Northstar1989

Good analysis- and it cuts fairly close to the point. There is another disadvantage of air-augmented rockets not mentioned on Wikipedia though: compressive-heating of air. When you compress air enough by moving through it at sufficiently high speeds with the ram effect and an open intake, the air heats up to enormously hot temperatures. Engines designed to work at sufficiently high speeds/low pressures in air-breathing mods, such as the SABRE, have had to design their own high specialized precooler units for this- which adds weight and comes with its own challenges... Still, it is a perfectly good idea- and already implemented in at least one mod. In KSP-Interstellar, you have thermal turbojets. What they are is essentially air-augmented thermal rockets- they pull in air to produce additional thrust for the same amount of thermal power. And because they don't combust the air, they work on planets without Oxygen- such as Eve or Duna. However, unlike an augemented thermal rocket, they rely purely on the atmosphere- they don't use any external fuel in air-breathing mode. KSP-Interstellar has also simulated the compressive-heating issue: to use thermal turbojets at sufficiently high speeds/low pressures, you need precoolers- otherwise the engines will overheat and explode. The only downside I can see to relying on KSP-Interstellar's thermal turbojets like this is that they only work with thermal turbojets (which require nuclear reactors or a Microwave Beamed Power network), and they don't alloy hybrid operation of both internal propellent and external atmosphere AT THE SAME TIME. It might be nice to have chemical rockets that similarly rely on external atmosphere- relying on chemical reactions rather than nuclear reactors or microwave receivers to generate the thermal energy necessary for the thrust. And the ability to operate utilizing both internal and external working mass at the same time would also help with operation in thin atmosphere (like Duna's upper atmosphere) where there *is* atmosphere around, but not nearly enough to run in a thermal turbojet off of or such... This is a good idea though- I'm going to go bug FractalUK to include it in KSP-Interstellar. It would be relatively easy to implement working off the existing Thermal Turbojet code I would think... Regards, Northstar

Not a bad idea- but the dev's seem to have their own priorities that don't include this. Still, someday perhaps... Regards, Northstar

The ideal launch window changes the more Delta-V you spend on the transfer. For transfers costing many times the Delta-V of a minimal-energy transfer like the Hohmann, you want to launch closer to Closest Approach. This is because gravity will curve your trajectory less over the course of a shorter, higher-speed transfer, and thus you want to be performing a transfer that can take best advantage of the relatively straight line... Orion Nuclear Pulse rockets aren't unrealistic- they're a real life technology we've had the capability to construct for decades. The only thing that's been missing is political willpower. You can also get some frankly insane Delta-V value with the (perfectly realistic) technologies of thermal rockets and Microwave Beamed Power in KSP-Interstellar (the last breakthroughs needed for this in real life were discoveries made in gyrotrons in 2005), with asparagus-staged drop tanks in orbit (asparagus staging may not make sense in real life in-atmosphere, but it's definitely the best strategy for high Delta-V interplanetary transfers...) and relying purely on LH2 for maximum-ISP fuel... (with enough beamed power, you can still get respectable thrust with this- in fact with enough nuclear reactors at the KSC, you can even launch small dozen-GW plasma-thruster powered spaceplanes from the KSC runway, as spaceplanes can get by with TWR less than 1...) Regards, Northstar

Are those SRB's in the TOP of the rocket? I think the problem might be that your rocket is a little "top-heavy" at that point in your launch... Just as you can have problems with a rocket being too bottom-heavy, you can also have a problem (although it is rare) with a rocket being too top-heavy. I suspect what is happening is that the combination of non-vectoring thrust and an excessively top-heavy rocket is attempting to straighten the thing up in the atmosphere... Try building a rocket with less weight on the top (LFO instead of SRB's in the upper stages, for one- which will also get you better ISP). See how it works. Regards, Northstar

Yeah- that would be due to the aging of the sun though. Nothing to do with human activity. Regards, Northstar P.S. The multi-quote feature, anyone want to show me how to use it?

When the sun's a Red Giant, it might ENCOMPASS Earth. But that's another story for another day... Regards, Northstar

I'm with you on Mars, by the way. Beautiful planet. Fascinating to behold. And I image, some day, the future second-planet of mankind... Regards, Northstar P.S. Somebody really needs to show me how to use this forum's multi-quote feature properly, so I don't have to make multiple posts to quote multiple people...

That's insanely accurate, and an idea propagated purely by people who don't have the slightest clue of atmospheric or planetary sciences. Earth will NEVER look like Venus. The first thing I need to remind anyone of, is that when we're talking CO2 emissions on Earth, we're talking emissions from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and peat- all of which are ultimately biogenic sources of carbon. Meaning, they came from decaying plant/animal life being buried, AND ALL OF THAT CARBON WAS ONCE ON THE SURFACE. Earth was never a steaming cauldron like Venus, however, and never will be due to CO2 emissions. What Earth might become is a swamp planet again- like it was way back before the formation of all that coal and peat (Earth used to have a VERY swampy environment- which was conducive to the burial of all that organic matter under layers of mud and sand...) NOT a volcanic planet or a steaming cauldron like Venus though- there are other atmospheric/oceanic/terrestrial limiting factors on Gloabal Warming that eventually start to kick in once the climate becomes warm enough, that prevent the effect from becoming so extreme or runaway as to change the planet to such an absurd degree... You must also keep in mind Venus orbits 0.723 AU away from the sun (72.3% the distance of Earth). What that means, in practical terms, is that due to the Inverse Square Law, it actually receives 1.913 times (almost TWICE) the solar energy of Earth. So the same effects of Global Warming, the Greenhouse Effect, and such had the potential to get a LOT more carried away there than they due here on Earth (by the same principle Titan or Europa, for instance, will NEVER be as warm as Mars no matter what chemicals you put in their atmosphere...) In short, CO2-based Global Warming will NEVER change planet Earth enough to make it incapable of supporting human life... That being said, I wouldn't want to live on a swamp planet- the temperatures and humidity would be unbearably uncomfortable (think jungle weather up until the polar latitudes), and the mosquitoes and insects would be INSANE! Regards, Northstar

Cool! Nice try though! This will make you the first entry on the Scoreboard, even if it for "Green Goo" and 0 points, until somebody submits another entry that doesn't fail... I take it you were trying for the Deadly ReEntry distinction? Normally Kerbals can come in straight from interplanetary transfers without any fear of heat hurting them... A shame that your Kerbal drowned- though situtations like this are precisely what I added the drowning losing-condition for. The world' best swimmers (humans, not Kerbals- who are smaller and thus presumably can't swim as far) can manage maybe 100 km, and the world record is around 200 km- but none of that is wearing heavy spacesuits that inhibit movement... Nobody could have known your Kerbal would fall off or where he would splash down as a result either... Regards, Northstar P.S. Another option you can try for attaching your Kerbals to the re-entry craft is KAS winches. If your Kerbals grab onto the ends of them, and they are locked in at a very short distance, they can safely hold your Kerbals on the correct side of the heat-shield. The point of the rules I set forth on the re-entry vehicle was to force players to use something very minimalist and "Kerbal" to preserve the excitement of the experience. Strapping oneself onto a winch to hurtle through the atmosphere at Mach 5-6 still sounds pretty Kerbal to me... P.P.S. Also, I took pity after seeing your entry, and relaxed the drowning rules a bit- Kerbals now only have to land within 1000 meters of a boat or shoreline, rather than within 400 meters...

You're forgetting than an Inverse Square law for solar panel effectiveness is on the chopping block for the devs at some point in the future. To get decent EC production for, say, 2-3 stock ion engines out by Jool- you'll need significantly larger solar panels, or have to spam existing types... Plus, it would also pave the way for addition of more energy-intensive features, such as ISRU if they decide to work on that again at some point... (it was rejected in its last incarnation because that rendition was "not fun"- they didn't reject Resources totally...) Regards, Northstar

I'm impressed...

That's utterly hilarious, but unfortunately- no. One of the handful of conditions for the challenge is that the parachute has to actually deploy (I even set altitude guidelines- no deployment before 7000 meters for instance, so that you hopefully won't deploy with re-entry flames). So you didn't meet the challenge's requirements. If you're looking for a simple mission- try a plane paradrop with two Kerbals. (use a rocket-plane to beat my example altitude+score) This is easily accomplished even in stock+KAS only- as in one of the many oddities of KSP, Kerbals will hold onto Pegasus ladders even at hypersonic speeds if the ladder is oriented perpendicular to the prograde vector such that the Kerbal would have to move sideways on the ladder to let go (just look at my sample video to see how I secured the Kerbals in my B9 cargo hold)- which they can't/won't do no matter how strong the force pushing on them... Command seats would in theory work fine too, and be more realistic- but Kerbals always appear *on top of* any enclosed space when they exit a command chair- making them impossible to use as a way to secure Kerbals in a sort of cargo hold until jump-time... In order to get your Kerbals out of a stock plane, I suggest trying constructing a small cube on it (you can have a small hole on the top to drop the Kerbals in) out of structural panels just large enough to hold two Kerbals. Have Kerbals hold onto two ladders oriented as shown in my example paradrop to secure them and prevent them from bouncing around inside and possibly glitching out- the ladder trick will work MOST but not all of the time, and they'll still be fine for a short while even if they still somehow fall off the ladder (as happened just before the paradrop with some of my Kerbals in the example video). Attach the rear-facing panels to the other faces of the cube with a decoupler (or multiple decouplers in sections- i.e. two halves to the rear face, each attached by one decoupler). Have the Kerbals let go of the ladders and grab stock radial parachutes on the interior walls of the cube just before jump-time, then blow off the rear face of the cube with the decouplers to release the Kerbals on their skydive... Sure, it's not a reusable release system- but nobody ever said it had to be. Alternatively, you can drop out the floor- but there's a much greater risk of Kerbals glitching through it before grabbing their parachutes if you build it this way... Regards, Northstar P.S. The stock+KAS structural cube trick should work best with a plane with either a 2.5 meter fuselage with the cube on top, or a twin 1.25 meter fuselage with the cube in the middle. To construct a symmetrical twin-fuselage, the easiest method is to start the craft with a small part such as an cuboid probe core, and then build outwards in opposite directions with girder segments in 2x symmetry mode (the shorter the girder length and fewer the parts in it the more stable it will be). You then build the two fuselages off the girders at each end in 2x symmetry, and the rest of the plane accordingly. Make sure to add in at least a couple struts to keep things stable, just in case...

You could with your RCS pack a little bit I suppose- but otherwise, I'm afraid not. There are circular chutes, not parasails... Sure thing- but this goes both to you and the poster below you, as well as any future readers- please don't make a habit of reserving spots on this thread for future posts. I posted myself more to "bump" the thread than anything else, so it wouldn't die a death of being ignored, but am overwriting that post as the 2nd post is too valuable to occupy with a bump. Normally, it's a very distasteful habit to get into, and few will appreciate it... Regards, Northstar

Quantum Struts would extend 40,000 meters? (the absolute minimum distance one must jump on Jool for the distinction) Anyways, after actually carrying out a higher-altitude plane jump (from 20,000 meters), I've decided my criteria for parachute deployment and LZ size were a bit too harsh... Even a few milliseconds difference in jump times moving at supersonic speeds (340 m/s is a relatively slow cruising speed for 20km on Kerbin) equates to over a kilometer and a half distance on the ground- making 100 meter distances a matter of pure luck. I'll be updating both criteria- see my posts above. Regards, Northstar

OK, so plane-based drops are a LOT harder to get accurate than helicopter-based drops (which can't reasonably reach the higher altitudes of this challenge). I'll be increasing LZ increments to 1000 meter pieces- so 20 points for within 1000 meters, 15 for within 2 km, 10 for within 3 km, and 5 for within 4 km of a flag (much larger increments wouldn't make sense, as the Kerbals despawn if more than 2.3 km from the loaded Kerbal- making a group's maximum spread 4.6 km in diameter...) Points will be awarded for the closest Kerbal... Still probably VERY difficult to get the maximum accuracy points from a plane at 40 km- but relatively easy from a helicopter-type vehicle (anything that hovers basically). I'll also be raising the altitude ceiling on parachute deployment to 7 km ASL semi-deployed and 5km above the ground (the max a parachute can be fully deployed at normally) fully deployed, to make accurate drops easier. This essentially removes any restriction on when you fully-deploy a parachute (unless you've been modding configs- which isn't allowed anyways), but still means you can't go semi-deploying a parachute while your Kerbals are encased in hypersonic flames (which would probably burn up the chute) without being DQ'd... Anyways, here's a demonstration of a basic plane-type drop. If it were entered in the scoring (I tend not to enter into the scoring until other players have in a challenge I create- so as to not discourage new entries), it would earn only 13 points with the new rules (1 Kerbal survived from a 20 km jump)- I'm sure you guys can do MUCH better! First, the preparation: Then, the takeoff, ascent to cruising altitude, and selection of a good jump site (lots of relatively flat ground near sea-level and the equator). Note my dumping extra fuel (I still had over 57% left afterwards- more than enough to theoretically get my pilots home form a roleplaying perspective...) in the last two screenshots to allow the plane to climb a little higher so I could ensure it cleared 20 km... Finally, the jump itself- I have no idea why Shelsey Kerman (the "jump leader" from my roleplaying perspective, as he was bravest and least stupid) died on touchdown- probably a terrain-clipping bug. His jump profile was hardly any different than Kelrie's... Too bad I missed a great shot of the plane flying off (level- SAS was doing all the flying at that point) in the distance with its rear hatch open as my parachutists free fell below it- but perhaps one of you guys doing a similar jump will get an even better one at some point- maybe somewhere even more exciting like Duna! It's slightly ironic that I lost a Kerbal on touchdown though- I was singing the old US Army cadence "If I Die on the Old Drop Zone" the whole way down with my Kerbals to pass the time... By the way, the "Lost" Kerbals in the Astronaut Complex list include the 3 pilots, the Kerbal who stayed in the jump bay (he couldn't reach a parachute, as one of the Kerbals who fell off his ladder could only reach his), and a Kerbal who successfully jumped but exited physics loading-range. So really only 1.5 casualties from that jump, not 6 (nobody knows what happened to the Kerbal who lost visual contact...) Regards, Northstar

Higher drag-coefficient means lower Terminal Velocity. Try following an ascent path where you act as if terminal velocity is about 80% of what you normally treat it as, and see how you do. Also, while the challenge says the rocket must only use SRB's for propulsion, I see no rules about launching from the KSC. So you *could* try wheeling a rocket into the foothills of the mountains west of the KSC using wheels to increase ISP at liftoff, ideal TWR at liftoff (higher TV at liftoff), and reduce Delta-V to orbit... Or, if you're *really* feeling like using a loophole, airlift the SSTO piece-wise into the mountains west of the KSC using a Firespitter-based helicopter (there are no rules that your entire space program must use SRB's) and assemble it on-site using dockin ports- or even build it in the mountains using Extraplanetary Launchpads... Anyways... If you're looking for something interesting to attempt, check out my Kerbal Skydiving Challenge. This challenge seems to be pretty tedious- I can't imagine wanting to go further than the Mun on just SRB's... Even Scott Manley used a LFO upper stage in his famous SRB-based giant that incinerated lower stages as the next level of SRB's activated... Regards, Northstar

OK, I've further clarified the description, and added Rule #11, which totally bans jet engines except for two very specific, well-defined circumstances. Are you happy with the current state of the rules? Regards, Northstar

This is cool, but not the right sub-forum for this. Could a mod move it? I think this belongs in Fan Works... Regards, Northstar

Cool, but this doesn't belong in Challenges. Would a mod please move this to another section of the forum? Regards, Northstar

You read the title right- skydiving. This challenge is about creating the most interesting and purely-awesome Kerbal skydives you can think of. How it's Done First of all, this is *NOT* a challenge for use of EVA Parachutes mod- that would be too easy (and besides, it's a little unrealistic not having to lift any extra mass for the parachute- in the latest version parachutes are automatically built into all Kerbal EVA suits for free). Instead, this is a challenge in which players are to use Kerbal Attachment System to skydive with their Kerbals, as Darren9 awesomely demonstrates in this video for his entry on Laythe (see the 'Distinctions' section for the special rules on non-Kerbin skydiving). Note that he used LAZOR mod to set the physics-loading range to 5 km instead of 2.3 Note that this only works with the stock radial parachute unless you modify other parachutes so Kerbals can grab them in the KAS configs. For simplicity and fairness to other players, just stick with the stock radial parachutes and KAS. Da Rulz 1. You are free to use any balanced mod other than EVA Parachutes or some other mod that allows you to circumvent the need for KAS and using a grabbable parachute as demonstrated. 2. Use of FAR is not only allowed, but ENCOURAGED. The aerodynamic shielding from drag it provides should be EXTREMELY useful for paradrops in which you have your Kerbal(s) suit up inside a B9 Aerospace cargo bay, for instance (without FAR, the Kerbals can end up flying around in there, possibly out the hatch before suiting up, due to the effects of drag...) 3. Use of Real Solar System is also encouraged- it makes skydiving more epic when Kerbals have a taller atmosphere to fall through. 4. Use of Real Chutes mod is allowed- but makes things more difficult, by making parachutes much less effective... Use it for extra challenge if you wish (if it still allows you to successfully skydive at all) 5. Pretty much anything meeting the qualifications goes! Be creative! Submission Qualifications To be eligible for this challenge, you must do the following: 1. Lift a Kerbal to at least 10,000 meters above the ground on Kerbin (special rules for other planets). At least 20,000 meters if using a 10:1 Real Solar System scale-up, or 15,000 meters for the 1:6.4 RSS scale-up. 2. Drop him! The Kerbal must detach from his vehicle above 10,000/15,000/20,000 meters, with nothing but a parachute on his back (see the Distinctions for the two exceptions) 3. Activate your Kerbal's parachute in semi-deployed (drogue) mode below 7000 meters above sea level, and in full mode no higher than 5000 meters above the ground (this basically means activating it below 7000 meters using any of the normally tweakable altitude settings). 4. SAFELY touch your Kerbal(s) down on land, or within 1000 meters of a boat or shore that they then swim to *and* board or climb onto. No points if they die or "drown"! (see the Distinctions for the one failure-award) Base Scoring This challenge works on both a scoring and distinction system. The following formula makes up your base score, to which are added points for any Distinctions earned (note failed attempts, while earning the mercy/failure aware, are not worth any points). +1 points for every 1000 meters over 10k (or 15k/20k for RSS) your Kerbal releases from. Note this caps out at 40k meters in the stock solar system, and 54/72k in the 1:6.4 or 1:10 scale-up's... (extra points for an orbital-dive through Distinctions) +3 points for each Kerbal who successfully makes the skydive- up to a maximum of 4 Kerbals (this means ALL successful entries are worth a minimum of 3 points). All Kerbals must drop/deploy at roughly the same time- no dropping Kerbals at an "orbit" of 40 km and then after-burning out of physics loading-range. +5 points for setting up a "Landing Zone" with a flag beforehand (this can be done for points anywhere but Jool), for every 1000 meters your closest Kerbal lands within 4 km of it (to a maximum of +20 points for landing within 1000 meters) Distinctions There are an important way to earn points- especially if you want to top the Scoreboard. Insane Skydiver- Deploy at least one Kerbal's parachute at 30 meters or less from the ground on any planetary body (setting altitude to 50 meters won't cut it- you'll need to deploy manually.) +2 points Orbital Drop- Drop your Kerbal(s) on Kerbin from outside the atmosphere, but with apoapsis below 80 km (or 16/20 km above the atmosphere in a 1:6.4/1:10 scaled-up solar system). Note that you do not have to drop from a circular orbit- but your periapsis must be above 32 km (or 42 km for either scale-up). +4 points What's This Drag?- Complete the challenge using FAR. +3 points Heat? What Heat?- Complete an orbital drop on Kerbin using Deadly Re-Entry (note that for this, you are allowed to use a single layer of structural panels as a "heat shield", an OKTO2 and up to 4 *small* passive wings/fins without control surfaces for aerodynamic stabilization, and ladders or KAS winches to hold the Kerbals in place on the correct side of the panels. The correct # of radial parachutes may be attached to the panels until detached for use by the Kerbals). +12 points Duna Diver- Complete an atmospheric drop on Duna instead of Kerbin, taking off from the surface with your drop vehicle. DOUBLE points per extra km for altitude score, above a minimum height of 8 km, but caps out at 24km instead of 40km Falling through dust- Complete a suborbital drop on Duna, from an altitude over 70km with no periapsis and a trajectory coming down on the same side of the planet, using no EVA jetpack thrust at any time (hint- this is only possible if you pick a low-lying landing zone, anything else will probably kill your Kerbal as the atmosphere is too thin to slow them down...) 34 points for altitude score, overwrites normal altitude score The Eve Daredevils- Complete an atmospheric drop on Eve, taking off from the surface with your drop vehicle. 1 point per km above 8 km, up to maximum of 42km. +4 bonus points for the distinction Worthy of Jebediah- Complete an orbital drop using FAR and DRE on Eve from any altitude/orbit above the atmosphere (heat-shield may be *2* layers thick, up to 6 fins and an OKTO2 allowed, same rules on para's). +24 points, and automatic credit for a max-altitude drop Don't try this at home kids- Complete an atmospheric drop on Laythe, taking off from the surface with your drop vehicle. +1 point per extra km above 7 km, but caps out at 24 km. +20 bonus points for the distinction. No SERIOUSLY, don't try this at home - Complete an orbital drop on Jool from any orbit/altitude above the atmosphere, onto a platform/plane/blimp or other vehicle floating/fyling at any altitude *below* 90km (hint: craft in an "orbit" at roughly 100 km will not despawn when unloaded- use this to your advantage...). Is it even possible? +200 points, overwrites all other scoring Green Goo- Fail the challenge due to all of your skydiving Kerbals either crashing into the terrain (splat!), or drowning (failing to land within 1 km of a boat or shoreline) 0 points, but you'll still make the bottom of the Scoreboard for your effort if all other rules/conditions were followed. Note: There are no orbital drops allowed other than the ones mentioned. This is as you arrive at these bodies from orbit, rather than from the surface like on Kerbin... Therefore it would be too easy to allow players to perform standard orbital drops on any of them... Also, I created no scoring guidelines for extraplanetary drops on a RSS scale-up, as I consider them quite unlikely. If anyone actualyl does perform one, I will attempt to create a fair scoring guideline for the respective planet/drop type- let me know the parameters (altitude density, height, and scale-height; plus Delta-V to reach the planet/moon) for the scale-up you use so I can judge what's fair. Scoreboard: 1. Darren9- 24 km altitude (on Laythe), 2 Kerbals, <3 km precision-landing, "Don't try this at home kinds" [53 points] 2. Mazlem - 24 km altitude (on Duna), 1 Kerbal, <2 km precision-landing, "Duna Diver" [50 points] 3. DaPatman - 40 km altitude, 1 Kerbal [33 points] 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Green Goo Entries (in chronological order) 1. Master Tao NOTE: I did my very best to create fair and consistent scoring guidelines, which leave room for both orbital and atmospheric drops (I will change the scoring if one is proving impossible to beat- though orbital drops are meant to be a bit more challenging and rewarding on atmospheric score, they are much harder to hit target Landing zones with using multiple Kerbals, and as such should not always top the scoreboard unless a player manages a precision orbital-drop: they are more for fun) but I may have missed something. Please let me know if I did miss something, or if something I posted is inconsistent- and please don't be upset if retroactive changes to scoring change your place on the Scoreboard (especially if you performed an inaccurate orbital drop without DRE- which is actually relatively easy to do). I have done my best to consider every possibility, but I know I missed a few. Regards, Northstar

Why limit it to SSTO's? Why not allow any 100% reusable design, such as a Space-X style two-part rocket, or a design using reusable boosters or drop tanks that touch down before the craft exits loading range... (to get off the launchpad with really low TWR, basically) By only allowing SSTO's, you pretty much limit it to spaceplanes or airhogging rockets- even though I've designed some perfectly reasonable 100% reusable 3-stage Space-X style rockets (the first stage is a pair of drop tanks that touches down before the rocket reaches 2 km, the second stage is the launch stage and lands back at the launchpad after the final stage is circularized) Regards, Northstar

Does it let you unload airships while in the air? (you can quicksave any vehicle in the air as of 0.23.5) I thought it didn't- hence the need to anchor the things with a KAS anchor... @OP It might actually look cooler if you went with a floating platform design... Either B9 Aerospace, or Novapunch2, I forget which, gives you these big lightweight platforms that are MUCH lighter and much larger than the stock structural panels. See the platforms in the following- that's only 3 parts, and they're not even the largest size: You could also easily achieve a permanently floating base with KSP-Interstellar and a Microwave Beamed Power transmitter and relay network to beam solar farm energy to run a number of thermal turbojets rotated to face upwards- or more efficiently (at lower altitudes) and easier to control, a series of Firespitter electric plane or helicopter rotors facing upwards (you could also power the rotors with lightweight structural platforms coated in OX-STAT panels and enough of the 400-EC stock batteries, as both are massless in the current version...) which could also be placed on "Hover" mode to hover at any desired altitude... Generally, like real rotors, the Firespitter rotors produce more thrust the thicker the atmosphere- so the lower the altitude you choose to hover your base at, the fewer of them you'll need. Their thrust falls off the faster they are moving though, so you might need some parachutes or rockets to slow down your descent to a standstill if you choose something higher up in Jool's atmosphere... Note that rotor power consumption increases with thrust- so you'll also need more power for the same number of rotors at full throttle deeper in Jool's atmosphere... (don't forget to use "Cargo Throttle" to get the most thrust for each rotor!) Enclose the rotors or turbojets in structural panel "casings" to create enclosed turbines- like with the floating aircraft carrier in The Avengers, for something really cool... Regards, Northstar P.S. Technically you can establish a floating base on any planet/moon with an atmosphere this way- including Kerbin, Duna, Laythe, or Eve. It's easiest using rotors on planets with thicker atmospheres though, so Jool or Eve work especially well for those; but turbojets work relatively better in thinner atmosphere- so are the better option for Kerbin, Laythe, or Duna... P.P.S. It's also possible to create floating "fuel refineries" on Jool using this approach, similar to the floating Tibanna Gas refineries on Bespin- which were its primary source of income aside from Lando's floating resort-casino. With KSP-Interstellar Atmospheric Scoops, you can refine Jool's atmosphere (which is largely made of Hydrogen) into pure Liquidfuel- which can be used to power KSP Interstellar thermal rockets (basically the mod's more realistic version of NERVA or BNTR- which can also work of Microwave Beamed Power and a thermal receiver as the heat source, instead of a nuclear reactor), or jet planes to fly around on Laythe!

Yet another update... First of all, the KSS Nyrmidon delivered its payload to my Munar spacedock: Note that I don't have any solar panels on the skycrane to carry the ISRU refinery (and later the 2.5 tons of radiators- assuming the skycrane has enough fuel to return to orbit...) I intend to throw on some OX-STAT panels with KAS (which I just updated- so hopefully the EVA attachment system works again), so that I can keep the sjycrane powered long enough to carry out its mission... Second, the Supply Ship began its return to my 350 km spacedock for another load of RocketParts, by making a return-trajectory burn from the Mun and setting periapsis at roughly 50 km, such as to allow either aerobraking over several passes (for fuel-efficiency) or just a circularization burn if I get impatient... Regards, Northstar

I've launched a new, semi-reusable vessel- the KSS Nyrmidon (the shuttle is reusable- the rocket is not). She's primarily designed for the "Kerbal Shuttle Challenge", but will also serve some functionality in my mission of interplanetary colonization. She's currently en-route to the Mun to drop off equipment for my Mun base (to increase the realism of my efforts to establish an outpost there, I'm launching more of the equipment from Kerbin than originally planned... Orbital Construction Re-Redux is OP'd, and Extraplanetary Launchpads is too buggy when used in orbit...) Meanwhile, one of my Argon probes made a small adjustment to its trajectory to bring its periapsis closer to Duna. The idea is for the Argon probes to aerocapture at Duna, perform a Kethane-scan of Duna and Ike (the original plan also involved atmospheric analysis- but the part from B9 Aerospace doesn't seem to be working anymore...), and then to head off to the Jool and Sentar systems to collect as much scientific data as possible... (if science can even be produced in the Sentar system) Regards, Northstar

I present, the KSS Nyrmidon: (updates as the mission progresses) Same mods as in the last launch of it with fewer boosters/struts and a shorter launch platform (that crashed and burned), by the way... Here she is on her way to the Mun to deliver her payloads... (radiators and an ISRU reactor for my planned Munar base- which the shuttle will leave in orbit, but a skycrane I sent on a different launch will take to the surface...) I'll have to do another run with this shuttle later, with larger payloads- since I could easily mop up a lot more points by delivering two larger payloads to both the Mun and Minmus... She wasn't christened the "Nyrmidon" until after she made it to orbit- it's bad luck to christen a ship before her first successful voyage. And her arrival and capture at the Mun... (the rendezvous with my Munar space station is to *drop off* fuel, rather than to pick it up- the Nyrmidon has more than enough fuel to make it back to the KSC) Here's the Nyrmidon dropping off her payload at my Munar space station, and then getting the heck out of there because having that many parts loaded (and an issue with running an outdated version of KAS with 0.23.5) was casuing Kraken attacks if I lingered for too long... And the burn back to Kerbin: Unfortunately you guys will have to wait a bit for the landing pics- I had to shut down KSP for the night so I could update KAS (I need to use it to add some OX-STAT panels to the skycrane- otherwise the payload I brought up to the Mun will be absolutely worthless) before the skycrane drifted too far away... Also, I was worried re-loading the vessel without a KAS update might cause a Kraken attack that would destroy my spacedock my spacedock- as I've already experienced several such Kraken-attacks brought on by running an old pre-0.23.5 version of KAS in an ARM mission I took on earlier... Regards, Northstar P.S. Loaded KSP up again today- will have my entry done *SOON* . I was inspired to try something crazy first though that I came across last night when updating Kerbal Attachment System- Kerbal skydiving! Why not check out my challenge for that?