Armchair Rocket Scientist

There are probably some fluorine compounds that will oxidize CO2. The problem is, they will also oxidize pretty much everything else that you could make a fuel tank or engine out of. If you're talking about the atmosphere of Venus, fill a balloon up with nitrogen (actually a decent amount of the stuff in the Venusian atmosphere) and use either a propeller or thermal jet for propulsion. If you're talking about the atmosphere of Mars, electric propellers will still work, but the air is so thin you'd need a massive wingspan.

I launch space stations unmanned anyway for roleplay reasons. First of all, I assume that space stations don't have parachutes, LESes, or heat shields. They may not even have seat belts. If something goes wrong on launch, the crew are screwed. For that matter, what if the brand new station has a sudden problem in orbit, such as a piece of debris causing a leak, or a critical life support system breaking? For example, if Skylab had been launched with crew, they would have died due to the lack of a sunshade: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_2 "Don't worry", you say, "I have a rescue vehicle lined up." Well, what if the launch of the rescue vehicle is delayed due to bad weather (this happens all the time IRL).

This. My computer has 6 GB of ram (KSP can't even reach it's 3.5GB limit) and an integrated graphics chip, but the game is still playable. The same can't be said for X-Plane.

If you're using FAR, that's not superstition, that's how to fly rockets. This goes double if you're using RSS. It also has a side benefit of shortening the time after launch during which debris can land on the space center if the rocket fails.

Still seems a bit big: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupola_%28ISS_module%29 The real Cupola is only 1.88 tons. It appears to be a tiny bit bigger than KSP's cupola (2.95 m vs. 2.5 m), but it doesn't have reaction wheels, a hatch, or life support equipment like ours. Perhaps an intermediate value of 2.5 tons? Or take away its monoprop and reaction wheels and reduce the mass even further to 1.5-2 tons? I don't think it would really affect balance much; even with those mass reductions, the Cupola is heavy enough that its main uses would be on rovers (which often don't need reaction wheels or RCS), and stations (which most likely have other modules to provide attitude control)... which is the point of it anyway.

Yes, yes, YES! I have been waiting for a 3.75m command pod for so long! This is definitely going to be a "must-have" mod for me. I do have one suggestion: 5 crew seems a little small for a capsule of this size, since its habitable volume is probably close to triple that of the 2.5m pod. 6-7 kerbals seems more reasonable.

For that matter, it sounds like something NASA would come up with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems

Is it possible to make RCS use bipropellants (as most real RCS systems seem to do)? I'd like to give mine an option for AZ50/N2O4 (my standard hypergolic bipropellant).

It still gives your vehicle a much higher part count - not to mention if you want to transfer fuel you have to individual transfer fuel in and out of every tiny tank.

Success! 15 tons into a 400 km orbit! (with 1.8 km/s left in the second stage) Final design:

All right! Using the approximate payload to Kerbostationary Transfer Orbit, this method worked beautifully with a 330 km apoapsis. Now to try it with the LKO payload! EDIT: Nope, still doesn't reach orbit. It seems that the second stage does need more power. However, looking at the upper stages of the Ariane 5 (the cryogenic one only has 65 kN of thrust, but looking at videos of launches it reaches 1st stage burnout with only 1 km/s to go before reaching orbit), and H-IIB (137 kN, and launches the rather heavy HTV), it seems like they have less propellant in their upper stages. Reducing the upper stage's fuel capacity by 25% while extending the first stage from 20 m to 25 m and setting the SRBs to the correct tech level (woops) seems to greatly increase GTO capacity. Theoretically, it now has enough dV to put 20 t into LKO, but I doubt it has the thrust. Still, if it can manage the 15t I originally planned, it will have a launch mass/payload mass ratio of 34:1, which is still pretty good. Testing later...

All right! Using the approximate payload to Kerbostationary Transfer Orbit, this method worked beautifully with a 330 km apoapsis. Now to try it with the LKO payload!

Okay, this is another "why are my launch profiles not working?" post, but I have to do it. I'm trying to get a rocket into orbit in RSS. Stats are as follows: Stage 0: 3x SRBs with 120s burn and approx. 1850 kN of thrust, weight about 100 tons each. Stage 1: 1500 kN thrust (vac) with approx. 110 t of hydrolox fuel, dry mass about 10 tons. Stage 2: 90 kN thrust, with 20 t of hydrolox fuel, dry mass 2.25 tons. Payload: mass 15 tons. The second stage is within the range of size and TWR seen in real rockets of the same payload, e.g. Ariane 5, Atlas V, H-IIA/H-IIB, and the rocket has 10.5 km/s of dV, so it should be able to reach orbit. However, in all my launches so far, the second stage falls back into the atmosphere and burns up before it can reach orbital speed. Apogee is typical between 180 and 240 km. I have tried both launching manually, beginning pitchover immediately after launch and keeping the vehicle pointed toward the surface prograde marker, and using the Mechjeb ascent profile tool with turn shape between 50 and 75%, starting at 0.5 km and ending at 120-180 km. Using a similar launch profile with a different rocket with a high-thrust upper stage (TWR starting at 0.9), I was able to get into orbit, albeit not terribly efficiently. Does anyone have experience with launchers with low-TWR upper stages? If so, what sort of launch profile do you use?

To summarize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons By the time of Sputnik, we has discovered all the planets, all the moons in the inner solar system (i.e. Luna, Phobos, and Deimos), and all the planet-sized moons of the gas giants (Miranda in 1948 was the last to be found). We also found Pluto, Ceres, and Vesta. The only really big stuff discovered since has been beyond the orbit of Neptune. Most of the large objects discovered since then have still been found with ground-based telescopes. The kerbals would know the approximate mass, diameter, and orbital parameters of every non-asteroid body currently in the game long before they had the technology for spaceflight. On the other hand, most of the planets were very poorly known until probes were sent to them. For example, we really had no idea what was under Venus's atmosphere, or even how thick it was, and the dark side of the moon was completely blank. Pluto, Ceres, and Vesta are basically blobs when viewed from ground-based or Earth-orbiting telescopes. To translate this into KSP, the devs could do the following: Leave the maps of most celestial bodies blank until you send a probe to map them. The Mun (side facing Kerbin only) and Minmus should be visible in full detail, while Duna and Jool would just be blurry as hell. In addition, probes could discover procedurally generated "minor moons" (generated like asteroids, only in in orbit around a planet). Note that this would work well with the stock Kerbol system, but AWESOMELY with procedurally generated systems. Even if procedural systems are never in the stock game, the functionality would be nice to have around for modders to use.

Not mine, but someone had to post an RSS Saturn V:

Oh god... I thought I recognized that profile picture! I was there for that launch. Small world... You've inspired me. Clearly, I must make a model Bill and Bob and launch them the next time I go to that site. On an unrelated note, the lake looks so much closer from 1500 feet. It makes me amazed that I've never seen a rocket land in there yet.

The Delta-IX might be possible with KSP Interstellar.

Where we're going, we don't need windows! Reaction Engines A2 I suppose you'd still have to add a hatch somewhere, but that could just be part of the texture, as on the http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66502-Kerbonov-Kn-2-Cockpit-Module Also, I did some testing in the SPH and with EVAed kerbals and command seats, and I found the following: A 1.25m fuselage is big enough for a single kerbal, but not much else, and two kerbals sitting in line would have to squeeze past each other. A crew tank would probably be too cramped for long-term missions, but for a rover or light atmospheric craft it would be all right. An MK2 fuselage can acommodate 2 kerbals sitting abreast (albeit with no aisle between them) although their helmets clip together slightly. There's quite a bit of room on the side for equipment and storage. A 2m long MK2 crew tank would probably be enough for 2 kerbals. A 2.5m fuselage, or the stock MK3 fuselage, would be similar to the S2: big enough for 2 decks, 2 abreast with an aisle and overhead storage. The HL2 fuselage is 3.75 meters high and just over 3 meters wide. This is enough for three decks, with seating up to 4 abreast (middle deck only). Even with only one deck occupied, a 2m long crew tank could comfortably seat eight kerbals. With crew on the upper deck, the capacity increases to twelve. A 3.75m fuselage (and I doubt the new update will be out for five minutes before people start putting the new 3.75m parts on their planes) would be pretty much the same size, just with different proportions. The S2 wide body fuselage is just under 5 meters wide, or the width of two S2 fuselages with some extra in the center. It's not tall enough for three decks, but it should be wide enough for 6-abreat seating (assuming a single aisle), with lots of extra space on the lower deck and ample overhead storage on the upper. Again, this allows it to easily seat 12 kerbals in a 2 meter long module. As a special bonus, the S2-S2W adapter is 4m long, so it should seat four rows, with 2 seats in the front, 6 in the back, and at least another four in the middle for another 12-man crew tank. EDIT: didn't see your post there, K3|Chris. Looks like we arrived at pretty much the same conclusions. Incidentally, the HL cockpit Nothke is making could remove any need for a crew-capable HL-2.5m adapter: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66578-Early-WIP-Bingo-Aerospace-Blizzard-B9-styled-modular-cockpit-for-HL-fuselage

Looking really good, although I do think it seems a little empty right now. Some overhead storage bins and fold-down tables between the passengers would make a big difference there. Likewise, there seems to be a bit too much empty space on the lower deck. Also, I think I said this in the WIP thread, but I would love to see crew tanks for the HL and S2 Widebody fuselages. Maybe also for the MK2, but I'm not sure if 2 kerbals in a standing position would fit.

Face it: the fact that turbojets in KSP can reach DOUBLE the top speed of real-life turbojets is completely absurd, especially since mach 6 is practically orbit in KSP. Also, note that the engine used on the SR-71 has a TWR of 6. The stock turbojet has a TWR of 18. Yes, kerbal aircraft need a higher TWR than real ones because of Kerbin's soupy atmosphere, but every other engine and fuel tank in the game is underpowered compared to reality.

As a matter of fact, there's a real mission being planned which is extremely similar to yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Probe_Plus It plans to use multiple gravity assists from Venus, although an assist from Jupiter was also planned. In KSP, Eve flybies may be even more effective than Venus flybies in real life; Venus is slightly smaller than Earth, but Eve is more than twice as massive as Kerbin!

I was under the impression that kerbals are just under 1 meter tall, so the scale works out pretty well. Are the windows on the S2 crew tanks part of the model, or are they part of the texture? If it's the latter, what if you just moved them upwards so they're at the right height for the two-deck model?

"This end should point towards the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today." I'm sorry, I had to.

Tables seem to work fine in space. You just need to hold everything in place with magnets, velcro, or something similar. The crew tanks are often used in rovers or bases anyway, so there's sometimes gravity. I definitely think this could be a really cool addition to the B9 pack, and I'm interested in seeing how it turns out. Regarding the two floors idea: what if you had the upper deck be where the crew sits during launch/atmospheric flight, and have a hatch to the lower deck - which would contain things like bunks/sleeping bags and space showers. Don't forget, the cabin of a spaceplane may be the crew's home for weeks!

Are you using Realism Overhaul? If you aren't, and you haven't changed the settings at all, that's probably the issue. As far as I know, DRE's heat-shield parts are intentionally weak by default because otherwise a stock KSP 2.4 km/s reentry would be absurdly easy, so they won't survive a realistic reentry. Realism Overhaul buffs the heat shields so they're compatible with RSS. NathanKell says: If you mean that you can get other vehicles to reenter safely in RSS, something might be wrong with your craft, reentry profile, or DRE install. In any case, I'd ask NathanKell about it.