csiler2

Perhaps an italian plumber with an affinity for wearing Red and chasing mushrooms?

Cost is a factor you ignored. The original design is currently cheaper than either of your improved designs. The parts may seem irrelevant now, but they will be useful on a budget.

I concur. Saturn V development took 10+ years and it wasn't just about the engines. NASA had to develop entirely new materials, construction techniques, physical models, and computer technology. None of the engines used on the Saturn V existed before von Braun's team won NASA's approval for Saturn V development. In fact, the von Braun team scavenged technology from military rockets like the redstone and titan just to make sure the delivery dates for the Saturn I were reachable. There are plenty of valid ways to justify tech trees for almost every current part used in KSP.

True, but I don't think I explained what I want to get out of RT very well. I like the idea of having to establish a communications network to operate my probes, but I don't want to deal with realistic delay, which would require programming or sending a manned mission first. I'm not interested in the first option because I'm not into the idea of programming my missions it's a little more work/trial and error than I want to deal with while playing. I don't want to do the second because it doesn't fit within the theme of the way I want to play, i.e. send cheap unmanned missions first, followed by longer manned missions. That's why I am favoring the suggestion to raise the 'speed of light' transmission speed so I can have instant communication with my probes, no matter how far away they are. Assuming I have the proper network setup, of course, which is the part I am interested in. Less realistic, yes, but it imposes only the limitations I'm interested in setting on myself.

I would call that an adequate solution! Landing/docking is why I would want to use Mech Jeb. I just tell it what I want and it operates the spaceship as if I'd written the program using RT. I'm not keen on the idea of setting up remote stations ahead of my probes because it doesn't seem very thematic to send a manned mission first and then a robotic mission. It defeats the purpose of sending a low-cost unmanned mission first. Ralathon's tip is a good workaround for dealing with signal delay in case mechjeb compatibility doesn't happen and I don't want to program in RT. I'll just pretend it's subspace transmissions like in Star Trek

I love your naming concept Jeti. I think I may adapt it for my own missions Right now, I only have a naming scheme for rocket designs, based off the numbering scheme for the Japanese H-IIA rockets. Each engine is assigned a letter and word from the NATO or British special forces spelling alphabets, which are then used as the basis for a rocket family name. e.g. rockets based around the LV-T30 are called Tango and Mainsail rockets are called Mike. Then there are up to five characters that describe the first stage, followed by a hyphen and up to two characters that describe the upper stage. The upper stage notation repeats if there is more than one upper stage. (Rocket series)-(Liquid Booster engine type using the spelling letter)(Number of liquid boosters)(number of asparagus stages)(Number of BACC boosters)(Number of RT-10 boosters)-(Upper stage engine type using spelling letter)(Number of engines powering the upper stage) This way, I can look at my rocket designs and know the basic configuration of each rocket without having to load it. Foxtrot-T4200-Z1 is an LV-T45 core surrounded by LV-T30 boosters with a booster->booster->core feed design topped by an LV-909 powered upper stage. Like regular numbers, proceeding zeros are dropped out, so a basic Foxtrot with no boosters would simply be Foxtrot or Foxtrot-0-Z1 if there were an upper stage. I've considered deleting the BACC and RT-10 booster numerals, but I want flexibility if I plan to try mixtures of different boosters. Unfortunately, this system is not designed to handle clustered engines, so I'm working on a parallel naming scheme for that. I have no proper naming scheme for missions right now. I just type whatever makes the most sense or use a basic descriptor of the vessel. I.E. MPKV for my Orion MPCV analog.

You are correct, I am not currently using RemoteTech. I've seen it in a lot of Let's Play videos, but didn't know what it was until recently. I'm too lazy to back-date my game to give it a go and would rather wait to see where RT 2 goes first. Does RT 2 beta makes MechJeb finicky or the original RT? I do use mechjeb and find it really useful for mundane actions, like routine launches of proven vehicles. I think I would also find the interface useful as a roundabout way of 'programming' my spacecraft without having to sit down and write out code. I agree with to each their own as a general sentiment about mods. I recognize that RT is geared towards players that want a realistic depiction of remote space exploration, and I want some of that, just not all of it

Temstar. Your creations are amazing as always.

Oh right, signal delay. Silly speed of light. Does anybody know if players will be given the option to toggle the delay and act as if transmissions are instant? I don't mind having delay, but I'm not to keen on trying to hand-program landing sequences, etc. It would be nice to have the option to use Mechjeb in conjunction with RT to plan maneuvers ahead of time while the spacecraft is in radio contact, though it seems the MJ + RT compatibility is a bit... contentious right now. I'm a bit on the fence about whether or not I will use the mod once it's out of beta, but I'll keep my eye on it. I like the idea of having to build a communications network to use my probes, I'm just not too keen on having to figure out how to perform orbital maneuvers or land them with hand-written programs.

I've been following the thread for a couple days and I'm confused. Is the new Remotetech going to require that players use programming to operate probes, or will this be an option that can be turned on/off?

The KSP forums are generally the friendliest I've come across in recent memory, but there are still a few people on here that can be pretty rude. It doesn't happen very often though. Perhaps I just have a thin skin

Verry nice, how much? Do you have struts holding together the standard clamp-o-tron joint that joins the 2-Kerbal excursion unit to the rest of the ship? How's stability after those go away?

I believe the main reason Apollo missions used the figure eight was for delta V savings. They burned just enough to get into the Moon's SOI and then let gravity do the rest until they circularized. Getting into a retrograde Earth orbit before departing would cost a lot of delta V and burning to get into a prograde lunar orbit would require a more direct path (also more delta V). Regardless, you can always burn prograde or retrograde to the orbit of your parent body regardless of whether or not your orbit is prograde or retro grade. The only thing that changes is where you start your burn. Ships in prograde orbits want to burn near-side for access to the inner bodies and far-side for the outer bodies. Ships in retrograde orbits will do the opposite; near-side for access to outer bodies, far-side for inner bodies. e.g. A ship in prograde Kerbin orbit will want to burn dark-side (far-side) to get to Jool, while a ship in prograde orbit of the mün will want to burn on the near-side to get back to Kerbin. Since Apollo missions were in retrograde lunar orbit they burned on the far-side to get back to Earth. It was risky having their major burns for Lunar orbital maneuvers on the far side, but it was much cheaper in Delta V.

Actually, film cameras control frame exposures by adjusting the shutter angle. The standard shutter angle is 180 degrees, making the exposure about half the frame rate. Higher angles correspond to longer exposures. Eg. I set my camera to approximately 180 degree shutter by setting my frame rate to 1/24 and my exposure to 1/50 for most shoots, but if I want to recreate a stop-motion effect, I will decrease the shutter angle by lowering my frame exposure(yes, I am a professional videographer). Actually, only some TV shows are recorded at 60i or interlaced frames. The shows look sterile because each frame is only half an image and not a full image. 60i cameras are effectively recording at 30fps for each half-image, but quality is lost because interlacing was designed as a workaround for image buffering when video was first created. It also allows lower-end cameras to fake high frame rates. Many HD TVs now sow the frames together to recreate the originally intended 30fps, but at lowered quality. The sterility of TV shows using 60i cameras is known as the Soap Opera Effect and is generally seen in productions with limited budgets. High-end productions generally use(d) film or cameras capable of capable of recording at the requisite progressive (real) frame rates of 30 or 25.

I don't believe the original poster is arguing that the brain does work on an FPS system. He is arguing that there is a threshold for frame rates below which the beta movement and phi phenomenon that create apparent motion become noticeably distracting. Besides, there's no guarantee that we would see perfectly still images even if our brains did see in FPS because there are other factors in motion blur such as exposure time, ISO, and apature size. Examination of 24FPS film stills show examples of motion blur created by slower film speeds and longer exposure times. It's good that you took the time to look at TVs in a variety of places/times. There are a lot of factors that can affect your viewing experience including artificial light (which also flickers at rates depending on amperage), video feed, and TV type. However, you are confusing the TV's flicker rate with its frame rate. Frame rates are constant and decided by the video being shown. Films run at 24 FPS traditionally, NTSC runs at 30, PAL runs at 25. Your TV will always change frames at the rate specified by the source material. In addition to the source-decided frame rate, TVs also have a flicker rate to minimize eye-strain and promote beta movement and phi phenomenon. While the two are related, all TVs show their source-video at the prescribed rate, but they flicker at rates decided by the maker/model. I don't know if this is true for all TVs, but mine has its flicker rate hard-wired (though I am not aware what the flicker rate is on this model). If you met someone that is unable to see the difference between 60hz and 120hz televisions, it means that they do not perceive motion the same way you do, not that their brain wiring is inferior. That said, legions on particular portions of the brain do inhibit the ability to see motion and patients describe seeing life as a series of still images. Out of curiosity, what was the flicker rate of the TV you bought?

If I recall correctly, most of the interplanetary/interstellar probes launched in the 60s, 70s, and 80s used RTGs as opposed to solar panels. Voyager 1, 2, and Pioneer 10 used RTGs and not solar panels as their power source.

Great designs. I've been developing some Common Booster Core designs. My 3 and 5 booster rockest use cross-feed, but it's mostly to simulate a low-throttle in the central booster. Does anyone have recommendations for photo hosting so I can show off my builds? All of these designs look great! Seeing gorgeous rockets just makes me want to build more!

This looks very nice. I especially like the lander design.

Love the LLRV. You are making some great machines!

That is a beautiful station. Nicely done I don't know about you, but Mechjeb 2 docks my ships like a drunken sailor. The rendezvous module is pretty nice though.

Wow, this is exactly what I need to do. My programs always stall out as I lose interest and aimlessly wander. I shall begin the experiments immediately!

I was being cheeky. My abort option is the self-destruct. What could be more Kerbal? RDFox: That is some awesome trivia. I knew about the range safety "packages," but I didn't know that the safety option included steps to maximize escape potential for the astronauts. The shuttle was still incredibly dangerous. Looking at the abort options still makes me wonder who thought they might actually work. Clearly NASA had more faith in those options than I did.

This isn't an FPS and you're playing for your own enjoyment, right? I say mod away!

Is that not what the abort option is for? I mean, my ships always survive and do not explode spectacularly!

I think Astronomer is making an oblique reference to Distractions in Space (space...space...space...echo?...)