Raptor9

The lab seems to have some influence from the American Skylab module, which had a similar vertical orientation since it was a converted Saturn fuel tank. I'm just guessing, but that's what it reminds me of. I agree though that the vertical orientation might be troubling for people that orient surface base modules with the IVA's in mind. I always land my Hitchhiker pods vertically for this reason. Who knows, maybe in a future update Squad will have some parts with surface habitation in mind. That lab is awesome though Frizzank. You know what the Mk3 cockpit needs?? Velcro all over everything! ha ha ha. Just kidding. EDIT: I just noticed the Mk3 Crew Cabin has seat numbering over each row, lol...for those space tourism contracts no doubt, you need the Kerbals to sit in their assigned seats. Ha ha. EDIT 2: My bad, the Mk3 Cockpit DOES have Velcro tabs all over the panels, how did I miss that?

This ^^^, and to echo other points in here regarding Laythe: PROS: 1) Water (in theory could lead to fuel generation right?) 2) Atmosphere thick enough to aerobrake and fly in, but not too thick to make drag an issue. 3) Oxygen in atmosphere assists in life support and jet engine/RAPIER function, meaning efficient SSTO sorties to and from orbit. 4) Gravity is comparable to Kerbin, only 20% less. Ideal for long-term habitation and aircraft/spacecraft efficiency. 5) Possible resources closeby in the rest of the Joolian sector. Various types of moons and biomes mean more types of resources that can assist in self-sustainment. 6) For the same reasons as the previous pro, many opportunities for scientific research around Jool and her moons, meaning higher payoffs in the form of contracts, funds, and reputation. CONS: 1) Unknown radiation hazards in the Joolian sector as stated above by Sanguine. 2) Very little landmass that is scattered across the planet, long-range expeditions would need air or surface craft to travel. 3) To get to Laythe on the innermost orbit around Jool, you have to dodge a gauntlet of gravity SOI's that could sling your ship out into deep space, another moon, or Jool itself. 4) VERY far from Kerbin compared to other destinations.

Well, I don't necessarily plan my scenes to an extent. It depends on what kind of video I'm trying to make, what maneuvers are involved, and what music I'm using if any. There were a couple parts of the music score that I wanted a very specific image or scene portrayed. But mainly I just tried to capture a bunch of cool maneuvers of each plane from cool angles, and then I pieced together the clips how it seemed to fit. There was about 2 hours 36 minutes worth of footage I recorded, trimmed down to less than 5 minutes worth of the best clips. I don't speed up the framerates; I use the raw footage recorded using Open Broadcaster Software. The only difference between my cinematics and gameplay vids are that the UI is hidden and I use BahamutoD's Camera Tools mod to get the cool shots. Other than that, it's pretty much me flying around and recording the maneuvers.

Just flying around and filming various maneuvers of the number of craft files took about 4 or 5 hours. Sorting, trimming, and compiling the video clips to the music another 3 or 4 hours before I was ready to export it all to a video file. It starts off a little tedious, but when it starts coming together in the video editor, it starts getting fun.

IMHO, a good TWR isn't going to do much good if you run out of fuel before you get to where you're going. While TWR should be a consideration, I believe it's secondary to ISP in regards to interplanetary transfer operations. Useful charts though.

Is there any calculation of delta-V that could be done to see if the powered-landing stage has enough delta-V to return to the launch site and land via chutes and/or rocket power? The return would seem negligible (especially if using the Recovery Transponder Fitting strategy) since the first stages (at least mine) don't fall too far from the KSC. It was just something I was wondering; not concerned about it since most of my recovery percentages are 100% from vertical velocity and 95-98% due to distance.

Agreed. There was a NASA study done about comparing logistics required for assembling a Mars Transfer Vehicle with either conventional chemical rockets or nuclear thermal rockets. The paper showed that it would not only require less launches to assemble a NTR-powered vehicle capable of making it to Mars and back, but the chemical rocket version would have to be jettisoning fuel/engine modules left and right to save on mass (due to the lower ISP). The mission profile and payload will always dictate your craft design, but space travel in KSP and in real life is about efficiency. The less efficient your equipment and/or designs are, the more "stuff" you have to take with you, requiring you to put more "stuff" in orbit, requiring more rockets, fuel, parts, money, etc....its a spiral of diminishing returns. EDIT: Found it: Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 The charts on pages 41 and 43 shows the main differences I was referring to. The chemical option required five additional payload launches to low Earth orbit and an additional 400 metric tons of rocket greatness to accomplish the same mission profile.

Raptor Aerospace - Concepts & Solutions Enjoy Raptor Aerospace - Concepts & Solutions Thread

+1 Hullcam VDS is also good if you want to get any shots that look like they're inserted from actual cameras onboard the ship.

Yeah it is. I see you're using Nertea's Near Future parts, nice.

These are some cool videos that inspired me to try to create an entire reusable launch system, instead of just the booster. I improved the launcher stage, redesigned the upper stage, and created an entirely brand new crew capsule system for this concept. SpaceX Reusable Launch System (The Dragon capsule seen here is the current version in use, a new version 2 of the Dragon for carrying people is shown below) SpaceX Dragon V2

Very nice indeed, well done sir.

You have to admit, there is no shortage of real-world physics knowledge on these forums. It's a great resource for sure.

It wouldn't surprise me that resource mods actually become more prevalent. Who knows what will happen with Kethane (or any other resource/mining mod) when this new stock resource function comes into play. The decision to convert to the new resource system or stick with an existing system will depend on the individual mod author, but I'm sure the number of mods providing parts or plugins for mining will explode.

That would definitely make them more useful in that regard, however (and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir) if I was a modder making spaceplane parts with lifting properties, I would wait until after the aero overhaul to preclude having to redo all or some of my work. As much as I love the mod, I'd hate to have someone go over it twice for that reason.

@SlabGizor117 Honestly, if it's for a school project like an essay, I would only get bogged down into the hardcore technicalities if that's what the project calls for; or in the case of presenting your essay to a group or audience, consider who you're going to be speaking to. Your target audience has to be taken into account. Trust me, if there is someone especially knowledgeable in the group, they'll just ask a question regarding specifics, in which case you can go into greater detail regarding that question. Keep it thorough, but keep it within the scope of your project. Just my two cents.

Other good wiki articles about orbital properties is the Molniya orbit, Tundra orbit and argument of periapsis. When I heard Molniya orbits were going to be in 0.90 contracts, I had a look, which led to more study of various orbital properties...kept going down the rabbit hole until an hour later I snapped out of it

So uh...I wonder which day is winning...

I did it once. Would not care to do it again. Getting it redirected to penetrate Kerbin's SOI isn't so hard if you do it really far out. But keeping it in there is a nightmare. Definitely try to pull off a solid aerobrake. And don't even ask about adjusting it's orbit once you do capture it....ugh (Multiple trips to get more fuel). HOWEVER, it serves as a really good anchor point for stations beyond Minmus. A slight bump during docking that far out can really throw your orbit.

@Delayed Reaction, regarding the transfer window wait, there are two ways to speed this up. 1) Park your ship in a higher orbit around Kerbin say at 250km (my preference). This gets you above one of the warp limit intervals of 240km allowing you to warp much faster. The lower you go, the more altitude intervals set limits on your time warp. 2) Go to the tracking station and sit out the wait there. The tracking station gives you the max allowable warp speed, but it'll be easier to pass the node if you don't have something like KAC set properly to kill your warp.

So you want to go to Eve?

Really interesting mod, thinking I'll give it a try. It will definitely make the orbital assembly of all the modules on my Duna-bound ship seem like a significant undertaking. Quick question. I apologize if this was asked before, I just don't want to look through 66 pages worth of posts, but is there a function that adds an entire craft back into storage so it doesn't have to be built again? Say you have a small jet fighter or a survey aircraft that you use on a regular basis for those in-atmo surveys around Kerbin. As long as you land it back on the runway (and in one piece ) or it's located somewhere in the specific biomes of the KSC grounds itself (R&D center, SPH, wherever you want to park it) it would be placed back in storage (ie "the hanger") when recovered so you don't need to build it again. Obviously you would have to pay to fuel it again, and I don't know how the mod would handle parts you don't bring back (I know some people use drop tanks and such). Just something I was curious about if that was talked about prior.

I like how Jeb is the only one still smiling throughout the maneuver lol

Yeah, I'm sure that was wrong. I watched the launch live and the rocket was on a northeastern heading, tracking stations in New England and Newfoundland were picking up the telemetry as it went up. If I remember correctly, they said the drone ship was 400km downrange from Cape Canaveral, so it would have been well in the Atlantic Ocean.

Awesome photos with a surprise at the end...can't believe they linked it. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/16/elon-musk-falcon-9-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly