Halsfury

I think that it would be a very cool addition to immerse players in the game if the audio effects were improved and camera shake was added in IVA. In real life rocket engines can produce noise and vibrations which are enough to justify camera shaking during all burns correlated to the amount of thrust produced. I think that this would add immersion and immediacy to gameplay which just doesn't exist now. KSP already has some stunning visuals, I've never seen a game quite like it but I have to say that to do it justice audio and corresponding effects have to be developed so that players are thrown into the game rather than being spectators Thanks Halsfury

That's interesting, Also to add to that you can make a booster look like a space shuttle booster with the same nosecone adapter and a Mk 16 0.5 m parachute on top, also to lengthen the burn time you can add the small SRB to the bottom of your rocket and then stage it so that you have a solid booster for a total of 75 seconds burn time

Back before there were launch clamps or landing legs I did the same thing with the tricoupler on the base of my first stage

Ok I understand, maybe this is possible in some circumstances where your plane synced with you target and you have an orbital distance greater than the altitude of minmus where small speed changes effect great changes in the orbital path I guess that at some point even a normal seeming docking procedure could wildly alter the orbit of both craft

I did this once, I came within 5m of my nuclear drive section to deliver fuel, however I was late on the burn and smashed right through 5 or 6 solar arrays and tore some batteries and crud off the sides of both vessels and this was only at 20m/s and with the most precise aiming I could muster (looking at the navball and not at the nuclear drive section rushing towards me) Everything had to be de-orbited Truth be told any attempt at high speed docking would not be able to exploit a physics bug where the two objects dock and then get their velocity vectors added together neatly, the probability of lining up perfectly at those speeds is very small since the docking port is only 1.25m across, like many things in space it's a case of shooting one bullet with another bullet while intoxicated or otherwise impaired, moreover the outcome of a direct hit is not something to be desired.

Here's my most dependable shuttle. It doesn't have a classic space shuttle engine arrangement but it flies very well and can deliver 2 kerbals to your space station. Really It's not based on the space shuttle, it's based on real life kerbal rocketry In the case of the Top Gear rocket the external tank had solid sustainer motors in it, since it didn't need to carry liquid fuel the only reason to bring it along was balance and so that it might be a mounting point for more rockets. http://www./download/za3f4tf9rfzc838/Reliant_Rocket_Mk_II.craft Now a few notes on flying this thing: 1) Not for beginners, but on the plus side, no action groups 2) At launch it may stray a degree or two from vertical, it is HIGHLY recommended to correct for this 3) Directly after clearing the launch clamps you should ROLL the rocket so that the shuttle is facing EAST or 90 degrees, if you don't do this, you will not go to space today 4) The SRB's are two stage, this is to make up of KSP's unfortunate lack of good, long burning SRB's, this setup will extend the burn to about T+90 seconds 5) as the main tank depletes, you might want to consider turning on some stabilizing rockets, to do so just press the space bar 6) Before getting rid of the external tank, turn yourself the right way up so that the tank doesn't hit you when you accelerate away from it VERY IMPORTANT: More thrust WILL exacerbate any control instabilities which you may have, so THROTTLE DOWN even to the point of having less than 1 g of thrust, you have plenty of time (at least 2 minutes to troubleshoot) if all else fails, Detach the external tank and glide down towards the nearest land.

This example shows what I would really like in KSP in terms of spaceplane parts http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/40761-Kerbin-Mini-Shuttle?highlight=mini+space+shuttle I know that it isn't B9 but the design elements would look very nice in KSP As of now the Spaceplane parts are themselves very old and even unconvincing with their abrupt shape transitions. Instead of this I think that spaceplane parts should all be replaced with smooth, space shuttle esq parts like in the link which are capable of holding functional fuel reserves for jet and bi-propelant engines. To distinguish between "spaceplane" and rocket parts I believe that the Mk 3 fuselage parts ought to be a fraction smaller than they are right now so that though they are round, they don't "fit" with rocket tanks, this would be an advantage however, since large aircraft are harder to build. I suppose that this is coming soonish but I want to throw in a vote for this very clean art style which has already found use in the KSC buildings. Thanks Halsfury

Well the blast cover was probably the wrong shape so it disintegrated, but to all intents and purposes, at these speeds "disintegrated" really means "exploded violently" Even the slightest pocket of air in the steel blast cap would expand and burst, because of this I am willing to suppose that this additional impulse is capable of acting as a high altitude second stage.

you're kidding me right? It matters at 6 times escape velocity in atmosphere?

As a matter of fact this method was used for an accidental deep space launch During operation Plumbob in the early 50's a nuclear physicist managed to miscalculate the power of a nuclear device in an underground test, on top of the bomb was a long concrete tunnel with a concrete plug in it, at the very top of the shaft was a large blast cover weighing about 4 tons. The ensuing explosion was several orders of magnitude larger than planned and managed to turn the concrete plug into ionized gas & lava, the blast cover was reported to have been launched in excess of 70km/s, beating the Helios 2 probe which is supposedly the fastest man made object. http://losthunderlads.com/2013/03/07/the-worlds-fastest-manhole-cover/ Though many think that the atmosphere would have slowed down the manhole cover such that it did not escape earth's gravity, the Blast cover probably became molten confetti in the atmosphere, but, a small chunk/chunks could have reached space since the atmosphere would have given the confetti an aerodynamic teardrop shape like rain, but going the other way. There is probably an alien still trying to figure out whether his insurance covers him from atomic shotguns firing hot radioactive debris:)

I was thinking about the mod which gives you clouds in KSP and I came up with a solution for stock clouds, Now I know that this is a what not to suggest but I have a spin on Cloud effects, now most people would like to see clouds of all shapes and sizes mimicking their RL counterparts, what I was thinking instead would be a 2 part system which would make clouds appear real yet avoid the difficulties of rendering them. This would involve something like the clouds mod where you have a 2D texture, coupled with "unreachable" cloud sprites which would appear at low altitudes but would never get close enough to the player to require complex high definition, this would allow for a range of clouds which are easy to render without becoming taxing on your video processor. For example, at the KSC players would see a randomly generated ring of clouds in the distance (50 km away and 10km in altitude) which constantly shift, fading in and out slowly so as to give the impression that they are moving, but, if you move towards them they would recede so that they never need to be rendered close up, Above this, and over the ground level player, should be a flat cloud texture simulating high altitude clouds at 25km, this would fade briefly as you approach it in a rocket so that a smooth transition is achieved. Once you cross the high altitude cloud texture then the texture would fade back in and be revealed at even higher altitude to be part of a larger, constantly shifting 2D texture governed by a random generation system imitating the planet's cloud layers. By doing something like this, clouds would become easy to render, and yes, the sacrifice inherent in this is that there are no "real" clouds but to me "real" clouds are not all that helpful to spaceflight since depending on weather conditions they can hit rockets with lightning or rain and high winds, personally, missing launch windows due to weather anomalies seems a bit harsh even to me and I like maximum realism in video games. So what do you think? real clouds or artistic clouds? Thanks Halsfury

I noticed the loose booster right before I was thinking about my gravity pre-turn and once I did, I just took my hands off the keyboard and waited the longest 45 secs in Munstead's life until burnout. Also I did not load the rocket as a subassembly, instead, I did a control pod swap and built the payload on top of the rocket which I got in the download, what actually happened was an unusual confluence of rocket sway, launch forces and launch clamp separation. On takeoff the rocket shook pretty violently as a result, it was like a bow being drawn back or a string on a guitar.

elegant launchers, really cut down my build time on my Duna mission architecture and even saved a mun-bound crew from certain post liftoff death when one of the MainStage engines got loose. Testing on the mun Observe the engine to the left in this picture, notice how it doesn't line up with the one to the right? that's because it's not attached, the Munshine VII is so strong, that I landed on the Mun anyway:cool:

Clearly it is possible Neat but totally unnecessary, I can't find any pictures on the internet but woodcuts from the book show a conical bullet like you put in a gun but a lot bigger (9ft diameter) http://renepaul.net/collection_verne1/galerie.htm?terre_lune This is a french site, but look at image 38 it shows the bullet itself, the image I could get up on the first post looks like a steam-train-bullet-thing which is just wrong, but that is really about the lack of understanding of the illustrator, not the quality of Jules Verne's science The Columbiad bullet had a special mechanism also which would mitigate G forces by placing the occupants on a hydraulic piston which would be depressed at a consistent rate during acceleration out of the cannon so that the astronauts would not experience more than 10 Gs the whole time, image 42 shows a cross section with the piston at the bottom. Image 45 shows blastoff Also check out these animations http://jeanpierrebouvet.blogspot.ca/search/label/animations Go to the ones labelled Terre-Lune 1 & 2: 1 shows the craft as it moves through the gun, and animation 2 shows the mission profile with a moon landing even though in the book they only did a flyby

More than 100 years ago Jules Verne predicted a future in which man flew to and rounded the moon... In a smoothbore .500000 caliber conical bullet (named the Columbiad). The Challenge is simple, since space guns are not in KSP, build a manned ship which uses thrust from solid motors only to round the moon on a free return trajectory, this is not impossible, just unlikely, I recall that there was a seperatron to orbit challenge, this is just one step further. Allowed Parts List (Everything a late victorian rocketeer would have): -All Decouplers -All Solid motors including seperatrons -no more than 1 additional reaction wheel system (SAS) apart from the capsule -2 Z-100 battery packs (The smallest ones with the green light on them) -All Parachutes -Any Fins or Wings Disallowed parts: -Any Bipropellant fuel tanks -Any Jetfuel tanks -Any RCS Tanks -Any batteries other than the ones above -Any electricity production mechanism (solar panels or radioisotope generator) *This naturally eliminates Rockets fuelled by Jet, Bipropellant, or RCS Also of note is the electricity limitations, this means that you will have to turn off your batteries and coast without power, then transfer the electricity from the batteries to the capsule to restart the reaction wheels and regain control

Recently Completed Soyuz 7K-OK (ca. 1967) http://www./download/frvtd60231d6nke/Soviet_Soyuz_7K-OK.craft It's a 1 man orbiter in this iteration, If you press 1 you will open the solar panels, and Abort fires the launch escape system For the greatest efficiency check the staging, some stages just jettison fairings and firing them won't set off any rockets accidentally, since fairings don't do anything yet I'd get rid of them early

Hey Mulbin, remember how I said that this wasn't over? I now reveal my Soyuz 7K-OK circa 1967

Oh sick! I love it But don't declare victory yet:wink:

I was inspired accurate Vostock K launcher and mostly inaccurate payload I basically made it from scratch, one funny thing though, I nearly killed Jeb when the batteries ran out and the reaction wheels quit, The thing spun out at 70Km, luckily the spin wasn't too huge so I just manually burned retro whenever I spun towards the retrograde mark I then decided that I needed some batteries for my next flight I think that it can do about 5 orbits or so without losing control now

I just downloaded this Like the rocket, very accurate for ksp, it's nice that this has such a low part count at last and I could enjoy the launch tower recreation something has me puzzled, how did you manage the fairing using the engine? would've thought that the LV-909 would kill the payload since I know that you had to clip the engine inside the payload

Also I forgot to note that on both the JSF and my Soyuz-Kliper which can be found in OKB-1[my sig] I used the small control surfaces clipped inside the fuselage so that I could move the centre of lift without changing the overall shape of the craft I don't consider this to be a cheat because KSP's aerodynamics are already a cheat as of 0.21.x, and while many expert craft designers probably know about this cheat I'm writing this as an explanatory note for others When they finally fix the aerodynamics I expect that the JSF which can currently pull 12G's in a low altitude turn will be not as good

Yes it can be An easy way to resolve this is to follow this procedure 1) attach the first engine 2) create a fuel line running from the fuel tank adjacent to the the engine to the engine 3) attach the final engine in the same place as the first engine Also to conceal the fuel line you can try to wedge it in between the tank and the engine so that nobody can see it

New Concept for new emissive shaders 0.21.x In the SPH I have had for a long time an F/A-18 replica, which I thought flew quite well and it hasen't changed in 0.21.x One day I decided to tackle one of the most irritating aircraft to render in KSP, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF for short) the real thing is not much too different from the F 18 but it has only 1 engine so I choose to clip 2 engines together in order to get the thrust I needed On firing the engine I noticed that the new emissive shader for the low altitude jet changed and looked like it was spitting flames when I used engines clipped together, little rivulets of flame seemed to jump from the engine and this was deemed unbelievably cool by Jeb:cool: Jeb declared that he wanted to have the same thing on the F/A-18 and, to appease him, the engineers made it so, unfortunately the weight change with the new engine tech killed Jeb, but it looked cool. http://www./download/p03c1mt0il2d4q7/JSF.craft In this shot you can see how the interaction of the two separate parts textures come together to make the appearance of dynamically moving flames In Closing: Reasons for doing such a thing: 1) Flames are cool 2) Twice the thrust in half the space (design is easier) 3) Even though you have 2 engines, flame out spins are not a problem if engines are mounted like on the JSF 4) Flames are really very cool

Great Thread I discovered something recently and used it on my Gemini Titan II rocket which I would like to share http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/39641-Gemini-Titan-II Ripping the craft apart methodically will give you an insight in to what I did I call it the skin and bones method, the difficulty with the Gemini is that, though you can build a rocket with 2 engines on the first stage and 1 on the second the proportions always come out wrong to counter this I got creative with the parts [Wall of Text] I discovered that the dinklestein I beam parts (the large I beam not the pocket version) was about the length of a single large 1m fuel tanks (just slightly smaller actually), I knew that this rocket would have a conflict or two with the auto symmetry feature which would cause issues with the first stage and I wanted to provide a framework so that the game could understand what I was doing and not freak out. I also discovered that the radial attachment point parts could be mounted to the underside of decoupler rings without any difficulty and that I could attach 1m tanks to them in an overlapping pattern so that there wasn't any space between the tanks when they were placed Of course even with this the problem becomes one of fuel logic since none of my tanks actually were attached by a direct route to the engines and in order to lift the weight I and still look the same I had to double up on engines Also duct tape was required at the bottom of each stage so that the fuel tanks didn't bob around on the inner frame So I had to hand place all the fuel lines telling the program where the fuel should go, and even then it wasn't a sure thing, sometimes tanks drained unevenly causing balance problems and at other times engines would flame out unevenly on the first stage, causing crashes. eventually I got it working and shipped it to mediafire because I couldn't trust myself to leave it alone and I wanted the security which online copies seem to give. And now, you can have it too, just don't mess with the fuel lines or you will have to re-download it.

Yep I double stacked all the 1st and second stage engines with an LVT-30 and an LVT-45, anything's possible with parts clipping, some SSTO builders use the same trick so that they don't have to build complex engine arrangements and can just have the rocket engine inside the atmospheric jet engines (I've experimented with this recently) btw this craft is fine in 0.21