for example, having only two Hitchhiker modules on the Duna mission would have resulted in the 4-kerbal crew becoming homesick [functionally the same as tourists] if I had MKS and USI-LS installed - even if the ship had enough supplies) Start all over again (reboot the whole thing), but in career mode with MKS and USI Life Support? pro: same pro as above, but also with a consistent history and the feel of a genuine space program that has to earn money and research things con: having to start all over again (especially if I want to be more realistic and use a mod that lets you start with probes instead of crew capsules), lose all the progress I had made with KASDA, possibly repeat every mission, and spend even more time to get to all the epic projects; MKS/USI-LS may become tedious as mentioned before, and having to follow contracts and earn money will add even more to the tedium (should I document every single rescue mission and tourism flight that I do?). (alternatively, I can start all over but give myself the money and science points to get straight to the colonization process, but then you lose the "look how far we've come" feeling) Do something else with the current save? KSP Interstellar Extended? Outer Planets Mod? Both? Anything else? Civilian Population (for 1.2)? pro: adds interesting new gameplay options with less risk of the gameplay becoming too tedious; Civilian Population parts look epic like an actual, fully-realized colony (but need super-huge rockets unless you use Extraplanetary Launchpads, which seems a bit OP compared to MKS's system - however, you can save on tedium). con: early versions of base building and "colonization" still feel meaningless without MKS (however, Civilian Population does have a food mechanic); what should I do in between crewed interplanetary exploration missions other than simply adding a couple of modules to an early base? Trying to think here... Make up an arbitrary crew rotation mission? Launch more probes to other planets? Build up a new communications network?

Reminder: This poll closes in just over 5 days.

I believe that this defeatist attitude of always accepting the status quo leads to stagnation, a lack of progress, or even regression. (edit: This post used to have a quote from someone on a opt-in members-only section of Orbiter-Forum, and I didn't want to include just one quote without being able to conveniently show the full context of the debate.)

We were preceded by thousands of generations who never knew that humans could cross the oceans. We were preceded by thousands of generations who never knew that humans could achieve flight. We were preceded by thousands of generations who never knew that humans could go to the Moon. It is not about selfish gratification for only one generation, for these accomplishments would be known by all future generations.

I suspect that this is the kind of attitude that would lead to the cancelling of the space program, even a purely scientific one.

I seem to see this attitude far too often on this forum. I wonder why. Keep in mind, I do understand why people doubt the viability of space colonization. I just don't understand why there is always bound to be several people talking about how we should do virtually nothing in space with humans because "there's no rush."

On what basis do you assume that the expendable launch provider would provide it at half the time and half the price? Just as magnemoe said, the Falcon 9 is not designed like the Shuttle was. It was designed to be a transition between expendable and reusable launch vehicles.

The delays with Falcon Heavy were because Falcon 9 kept going through iterative improvements (and the first recovery only happened in late 2015).

I'm wondering what is the current state of this forum in regards to how its members regard the idea of reusable launch vehicles. On one end, some people believe fully reusable heavy launchers will supplant all other launch vehicles in service today; on the polar opposite, others doubt the economic viability of reusability and prefer to "wait and see" if it's worth it. How do you think most[*] payloads will be launched in the near future (5-10 years)? (* "Most" being defined as the greatest share of the total mass sent by all rockets to low Earth orbit in a year.) (Note that the fully reusable options refer to the maximum payload, which means that a launcher that can launch 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit is not limited to payloads that are above 60 tonnes.) This is just a survey of the current opinion climate of this forum.

Congratulations to JAXA for their 6th successful H-IIB launch! I'm excited for Japan's next-generation H3 rocket.

You made an excellent heavy-lift parts pack, so this is my first KSP video, inspired by the SpaceX ITS concept. (I am sorry if this is cross-posting from the cinematics thread but I tried to share this via PM with Necrobones when this was uploaded and I'm guessing it got buried under other PMs after several days, so I wanted to upload this in the development thread. Please forgive me for this.) (I didn't use the 10 m parts because 37/43 engines would have exacerbated any frame rate issues and there is no capsule-shaped command pod that I know of that is larger than 3.75 m)

My first KSP video:

I haven't played with RSS until I got a proper graphics card for my new PC (RX 480) in June. I recreated a Japanese manned lunar mission concept in RSS since the time of your post. I had also uploaded a video for Miku's birthday (August 31) based on this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIoWCwaODI

New Glenn discussion starts here.

Sorry for not doing this sooner, but the problem was that the fuel lines had to be connected directly to the engine, or else there was no thrust. Lifting off from the lunar surface, a few days after landing In low lunar orbit, preparing to rendezvous with the cislunar transfer vehicle. Rendezvous and docking Hibito and Mutta transferred to the cislunar transfer vehicle, while the ascent stage of the lunar lander was de-orbited. Trans-Earth Injection Separation of the Orbital Habitation and Propulsion Modules The Manned Re-entry Module heating up Falling towards the ground Deploying parachutes Splashdown!

The descent engine was working just fine. Unfortunately, I won't be able to use this PC for about a week because I have to move across the US for my third year of college.

Running into some issues: 1. The propellant tanks of the ascent stage were connected by fuel ducts to the crew cabin. Unfortunately, that part didn't crossfeed into the engines. So I had to make another copy of the lander (with altered fuel ducts), hyperedit that onto the moon, move the crew to the new lander, then delete the old lander and edit the savefile so that the new lander was at the same exact location. 2. The thrust/weight ratio should be correct. The weight of the ascent stage on the Moon right now is 6556 kg * 1.622 = 10.63 kN. 15.57/10.63 = 1.46. So why isn't it getting off the ground?

Yes, that is supposed to be the "Orbital Habitation Module." In Realism Overhaul, the mass (2.5 t -> 6 t) of the Hitchhiker Storage Container are increased (because the diameter is increased 2.5 m -> 4 m) to the point where it is too heavy for my purposes.