csiler2

It's turning into a gorgeous station, iDan. I've wanted to build my own version of the OPSEK station, but never had the patience to get more than a couple modules docked.

I love the design. Do you have plans for including an MOL module, or did I miss seeing it in one of the current pods?

Great Diagrams. I had no idea the Lunokhod were so big!

You're playing a BETA not a full release, that means some features have yet to be implemented or are only partially implemented. .23.5 and .24 were in parallel development and it makes sense to start adding the changes of .24 to .23.5. Why should the Devs release a version that's 'balanced' with the current version of a Beta when they already know it will become unbalanced when the next update comes out? That's a lot of extra work to keep the public testors happy for a couple months. I think the Community Manager has decided to A) appease a subset of the KSP community that has been vocal about their distaste for the way ARM has been implemented and chose one of the very few ARM-only mods, which not only achieves A, but also promotes the 23.5 update. It's a win-win.

Oh gee, you're right, I have no right to justify my position. I'm not unwilling to talk about rebalancing engines, but it's premature to discuss it when the supposedly unbalanced parts appear to be taking cues from the next update that will add new factors to the game. Perhaps you can explain to me why it's such a problem that the ARM engines are better? In response to your posts and LethalDose's response: I ignored hypothetical shuttle arrangements and operations for the sake of simplicity. If we include the orbiter and external tank, whose only mission is to put things into orbit, then we would need to include the S-IVB and upper stages of any GTO-capable launchers as part of their payload fraction rather than the launcher. That said, the shuttle was probably a more efficient launcher if evidence from the shuttle-derived SLS is any indication.

How do we decide whether or not the parts are balanced? Is it going to be some mathematical mixup of Thrust/ISP/TWR? Just a couple of those factors? Just one? As SQUAD considers ARM an 'official mod' should we also require other modders to adhere to an arbitrary balance? Should we consider cost? As ARM was in parallel development with .24, I think we should hold off on serious discussion over 'balance' until we see what happens when the budget system comes in. I know, there are counter arguments that we don't even know a budget system will be put in place, but I'm feeling pretty confident about it based on the developer tuesday notes. As we all like to look to the real world for inspiration about how things in KSP should be done, please consider the following: Like ARM parts, the Saturn V has a huge advantage over other current launchers. It could carry almost five times more payload into LEO than the Delta IV Heavy, the current heaviest lifter. My goodness, you say, that's just unfair that the Saturn V's performance is so much better than Delta, Falcon 9, Atlas, and other boosters! Well, we stopped making them and launching them because they were too darned expensive at $1.2bil per launch (vs appx $170mil for a DIV-H launch). Now look at the cost of ARM parts compared to older KSP parts. Based on raw performance specs you are not nearly getting the same bang for your buck unless you want to launch really heavy things AND you have the budget for it. That sounds a lot like the Saturn V! Lots of lift capability, but very expensive. The Space Shuttle is another example of an item that does its job pretty darned well, it could lift just a bit more payload than a Delta IV Heavy, but it cost significantly more to launch at appx $450mil. Yes, we don't know exactly how the finance system is going to work, but as we know we're going to have a budget of some sort, players are probably going to want to spend their budget as efficiently as possible. That's going to limit their ability to use ARM and maintain a sustainable space program as they look to keep their budget balanced. You'll probably end up having a lot of small, cost-effective launches with the occasional big-budget spender. Besides, in the end, it's just a game. The 'balance' of rocket engine performance isn't as important as balancing weapons in an FPS because you're not competing with anyone. Yes, the ARM parts perform better, but it's not like you can throw an oscar tank on top of an ARM engine for a quick trip around Jool and back.

Most people think of spaceplanes as the only SSTO option, and yes, they are difficult to build (I still haven't built a successful SSTO), but SSTO rockets are certainly possible. They're easier because the only requirement you need to worry about is including enough fuel to get into space and enough to return to the planet. Scott Manley has made a few rocket-based SSTOs that use jet engines as their first stage to save weight, though most of the ones I have seen him use are not stock and rely on B9 parts to work. I agree the engines (and tanks) are more realistic in their performance. I believe SQUAD made Kerbin smaller than Earth to ensure that it would be easier to achieve orbit, certainly to make sure it takes a bit less time. Personally, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The ARM parts ARE better than the Rockomax parts, but it looks like they will probably be balanced through budgeting rather than pure performance and it makes tackling high ∆v missions a lot easier for those of us without beefy computers and exceptional rocket building skills. ARM parts lifting power is all but a requirement to lift enough ∆v into orbit for capturing asteroids in my opinion.

You can also make a 3-part SSTO with a Skipper. What's your point?

I want to emphasize a somewhat ironic section from this post "Logicly [sic] smaller rockets will be cheeper [sic] but were [sic] playing a game where little green men with 50% of their body mass contained in their heads gleefuly [sic] ride unsafe rockets to wherever, logic kinda got left at the door a long time ago." If logic left the game a long time ago when relating to the potential budget system, why are we complaining about unbalanced engine performance? It's true we don't know what our absolute budget is, but it's still important to compare the baseline costs of the parts involved. The tanking prices are all sorts of strange with Orange tanks holding less but costing more than their ARM counterparts, however just looking at engine prices shows that you're paying a massive premium for ARM engines. The S3 KS-25x4 and LB KR-1x2 both cost 5900 credits, over twice the cost of re-priced Mainsail at 2850 (iirc it used to cost 850), yet neither provides twice the performance of the Mainsail. Is it going to make sense for you to spend the extra money? My guess is no, unless you have a payload that falls into the pricing sweet spot where ARM engines are more cost-effective than Mainsails (eg one S3 would suffice in place of 3 MS CBCs), then you're probably going to want to opt for mainsails, assuming tank prices are rebalanced. The only engine that doesn't obviously fit into the program is the KR-2L which has better performance than the Skipper and Mainsail, but costs the same. I suspect it should probably cost 5900, just like the other ARM main-stage engines, but only time will tell.

As I recall, Squad has said repeatedly that ARM is designed and intended as an 'official' mod rather than a standard update in the game. I feel this is supported by ARM's lack of full number designation as .23.5 rather than .24 and that the new parts/mechanics are not contained within the SQUAD folder, but within the NASAmission folder. I have inferred that ARM was released as an 'update' rather than put up on Spaceport or released via the KSP store for distribution reasons. Spaceport's interface is pretty bad (weren't we going to get a new version of that?), and the KSP site has enough trouble dealing with users updating through the Squad launcher let alone those of us that get our updates via Steam and other licensed distributors. Clearly releasing it as an update was the sensible choice to make it easy on us to get the new stuff. If you don't like the NASA parts or mechanics, just delete the folder as you would with any mod you don't have an interest in using. Squad created it as an add-on, not core addition, that helps NASA promote their new manned-space initiative in the hopes of generating interest. Even if we aren't looking at ARM as a mod, the parts look to me as if they may be balanced with future updates in mind. The SLS S1 engine quad is well over twice the cost of the mainsail, but even according to Silly Chris's calculations, does not offer twice the performance, and it's at the top of the tech tree. That means that yes, you will have a very sexy and realistic engine at your disposal near the end of the game that makes the mainsail look like a bottle rocket, but it's also going to be prohibitively expensive compared to the per-launch costs of a mainsail-based rocket. With the stated goal of adding contracts and implied budgets in .24, which was in parallel development with ARM, it seems to me that SQUAD will make you pay dearly for parts that can turn anyone into Giggleplex or Whackjob. As for the non-ARM parts that have experienced change, including joint reinforcement, I feel that the changes positive. I can't think of a single person that has expressed joy at sitting in front of their computer for hours waiting for their Ion probe to complete an obnoxiously long burns at x4 time acceleration. It's not realistic, but certainly this improves gameplay the same way as unrealistically allowing us to reset experiments repeatedly until we'e moved out of areas we've already drained of science and into the area we want to get new science from. Ant engines have been practically useless for their entire existence because of their low-thrust and even lower ISP performance. It's nice to think I might actually find them the most efficient choice for the job now rather than a pity choice for something that won't see use otherwise. Floppy joint has been a constant complaint of large-scale and linear stack rocket builders since the introduction of the size 2 parts ages ago, now they don't have to add massive amounts of struts to get an otherwise reasonable rocket to fly. Squad may have gone a bit overboard, but they can always scale it back, or make parts more fragile, depending on how much it affects the size 3 part performance. There are already mods out there that offer seriously OP parts late in the tech tree, we don't flood the modders' threads with demands to balance their engines to Squads' performance envelope. Is Squad not allowed to similarly experiment with new ways of balancing parts beyond their raw performance specifications? As public beta testers, we should definitely take a critical eye to every update Squad puts out to help them maintain the quality they've established with past updates, but we also need to have a little patience when they have not one, but two updates in the oven that may offer us new challenges we haven't had to deal with. It's hard to keep a budget in check, just ask NASA after the cancellation of the Constellation program and their current issues keeping Orion and SLS on track, and I have a feeling that Squad will balance out extra-powerful engines by making it hard for us to always fit them into our career budgets.

It's official. The first test launch of NASA's Orion capsule has been bumped in the name of US Security. Citing an 'urgent need' to launch recently declassified satellites into orbit, the USAF has commandeered the Delta IV originally slated for Orion's test launch in September for their GSSAP satellites. Orion is now slated to launch on the Delta IV originally slated for the USAF in December. I don't really understand how a couple months can make that much of a difference in USAF satellite security, but it's a bit annoying. At least we'll be able to play with some NASA parts in KSP soon! Source article

You would just wait until your space station's orbit lines up over KSC before de-orbiting your shuttle.

PDCWolf, Have you read any of the flavor text or watched any of the SQUAD videos? If so, how many have featured a very serious, very professional NASA like attitude to space exploration? As far as I can tell, very few. The game developers have a far more whimsical view of the game than a lot of the players who take it as a 'for serious' simulation game. I feel that it is this subset that is most critical of the way Squad has implemented construction and physics from joints to the 'fragility' of parts. It is not inappropriate to use the "kerbals are orks" and SO KERBAL XD jokes as defenses for why the joints aren't the best. We're playing a game where some Kerblnauts come with a "Badass=true" flag to ensure they're always brave and parts with flavor texts about being found in a junkyard or on the side of the road. As far as I can tell, the developers take a Magic School Bus attitude to rocket construction, "Take Chances, Make Mistakes, Get Messy," or at least "Take Chances, Make Mistakes, Blow Up Rockets." If everything is super strong, works perfectly, and gets you into orbit even when poorly engineered, then the game becomes very boring. I have a lot of fun designing, testing, and refining designs. I have enjoyed the challenges of building stable rockets and probably would not keep playing KSP if there weren't some engineering challenges beyond making sure I have enough ∆V to get where I want to go. To me, that means expecting the players to build appropriate thrust plates and use struts to counter the 'floppiness' inherent in some connections. I rarely have need for struts or build structures beyond attaching strap-on boosters or protecting instrumentation placed between a high TWR lower stage and a heavy payload (which is fair in my opinion). I turn to real-world rockets for design and flight operation inspiration. I coax my rockets through gentle gravity turns instead of whipping them over to 45˚ at 10K and I keep my accelerations low to minimize stress on my designs. I stress sending multi-rocket missions to faraway destinations and in-orbit assembly over massive payloads. All of this is to avoid having my rockets collapse under stresses There are plenty of super-heavy lifters in the rocket designs forum that can make it into orbit without being strutted monstrosities, so I'm a bit confused why people are having so much trouble with 'floppy joints'. To me this says that they need to either A) Be more gentle with their designs. Have a better understanding of the stresses and dynamics inherent in their designs or C) a combination of both. Persecuting people who don't agree with you is just as damaging, if not more so, to the community. Sof's points are valid. There should be some expectation that players need to learn how to appropriately 'design' a rocket to perform its task in KSP. If you're more interested in aesthetics than engineering, go play a space sandbox builder instead.

Apollo performed neither direct ascent or straight up burns. The mission launch windows were approximately a month apart to optimize the Saturn's flight path due to the moon's oscillations across the earth's ecliptic. Vehicle performance requirements increase as the moon moves away from the ecliptic, decreasing the Saturn's propellant safety margins. Launch window spacing also took light requirements for lunar flight operations and vehicle recycling in case of missed launch windows due to scrubs. Apollo used one to two earth parking orbits for vehicle checks before TLI. We don't need to worry about such considerations since most of the planets and moons are perfectly aligned with their parent body's ecliptic. Here's a pretty cool paper from NASA on Apollo Launch Windows.

Psycix, just because they share the same tooling doesn't mean that Space X can just rip the guts out and change the internal structure of their tanks willy nilly. They would probably need to sit down and go through the design process all over again and adjust the tooling to build the proper cylinder side lengths. Let's not forget they'll need to calculate and build properly sized expanders for the nitrogen or helium vessels that will maintain tank pressure. The advantage to their system is that they don't need separate production lines/facilities for each tank or can reshuffle production if machines on one of the tool sets are broken. That's a step towards the standardization route, not the custom innards route.

IRL rocket tank resizing would be an extremely difficult task. Just building the original Saturn stages required leaps in technology. It's a lot easier now that the techniques are established, but man, it's hard enough to resize things that don't need high PSI seals. I can't imagine doing it with the required precision and scale of a rocket. Read chapter 6 and chapter 7 of Stages to Saturn if you want to know how those monsters were built. Edit: Psycix - It's still more expensive to build your own can and ensure it meets spec than to buy a mass-built can that mitigates those costs through sheer production size. Besides, you aren't building your own can. You select one of the pre-built cans provided by KSP's VAB/SPH.

My comments were purely from the construction side, not flight side. My analogy is not irrelevant. As you pointed out, the Saturn V was designed to achieve a specific heavy-lift role. To that end, its tankage, engines, and electronics were custom made for each rocket in the series as NASA and contractors made small changes. That is not Kerbal Space Program. We take pre-built parts, slap them together and hit the go button for space. Allowing tweakables to change the internal tank sizes goes against that pre-built mentality that the game is built around. I mentioned the car modifications because I feel this is a similar mindset. Most people don't go to a shop and custom-build their gas tank, even for one-of cars. They buy pre-built fuel cells and find a spot for them in the car. Need two kinds of gas? Then buy two cans, because it's a lot easier and cheaper than trying to split up the one you've already got. That said, I am for allowing us to change what fuel types are allowed in each tank. You can store almost anything in a tank, assuming that it's been properly purged and filled according to spec (magic handwave), but I feel that changing the internal tank structure gets too far away from the pre-built mentality. If the developers do want to allow changing tank internals, then I hope it costs a boat-load of money, because it would balance out that kind of power.

That's very complicated in real life, especially with US-designed rockets. The Saturn V stages were designed with very thin skins that depended on the tanks and their fuel load to help maintain rigidity and structure during launch. NASA engineers were aghast when they first saw the R-7 launcher at the 1967 Paris Air Show. The Russians were picking up the tank from either end with cranes to move it into position. Similar actions with any of the Saturn stages would have destroyed them. The R-7 Tanks were built with thicker materials, which made them less efficient, but easier to transport and move around. It would be nice to swap out fuel types as we see fit, but I don't agree with being able to re-partition the tanks. Remember that all of the 'parts' originate from Jebediah's Junkyard and implicitly come 'as is'. It goes against the cobbled-together theme of the game if you're going in and changing all the parts to precisely what you want. I look at it this way, if I want to modify the fuel capacity or ad NOS to my car, I don't drop out the fuel tank, change its dimensions/add partitions and put it back. I add additional pre-made tanks to the trunk or other open spaces to my car and work on it that way. This is the same approach, but with rocket parts instead of car parts.

When have range limitations deterred a trumpet player? I don't know of any group of musicians more interested in screaming into the high registers than trumpet players.

Nice Design. What parts are you using? I really dig the LM and LVs Those shuttles are HOT and Sexy!

Not necessarily. Alpha Centauri is the Alpha Centauri system, not the Alpha Centauriar system. Just look at wikipedia's list of the closest star systems. Sol is unique in that we call it the Solar system, not the Sol system, which is more technically correct.

That's not entirely accurate. The Apollo CSM was always designed for lunar missions, the major debate was in regards to the mission profile; Direct Ascent, Earth Rendezvous, or Lunar Rendezvous. The command module design started in 1961 with an assumed mission mode of direct ascent and was too far along in development to stop Block 1 production before NASA settled on LOR in mid-1962. Instead of wasting Block 1, NASA decided to use it for unmanned test flights (after the Apollo 1/AS-204 fire). Once it became clear that NASA's budget would be rolled back, the designers began considering alternate uses for the Apollo CSM. Google Apollo applications program for more info. Despite rollbacks, NASA had high enough hopes that a manned Venus flyby was considered, but eventually Skylab was the result, and NASA started considering alternatives to expendable vehicles. By the time we got to the Apollo/Soyuz flight, NASA had decided to ditch expendable launch systems and pinned their hopes on the reusable space shuttle. What's most exciting (for me) is that the US got very lucky when it came to the space race. The initial specifications for what would eventually become the Saturn family of launchers were discussed as early as 1958, over a decade before we landed on the moon! The military mentioned that it might want a super-heavy lifter in its arsenal, and Von Braun's team started making initial proposals, but the program was on the rocks, kept alive through Von Braun's force of will until Kennedy made a moon landing NASA's top priority. He even threatened to quit if Saturn development was cancelled. Check out "Stages to Saturn" if you want to learn more about the Saturn family than you ever knew you didn't know.

Katateochi, that is an awesome escape pod. It's very F-111.

Do I need to do anything special to get Deadly Reentry to play nice with KSP Interstellar in career mode? The parts are not appearing when I play. I'm only a level or two into the tech tree, but I believe I saw that Scott Manley had heat shields available in the first episode of his Interstellar career game.

My God! It's full of debris! Open the pod bay doors, KAL. We're getting out of here!