Eric S

Gotta love people that assume that mods remove the challenge. Yes, there are mods that reduce or eliminate the challenge. There are also mods that increase the challenge, and many mods that actually have no effect on the challenge. Let's see, at the moment I have five installs. 1) Stock, because the reddit weekly challenges require stock. 2) Stock + KER: Once a month, I do a Mun mission with this one just to make sure I haven't picked up any dependancies on addons. KER is just so that I don't have to spend too much time experimenting to get the delta-V right, since I hate to overbuild Mun missions, and I always start from the ground up on this. 3) Stock + Deadly Reentry: One weekly challenge super hard mode required this mod, and I liked it enough to keep it around, but I haven't integrated it into my regular install yet since I've got a few ongoing missions that it would affect. 4) General. This is where I do the bulk of my play. No parts that are OP compared to the stock parts, no parts that I never use. Other than that, my imagination doesn't like arbitrary restrictions, so I keep my options open. Subloader, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Kerbal Crew Manifest, KER, Damned Robotics, KAS, Kethane, Home Habitat, Robotic Arms, and I had the Bobcat Cart stuff until 0.19. Sometimes I even have the Hooligan Airships mod installed. 5) The install that doesn't count: This is for the wild ideas. No limits, I even have hyperedit installed if I want to test something on some planet but don't want to take the time to get there just for a 5 minute test. I don't even discuss what I do there on the forums unless it's an experiment where the results apply to some other situation.

If you're looking for electric powered atmospheric flight rather than space flight, check out the Firespitter plane/helicopter parts, they have electric variants. If you're interested in how those parts get around this issue, they actually do it in a more realistic way than as a reactionless drive. The engines have air intake values, and it uses that air as the reaction mass, which is basically what a propeller is doing in real life, though you wouldn't say it has an air intake.

Not that I'm aware of. A skycrane is a rocket that carries the cargo underneath the rocket rather than on top. This is usually used to deliver a rover or a base component, where the cargo needs to be on the ground itself, rather than on top of a rocket. NASA's skycrane doesn't even come close to the ground, it lowered curiosity on a cable, then moved away and crashed in order to not contaminate the area that curiosity would first explore. That's generally not possible in KSP, so in KSP people either drop the cargo from a very low altitude, or actually touch down, detach, then fly the skycrane away. SSTO is "Single Stage To Orbit." Basically, it means that the craft doesn't drop anything from the time it launches to the time it is in orbit. Some people assume this means a spaceplane, but there are SSTO rockets in game, and there are even some SSTO rockets on the drawing boards in real life, though I'm not aware of any that have actually been launched.

Odds are if you're crashing a lot, it's precisely because you have lots of parts loaded. When I had both KW rocketry and the Nova Punch pack installed and many others, KSP would crash on me every other launch. I removed mods that I don't use, parts from packs that I don't use, etc. Until we get the new parts storage that's coming, all parts get loaded when the game loads, and some of those models are not small, so they take up a good bit of memory.

DEADBEEF has an addon that isn't on spaceport that creates multiple save files. I don't remember where it's hosted, and I can't find it since the great forum oops.

They're out there. Didn't KSPX have a few? I went minimalist for 0.19, but I can always fire up my main 0.18 install to check which ones I was using.

The first thing that came to mind looking at that was that those control surfaces should be below your CoM. Having control surfaces above the CoM will result in exactly the kind of problems you're describing, though from your description, it sounds like you put them there after you started having problems. The second thing I thought was "Huh?" It looks like you've got fuel lines going all over the place. You've got drills on the radial big orange tanks, which isn't a problem, but it really looks like you're trying to asparagus stage engines/tanks that you're not dropping. The extra fuel lines are probably creating fuel loops, which can cause non-symmetrical fuel usage, and that can cause some of the problems you were seeing. However, that source of problems wouldn't happen only when you're doing the gravity turn, so I'm not sure that's the root of the problem. You should have one fuel line running from each of the orange tanks to the center stack (doesn't matter where you connect to it), and one fuel line running from the center stack to each of the atomic engines (or the fuel tank they're attached to). Yes, that's how the Kethane converter works, with fuel lines from the fuel tank to the converter, if that's why you've got so many extra fuel lines. The converter consumes a negative amount of fuel, so the fuel lines transfer a negative amount of fuel from the tank to the converter. Also, where's your power to run all those drills and the converter? I see some batteries, but no stock power generation parts. It could be a mod part I'm not recognizing, but I just wanted to check.

I'll kind of third that. The only time I've considered refueling in the Kerbal system anywhere other than LKO was when the fuel was coming from Kethane processing, and then I tend to do it in low orbit of whatever body the kethane is being mined on.

Sadly, you can't switch craft while in the atmosphere. And even if you could, the parachutes go poof as soon as they're outside the physics limit (2.5 km unmodded). I spent a good bit of time figuring that one out.

If that's the only reason you want to use an SSTO, just make sure that any stage that will make orbit has a probe pod on it, and either enough left over fuel to dump it in the ocean or some sepratrons. Personally, the only (reasonable) reason I'd consider a cargo SSTO would be to minimize per-launch costs in campaign mode, and I think I'd be rather tempted to go the SpaceX route for reusability. With Romfarer's addon to extend the physics simulation range, we might even be able to parachute the first stage back to earth.

If you mouse over the ascending or descending node of your projected orbit, it will tell you the inclination of that orbit.

Personally, I tend to aim for a 2.2 TWR, and if the ship can't handle that, figure out how to strut things so it holds together better. Sometimes I even go so far as to put 8 symmetrically mounted pylons around the top of one stage, and strut them to the bottom of the next stage. Or some other part that's breaking under acceleration. It can be made to work, though that's a lot easier with an addon that someone wrote that allows you to adjust the thrust of engines to handle things like that. While a functional solution, that means that you're lifting engines that aren't using their full thrust at any point in the launch, which is inefficient. Personally, I consider it more trouble than it's worth. You need to make sure that the center of thrust goes through the center of mass, otherwise you'll have steering problems in space or during vertical ascents. Center of Lift is something you only need worry about if you're building a space plane. On the other hand, if you're using control surfaces to guide a rocket, make sure that they're towards the back of the rocket, having a lot of drag towards the nose of the craft causes it to be inherently unstable. Five solutions, three of which are addons: 1) quantum struts: I tend to avoid these only because I like to minimize the amounts of science fiction in my game. 2) docking struts: A more realistic version of quantum struts. 3) multi-port docking: A way of using multiple docking ports per connection to strengthen said connection. Can have problems with fuel flow, can be a pain to dock. 4) Common Berthing Modules: basically, docking modules that are designed to be stronger (they're heavier than regular docking ports and more expensive, but not as much so as the multi-port docking stuff, and if you're doing complex ships, the lower part count is important). 5) Really big launch craft: I've seen stock launchers capable of lifting over 100 ton payloads, and a few that can break the 200 ton mark. Personally, I usually go with option 4. Look into the Kethane mod. There's official resource mining functionality coming "soon" to KSP, but until then, the Kethane mod allows you to mine resources and manufacture your own rocket fuel during the course of the mission. Which version of mechjeb? 1.X and 2.X do that in completely different ways.

Very true. Last time I went to Duna, I botched the estimate for how much delta-V I'd need, so needed an almost perfect return transfer. Checking on the transfer when protractor said to would have resulted in a required course correction that was more than just minor. However, I noticed that most of the course correction came down to hitting Kerbin's orbit at the same time kerbin was there. By waiting a while, I was able to almost eliminate the need for a course correction. And by a while, I'm talking a good 15 or 20 degrees worth of phase angle. Those numbers that come out of those two are estimates only because of this.

If the Hooligan Airships parts are realistically balanced, it wouldn't make enough of a difference to a rocket capable of achieving LEO to make the complications worth it (and the Hooligan parts definitely have fewer complications than a real life equivalent would have), but for a sample return from the surface of Venus, it could make the mission drastically more feasible. In KSP at least, balloons also work well with landers/rovers. They're the best uprighting mechanism going if there's an atmosphere, and on my first Laythe landing, I even used a balloon in place of parachutes so that my normal not-so-precise landings would still allow me to set down on an island instead of in the water.

Yes, this is the exact fuel flow problem I mentioned a few messages back as the reason I use the Common Berthing Modules addon instead of multiport docking in my large craft. For liquid fuel and oxidizer (other fuel types have a more relaxed fuel flow), the only things that move fuel between separate stacks are fuel lines or multi-couplers, and the direction of flow is restricted with multi-couplers to the point that if you have two multi-couplers facing each other, even without docking ports between them, you can't get fuel to flow through both multi-couplers in the same direction. Note: for purposes of this description, docking ports do not separate a stack into two separate stack, but multi-couplers do, sort of. If you examine the config file of various multi-couplers, you'll find a section that looks like this: I suspect that removing this line might fix this problem, at the risk of causing other problems. From what I've seen, having multiple routes for fuel between engines and tanks can lead to non-symmetrical fuel usage.

In general, a hull with that much integrity tends to outweigh the air it would displace, especially at high altitudes. On the other hand, I have experimented in KSP with balloon-based launches (using a balloon to lift the craft out of the thickest part of the atmosphere) and landings (taking the place of parachutes).

The multi-couplers have fuel flow issues. Fuel isn't allowed to flow between certain legs, and I can't remember what the exact problems are. Best to only use them if you need them, and be prepared to bypass them with fuel lines.

I've gotten the impression from the dev chats that there won't be a campaign. Career mode isn't a campaign, and almost every time I've heard them talk about career mode or achievements, they've emphasized that they're not talking about anything like a campaign.

It existed, it even got mentioned in one of the livestreams if I remember correctly.

Before the great forum oops, there was a thread discussing a mod that could reload a specific part without reloading everything, but I didn't track it down in time, sorry. Maybe someone else knows where it's at.

Yeah, I made an electric UAV for the heck of it. It flies great on Kerbin, is in the air before it hits 20 m/s. Has to hit about 80 m/s to get airborne on Duna. I have yet to manage to land it without damaging it on Duna. Think I'm replacing the UAV I was planning on sending with either a tethered balloon, or a probe lander sitting on Ike, either way with a telescope pointing at the colony.

Me, not so much. I see nothing sacrosanct about stock parts. This I can agree with more. If I'm using a part specifically because it's got better stats (as opposed to more appropriate stats), then something is wrong. The last time I looked at both KW Rocketry and the Nova Punch Pack, I found parts that I was happy to use that filled niches that the stock parts didn't, and I found parts that were categorically better than certain stock parts, which I stayed away from. One example is the Common Berthing Mods. Rather than deal with the unrealistic solution of multi-port docking and the way the multicouplers affect fuel flow, I'd rather use something like a stronger docking port, as long as there are tradeoffs, and in Fusty's CBM module, there are tradeoffs (admittedly, the higher price isn't really a tradeoff until we get campaign mode). So I'm happy to use those parts when I'm doing orbital docking to build larger craft. Another one would be some custom fuel tanks I made for my munar lander. I wanted to do an apollo style mission, complete with two stage lander, and any way I did it just wound up with either one of the stages having enough fuel that I didn't need two stages, or a stack of 1.25m parts under a 2.5m lander can, which just didn't look right. So I made some thin, low capacity 2.5m fuel tanks specifically for that craft. They were perfectly balanced compared to stock parts as far as volume vs capacity and volume vs dry mass. I'm more lenient about functionality that may or may not be coming. I use the Kethane mod and ISA mapsat stuff to give me more of a purpose for being where I'm going. I'll be switching to the stock resource extraction and processing stuff as soon as it comes out, even though it will be less convenient. On the other hand, I've heard nothing about the devs doing anything like ISA mapsat. Like you, I used to use the BobCat CART stuff, but other than the individual seat, I haven't used any of that since stock rover wheels came out. Likewise, I've heard nothing but speculation and rumor about any kind of robotics, but I'm perfectly willing to use Damned Robotics or the Robot arm pack where appropriate. I'm still doing a monthly stock Mun landing and return (well, not completely stock, I do use KER, but it's information only) just to make sure I haven't picked up any bad habits or addon dependencies. As for the statement about an irrational dislike of mods, having my own list of irrational desires, goals, standards, etc., I'm fine with other people having their own :-)

The biggest problem I see with simulating this in KSP is that you can't control both parts at the same time combined with the fact that you can't switch vessels while within the atmosphere. So if you separate and have control of the launcher instead of the actual shuttle, you're not going to space today. I think that's what will happen, as it's been my general impression that when you undock a multi-part vessel, KSP leaves you in control of the more massive part (though I could be wrong, it may go by actively controlled command pod, as I don't remember what made me think it didn't work that way). EDIT: That said, even if this isn't direct competion with SpaceX, I'm glad to see more commercial space ventures, as even indirect competition is good.

From what I've seen, getting fuel to flow well through the bi/tri/quad couplers is generally a pain. That and part count are why I use the Common Berthing Modules addon instead of multi-port docking. The only thing I can think of trying to solve the fuel flow issue without a mod would be to modify the config file for the multi-couplers you use to remove/alter the "NoCrossFeedNodeKey = bottom" line.

Not sure where you got the wrong numbers, but earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s, and Kerbin matches it. OK, google says it's 9.78 m/s so I was off a bit. EDIT: I'm sorry, were we doing that as a chorus? I thought we were doing it in rounds.