HeadHunter67

Agreed- there's no "need" for one, but it is a nice shuttle - and the setup in the VAB with all the Mir modules is kind of nice.

To be fair, not every Soyuz landing is a good one - its safe operational history is only because they've used the same kind of craft for decades. I wonder how often they're able to reuse a Soyuz re-entry capsule - or how often the crew is injured.

As I mentioned, I'm rapidly running out of room for mods - as it is, I already have the occasional crash due to it. So I have to stay lean to add things like the ISS pack. I mistakenly thought it was required for Soviet Pack. Looking closer I realize it's the Kerbal One shuttle (with Mir payloads) that uses it. So it's a nice add to this mod build, especially if the traditional US shuttle has issues in the game. So I'm going to look and see what B9 parts that needs and delete the rest so that I have room for this pack!

I'd love to see a video series on setting up a space station, and rendezvousing and docking with it. Perhaps even adding other modules to it in this way.

One of the other things I did with my rendezvous practice crafts (based on PebbleGarden's Phoenix orbiter) is to put some small battery packs facing upside down on the ship, at zenith and nadir. That way, you have a pair of "tail lights" that show the top and bottom of the other craft, even if you are behind it. This can help you get oriented if your rendezvous brings you together in such a way that you are behind/below the target craft.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I suppose I should have been more specific in my question. I'm aware of KAS and its uses, just wondered if the full KAS mod was also needed here, or if the necessary plugins were in the ISS pack (sounds like they are) and what purpose they serve here. I'd suspect that there are some modules that employ or require it? I really hope that we eventually see a good system for orbital construction in the main game - I like the idea of sending Kerbals out on EVA to build stuff in space.

That's good to know, thanks. Then I'll keep whatever B9 parts are used on Buran and Kliper, etc, and deleting the rest should free up space for the other stuff. I notice there are KAS plugins in the pack, but it sounds like I don't need the mod itself? What is the KAS stuff used for?

I really like the idea - as would work basically like I imagined such a craft would be. I understand that there are other priorities so I will patiently await to see what you have in store. In the meantime it is nice to know that those beautiful struts aren't far off - the stock struts are so unsightly! I will probably tinker with what we've got already and see if I can't build something that at least performs similarly - though I'm sure it won't be nearly as sleek and sharp as your finished product. [EDIT: Light... bulb! I was wondering how I'd dock a lockdown onto an existing station and I just realized "what if I just put a docking port on the back of the lockdown and dock that to the station?" Next time I load up the game, I'll see if that could work!]

I agree - please don't get me wrong, Scott. I've followed your work and you've shown me how each achievement can be meaningful. I simply think that if we reduce it to "fly x hours on this engine/craft/etc to get science points for a better version", we'll see people launching something, putting it into orbit and going AFK until they get the thing they wanted anyhow. Maybe that's overly skeptical, but all I've got to go on is the history of how similar systems worked out in other games. I'm confident that we'll have an R&D system that will make each accomplishment along the way significant - but it's just my own personal feeling that the best way to go about this is by getting out there and "doing" things. Or, at the very least, it should be more rewarding than the equivalent of AFK testing. The parts, as they are, are balanced - a suggestion to nerf them until players get to a certain point would change that, and I can't see how it would increase the fun. Yes, some players may want more freeform objectives - that's fine, I'm actually that way myself. I just don't want to see a system that can be abused to reward people for not truly playing but just going through the motions. I fear that basing it off flight time, for instance, can have that risk. If you're not playing for fun, but playing just so you can unlock the fun, that's inarguably a grind. Lots of games have that pitfall.

Fair enough. But skydivers don't tend to have triple-redundancy on their parachutes - maybe a reserve in case the first fails to deploy, but even the Orion uses a triple-chute system like they did in the Apollo days. It can make it down on two, or even one - but you're tripling that weight for safety. And I think the heavier your descent payload, the greater your need for that redundancy. Not because it falls faster (it obviously doesn't), but strictly for structural reasons. That's why it's not simply a matter of scaling it relative to a skydiver. [EDIT: Ninja'd by andrewas...] At any rate, I didn't want to digress, as I did agree with the underlying and more relevant point Koshelennkov was making - that being, such mass is better spent on fuel, which can make a descent as effective and likely more economical in terms of usage of that mass.

What you get is a system that encourages players to fly meaningless missions with substandard tech for the sole sake of improving that tech to the point where play can become meaningful. Hence, a grind. Instead, missions that lead to developments should be challenging - not based solely off flight time, or number of flights, but of doing something new or better or differently. Yes, we learn as much from our failures as success, but that's already built in to the game.

Yes, it's proportional, but is it on a linear or geometric scale? As I said, I'd like to see some actual data to support that, because it seems oversimplified.

Sounds like a good idea on the surface, but trust me, it turns the game into a grind. Ask anyone who ever crafted in Star Wars Galaxies what it took to get to the point where they could make anything meaningful.

I agree, don't get me wrong. While building my first "Real" space station, I came to the conclusion that orbital EVA construction would dramatically improve the game - it would allow for better designs that don't need to be so overbuilt on the surface, would likely lower part counts, would give EVA a purpose, and would look a hell of a lot cooler. So far, the closest we can get is Quantum Struts. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forumdisplay.php/35-Add-on-Releases-and-Projects-Showcase http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/

And why not? Not every technological advance is directly oriented to the mission goals. Look at all the technological breakthroughs that have come about as unintended offshoots of unrelated research. For example, the need for water purification for the space program led to breakthroughs in hemodialysis. So it's entirely possible that an unintended side-effect of sending an expedition to the Mün is that some new technology is discovered that has nothing to do directly with geology, but everything to do with the act of getting there in the first place. The research is just the ends, not the means.

Probably, because their chutes aren't going to work properly that close together. I see your point, but I think you have oversimplified it. I'd have to see some sources that support a linear parachute size like that.

I think you have a very good point. This is, after all, a game - one should never let science or math get in the way of FUN. Experimenting is fun, especially when there is no consequence. Real life's serious enough, and if I wanted a game that felt like a bookkeeping job I'd have stayed with EVE Online - where failure is pretty costly. This is a game where you can have a lot of fun without ever having to crunch the numbers for Delta-V or TWR etc. etc. - and for those that like to do so, they can do that too. I only wish people would stop telling others how to have fun in a single player sandbox game. The people here that scream "Ur doin it wrong!" make no sense to me. Go out, launch rockets, blow up, try again. Eventually, something spectacular comes from it - and spectacular failures can be every bit as entertaining as spectacular successes, as we can see in the "You will not go into space today" thread. It's not a personal attack - it's reminding him yet again that no one wants to hear him crap on every thread he participates in just because he is miserable. We are here to have FUN, no one is "wrong" for wanting to play a different way or enjoying it differently. Moreso because it is a single player sandbox game. There is no "wrong way", there is no "cheating", and the only people who care about that sort of stuff are those who need to feel better about themselves by dictating how others should do things. In the real world, that sort of person is called a "politician" or an "evangelist". Have FUN. If you're not having fun, find something else to do - but it's not acceptable to make others unhappy because you're unhappy. Agreed?

If that's the rocket I'm thinking of, it's definitely Kerbal in nature. It looks more like a Russian building than a vehicle. We all have reasons - I don't take mine out on strangers, and I never complain to my patients about how bad my day is. If we're making recommendations, mine would be that professional help would get you farther than putting down everyone on the forum. Since I can't help and don't honestly care about the reason you treat people poorly, I'm going to go see if this forum has an ignore feature.

I don't think that's quite how it works. If you double the weight, you should need four times the surface area for a chute to brake as effectively. So yes, I think you're right that an equivalent amount of fuel would be better for braking.

Don't worry about him, Diche. He is just the uptight sort that isn't capable of making a constructive post here. Look at his history - it's all about tearing others down to make himself feel better. What kind of person worries about other people's "competence" in a single-player sandbox game? No sense of humor and no sense of fun. Sad, sad...

Not always true. I've perfectly balanced my RCS using Build Aid and had MJ spaz out even when I'd lost no fuel mass to imbalance it. Yes, it can be exacerbated by user error, but there are a lot of problems with MJ that won't ever get fixed if we keep blaming the people who discover the problems. MJ's Docking Autopilot is so bad int he 0.21 version, I learned to do it manually. I'll watch the video and check it out - though the parts are kind of loud and don't fit with the aesthetic of anything else I use.

Happy dance that this pack is updated to .21!

Given that he's removing all sounds from the pack that are not open-source or CCLK in the next version, that's unlikely. Though you could do so yourself. This mod was just features in a Scott Manley video along with Universe Replacer!

I understand. I suppose I was thinking more of berthing an undocked capsule back into the cradle - which I suppose would be possible in real life unless the lockdown is damaged in decoupling. But I can see how that might not work in-game since the docking system probably requires connectors on both vessels. But I'm still going to keep working on a feasible way to make a VA into a good escape pod. Even without the RRV Escape Unit, the craft can land from 100 km+ onto Kerbin via the RRV Retro Unit and RRV Propulsion Unit. Not bad for a mere 6.2 tons - much better than the old Apollo-style escape vehicles I was using. Had I thought of it when building the station, I could have installed the VA pods on lockdowns and they'd work just fine. After the fact, I have to engineer the best way of getting them up there and mating them to ports on my station, without making them too heavy. I thought I had enough dV to get one there from the ground on a Proton second stage alone - and I came damn close to a direct rendezvous before I ran out of fuel. But, on the bright side, I did get to evaluate whether the pod could land safely from that altitude, and it passed that test with flying colors. Thanks for the advice and I'm looking forward to more cool stuff like this. My second build that started out as stock-only has turned into 1.5GB of the Russian space program - and basically that's just between BobCat's Soviet Pack, Kosmos, and the obligatory B9 Aerospace for the spaceplanes. But it's a nice change of pace and the visual variety is stunning.