Diche Bach

Okay, this seems like a good thread for me to pose a question that has been sort've . . . 'bugging' me for a while. Why do the physics in KSP punish long, thin, single fuselage rocket ships but promote short, fat, multi-fuselage rocket ships?

Until something changes in the game, wouldn't simply turning off the tanks on the upper stages that you want to conserve while the vessel is in the pre-launch work? I have done something like this a few times during mid-ascent orbital maneuvers in order to use up the gas in my bottom stage and preserve it for the upper stages.

It does sound like having Lagrange points (thank you wiki!) in the game would be very cool.

Check out this thread for some more ideas. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/43998-Addons-Plugins-Please-Point-me-in-a-good-direction

Not sure if this could be done differently, but little idea I have for the mod. So I did the two level 1 missions from stock and NT Space Program and (finally!) after numerous tries managed to get 'em done (RT makes it a lot more difficult with that whole Line of Sight thing; basically I resorted to just sending my two probes straight up and then as straight back down as I could manage). Anyway good fun. So I decided next mission I'd do in my campaign would be your repeatable Comms Satellite one Malkuth. I had me a good rocket for this that I had come up with from playing the "Campaign" (self imposed) on the wiki and I modified it slightly to be more cost effective. I had one of the stock expandable dishes and three of the stock long antennas on it. The ship itself is three stages. A central fuselage that is two stages, top one being the satellite and small liquid engine with inline dock to get it into geosynch orbit right over KSC. The second stage are two radial rockets and all three initial engines LVT-30. Thinking that maybe I could recoup some of the losses by recovering and 'recycling the bottom stages that drop off on the way up, I put a small Remote Tech RC antenna which includes remote control and parachutes on all of them. They did parachute safely to the ground, and I was able to recover them, but didn't seem to get any money back for them. So if it would be possible to extend the recycling function to debris on the ground that can be recovered that would be cool. It was only after I had launched the thing the first time that I realized "Hey this isn't gonna work. You need a crew on this thing in order to get this satellite in orbit . . . " . . . DOH! So yeah, restart one more time I guess This mod with RT is pretty challenging and fun.

I agree with you Toyota that a lot of the mods users might not get into that stuff. But as long as it is 'optional' and in addition to the functionality that is currently in the mod, I don't see why it would turnoff anyone. I have not yet got MechJeb to work; but based on one tutorial I watched, it is my understanding that this sort of functionality actually exists within that mod already.

Ah great advice thanks! With exception of Maneuver Node Select, I have all that running now (manually installed as you suggest). I also have MechJeb 2.0.9 installed, but for whatever reason I'm not seeing any buttons to turn it on or anything. I'm sure I'll puzzle through it eventually; but as you say, not a 'crutch' you want to get too comfortable with until you are a real whiz at all the basics. I'm not yet, but using MechJeb to get my geosynchronous orbits perfect without all that tedious and time consuming orbiting around to do burns would be kinda nice. My penultimate list of mods (in case any other new players are interested in an idea for stuff to check out): B9 Aerospace Pack R3 Chatterer Home 1.03 Ioncross Crew Support Plugin Kerbal Alarm Clock Kerbal Engineer Redux Kethane Lazor Docking Cam MechJeb 2.09 (as I said, not sure if this is actually working or not) Mission Controller (extended) NovaPunch 2.02 NT Space Program (adds a mission pack useable with Mission Controller) Orbital Construction (can't wait, but I'm a long way from actually making use of this) Procedural Fairings 2.2 Protractor (havent' figured out how to turn this one on yet) RemoteTech Sub-Assembly Manager TAC Fuel Balancer Performance seems fine so far and based on what I understand all of those do, I doubt I'll jettison any of them. Apart from Protractor and MechJeb (which I cannot locate any 'on' buttons for) they all seem to be working. Well, not sure about Orbital Construction, but as I'm trying to play through a 'campaign' starting with a simple budget constrained starting space program and just accomplish some basic missions to increase revenue, I won't be in a position to make any real use of that one for many hours of gameplay I reckon.

I tell ya what, I'm having a ball with this mod and the various others I now have installed, most notably Mission Controller extended. This gives you a budget and you have to complete missions to get paid and get higher prestige missions that pay. I thought I was getting pretty slick with KSP, but I've had to restart about 4 times now just trying to get the first couple missions done and not screw up and get off to a bad start wasting money! With NT Space Program and MC extended, you've got I think four mission packs that you can select missions from at start and generally all of them have about 1 mission that you can do first. For example, the first one in NT is something like "Alpha" and comprises launching a sub-orbital missile up to 75km and then getting it to land safely. There is an added incentive to land it on dry land and not water because you can recycle the vehicle for a higher rate when recovered from land. So while it is a pretty mundane mission: go up high--then come back down and land safe, doing it with RT running and without any semblance of a comms network is actually slightly challenging. 1st attempt: overshot my target apo (75km) by a factor of about two and wound up losing contact before I managed to deploy a chute. 2nd attempt: something similar 3rd attempt: managed a nice vertical parabola trajectory, and kept it close enough to KSC to stay in contact almost all the way down. Still not knowing for sure at what alt I'd lose LOS I deployed my chute a bit high. Next thing I know, my craft has exploded at about 15km -> chute broke free! Very nice how this mod interacts with missions to make it all much more engaging and challenging!

Ahhh, very cool stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDRSS Thanks for a pointer into yet more info!

Thanks for all the info guys! I did have Mechjeb 1.9.8 and I wasn't seeing the module anywhere so that must not have been working. Deleted it and have overwritten my Game Data/Squad/Parts/Command files with the ones from MechJeb 2.09 (after creating a backup copy of course). So what about command modules that come from other mods? Is there still a generic Mechjeb module that you can include in designs that have those as the main command module?

Ah that makes perfect sense. I hadn't thought about the fact Kerbin is ten times smaller smaller than Earth! I guess it might take about as many land-based relays to ring Kerbin as it would take to ring the Earth!? As such land-based relays are realistically not as viable I guess. And yeah, I totally understand your interest in keeping it focused on the space-based comms network! Just a thought Thanks again for a fantastic mod that adds a great deal to the game! I hope that some of your work will find its way into the final design of the game because it really is great stuff.

I had one thought about this mod that I wanted to express: In RL, much ground to space communication is handled by ground-based relays isn't it? What made me think of this was trying to finish some of the first missions in the NT Space Program mission pack for Mission Controller. Without any relay satellites up, you will temporarily lose contact with your early probes as they orbit away from KSC. While obviously the point of the mod is to provide a framework for developing neat space-based comm relay systems (which is fantastic) I'm just wondering if some degree of land-based relays might be worth considering? We don't really know anything specific about Kerbal global politics (e.g., is it a one-world nation, or are there ideological superpower struggles between Kermicans and Kerbiets?) as far as I know. But in any event, unless Kerbin some very strange feudally divided fiefdoms, it would seem reasonable that the Kerbals who control KSC should be able to get permiso to erect some ground relays at other points on the equator to allow comms with some vehicles in space in the Kerbin vicinity?

. . . doh?

Some hilarious stuff!

I love the idea of this mod and my hat is off to the modder(s) for the good work implementing it. But for now, I think I'll hold off as it sounds like it adds a substantial degree of difficulty and perhaps makes the game a bit unpredictable? With several mods running I'm guessing it might be a bit difficult to pin down exactly what might be happening, and I have a bunch of others that I want to play with for a while. Doesn't squad intend to add in this sort of game mechanic eventually (making it an optional "play with / play without" feature I'd hope/expect as having it be requisite would really hamper new players I reckon)? I do hope that this mod and the playtesting of it are helpful in that respect!

Very nice! Not to be creepy but I want to try to see how good I am at deduction and use only the information in the photograph to take a guess at its locale . . . (realize someone linked to their website up above but will try to guess without that) . . . Based on the architecture and spacing between bulidings I'm going with North America, probably U.S. but that plant life does look a bit 'stunted' so northern latitude (_possibly_ Canada) . . . hmmm, the fact that the large structure has one wall that is completely open suggests that this MIGHT be a temperate climate where the winters are not very harsh (depends on what the large structure is used for I guess). If this were a more southern locale like Georgia then the 'stunted tree' on the right could actually be an overgrown shrub and the basic arrangement of stuff does remind me rather much of places I've seen around Atlanta . . . I'm gonna guess southern U.S. probably east of the Mississippi (if I was more of a botanist I could probably place it better). ADDIT: Oh wow! Holy crap I was way off!!

As a social scientist, I'm aware that many (if not most) efforts to do good for humanity by focusing on 'solving' a specific problem lead to questionable outcomes. Very few diseases have actually been 'eradicated' by direct efforts to do so. Indeed, some historians of medicine argue that indirect effects such as improved sanitation, nutrition, changes in housing and the like had much more to do with the decline in mortality from infectious disease than did direct medical interventions such as vaccinations. Currently, the wealthy nations of the world give away quite large sums of money to the disadvantaged nations of the world. Many of these nations also have extensive social welfare systems for their citizens. While I'm not some cold-hearted hardcore anti-socialist who would suggest these should be abandoned (they should NOT in my opinion) I do believe that the Devil's Advocate question being cast at space programs can just as easily be cast at any 'humanitarian' endeavor that pays lip-service to the idea of directly helping humanity through any direct intervention. If one cannot point specifically to a clearly and empirically "better" use for a given dollar of expenditure in space programs, and moreover show that, spending that dollar on space and not on 'humanisms' is clearly undermining the humanistic goal, then it is pointless IMO to ask why have a space program. The same question can be applied to any social practice or institution that does not frame itself as being directly focused on solving humanistic problems (e.g., saving lives): why have rock music? why have libraries? why have a national park system? why have a foreign student exchange system? why allow unhealthy high-caloric foods to be produced and sold? why have computer games? why have an internet? why have professional sports? why have organized competitive sports at all? why have celebrities? etc., etc. There are innumerable social practices and institutions on which countless billions of dollars are expended by governments and citizens from which money could be extracted for putatively 'better' purposes. If those putatively better purposes cannot demonstrate that they really are better then what business do they have posing the pious question of "why?" ADDIT: not to say the OP or any other advocate of the question is being "pious" or in any way less than ideal in their forum conduct. Just to say that: if one can, from a 'humanistic' standpoint ask: "why space" a viable retort to such a philosophical question is to ask from an 'empirical' standpoint: "why anything," but especially things like "why peace initiatives, why poverty alleviation programs, why disease eradication efforts, why nuclear de-proliferation, why environmentalism, why efforts to curb global warming?" I guess the simple point I'm getting at is: what proof is there that any dollar spent on any given specific effort to address such problems has actually had some sort of clear and unquestionable net positive effect, much less the intended effect and only the intended effect?

Yes, it is the loading times that I don't like. However, it seems to having to navigate through two screens instead of one roughly doubles the sum of loading times; so if it was possible to cut it in half by skipping one step it would be preferable to me. Shame that the Unity engine uses only one core. Is that something they are pretty much stuck with permanently!?

Hey thanks for the suggestions and help guys! So my semi-final list (I do notice that loading times have dilated a bit, so yeah . . . will trynot to go too overboard with a lot more than this for now): B9 Aerospace Pack R3 Chatterer Home 1.0.3 Kerbal Engineer Redux Kethane Mechjeb 1.9.8 Mission Controller (extended) NovaPunch 2.02 NT Space Program Orbital Construction Procedural Fairings 2.2 RemoteTech Sub-Assembly Manager I was contemplating Deadly Reentry but it sounds very hard and also just a tad bit glitch? Besides, I get the impression that is something Squad intends to add to the game eventually, and I can always cross that bridge when I come to it. I was also contemplating one of the life support mods but can't decide which one sounds best cause they all sound pretty good. Will check out Lazor docking cam, ISA MapSat, TAC fuel balancer and Kerbal Alarm Clock . . . and K.A.S. and see if those sound like something I'll like! Thanks! The one other functionality that I would like to have is something to help me know the alignments of celestial bodies and to plan launches and fly-bys.

Love how this mod makes long range control of probes much more realistic! Have really just got it installed and been reading old threads to make sense of the flight computer and all the line of sight mechanics etc. Very nice stuff. My one question/suggestion: at present there does not seem to be a way to give an unmanned probe a script to follow if it temporarily goes out of line of sight. Obviously this is a big part of how probes are handled in RL; indeed I seem to recall that many probes have whole programs for what to do if they lose contact with home. For the purposes of the game, I don't think this functionality would need to be extensive, but some capacity to includes scripts to run when the probe is out of contact might be good. Mechjeb has this in it I think, but might consider including it Remote Tech too? Specifically, I'm playing the NT Space Program mission pack in Mission Controller and mission alpha requires that you send up a probe to 70km and then recover it. Because cash flow is limited there is an impetus to do this as economically as possible, not to mention that I have only KSC to send receive signals at start. It is actually pretty hard to get to 70km and stay in contact with KSC without being in orbit so I had to tell my probe to deploy his chute at about 45km or thereabouts in order to insure that he landed safely. Pretty minor issues, but just some ideas if it is still being developed.

Okay so I have the following sub-folders installed into my Steam/commonapps/KSP/Game Data directory: MechJeb Missioncontrollerextv0.11 OrbitalConstruction.Redux ProceduralFairings RemoteTech RemoteTech_MM_ProbeCompatiblity H.O.M.E 1.03 B9 Aerospace Pack R3 Squad So that is all there is to it? Any other suggestions for ones that would run well with that permutation?

Salivating . . . trying to focus on clicking to get this thing installed Questions:1) what mods/plugins do you recommend that go well with this? Have just installed Remote Tech and Orbital Construction Redux. 2) Would MechJeb and the Kethane mining thing work well with this? 3) will NT Space Program – Mission Controll Mission Pack work with this Redux version?

That is very helpful to know!

Totally agree! Welcome from another newcomer Kerbonaut! ADDIT: will you look at that . . . three posts by a madman, a psycho and a diche bach.

Interactive is generally a good thing. But with only 30 minutes it could actually be detrimental because your audience might lead you down some blind alleys and lead to less comprehensive and cohesive coverage of what you would like to cover in the game. Also, with only 30 minutes, I think that a Mun landing might be a bit too ambitious and skip over many salient little details that newcomers to the game (even those with technical mindsets) will find confusing. I would suggest modeling your presentation on this video by Scott Manley. It might seem a bit elementary to KSP veterans. But trust me; I'm fairly scientific and even quantitative and I found this video to be quite useful when I first started playing. If you feel that it is too simple you could add 'next step' elements like carrying larger payloads, or executing different types of orbits (high orbit; geosynchronous; Mun encounter, etc.). I think getting to the moon and back is a bit much for 30 minute presentation where you should reasonably assume that you audience might know very little about astronautics, although have a sufficient technical background to get off to a good start.