gabyalufix

Use the mediafire download link at the top of the page, not the attachment. I just removed the attachment, to prevent future confusion.

Airships? What? Main gott . . . when did that happen? The tanks don\'t seem to refill for me. How quickly do they refill? Might be interaction with other plugins? Or maybe you left the sas on?

Not as weighty as the conclave, but I launched it without using unbalanced parts or instaorbit. And it\'s dimensions are technically larger than the conclave, also. Also, I launched it into solar orbit, not planetary orbit. Dimensions: 59m x 52m x 52m, in a stable solar orbit. It\'s not technically a standard space station. Like all my projects, it has a story. Without further ado, behold the PARALLAX 9000! It is a radio/optical telescope science vessel. The long arms give the sensor array better accuracy, and allow it to perform high-accuracy rangefinding via parallax. It has 5 telescope sub-arrays--one on each of the four radial arms and one in the central spire--each equipped with one Probodobodyne telescope and 4 radio receivers. It is actually designed to escape the solar system, so that it can do it\'s telescoping from outside the heliopause, way out in interstellar space with no solar wind or radiation to interfere. The hope is to try and detect extrasolar planets. Here\'s the launch vehicle. 490,000 units of fuel, weighing in at 2000 tons (just the fuel tanks). At peak burn, it produces 60,000 units of thrust. It uses 7 of my 7x sunday-punch prometheus fuel tanks, and 49 of my 7x-vanilla-equivalent-LFE\'s (thus, being equivalent to 343 vanilla LFE\'s). Once I escape Kerbin, I dump the outer LFE\'s and tanks, leaving just the central one (which I fired some time after launch, so that it would last longer). This is the 'space station' that will be making a half-revolution around Kerbol before rocketing off into interstellar space. Dimensions: 59m x 52m x 52m. After that there is another liquid stage consisting of one sunday punch tank and one 7x-vanilla engine. Then I drop that and ignite a nerva engine burning LH2. This is the final stage. The interstellar craft is smaller than the kerbol-orbiter, and is only 42m x 52m x 52m (so this part is smaller than the conclave). When I stopped burning, I still had half a large LH2 tank left. Let\'s take a tour: The crew quarters. Two bunk tubes and a common area. Serves a crew of 8. The central subarray. One optical telescope and four radio dishes. This one can be used for either transmitting or receiving, to allow the ship to call home. The end of one of the radial arms. Four solar arrays, two radiator arrays, one optical telescope, and four radio receivers. The lab section is at the base of the central spire. Here is where the scientists work to gather, interpret, and analyze the data that comes in from the scopes. Yeah, it\'s pretty big. Way out in the black.

Uploaded it to mediafire. I\'ll just go back to being inactive now. Maybe I\'ll come back next time I get a Ph.D.

I still vividly remember the first time I hit perigee without touching atmo. The altimeter slowly slowed down, and I held my breath as it stopped and reversed. It was a magical moment. Don\'t remember which patch it was. It was before the map screen, or RCS, or atmo gauges, or the mun. I just had a spreadsheet full of orbital calculations and a whole lot of prayer.

Mein Gott, CBBP. Your work continues to astound. When I have time for KSP again . . . .

I haven\'t been keeping up with the forums lately, so I\'m not sure what you\'re speaking of, specifically. What 'node vector/rotation screwball stuff'? Did someone figure out why the landing legs freak out when you fold them on small craft? Does it have to do with the mass?

@l00 A new challenger has arrived! Welcome aboard. I deem your munbase worthy.

@kellven: This is something I did several months ago, and haven\'t touched since. It doesn\'t even use plugins! I use the RCS and cfg edits on plugin-free parts to allow me to dive. I\'m not currently particularly interested in developing submarines further. I got other missions in the works. Yours looks crazy-awesome so far, and a lot better than I could do. So power to ya! Lookin forward to seeing what you come up with. Feel free to use my models or whatever, if you want. It\'s all Creative Commons share alike. The ballast tanks and RCS were made by Tim Barrett of C7, so make sure you attribute to him if you do use them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket Unless you know something I don\'t. Source? Nerva is good, but the form factor doesn\'t really work well with landers (and it\'s shouldn\'t, really. It\'s not optimal for landers, it\'s for long-distance journeys). They\'re too long to fit under my muncrawler. I really like the look of those fuel tanks, but I can\'t use them as-is on my landers. The original muncrawler design was intended to be capable of 'bunny hops' using a set of low-power, low profile engines, for climbing steep mountains (like the edge of craters, in particular) and getting over bumps that would otherwise cause it to scrape bottom. It wasn\'t until I\'d landed the damn thing that I noticed that none of the engines worked (and I had already dropped the landing stage by this time. Shucks.)

It seems to work for me. What\'s your OS, and what unzip program are you using? I\'m using Windows 7 and winRAR.

Still not sure I understand. In the config file there\'s a line which I think is trying to explain, but I can\'t figure out quite what it means: From the tank cfg: So you\'re saying it can store more fuel because it\'s a mono propellant? But the 'fuel unit' is completely internal, it doesn\'t affect anything on it\'s own except as a function of the paired engine. Why not just change the 'fuel unit' quantity in the tanks, and then modify the engine to match? That\'ll give you the same exact same functionality, with the added benefit that the tanks are universally compatible to the standard volume/fuel-unit ratios. I guess the problem there is that LH2 is lighter than H2/O2, so if you normalize with vanilla by volume, you\'ll get different values than if you normalize by mass. Maybe a plugin needs to get written that allows different fuels in the same tanks? The real annoying thing for me is I like to choose my tanks by form factor and appearance, because I like to build funky constructions. I don\'t like being hampered by restrictions like having to match tanks to engines. For one thing, I have 20 pages in my first tab . . . As for balance: NERVA engines are future tech. They will be better than the 1960-1970\'s apollo/mercury tech level that KSP appears to be based on. I mean, that\'s kinda the point, no?

Not really seeing how this makes it better. It just unrealistically restricts the engine to be unusable with anything but Kosmos tanks. If you normalize the fuel usage and fuel quantities, you should get functional equivalency. The engine weighs X, provides Y thrust and spends Z tons of fuel per minute. The internal 'fuel units' aren\'t actually important, since they cancel out of the equation, no? Is there a variable I\'m not seeing?

All the cool-looking Kosmos strutted fuel tanks have: 'type = Pure LH2' The only engine I have found that uses this fuel is the 'Kosmos Expedition RD-0440 Engine', which is the long nerva engine. Once I realized what was happening, I just stripped out the offending lines.

The launch was too harrowing for me to drop the UI and take many screenshots. It really, really really wanted to tear itself apart, every step of the way. At some point I\'ll go back and relaunch. Right now I\'m just gonna have fun climbing mountains.

Say hello to gabyalufix\'s 'Muncrawler' Massive Mobile Munbase. Living space for 10 kerbalnaughts. A nuclear reactor, a large space telescope, a radar dish and telescope, tons of cargo space, and oodles of lab space and sensors.

Good call. Just for you, I\'m just gonna leave this here. An early version of The Muncrawler Mobile Munbase. It\'s going to be but one small part of the muntropolis I\'m working on. Edit: Serious question to CPPB and the Kosmos team: Why did you implement fuel types? A tank is a tank, what does it matter what\'s in it? All it does is force incompatibility with other mods. KSP is implicitly modular, why would you intentionally make things incompatible? It seems an odd decision. Why not just normalize fuel quantities by weight / form factor, and just presume that I fill my tanks with the correct fuel for the engine below it, and have the engines differ in fuel usage based on the normalized fuel quantities to simulate different fuel types?

I\'m still not sure why this bug occurs. Use the Kebylon Launch tower. bind it down with the super-struts that come with the tower. That seems to help a lot.

I like that design.

A few patches ago, I did a single-craft mission that: (1) Launches from Kerbin (2) Lands on the mun (3) Launches from the mun (4) Lands on Kerbin (5) Launches from Kerbin (6) Lands on the Mun (7) Launches from the mun (8) Parachuted water landing, on kerbin, just off the KSP coast. Used a bunch of mods, as is my wont. Mostly Nova/novapunch and KW\'s stuff. I wrote a quick explanation here And a photo album here. It was basically several ships, stacked on top of one another. It holds my personal record for most total delta-V in a single mission. It was a huge pain. Pre-persistence: whenever I lost a craft several stages in, I wanted to cry. Also, this was before the folding landing legs with suspension, so the landing legs would all snap off if you landed at more than 1 m/s in a big craft.

Hmm. Doing some testing. Can\'t for the life of me guess what is wrong. Try this version and let me know if it works.

I tried making a mobile munbase, but I seemed to run into trouble whenever I attached multiple carts to the same structure. When you try to turn, the lack of a differential between the carts causes them to tear the base apart. Hmm, maybe now that C7 has unpowered landing gear . . .

Ok, seriously Cardie. You have GOT to stop using your insane jedi telepathy powers on me, stealing my ideas right out of my head, and then making parts exactly like the ones I was halfway through making, except a billion zillion times better in every measurable way. Actually, no. Do not stop that. Continue doing exactly that, forever and ever. Seriously. Billion zillion. Edit: HOLYCRAP HOLYCRAP HOLYCRAP HOLYCRAP HOLYCRAP HOLYCRAP EVEN COOLER THAN I THOUGHT OMG YOU GUYS I\'M USING ALL CAPS BECAUSE IN MY HEAD I AM YELLING THIS YOU GUYS OMG! You have done a very bad thing here, CBBP. You have given me powers that neither man nor kerbin was ever meant to wield. In the history of our peoples, this will be remembered as the tipping point. The point at which my full potential was unleashed upon an unsuspecting world . . . Farside IV will rival small nations in size and population, and rival large nations in the death toll I cause in my myriad attempts. This is what you have wrought, CBBP. That is on you. Also thanks to everyone else on the kosmos team. The souls of a thousand kerbins will haunt the tormented vacuum of space for all eternity, by your hands.

Computer is no slouch, I\'ll admit, though it\'s now almost a year old. -ASUS P8P67 motherboard -Intel Core i7-2600 3.4 Ghz quad core w/ hyperthreading -16 Gb DDR3 1600 -EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, 1GB, 256-bit GDDR5 Built it myself. When I load all my mods and build something big, KSP takes up, like 4 gigs, all by itself.

Very nicely done, sirguinea. I love it. With respect to the whole structural integrity thing, I feel like I should mention that in a distant-future science fiction, all our assumptions are likely to be rendered irrelevant. I mean, it\'d be equivalent to a 12-th century blacksmith trying to predict the design of a mun mission. 'Oh, clearly it would have to be bird shaped, or else it couldn\'t possibly fly, and you\'d need some kind of pen for the draft animals, which you\'d use to power the wings . . . ' Hell, they have antigravity and inertial dampeners and force fields. We have no reason to believe they can\'t just magically shift the center of mass to anywhere they damn well please. I think they even talk about 'structural integrity fields' in the technobabble. Just read any futurism stuff from the 1920\'s and you\'ll see what I\'m talking about. The problem is that in terms of design, economics, and engineering, it\'s basically impossible to identify the limiting factors and natural consequences of a particular technology before it is invented. Maybe space ships will need to be compact, to maximize structural integrity. But then again, maybe materials tech will advance so far that we have ultra-strong, mono-molecular polymers, but the fusion cores that everyone uses for power have such massive heat production that spaceships need to be long and spread out to maximize surface area for radiators. Or maybe we\'ll have portable electromagnetically-contained black holes to dump our heat down, but we need a MASSIVE and uninterrupted power supply or else the damn thing will eat the ship, so we need a solar array the size of a small moon. Would that even work? exactly. Think nuclear submarines. Internally powered subs that can stay under for months or years without surfacing? In 1930 they would have called you an idiot for suggesting such a thing would exist within 24 years. 'Where would get its air?'. Predict space ship design in 2364? Best of luck with that. Not that I don\'t love a good try. Just don\'t expect to actually be right.