Raptor9

Thanks, I'd be further along if real-life stuff hadn't kept me so busy for the past couple weeks. I've hardly had time to touch KSP recently. I've tried making reusable rockets in all diameters, and even explored the possibility of making a SpaceX mars transport ever since it was first shown last year. However, I never could get a reusable rocket design working well enough to be able to use them in my career save. I know a lot of people have, especially several of the most prominent KSP Twitch streamers, but I just couldn't get it working well enough through my own build style. Regarding the BFR specifically, I never really had that much motivation to build one because I don't have the need to land very many Kerbals to any given surface since I don't make massive bases. Lockheed Martin's reusable Mars lander is about as big as I'll get. And forgive me for saying so, but I have my doubts about the current BFR plan to use it for as many applications around the Earth/Moon region as Elon Musk proposed. First of all, the whole idea of suborbital rocket flights between countries seems like a legal fiasco; and secondly, I believe there is a reasonable chance the current BFR plans go down the same path as the Space Shuttle. As many know, the Space Shuttle was supposed to be very cheap and have a quick turnaround when it was under design, just like BFR. However it ended up being way more complex, extremely expensive to operate, and required much more refurbishment between flights than anyone ever thought. I foresee a lot of the same hindrances to BFR. Having said that, I will admit the following points of comparison between Shuttle and BFR. 1) As a species, we've collectively learned a lot more about access to space and aerospace engineering in the decades since Shuttle was designed. 2) SpaceX's logistics and manufacturing processes are much more efficient than NASA's ever was or is to this day. 3) There is something to be said when private and commercial industry drives cost-conscious development and creation compared to vast government bureaucracies. While I have my personal opinions and doubts, I'm definitely cheering SpaceX on, as I am with Blue Origin, ULA, Sierra Nevada, and all these other private/commercial companies that are pushing into space with all their various ideas. I believe we're witnessing the start of a golden age of spaceflight and exploration, so I really hope I'm proven wrong. Applying that to my KSP, I try to make my lifters as simple and cheap as possible, while focusing my efforts on making everything else that's sent into orbit as efficient, reusable, and versatile as possible. Rant complete. EDIT: after joining the forums in May 2013, I've finally accumulated 1000 posts. (throws small handful of confetti into the air anticlimactically)

Well, first off (at the risk of sounding like a broken record), I don't try to build replicas, but analogues. Craft that are inspired by or try to imitate mission or function to a real-life counterpart. To this end, performance is more important than looks. If you look at my LITE reusable upper stage, which is inspired by ULA's ACES concept, the engine selection of the RE-L10 "Poodle" is based solely on the fact that it has the highest ISP of any LF+O engine currently available among the stock selection. But the "Poodle" doesn't look like a comparable real-life vacuum engine with it's long engine "bell". So in this case, ISP was selected over looks. On the other hand, if you look at my 'Titan 2P' upper stage (on the 'Titan 3P' rocket), it was designed to be an analogue to the Exploration Upper Stage of the real-life SLS Block 1B. The 'Titan 2P' utilizes 4x LV-T30 engines, which are optimized to be first stage boosters, not vacuum engines. But these were used to give a better TWR for heavier payloads as well as more closely resemble the EUS's engine appearance. So in this case, I was able to imitate looks as a bonus of achieving a higher TWR since ISP wasn't a concern for me at that point. TL;DR - Performance will always outweigh looks for me. If it ends up looking good along the way, that's cool.

Ohhhh, now you've done it! You said "IVA" and "Nertea" in the same post.

You can change the default in the Settings from the Main Menu

In light of the IAC2017 conference going on and Lockheed Martin set to reveal details about their Mars Lander Concept, I've decided to post a preview image of some M3V components. Keep in mind that although the modules in this image are fairly refined, the final craft themselves may be slightly different. Also, this is only a portion of the M3V line-up. There are many more modules and parts and pieces to utilize. Examples include other propulsion and tank storage options, communications modules, other orbital/landing craft, etc. For those that haven't seen the Mars Base Camp video, you can have a look here. The influence in the design should be fairly obvious, but there is also influence from ULA's CisMunar-1000 as well as the decades-old Mars Excursion Module. I'm sure some people will probably think "you've been talking about M3V for weeks and been working on it for months...this is it?" Well no, this is just a preview. Utilizing different configuration combinations, other "ships" of various sizes and layouts can be assembled to accomplish different missions at different destinations. One such example is transforming this orbital outpost into a surface base with a "landing kit". The habitation and research modules (on either side of the cupola) could be detached, a landing module docked to their bases, and landed on low gravity worlds such as Minmus, Bop or Pol. These landing modules are also equipped with crew access tunnels that can be linked together, as well as integrated airlocks for standalone operations. The two spacecraft readily apparent in the image are the new EV-2L 'Runabout' and LV-4B 'Armadillo' reusable single-stage lander. The LV-4B is obviously derived from the LV-4A, but with a propulsion system inspired by SpaceX's Dragon 2 capsule. The EV-2L is based on designs to use an Orion capsule mounted to the front of a ULA ACES stage. In the EV-2L's case, it's mounted to the front of my LITE upper stage, with an additional auxiliary service module in place of where the Orion ECLSS components would be. When undocked from the LITE stage, the EV-2L capsule is a self-contained spacecraft, with RCS propulsion and solar power generation. As such, it can be landed on Gilly, or mounted to another craft (not pictured here) to become an entirely new spacecraft that can land on small moons such as Minmus. In it's original configuration, it fits in well with the CisMunar Economy, with enough delta-V to cover the entire Kerbin SOI. In other regions, it can be utilized as an in-SOI crew taxi between different stations, orbits, moons, etc. While intended to be refueled in space and reused for follow-on missions, it can of course be used to return crews to the Kerbin surface by jettisoning the auxiliary service module to expose it's heatshield. I'm still trying to create a lander analogous to Lockheed's Mars Lander, but...it's hard.

Just read through it's entirety. I'm not an expert on these matters since I'm not a lawyer, but can anyone identify anything specific in the current KSP EULA that is any more restrictive than any other major-selling game? To that end, KSP utilizes (at this time) no setup/install program, nor any security features identified in the EULA that is quite prevalent in the rest of the gaming industry (serial number entry upon install, online verification, etc). If anything, there are EULA clauses that are present in the EULA itself, but not even implemented. This would allow these devices to be implemented at a later date without legality issues, but again, is no more restrictive than any security methods currently in use by the gaming industry at large. Would you care to share what you've identified? Specifically what points in the EULA are you in agreement with @T.C. with? Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone in this thread identify anything in the KSP EULA that is "is an insult to the customers" to quote the OP. @T.C., you stated that you read license agreements, and this one is obviously offensive to you. You said: Your opinion sounds quite definitive, but is very unspecific. Would you please cite specifics to support your conclusions?

@kosikutioner, welcome to the forums. One of the moderators might be able to better direct you to actual sources, but I believe the following points to be true, but have no references: 1) KSP Store and Steam purchases of the game can't be exchanged back and forth. They are separate purchases altogether. 2) If you purchased a copy of KSP in the KSP Store, you can (or at one time could) transfer said purchase to Steam, but this was irreversible. So assuming these two points are true, you may be able to transfer your initial purchase from the KSP Store (if you remember your account log in) to Steam. And since that early purchase qualifies for the DLC at no charge, you should be able to get the DLC on Steam when released, for that copy of your KSP. The second copy of KSP, however, would not qualify and the DLC will need to be purchased for that one if desired. Again, don't take my word for it, but that is my understanding of the purchase rules. Regarding the patcher nowadays, I haven't used it, I always start with a clean install and copy my save and craft files over.

Glad to hear that as well.

Awesome @katateochi, I know you've been working on this for a while. Well done. Lol, I am sorry.

So your WIP project has been released upon the public after 9 months of development? Seriously though, congratulations.

Yeah, right? Where's the contract for that?

I think I have the orbital components pretty much rounded out. I don't think I've missed anything. At this point, I'd be open to any "lessons learned" from other players that have been out beyond Duna. Namely any design features that they hadn't thought about when going to the Jool SOI. Power generation is of course the first thing that comes to mind, so I've been sure I've included options across the full breadth of generation methods: solar, fuel cells, RTG power. The latter example being a "Nuclear Reactor" module that has a cluster of RTG's inside. As stated before, the proving grounds for these craft will be Duna and Eve SOI regions, but I'm trying to think ahead as much as possible for use beyond Kerbin's neighboring planets. So now, it's down to fitting the handful of orbital elements to the appropriate launchers and generating graphics. __________________________ I spent last night building a concept demonstration base in the arctic region of Kerbin using the new surface elements intended for Duna [and elsewhere]. The main thing I'm using this to test out is all the docking clamp alignment heights and such when under various gravity strengths. It was assembled with the standard 1.0g gravity of Kerbin, but I'll be hacking gravity this weekend to test out Duna (0.30g) and Dres (0.12g) gravity levels. Anything in between or lower should, in theory, still work. In the image below, everything you see is still a work in progress. So far, I've designed 20 unique module types for surface base assembly. 13 of them can be seen in the above screenshot. Notable other modules include a surface "nuclear reactor", dedicated passageway modules between clusters of Habitation modules, more ISRU equipment, etc. In total, there are 26 modules and 1 rover in the picture, amounting to 359 parts. If I had planned it better, i would have had the solar array clusters on the opposite side facing south so the base modules don't obscure the sunlight, but whatever. Everything was placed and assembled using a pair of a new type of logistics rover. There are several versions planned; the one visible is an ore transport with an ore hopper, "regolith shovel" mounted on the front, and a remote sensor mast for tele-operations. Still working to perfect the lander and associated cargo off-loading method, but it's looking promising. I also want to point out that this was all done in stock without mods like KIS/KAS (as amazing as those two are ).

Ah, there's the distinction. Thanks.

Bobcat was one of the earliest modders of KSP since prior to 0.20. He made one of the earliest surface base modules with expandable/inflatable habs (see this post for his earliest work), but he made all sorts of surface modules, spacecraft, rovers (seen here in a Nassault video from 2013). I believe he might have made the first rover wheels for the game (as a mod of course). It was known as ClevorBobcat or similarly named.

Time to start towing the old airframes onto concrete pads along the entrance to the KSC.

What a monster! I like the strut structural latticework on the Mun descent.

Love the Vernor-made rocket pods on the F-89.

Project updates: The surface base stuff is going well for the most part. It's still a WIP obviously, especially on the part of landing the hardware on the surface of Duna. Just to clarify, it's my intent that the surface base modules can be used on other places besides Duna, but Duna is just the preliminary test location. However, the surface base element is turning out to be a monumental task to make sure all the pieces work together, and the fact that there is a lot more variety of parts and pieces compared to the BM-series modules delivered to the Mun surface by LV-3C cargo landers. For this reason, I've decided to take a break from the surface elements for a bit for because I need a break, and because it's turning out to be such a huge project. Because of the scope of the surface elements, I've decided to re-focus my efforts on testing and refining the M3V orbital and interplanetary elements to bring those to a state of completion. That way I can finish those and get them pushed out the door without waiting on the surface components. At the moment, the two M3V-rated craft that are ready to be published immediately are a new EV-2 variant, and a new Service/Lander Vehicle for multiple applications. The SLV-M is inspired in appearance by Orbital ATK's Cygnus robotic supply craft, but has a slightly different purpose. It's more akin to a monopropellant counterpart to the LITE stage. When launched from the KSC, it rides a 'Thunder 3' to LKO, and can resupply space stations with monopropellant anywhere in the Kerbin SOI. However, it can also serve as a cargo transport stage like the LITE if necessary. It can also land on low gravity bodies like Minmus to retrieve monoprop directly from an IV-1 'Meerkat' ISRU rig (a new IV-1 variant optimized for Minmus is also ready to be published). This landing capability also allows the SLV-M to serve as a crew lander if necessary. If a properly configured crew capsule is docked to the front of the SLV-M instead of cargo, Kerbals can climb down the length of the SLV-M using pre-installed access ladders. It should be noted that the SLV-M doesn't have the TWR to land on the Mun, Ike, or Dres to retrieve monoprop, but with the new D-model HLV-5 'Porpoise', this mission requirement won't go unfulfilled. Other craft still being refined, but should follow in the short-term, are an LV-4B and the previously mentioned LV-2E. The LV-4B is an SSTO reusable Duna lander that is meant to be refueled in orbit, but can also be refueled on the surface if necessary. And like the LV-2E, it doesn't have a dozen small fuel tanks to transfer propellant to (like the LV-2D ), making refueling way easier.

@Frank_G, saw this thread in your signature, and read through the entire Imgur album. That was an impressive mission, and I love a lot of the design characteristics of your DTV and Solar Bird. I especially liked how you made the Mk3 tanks "roundified" using radiator panels, but still left gaps for things like solar arrays and docking ports. Still can't believe you accomplished all that on one big mission, so many objectives. I can't imagine what the part count was like on Kerbin departure.

Thanks, that's good advice. I should be able to perform the same modification to my HLV-6 'Warthogs', but the LV-3D and E-models will have to do without unfortunately. The base of the landers (where the ramps mount to) are so darned close to the ground, there's no room for any docking ports. On the upside, this makes the ramps almost redundant, so not a huge impact to gameplay. Yeah, I was looking at using that technique myself, but there's really no room "inside" the landers' structures to do such a thing. Fortunately, future cargo landers I'm working on will hopefully be able to incorporate this feature from the get-go, so it shouldn't require any big craft revisions.

In addition to the ongoing M3V project that I keep blabbing about, I've been looking at some other craft deficiencies that I'm trying to fix. One that has been particularly annoying for the past year is when craft are reloaded, drop ramps are getting kicked away from their parent craft. I understand this is just how things are in KSP with physics loading, cuz the ramps are separate debris after decoupling, but I'd like to keep that from happening if able. The first two I've tackled is the LV-3A and LV-3B. These are my favorites in the LV-3 'Bullfrog' family, and I really wanted the ramps to "stay" where they're dropped. So I put up a couple of small docking clamps to reattach the ramps to the parent craft after dropping. The craft aesthetics look kinda goofy, so I'm interested with what you all thought about it. I can't argue with the results though, having a reliable ramp that stays right where it's supposed to be. It's especially nice with the LV-3B, allowing the Kerbals to walk into the bay to conduct science, or park one of the rovers up there if a player wanted. Anyway, let me know what you all think, whether you think the benefits outweigh the goofy aesthetics. Regarding brand new craft ready to be published when 1.3.1 is finalized, I have six (or nine if you include the separate EV-5 Block 2 lifters). I know that seems low, but those are craft that I simply have to do a quick verification test in 1.3.1 final version, and then publish on KerbalX. Graphics done, packaged up in a nice bow, ready to go. There are more that are nearing completion, it's just tweaking that is ongoing and of course the final tests and graphics that need to be completed. There will be a handful of other revisions, such as the 'Thunder 4' sub-family of rockets, a revised 'Lightning' rocket, a revised ATSV, a lower part count LV-4A, and EV-4 components with better comms. Also, with the helpful suggestions from @Jester Darrak on page 26 of this thread, he's managed to squeeze out a little more delta-V from the EV-2C, so those will be updated as well.

Careful, you say @Azimech too many times and he show's up like Beetlejuice to wreck all your moving parts.

@Nertea first and foremost, awesome work as usual. I truly mean that. Please forgive my ignorance, but are those cabinet-looking compartments on the airlock part functional in some way, like a science container? I'm just speculating of course, but I'm curious because you have such attention to detail.

Not far at all. I've made some slight tweaks to the 'Thunder P' payload stage on the 'Thunder 4' rockets, but you'd have to look really closely to see any difference. Performance would be virtually identical to the old craft. The 'Thunder P' does have a slight delta-V penalty compared to the 'Thunder 2' upper stage, but that doesn't take into consideration any orbital adjustments made from the RCS thrusters. The main trade-off of using the 'P' versus the '2', is you can put payloads into much more precise orbital parameters, or even rendezvous and dock a payload to something else. Without translation capability (only rotation attitude control), the 'Thunder 2' has some limitations in capability, but has better delta-V performance.

If you want all the craft that are on KerbalX, just click on the VAB, SPH, and Subassembly links on the OP and download each of those hangers, and place all craft from each zip file in the respective folder.