Raptor9

That depends on how much efficiency you want to squeeze out. Personally, I prefer to use a low-thrust engine with higher Isp to get more delta-V in the long-run; even if that means I have to do several burns at periapsis prior to the final escape trajectory burn. So to answer your question, I would use just a single NITE with additional tankage. Without summoning the wrath of other players that disagree, TWR doesn't mean much to me unless you get below 0.10-ish. If it's above 0.25, I'm satisfied. Using a 9-ton Rhino engine to achieve a TWR of 0.75 during a trans-Duna injection burn in vacuum is a waste IMO. The NITE wasn't designed to take payloads to a planetary surface, so I can't speak for how the design will work out.

Well, if you left attitude control to the customer's payload, that would save a lot of funds since a single Vernor thruster isn't cheap (1,400). I justify their use on my LITE and NITE stages since they're intended to be reused and end up paying for themselves, but I'm in the process of designing a different upper stage for my 'Thunder 3' for this very reason. Monopropellant-based RCS systems on an upper stage can add part count and an additional resource, but they're much cheaper. Of course, if you're planning on recovering the upper stage on Kerbin, the argument is moot as well.

Nah, I don't mind at all, I did like the first rocket picture with the Twin Boar surrounded by six Kickbacks, and the larger tank on top. Reminded me of the Ares I rocket. Unless your maneuver-plotting skills are leaps and bounds better than mine (which is probably true anyway), I usually require a lot of delta-V to propulsively capture back into LKO after an interplanetary transfer. Then again, your upper stage wouldn't have any payload, and it's probably way lighter in mass than mine....hmmm. Something to run some numbers against when I get some time to kill. That second rocket you were referring to, the core 1st stage and six SRB's are only 12,000 funds cheaper than the core stage & Twin Boar boosters of the 'Titan 4N'. That's not really that much considering the total cost of sending interplanetary payloads IMO; but like you said, to each his own.

I don't think it's overkill, it's what was needed given the design objective; and the core isn't running thrust limited at all. The Twin Boar boosters have fuel lines feeding the Mammoth, so the boosters go through their fuel more quickly, but the core stage is still full at booster jettison. The entire core stage/booster set provide almost all of the total velocity needed to achieve LKO. With a payload above 45 tons, the NITE's Poodle doesn't have the TWR to circularize the orbit quickly enough before falling back into the atmosphere. I originally intended to make two variants based on my 4C and 4C+, but having two Kickbacks just wasn't enough thrust and delta-V to achieve orbital velocity. Yes, I could add MOAR boosters like in your screenshots, but I prefer to keep the lineage of the 'Titan' family with just two (my personal flavor ). I'll explain why I used the "under-powered" Poodle below. Those designs of yours would work for sending payloads to their destinations, but they won't have the delta-V to return to Kerbin for reuse. This is where the 'Poodle' and the large fuel reserves of the NITE come into play. Granted, they'll need to be refueled at their destinations, which is why the initial handful of NITE's should establish an ISRU site. But the NITE's need the dV reserves to propel themselves back to Kerbin and propulsively capture back into LKO. Neither of your upper stages have the capability to do that just by estimating off your KER windows (not even from Duna). I don't want to get into a dV/TWR/engine selection debate, but IMO the Poodle provides a decent balance of TWR vs delta-V when compared to an NTR-powered stage, not to mention it weighs a lot less than just one NTR. Plus using an LF+O mix reinforces the resource logistics of propulsion, control, and back-up power generation. I also compared using the Rhino, which would give a much greater TWR obviously, but the mass of the engine itself slashed the dV significantly, despite having almost the same ISP as the Poodle. So far, the worst case I've tested is launching a NITE to low Eve orbit with a constellation of 8 satellites, and repositioning itself to Gilly orbit to await refueling from an ISRU site. That scenario requires a lot of dV. Again, smaller fuel-capacity upper stages wouldn't work, and the NITE's Poodle performed just fine. The bottom line: the NITE is designed to perform multiple functions across multiple destinations, on an interplanetary-scale of reusability, and this setup provides a good design to fit that objective. Is it the best design? Probably not; but with the amount of testing and comparison I performed, it's a solid choice. Nothing is stopping any users from modifying the designs to do just that, or take advantage of the Stage Recovery mod. Launching, launching, launching can get repetitive for me during a full career, and the last thing I want to do is add recovering stages to the surface. Most of the heavy payloads I launch that require the lifting power of the 4C or 4C+ end up being expensive but reusable craft anyway, like the EV-4 'Longship' family, so such large costs don't occur often, and saving a pair of Twin Boar boosters or Rhino upper stages don't provide a dent in the overall costs of those expensive launches to be worth my trouble. While I would enjoy a mechanic in stock KSP that makes use of a SpaceX booster fly-back or ULA S.M.A.R.T. engine reuse, incorporating this into my KSP save just adds a lot more grind-time into a single launch that I would rather spend elsewhere. But that's just my personal preference talking. I prefer to focus on in-orbit refuel/reuse/propellant generation concepts like ULA's "CisMunar 1000".

My 'Titan 4N' heavy lifter rocket is finally published on KerbalX. This particular rocket was designed earlier this year, but I wanted to thoroughly test it in my career save before putting it out there. Because it has many applications, all of them that I could think of had to be tested in multiple locations. The short version of this rocket's purpose was a scaled-up version of the 'Lightning' rocket (itself inspired by ULA's Vulcan/ACES), but for payload transportation on the interplanetary level. However, the NITE (Next-generation Interplanetary Transportation - Enhanced) is much more than simply a reusable upper stage like the LITE; it combines the functions of a reusable upper stage, an interplanetary propulsion stage with large dV reserves, and an orbital propellant depot. As such, it is outfitted with a docking port of each size to permit servicing of all types of spacecraft. One example of the NITE's flexibility is sending a pair of NITE's (one carrying an IV-1B 'Meerkat', the other carrying an HLV-5B 'Porpoise') to orbit around Ike. Using the IV-1B and HLV-5B to refuel the NITE's, you could re-position one to low Duna orbit, establishing an orbital depot around Duna and Ike. Or you could send one/both back to Kerbin to retrieve more payloads bound for Duna; or use them to shuttle payloads between Duna and Ike, etc, etc. The 'Titan 4N' is one piece of a planned series of craft files that are intended to support a much larger design effort that is still in it's conceptual/planning stages of development. However, the 'Titan 4N' is something that can be used now, and has already been proven to work, so it's getting kicked out the door.

@Spartwo, those engine exhaust assemblies are awesome! And they can be closed too? Genius. I need to look through more of these threads. There are some amazingly-designed aesthetics around here that could give me inspiration for designing my 3rd generation interplanetary ships.

Ah, I may have mis-clicked the wrong image for the thumbnail updates. Thanks for the catch, I corrected them so hopefully they'll start populating the correct images soon.

Wrong "raptor" , but thanks @katateochi; I'll get to work immediately!

If trying to replicate the assembly of the ISS, you can get more info on this wikipedia page. As for my 'Pioneer Station', I did it in the following order (which wasn't true to the real-life ISS, but it was more practical and easier IMO): 1) SM-U1, SM-L1, SM-N1, SM-PL(T) 2) SM-T0 was launched along with two EMU's for assistance in assembly, which remained attached to the station. 3) The remainder of the truss/solar array assemblies were sent up. Somewhere during this process I sent up the SM-A2 module to bring more monopropellant for the EMU's. I forget exactly when. 4) SM-N2 & SM-H2(EMU) were sent up without the EMU's, since two EMU's were already "up there". This provided a better parking spot for the EMU's. 5) The SM-S, SM-N3(C), and additional SM-H2 were sent up during the final launches. I put mine at 100x100km altitude and an inclination of 50 deg, cuz I was lazy and didn't care about the additional 1.64 degrees (real-life ISS orbits at 51.64 inclination according to Wiki). I built 'Pioneer Station' for the same reason I made a space shuttle analog: because of the iconic status of the Shuttle and ISS. They go together like peas and carrots (an expression I never understood since I prefer to eat mine separately, but I digress.... ). Neither my SVR-16 nor my 'Pioneer Station' are very practical in a career mode KSP save. I can launch the same payloads for the same funds or cheaper using conventional rockets, and for the relatively small amount of science you can perform from LKO experiments, the amount of funds you'd spend building an ISS-alike station doesn't provide an economical pay-off. However, IMO who wouldn't want to undertake the challenge of building an ISS with a shuttle in KSP? But...I only use my 'Pioneer Station' for research in generating a little science, and as an early stepping stone in my career pipeline for junior kerbalnauts. Not only are the orbital characteristics horrible for use as a fuel hub or staging point for large orbitally-assembled ships, the total part count for assembling interplanetary expeditions at 'Pioneer Station' would slow my game to a craw. I assume you meant "interplanetary"? Then yes, I use it to stage some expeditions. Early expendable EV-4 launches to Duna I staged from LKO after initial assembly, but later EV-4 reusable variants get refitted and refueled in Munar orbit at my fuel hub in lower Munar orbit (15km). I've only built one EV-5 Block 1 so far, and it's staged from my 'Gateway Station' as well at a 50km Munar orbit. Regarding the MechJeb side, I have no idea; I'm not familiar with how that works or how it's used.

Thanks, @katateochi. No need for getting any backups, I'll just hold off on any updates like you said.

@katateochi, I have a potential bug with the site since the latest site update. I was trying to update some previously uploaded craft via the "EDIT CRAFT" page. After the craft file re-uploaded, it reverted the craft page to the default layout with the placeholder image (the one that is posted if a user doesn't upload an image) and default info in the description box. I tried it with another craft to ensure it wasn't a fluke error, but it was happening consistently. While we're on the topic of images, I know that the first image uploaded remains on the craft thumbnail, even if the main image on the craft page is replaced later. Is there a way to update the craft thumbnail as well? I apologize if this has been asked before. Thanks.

These two are some really nice quality-of-life improvements @katateochi. Thanks!

No worries, I didn't take it as criticism. I just wanted to clarify some of the design and publishing decisions.

This isn't an issue with the SM-U1 design itself. This happens with other craft as well. Seems some sort of inertia is generated when a Kerbal is spawned outside a hatch, and then grabbed onto the handrails. Craft "flipping" seems to be dependent on total mass and whether or not any RCS/Reaction Wheels can compensate; smaller craft tend to flip more/faster during EVA then say a large station or interplanetary ship. Further, I've had no problems EVA'ing Kerbals from my 'Gateway Station' or the 'Depot Station', with or without heat radiators. To be clear, there was no continuity error, it was deliberate. Let me explain: The SM-U1 (originally just SM-U), started out as a Zvezda-like module as part of my efforts to recreate a large Kerbal station analogous to the ISS. However, when I started expanding the SM-series to include more Soviet/Russian style modules, I noticed the "Zvezda" on the ISS and the one on Mir had one significant visual difference. The DOS-7 version of "Zvezda" on Mir was launched with two main solar arrays, but a third solar array was added the following year when "Kvant-1" was delivered. Since this third solar array differed slightly in appearance to the first two, I decided to instead use a pair of small deployable radiators to imitate the visual difference. Now, the SM modules are meant to be used as baseline modules; meaning they're fully functional off the bat, but they can of course be modified however the player wants. The SM-U1 is labeled as a utilities module, that can be used as a key "first launch" module that provides a lot of what a station needs to get up and running in a hurry: propulsion, attitude control, communications, power generation, docking ports, and thermal management. Since I have no idea what kind of station a player may want to build, or where, I tried to make it as versatile as possible. Which is why I added the four TCS radiators, in case someone wanted to use an ISRU around Moho for example. If someone doesn't want the radiators on there, simply remove them, such as in the case of building an ISS-alike 'Pioneer Station' or a 'Gateway Station'. If someone wants to build a Mir-alike station, they can either remove the bottom two TCS radiators or just leave them retracted. Remember, the space station graphics are just examples of how the SM-series subassemblies can be put together, not necessarily the only way. I've built more stations outside of the Kerbin SOI that aren't pictured, and I mix and match modules for whatever I need, or modify them for specific purposes and/or destinations. On that note, I'm working to redo a lot of the modules for improvements, such as lower part counts and easier resource logistics. Some new modules will also be published. More on this later as I've already typed up a large novel already.

I don't think the bumpy Level 1 runway would be getting as much grief if the KSC wasn't surrounded by a city-sized putter's green , but I don't expect a KSC redo. I just find it humorous, and actually pretty appropriate for Kerbal engineering. Kerbal hipsters...they build runways ironically...

As a lot of posters above have said, clipping parts is a really subjective view as to what is acceptable/unacceptable. I'll go ahead and add to the "clipping fuel tanks inside each other is naughty" camp. If it makes you enjoy the game more to achieve something that way, more power to you; however if you post the craft on the forums and sing it's praises, you'll probably get some verbal (written) wrist-slapping. Another reason to avoid getting too "clippy" with fuel tanks is it can make resource transfer procedures a pain, depending on the concentration and location of the clipping. Heck, some craft I make without fuel tank clipping can be a pain in the rear end to refuel.

@Jestersage, the offset and rotate gizmos have become my best friends in reducing part count and getting a lot of "things to work" without adding additional parts. Case in point is fuel line routing. Lets say you have all your fuel mounted on one side of a "No Crossfeed" structural part and your engines are mounted on the other. Instead of routing fuel lines around the structural piece, you can mount the engines to the fuel tanks and then offset/rotate them back to the other side of the structural piece, and they'll still work. Is it cheaty? Maybe, maybe not. That is an extremely subjective debate that a lot of players always want to bring up. But if you want to put a bunch of complex craft in the same physics bubble, shaving off the part count here and there becomes a constant endeavor, at least one I strive for. So in my usual long-winded way, to answer your question...if you disected a lot of my craft designs (especially ones designed recently), you'll probably see a lot of wierd part placement and routings. All this is to reduce part count, enable proper fuel distribution, or to make modifications easier down the road.

...oh my...

Well this is a break from your usual stuff @Cupcake.... But I see your keeping with your simple & elegant style of building. Very cool.

That's just how I chose to portray the graphic. All my orbits in my save are in the direction of rotation, so don't take the orbit lines literally. The key thing to take away from the graphic is the overall concept on how to use which craft for what, at each stage of the economy. With the new autostrutting feature, those became unnecessary and so I removed the struts between outboard boosters and core stages on all my rockets. Actually, I removed them entirely and integrated the Camel depots into the LITE stages permanently. The only difference between the previous 'Camel Humps' and the latest revision was the 2.5m docking ports were removed and the solar panels re-positioned. The front bulkhead of the 'Camel Humps' always had the 1.25m and 0.625m docking clamps. ___________________________________ In other news, I was shuttling propellant up to my fuel hub in low Munar orbit with my HLV-5B landers one at a time. On the return trip of the first lander, I caught this interesting screenshot of the ISRU site as the 'Porpoise' was on final approach. The glow from the 'Meerkat' rigs was kinda pretty in the darkness of the Munscape. You can see two additional HLV-5B's staged and ready to take full payloads of liquid fuel and oxidizer to the station.

@Youen, I just wanted to say thanks for the continued support of this mod.

The transfer ratios aren't fixed. Depending on your commitment levels, you can increase the overall "worth" of the strategy. In a stock KSP save, 750 science points will give you 77,838.75 funds using a 100% commitment to Patents Licensing. Anyway, I was just curious as to other people's methods for getting a reliable and consistent revenue to fund their career save, and what their thoughts were on some of the strategies.

Don't forget about the mass of the Rhino as well. Having 340 ISP compared to the Poodle's 350 doesn't sound so bad, but the Rhino adds 9 tons to the overall mass of the ship. That's 7.25 additional tons of engine compared to the Poodle. On really large spacecraft, that probably won't make as big a difference, but if you want to move a payload less than 50 tons to Duna, I would go with a Poodle. Of course, that little ol' Poodle ain't going to do anything for you if you're also trying to land the entire ship on Duna using propulsive landing.

One of the more recent strategies available in the Admin building is the "Leadership Initiative". In a nutshell, it puts a premium on rewards from exploration and milestone gains but reduces the rewards from contracts. One of the effects it grants you is a "50% Science to field work gains." So my question is what all qualifies as "field work"? Obviously, conducting an experiment, taking a surface sample, or making a crew/EVA report is all field work, but what about science points gained from the Mobile Processing Lab? Does this count as "field work" since science data processed in the lab is derived from those experiments/samples/reports? I've been eyeing the Leadership Initiative coupled with Patents Licensing as an alternative method to fund my space agency's budget. This is how it would work, based on a 100% commitment to both strategies: 1) I land a lab in a biome on Duna for example. I run a full suite of experiments, and then process them in the lab for data to conduct research on for a lengthy period of time. 2) If lab research generated is considered "field work", than generating 500 points of science in the lab would be boosted to 750 points of science (from Leadership Initiative) after transmission back to Mission Control. 3) Patents Licensing strategy would then convert those 750 science points to 77,838.75 This way, Mobile Processing Labs that are placed throughout the Kerbol system would be generating a steady stream of revenue, with a boost given by the Leadership Strategy. The research revenue would be more reliable than the contract slot machine, if I'm calculating all this correctly. However, due to the penalties the Leadership Initiative puts on Contract rewards, it takes away the big pay-off contracts that are thrown at the player. Anyone care to comment? I've played around with strategies before, but I'd be interested to hear other ways players use them to fund their space programs. Think this would work, or anyone have better ways to fund their space programs?

Making do with what we currently have is one thing, but saying we "don't need part X because we figured out how to jerry-rig something similar" isn't sound logic. If that was the case, we would still be using landing gear struts to dock vessels together like pre-v0.18, or making space shuttle payload bays out of dozens of structural panels. There are a lot of possible reasons that a lander may need to reposition, no matter how much scouting you do. Things happen, it's KSP. A "landing site" doesn't mean the "staying site". On the other hand, if a player knows he/she is going to takeoff again (ie to biome hop or what have you), then a ramp probably isn't the way to go to carry a rover along with you anyway. That's a lot of moving parts that could potentially go wrong, not to mention...more parts. I wouldn't say that's a solid assumption, I've seen ramps load in as far as one structural panel length away from the hinge location. Again, this only started happening in 1.2.X. Also, the wheels are a lot more sensitive now to the gaps between the edge of the floor and the beginning of the ramp. Building in a lot of play with the hinges may decrease the occurrences of ramps not loading inside the hinge mounts, but it will just exacerbate the rover "jump" when driving onto the ramp from the payload bay.