henryrasia

Is everyone so sure about the 1U size? I mean, sure, smaller is cheaper. Bu how are we going to put in reaction wheels, solar panels, motherboard, antenna, battery, petri dishes, artificial atmosphere and lighting (if it's spinning we can't rely on the sun, and the plant needs CO2) along with storage for CO2, sugar, and water, and waste O2 disposal? What about the camera+microscope, and all the cables? Are we fitting a trhuster in there too? I was personally thinking 2U as minimum without thruster, is there any 1U design with measurements?

For the acceleration we can spin it REALLY fast (for an 1U cubesat), or make the mass longer by some kind of counterweight and spin slower, but that's counter productive IMO. (based on online calculators a 10 cm long thing would need to spin at 27 RPM for Mars gravity and 17 RPM for Moon gravity). We should make a plan: Satellite Flight systems (gyroscopes, thrusters, etc) Electronics (Flight computer and flight instruments(attitude sensor, etc)) Experiment systems (feeding and watering moss, camera with microscope, temperature and light control, atmospheric pressure control, etc) Building and Launching Building actual satellite and testing it for conditions of launch and operation (stress, heat, cold, etc) Mission Control Comms relay from space to ground (how?). Data collection. Maneuver team (who will speed up/slow down the RPMs, for example?). Anyone knows how to do blueprints? Cause those would be awesome to get a clear picture. Any concept artists out there? Let's make it happen, people. This is an actual experiment best made in LEO, inexpensive, and useful for future colonization of the Moon and Mars. If it's successful we can even follow up with different species and bigger missions. (I want that Phobos landing!!!). An amateur space agency made up of hobbyists, enthusiasts, and volunteers, now that's cool!

Dude, I'm sorry if this sounds mean, but your scoring system is for begginners. I've have 64 points and don't even play that much. I do wonder what Scott Manley has...

What is the expected lifetime of the experiment? Because we should have as many mosses tested growing at moon and mars gravity, but it'd be nice to test 0 g and earth gravity to compare it to ground experiments (control group, if you will). Also, I'm not a biologist, but can moss be killed and wiped from a petri dish and then grow from scratch again? Like bacteria? Cause that would allow for 1 petri dish to do all of the tests. On a related note, if this is a serious project, we should at least set up some kind of website or forums (subreddit?) so people can brainstorm/share concrete ideas in a academic environment (read: detached from KSP the game). Also, how is mission control going to be handled? It should be very open to qualify as an educational project, perhaps even relaying all data to whoever wants it. And the satellite itslef. Who's gpong to build it? Should it be stress tested? How? Again, very cool idea! I hope I can take part in it! (aspiring aerospace engineer in 11th grade, I'm clueless but I can learn!)

Also, it would be good to have a simulator that could verify my calculations. Sadly, KSP doesn't have n-body simulation. But what about Orbiter? Or some other space sim I've never heard of? I know Universe Sandbox does, but that's for planetary motion, not spacecraft. Space Engine still doesn't simulate physics, right? Just checked. No it doesn't and probably never will. Bummer.

TythosEternal, thanks so much for your extensive answer! So what space mission you think could make for interesting mission planning? It needs to be tied in to a real world situation, that's why I thought about Helium-3 and the lack of satellites on the Moon. And if the details can't get me over 4000 words, so I might have to restrict analysis if it's too interesting (lol). Any ideas?

Helo everyone, I'm currently an 11th grader just starting the International Baccalaureate program. One of it's requirements is a 4000-word long essay on some research question. I am very interested in aerospace engineering, and think is what I'll take on as a career, though I'm not sure. The reason is that it combines all the engineerings I like. The space shuttle, for example, was a spaceship, an airplane, had software in it (astronautics, aeronautics, and software); also, future mars bases will require building structures (houses, tunnels, etc) and other vehicles (structural, mechanical, chemical). With that being said, 4000 words (not a single word more, mind you!) isn't that long for a physics essay, even with the data, labels, equations, titles, etc not counting. Therefore I thought that KSP might be a great way to simulate and carry out orbital maneuvers, ignoring n-body physics of course. I was thinking on how different orbits make for different uses (polar for mapping, geostationary for communications). Another idea is how orbital infrastructure and transportation trajectories will be when we get mining Helium-3 on the moon, that's a cool idea, right? Questions: To everyone: What are your opinions in general and on the topics I mentioned? If anyone did IB Physics HL: Are these ideas reasonable? To anyone knows about these subjects: What would an interesting and useful-to-the-real-world research topic? Would simulations in KSP be too easy / too hard / too imprecise? To the engineers out there: Any advice on career path? Many thanks to any responses, I really appreciate them -HenryRasia PS: Just so people know. My first idea was to analyse different wing designs. But that would require a wind tunnel and serious maths, and wouldn't be very useful because airplane efficiency lies more on the engine. But I believe that is beyond my capabilities.

Hey, people! Here's a real life example: In the Apollo missions, the objective was only to get people there and back safely, but some people wanted experiments there, so NASA had to figure them into the craft volume and weight and mission tasks (time to set up experiment is time of oxygen needed). Also, someone wanted flags to be placed in ALL Apollo landings (1 wasn't enough?) for no other reason than to rub it in the soviets' faces, so NASA had to figure them into the craft volume and weight and mission tasks. Nowadays, people can buy in space in the ISS or any space launch, and the engineers need to figure out the fuel requirement and flight profile then (which IRL is much more delicate then on KSP). KSP's system tries to have you save up contracts for when you go somewhere. So dragging a jet engine to minmus in of itself is pretty useless and stupid, but the point is to get the "land on minmus" "orbit minmus" "get minmus science" etc objectives AND THEN drag the jet engine along. The other example OP mentioned is building a big airplane capable of fast and high flight (there's the challenge), and then strapping all you parachutes/decloupers/etc in the cargo bay, fly to the specified location, firing away, and landing back for minimum waste of funds. This is really good and I don't know how I didn't think of that before! Sure, the system isn't perfect, but the logic is solid. So please stop complaining about it as a whole. I hope this clarifies.

Sorry, what I meant by kOS being discontinued is that Nivekk, the creator, disappeared one day. And yes, Ferram Aerospace Research (or ANY better aerodynamics) should be in the game. And KAS should be stock: There's no use for EVAs right now.

Hello everyone! I just wanted to start this little discussion on some mods that should be included into the base game. Just to start: Enhanced Navball - Actually, this is where this idea came from. HarvestR commented that this would be added and just wasn't along with maneuver nodes because of time restraints. kOS - So sad this was discontinued... It was the perfect balance between autopilot which everyone wanted and the "do it yourself" philosophy of KSP. Another one could be Notch's DCPU-16. Environmental Visual enhancements - JUST GIVE ME SOME CLOUDSSS!!! DISCLAIMER: I am not requesting this to happen, I'm just saying these mecanics add to the stock KSP experience. And please, no flame wars. Discussion =/= fighting.

Please help! The site to get the updater, http://chrisand.no-ip.info/dmp/, isn't working for me, and in the instructions video it is. It just says "this webpage is not available". I'm using Chrome.

Kerbal Space Program: 64 bit Yes. Really. That outshone anything contracts related by far for me. (And whackjob, I thought you would feel the same way too?!)

What about in Gilly orbit? The station would be moving at less than 34 m/s (IIRC). Surely that would not cause an explosion... Furthermore, the object trying to dock could be moving towards the ground at the horizon, so the speed relative to the station is even lower. The question here really is: How does KSP "merge" two orbits when docked if they aren't negligeably close?

64 bit! YES! Anyway, marach, what is the issue with physX? I have no idea about what id does or how it works but what are better alternatives?

Nice job! Also, I see many, many sources of potential geopolitical conflict. Hmmm... Someone should port this map as a mod for Civ 5, or any paradox games (actually, all of them, please!)

Help! For some reason, the mod is not working properly. I have many mods installed (list here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71720-Modmania) but haven't installed all because this problem arised while testing them out, it makes the game unplayable. The buttons do not appear correctly and the texture of the toolbar icons themselves don't show properly. Image (not mine, but with same problem) see top left: http://imgur.com/a/QVPf9/embed#0 Thanks in advance for any help.

I think this applies to every map ever, books, movies, games... When you learn tectonics you can't help but seeing the mistakes. However I'd imagine that'd be a huge challenge, and it'd change Kerbin as we know it...

Hello, fellow KSPers! Today I'd like to show you a list of mods I'm planning to play with as well as opinions about them: Module Manager // As I understand it allows mods to be uninstalled leaving part configs intact. Toolbar // Must-have when using a lot of mods, like me. Hyper Edit // I am NOT trimming orbits manually (especially with KSP's constant floating point errors) Enhanced Navball // Good to know where normal/antinormal radial/antiradial are Docking Alignment Indicator // Tool that should be in stock anyways Welding Tool // Reducing part count is always good. Engineer Redux // Give me my info!!! Kerbal Joint Reinforcement // Wobble is NOT realistic! Alternate Resource Panel // Good to know what each resource is at a glance Kerbal Alarm Clock // Useful for keeping track of multiple missions. Editor Extensions // always useful to have Mechjeb 2 // Some tools are irrepleacable like orbit post aerobraking prediction Deadly Reentry // Makes for cool challenges FAR // KSP's aerodynamics model is a joke RemoteTech 2 // Comms relays and delays are good challenges Figaro GPS // Mapping with sense! TAC Life Support // Makes probes useful Infernal Robotics // CANADARMs and other hinges KAS // attachment and containers are a must KSP Interstellar // MOAR tech! B9 Aerospace // Airplane parts! Kw Rocketry // Big rockets (less parts) Clouds and City Lights // pretty planets I am afraid this will explode my computer, so I'm willing to add any light texture packs, texture managers and compressors that I might need. I'd like to know if any mods are incompatible among themselves, or with KSP 0.23 itself. Also, is there any good, reliable mod manager? Thanks in advance, and I hope this list was useful to anyone wanting good mods!

I agree with all. I'm running like 15 mods and it's a totally different game (but it doesn't feel like it!)! However: the one and only gigantic problem that, if solved, would push the boundaries of amazingness beyond comprehension would be: 64 bit build. Shame it's Unity's fault... *sigh*

Greetings! I'll start this thread as a database for mods that make KSP more complete, in my opinion, and will update it based on suggestions I receive. So feel free to comment on the list add or subtract anything and I'll do my best to include it here. So without further ado: Parts - KW Rocketry - Adds very big standard-fuel rockets. Removes awkward fuel tank/engine clusters. - KSP X - Adds parts identical to stock but with different sizes and attachment modes. Makes for easier tiny/huge ships. - B9 Aerospace - Adds plane and space shuttle parts (with IVAs). Better looking and better performing aircraft. New Mechanics - KSP Interstellar - Adds complex mining, alternative science, and MANY parts reflecting many different aerospace technologies. - kOS - Adds a write-it-yourself autopilot based on simple programming. Balance between autopilot and do-it-yourself, teaches code logic. - Thunder Aerospace Corporation Life Support (TAC) - Adds many resources that are now needed to keep Kerbals alive. Makes probes worth sending. - Kerbal Attachment System (KAS) - Adds ways to connect to separate vessels: Makes refueling and towing easier on the ground. - RemoteTech - Adds purpose to communication sattelites with comms relays across space. Makes infrastructure a requirement for space travel. - Mapping? Feature Improvements - Deadly Reentry - Adds reentry heat and heatshields. Strongly encourages smart reentry trajectories/ship design. - Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) - Adds realistic aerodynamics. Strongly encourages smart ascent profiles/atmospherical flight/rocket and plane design. UI Improvements - Enhanced NavBall - Shows radial and normal vectors. Removes need for dummy maneuver nodes to figure them out. - Toolbar - Organizes all your mods into one in-game menu. - Kerbal Engineer Redux - Shows DeltaV, TWR, and other data for your ships Out-of-Game Improvements - Better tech tree? - Mod manager? Feel free to contribute! PS: I'm sorry about the lousy formatting, I really don't understand the forum's formatting tools.

I am sorry if this is obvious bu I must ask this of players who do missions to various destinations (since I stay on Kerbin generally). What is the point of science transmissions? I mean, I understand that it keeps you from going all the way back home, but it has a percentage penalty AND it depletes the science value of that experiment. So why would you transmit? Unless interplanetary data is so huge that it is worth it. But then again the higher tiers in the tech tree require more science, so does that balance out?

Honestly, SQUAD is a somewhat small team. For this reason every single employee is very influential and important, different from most companies.

I am just saying that these things accumulate over time, raising suspicions. I am just asking that the devs do a clean up, very open and clear (not with that official undertone) in the form of a post, a blog, or maybe even a video. That would be inmensely alliviating for this side of things. Also, because of the membership growth I am afraid SQUAD has forgotten that many of us understand real life science and physics as well as game development in many of its ways, but they do not make post explaining their progress in (a bit) of depth as they did before. The concerns I raised above are just examples for them not to forget were they to answer after reading this.

I agree they are very open, but I argue that they have been closing in recent times. Also, staff issues were discussed very openly when the former community manager had to leave and when they hired some mod developers. I am asking why has SQUAD's comunity interaction been so streamlined? It isn't devs talking openly in the forums, it's a weekly report and that's it. On another note, the forums moderators used to have personalities and be members of the comunity more than just moderators (SalVager, Cpt Skunky) and now it's just a bunch of random moderators that lock threads, state the rule they're enforcing, and leave. What happened?

Hello everyone, I just wanted to ask a very quick question to the developers (or anyone at SQUAD) and woud rather not having users speculate on this. I was browsing around the KSP website and found this page: https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/about.php. In it there was, at the bottom of the page, a list of the people working on KSP. One detail that caught my eye, though, is the legacy section. I understand legacy as prominent figures that have left the team for one reason or another, the question here is: why did some just disapear? For example, NovaSilisko is in that legacy section and no official announcement and/or comment has been made on his situation. He was "on leave" and then just dropped off the radar. Another one would be Artyom, who was hired into the team and now was, erm, unhired (once again without any clues)? Another detail is the silence in the KSP Weekly (or Daily Kerbal) about those new developers. Are they just not working? I apologize in advance if any of this was inaccurate or if I missed something else. I highly appreciate the team and the game they're making. But seriously, after the Steam release and the inflood of new players SQUAD suddenly became a whole less transparent and connected to the community. So I just want an answer from someone that can actually answer this, and I'd imagine other do too.