neamerjell

Can you somehow make this viewable in the addon development section as well? Surely someone might be able to figure this out and make an addon (which may be much easier to incorporate into the stock game).

I wanted to use Umbra Space Industries' Modular Kolonization System to complete the contract for putting a base on the Mun. I also wanted to put a fully functional colony on the Mun in one shot. I devised a ship where each colony module has its own sky crane controlled by an unmanned (unkerballed?) module. It is still very much a work in progress... First try was a bust (tried to land from too high of an orbit), but I got some good pics. ^^^ This is my old design - it didn't have enough delta-v to land safely and detach the skycrane... New version of the skycrane: To compensate for the added fuel and bigger engines, I also had to beef up my lifter and transfer stages (there are five of these skycrane / Kolony modules strung together - all that adds up quick!) Finally got the whole colony landed safely, although two module fell over but did no damage. I sent up a crane to transport the modules from where I was able to land them (they were all within 8km of eachother) I just used the same lifter over again, sure I wasted some fuel and mass, but I didn't have to spend time redesigning something from scratch every time I wanted to send something heavy. I had a bit of a rollover and tore off a solar panel, but I discovered that this panel recharges 4 cylindrical batteries wicked fast! So I suppose the remaining one was a spare. I missed the colony landing site by about 25km or so when I landed the crane, but that was okay - that meant that I didn't have to worry about crashing in to my precious colony modules that I spent most of the week getting to the Mun in one piece. It was a long drive and some nasty surprise craters sent me rolling on occasion, but this crane miraculously landed back on its tracks and was still able to recharge, so I was good to go. So now my colony is all in one place, now I need someone to put it all together... Some of my favorite screenshots:

This is where my idea would shine! In this case the game could append the ship names to the stages: Science Satellite: Orbit Stage Science Satellite: Transfer Stage ------------------------------------- My SSTO: Emergency Abort - Parachutes ^^-- I always outfit my spaceplanes with a last ditch bring-it-down-in-one-piece option!

I just got done organizing my "Colony in a Box" ship... 14 stages! 0: Detach Skycrane from Power Module 1: Light Engines on Power Module 2: Detach Skycrane from Biolab Module 3: Light Engines on Biolab Module and Detach from Ship 4: Detach Skycrane from Aeroponics Module 5: Light Engines on Aeroponics Module and Detach from Ship 6: Detach Skycrane from Kerbitat Module 7: Light Engines on Kerbitat Module and Detach from Ship 8: Detach Skycrane from Colony Command Module 9: Light Engines on Colony CommandModule and Detach from Ship 10: Detach Transfer Stage 11: Detach Last Lifter Stage 12: Detach Asparagus Stage 2 and Light Separators 13: Detach Asparagus Stage 1 and Light Separators 14: Launch It has so many stages it runs off the screen and I have to right click the orange boxes to scroll them! There's gotta be a better way of doing this! - - - Updated - - - Add this to my wishlist too!

I'm building an extremely complex ship with all the bells and whistles: A one shot colony in a box - 5 MKS colony modules each with their own skycrane with 4 engines each and 5 stack separators between them, a transfer stage, and a 5-tank asparagus lifter (3 stages just for this). Instead of stage names like S0, S1, S2... etc, I would like to right click on the orange bars and rename them to something meaningful like "Asparagus Stage 1" and "Detach Colony Command Module". Hey devs, if you are reading this, is this on the to-do list? Is there a mod that already lets me do this?

I learned this number from a YouTube video and it is by no means a must have, just something I took as good advice. I'm beginning to question that now, though... - - - Updated - - - This is what I wanted to create: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8244638/KSP%20Design%20Optimizer.ods Thanks Pecan for the link to the thread that had it!

- PecanIts just the specs of something I'm currently working on. (starting a colony on the Mun) - OhioBobActually the numbers you gave me are really useful - knowing most fuel tanks are 89% propellant will come in handy! I can calculate those numbers and plug them into my spreadsheet. @FleshJeb: that's probably how Engineer is doing it. Thanks for the link. - - - Updated - - - This might be what I was originally looking for. Thanks for the link, BOOKMARKED! What I am trying to do: I have a payload of x tons and I want a delta-V of y. How much fuel and what kind of engine do I need in order to get that and maintain a TWR ≈ 1.7 and a Total mass to Dry mass ratio ≈ 2.5?

Okay, "real world" example: I made a skycrane for a Modular Kolonization System command unit with the solid base (not the landing frame) that has the landing legs on it. I designed it to go from orbit around Mun to landing on Mun. The results are strictly from trial and error. I tried to back calculate the numbers to see if my formulas worked, most did, Isp was way off (not sure how Kerbal Engineer calculates this for multiple engines). I also suspect Kerbal Engineer's delta-V is calculated using Kebin's gravity regardless of what planet you set it to. Most of these numbers came from Kerbal Engineer set to Mun. Kolony Skycrane Prototype Max Thrust: 80kn Isp: 300s Total Mass: 20.844t Dry Mass: 16.044t LFO Mass: 4.8t TWR: 2.36 Burn Time: 2m 56.8s Delta-V: 771 @OhioBob: Your estimate may be accurate for a launch from Kerbin to orbit. My ultimate goal is to create something that would be useful in any scenario.

@ Zuqq: I have my head wrapped about 75% around the math involved, like I said, my algebra is a little rusty! Earlier in the thread people went of on tangents not really related to what I asked, so I decided to be more specific.

Yes I know. That's why I asked "**Anyone want to guess what percentage I should multiply by to give an estimate of Total Mass including mass of engines and tanks?" I'm trying to answer the question: I have a payload of x tons and I want a delta-V of y. How much fuel and what kind of engine do I need in order to get that and have a TWR ≈ 1.7 and a Total mass to Dry mass ratio ≈ 2.5?

Okay, thread moved, thread disappeared from view... I've worked on some formulas lately and here is what I have come up with: Given: 2 < R < 3 (ideally, R = 2.5, but nice, round numbers rarely happen) TWR ≈ 1.7 If dV = Isp x 9.81 x ln( R ) Then Isp = dV / ( 9.81 x ln( R ) ) If R = Total Mass / Dry Mass, and ideally R = 2.5 Then Total Mass ≈ Payload Mass x 2.5, actually a bit more since this does not factor in the masses of fuel tanks and engines** If TWR = Thrust / ( Total Mass x 9.81 ), ideally TWR ≈ 1.7 Then Thrust ≈ 1.7 x Total Mass x 9.81 Inputs: Delta-V Payload Mass **Anyone want to guess what percentage I should multiply by to give an estimate of Total Mass including mass of engines and tanks? Also I would invite you to check my math, my algebra is a little rusty... Spreadsheet results using the above formulas: Constants: TWR = 1.7 R = 2.5 ln( R ) = 0.91629073 Inputs: Payload Mass = 15 Delta-V = 700 Outputs: Total Mass = 37.5 Fuel Mass = 22.5 Thrust = 625.3875 Isp = 77.8745838 These numbers look about right to you?

Oh man! CKAN is the best thing to happen to KSP since, well, Beta 0.90! It does all the stuff I wanted (which was basically the functionality of Nexus Mod Manager)! And because it takes care of the installation and version control, I hope that the game is order of magnitude more stable than it was when I was trying to manually install mods. I will do just about anything short of installing Linux to run this game in a stable state.

I have 71 folders worth of mods (I have several mods that use multiple folders B9, USI, etc.) and I have significantly reduced my crashes to nearly zero using these techniques: 1. Active Texture Management (aggressive) 2. Custom shortcut link: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Kerbal Space Program\KSP.exe" -force-opengl -popupwindow I swear this made the biggest difference in stability besides... 3. Deleted Kerbinside mod I haven't tried the latest update yet. I hope it is more stable. 1267 parts according to KSPModAdmin, I'd say at least half of my mods are NOT parts mods. Most are things like Editor Extensions, Resource Overview and Science Alert.

Try a mod called "Smart Stage" it is designed for just such a task, which is correctly organizing asparagus staging. My first guess is that your staging is screwed up somehow, which is really easy to do with as few as 6 tanks. Your setup is 3x that! My second guess is that the first stage is crashing into the interior tank, in which case you need to add separatrons to blow the spent stage away from the rocket. Add on either side of the tank pointed outward at both ends, and it should work.

What mass are you launching? variable (imagine an app with a slider for this) What ascent-profile are you using? MechJeb standard What staging strategy are you using? that's one thing I'm trying to find out with this graph idea What are the Isps of the engines you are using during each stage of your ascent? that's another thing I'm trying to find out How much dV does each stage have, and is that optimised for the the Isp of each stage? variable (imagine an app with a slider for this) Are you optimising for mass, cost, part-count, reliability, ... ? None of the above. Not really optimizing for anything other than fuel efficiency. I just want a lifter or stage that is not overkill and trys to avoid the "MOAR BOOSTERS!" trap. I don't want a lifter spending (wasting) all its delta-V hauling itself into space...

Just add these mods' functionality into the stock game: Editor Extensions, Tweakscale, Tweakable Everything, Kerbal Engineer, Quick Search, Atmospheric Trajectories, Stage Recovery, Crowdsourced Science, Docking Port Alignment, Filter Extensions, Science Alert and add these mods' parts and functionality to the stock game: Infernal Robotics, KAS, MK2 Essentials, Nebula EVA Handrails

New information I learned from this video: According to the rocket equation, delta v = engine ISP * 9.81 x ln(total mass / dry mass), the mass ratio (total mass / dry mass) is the part that creates the diminishing returns. The video's author, Tyler Raiz, says the mass ratio should be between 2 and 3. (EDIT: This may only be valid for lifting off from Kerbin...) If it is less than 1.5, more fuel is needed, if it is greater than 4 an additional stage is needed. This may be the thing I was looking for! This is the missing piece! I would need a separate graph for each engine. The Y-axis would be the fuel needed, the X-axis would be the payload size, a Z-axis could be added for TWR.

Well as DasValdez explained it, you have to escape gravity fast enough so you don't waste fuel fighting gravity, but not so fast that you end up wasting fuel fighting atmospheric drag. So there is definitely a sweet spot as far as air speed is concerned.

According to the orbital map I found a long time ago, an 80km orbit around Kerbin takes 4550m/s delta-V. TWR isn't the only factor, though. - Slam_Jones That must be where DasValdez got his numbers.

If you could graph the diminishing returns of lifting stages, what would it look like? I have had this idea for a graph in which I could see if there is a "sweet spot" for lifter design given payload weight, desired orbital altitude, what else would I need to consider? Basically, at what point are you spending most of your fuel hauling your boosters into space? And don't say "at launch"! At what point do you hit the law of diminishing returns? I've been watching DasValdez's Twitch streams and his YouTube videos and noticed that he tries to keep his TWR around 1.7 for his lifters, because atmospheric drag is an issue early on and airspeed must be limited to keep from wasting fuel fighting against it. He apparently arrived at this number via trial and error and possibly some research of his own. Is this ideal, or is it just the best that he has found so far? He also mentioned wanting to make a table or graph of altitude vs ideal airspeed. Yet another set of variables to add to the mix! What data would I need to put into a spreadsheet in order to get a graph of fuel amount, engine ISP, TWR? Where would you even begin to create this graph for asparagus staging? UPDATE: I seem to be either biting off more than I can chew or being too vague - probably both. Therefore, I propose this question: I have a payload of x tons and I want a delta-V of y. How much fuel and what kind of engine do I need in order to get that and maintain a TWR ≈ 1.7 and a Total mass to Dry mass ratio ≈ 2.5?

Why settle for just a space program? What you really need is a UNIVERSE PROGRAM! Space and every little thing in it - down to the smallest atoms (cue maniacal wall-eyed facial expression and cackling laugh) I just want to participate in this thread!

As an avid enthusiast of science fiction in its various forms (novels, video games, movies), I believe I can provide some meaningful insight. Science fiction is usually a good predictor, if not inspiration for science fact. I think many authors and video game makers have a similar idea of a major space station orbiting a planet which serves as a port, complete with a TSA-like ship scanner, something analogous to a passport and so on. From the port, you could just dock there and do business or pass further security checks and gain clearance to land on the planet. As far as traffic control, as someone said before "space is big and collisions are rare." The highest probability of collision would be around the space station ports, where multiple ships would be in very close proximity. I would think that travel to certain planets within our solar system would take on a "seasonal" pattern based on the economic feasibility of getting there. For example, Earth and Mars are closer sometimes and far away most other times. Since propulsion methods would not likely vary by much in the grand scheme of things, as long as departures were launched sequentially, rather than all at once, the chances of a collision would be low. Collisions between departures and arrivals could pose a problem, but minor course corrections often result in tens if not hundreds of kilometers difference in distance (again "space is big, collisions are rare"). Perhaps the economically feasible way to get around this would be to have one or two massive ships make a single trip to and from Mars and Earth, with different companies and private citizens booking space on the ship for passengers and/or cargo. Earth and Mars would only be this close together for so long anyway, why risk a whole bunch of little ships creating the space equivalent of a 120 car pile up on a freeway? Mars might not be able to wait months or years for another supply ship. As for planets without stations (remote outposts, colonies too small to warrant a station), Star Trek has a concept that could be put to use: the "standard orbit." Perhaps new arrivals assume this standard orbit at a certain altitude and inclination. Once cleared through a security check or what not, that new arrival might drop altitude by a few hundred meters to prevent collisions with any subsequent new arrivals. Being a small colony or outpost, this planet would not have anywhere near the amount of traffic a major space port, like Earth or Mars would. Something equivalent to NORAD's space junk tracker might be sufficient to keep track of all the possible vessels that would be in orbit. However, I revert back to my economic feasibility theory - one big ship once the colony is established.

My experience with Beta 0.90 has been that it ran okay at best, crashing at random times, always the "Access Violation" errors. Ugh! Please devs, why bother doing anything in 32 bit anymore? The last 32 bit only processor Intel produced was the Pentium 4 series... 11 years ago! It was also the last of the single core CPUs. All ranting aside, while searching for a solution to this problem, I happened to find this command line tweak, hack, whatever you want to call it: I don't notice much in the way of memory usage, although it is a little less, but the game is way more stable. I run the aggressive active texture management and 44 other mods - including B9, KW Rocektry, Lack Luster Labs, and almost all of Umbra Space Industry's offerings (MKS, Karbonite, etc.), and it still crashes every once in a while, but with nowhere near the frequency as stock with no command line switches. System Specs: Motherboard: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H CPU: Intel Core i5 3570K, NOT overclocked Memory: 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 SSD: Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB << Game is installed here, also have a 1TB and 3TB Seagate HDD GPU: Gigabyte Windforce GTX 670, if it is overclocked, its at whatever it was out of the box Monitor: 40 inch Samsung LCD TV, HDMI input from computer

I found and fell in love with a mod a few days ago that does what you want: Filter Extensions http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104231-0-90-Filter-Extensions-1-13-%28Jan-8%29 It uses .cfg files to categorize parts. The mod maker's GitHub documentation page is very well done and I have made two custom filters so far (hint: use the checks for in game part names, aka titles to group parts from several different mods). The mod maker has already made some nice filters for some specific mods including B9, KW, Umbra Space Industries. The maker also made a filter for just stock Squad parts - not even the NASA mission parts are included in this group, although you might be able to modify the .cfg file if you wanted it that way.

This is my pet peeve as well. KSP's part attachment scheme makes these parts all but useless for anything but engine mounts: