It'snorocketscience

After starting an outpost on Eve, I remembered (much to my relief) that I remembered to build a return vehicle. However, it's completely disposable and only works once... not good for rotating crew on and off Eve! The cost to rotate crew would be astronomical... Goal: Build a reusable vessel that can land on Eve, take a Kerbal to orbit, and repeat. But wait! Before you dismiss this as impossible, let's make this easier: You don't have to build an Eve SSTO if you don't want to. You may discard stages, land them, and reassemble them on the ground with docking ports/Breaking Ground parts/by landing stages atop old stages. You may use a stage recovery mod. Also, to save your time, when you land or enter a stable orbit, you may simulate refueling with a mining vessel and cheat your fuel tanks back to 100%. You may teleport your vessel to Eve orbit and start from there. Recommended mods: Hyperedit (to simulate refueling, make testing easier), Stage recovery mod. Winning criteria: Build a semi-reusable vessel that can shuttle 1 Kerbal from Eve's orbit to the surface, and vice versa. Completing the challenge earns you a spot here. If the design is an SSTO, it will be placed in a second category. Winners: (Name, vessel name, link) EveMaster's Eve Infinity https://kerbalx.com/EveMaster/Eve-Infinity Brikoleur's Seraph https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-9900-Seraph Rules: You may cheat in pre-existing infrastructure. Your vessel may start at LEO. You can ignore commnet (built-in antennas will reach LEO anyways in a real game). You may simulate refuels with Hyperedit, but only when: 1) In a stable orbit around Eve (simulating refueling at a station) or 2) Landed on Eve (simulating refueling at an ISRU base). Take screenshots. Upload your craft so we can use it too. I have several Kerbals stuck on Eve... Pilot aid/build aid/stage recovery/planning/cosmetic mods are OK. Good luck!

Yes. My lander doesn't use EC or reaction wheels. Engine gimbals, 4 fins, and Jeb's SAS comfortably get the lander to orbit. I could build a bigger lander, but i'm strapped for cash in my career save. Other players/youtube videos seem to have no trouble with fitting seats inside service bays... My command setup: 0.24 tons (payload bay, command chair + kerbal inside) vs 0.6 (lander can with no monoprop), not to mention the lander can's heat tolerance is poor. The nosecones (2000K tolerance) were already getting quite hot during ascent and descent tests...

I have a command seat inside a small bay (weight savings), but no matter how many times I tweak it, when a kerbal enters/exits, he collides with the vessel and violently topples my lander. Does anyone have screenshots/subassemblies of the correct seat position? Who knew that this would be the hardest part of designing my first Eve lander? Getting to Eve orbit was a charm compared to trying to fix this cursed chair...

After starting a permanent outpost on Eve, I remembered (much to my relief) that I remembered to build a surface-return vehicle. However, it's completely disposable and horribly unsuited for rotating crew on/off Eve to an orbital station (then back home). The cost to return all those homesick Kerbals, let alone rotate crew, would be astronomical... Goal: Build a reusable vessel that can land on Eve, refuel (with pre-existing infrastructure), take a Kerbal to LEO (Low Eve Orbit), then land to refuel and repeat. Required payload: 1 Kerbal. That's it! However you bring him up is... up to you! The idea is to have a crew shuttle that can be reused within the Eve system infinitely (until you break something ). Note: Your vessel doesn't have to be an SSTEO! Reassembly (with parts you already launched) is allowed. To save time, you will be allowed to cheat in pre-existing infrastructure (see rules). Winning criteria: Completing the challenge earns you a spot here. Entries ranked byspent. If the design is an SSTEO (SSTO but for Eve), I will create a 2nd list. Rules: You may cheat in pre-existing infrastructure. Your vessel may start at LEO. Disable commnet (built-in antennas will reach LEO anyways in career). You may simulate refuels with Hyperedit, but only when: 1) In a stable orbit around Eve (simulating refueling at a station). 2) Landed on Eve (simulating refueling at an ISRU base). Take screenshots. Upload your craft so we can use it too. I have several Kerbals stuck on Eve... Normal difficulty or harder. PIlot aid/build aid/planning/cosmetic mods are allowed. If I can use your vessel with similar results in pure vanilla, it's OK! Stage recovery mods are allowed. If your rocket isn't an SSTEO, you must reassemble your rocket (with the same old parts you originally launched) in some way so that you can reuse and refuel it infinitely within Eve's SOI without shipping new parts. There's one reasonable way I can think of to do this, and one that requires Jeb's piloting skills and precision landings! Good luck!

I have a working T4 SSTO plane that uses the "reliant" rocket and it can land back on it's wheels. It can comfortably reach orbit. Those landing wheels are a pain, but if you balance the dry CoM and CoL correctly and use your command pod torque, you can point your wheels retrograde which protects them during reentry. If that's not possible then you can at least tilt them away from prograde and use your plane's body to shield them. Shallow re-entry trajectories are important. I will get a video (or at least some screenshots) of my craft soon... I got 2 school tests on one day this week! sorry

Do you think I should make a separate category for FAR SSTOs then? On a side note, I actually managed to get to LKO with these requirements with ~900 m/s of dV left, believe it or not. That means my design can do a mun flyby, but I have to do some more testing if it can return, let alone meet all those bonuses (tier 1 tracking station is such a pain!). Basically the plane resembles a fuel tank more than a plane... this thing has a takeoff speed of 70-80 m/s in stock ksp, but trust me; it launches, flies, and lands like a plane. It comes in at 17.9 tons and exactly 30 parts. I'll post a video in a bit... you might find the runway braking mechanism (or lack thereof) a bit interesting.

I think I might need to disqualify that plane... I can't get it to work in stock... maybe I'm doing something wrong but the aerodynamics overlay (stock ksp) tell me that those angled tanks create a crap ton of drag (since they're radially attached instead of attached to the mk1 pod node)... Maybe FAR fixes that or something... sorry I'll try flying it again since I forgot to use any of the flaps the first time around... I didn't know stock ksp wings had fancy flaps and spoilers...

Maybe I've set up something wrong, but some of the graphs I'm getting for my planes don't make sense... I've gotten 3 different flight envelopes from one plane! The zigzag and chopped off pyramid don't make sense, and then one graph tells me I have excess thrust with Juno jets above 18km (that's impossible! flight ceiling is very low on this craft). Somehow, graphs for other planes work just fine. https://imgur.com/a/aHZx3rY I've tested this plane... It's ceiling is about 6-7 km on jets, has a wet takeoff speed of around 60-80 m/s and can almost touch the sound barrier. I tried disabling the rocket engine and making sure the jets are on the first stage, but the flight envelope calculation still makes no sense... Edit 2: Here's the output.log file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FwzV2wEbECT6Fl_9o4LMUVliQExNXWo/view?usp=sharing I have modded parts installed on vessel, (a life support canister + kerbal engineer jammed inside the payload bay) but I tried those parts on other planes and updating the wind tunnel, yet their flight envelopes still look fine. I have a lot of quality of life mods installed but none of them change stock aerodynamics and only two add parts (kerbal engie and usi life support). I installed this mod using CKAN but I think I was having issues like this before I switched to CKAN. I reinstalling the mod to no avail.

It will last for almost 36 minutes (mk1 pod + staypunik reserves) without EC generation. This doesn't include reaction wheel power drain, but the lv 909 has gimbals and your control surfaces should work.

Yeah... the suspension is annoying. I tweaked the suspension and flew mine using trim and used that to gently stall my vessel a meter off the ground. edit: I just noticed that you are using FAR, which to the best of my knowledge makes things harder. Nice work getting that flying! By any chance could I have the .craft file when you're done? Edit 2: does the plane make it to orbit in vanilla ksp without FAR?

There is a kinda exploit-y way to surpass 92.5 m/s using rover wheels only. I'm reluctant to show this as this is kind of fun and i sorta-kinda hope that the only use for giant rover wheels doesn't get patched out, but anyways: 150 m/s+ can be achieved using the giant rover wheels. There are two ways: Disable symmetry and invert steering for all wheels on one side. When you try to turn, the craft will go straight (because you inverted steering on one side) and accelerate past 150 m/s. Spam ADADAD to steer rapidly. It's hard to control and a bit slower but doesn't need any special setup. How does this work? The giant rover wheels steer like tanks: they increase power on one side to steer. Will you guys allow this? It can be done in game without editing files.. and it burns electricity like crazy... regular solar panels fly off at those speeds, and you'll need plenty of fuel for fuel cells OR tons of flat static solar panels to keep this running to the North pole. At these speeds, even with the wheels' insane 150 m/s crash tolerance, careful control and structural design will be crucial. You can see this madness for yourself in a video by hazard-ish. I verified it myself and this hasn't been patched yet.

Don't worry about the looks too much, but do you think you could make it carry a tourist (#4)? Your design is really close and it won't need big changes to be able to take a tourist.

That's a nice design! You got a single measly lv-909 rocket engine to work! Do you have a .craft file so I can try it out for myself? I'll accept the dolly. Even though it kinda pushes the definition of an SSTO, (plane needs reassembly before launching again) I'll accept it since it's reusable, jettisoned at launch, isn't a propulsion device, and the craft can still land like a plane in water as you said. Also, that dolly is cool and efficient! Could you remove the parachute or avoid using it? It doesn't fit the "land like a plane" criteria. Don't worry... according to the wiki, the stayputnik's drag coefficient is actually slightly better than the mk1 parachute (smooth round ball). You don't need an antenna either -- pods have one built in. Also, by enabling "hibernate in warp" and hibernating in orbit, you can live off of a surprisingly small amount of power. The stayputnik drains little power and your engines generate power during ascent. You don't need to stay in space for a long time once you achieve orbit.

I'm not sure if anyone else is experiencing this, but the precise node mod in combination with better time warp gives my maneuver nodes a mind of their own. Completely closing and restarting the game fixes it until I repeat the cause (see below). The problem: When creating a maneuver node, the delta V meter next to the navball will start to rapidly increase. The dV bar (not the number) appears empty. No predicted or changed trajectory shows up in the map view. If I adjust the maneuver node (the stock way or by using the mod), the rapid increase will reset but immediately restart. Edit: I think I found the cause, or conflict rather: Physics time warping with lossless physics enabled (from the "better time warp" mod) will cause this uncontrollable maneuver node drift. Even if you stop phys warping and turn off lossless physics, maneuver nodes still seem to be corrupted. This issue can be fixed by closing and restarting ksp and NOT using lossless physics from that mod. Quickloading, switching vessels, or going to the main menu doesn't work. I've made sure that my RCS and throttle is off. This problem isn't limited to one vessel. Edit2 continued: I have better burn time as well as the trajectories mod installed... I will test to see if those matters. I'm going to try reinstalling better time warp continued. Reinstalling better time warp didn't work. I got a clean install of KSP 1.4.5 (had a metric ton of quality-of-life mods) with nothing but the precise nodes mod, better time warp mod, clickthrough blocker mod, and the toolbar manager mod. This problem still persists. I have the latest version (1.2.9.1 and 0.1.6.7 respectively) of precise node and click through blocker installed. I am running KSP 1.4.5. I'm using CKAN (I installed the mods manually before installing ckan) but I believe I was having this problem before I started using CKAN. output.log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FwzV2wEbECT6Fl_9o4LMUVliQExNXWo/view?usp=sharing

I think it should be tweakable in both situations, but in the VAB you wouldn't need engineers to do it. In flight, engines would only be adjustable by engineers. I think it would be useful in the following scenarios: During the start of an ascent, a temporary boost in TWR could help make ascents more efficient and rockets slightly less complicated. Also, once you escape the atmosphere, a boosted TWR would be nice to help accelerate to orbital speeds if you're using a low thrust high ISP engine (nukes, lv 909, etc). This would be nice for SSTOs, since they can't jettison boosters and eliminating deadweight (extra rockets for ascents only) is critical. You could add more boosters, but that would increase the weight of the rocket and reduce efficiency (boosters have terrible ISPs). A temporary boost in TWR would be great for landing/taking off from high gravity planets (tylo and eve). Clumsy pilots could use it to save their lander if they come in too fast. While I'm no rocket scientist at all, they could increase the amount of fuel being supplied for greater thrust and ISP (more fuel/ox burning = higher temperatures = higher exhaust velocity = higher ISP). This would cause the engine to overheat though, so that could be a balancing mechanic.

I present you a difficult engineering challenge: Build an SSTO that uses tier 4 parts and below, that can be launched using tier 1 facilities. You'll face juno jets, EC drain (no panels), tight flight envelopes, and toothpick landing wheels. Your only source of EC will be from your engines and those measly batteries. Special flight and re-entry planning is crucial. It took me a few hours, but this challenge is possible. If anyone wants proof or needs help, I can PM you my craft and some tips that worked for me. It meets all the requirements (and bonuses, except for the commnet one - that's untested). Hopefully I'm not the only one who finds engineering challenges thrilling... Rules: No refuelling or help from external spacecraft. No EVAs (tourists can't EVA, and crew can't EVA off the ground with a T1 astronaut complex). The craft should work on normal difficulty (regular reentry heating). Note: If you really want: You can disable commnet. Reach a stable orbit of at least 70 km using tier 4 parts and below. Have a payload of one tourist. This is the hard part! You can use building/pilot aid mods, but your craft and it's flight should be reproducible in vanilla. Note: If you really want, you can use SAS (in sandbox) even though the T4 stayputnik doesn't have SAS. You can build your planes in sandbox, but make sure they fit within the T1 facility restrictions (https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Runway) Note: If you really want, you can use action groups even though the T1 sph can't do that. Note: If you really want, you can launch/land from the grass, or use the T3 runway, or ditch in the water next to the KSC. The craft must take off, fly, and land like a spaceplane. Land in one piece. This is a reusable SSTO, isn't it? Note: If you really want, you can jettison parts at/during launch as long as they don't get destroyed. Basically, this means that fancy launch rigs are allowed. (I've decided to edit in this rule because it allows for more design variety). Hardcore mode (optional challenges): These are only necessary for the #3/#4 win category (see below): No SAS (stayputnik has no SAS) or pilot aids. Takeoff and land on the T1 runway. No action groups (T1 facilities can't set up action groups) Absolutely no jettisoning of parts, not even launch rigs. Use commnet (normal difficulty) and set occlusion to max (you can use ground stations around kerbin). No unmanned control during re-entry if you aren't careful! Who wins? This isn't really a competition... If you want to compete, here are some milestones to aim for: Use as few parts as possible to reach orbit (my design uses the max amount of 30). If there's a tie in part count, the cheaper vessel wins. Whoever's vessel can achieve the highest orbit apoapsis AND RETURN wins (basically delta v, but piloting and aerodynamics matter). Whoever fulfills all the bonuses using the least amount of parts. Whoever fulfills all the bonuses and can achieve the highest orbit apoapsis AND RETURN wins (basically delta v, but piloting and aerodynamics matter). Use plenty screenshots or record a video to show your design. Good luck!

I know most people prefer the new looks, but I hope they have an option to use the old color scheme... it's not too much to ask for, is it? I like the current look of the game right now.

Edit: this is a dumb suggestion and i didn't phrase it the way I want. old title: Engine-ers should be able to tweak engine trust/ISP/etc. (see desc) Engineers (mid-high xp level) should be able to tweak engine ISP for more thrust and vice versa. E/C alternators in engines could be disabled for more thrust, or cranked up to produce more electricity at the expense of more fuel or less thrust (like a crappy low-tech fuel cell). Of course, the "tweakability" of everything should be limited so we can't have mainsail engines replacing nukes and vice versa. Maybe this could be balanced with an overheat mechanic: increasing thrust/ISP causes overheating and require radiators. At one point the rocket will reach a hard limit.

Umm... Hatbat? Got any tips? :/

I thought fraps corrupted footage more than other paid recorders..?

Like video recorders? Well, the free ones are, in my experience... Bad. I lost dozens of hours of footage to free recorders like Ezvid. I don't recommend you use them unless you're on the strictest of budgets. I really recommend this recorder called "Action!" It comes with all the features you need.

Well, if your computer can handle it, here are the list of essentials in general terms: Something for fancy camera movements (Kerbcam) Something to get you where you want and to set the time (Hyperedit) Autopilot, if you're too busy performing other tasks (Mechjeb) Something to change the textures (to look better if your comp can handle it, or vice versa) (Astronomer's visual pack for better looks) (google it) Mods that add parts (if required for your cinematic) (B9 aerospace, KW rocketry, etc, do research on places like Curseforge and the forums and Kerbal Stuff, and make sure your game supports it) These are all important stuff. You almost certainly need fancy camera movements, autopilot, and an atmosphere/space texture tweaker (because vanilla atmospheres strike a poor balance between computer-melting-visuals and low-lag visuals). Autopilot makes simple manoeuvres (i.e. a very steady and slow and realistic powered descent from a lander onto a place like Duna) very easy and gives you time to take care of other things. Another thing I'd recommend would be a checklist. Why? Every time you record, there are many little thinks to watch out for like keeping your cursor hidden, hiding the UI, hiding everything so only the craft and universe can be seen, making sure your video recorder is on, making sure your video recorder works (I've had several cases where my beautiful footage put together in my ever-so-scare spare time is corrupted by a ****-ing free recorder for no good reason), and so on. Cinematics are hard. Making them (for me) have taken huge amounts of time, energy, late nights, money, blood (yes, really, although not really), and frustration. Your reward is a beautiful creation you can sit back and enjoy... and that's the fun part. That's where the satisfaction of having made something beautiful comes in. - - - Updated - - - By the way, Any experienced cinematographers got some recommendations? Like, good mods and tweaks that make the game look good and not melt my computer, and tips and tricks that make things easier? The problem is, every time I get the motivation to stop playing FPS'es, I try to make a cinematic, and six hours later, I have get nothing but failure. There's always something that goes wrong. The video recorder ****'ed up, I screwed up some good footage, the sound and video weren't synced, or something. I really miss the time when I played KSP. I used to play it to make cinematics, and I quit because it was too hard. I grew tired of spending hours and hours trying to fix things and make videos. I'd force myself to come back and try again, but I'd need to start over because I needed to update my game. And the cycle would repeat. Now, I've turned to FPS'es for the fun, and the quick n' easy satisfaction. But now they feel hollow, the fun fades shortly after I stop playing one. I miss KSP. Can someone please help?

Thank you so much! Couldn't find info anywhere! +Rep

I don't think so. As far as I know, kerbcam is dead, and so is my last hope to make good cinematics. Or maybe it's because I don't remember the hotkey correctly....

Ohhh... so miniguns are really expensive? (of course they are!) What do you mean by "if only for future cinematics"? I'll assume you (and other Cinematographers!) would like a few tips for making realistic cinematics: Note: These tips have been generalized for everyone, just because I mention something doesn't mean you have to see it as a suggestion. Quindar Tones: Quindar tones are beeps that have been used in the Apollo era that come before and after anything that is said by the KapKom (Capsule Communicator) and the ground stations. It's no longer used in modern space communications and may interfere with the tone of the cinematic and/or music, but in some cases it sounds cool and realistic. (look it up on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quindar_tones) Dialogue: What the Kerbaunaughts say has to be realistic for the cinematic to be realistic. Kerbaunaughts shouldn't panic (by panic I really mean panic) if you want the cinematic to be realistic (real astronauts almost never panic because they're trained to solve problems, not fear them; they can get unnerved or nervous, but the only times they would panic is in very extreme situations, if at all). Then again, Kerbaunaughts are Kerbals and not humans... When it comes to the normal aspect of speaking, Kerbals should sound like they're focused on what they're doing, and when they aren't in direct communication with ground, you can make them a little more silly/expressive/less official, etc. if you wish (then again, I might be misled on this part, but everyone likes to have some fun when they're not being watched right?). You can study real-life astronaut dialogue if you wish. Avoid making the dialogue (excessively) lighthearted. The Plot: Well, this one is easy, when problems occur, you may want to have a realistic reason for them, like "First Officer: "Captain, Engine no. 2 is suffering from low fuel pressure!" Captain: "Is the fuel pump broken?" First Officer:[b/] "Well, *caption disappears, new one appears:* Either the fuel pump is broken and we need to switch on the backup, or we're out of fuel. Check the gauges by the Engineer's seat." You can't just have the First officer shout that they've ran out of fuel as the first engine dies. Then, of course, when something happens (executing a burn for tylo, etc.) you may want to make the dialogue sound "procedural" and the astronauts focused and official and careful. If you were very serious, you could study what they do during the hours counting down before a rocket launch, giving the launch scene a more serious tone. Sometimes, you may want to take history into account. Many commercial airplane crashes are caused by pilot error, although uncommon in the world of space exploration, the aviation industry has a lot of crashes caused by pilot error: Narrator: Perhaps the cause of the crash was due to pilot error; did the pilot ever notice that the cockpit Oxygen supply was turned off by the engineers before he suffered from hypoxia? (the story mentions earlier that engineers were checking for leaks in the cabin doors and turned off the oxygen supply to discover the leaks, but then forgot to put the switch back the way it was). Those are my tips! There might've been some I missed, but these are the most important ones. Hopefully people save this for future reference and benefit from it or I will be really embarrassed. Maybe we should found a club where all the realists here get together and we can call our genre of cinematics "Realizm". Like the famous painters who did. I'm not serious, but we could if we wanted too...