Northstar1989

Noting much to see here, just a suborbital Materials Study launch to pick up some !SCIENCE! After which I was offered (and accepted) a contract to rescue a Kerbal stranded in orbit. Strangely enough, he's in a 750km x 700km orbit- and I don't think even RSS 6.4x increases the orbital height of rescue contracts by THAT much (the atmosphere is only 32% taller), which means he must have been in a pretty high orbit even in stock... Also, I'm still wondering how he got to orbit, considering the only thing I've managed to launch to orbit so far has been an unmanned Materials Study to a substantially lower orbit. I guess there must be other space programs competing with my own? Sometimes it's best just not to question KSP. Regards, Northstar

I started off my play session today by checking the Science Archives, and realized I still don't have ANY data from outside the atmosphere (since Jebediah Kerman's ship incinerated during re-entry and my Materials Study launch is still in orbit...) So I made a mental note to get to work on some Science at sub-orbital trajectories soon... Then, I performed another Launchpad Test (for !Science!), this one at the Pleasant Valley alternative launch site, so I could get a look at it: It turns out that Pleasant Valley is at a lower elevation than Orok, and all the other alternative launchpad sites are near a coast (and thus couldn't be at very high elevation above sea level), so from now on Orok has become my new alternative launch site... So, I performed a test of the Runway at Orok to see if it was functional (or if it were bugged and would cause planes to explode on "Launch"). It looks like it works fine: At Orok (for the ISP benefits of altitude), I then proceeded to build my first airplane- using nothing but a huge number of the rocket control fins available from Stability and Flight Control (I haven't unlocked Aerodynamics yet) and a LV-T45 engine for propulsion (in RealFuels it gets better ISP than a LV-T30, and I had use for the thrust-vectoring). Surprisingly, after at least a dozen-and-a-half tests in which I *eventually* figured out that what was crashing my planes was Mach Effects (basically, I couldn't build anything stable past about Mach 0.8 in the first dozen km of atmosphere with only rocket tailfins for wings...), I built a functional subsonic rocket-plane that could briefly break the sound barrier at high altitude... I used the rocket-plane to complete a couple Contracts- one asking me to test a LV-T45 (which was the other reason I selected this engine, rather than a lighter/weaker one from Realfuels/KW Rocketry such as the Coxswain...) and another a radial parachute (which was good, because the plane ran out of fuel just after reaching the test altitude/speed for the engine). I placed the radial chute as close to the Center of Mass as possible, and attempted to land horizontally- but that didn't *quite* work out as expected, and I ended up losing the LV-T45 engine on touchdown... With the cost of the lost rocket engine, the total cost of the plane mission came out to around 2000 Funds- so I definitely could have done it cheaper with a rocket (a BACC booster plus a decoupler lifting a LV-T45 engine, a probe core and a radial parachute probably would have worked, and would have been cheaper...) But I gained some valuable experience building planes with FAR, which was probably worth the cost. I also gained insight into the utility of Orok- the ISP of the LV-T45 engine I used for my plane was 18 points higher on the runway (280s) than at sea level (262s at this tech level) just from the 2500 meters or so of elevation... The higher terminal velocity at the launchpad (meaning you can utilize rockets with higher TWR throughout their ascent, and save on gravity losses without as high aerodynamic stresses or as much energy lost to drag) and reduced distance you have to climb to exit the atmosphere is also nice... So it's definitely worth utilizing over the KSC for most of my suborbital trajectories, where it really doesn't matter if I enter into an inclined orbit... (the only real downsides to the site are that it's not near the equator- where the rotational velocity of Kerbin is highest and you can easily launch to an orbit of ANY inclination- or water, which aids in recovery of spent stages by somewhat cushioning landings...) Regards, Northstar

I performed some more simple tests of rocket parts on the Launchpad/Runway for a bit of additional science, managed to mop up enough science that way to finish unlocking "Advanced Construction" (and with it my first 2.5 meter fuel tanks- I have access to 2.5 meter engines through some advanced Contracts due to my space program's high reputation), and even "launched" a crew capsule at one of the Kerbin Real Solar System alternative launch sites (Orok, which appears to be a high-elevation Baikonour analogue- being located a couple km above sea level in the middle of an expansive desert). I am currently suffering from a cough + sinus infection, so I'm sticking to just screenshots (no video) until that clears up or I do something really interesting... Anyways, here are the screenshots: I don't actually *know* if I will be able to fulfill the contract to test the Skipper in a sub-orbital flight: the altitude range they want me to test it at is still within Kerbin's atmosphere in Real Solar System 6.4x. Howevere it's probably worth it to have early ("Experimental") access to the Skipper. If the contract proves impossible to meet (because anything at that altitude counts as "in flight" rather than "on a suborbital trajectory"), then I'll just have to remember to cancel it some time before the deadline (so it counts as "cancelled" rather than "failed"). Also, I hope you guys (the readers) are enjoying following this so far. I'll try to sneak some more roleplay in at some point to make up for this period without any video uploads and only sparse screenshots... Regards, Northstar

Another video, of my next launch: What this launch was, basically, was an attempt at a Munar Flyby (for data on a Materials Study in the Mun's Sphere of Influence) that turned into just a Materials Study in Kerbin's High Orbit sphere after it turned out I didn't have enough fuel left after making orbit for a Munar Flyby... Real Solar System is HARD (even on the 6.4x Kerbin config) compared to stock! FAR was almost a joke to adapt to (as I already designed all my rockets around sound aerodynamic principles), but what a difference a simple increase in the planetary radius (with adjustments to density to prevent changing the surface gravity) makes to required Delta-V! I enjoy the enhanced realism and challenge though- it's nice to finally have a (more realistically) tough time just getting things to orbit (in the stock game, this spacecraft would have been able to make it all the way to Jool and back with its fuel load...) Regards, Northstar

More videos, more screenshots, and more !SCIENCE! Regards, Northstar

OOC: Another update- this one's in-character from the perspective of my imagined space program chief- Northstar Kerman... Northstar Kerman sat at his desk, watching the recording file, rewinding it, and watching it again, over and over. "I can't believe we let this happen." went his recurring thought "How did the engineers manage to screw up and put the low-altitude version of the capsule on the sub-orbital rocket?" Watching the video, the last moments of Jebediah Kerman could clearly be seen as molten metal from the exterior of the capsule folded into the interior of the crew capsule, and ripped through the arms, legs, and body of his fragile space suit. Strangely, rather than screaming in pain, Jebediah had the same old dumb grin on his face right up until the end... "I always thought he was a little loony" ruminated Northstar Kerman... But watching Jebediah's final moments did little to shed light on how the screw-up had happened, and did less for Northstar's mental stability. So, he rewound the tape to the beginning of the recording yet again, and attempted to discover how all this had come to be in the first place... Regards, Northstar

P.S. One last note on use of cryogenic fuels. I'm playing with the idea of eventually installing Karbonite mod, as KSP-Interstellar probably won't be updated before 0.25 (and would be save-breaking to install anyways, due to its optional-but-recommended reformation of the tech tree...) and I have a strong dislike for the Kethane mod's finite and exhaustible resource system (although I must admit, it does a much better job of detection that Karbonite- which doesn't produce any permanent resource maps of planets I can look at in-game: the only detection method being one of "blips" you can only see while directly overhead...) If I installed Karbonite- which is already updated and balanced for 0.24.2, and compatible with RealFuels and all my other mods- then I would at the very least rely on the semi-cryogenic combination of LOX (which is only moderately cryogenic- much less than Liquid Hydrogen) and Kerosene (which is not cryogenic at all) rather than hypergolics in many cases (for the higher ISP). Both Kerosene and LOX can realistically be produced by ISRU anywhere there are readily-accessible sources of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen (on Mars in real life, for instance), so I would have no objections to setting up a base on Duna to produce these resources... I might also make use of LH2/LOX on/around the Mun, since on Earth's moon, it is probably much more practical to make LH2 from water-ice than it is to combine it with recently-discovered graphite to make Kerosene; as the latter would require harvesting and refinement of two separate solid-state resources not necessarily always found in the same place... (on Mars, there is Carbon in the atmosphere and water-ice in the soil; so one site can have easy access to both of these resources without having to gather them from disparate locations to a central refinery...) https://www.gl.ciw.edu/carbon_on_the_moon

Hey Sirine, glad to see you're following my thread at leas this far. The reason I didn't use StretchyTanks (or rather, ProceduralParts, which is the sequel to it), even though I have used it in previous saves (notably the save for me "Kerbin and Beyond: A Maturing Space Program" thread), and am perfectly aware of its benefits; is because it is not yet balanced for 0.24 Career Mode. Specifically, the code hasn't yet been finished for procedural costs (at least, as of when I checked the thread a few days ago). I am considering eventually adding that mod in once it has been updated for 0.24.2, but the update is likely to be major and save-breaking (or at least breaking of previous craft designs), as adding procedural costs to parts isn't nearly as simple as it sounds... I also assume when you talk about fuel leakage you are talking about "boil-off" of cryogenic fuels (Liquid Hydrogen/LH2, at a *very fast* rate, and Liquid Oxygen/LOX at a *much slower* rate). This is actually a problem faced by space programs in real-life, and there is a much cheaper and easier solution to it than use of cryogenic storage tanks (which are included in Procedural Parts mod when using Realfuels- but cost Ec/s to keep cold): it's called hypergolics. Hypergolic fuels are those that combust instantaneously upon combination. RealFuels includes a number of these in its fuel mixture (almost any of the fuel mixtures in the mod beyond LOX/LH2 and LOX/Kerosene), each with substantially different benefits and drawbacks (such as higher/lower density or ISP). However as a class of fuels, hypergolics tend to be much denser that LOX/LH2 (meaning you can hold more Delta-V in each tank, as each tank holds a much greater mass of fuel), saving on craft size and the fiscal cost for tanks; and ALL of them can be stored without boil-off or the need for cryogenic storage. The primary disadvantage of hypergolics is their lower Specific Impulse (like LOX/Kerosene, in the 300's range, although slightly lower than LOX/Kerosene. LOX/LH2 can reach into the low-to-mid 400's with the right engines). However, engines burning them tend to be capable of higher thrust than those burning LOX/LH2 (due to the greater mass-flow rate through the engine at a given pressure), reducing the need for engine-mass; and as already stated, there is no need for extra electrical systems to power cryogenic tanks: which can become quite power-hungry, like in real-life... (to the point that several NASA Mars Design Reference Mission variants proposed using a NUCLEAR REACTOR to power cryogenic fuel storage tanks- though admittedly this reactor was already to be onboard for nuclear-propulsion reasons... The reactors were for a type of nuclear propulsion known as BNTR- a superior-performing successor to NERVA, a working prototype of which was co-developed by the USA and Russia, and little-discussed until recently due to political reasons...) If I were currently ready to start building next-generation reusable infrastructure (due to "tech level" advancements in the RealFuels engines, any reusable spacecraft launched NOW would quickly become obsolete when I advanced beyond tech-level 2/3, which approximately represents late-1950's/early-1960's technology...), then building orbital cryogenic fuel depots would quickly become a priority for me, due to the lower mass of fuel I would need to launch to fuel up the reusables for each mission. However, when using disposable spacecraft, LH2/LOX *simply doesn't make financial-sense*, as it means I have to launch a much greater mass (and cost) of fuel tanks, which only get used once and then get thrown away, compared to using LOX/Kerosene or Hypergolics, which only costs me around two-thirds as much on fuel tanks (after considering the need for more fuel mass due to lower ISP) due to the 2.5-3 times higher fuel-density... (I only wish NASA and the United Launch Alliance would realize this in real life, like Space-X has already caught onto. Fuel costs are only 1-2% of real-life launch costs, which is probably why fuel is currently "free" in RealFuels- since even the minimum resource-cost allowed by KSP would quickly exceed real-life costs by almost an order of magnitude. LOX/LH2 makes no sense in real-life, like in KSP with RealFuels, because you end up launching more than twice as many expensive tanks just to save a little cheap fuel. It's like building a $2 million car just to save a few gallons of gasoline every year over a comparable $200,000 car... On second-thought, ULA probably already *has* realized this, which is precisely WHY they *choose* to push LH2/LOX on NASA- as United Launch Alliance is nothing but a bunch of money-grubbing dirtbags with no real interest in advancing the state of rocket science like Space-X or Boeing are both trying to do, albeit by very different philosophies...) Finally, you mentioned "Real Engine" before. I can only assume by this you meant the "Real Engines" config for RealFuels mod. I choose not to use that mod for three (all very good) reasons: (1) The "Stockalike" config for RealFuels mod I choose to go with instead is easier to adapt to for a player who has never played with RealFuels before, and retains more of the "stock flavor" (in fact, I was surprised to hear you recommending the "Real Engine" mod to me instead Sirine- wasn't it you who was refusing to use anything but stock parts back in the early days of the Flying Duna challenge by Geschosskopf?) It also still maintains realistic TWR ratios and ISP values: by increasing or (more often) decreasing the mass of stock engine parts to bring them more in line with real-world rocket Thrust-Weight Rations (the rocket engines in Stock KSP are *much* heavier for the thrust they produce than their real-life counterparts...), and adjusting Specific Impulse as necessary to match comparable real-world rocket engines. (2) The "Stockalike" config for RealFuels is compatible with a wider variety of mods. More precisely, it has been expanded to revise the engines for a much wider variety of mods than the "Real Engine" config. This gives me a wider variety of engines to play with- which is important to me, as I usually spend a lot of time looking for "just the right engine" for my purposes (this was probably never very apparent when viewing my screenshots, but should quickly become *VERY* clear to anyone watching me play this Career Mode thread through my posted YouTube videos...) (3) The only up-to-date version of the "Real Engines" config for RealFuels mod I can currently find is bundled up with "Realism Overhaul" mod. Since I have *absolutely no intention* of playing with this mod, I can't play with "Real Engines" even if I wanted to (Realism Overhaul doesn't play nice with a lot of other mods, and forces me to install several mods I don't want or like, such as Advanced Jet Engines mod- which nerfs jet engines down to a 1960's/1970's level, rather than providing multiple tech-levels to reflect advancement like RealFuels already does with rocket engines... Given the choice between OP'd stock jet engines that outperform 21st-century tech, and jet engines that can't advance beyond the 1970's except for the RAPIER engines, I'll choose the OP'd engines any day...) So, in summary- I'll probably eventually install a more up-to-date version of ProceduralParts mod (the successor to StretchyTanks) when it is balanced for 0.24's funds-system, but I have *absolutely no intention* of switching over to Real Engines config for RealFuels, as the "Stockalike" config is actually still quite realistic, and more fun for me to play with (sure, the "Stocakalike" engines don't precisely match any specific real-world engines: but they don't need to. The rocket engines fall within the range of real-world TWR and ISP values, and could perfectly conceivably be reproduced in real life if anyone so-desired...) Regards, Northstar

Believe it or not, planes don't actually NEED rudders- real planes tend to yaw by first rolling and then making use of pitching moment. As for having combined elevators/ailerons, they're called elevons, and they're actually more mass-efficient than dedicated elevators and ailerons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevon Never mind the tone of the Wikipedia article, it lacks neutrality- they actually see rather common usage in a number of high-tech airplane designs... Since pitch authority is usually much more important than roll authority (you don't need to roll all that often outside of combat situations), the only real difference between an elevon and an elevator is whether it is also capable of moving in an asymmetrical pattern to generate roll... See also articles on Stabilators (all-moving tailplanes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator Regards, Northstar

More basic rocket science. But it'll get more interesting SOON. Anyways, the progress so far has been two more launch tests and some launchpad science to fulfill a few more contracts: Regards, Northstar

Every great journey begins with a single small step (followed by another and another, until the destination is reached), and this journey of adventure and exploration is no exception. Our tale begins with a few simple test on the launchpad of our equipment... And, for those of you without the time or ability to watch a video (or who don't like my voice), I'm still taking screenshots: Basically, I performed a little launchpad science (including a "hot" test of the LV-909 which revealed its TWR is well below 1 on even a small craft with the available RealFuels at this tech level) followed by a short launch to obtain high-altitude scientific data as well as break the 5000 meter altitude record... More interesting missions will be coming SOON, but not before I perform some additional science within the atmosphere... (remember, even achieving orbit is a MUCH bigger deal with Real Solar System installed- even only the 6.4x scale version) Regards, Northstar

Short and sweet, I decided to close down my previous 0.24.2 Career Mode game (the subject of the thread "Kerbin and Beyond: A New Beginning") and start a Real Solar System: Kerbin System 6.4x (alternate config) career mode game for the greater challenge- and hopefully the greater interest to other KSP players. I've learned a lot since I started my first Career Mode thread- notably how to record and upload videos of my gameplay to YouTube using OpenBroadcasterSoftware... My skills as a writer have also improved since then as well- expect special tidbits of roleplaying intermixed here and there with the rest of the thread when the mood strikes me. I do hope this thread is of as much interest to you as it is to me. Enjoy the videos (uploaded on YouTube and linked here), and don't forget to follow my progress LIVE on Twitch when I decide to live-stream form time-to-time... http://www.twitch.tv/northstar1989 Regards, Northstar Mods (updated unless otherwise noted) Parts: KW Rocketry Procedural Parts Procedural Fairings DMagic Orbital Science Karbonite Utilities: Module Manager Kerbal Alarm Clock MechJeb2 Active Texture Management Atmospheric Trajectories Chatterer Gameplay: RealSolarSystem (6.4x Kerbin System config) TAC Life Support FAR Deadly Re-Entry: Continued KSP-Interstellar RealFuels ("Stockalike" config)

For those of you who didn't see my announcement on the OP (say you've actually been following this thread and had this page bookmarked, or clicked on the "Last" apge button w/o reading the OP), I've decided to close this thread. There were several factors that went into this decision, but the most prominent were lack of challenge for me, and low readership of this thread. In order to increase the challenge, and keep *ME* more interested, I've decided to start a new Career save (and corresponding thread) with Real Solar System's 6.4x Kerbin alternate config (so stock and mod parts are realistically balanced without up-sizing to real life scale), RealFuels, and TAC Life Support from the very beginning; as well as all the other mods you've become familiar with my using... (FAR, DRE, MechJeb2, Chatterer, KW Rocketry, and Active Texture Management). I apologize to those of you whom this decision may have upset. I intend to make this new Career save a lasting one, though- I highly doubt I will be adding in any other mods that usually involve starting a completely new save like moving to RSS 6.4x does... (KSP 0.25 is likely to come out long before KSP-Interstellar updates for 0.24.2) Check the OP for the link to the new thread as soon as it's up. Regards, Northstar

The only reason they were ever "Overpowered" was because they were balanced vs. realistic performance for these futuristic propulsion systems (although some of the technologies in KSP Interstellar are several decades or centuries away- anything using antimatter is a case in point), whereas the actual *challenge* of getting to orbit was much easier than in real life (only 4k Delta-V to get to LKO vs. 10k in real life). The author didn't actually *change* anything abotu these mods if I'm not mistaken? Regards, Northstar

It wouldn't. A turbojet attains much higher effective ISP values than a rocket by using the atmosphere as working mass (the actual, measured exhaust velocity is much LOWER than that of a comparable rocket). The Karbonite turobjet engines work without atmosphere and air intakes? That's something I'll have to remember NOT to use in the future- as I'm installing Karbonite (I *really* don't like the fact that Kethane resources are so easily exhausted, but KSP-Interstellar isn't yet up-to-date for 0.24.x except for a "Experimental" version created by a different author- which is completely unbalanced in terms of cost, with a simple thermal rocket nozzle costing more than entire Mun rockets...) But yes, Karbonite engines deserve a ruling from judge Geschosskopf... You know what else deserves a ruling? 6.4x Real Solar System mod. Personally, I would like to attempt this challenge in the Duna of the 6.4x scale RSS config: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90088-6-4x-Kerbol-System-RSS-Config-8-25-14 A ruling for this mod wouldn't just affect me, though- it would be useful for any player thinking about this challenge... The surface gravity values remain the same as with stock (planetary densities are accordingly adjusted), but the terrain is scaled to 2x stock height, the planetary sizes to 6.4x stock sizes, and the atmosphere height and scale height is increased by 32%. However, since the scale is only increased by 6.4x (to approximately 64% real world scale- the same as the % scale of the stock rocket parts compared to their real world analogs) no re-scaling of the parts is necessary to make them work correctly, meaning one can play a perfectly realistic/balanced game using parts-mods built for the stock KSP universe... I would like to see a separate set of scoring rules for entries using this config. Since no re-scaling of the parts is necessary like with the 10x rescale, and the gravity parameters are the same, I think the following three simple rules for these entries should suffice: (1) All altitude scoring is divided by 1320 meters instead of 1000 meters, and the minimum flying altitude is increased by 50% (due to 32% higher atmosphere, and 2x taller terrain) (2) The minimum landing height is left unchanged even though this allows landing across a greater portion of the terrain: 6.4x RSS is already so much harder that I think this is fair. (3) Entries receive a moderate number (4-5 sounds reasonable) of bonus points for the greatly increased difficulty (and Delta-V requirement) of launching to LKO, nevertheless getting anything sizable to Duna; as well as the increased orbital velocity of Duna due to its increased scale (making for more dangerous re-entries) Regards, Northstar P.S. I'm also planning on using RealFuels, KW Rocketry, Stockalike RF Engine Configs, Deadly Re-entry, MechJeb2, Chatterer, FAR (which already has a rule), Active texture Management, and TAC Life Support mods, but I don't expect any rule changes should be necessary to use these mods...

This is an awesome mod/config! I'm glad to see it's up-to-date for KSP 0.24.2! I've decided to scrap my current Career Mode playthrough (not many people seemed to be watching it anyways- and now that I've figured out how to capture video streams, I'd like to take videos from Day 1 of my space program...) and start a new one with this config. A 6.4x scaling works PERFECTLY for more realistic scaling without having to re-size all my parts, since the stock parts are of course currently at about 64% the scale of real-world analogues (of course, a 6.4x scale isn't *quite* the same as 64% scaling: the stock Kerbol system is actually closer to 1/11th of real world scale if you use Kerbin:Earth ratio, not 1/10th...) As for SSTO's, no they shouldn't be possible while running this mod with Advanced Jet Engines (another reason I don't want to use 100% RSS scale- it really needs RealismOverhaul to work properly, and Advanced Jet Engines is an utterly broken mod IMHO...) That silly mod decides to balance everything to 1960's/1970's levels of jet technology, instead of cutting-edge 21st-century tech you would realistically expect to see in a spaceplane. Somebody on that thread challenged me to create a set of configs for 21st-century jet engines for that mod if I really am bothered that much- but I don't have the time to go creating alternate configs for a mod just for it to be playable for me in the first place... (I'm too busy IRL- as I have little prior knowledge, and would have to teach myself how to create the configs as I went...) Tangent aside though- creating a reasonable SSTO with 64% scale early 1970's-era technology simply should not be possible on a 64% scale version of Earth... We still haven't managed to create any reasonable SSTO's with 21st-century technology here on Earth, so I don't see how it could be feasible with 1970's tech... Regards, Northstar EDIT: Major oversight on my part. I forgot that while all the stock jet engines (except the RAPIER) and new engines introduced by AJE are balanced vs. 1970's tech in AJE, the RAPIER, SABRE, and *some* B9 engine are balanced vs. their real-life 21st-century counterparts. So it *should* theoretically be possible to build a reasonable SSTO spaceplane if you use these engines- although I would recommend using at at least a half-dozen disposable drop-tanks for the initial climb on a spaceplane...

More pictures for you guys. But first, I feel the need to briefly relate to you all that I actually had *another* YouTube/Twitch upload that I meant to show you guys, but lost due to Twitch muting portions of the audio (due to "audio recognition copyright protection", but there was nothing audible but the stock KSP music) and then AUTO-DELETING the video (they only save videos a certain number of days) before responding to my request to fix the video (I hadn't uploaded it to YouTube yet as I wanted them to fix the audio muting first). My local copy of the video was also corrupted, so I couldn't upload that either. Just thought I'd let you guys know, since I know my pictures have been a little sparse lately since I started relying more heavily on YouTube/Twitch to keep you guys in the loop... Anyways, I started off with an aerobrake pass of my previous fuel tanker (which shall be used to further test the cost-effectiveness of parachute-assisted soft landings near the KSC in 0.24.2, as well as the Mainsail engine "while splashed down" for a contract) I then set about launching a newer "Heavy Fuel Tanker Mk2" from the KSC. The main difference is that the upper stage relies on a cheaper and more efficient Skipper, rather than a Mainsail, rocket engine... The launch stage of SRB's also made a nice retro-rocket assisted touchdown (using Seperatrons for part of the braking was much cheaper than relying entirely on radial parachutes) I then proceeded to rendezvous the fuel tanker with my Space Taxi, and transfer over Jebediah Kerman before abandoning the Crew Capsule in an elliptical orbit (which should make it less costly to de-orbit in the future...) My Space Taxi and Fuel Tanker then each proceeded to separately make a Munar transfer. Technically I could have saved fuel by sending them together and using the LV-909 engine, but the TWR for that would have been abysmal and required 5 or 6 periapsis kicks for an accurate transfer... (it also would have placed a lot of parts in loading range with the Munar Mobile Lab at once- this way only the fuel tanker or the Space Taxi has to shar physics range with the Munar Mobile Lab at any given time) Despite being the second vessel to make a Munar transfer, the fuel tanker should ideally be the first vessel to rendezvous with the Munar Mobile Lab- but we'll see how that goes... (the Space Taxi will hang around after rendezvous until one of my Kerbals returns to Kerbin, so this will prevent me from having both craft in physics range for as long or at all) My insistence on placing only one docking port on the Munar Mobile Lab to save on mission cost is really making itself felt, though (ideally, the Space Taxi and fuel tanker would be able to dock with the Munar Mobile Lab without having to displace the Reusable Lander, and without having to wait around nearby before/after while other craft are docked...) Regards, Northstar

I don't think I ever addressed this point, by the way. The whole point behind an Aquarius-style Big Dumb Booster (as opposed to a Space Dragon-style BDB, which is entirely different) is that you end up mass-producing the rockets for the CURRENT payload-to-orbit being sent up each year, TODAY AND NOW, rather than needing to increase the annual launch mass (a difficult and expensive proposition) in order to reap the benefits of mass production. Let's make up some numbers: Take the fact that an Aquarius is projected to launch 1 ton to orbit per launch. Compare that to a Smart Booster that might launch say, 12 tons to orbit per launch (there are actual Smart Boosters in this size range) Let's say that you need to launch 24 tons of low-value consumables to orbit a year. This figure isn't *too far* from the real one: the ISS requires approx. 9.07 metric tons of consumables a year according to a Lockheed Martin article on ISS consumables. Other consumables include station-keeping fuel for fresh satellite launches (you launch the satellite empty on a Smart Booster, and rendezvous with the Aquarius, the Aquarius fuel-depot, or Aquarius tug, in LEO to transfer over the station-keeping fuel), consumables for other space stations, etc... To launch that with Aquarius-style BDB's, you would need to build 36 rockets a year (3 rockets a month, with a 33% failure rate)- reaping some of the benefits of mass production, as well as reduced ground infrastructure costs (which tend to decrease *SHARPLY* with increasing launch frequency) etc. To launch that with a 12-ton Smart Booster, you would launch just over 2 rockets per year (with a *very low* failure rate). That leaves your launchpad and production facilities idle most of the year, and drastically drives up the cost of getting these low-value consumables to orbit. Even with a *much lower* estimate of annual low-value consumables launches of just 12 tons (assuming the vast majority of satellites launch with their station-keeping fuel onboard rather then going for the cheaper option of utilizing Aquarius' orbital consumables-depot system for this purpose, and 75% of all Aquarius payloads utlimately go to the ISS), you still have 18 launches a year vs. just 1 Smart Booster launch a year to orbit this same quantity of supplies. The economic benefits of an Aquarius-style Big Dumb Booster should be *OBVIOUS*. Regards, Northstar P.S. Please remember that Aquarius' $700 million development budget also included the costs for developing AND launching (atop a separate Smart Booster) a LEO "consumables-depot" where Aquarius launches would accumulate needed consumables ahead-of-need, as well as a small reusable chemical-propelled (non-nuclear) "orbital tug" to move these supplies (in larger increments of maybe 10 or 12 tons at a time- each Aquairus only launches 1 ton at a time) from the depot to the ISS and other destinations as-needed.

I respect and admire a lot of Elon Musk's work, bu what he's doing here is constructing a "Straw Man" argument to tear apart. "Big Dumb Booster" doesn't necessarily equate to "no turbopump". though that's often the case due to the difficulties in constructing a space-grade turbopump (that is, onew that gets those "last few seconds of ISP"). The WHOLE IDEA behind a Big Bumb Booster is to use wide margins and throw away the whole approach of squeezing out those last few seconds of ISP. Your payload fraction plummets, but you get a MUCH CHEAPER cost per kg to orbit, at the cost of efficiency and reliability. As repeatedly stated, it doesn't work for ALL payloads, but it does work for cheap, easily-replaced payloads like fuel of space station consumables. Big Dumb Boosters can in theory also be re-used, although they payoff for doing so is much less. Regards, Northstar

This should probably go in the Support thread. You're more likely to get an answer there. Also, posting logs and a screenshot of your Alt+F2 screen (I think that's the keys- the one that shows an error log) might also be helpful. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you- I have no clue what might be causing your problem without more information. Regards, Northstar

OK, sorry for the delay since the last post guys. I've been busy with real life, and getting really deep into a Dwarf Fortress kick of late... (by the way, if you're curious, you can follow the Succession Game I started in Dwarf Fortress here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=142169.msg5576354#msg5576354) Anyways, I launched a Heavy Fuel Tanker, both to refuel my Space Taxi and Duna Rocket, and to test out a Mainsail engine splashed-down on Kerbin (upon recovery of the fuel tanker's upper stage- normally I would have used a lighter, cheaper, and more efficient engine for the upper stage) Of course, in typical fashion, I forgot to switch to the lower stage (basically 4 of the SLS-style SRB's slapped together under a quad-coupler) and recover it as it re-entered Kerbin's atmosphere... Oh well. I then proceeded to rendezvous with and refuel my Space Taxi: And after that, my Duna probe- which was a little tricky, since I had to actually detach the LV-T45 Drive Section, fill THAT with fuel, and then dock it back up with the Duna Probe and central fuel tank. I didn't actually have enough fuel to fill the entire thing and still have enough fuel left that I felt I could safely recover the fuel tanker, however... I hope you guys enjoy the updates! And don't worry, I'll have more stuff going on soon enough... Regards, Northstar

So, just checking in... How is this mod doing for developing appropriately-balanced costs for 0.24.2? Last I heard, some of the costs made absolutely no sense as they had not been designed for Budgets yet... Regards, Northstar

So... 0.24.1 introduced procedural cost support to KSP, and since that time both ProceduralFairings and RealChutes have added procedural costs for Career Mode, and Procedural Parts is working on it... Is this being worked on for Procedural Dynamics as well? Regards, Northstar

I've got 3 more YouTube videos for those of you who want the full story of my continued progress: For the rest of you, I'm still taking screenshots, of course... The first screenshots I captured were from my completing a contract to test a Turbojet at high altitude: Subsequent to that I rendezvoused the Lander + Space Taxi combo with the Mobile Munar Lab, and transferred over as much scientific data as I could: Proceeded to rendezvous with a Crew Capsule in LKO: And thereafter recovered Jendin Kerman and the Munar data by splashing down in the oceans of Kerbin. I was so low on fuel though that the Kerbal actually had to get out and PUSH (it took roughly one EVA pack of fuel to get an atmospheric periapsis, and another to lower it further and speed up the recovery- so technically I could have done it with EVA fuel being deducted from capsule Monopropellant supplies...) Got some great data out of the Mun in the end- enough to justify sending off heavier rockets to more distant destinations in the future! (well, I unlocked heavier rocketry techs to be precise) Hello 3.75 meter rocket parts, quad-couplers, and 2.5 meter SRB's and docking ports! Next step, Nuclear Rocketry and KW Rocketry 5 meter parts! (with Experimental Rocketry) Regards, Northstar

That's really interesting. I had never heard of Medusa before. +1 Rep for awesomeness. Regards, Northstar