Fel

Structs don't use attachment nodes... regular parts do? (And attachment nodes are suppose to do other types of physics (breaking the ship apart) while links never "fail" (the strut breaks, the link does not). Tw1, what is wrong with that design not functioning? You have no "foundation" so ibeams bending (even though it is really the attachment nodes but I digress) should be expected (Of course, they wouldn't just "bend back"... and attachment nodes can be insanely weak when they shouldn't be.)

Mars is obviously heading towards the earth and the space shuttle is delivering the "Magical Weapon" we're going to use to blow it up. I can see the headline now "NASA Rocket Accidentally knocks Mars out of orbit, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! (in 300 years)"

Debris follows a different aeronautical model, doesn't it? The whole "Staging while falling means the debris falls slower than you" deal?

While we're talking about the Saturn V... Isn't the "Merlin Engine" just knocking off the F-1 Engine? And Space-X is all gloaty about using modern fabrication processes to get a few more ISPs than decades old technology. So NASA basically is paying a company to make (and screw up) "stylized Saturn Rockets" all because we made an exceptionally cool piece of technology that had only a few practical applications. Meh, it was exceptionally cool but... I wonder if we would be having more interplanetary missions without it. (Which are cooler)

Jeb is coming in for a crash landing... and then "I'm alright!" I might try one of those crazier designs someday (Bit of a purist and went for several "apollo style" missions)

*Quick joke about you saying "Naval Ship Yard, In Space" Well, I'd first say that you'd need to fully colonize a celestial body. While it is possible to have rockets bring up preassembled parts, you REALLY want to establish a space-industry where the majority of the fabrication occurs in a low gravity environment... otherwise you're just wasting fuel bringing up the 'large parts'. But with an INDUSTRY established where the only issue is raw materials (**or mining**) you can make it very efficient to produce ships in space rather than launch them into orbit. And then, you can launch really crazy ships without having to have excessive strutting (or other exploits) just to survive the atmosphere.

\KSP_win\Parts\nuclearEngine\part.cfg (And the resource weight values are temporary.) (And nothing really makes sense, does it XD)

Good in theory, horrible in practice (except with close friends). People wouldn't build their own rockets / planes... they'd just download the "best for version number" build. It makes it really annoying to play your own build when someone has worked out and mass distributed builds that you're EXPECTED to be using. Another issue is that TRUE space combat, while infinitely more exciting... has an insane level of difficulty. KSP works because it allows you to take your time and get things right... but imagine trying to dock urgent supplies to your space station while using maneuvering thrusters to avoid the missiles being launched at you AND having to dogfight the fighter that is chasing you. And then we have to deal with MechJeb. I mean, being able to "battle" your creative juices could be fun... but it brings too much min-maxing into play; and the JOY of KSP quickly becomes lost as everyone uses the XxPwnzorsxX build.

You know, I had ASKED people not to supply information like that. (And you terribly know docking ports are a blatant exploit). Requesting Lock, again.

This actually gave me a considerable thought process. I can say, without a doubt, that I am overstrutting... but I asked "why does that matter." The answer lies in truss systems (not something I am well versed in), I am guessing... trussing is good for distributing load over a structure, but it also can absorb / dampen that load. I've observed KSP struts undergoing tension / compression which means that even though something isn't moving; it is still under the applied forces. Motion allows some of those forces to dissipate but can cause resonant effects in large structures. Non-motion means the forces transfer nearly perfectly, which can quickly massive forces. Oh uhmm... right.... the entire launcher is totally not the size of the VAB... (Although, the significant mass (say, 60%) is on the bottom (only 2 tanks high); I can think of a few ways to distribute the top mass more evenly... or even reduce it. [And thank you for not giving a precise amount.] And the tip about the fuel tanks is something I also had not considered... and fairly helpful i should say XD. Now that is just silly... (At first I was going to jab at brits using "," as a fraction mark... but then I realized you used ".") I personally don't believe I am going "too big"; but I do believe I WENT "too big too quickly"... I went from design directly to large scale application; bad engineering on my part. I'm going to try to make smaller scale tests and do individual stage tests rather than trying to test the whole rocket all at once (I mean, I have "Subassembly Loader"... I might as well use it.) And I understand that it is people's TENDENCY to spoil rather than to help, they know the precise solution and they WANT to give it... which is why I didn't ask "how to launch my rocket" but asked for "maintain structural integrity"... "Tips and Tricks" (preferably tips though) rather than out right solutions; you can only launch your first super heavy rocket once, so it might as well feel like an enormous achievement. Point is, I was stuck because I thought that what I was doing would work and just needed some people to help nudge me a bit in the right direction... I'm going to apply what others have mentioned here and build a little slower, but I WANT to make this super-heavy launcher. Not with a particular ship to launch in mind (although I'll certainly build one) but because I think I CAN! Isn't that what KSP is all about? *I guess thread can be closed, or w/e... just wanted to thank those who provided help (and a smile)*

Remember, we've only seen the nice side of the kerbals We have no idea how they'll react when they see human flesh Why do you think there are no Aliens (left) in the Kerbol Universe?

Honestly, not really. You all tend to spoil far too much for my taste; (heck, I consider the delta v's you all throw around so cavalierly spoilers as well, so). I don't want "how to", nor do I want "use this design", I want very general solutions / suggestions... let me work out the details. *The problem, I suspect... is that the tanks are tightly bound and I am exceeding the collision tolerance.

I have a wide base structure, each Fueltank is tied together with 12 crossed structs, (From the central out, 4 levels, 3 per level (tying each corner together)). All decouplers have been reinforced with structs as well. The level above is stabilized, tent style, onto the larger base. I THINK KSP is overreacting due to the mass; this iteration has failures... in that two or three of the 32 rockets breaks loose / explodes... but the only reason I can't carry on is because I don't have variable thrust control, critical failure only occurs AFTER the tip. While launching, things aren't shaking, nothing stretching, or going into the base... not much fine control needed and it is fairly stable going up... I just have a sudden failure in one of the tanks (Still a fair bit below terminal velocity as well).

I released it specifically for other life-support mods, I am rather surprised at how very little others seemed interested in it. It isn't that I wanted fame, but I did something that I felt proud enough of to give to the community. That... is very interesting. Actually, the implications are rather amazing... and the "end-user implementation" could be extremely easy with the ConfigNode system. So a CO2 scrubber would be something like MODULE { name = ICS_Module RESOURCE { name = CO2 rate = 0.05 } RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge rate = 0.05 } OUTPUT { name = Oxygen rate = 0.035 } } Infact, I think that is a brilliant way to implement things, you can create an extremely powerful 'core module' that handles the majority of the code; and open up the entire life support system to the end-user to tweak into whatever they want. And with code communicates across modules, you can add in other features that do not change the current implementations that people enjoy (say, non-linear rates [The more CO2 you have, the easier it is to scrub]). Those who want the features added by the update can modify their files to use the new modules without abandoning those who wish for other implementations. Okay... I think I just changed what you said into something entirely different :sticktongue:

If by "RCS" you mean translation... I rarely use translation at all; slowly work at aligning. *Well, I removed rotpower so I need rcs to maneuver in my designs It is actually easier than it sounds... but I can see how translation can turn docking into childsplay.

Well.... I spent a good while tweaking a small part set and finally got a decent Saturn V (Engine Thrust / Weight, Fuel Weight, and Empty Weight all approximately the same; ISP's tweaked so that it stages properly) to launch a 100Mg "payload" into a 90km orbit. And, yeah.... The Attachment Nodes are too weak and EVERYTHING needs to be held together with trusses / structs. The stages also move around an insane amount, which means trusses to keep things stable (and try to prevent resonant oscillations of death). The launch time is about 8 min (MET Elapsed) ... so probably 16 min due to how slow my computer is. Air resistance can actually destroy the ship (even going a few m/s over). But, having to put together a 3,000Mg behemoth that takes ages to launch (although, I do feel that the launch feels a bit more spectacular)... not to mention that I ran out of room in the VAB several times and had to scale down a bit... for a mun landing... it does seem excessive for a game. (And the ISPs were really only cut in half [well, 2.17] so too much fiddling does drastically affect the game) Well, at least I have a 100Mg launcher XD

Overpowered reaction wheels makes RCS pretty pointless. But relying on reaction wheels that /should be/ prone to malfunction for all course motion, is that a good idea?

Earth to Kerbin relationships are: Thrust is reduced by ~10x, mass is haphazardly placed (Engines are often less massive, Tanks are more, SRBs are... something). ISPs are somewhat reduced but not significantly. (And yes, kerbal planetary distances / masses are much smaller than earth counterparts...) Kerbal is scaled in many strange ways, I just found it interesting that to balance the equation TIME would have to be scaled as well.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/26446-KerbalEVA-Lifesupport-(19-1-1)-Source-Only? Mostly for Mulbin (Who, I guess... would quote me to you XD). I've done some experimentation with it and am okay enough to leave the hackjob in... and I pretty much released it just to show people how to do what others wanted lifesupport to have. So surprised a bit.

I understand that the distance was shrunk... But at the same time that created innumerable balance issues (RE: SSTO insanity). It also created many strange ways of balancing the insanity; some of which feel a little more restrictive than others. Now, since Kerbin is 10.6 ^2 times less massive than earth, and 10.6 times less big... it is perfectly scaled which means going in reverse should be possible. What surprises me is that TIME ALSO SCALES! It has to to balance many of these equations; and with time scaling, it results in: So to go from Kerbin to Earth scale... ISP would increase x10.6 while Thrust remains the same. (And all mass would reduce by 10.6) Does that sound like I'm balancing things? XD. The converse is that to go from Earth to Kerbin scale, ISP would decrease, mass increase, thrust remains the same.

Is that thread literally an all out Damion bash party? No matter how "insignificant" someone's role in developing KSP is; they ARE STILL a significant PERSON in its development. Would you want the programmers to be spending all their time "managing the community" instead of developing the game? We, as a community, should not be tearing Squad apart; they can only do so much by themselves, it is our job to help them along the way. So I apologize, on behalf of this community, for the hardships they put you through.

We're ignoring the UNITS of G for now G * m ------- = r ^ 2 G * m * a ^ 2 -------------- (r * a) ^ 2 Balancing G's units ((a * m) ^ 3 / ((s * a) ^ 2 * (g * a)) fixes other problems (and yes, as I stated, mass has to be (m * a) * a) Point was more to thrust (Kg * a) * (m * a) / (s * a) ^ 2 not changing but isp does.

While wondering again about part balance, I figured why not just fix the whole mess and make Kerbin more earth-like. Well, as many of you already know... it appears Kerbin is a near perfect clone of earth; increasing the radius by 10.6 changes the mass by 10.6^2, which then leaves gravity the same but Kerbin with very close numbers to our sweet planet (Although G isn't balanced). So now, on a scrap of paper... 1 "kerbin meter" = 10.6 "earth meters" and all is right... except velocity... and acceleration... and everything else. Since velocity can't really change (game setting), I guess saying that "kerbin time" is 10.6 x earth time fixes that... And to balance G, "Kerbal Mass" has to be increased 10.6x earth mass (BOOO!!!!) This imbalances g again, so Kerbin's mass is now 10.6 * Original * "Kerbal Mass Units" (but basically unchanged). But what surprises me is that thrust remains unchanged.... and the isps decrease. *grumble*and that mass increases*grumble* In terms of what I was doing (Unit Conversions and multiplying by 1)... it kind of makes sense; but hardly any more than that.

If you love KSP, buy it from the store so Squad gets more funds to finish the project! Honestly, Steam is just a very wide spread distributor. It gives KSP a lot of publicity and a fairly large amount of new customers (which means more development money)

The large tanks are made out of swimming pools... the toroidal tank is foil (or an inner-tube with pretty gift wrapping). It is a strength to weight trade off without the actual "weight" trade off. Thing is, I'm quite hesitant to. I understand the need to balance the game due to Kerbin being much smaller than earth... but I can FEEL the tanks dragging me down; the whole diminishing returns aspect. Yes... until you wonder how that fully operation rocket part got there to begin with. ("It must have come from one of our rockets that exploded","But how did it get on your rocket to begin with","Well, we found it!") SRB's offer "That Small Boost" that you need... of course they're too heavy to be better than throwing out expensive engines... but they're also PRETTY and good at making neat rocket trails! Also was working on a moon lander... but I wanted mine to be a little more "Practically Launched." Ended up splitting into two rockets; 11Mg lander with a probe launcher [Guess what most of that weight is -__-] and a behemoth to get a 25Mg 'Mk3 FuelTank (and Command Module)' up. As much as I try to keep things sensible... I ended up having to start slapping on aerospikes and LV's. (At least it was only ~200Mg at launch, which is decent by my standards). *And aside from getting extremely pissy because even though my self-launch went perfectly (eventually) and I was predicted to arrive 30km ahead of the target vehicle; the lack of 'finer' controls (and me removing rotpower, forgetting to add rcs in, and now relying on a 2.0 vectored engine for all navigation) cause my final burn to be a little too hard to control and screwed my inclination up by something like 15deg. (Good news was, I still managed to sync orbits enough so that *cough*infinite fuel*cough* put things back on track.) [And the joys of docking when you cannot rotate XD!]