trepnick

So for those of us with almost zero understanding of the mathematics involved here and no understanding of the Wikipedia pages for Kepler and newtons laws, what exactly does this improve about KSP gameplay? Will we get gravitational effects like Lagrange points, or would a full n-body model be required for that? Lagrange points are honestly the only improvement I've ever heard of as resulting from a better model, n-body or otherwise...

I'm really hoping that the end of the tech tree lets us turn jool into a sun so I can reenact space odyssey 2010...

Interesting, I also have my main manned orbiter built on a Saturn 1b replica. Mine is pretty much a recreation of the Apollo CSM though, so I call it the Dionysus CSM, after the wild parties that Jeb threw onboard. My Saturn 1b replica could use some work though. The engines are arranged in 8x symmetry, I completely forgot to check the engine arrangement of the real thing. I'd post pictures, but I'm on my phone and don't have my computer with me at the moment.

Couldn't be more simple really. I'm betting the dev team has thought of it, but I'm going to suggest it just in case/to remind them. I can't imagine it would take a whole lot to implement, which may be why we don't have it yet. The littlest things always seem to fall by the wayside. For those who have no clue what I'm talking about, it's folders for craft storage and an interface for creating and organizing them. I now have 4 different saves, just because my crafts were getting too out of hand and I needed to separate mod crafts from general stock crafts from stock replicas from my mission controller mod powered space race crafts. Seems a little ridiculous that I have to exit to the menu and wait for the game to reload the space center and VAB just to get to a slightly differently oriented set of builds. Just a thought.

Thanks for the positive feedback, it's very welcome. I started building a full apollo replica for people with lesser computers, then realized wayfare has one already, so I went with Apollo/Skylab. I may add a Soyuz later, but they're proving pretty tricky to build. ASTP would be pretty cool to replicate, and I don't think I've seen crafts to do it stock yet.

Do you have any suggestions or are you just here on the forums to degrade others? Even a reason why would be slightly better than a simple "you're wrong"...

I present my first posted craft, stock replicas of the Apollo CSM + Saturn 1B and Skylab (using the same Saturn 1B because I'm lazy and my Skylab is lighter than the Apollo CSM). These are fairly low part count, both around 150 at launch and less than 50 on orbit, and I think they're decent replicas without going crazy and adding structural panels as fairings everywhere. Historical note: The Apollo CSM/Saturn 1b combo required about 10 m/s dV from the service module when I flew it, depending on your ascent profile you may use more or less. I had about 300 m/s left in the SIV-b stage when I flew Skylab, but results may vary. The Skylab telescope and secondary solars have a probe and RCS on them so you can move them to the correct spot once on orbit, it just doesn't fly well with them attached right at takeoff. Be careful though, if you don't make sure your electric charge is full before attempting to move it, then the probe probably was the first one to lose its charge and won't be controllable. Apollo CSM http://www./?s26a4yzx23t3tcz All 8 engines on the first stage as seen from underneath With a grand TWR of 1.00, takeoff is slow. Skylab http://www./?0mqrm2ssy86jvl7 Takeoff, forgot to get shots of it on orbit before I got rid of it.

Most mods that have that problem just integrate the engines into the tank. I don't know if that would work for you because of the separate center engine, but it's possible that integrating the outer ring of engines and having the center engine separate would work.

Anyone else have issues with the main engines suddenly snapping off? Happens to me every time unless I put at least 25 struts to the tank using edextensions...

Generally 125 km if I have to do any rendezvous, since it makes the warp quicker if I don't get the window right. Stations usually go at 80 and 250 km. I generally build launch vehicles that are a bit overpowered for a simple 75-80km orbit anyways, so it's not usually a problem getting stuff up that high. 125 works good for manned missions unless they're extremely heavy, as it gives you the extra warp factor if you're transferring to the mun or minmus.

Suggestion: some sort of visual feedback or control button for part rotation, I often forget how far I've rotated something. I hate wondering throughout an entire flight whether something is rotated 40 or 45 degrees.

Ha first person to strap a chair to rockets. Absolutely.

So I'm planning to start my own "campaign" based around the idea of recreating the history of space flight, beginning with German V2 rockets and culminating in the construction of the ISS. I'll be building and launching as many historical spacecraft as we can come up with, in a historically accurate order. I may be recording this effort, depending on how well my computer handles the part counts and recording software. What I want from you, the members of the KSP forums, is a list of historically significant spacecraft you would like to see me launch. I will be using mods, even the hated mechjeb (for more precise orbits). I'll be accurately replicating the orbits based on the standard 64% number, unless that number doesn't escape Kerbin's atmosphere, in which case I'll launch to 72 km, so that I have a decent margin of error. What I need from you is the spacecraft you would like me to launch, ideally a link to a reference on it, otherwise it's mission and orbital parameters and a schematic. Happy Hunting! Trepnick PS if a mission has too high a part count to record, or for some reason I can't, I'll just leave it in orbit and show it later. Also, I reserve the right to switch out some SRBs for liquid when attempting to accurately recreate orbital altitudes. List of planned missions (not including obvious ones like apollo or Vostok or the like) Wan Hu Scout Explorer One/first launch of the operational Redstone rocket into space Many Vanguard explosions, probably with the 1812 overture as the soundtrack if possible

Don't worry, he's wrong too. The PMM (previously MPLM) is docked opposite the z1 truss, or "underneath" node 1. Node 3 is docked opposite the airlock, and holds the cupola, as well as pma3. Honestly, the best iss reference I've been able to find is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ISS_configuration_2011-05_en.svg It doesn't show Pirs, and I've never seen micrometeorite shields in front of Zvezda, but otherwise I'm pretty sure it's all correct. Seriously, no worries. It's nearly impossible to remember where everything is on the iss, only reason I sorta do is cause mine kept wobbling to bits in the middle of construction, so I've restarted at least 4 times now. I'm almost finished with the .21 version though.

I've got a bash script around somewhere that adds the part{} to every file in the folders with .cfg at the end, it doesn't help with memory usage or anything like that, but it lets you use the post .20 install for everything for organizations sake. I also wrote one to change command module parameters in the .cfgs for .21. You do still have to change references to internals in the command pod .cfgs based on what folder the internals are stored in after the conversion, but as this pack only contains one command pod with an internal as far as I know, that should be easy. I'll see if I can find the scripts and post them later

Love the soundtrack. Played it in marching band back in high school.

Technically it's more fuel efficient to head straight for the final orbit, but its easier to build a standard launch stage that goes to 80k and then give your payload enough dV to get to its final orbit. It's also a wee bit easier to fly that ascent profile too, simply because you've probably already done it a few dozen times by now

This challenge is more about architecture and scale than optimal transfers, and the window has to be put somewhere, so the best solution in my mind was to base it around Mechjeb's windows. For example, I have 12 launches and over 200 tons of final payload going to Duna at the first window, and frankly I don't want to fly 12x2-4 minute burns by hand. Besides, in my alternate save where I'm simply sending probes to get window times, I'm getting the same windows as on that calculator anyways, at least so far. The burns MJ sets up aren't optimal, but I just adjust the maneuver node to get the lowest dV I can.

Leaderboards:

This challenge is pretty simple, you must launch a spacecraft to every planet at every launch window. You must also launch at least one kerbal per two launch windows, and you must return at least one kerbal per two return windows. Base Score will be the number of days you manage to meet these objectives plus the number of tons you successfully transit, as measured in a stable orbit around the target (so any discarded parts and used fuel don't count). Bonuses of 10% will be given to whoever currently has the most outgoing trips in one launch window for each planet (6 bonuses total) A bonus of 10% will be given to anyone who can meet the primary requirements for every planet and moon in the game. I'm thinking about additional bonuses, I may add more later. Proof will be in the form of screenshots of your spacecraft with an intercept (or close, I don't really need to see the course corrections) and the absolute time. I believe the best way to get a screen of time is either Kerbal Alarm Clock or the Tracking Station. You will also need to have a screen of your craft in stable orbit around the target with the tonnage showing, whether it's an outgoing or incoming trip. I HIGHLY recommend Kerbal Alarm Clock and Mechjeb, KAC for obvious reasons, and Mechjeb because KAC doesn't calculate transfer windows accurately in my experience. I make up for this by putting a permanent satellite everywhere and using Mechjeb to make a maneuver node at the transfer window, then adding that to my alarms. There'll be a margin of 2 days on each side of the Mechjeb-calculated transfer window, so that you can't build something with ridiculous delta-v and launch whenever you want. I've just started a new save, and this is the challenge I've set myself this go-round, so I don't have anything yet as I'm mostly designing craft and testing in LKO at the moment. I'll refine the challenge based on my own experience, probably with more secondary bonuses. I'll also start a second save and launch my permanent satellites in it so that this can be judged accurately.

Read up on Mars Direct for IRL ISRU. It would send an unmanned vehicle capable of making fuel first, then a manned mission which would use said fuel to get home.

These lifters have literally changed the way I play KSP. I no longer have to worry about building anything except the payload, and with that weight off my shoulders, it's a whole new game. Also, I was putting a space station module into LKO and was using the IV instead of the III because my payload needed the clearance, and I was lazy, flying it with mechjeb, and it did a flip and still made it with a KM/s dV left.