steuben

I'm working on a 1kt lifter... and still working on it. I know that I can lift about 600 tons to orbit and then up to 1000km x 1000km rendezvous. I've been working with stock parts, mostly the 3.75m class. Working on a lifter to get my station modules up there. The general approach as mentioned previously: - break it apart into sections. About 90% of the max rated capacity of the best launcher you have. - lift the sections dry. You can lift the fuel later. My approach, though YMMV is: - forget about aero, go brute force. the rockets are all 3.75m parts - forget about the "perfect" launch path. basically launch straight up and turn right, at about 60km. - use lots of the reaction wheels, and a few batteries. - use a semi-puller design, or build the boosters around the ship. this will look something like a capital M, with payload hanging off the middle. I should be able to find some shots of my Bell class lifters. "When the bell tolls, your launch is doomed." My suggestions: - pics of the finished boat in the VAB will help us point your specific case in the right directions. and help suggest different directions for others looking at similar things. - 300 ton dry weight is not too bad. Feels light for what you're planning, but then I design and launch heavy. - with approx. 6 kt of fuel you may want to look at fuel generation plant it, for the return trip. Even with a 1kt launcher that's 6 launches to fuel it for the trip. What's the total DV you've got?

Pretty much. But we will need info and or code from Squad about it. Otherwise it is just the usual [vulgar metaphor redacted]. Mine never left VB6. But code is code, translating good code from one language to another is not a terrible task. Besides having learned how to code in a small, slow environment (by today's standards) isn't a bad thing for something like this.

I look forward to see your code as well, cfds.

I tire of the forumite deving. <Rant> <Rave> <Froth mouthed screaming> <Rave> <Rave> <Milk a giant cow> <Rant> <Rant> <Froth mouthed screaming> <Breath> <Rave> <Rant> <Hack> <Hack> <Cough> You're all talking generalities here. It's specifics that matter.</grumpy old man> That being said I propose something useful, for most involved. Let's take a suitably sized chunk of KSP code, for craft physics for example. Run up some performance stats for it, input and output parameters, language restrictions, etc. Allow any who wish to, to try and better the code. Submissions will be evaluated on, in no particular order or weighting, size, speed, memory use, elegance, readability, adherence to Squad coding standards, scalability, etc. At the least there will be one out come, the amount of discussion about optimization and how it should be done will be lessened and will be focused. And if we are very lucky something that will improve things will be generated. In short: Hang out a nice safe piece of code, for step up or shut up time.

1.1.3 x32. for he most part stock settings. but i'll check when i get back to that machine. edit to confirm version 1.1.3.1289 32 bit. can't run 64 bit on this machine for comparison, 32 bit os. orbital drift compensation is on.

not burning at all. The throttles are at 0 and the engines shut down.

Same here, KSK. I started writing a piece, finished it, and thought maybe I can get this published. Which is a bit of a silly thought as I look back at it. So I then had to research publishing which led to editing which led to how to write. It is easier when you've put some ink on paper. But sometimes when you look at the start of the trail it is nice to know what you'll need as you go along. And having a few tools ahead of time isn't a bad thing either. The grab bag that is TVTropes may have something approaching quick guides, So You Want to.... As I look at a calendar, 4 weeks though <shrugs>. It about the road not the destination.

Read. Both how to write books, books in the genre, and non-fiction about the setting. I'd have to consult my library for some recommendations. But your local library or mega-bookshop should have a section on it. Write... and expect your first work to be <Scottish accent>utter crap</Scottish accent>. Well maybe not. Don't expect a master work your first time out. Don't despair if it isn't. I've got my first forays into writing carefully lost on the internets because they were <Scottish accent>crap</Scottish accent>. Don't ask for critique if you can't take it. Expect ego bruising if you do. Don't let it discourage you. Listen to the advice. If you are going to disregard it know exactly why, because I wrote him that way doesn't count, and do so at your own peril. TV tropes. Because Tropes Are Tools, but it will ruin your life and eat time that could be spent on more productive things... like playing KSP. TV Tropes offers a good starting point as well, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SoYouWantTo/WriteAFanfic

Dream big launch big. But given those orbit specs I don't know that you will get a Dyson sphere, maybe a Dyson ellipsoid. Assuming physics still works... would be an epic failure to watch though if it doesn't.

I'm playing around with my class-E rocks in Kerbin-ish solar orbit. As I'm trying to get these things in to Kerbin orbit I've noticed that my dv for the burn keeps climbing... even though I'm not dragging the arrows, or burning. Just dragging the node a bit reset the count... but then just starts climbing again. The one thing that I've notices is that the node seems to be drifting backwards, so that i'll end up with it a few hours behind my craft with t-a few hours left to reach the node. Am I seeing a new bug, a known issue, or just plain weirdness of my setup/install?

Is designing rockets for aero worth it? I know that some experiments with the nose cones have shown increases in m/s at burn-out. But, in the cases of production rockets do you save enough to shave off a tank or two, or a whole set of boosters?

#2 is your best option. i've got a disposable station at ~300 km up with a number of rescue pods attached to it. i just blow one off, and drop it down to pick up the fellow, and then drop it down to the ground. don't forget you can fine tune your node position by dragging it around as well... at least on the pc version not sure about the console ones.

I know that 3k/s in LKO will be less with 4 kt of rock attached. But, I figure it will take about 3k/s to move 4.5 kt of mass to KO. It will be a puller design to address some stability issues that will arise. I'm playing with stock parts and just the design class of mods, ex. KER The intercepts will be in solar orbit. The rock I'm testing against looks like it will be about 1k/s and a couple of burns to get it into a kerbin intercept of any shape. The frelling thing is a beast to klaw as well, <red leader voice>it's just pecking on the surface. </red leader voice> Thinking of gravity assists are there any tools that will help me plan them? For example if I wait 2 more münar orbits I can catch a nice one.

No experience with KIS/KAS but in stock. Add some rcs fuel and a set of rcs blocks to the module. You can then blow them off, or leave them in place for main station use. Yes you can do a control from here on docking port in a klawed module. Yes there is a way for kerbals to push a module... but you have little control and you have to get the kerbal inline with the COM of the module. It's futzy but doable.

Yes and no. It depends on the question that is asked, and the answers given. ex. Q1 Can I use a solid rocket motor for a final stage? A1: Can yes. Should... I think a solid-motor final is not a good idea. Too fiddly to figure out exact amount of fuel, mass, some control issues, my own control style, possible over/short burn. Maybe as a second last stage.. but then the mass is still an issue A2: no. l2p n00b Q2 I want to use a solid rocket for the last stage on a satellite. What should I know about trying this? A1: It's fiddly to figure out exact amount of fuel. Then there is mass, some control issues, your flight style will be a factor, possible over/short burn. Maybe as a second last stage.. but then the mass is still an issue. A2: dumb idea. l2p n00b And sometimes the effort to try it, or the design variants required, exceed the skill, knowledge, and/or time of a player. Eve return for example, though that is high end difficult. And sometimes it is to shortcut the process, to borrow from calculus, am I approaching a local min/max with this or a global min/max? No. With enough boosters your can get everything to orbit. Ain't necessarily going to be a clean or simple launch, but it'll be up there.

I'm planning on pushing some Class E rocks into Kerbin orbit. I'm budgeting about 3k/s delta v. That's before any gravity assist and aerobraking come into effect. The outbound engines will be Nervs, no question there. The question is reducing inbound burn times. Do I stock up on Nervs, or do I haul up a few Mammoths?

I was looking at the isp curve of the aerospike... and what do the last pair of numbers mean, bold? key = 0 340 -50 -73.71224 key = 1 290 -21.23404 -21.23404 key = 5 230 -10.54119 -10.54119 key = 10 170 -13.59091 -13.59091 key = 20 0.001

As you're rhyming it off it really doesn't sound like one job. It actually sounds like many jobs. Each with their own trick, traps, and difficulties. But then I'm just a player and don't have much familiarity with such things as coding, software distribution, QA, project planning, platform porting, and all that mumbo jumbo. So I could be wrong. Proximity and simplicity of solution are inversely proportion and all that. But on point 3 one thing does stick out. Allow and have are two separate points on the equipment spectrum. One is necessary but not sufficient for the other. Which it is shall be left as an exercise for the reader.

There's nothing wrong with the Canadian devil, eh?. He's polite, got a source for really good maple syrup, in February, and the dude invented poutine,, eh? Just don't get between him and the puck, eh? KSP doesn't lend itself to a freemium game very well, as it currently stands. The pay content would be very obviously bolted on to the core game. The simple is cash for funds, rep, science, and full tanks, optimum heat, full charge on a/all ships. If a serious resource component was added than there would be more to spend the money on. You'd have to change the core game play... and then it wouldn't be KSP. eh?

"September is coming" Ked Stark.

I prefer the exploding potato chip bag. But I play closer to the what will the engine let me get away with, or beg me to stop doing, then the realistic end of the scale. Sometime the clam shell looks good, usually around a basic satellite payload. Sometimes the exploding bag looks good, like around a large moon lander that has a bit of a muscular line to it.

A slider, or something similar, so that you can select which crew have which jobs when selecting the crew for a ship. So that you are loading up a tourist runner, with an automagic pilot, you don have to scroll through the list of available crew to get to the tourists. Similarly if you want to kerb up you science station on launch you don't have to scroll through all of your available engineers and pilots.

The answer of course is: yes. But then don't confuse conservation of detail for the game with the reality within the game. Gameplay and story segregation you know.

Is Kopernicus the only option? or is there a modless way of doing it?

Managed to bang and hammer a 19 x 40 plane of perfectly aligned 2x2 structural panels.