Nibb31

It's been explained a dozen times already. To convert MechJeb 1 parts or pods to MechJeb 2, in the cfg file: 1) Replace the line module = MuMechJebXXX with either module = Part or module = CommandPod. 2) Add the following lines to the MODULE section: MODULE { name = MechJebCore } Note: If you don't do Step 1, then you can keep MechJeb1 while having MechJeb2.

When designing a space mission, you need to work from top to bottom. 1) First a bare bones orbital capsule capable of rendez-vous and docking from low Mars orbit (LMO) to the Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV). This would probably weigh between 5 and 10 tons. 1) First the Mars ascent stage. Launching from Mars would be only slightly easier than launching from Earth. A manned launcher would probably need to be half the size of a manned LEO launcher like Soyuz or the Saturn 1B. Something in the order of 100-150 tons might be capable of launching a 10 ton spacecraft to LMO. 2) A Mars landing stage will need to land that 150 ton launcher safely on the ground. I'm guessing it would need a heatshield and LOTS of retro rockets. Parachutes wouldn't be practical for something this size. It would need to be at least as big as the ascent stage, if not bigger. Lets count 300 tons for whole lander.

For aircraft spotting, you are going to need the longest zoom you can get. If possible, go for a DSLR and add a zoom. I wouldn't suggest a compact because they are usually slower than a DSLR and the image quality is not as good, especially for superzooms. A lot depends on your budget. How much do you want to spend?

The end of the Earth, the end of lif on Earth, and the end of Humanity are three very different things. If we are only talking about Earth, then it will end when the Sun goes supernova. As a species, we will be long gone by then whatever we do, so it doesn't really matter.

Yes, I'm still getting crashes with the Small parts pack as soon as I go to the launchpad. Most of your part sizes are still around 28MB, with some of them being 59MB, which seems a bit excessive. If you look at parts from BobCat or cBBp, most of their parts never exceed 2 or 3MB. Only some very detailed parts ever exceed 10MB. The F9 upper stage is basically just plain white with a couple of rivets, yet it still uses up 28MB. I'm pretty sure a 64x64 pixel texture would be enough. Your engines have basically just a black and grey texture, yet they are 42MB. I'm guessing that you might have a graphics card that has more VRAM than mine (mine is only 512MB) or maybe you don't have as many mod parts as I do. I'd really love to get this pack working because it would replace Bobcat's Proton as the main workhorse for my space program.

Real-life bullying is something that's hard to get out of, but I don't get why people accept to be victims to online bullying when all it takes is to switch off the computer. You choose to stay online and to put up with it. You can also choose to switch it off and go and do something else. Go for a walk, watch TV, read a book, or play offline, whatever... Using threats to off yourself as a weapon to hurt others and to make them feel guilty is the last thing to do. It's emotional blackmail and will certainly not make you any friends. You will only appear as self-centered and manipulative. If you did go forward, it would only hurt the people you love and yourself by depriving you of a future that will always be brighter than any tough times you might be living now. **** only gets better. Also, giving out any personal info whatsoever on the Internet is a big no no, especially if you are vulnerable and the people are hostile. If you have been diagnosed with depression, then you must be getting some kind of medication and seeing a therapist. Talk to them about your problems. Depression is a medical condition and the last place you should be looking for help is on the Internet. If you are not seeing a doctor, see one now.

Isn't that Lightning, with an n? Screw Apple. Why on Earth do people buy that proprietary crap anyway?

That's why I quoted a cost of less than 10% of the actual cost of the ISS. The question is, how do you reduce launch costs in the first place? We are stuck in a chicken and egg problem really. You can't build a cheap method for getting to orbit as long as their is not enough demand for very frequent flights. And you can't get frequent flights as long as there is no cheap method for getting to orbit. There is also the problem of not having a worthwhile destination for people in orbit, and nothing particularly enticing to do once you're up there. As for commercial launches, other than comsats, there isn't much use for space at all. Even if you reduce the cost of an orbital launch to $1000 per pound, new markets won't emerge over night because there simply isn't much to do in space, except science. The only reasonable way forward is to progressively reduce the cost of conventional expendable and reusable multi-stage launchers by reducing development and manufacturing costs, while remaining profitable. This will take decades, but it's the only way to sustain a research and development effort and to allow any new markets to emerge.

He wasn't qualified, but he also said that he wasn't interested in taking the place of a chimpanze pressing buttons in a tin can. Yeager was interested in flying, but had no interest in the space program at the time of Mercury, where there wasn't much flying involved.

I doubt that the market for a $5 million orbital flight would by a million passengers. It would mostly be a couple of hundred, because billionnaires often have better things to do than to float around in a tin can for a week. They can also rarely take a month or two off to train for spaceflight. Let's imagine that you might be able to attract a few thousand customers. The problem is that before offering orbital flight as a tourist attraction, you need to provide a place for them to go and things to see and do. The ISS won't cut it, because it only has 6 crew slots and those are owned by various governments. You will need to build an orbital hotel as a destination before you can offer cheap space flight. An orbital hotel capable of catering for 6 tourists would have to be comparable in size (and cost) to the ISS. Let's go wild and imagine that you manage to design and launch a smaller one for 1/10th the cost of the ISS, it will still be in the $10 billion range, before you can even consider space tourism as a viable business. With a 100% occupancy rate over a 20 year depreciation, you will still need to bill $3 million to your 3000 customers for a week stay at the hotel before you even start making a profit. And we haven't even covered launch costs. This is the cost of some aerospace programs: F-35: $40 billion Northrop B-2: $40 billion SLS: $18 billion Airbus A380: $15 billion Boeing 787: $15 billion A reusable spaceplane would arguably incur a similar development cost (if even possible). However, the number of actual vehicles would be much lower than for example, an F-35 or A380 aircraft. The market could probably only support a fleet of 2 or 3 vehicles, which means that most parts would be one-offs and the maintenance costs would be extremely high. A single vehicle would arguably cost between 5 and 10 billion, which means that at $5 million the ticket over 6 passengers, you would have to launch each vehicle 300 times before you start making a profit. And I'm not even including budget overruns, maintenance costs, logistics, infrastructure, facilities, fuel, etc... The total upfront cost for starting an attractive space tourism business would be in the range of $20 or 30 billion at least for only a handful of tourists. Good luck in finding an investor for that kind of upfront money. It will be a looooong time before space tourism ever becomes a profitable industry. The costs would have to be divided by 1000, not by 10, before it even becomes feasible.

There hasn't been a dev build for 2 weeks. Will there be a 2.0.8 pre-release or a final release for MechJeb2?

What's wrong with RCS? If the ship is spinning, you just have to vary the thrust of each RCS pod in order to maintain a constant thrust vector, but that's far from impossible if it's computer-controlled. Also, this:

I can't think of a situation where microgravity would be desireable while the vibrations and countereffects of a rotating section would be acceptable. One of the reasons the CAM module was cancelled on the ISS was because the vibrations that it would generate would have disturbed many of the microgravity experiments in other modules. As for turning the ship, this wouldn't be a frequent occurence on interplanetary flights. You'd have to figure out if the fuel spent to stop and restart the gravity rotation would outweigh the extra fuel spent to counteract the gyroscopic effect of the spinning ship. It might not be worth it for small trajectory changes but only for larger turns.

This thread is about the Space Shuttle, not about manned exploration of Mars. Let's bring it back on topic. The only advantages of the STS compared to a crew-only vehicle were: - Capability of carrying crew + cargo on the same: This was useful for the orbital assembly techniques developed for the ISS, but the Mir proved that you can actually build a space station with automated docking, so this wasn't necessary. - 1000 mile landing crossrange: This was a military requirement, but not needed for civilian operations. - Ability to retrieve and return broken satellites: This was tried once as a demonstration, but was not cost effective. On the other hand, as a payload launcher and a crew transfer vehicle it was way too expensive. It had flight duration and payload limitations. It was useless for exploration and its side-mounted design was fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Any of its other LEO missions could be done either on the ISS (or any other space station) or with a crew-only capsule like Dragon. There is no need for a space shuttle, redesigned or not. Any reusable spacecraft is only useful if the flight rate is high enough. Many people say that an SSTO spaceplane would bring launch costs down, but that is simply not true, because the main driver of cost is launch rate and there is simply no demand for an orbital launch every 2 or 3 days. If you built a reusable SSTO spaceplane, it would spend most of its time in a hangar waiting for a launch because there simply isn't a market for frequent launches. A reusable SSTO spaceplane would cost billions to design, build, and maintain (even if it was technologically feasible) and simply wouldn't be competitive against cheap disposable launchers, or even cheaper reusable multi-stage launchers, even if you doubled or tripled the demand for orbital launches. What brings the cost down isn't reusability, it's demand. It will still be a while before a reusable spaceplane becomes cheaper than mass-produced disposable launchers.

It is indeed a complex problem. You want it to be reliable, low friction, and airtight. Any lubricants and seals need to be vacuum-rated while maintaining friction properties. You also want a way to transfer fluids, comms, and power through that rotating connection. Because the vessel is pressurized, if your rotating joint leaks or any of those fluid connectors fail, then lives are actually at risk, and there is no taking it apart or replacing the joint in EVA like on the ISS solar panels. It's not impossible, but it's very very difficult engineering challenge and probably not worth the extra cost. It would be much easier to rotate the entire ship.

This is a very promising pack, but the latest "Small" package is only resized. The mbm files in it, which I believe contain the textures, are still 12 or 16 Mb each. This means that most parts take up 28 to 59MB of memory. These textures go into the graphics card RAM, which is often limited to 512MB unless you have a high-end graphics card, which means that there is only room for maybe 10 parts. Lazarus, can you please make another package with smaller textures? I don't know what texture size you are using, but you shouldn't really need more than 256x256 for the most detailed parts (the ones with the decals on the side). Small technical parts like the engines or landing legs will look fine even with just 64x64 textures.

Not sure what you mean here. The only inclination for geosynchronous orbit is 0 degrees equatorial inclination. Anything else will not be geosynchronous.

Yes, but why do you want to do reusable if reusable doesn't make any sense? People root for the shuttle concept because it has wings and it looks cool. People want Buck Rogers and Star Wars, but those are fiction. It's a spacecraft, not an airplane. A spacecraft should be designed for spaceflight, not to look cool. Here is my take: It doesn't make sense to launch cargo with crew on the same vehicle. That whole idea was a bad concept, so scrap the whole thing and start over. If you insist on having wings, you could go with a small shuttle on an inline launcher, like Hermes, Kliper or Dream Chaser, but the whole shuttle idea doesn't really make much sense. It's silly to put wings, wheels, hydraulic systems on a space craft just for the last 10 minutes of flight. All that mass has no use in space and just forces you to use a larger launcher than necessary. It's wasteful and just makes everything more complicated. For crewed launches, I would stick to the capsule design, because it is the most efficient. If you really want to make it reusable, give it some sort of soft land landing capability with an airbag or retro-rockets. If it's reusable, then add as much of the service module as you can to the reusable section. And in the end, you end up with something like Dragon Rider...

Which happens to be exactly what they are actually doing...

Oh I see... Well, they couldn't have diminished much the actual CM structure or skin, because it had to maintain a solid structure for reentry and landing and it was already quite minimalistic. They did reduce the mass of the SM for the Block II lunar missions by redesigning the tanks, which allowed them to add the SIM bay and the Lunar Rover, so that was certainly possible. Another way of reducing the weight on the CSM would be to redesign the CSM Main Engine, although this would have seriously delayed the program. The Main Engine was overengineered for when Direct Ascent was the plan, so a smaller/lighter engine would have been possible. Other than that, they weren't stupid, and I'm pretty sure that they weren't carrying much dead weight.

What's a SWIP ?

What an ignorant viewpoint. There are huge regional, cultural and political differences between many "small" countries. Anyway, Poland isn't a small country. It's the 9th largest country in Europe and a major member of the EU. Poland already does have a space program and is a member of ESA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Research_Centre It wouldn't make much sense for Poland, or any of the other small countries, to quite ESA and go alone.

Math is universal (although we discover new things every day, and some other civilization might not have discovered the same things). However, notations, numbering bases and conventions are deeply cultural, so we probably couldn't communicate with an alien species using only mathematics. For example, we only use base-10 because we have 10 fingers. Some other culture might use base-12 (which has lots of advantages) or some other base. Their numbers might look like roman numerals or some other system, and their notation system might be totally different... However, just like any other language, you can only communicate when you have agreed on the communication protocol.

I start my gravity turn very gently at 1000m and end it at 70000m. There is no reason it should start at 8 or 15km...

Three major issues: 1) It's way too big for the common scale of parts in KSP. I suggest editing all cfg files to add rescaleFactor = 1. The Falcon isn't a really fat rocket, so a 2.5m diameter in KSP is ok. It also fits better with cBBp's Dragon that way too. 2) I was unable to attach the heat-shield/landing legs of the Falcon 9 upper stage. I can't see any attach nodes in the VAB. 3) The file sizes are really excessive. Your whole mod is 900Mb uncompressed, so it simply won't run if people have other mods. Most other designers keep their part sizes below 1 or 2Mb for the most detailed parts. If it's because of the textures, there really is no need for such an excessive resolution. 40Mb of textures for a single engine is crazy. Nobody is going to be flying with their camera zoomed in on the Falcon 9 logo or an engine bell (which is all plain black anyway). You should never really need more than 256x256 textures, except maybe for the larger parts. The models are very nice though. I'm eagerly awaiting for an updated version. Also, in the SpaceX video that showed upper stage reentry, the heatshield was on top in order to preserve the engine bell and the stage rotated for landing. I'm guessing you didn't do this for mass reasons. My suggestion would be to use your MechJeb pod as a heatshield, change the texture from yellow to a black heatshield, and make it the same weight as the engine. This should allow MechJeb to keep it prograde for reentry and retrograde for landing.