MathigNihilcehk

Well, I've finished a first attempt of this... 1 hour 24 minutes, 55 seconds. I could upload it to YouTube, but I'm definitely not proud of that time :P... I had to re-do the mun landing a seven times and the kerbin landing twice. I mean, my potential 85 minute record isn't that awesome, but consider that if I got the landings on the first try I'd be closer to 34 minutes. I guess I could try bigger rocket + bigger lander, for stability... The longest part is the pin-point accuracy return. I suppose if you did it right, you could figure out where/when to burn on the mun to go directly to KSC. The best I've found is if you circularize to 100km then you can methodically land close to KSC. However, this means you can't "just" leave mun and land straight on Kerbin. You have to leave mun with enough dV to re-orbit Kerbin. My current rocket has around 3200-3500 dV in atmosphere, 3100 to get to and land on the Mun and 2625 to take off, orbit kerbin, and land.

That IS the hardest part. With something like Mech-jeb it's easy. Otherwise... not so much. Even if you have enough dV to do something like that, precision aiming is a pain, especially if you have to do it in a short period of time. Can I use quicksaves? If so, it'd make the challenge a tad easier, maybe.

There are a number of problems with this challenge. 1: Various computer load times heavily effect your game speed. 2: You didn't attempt your own challenge. 3: There is nothing spectacularly new or innovative about this style of speedrun. 4: etc.? Some improvements you could make to it include. 1: Finding a way to factor out the computational power. For example, you could allow people to compile their in-game time and time-acceleration factors to adjust for time-dilation. (divide the run into segments every time you switch time acceleration factors. For simplicity you must round each segment to the nearest 10th of a second of your footage. Take the in-game time of each segment and divide it by the acceleration factor. You now have a time that is independent of your computer slowing down the computations.). Another option is to cut any loading screen time from the total time (although NOT from the footage). 2: Attempt the challenge. 3: 1) would provide some innovation to the run. Another idea is to do this in career mode. That would be a lot more interesting, because you would have to get enough science/contracts to go to the moon and do so in a short period of time. Although you would probably want to outlaw the booster glitch, if it still works (stacking boosters head-tail without decouplers). 4: Also... just make it stock only. Do it! Otherwise, you'll find people who somehow find an advantage to having some mod or another. IE part mods. Even if you don't use the parts, you can install a part mod that repositions the parts to make it easier to build your spaceship. In all honesty, no one would care if you told them they can't have their precious texture mod for a speed run... this is a speed run, you are an idiot for asking for a texture mod that will make your game run SLOWER. If it makes your game run faster, then you are giving yourself an unfair advantage. No you can't get rid of bugs, because that essentially changes the game. It's critical to have a fair playing field, if you're going to have this.

I was thinking of issuing a similar challenge, after I finish editing videos, for Mars Permanent Outpost... RSS style. I mean, the cool thing about that challenge, is if you could complete it, then theoretically someone could ACTUALLY set up a permanent base on mars for the same price... excluding the billion assumptions made that say all your mods === real life.

Dangit. I am disappointed in myself. I over-designed way too much, the ship catastrophically failed at launch, and I still managed to get to moon the OK. I failed when I forgot how to land on the moon. Second time around I launched perfectly, landed on the moon perfectly, and returned home saftely all in one trip, but... damn, haven't been to the moon in forever. I bet you I could, however, complete the challenge to Duna in one attempt.

How does designing a rocket with basic delta V and thrust calculations not fit into the theme of the challenge? This is Rocket Science. In real life, you don't run simulations, (well you might run a couple to double check everything) you run calculations. You run worst-case-scenario calculations, and you make it viable even then. In Kerbal Space Program, through time, you get good at running those calculations in your head. Sure, you might not know if you are stocking 1600 dv or 1700 dv, but you know roughly what fuel and engines can accomplish what, with time. That is the same thing as actually doing the calculations, except you are doing them on paper, as opposed to in your head. If anything, I might say utilizing notepad, a piece of paper, or a calculator to assist in those calculations is against the rules. Try ACTUALLY RUNNING dv calculations in your head. The ONLY tricky part, is the natural logarithm. I think I'll try this challenge, after some review on how to do logarithms without a calculator. It's really not that hard. Just have to memorize a couple of numbers... that's all.

Finally, I've posted the first video discussing my plan. If you prefer text, I've included it here. The video is . I'll post some of the execution videos once I finish post-commentary and editing. It shouldn't take nearly as long as the opening video, as I won't edit as much. Enjoy!Overview: This is my entry to the challenge. Included is a theoretical, and practical analysis of the challenge, a detailed design description of each component, a detailed mission outline for each mission, and a detailed report of the execution of each mission. I will also attempt to create a YouTube series that animates this to some degree. Goals: 1: Be unique. We choose to go to duna and to do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. 2: Achieve everything. While I may not invent any new achievements, I seek to score all existing achievements. 3: Be practical. One of the achievments is execution. A theoretically perfect design includes no structural support, excess fuel, and demands superhuman piloting. I can't execute that. 4: Be realistic. I will bend some rules, and create harder rules to my entry, because some rules lead to unrealistic play. 5: Be optimal. Everything else held equal, I want my challenge to get the most points it can. If that means cutting things close, then so be it. Theoretical Analysis: To achieve the maximum number of points, you want to send the most kerbals to duna in the shortest time period possible. This depends on how many kerbals you can send and support in each launch window. The most effective way to do this, is to launch an infinitely large rocket, with an infinite number of kerbals and food storages in the first launch. This will yield an infinite number of points. Unfortunately, this rocket can not be constructed in finite time. Since all launches must be equal, you can send the product of your launch size, and the number of launches into orbit. The number of launches you have depends on the time between launches, which depends on your launch size. In our scenario, we have up to day 739 to send mass to duna. We also have a bonus launch at day 10. So, this gives us a total number of launchers of Round down((739-10)/1.5*payload mass)+1, or Round down(486/payload mass)+1. The total mass sent to duna, is then payload mass*Round down(486/payload mass)+payload mass. The round down function is maximized for a serious of steps, where 486 mod payload mass = 0. For these steps, the equation simplifies to 486+payload mass. For each step, there is also a distinct number of launches equal to (486/payload mass)+1. Thus, the lower the number, of launches, the higher your total payload to duna, which means the higher your total point score. For practical reasons, I am going to pick 7 launches. This gives us a maximum payload mass of 69.429. Now, the mass we can get to duna is less than this maximum payload. The change in velocity required to get to duna is at least 860dV. This is assuming that you create an intercept with mun, and gravity assist all the way to duna, and aerobrake in duna's atmosphere into a perfect landing. The best engine to use is the LV-N "Nerv" Atomic Rocket Motor, which has a mass of 3, and a specific impulse of 800 s. Additionally you are getting mass to duna in stages, assuming you use the launch windows. I'd call that a safe assumption, since otherwise you use more mass, and may get there in more time. The first stage gets one launch (50-10), the second two (55+228-10-104*2), the third two (55+228*2-10-104*4), the fourth two (55+228*3-10-104*6). Using the rocket equation, this means we can get 860=9.81*800*ln(full mass/(full mass - fuel)). For the first case, this is 860=9.81*800*ln(69.429/(69.429 - fuel)) or 860=9.81*800*ln(69.429/(69.429 - fuel)), or a fuel mass of 7.206. This will take 8.75 mass for the fuel tanks, for a total mass to duna, less engine and fuel, of 57.679. For the other cases, this is 860=9.81*800*ln(69.429*2/(69.429*2 - fuel)) 14.41 or 16.25 using fuel tanks, thus we have a to duna mass of 119.608. We also need mass for food. Each kerbal will spend 960 days in transit. Using the most space efficient food and realistic food, this is FL-R1 RCS Fuel Tank at 220.6 food per mass. If we wanted the most space efficient food, it'd be PB-X150 Xenon Container at 5833.4 food per mass. In my opinion 100 grams is not a full day's worth of food. 400 grams, on the other hand, is reasonable, assuming you recycle 100% of your water. Anyways, assuming we utilize the 40 days of food in our rover and housing we get 4.17 mass per kerbal, for food. We also need long term housing. The cheapest option, is for kerbals to live in a pair of EAS-1 External Command Seats, which duplicate as their rover. However, for realism sake, I'll pick something else. How about a pair of MK1 Lander Cans? MK3 Passenger Module? MK2 Crew Cabin? All would work, but I feel like all of those options would be kind of unrealistic. A more realistic option is the PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container. It's roomy, spacious, and linked. It's quite large, and so I can EASILY see a couple of kerbals living years in one. However, this means it will require 1.25 mass per kerbal. For the kerbals to get home, let's assume they are just lifting their storage container into orbit and then to ike. This is a dv of 1690, and using 24-77 "twitch" liquid fuel engines(what I am actually using). This gives us 1690=9.81*290*ln(2.5+fuel/(2.5)) or 2.475 with fuel cans considered. This gives us a grand total of 6.68 mass per kerbal, not including a lot of stuff. So, in the first trip we can get 8 kerbals, to duna, and during each subsequent trip, we can get 16, assuming we don't spread the food out. This gives us a theoretical score of 832*8+717*16+489*16+261*16+33*16 or 30,656. Practical Analysis Next up, the explanation for how NeilC gets larger than this score... he manufactured fuel on site. Basically, if you do that, you get to drop the food cost entirely, and you get 275% more kerbals per trip. This actually means that had NeilC found a way to do his mission with a 0 mass mining operation, and more improbably assumptions made in this calculation, he could've scored 84304 points. Obviously, at some point we have to stop making wild assumptions like "If you could somehow get to duna by intercepting mun and using a gravity assist, it'll only cost 860 dV", because I am not building my entire program based on my capability of performing a perfect gravity assist off of Mun. Not even going to try for a gravity assist in the first place. I'm pretty sure if I tried, I'd end up spending more dV than I would've just going straight to duna. Anyway, the process of actually designing a ship is, well, a process. Start with the theoretical max, include all the components, then ask yourself "Am I missing something to actually launch this into space", like an engine, or a some way to connect the blob of parts I just stacked other than stacking them, or docking ports, or even a light. Instead of going through the whole process, I'll show the results. I've created three modular ship types. The first I call the Food Supplier. It consists of RCS cans to store 1870 food, nd a few RCS engines(with RCS fuel) to land. It's total mass is 9.7. The second I call the Inhabitor. It has a hitchhiker housing unit, 360 units of fuel, and a bit of food. The third I call rover. It has seating for four kerbals, and four scientific tools. All three ship types include power generation, parachutes, wheels, and docking ports (except the rover). These parts come together to make a primary payload and a secondary payload. The primary payload consist of two rovers, four inhabitors, and a food supplier, along with a pair of nuclear engines, liquid fuel, food, docking ports, and structural parts. The secondary payload consists of four food suppliers, excess fuel for the return trip, docking ports, and structural parts. Each tops out at just under 69.42 mass. The launch schedule is as follows. Launch and transfer schedule Day 10: Launch Window(Base) Day 55: Duna Transfer Window Day 114: Launch Window(Suppliers) Day 119: Duna arrival Day 218: Launch Window(Base) Day 283: Duna Transfer Window(3 Food) Day 322: Launch Window(Base) Day 347: Duna arrival Day 426: Launch Window(Base) Day 511: Duna Transfer Window(1 Food) Day 530: Launch Window(Suppliers) Day 575: Duna arrival Day 634: Launch Window(Base) Day 739: Launch Window(Base) Day 739: Duna Transfer Window(1 Food) Day 803: Duna arrival Day 843: Launch Window(Suppliers) Day 947: Launch Window(Suppliers) Day 951: Kerbin Transfer Window Day 967: Duna Transfer Window(5 food) Day 1015: Kerbin arrival Day 1031: Duna arrival Day 1051: Launch Window(Suppliers) Day 1155: Launch Window(Suppliers)

Several weeks, 55 hours of recording, and 181 Gigabytes later, and I've FINALLY finished recording my attempt at the challenge. I've compeleted everything by the rules, with the possible exception of flame effects. Considering how the new game rules seem far harsher, in regards to displaying flame effects, AND since the new rules will actually destroy your craft, if you suffer too much re-entry heat, I'm going to kind of ignore the "absolutely no flame effects" rule. Theoretically, if I had done a gravity assist off mun to get to duna, I'd have had enough extra fuel to deorbit burn myself, instead of letting the atmosphere do it for me. I don't mind losing points on the execution, if we assume I completely failed (didn't try) the gravity assist, and therefore the plan is good, but my execution doesn't count. If I were doing the points, I'd consider this a different version of KSP, deserving slightly different rules. Since the game can destroy your craft quite easily, if it doesn't actually burn up in the atmosphere, it didn't burn up in the atmosphere. That's up to the OP, though, not me. Heck, if the OP doesn't count my attempt at all, I probably won't care. I'm happy with my attempt, at least. Oh, and the Kerbals might have to ration their food a bit. Probably not, and definitely not according to my proposal, but perhaps on the actual mission. The dates given for duna transfer burns didn't exactly work for me. I'll have to double check the timing, though. It'll be a few more weeks for me to take a look at editing this footage into... I don't know, something. I'm thinking of cutting this into one succesful continuous video, and highlights of various failed attempts. Perhaps 5x-10x speed, correcting for time dilation, with overlayed commentary... Bah, I'm no entertainer. I'll think of something, though. The straight-up recording was so boring, that even I didn't watch it, while recording it. Anyway, just saying that I will enter my attempt eventually... probably. It won't top the leader-boards, but it's on the order of 10,000 points, and there is a good reason I didn't have room for "heatshields".

Well, I've finally started the challenge, after months of breaks... Yesterday I did about 10% of the execution... I actually got nauseous and had to stop playing. Where did that happen, might you ask? While piloting the darned rover, I built. I forgot to include an SAS module, so landing it was a pain, and I ended up 100km+ away from the landing site. I had saves to reload, but that would've meant landing again. It was incredibly light weight, but also incredibly likely to flip over on the slightest bump on the road. I tried going 10m/s, but it'd flip over within 1km. Eventually I tried going 3m/s, and it seems to work fine... but by then I was too sick to keep playing. I ended up turning on MechJeb's auto-pilot (which likes to flip over too) for 3m/s on 4x time acceleration and I left the room. Unfortunately for me, I don't have just one rover to do, but 10. Note to anyone attempting this challenge. ADD SAS TO YOUR ROVERS!

It is true that any craft outside the physics bubble, and inside a planets lower atmosphere disappear due to magic. I don't think you need to perform all flights to complete the challenge. In fact, I think you only need to do one of each to show that your architecture is plausible or something. You get bonus points for flying everything. If you don't want to risk lots of explosions, I'd recommend Mech-Jeb. Some times it can help you land exactly where you wanted, within 80 m. Warning, at other times it will fly your craft into deep space, because it "feels" like it, and it will often waste fuel spinning 360's because magic. Seriously, it can run an entire mission perfectly and then it'll suddenly decide "for this ONE landing, you fail. Time to use all your fuel 500 m above ground so we can descend at 0.1 m/s.".

*I had forgotten about you... *I thought you had forgotten about me... *You may have thought me crazy, arrogant, or lazy... *Back then you were right... *You are still correct today... *But now after all this time... My name is on the front page under incomplete?!? (My fault for that ) *Soon... *Or perhaps never, but probably soon... *I will return... *And I will finish... Duna Permanent Outpost Mission Architecture Challenge (This is just some early prototypes of my first payload with launcher. Once I finish testing the components, I'll get started on the report. I just wanted to say "Hi, I'm back, and working on the challenge again, for now.") Test Results: The Alpha module shown failed horribly. After some adjusting, all alpha testing is completed. All that remains is to find a good recording software that works with my computer, and attempt the challenge itself. I'm still debating doing video or pictures... I'm anticipating a very long challenge, either way. Some 12 launches of 350 parts each, 20 minute burn times, and 70 separate landings. Only 4 landings, 3 docking maneuvers, and 2 launches are unique, but I'd hate to not go all the way, after all this time.

Regarding the Genetic Algorithm paper(I'll have to read more into it, in the future, it is quite interesting), I've learned that it basically takes a number of random valid inputs, and then breeds them together and checks the offspring for better or worse engine design. It takes the best sets and continually breeds them until one solution is found. However, this solution is not guaranteed to be the global maximum or minimum as stated in the paper "However, finding this global optimum is not guaranteed." page 11, paragraph 2. IE: some rocket components could be lost for reasons completely unrelated to their value (ie, the rocket they were in failed as a whole). This is avoided if a large enough sample size is used, but the larger the sample size, the more generations will need to be checked, and computational time is exponentially related to sample size. As the second paper explains, the optimization is partly random, as in page 9 paragraph 2 "This is a result of the randomness inherent in a heuristic optimization algorithm, and suggests that more computation is necessary to give confidence with the results." While this may lead to an optimization function that generates good rockets that qualify our constraints in a short period of time, it may either miss better rockets, or eat up more computational time than desired. In contrast, my method takes more of a thorough approach and scans every rocket within a range of valid rockets. A finite range can be picked to include the most optimal rocket, and thus the best rocket can be found given enough time.

Still having trouble figuring out what you are doing... So, you generate a matrix that will look like [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]m(dV,P)_x_1y_1z_1[/td] [td]x_1[/td] [td]y_1[/td] [td]z_1[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]m(dV,P)_x_2y_2z_2[/td] [td]x_2[/td] [td]y_2[/td] [td]z_2[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]m(dV,P)_x_iy_iz_i[/td] [td]x_i[/td] [td]y_i[/td] [td]z_i[/td] [/tr] [/table] Then you search for the minimum mass given a certain P and dV and display the appropriate x, y, and z? On another note entirely, I found a way to optimize my guesses. I just plug in my limit condition into a for-loop to scan for valid guesses, then immediately test the dv and TWR followed by comparing with the optimal set and resorting it, if needed. And... since someone replied fairly quickly, I'll set up a working model in Matlab, before transporting to C# (I'm thinking Unity for GUI would work best, unless anyone has a better idea). After-all, who can say what the best model is, until the model is put to the test.

LOL... with those two lines you summarized your entire attempt at the solution. Care to elaborate a bit?

Thrust plates are methods for stability, not for increasing thrust or change in velocity. This system would include any combination of allowed engines and tanks, but it would not handle large numbers of allowed engines easily.

It would sort only rockets which meet the dV and TWR constraints. However, like the app, I'd imagine limiting it to the top 20 or 10 working rockets would quicken the sorting process. A bigger concern might be the guess range as your number of rocket engines increases. The guess range I have is rather gross. I'd imagine some sort of lower bound could be found(with another "impossible" upper bound, maybe?), and first order corrections on the upper bound.

Quick background: I am a physics major, and math enthusiast. I found a web app on the forums (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65011-WEB-0-25-KSP-Optimal-Rocket-Calculator-v1-15) that generates rocket designs. However, it requires enormous amounts of processor power and seems to miss some ideal solutions for generating rockets. (I tested 4500 2-stage, and 2 2250 stages (mass of 1st stage as payload of 2nd stage) and got different results) So, I am going to do an analysis of the problem "How do I create a rocket generator". I believe my solution may be significantly superior to the existing app's solution(I love the app, but think I may have found a better solution), and I wanted to know what the community thought about it. My analysis will consider three engine types, and one type of fuel, but simple expansion can adapt to any number of engine types. Spoilers hide the derivation, and variable names. dv= actual change in velocity g = force of gravity on kerbin surface ISP_i = ISP value of engine i ISP = Overall ISP value P = payload mass E_i = engine i's mass(with coupler/branches factored in for simplicity) E = total mass for engines F = total mass of fuel C = total mass of empty fuel canisters f = mass of smallest unit of fuel c = mass of smallest unit of empty fuel canister T_i = Thrust of engine i T = total engine thrust TWR = actual thrust per weight ratio M = mass of entire rocket with fuel m = mass of entire rocket without fuel k = number of fuel canisters x,y,z = number of engines x,y, or z respectively _x,_y,_z = indicating "of engine x, y, or z" respectively L = some finite lower limit for P/M we know ahead of time D = desired change in velocity TPR = desired thrust to weight ratio x*E_x+y*E_y+z*E_z = E x*T_x+y*T_y+z*T_z = T T/((x*T_x/ISP_x)+(y*T_y/ISP_y)+(z*T_z/ISP_z)) = ISP dv < g*ISP*ln(M/m) T/(g*M) = TWR k*f=F k*c=C M=P+E+C+F m=P+E+C L < P/M (defined such that TPR = TWR is reasonable) TPR < TWR D < dv In this system, I want to generate every reasonable "guess" for an engine configuration, and then filter out every "guess" that doesn't satisfy our desired thrust to weight and change in velocity conditions. I also want to sort for lowest mass, part count, and cost, so every "guess" whose mass, part count, and cost are all higher than another engine should be eliminated as quickly as possible. This is what our lower limit is for. If some engine's payload/mass is lower than our limit, we can avoid guessing it. This turns out to be the case for all engine configurations with a specific engine count above a certain value. We then want to check against some equation that satisfies both TPR < TWR and D < dv. If an equation satisfies both of these, then we can finally check it's mass, part count, and cost to determine the best one. M < P/L T/(g*TWR) = M T/(g*TWR) < P/L T < g*TWR*P/L T < g*TPR*P/L (because we picked a low enough L) x*T_x+y*T_y+z*T_z < g*TPR*P/L 0 <= x < g*TPR*P/(L*T_x) 0 <= y < g*TPR*P/(L*T_y) 0 <= z < g*TPR*P/(L*T_z) Since x, y, and z are all integers, we now have a limited number of guesses to check. This number is x*y*z or... (g*TPR*P/L)^3*(1/T_x+1/T_y+1/T_z) So the number of guesses increases exponentially as the payload, desired thrust to weight ratio, and number of engines increases and as thee limit decreases. D < dv D < g*ISP*ln(M/m) D < g*ISP*ln((P+E+C+F)/(P+E+C)) D < g*ISP*ln((P+E+k*c+k*f)/(P+E+k*c)) D/(g*ISP) < ln((P+E+k*c+k*f)/(P+E+k*c)) e^(D/(g*ISP)) < (P+E+k*c+k*f)/(P+E+k*c) e^(D/(g*ISP))*(P+E+k*c) < (P+E+k*c+k*f) (P+E)*e^(D/(g*ISP))+k*c*e^(D/(g*ISP)) < (P+E+k*c+k*f) (P+E)*e^(D/(g*ISP)) < (P+E+k*c+k*f) - k*c*e^(D/(g*ISP)) (P+E)*e^(D/(g*ISP))-(P+E) < k*(c+f) - k*c*e^(D/(g*ISP)) (P+E)*e^(D/(g*ISP))-(P+E) < k*((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) (P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1) < k*((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) (P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < k TPR < TWR TPR < T/(g*M) TPR < T/(g*(P+E+C+F)) TPR < T/(g*(P+E+k*(c+f))) (g*(P+E+k*(c+f))) < T/TPR (P+E)+k*(c+f) < T/(TPR*g) k*(c+f) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E)) k < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(c+f) (P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < k < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(c+f) (P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(c+f) -((c+f)-(c+f)*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(P+E) -((c+f)-c*e^(D/(g*ISP))-f*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(P+E) -1-(-f*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(P+E) (f*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E))/(P+E)+1 (f*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g)-(P+E)+(P+E))/(P+E) (f*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < (T/(TPR*g))/(P+E) (f*e^(D/(g*ISP)))/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < T/(TPR*g*(P+E)) f/((c+f)*e^(-D/(g*ISP))-c)<T/(TPR*g*(P+E)) We can sort part count by adding up the parts, costs by adding up each part multiplied by it's cost, and mass similarly to cost. I will solve for mass, and skip the others for brevity. Since we want low mass, part count, and cost, we will want k to be minimal for each engine configuration. Thus, we can round up the k value for our k > ... expression. (P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))) < k k optimal = roundup((P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP)))) M=P+E+C+F M=P+E+k*(c+f) M=P+E+roundup((P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))))*(c+f) So, assume we now have 2 stages. By guessing, dividing the delta V equally between the stages will give an optimal rocket. Then, we will calculate the first stage and plug in it's mass into our payload for the second stage. Since we are only calculating 1 equation for every set of engine configurations, and one more equation for each valid configuration, we can save time on displaying the actual rocket configurations until the scan is complete. Once complete, we can calculate the delta V, mass, etc. for the top few operations, as desired. Final Solution: Consider every possible set of x, y, and z(except 0,0,0) that satisfy 0 <= x < g*TPR*P/(L*T_x) 0 <= y < g*TPR*P/(L*T_y) 0 <= z < g*TPR*P/(L*T_z) and test if they satisfy f/((c+f)*e^(-D/(g*ISP))-c)<T/(TPR*g*(P+E)). If so, sort by M=P+E+roundup((P+E)*(e^(D/(g*ISP))-1)/((c+f) - c*e^(D/(g*ISP))))*(c+f) (for mass, cost and part count can be done similarly) and display the final solutions with the values for x, y, and z. Optionally calculate change in velocity, mass, and thrust to weight ratio and display for final solutions. Conclusion: While I have yet to calculate the time per guess, I am assuming this would be a better method for generating rockets. At the very least it is one to consider, because the calculation time is not exponentially related to the stage count, but instead is proportional to it. Questions: How do I find the time for testing each guess? Are there any errors in my calculations or reasoning? Did you enjoy reading this? Should I continue to pursue developing this method into a web-app or a download-able app? Should I move this to a new thread or location? Any other thoughts? Thanks for reading!

Yeah OK. That leaves the new refining sets. I COULD use Kethane's conversion formula, if needed, then. Should be a simple replace the inputs and outputs. Thanks a bunch.

Hey, I am interested in modifying Interstellar for personal uses. I want to make it compatible with Real Fuels. I'm looking at liquid H2, liquid oxygen, and hydrazine. I want to know how to make Interstellar use these in terms of Real Fuels instead of stock. I am also looking for creating new refinery operations to create some of the more exotic fuels of real fuels using the interstellar system. First off, IS it compatible. In other words, if I plug in both Real Fuels and Interstellar will the fuels automatically convert, somehow? Does KSPI_MFS.cfg run after Interstellar and change all the Interstellar products into Real Fuel terms or something? Second, how can I edit the refinery module such that it includes new fuel conversions? I found the Refinery module part.cfg, but I can't find anything relating to actual refining, only extraction. Thanks a ton!

@Reign of Magic Thanks for the answers. Regarding Kethane, I really hate the idea of using Kethane for a number of reasons. 1: It has limited resources. I don't want to use up a solar systems worth of resources on accident, even if that is realistic. 2: Fuel conversion doesn't make sense. Kethane can be converted into anything, and the law of mass conservation is broken. Regarding the ISRU refinery and production chains, I just found Wikipedia has a lot of info on the remaining fuels. There is a half dozen solid rocket fuels out there and more than likely a few processes to get the last two mono-propellants, so I can probably morph new processes out of the ISRU to make them. @Hattivat 2: Thanks, that helps a lot. 3: Hehe, I've taken chemistry before, but it seems straightforward. I mean just balance the chemical equation in a converter(atom conservation and all that), and set some energy requirement to balance the conversion. There are tables for this kind of stuff, and there is also Wikipedia. The tricky bit is in creating a new conversion, once I know the rates. I assume just locate how Interstellar's other conversion work and toying with them a bit will yield successful results. CFG's seem to be pretty straightforward. Regarding Kethane, I totally agree with you. I'm probably going to include the mod, then disable any parts not required by Modular Kolonization System. That system is incredibly realistic, I just don't know why they'd make it dependent on Kethane... @all That concludes all of my questions. Thanks for being so helpful. If anyone is interested in what happens next, let me know.

You've answered most of my questions, thanks! Some remaining questions follow: RealFuels and Interstellar both create similar new resource systems. Interstellar has fuels such as: Liquid Fuel (H2), Methane, Oxydizer, and Monopropellent that are all intricately woven into a production chain. Real Fuels has fuels like: Liquid H2, Liquid Methane, LOx, Hydrazine, and Solid Fuel that are not involved in any apparent production chain. How do I combine the two? Do I simply change the part cfg's and cfg's in Real Fuels to allow for the resource types in Interstellar? Also, how might I add Nitrous Oxide, HTP, and solid fuels into some production chain? 2:/Realism Overhaul. I looked in some of the cfg's for Realism Overhaul. Would I be correct in saying that it resizes everything except the engines to fit with real life, and the new engine pack? Stock is 0.625 to 3.75 the Real Engine pack is 1m to 12m, focused on 1m-4m(diameters). To restate my remaining questions: 1: Where is Bobcat's Soviet Engines? 2: Do resource types merely consist of cfg's or is there another element to them? IE: If I install both Real Fuels and Interstellar, and fix the cfg's in the parts so that the resource types mesh, will it work, or will something in the dll's and other such files cause an issue? 3: How might I add Nitrous Oxide, HTP, and solid fuels into some production chain to mesh with Interstellar? 4: Does the Realism Overhaul mod merely adjust non engine parts to match real life and the Real Engine pack?

I have a few questions regarding the real engine pack, Real Solar System, part pack making, Real Fuels and Realism Overhaul. Regarding the Real Engine Pack 1: Where are all the engines! I've spent a few hours looking around and downloading stuff, but the curse site that is supposed to host some of them isn't hosting certain ones, and some are outdated. 2: Do any of the sizes take the size of the VAB into account. That is, are some parts so large that they don't reasonably fit on the launchpad or VAB, whereas there real-world equivalent would've? 3: Will Kethane and/or Interstellar break the pack entirely? 4: Does it require RealFuels? Regarding Real Solar System is CustomBiomes required for the biomes to work according to the planet, or is it optional? Do the two have conflicts or over-riding features? It looks like they both mess with biomes, and one with the biomes of many of the planets and moons. Regarding creating part packs(like the Real Engine pack, except compatible with Kethane and Interstellar) can I just put all the part folders into one big folder, along with the real engines cfg's(potentially modified to include Interstellar and Kethane resources), and it will work, or do I need a plugin. If so, which plugin? What does km_Gimbal_2.0.dll do? Does RealFuels conflict with Interstellar? Lastly, what does Realism Overhaul actually do? I get what most of the mods do that are required for it, but what does Realism Overhaul do in and of itself? Some background for these questions follows: I want a mod set (private, for now) that allows for near future technology and complex intricate base construction. Namely, Modular Kolonization system and Interstellar plus Realism. I understand I'll probably have to create a new tech tree and part pack if I want those two mods, but I'm running into several issues. Namely, I'll NEED a part overhaul if anything is to work. Second, the whole biome thing went over my head, so I'm confused about all of that. Third, I don't know whether I should include Realism Overhaul, or if it will do more harm than good. If I have to use the required mod set, then there may be a conflict resulting in the Kerbalizing of my computer. (It will explode). But if Realism Overhaul offers vital tweaking to fix the game, then I should find a way to incorporate at least that part into my set. I understand some of this may be in the wrong place. Please point me to the correct location, and ignore the misplaced sections if that is the case. Thanks all for your time and help!

Yay! I got this to work. Apparently, launching KSP from the shortcut or the launchpad window fails to start the program. If I go track down that exe file inside the folder and launch from there, it launches like a dream. Norton had nothing to do with it... except deleting my dll file, which I simply reverted. Now all I need to do is figure out how to run more than ten mods simultaneously while recording, while not destroying my computer. Thanks for the help all!

I tried turning it off, and that doesn't seem to work. I don't think that is the case, but I'll try it on a different computer than has a different anti-virus software soon. Any better ideas?

I've been trying to install this for hours now. I need help. I'm trying to install Real Solar System Kerbal-Size. However, I can't get even the stock settings to work. So, I've deleted KSP and freshly installed it. I then downloaded Real Solar System, and extracted it, along with the module manager to the GameData folder. When I do so, Norton Antivirus removes RealSolarSystem.dll for WS 1 threat. I then go and restore it, and I double check to make sure the dll file is where it was. I open up Kerbal Space Program's launcher. That loads quickly and perfectly, and I then click play. That window closes, another opens and instantly closes. Everything goes silent. If I open up my Task Manager, I note that Kerbal Space Program is not open as an application. Instead, I look under Processes, and find KSP.exe *32. This is not only active, but it is running with 80%-100% of my CPU and 1.4-1.6 GB of my RAM. I wait for a few minutes, about the same time it would normally take KSP to load up, and then... Intro Music! However, no window loads, and the menu does not load. Instead I merely get the intro music followed by the menu music on loop, with that process still there, and still at high memory usage. I thought this was normal, so I waited 15 minutes... 52 minutes, and counting now. That menu music continues to play as I type this. I've looked across this thread as best as I can, and I don't see any similar issues.