nothke

Watch ATV-4 Operations If you are interested here is a tracker of both ISS and ATV on one map with trajectories LINK and here is a 3d tracker, but it can't show 2 ships at the same time if you don't log in (even if you do, it shows both ships, but only one trajectory) almost like trying to rendezvous on KSP map.. just without time warp =(

Everything is ok with the attachment points in 0.20.2!! I confirm that it was 0.20's fault =)

Those are vertex x and y positions, the height is 0.65. Note that position will be slightly changed (the vertical axis) cause of the center of mass. Also the rack should be centered by height to origin. So the shape is correct, but the position of the rack will be changed. The difference between the old one is as you can see very little. When I complete the styling, I will post the whole tutorial how to make a rack from scratch together with chamfers and extrusions. And I will also provide my empty rack models as .fbx so you will be able to put it in unity and export it with your cargo.

There are a lot of attachment point scaling problems! On some parts the attachment points are further away on some they're closer than they should be. I guess these are scale/rescalefactor problems, I read somewhere they changed something about it for 0.20. Although I don't have problems with my mods

Back on the project!! Update: I've been building a better model, the racks are a bit shorter now, so they perfectly fit now on the girders and are easier to carry around. I have also been making the new "skeleton edition" without the covers so you can have exposed cargo. I have spent most time on "stylising" the racks. I have tried a few different looks, and then in the end I returned to the first one xD some attempts: The new KAS update by Kospy has improved functionality, now you can align racks almost perfectly and also you get a preview before you place it. Also the mass of the rack is added to EVA while carrying, so it's realistic that there's more inertia and you'll need more EVA fuel to carry heavier rack. (warning: old models in the screen) I have also decided how to solve the balancing issue, by which I mean: if you have different kinds of cargo on opposite sides of the ship, the center of mass would shift from the center making powered flight difficult. Therefore I will have to standardize cargo mass into 3 categories: - light - 0.05t - empty racks or something very light like simple electronics or things made of plastic - medium - 0.15t - electronics, panels, batteries, various equipment - heavy - 0.45t - fuel and water tanks (values subject to change) I still need to see how much would each unit weight according to possible volume so it's correct and not OP/UP. also this would mean that you need to pay attention with fuel tank racks as you need to keep the fuel level equal in opposite racks. But of course if you use them just on space stations where perfect center of mass is not an issue then... it's not an issue =) Kospy will help make a system that would allow proper and precise attachment to the closest slot in the cargo hold. For now, I am placing them "by hand" using the "h" attach generally it's still just experimenting-testing-experimenting-testing until I am satisfied with the result. Then I will polish the models and probably publish the first bunch. Until then stay tuned. Also I hope to write updates more often now =)

Yes, but an extremely simple one.. Practically, - when fuel is 0 and button "convert to crew module" pressed, do CONVERSION, if more than 0, write "unable to convert, there's still fuel inside" - on CONVERSION, enable the hatch and crew module and disable the fuel tank module Yeah, the external tank was detached when the Shuttle was at 98% orbital speed, so it would take very little thrust to get it all up. The problem with the wet workshops in real life is that they are very complicated to successfully and properly convert to crew spaces.. In Kerbal universe there is no such thing as "complicated" xD as we can see that all engines (except solid fuel) can be unrealistically restarted infinite times.

Hay man, your work is fantastic! I am working on another project and don't have time for making new models, so I think you are the right man to talk to =) One of the things I wanted to make is a WET WORKSHOP, which is practically, a fuel tank that when used, turns into a crewable module. For example, there was a proposition once upon a time in NASA to convert the Shuttle external tank into a crewable module once it's spent. So imagine the stock KSP orange tank that can be crewed after being emptied =) Another thing could be a fuel tank that converts into a cargo bay (for example for retrieving debris or satellites) It sounds like a great compromise for part count. The dry mass of the workshop would be higher than the standard fuel tank and also more expensive (maybe even twice), but you wouldn't need to carry another module for crewing, also you get a bigger crew space for less launch mass. The bad side is that it can be crewed only when the tank is empty (and possibly can't be reverted to tank function since it would undergo some interior decoration after being crewed). You could also easily use the models you've already made, but give them more... less sophisticated sturdier fuel-tanky texture =) It's actually strange that there is no mod that exploits this idea..

Actually I meant the icon bar, not the debris, hiding debris is great. But why hide the icon bar???

THANKS!!! It's so small! Why didn't they just keep it allways on.. hmm (changed to answered)

I launched a full tank as the first part of my future station... But it has no command pod and is practically "debris" But now when controling other ship, the tank doesn't show up on map screen cause it's... DEBRIS!! So I can't make it a target and randevouz with it. In 0.19 since all the debris showed up on map view, there was no problem catching debris, but now it's very difficult. The only way to do it is to approach it on luck and double click on it to target it.. Is there some switch that I am not aware of to turn debris on in map view?

I have found another glitch with detachable ports. If you place one on a hatch, you can enter it, but on exit you'll get a "hatch is obstructed" message, therefore trapping yourself if you are not careful. This could been avoided with some sort of way to "knock out" (detach) the connector when you try to exit, or just prevent placing connectors if intersecting with hatch colliders

Not only is it heavy, it's the most expensive pod. It's a piece that allows you to see 180 degrees (from IVA) and that's why it's so valuable, it looks much nicer than other pieces.. It's like a gem of your space station.. It's pretty good this way IMO. In reality big windowed parts are one of the most complicated to make so production cost I guess is much higher

(shhhh, it's an implicit rule, you shouldn't say that out loud or you will topple the structure of the universe)

I'd more suggest not putting hatches on the crewable modules, but rather having a separate airlock module that has a hatch, and then moving Kerbals to other crewable modules using the crew manifest mod.

That's true, survivabilty depends on g force and exposure time, sorta like exposure to radiation. Here's an (average person) graph of survivability, as you can see it depends at what direction the force acts (the full article) it would be very nice to include it! The red bar is more like "warning high g". Only.. wouldn't it be "deadly everything" not just "reentry"?? xD

Not a lot, there are different sizes. Only the ones around the cockpit (yellow ones) are single tiles. The blue and green ones are multiple tiles combined into larger parts. I also planned to make even bigger ones to reduce part count as much as possible. But only the yellow ones are portable in EVA, so if you brake a blue one you'd have to fill it with many yellow ones.. Or just decide not to use the craft for landing. The tiles are very breakable by the way (low impact resistance) just like the real ones. Leading edges and the nose cone especially (seen in second screenshot)

Hello guys! Interesting thread. I was working on a mod that adds TPS tiles and rC-C leading edges similar to the one used on the shuttle which you can place on the hull, and also replace them if they are damaged. I have since left the project to work on other stuff, never publishing anything, but I will soon make a vid about it. Deadly reentry 1.0 worked perfectly with it =)

Are you tryin' to unterraform Kerbin?? xD

You can only place the "detachable connector" during EVA. Place some on your ship in VAB/SPH. During EVA, approach it and right click on it, it will say "grab". After you've grabbed it, you can press "h" key and if you mouseover a ship you will see that you can place it where you want it. It is an amazing system that can be exploited for various other parts if you edit it in the .cfg. I am currently using it for developing my KASPAR mod.

This mod needs 0.20 compatibility ASAP!!!

I ran a KTS-11 mission (Kerbal Transportation System, my c9 parts shuttle) that sent 3 satellites to Mun orbit. Later I made a fully reusable heavy launcher similar to SpaceX Falcon Heavy =)

Pareidolia is killing me..

Thank you very much! Here it is: http://www./?q2q2taf4tw8xzgk It has some tiny pops in the background, I'll try to get rid of those.. So lets call this one version 0.5 =)

(picture: Empty status board in VAB, after the last Shuttle mission, credit: Penny4NASA) Since some of the people are crying and some celebrating after the retirement of the Space Shuttle, I wanted to clarify was the Shuttle any useful and why was it made at all if it wasn't. We can see from facts that it was too risky and too expensive, but that is a consiquence, not a con, the con is the REASON why it's risky or expensive. I have searched for answers on the internet and this is a short summary of what I have read. Pros Reusability - Ok, this one is obvious, reusability of the Orbiter and SRBs freed the System of continuous production (which is the case of for eg. Soyuz). So that cut the costs. Flexibility - The shuttle was designed according to requirements set by the military. The crucial factor in the size and shape of the Shuttle Orbiter was the requirement that it be able to accommodate the largest planned commercial and military satellites, and have over 1,000 mile cross-range recovery range to meet the requirement for classified USAF missions for a once-around abort from a launch to a polar orbit. The ability that differentiates so much from other spacecraft is the ability to retrieve (bulk) cargo from orbit, for ground repairs or for retrieving experiments. It has been used for deploying, repairing and retrieving satellites and the Hubble, performing experiments in space and docking to and building of a space station and crew rotation. An engineering feat - It was a symbol of the entire nation and a symbol of it's technological supremacy. It was really sexy I must say.. (I'm not American) Experience - This is more like a side effect, but in my opinion, it is big (right?). Running the same thing for 30 years made NASA know it better with each flight. Only Soyuz could be given the title of the most "experienced" system Cons Too complicated - Apparently, this is the biggest con of the Space Shuttle. It just had too many sub-systems and so too many things could fail, and too many things to check and prepare for next mission. For comparison, the heat shield of a typical pod manned rocket was composed of one single ablative heat shield, while the Shuttle had 7 different TPS systems, each guarding the surface according to how much heat it takes during reentry. Also note that 2 of the highest resisting materials (the glass foam tiles and reinforced carbon-carbon leading edges and nose cone) were very fragile. The complicated system added greatly to risk and cost. Lack of modernization - or lets call it.. "Ageing". Elon Musk stated that the very reusability of Shuttle prevented from evolving at the same rate as other rockets. There were very few real design changes. And most of those were electronics and the material that the ET is made out of. At one point NASA even searched for components for reparation of it's aged computers that no one else made anymore, on eBay. Thus reusability, the holy grail of spaceflight for so long, ended up ironically stunting its own development. Limited range - It was designed for LEO and possibly GEO, but not further. Even if you wanted, there is no reason to send a 50 tonne ship (that can carry 20 tonne cargo to LEO) any further. Understated risk - At the beginning of the program it was assumed that the risk of failure is as low as 1 in 7000 flights, it was only realized, after the Challanger disaster that the risk was greatly understated and the risk assessment gave a possibility of failure of high up as 1 in 9 flights! (by looking into procedures of previous flights). Post Columbia safety improvements cut the failure chance to about 1 in 100, but it gave a huge cost and delays between launches, especially when you look that the Shuttle was predicted to have 50 flights per year (yet it averaged at 4). Non-reusable ET - The external tank was not reusable and therefore had to be produced for each flight. Please help me finish the list, or just discuss, or just blame me what I got wrong =)

What you are talking about sounds like a hybrid of my two projects xD Cubes for peace and KASPAR. KASPAR will have mechjeb, docking port, battery, etc. addition that you can attach anywhere. How do you mean 1:1 scale? real 10x10x10cm size?? I don't think it would work cause the collision detection aka "physics" is pretty bad in game below 0.5