mythic_fci

Alright...! I'm just used to typing and saying LEM - just sound better than just LM. Anyway, what times are the shifts? Depending on schedule, I may be able to commit for one of the "later" schedules (what's midnight in the US/UK is noon/afternoon where I live). Can't really commit to a full mission as an astronaut; plus, my computer just can't handle high-part or large crafts. P/S: By Apollo 6, do you mean the intended lunar flyby test or the IRL high-alt reentry test? The real Apollo 6 had severe pogo issues that led to the SIVB not being able to restart, meaning the SM engine had to push the CSM into an elliptical orbit before reentering at somewhat-high speed (lower than planned). If you want to do an unmanned flyby, I recommend simulating Apollo 5 instead. P/P/S: I'd suggest adding an Apollo 9/10 to the schedule as training for the LM as well as extra experience, if possible.

I suggest maybe running a few shorter simulations, such as perhaps one or two 1-2 hour 1=man orbital Mercury missions to gain experience controlling an orbital spacecraft, a 2-man Gemini mission lasting a few hours long to test docking and EVAs, and finally 2-3 day 3-man Apollo missions which can go to the Moon and perform tests with the LEM (like Apollo 10). Should be a nice experience. I'd also like to suggest a shift system for the flight controllers just like IRL, so that people can get some rest in between shifts.

Erm... 1.05 doesn't include x64. Sorry...

Cupcake's so jealous right now...

That's what happens when you build a Shuttle that's IRL scale and expect it to work after a huge physics update

No. Just no.

The new 1.0.5 preview vids show a KS-25 SSME analogue with a HELL of a lot of vectoring capability... In the video, it shows the liftoff thrust as 937.4kN, which is around 100kN more than the current Skippers on the STS and should allow for a bit more lifting capability. Also, the vectoring means the solid-rocket version of the STS should be MUCH easier to control and that some of the reaction wheels may be removed (at least on the LF one). Scott Manley's Preview (look for KS-25 at ~2:00 in): Also, new heating physics are coming in 1.0.5! No more spontaneous explosions! (although I'm still replacing the RTG with a real fuel cell on my shuttle(s))

Looking at the current Mk3 cockpit with RPM installed, it's just stupid how many cockpit panels there are. Is there anyone who can either make a new cockpit panel with RPM or remodel the entire interior?

Well, due to lack of time IRL and issues with the spacecraft (KSP's bug of "Collided with Launch Pad" mid-air), I've just decided to post some pics from a previous mission's setup. Built after it was realized that the Shuttle had a very small delta-V budget for rendezvousing and docking with medium-LKO stations (300-400km) with heavy payloads, this pallet contains enough monoprop (1600 units) to get heavy payloads up to a station while still leaving an adequate margin for docking the shuttle, undocking, other maneuvers, and reentry. I've found that with my own flight profile, it almost doubles the delta-v on-orbit with an empty cargo bay, from ~500m/ to about ~950m/s; with a full cargo bay (containing my 25.1t station service module inc. engine and fuel), it gives the shuttle a reasonable amount of d/v (~500m/s), compared to an unusable ~200m/s or so without the pallet. DL Link: http://kerbalx.com/fcisuperguy/STS-EDO-Pallet (Inigma, feel free to put this into the STS subassembly hangar)

Will the update fix the "Collided with Launch Pad" mid-air bug?

Here are some things missing from your challenge. 1. Logic (How do you put 1 shuttle on 20 tiny planes? The real Enterprise was carried by a Boeing 747.) 2. Clarification of the rules (What does "Land on the North Pole And South Pole, Near the edge of the sea" mean? Add specific points such as minimum length of flight, landing point, etc. or add a rank-based scoring system) 3. Your own attempt at doing it (proof that it can be done) As for a Shuttle on a plane, go check out Inigma's Shuttle. One of the spinoff crafts is a Shuttle on a 747 lookalike.

Wilco. Customer proving mission using the EDO pallet now underway (See IRL STS-118 for the planned payload)

I've already started assembling a station with your shuttle - do I have to start again to earn the proper qualifications or can I just make it up by launching a few missions with an empty cargo bay, the Fuel Pod, and the ComSats? I currently only have 3 core modules (based off of ISS's Unity, Zarya and Zvezda modules) in orbit.

I've made a small subassembly mimicking the STS Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet; however, unlike the real one, instead of fuel cell reactant, this one contains 1600 units of monoprop, giving the shuttle almost twice its regular d/V. I've been using it on most of my space station assembly missions so far. Due to its small size, it won't affect payload capacity and size that much. Should I post it?

Is the tank fully stock? If so, I'll give it a try.

Nice! Looks a bit like ISS... I should add an orbital fuel refinery/fuel depot to my station...

Could you please upload bigger versions of the photos? If they're too big, just put them under a spoiler. Thanks!

21:49 login_cmd LOGIN: hka_sup1a PASSWORD: ************ ... Login Succesful. Welcome, Supervisor 1a. 22:01 NOTE: Incoming Message 22:01 Package recieved. Decoding... 22:02 Decoding SUCCESSFUL. Message displayed below: HKA Alliance: This is a classified message from Arvak Industries. We are an independent, secret research organization and have been monitoring your military progress carefully. We believe it is in our mutual interests to offer you our latest prototype warship: ATLAS-CLASS Type: Frigate: Armament: 12x Wasp LAFTs*, 6x Mercury HACTs** Maneuverability: High (Advanced RCS system, experimental high-power gyro wheels) Power Source: Nuclear Reactor (4 Backup Fuel Cells provided) AGs: 1 - Toggle Engines 2 - Fuel Cells ON 3 - Fuel Cells OFF 4 - Toggle Radiator Panels NOTE: Image database only contains images of the first prototype Atlas (ID Code:AKV-Remorse-P01) and is therefore slightly outdated. The final prototype (ID Code:AKV-Sleipnir-P04) has a modified forward LAFT launch bay and modified Mercury HACTs with guidance systems. Classified Image Database OPERATIONAL ISSUES: -Due to prototype nature of spacecraft, a reliable LTO (launcher-to-orbit) is not included; launcher is to be provided by customer. -Broadside HACTs may be somewhat difficult to aim. It is recommended to use the missile guidance system (control from docking port) to aim the missile correctly. -Escape system not provided. In the event that the vehicle is critically damaged due to enemy fire or internal malfunction, the crew is to don their spacesuits and either abandoning ship via EVA to a nearby vessel or to isolate the flight deck and await rescue. -In the case of nuclear reactor meltdown, the crew is to don their spacesuits immediately and evacuate to the flight deck, before isolating the flight deck from the rest of the spacecraft and either abandoning ship via EVA or awaiting rescue in the flight deck. -Due to issues with the current flight computer (lack of enough action groups), all missiles are controlled manually via the staging system. User is free to adjust this at their leisure. *LAFT: Light Anti-Fighter Torpedo **HACT: Heavy Anti-Capital Ship Torpedo Classified Blueprint Database -end of message- Would you like to reply? (Y/N)

Hmmm... I'd have to say the Mainsail. It powers the 1st stage of 90% of my rockets (besides the 3m ones). For 2nd/3rd stage engines, the Skipper takes the cake, while the Poodle wins in the OMS engine category.

I'm on one right now I'm currently obsessed with replicas of IRL spacecraft; I've built the Apollo CSM and LEM, the Saturn IB and Saturn V, Gemini, Buran, Soyuz and Kliper...

I'd make Laythe more like Titan IRL, specifically by making it look more like Eve (but with different colors and without the atmo pressure) as well as making jets not work on it. I'd also add 1-2 more gas giants, each with their own moon system like Jool - no rings required, but if that could be simulated, it'd be great. EDIT: Also, I'd make Moho like Mercury - hot lava that can damage your spacecraft with a tiny bit of ice at the poles.

Wait... so does it have 500m/s or 4000m/s Delta-V after launch?

I'm going with Duna. Solar power there isn't an issue (just set up a solar farm connected to your habitation module(s), and it's a LOT easier to return to Kerbin compared to Eve - instead of sending a massive, 7-stage Whackjobbian behemoth of an emergency crew return vehicle for an Eve colony, on Duna you'd just need a single/2 stage vehicle with just a bit more fuel than, say, a Mun lander, that can get you to an orbiting mothership/station.

That actually isn't a good comparison. Although the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) on the CSM and the LM was indeed only a fraction as powerful as today's home computers, they were custom-built to run just the programs required to take the entire stack to the Moon, and then (for the LM) down to the surface and back up, compared to modern computers which run an OS then programs on top. Although, the slide rule part is accurate - it was VERY hard to calculate everything without modern supercomputers; plus, they had to pioneer advanced programming techniques to get everything in the AGCs to not overload the CPU (or the equivalent).

Amen... It's a great movie that uses 3D perfectly to convey the message that space is hard. And bad. Very hard. And very bad. The only issues I had were: Firstly, in the Pathfinder retrieval scene, the sand was in a wave pattern - kinda hard to do that sort of pattern with such low pressures and winds. One other really tiny issues was that the Chinese booster was just a Atlas-V booster without SRBs that was modified with CGI to have Chinese markings. Otherwise, it was a splendid movie.