TeeGee

I've used it and it does work with 0.9 BUT parts in the nasa pack are NOT affected. Also you'll hear from any other NON-stock part rocket, any explosions, and any other sfx you have installed aside from basic stock. I've been using audio muffler ever since the NASA part pack was adopted by squad, which actually fx all sfx and music as you go higher up. It's not super realistic like this mod, but it does a pretty good job. If this mod had the ability to extend its fx to the nasa parts and to explosions, it'd be the hands down winner of all sfx mods. But until then, I'm going to recommend audio muffler until this gets updated.

I had an issue with an unmanned Mk1-2 pod in LKO over KSC. I decoupled it from my SM for reentry inteface but when I switched to the pod, it said no connection even though I was 80,000 m above the KSC. It was not the root pod on my rocket as I had another probe core on my SM. Is this a known issue?

http://www.convertunits.com/from/lb/to/tons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy

But how about the economics of it all? Calculate how much an average satellite launch will cost per launch on a single payload rocket. Then calculate how much a delta-4 heavy rocket launch will cost. I'm sure there is a point in the delta 4 heavy payload where it would be cheaper to launch multiple satellites atop the delta 4 heavy than to use multiple single payload rockets. And I don't understand why the amount of delta v used wouldn't be beneficial. Heavy lift rockets are designed to push higher mass objects into LEO. Arrange payloads delivered top to bottom according to orbital altitude, decouple them, then proceed to the next orbit needed. The SM would be shedding weight as it went up as it delivered the satellite payloads. Delta 4 heavy launch with max payload weight worth of satellites on top. Delta 4 H has a max payload to LEO of 63,470 lb, 31,350 lb to GTO... that's a pretty hefty payload. A modern satellite can weigh UP TO 6 tons. That's 5 satellites in one go. How much are 5 separate satellite rocket launches vs. 1 delta 4 H launch? Delta 4 heavy launches cost $435 million each. Space X falcon 9 launch is $62.5 million. 62.5 x 5= 312.5 million. So its cheaper to do multiple launches with space x than one big one. BUT the average satellite launch for everyone else is upwards of $100-250 million PER launch. 100 x 5 = $500 million. And as a satellite company, I wouldn't be paying for the whole damn delta 4 rocket... I'd be paying for my contributing payload mass. If 5 different companies each want to launch 1 satellite up on a delta 4 heavy, they'd be splitting the $435 million 5 ways. That's $85 million each. CHEAPER than the average. Like it doesn't make sense to me why they don't do that. Fewer small launches means LESS orbital debris (a huge problem these days) and it would be cheaper for the company hiring to use the rocket.

Stock heatshield.

I second this suggestion.

For example: Instead of using 1 rocket to launch 1 satellite, use a heavy lift rocket that will carry 4-5 or more satellites, a cargo module for the ISS AND maybe even a crew module into orbit. I don't understand how it could be more beneficial for rocket companies to have multiple small payload launches as opposed to 1 or 2 multiple payload launches using heavy lift systems. In KSP, this is what I've been doing. Instead of launching Kerbals, satellites and supplies on separate rockets; I put them all onto 1 big one. I launch the Kerbals in LKO, move into a higher orbit and launch my satellites, then move the SM into a graveyard orbit. I just delivered 5 launches worth of payload into 1. Wouldn't that save money and time?

Does anyone have any working cfgs for the KSO and HGR rocket engines?

That's ok. Thanks for replying!

Hmmm. I tried doing that before but the engines don't show any coolrocket fx in game. Is yours?

How do I download the cool rockets one? I've right clicked to save as but it is internet quicklink.

How do we install these support patches? Do we copy and paste them into a specific cfg file?

I think the question should be, will KSP die after 1.0 is released? The game has lasted this long because of a few things: 1) continued updates by squad 2) the promise of MORE updates by squad with more features 3) the modding community 4) the game was in early access mode Now that the game will be released 'feature complete', the community will get excited at initial release, play it for a few months, then realize the game is done and put it down forever. I have to confess, this is the reason I haven't visited any other planets in the kerbal system other than Mun, Minimus and Duna. I want to visit everything else when the game is complete.. that should buy me a few more months of play time before I move onto other games.

OK I agree but the properties of the fuel we have IN LORE are still unclear... is it stored cryogenically or at room temp? How does it work? How do kerbals ignite it? How is it processed? I don't care if it's based on real life or not, I just want an in game/ in lore explanation for the properties of the LF and oxidizer in KSP.

Discuss. I was looking to use CoolRocketFX on my KSP install when I began to question (again) whether the fuel in KSP is cryogenic... and if it was hypergolic as well. Why did I assume they are hypergolic? Well in the game you have an infinite number of restarts, no boil off, tanks don't have insulation, engine flame is visible (hydrolox engines have invisible flames), and thrust of the engines is low. I just need someone from SQUAD to come here and disclose to the rest of us in KSP lore what kind of fuel Kerbals use because this is going to drive me crazy.

Stock parts are way too ugly to make anything look pretty...

What this person said. LES in this game is useless since parts don't fail in stock KSP. If you have an emergency you could 1) Just revert to launch or VAB 2) cut engines and decouple. That's it. LES towers are an aesthetic thing that just adds weight to stock launchers for people who try to create real life replicas in KSP.

In case you were wondering why I put a flap on the launch tower... since I use FAR, I enable the flap to act as a spoiler and assign it to a action group that causes it to deflect UP. Basically acting as a retractable ramp.

I think it keeps the same dimensions but is just a retexture/reskin. I've used his mod before and it is amazing (the cockpit windows light up AND REFLECT what is outside of them (you need texture replacer).

Well I built one that gets to the top BUT gets misaligned as it travels up or gets stuck somewhere. It is an open design and it is really irking me since hit detection for these parts in game is abysmal.

I think it is from the stock revamp 1.7 pack. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92764-90-Stock-Part-Revamp-Update-1-7-1!

AMAZING! But can it be done within the structural panels? I've been having one hell of a time building a launch tower elevator using stock parts that is stable and reliable. How good is the elevator you have built (stability wise)?

This is the best thread in the space craft exchange so far. THIS is what KSP is about... building what you need with what tools we are given. The creativity and talent that is here on this thread is inspiring. You guys/gals are playing this game properly and I salute your engineering skills.

Dload: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2f60weomaa5fu4q/Command%20Pod%20Mk1.craft?dl=0