ScallopPotato

I don't think that gravity inherently makes any of the systems more reliable, but there probably are more tried and true systems that rely on gravity than ones that were built around micro-g. On the thread about the proposed 2021 Venus-Mars flyby a la Apollo 8, one of the better arguments against the mission was life support reliability issues. AFAIR, the ISS is going to test a self-sustaining life support system (ECLSS) later this decade, and it's not certain that the system will be ready to use on a different spacecraft by 2021. Apparently one of the possible designs in NASA's latest design proposal for a manned mars mission would use artificial gravity in the crew transfer vehicle during transit. Having a space toilet that stays up for the entire 2-3 year mission or at least is easily repairable would be very important, along with all the other life support systems. And of course the astronauts will have gravity when they're on the surface of mars. While having artificial gravity would likely mean fluids would have to be pushed "up" and "down" to work right, the health benefits and possibly reliability benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

Finally safely returning my kerbals to Kerbin after a successful Moho mission. No refuelers or rescue craft required. It included a low pass over Kerbol and a Kerbin aerocapture at 8 km/s

Did all the plane changes for my 12 ships inbound to Jool, got my Kethane Scanner into orbit around Bop and begun scanning, launched a hab and replacement crew to my minmus kethane base and successfully made a shuttle of sorts in my test save. Yesterday involved sending those 12 ships on their way to Jool.

My idea is to leave the SOI and enter it again in a way that produces a gravity assist. Also my conics patch limit is at 5 right now.

I think we all know about how Tylo's large gravity well has such a potential to fling objects out of Jool's SOI. I've seen at least one player get home from Laythe with only 700 m/s of delta-v by getting double gravity assists from Vall and Tylo. Yet I haven't seen any cases of people getting gravity assists from Tylo by swinging back around after departing from that same gravity well. Right now I have a massive tug in orbit around Tylo that has barely enough fuel to do the Hohmann transfer from Jool to Kerbin, but it doesn't have enough fuel to leave Tylo's SOI and get back to Kerbin. It's hard to predict a swing-back around maneuver because the maneuver nodes can't show an encounter with a body when you're still in the SOI. But the numbers have to be out there, even if I have find them by trial and error on another hyper-edit save.

They did briefly show the new SLS parts in the ARM video at SXSW. I'm waiting for Squad to upload the video already.

This video explains how the Delta-IV heavy's ignition sequence usually creates a huge explosion and scorches the fuel tanks. It's even on fire after liftoff. Very kerbal. I do believe that "release a huge cloud of hydrogen gas and ignite it" is one of the reasons why the RS-25 engines aren't human-rated. Probably is perfectly safe to our kerbals, but if UAL can make an explosion-ignition and burning rocket, we can too. I just love it how the orange and white sections of the booster cores have the same lengths as the Jumbo-64 and 32 fuel tanks.

Based on the conversation I had with Chad at SXSW, it sounds like the astroid pack will come before .24. "23.5" is how he described it. I have no idea when they come out beyond those details. And those details might change.

They did show the new SLS-type parts at the beginning of the video and they were sweet. I'm surprised no one took a picture or video. I would have if I had a real camera with me. hint hint upload the astroid video

Basically lifting the pusher plate and all the other gear requires extremely heavy launchers, even for the smallest Orions. So therefore it's really expensive cargo. Reputation could play a role too (Watch it drop as you do the direct nuking ascent). I actually do want to try out the Orion mod that Scott Manley showcased.

Apparently there was going to be a whole subplot regarding the Duna SSTV signal and the monoliths and some planet on the edge of the Kerbol system. But that was Nova's idea, and with Nova not a dev anymore, it's unlikely that plan will be implemented.

How about Selective inclination: All launches from Kerbin must go into polar orbits or an orbit of at least 45 degrees of inclination (choose one of the two). It's a challenge that gives you the opportunity to see more parts of Kerbin from space. It also complicates interplanetary missions.

I underestimated Minmus's gravity. Seriously. Also my refueled is lying on its side on minmus and it can't right itself. So I'll need to make a tow truck. I also worked on the design for my landable mega-refueler. I decided I'll reuse my empty mega-refueler orbiting Tylo by attaching landing legs. Also, I successfully ascended from Vall and Tylo for the first time today. My crew are looking forward to going home.

Turns out I don't. I did more tests this morning and the upper stages had enough dV to reach orbit from a height of 3km. This simplifies a lot of things. The deorbiter is smaller (82 tons), the landing legs aren't as stressed, all the parts are available by the early/mid tech tree instead of the very end. It's wonderful. With some extra boosters, it I'm certain it be fully capable of reaching orbit from sea level.

Ah Eve, your crushing gravity crushes my hopes and dreams of building an ascent vehicle... Basically, when my 260 ton eve launcher touches down on its surface, the legs are compressed to their max and often make the vehicle lean over. And leaning over leads to dragging engines on the surface or tipping it over on ascent (and crashing). Oh, and this launch vehicle is for only one kerbal. Yet I'm doing it due to the lack of FAR-compatible eve launchers. Since landing leg suspension was added in .22, how many times have you found it better to use locked suspension? Also, are there any larger/sturdier landing legs out there for massive spacecraft?

This is mostly because of how little fuel it takes to return from the munar surface to Kerbin. Apollo style is popular for missions to other planets due to the differences between the nuclear engine and other engines. Transit to a body with the efficient but low thrust nuclear engine, land with a less efficient but higher thrust engine. Then there's a whole other reason why separate ascent/descent stages are rare for munar missions.

I'd just like more runways & airports scattered around Kerbin, mostly to provide a place for SSTOs and shuttles to safety touch down outside of KSC/island runway. The don't have to be terribly complex (some elements like hangars can be repeated) and the runways can be in various directions other than 9/27.

Uninstall deadly reentry for his descent? And then bounce?

Why not make these adjustments to the mk2 and mk3 parts for .24? Small changes like this are common in updates. I agree so much with so many of these things. The mk2 and mk3 cockpits need a real IVA view. As does the science lab. I've never found a workable design for the mk3 parts. I often forget the mk3 fusage exists.

Scott Manley's gonna be really surprised once his Jool probe arrives at Jool (assuming he tries aerobraking). I sure was. "I'm on fire and I'M STILL ACCELERATING?" My Laythe ascent vehicle has separate descent and ascent sections. Basically, it's like: 1) Retro-rockets to cut orbital velocity for a fairly steep entry angle. Reduces the chance of falling short or overshooting target area. It's also useful for slowing down before... 2) Popping the drogue chutes after entry flames dissipate. Main chutes follow shortly afterwards. The drogue chutes are on a structure above the lander and will later be decoupled. 3) Drop retro-pack, turn on main engines. Can be helpful for reducing touchdown speed. 4) Deploy landing legs. 5) Land. 6) Detach the drogue chute structure and the extra main chutes. They have separtrons to fly off and explode around the craft. Because everything's better with powered separation. Very kerbal. 7) Detach most of the landing legs. More explosions. 8) Liftoff! Detach the remaining landing legs and the ladders. Lovely lovely explosions AS YOU TAKE OFF. 9) Follow standard FAR ascent profile. The rocket is asparagus-staged to reduce overall cross-section on ascent. I've seen people using detachable landing structures on eve ascent vehicles, but that was to reduce mass (which is also nice with FAR).

Let me clarify: I really like FAR's aerodynamic model and I do think it's really good. What I was trying to say is that vehicles that would work perfectly fine under the stock aerodynamics will flip out of control or have lots of drag under FAR's aerodynamic model. My original laythe SSTO is more horizontal than vertical. Plus it has lots of intakes and other objects that would produce lots of drag. So I'm not ranting about FAR. I'm mostly inquiring right now because there's not much information about using FAR on bodies other than Kerbin. My main reason for using FAR is so that I don't have to relearn how to build craft once Squad improves the aerodynamic model. That, and I enjoy the reduced delta-v requirements for getting to LKO. Once I can upload some pictures, it'll be easier to explain each craft. Fun fact: I made a Gloster Meteor-lookalike plane recently. With stock aerodynamics, it can easily reach 1.2km/s, but it's only a subsonic plane with FAR. Just like the real Meteor. I usually only use MJ for pinpoint landings on atmospheric bodies, matching velocities at closest approach, and seeing where Kerbin will be during a future transfer window.

Or at least that's my impression so far. See, without FAR, I can use mechjeb to automatically land me on one of the islands. Even I do a manual landing and miss an island, I only need a couple of turbojets to have cross-range capability. Pop the chutes, land, and then take off again. Without FAR, I could just make a typical vertical SSTO with lots of turbojets, aerospikes, RAPIERs, intake spam and attach everything I need. I can make a wide stubby lander that spreads the load out. Yeah. I think I should've done my laythe landing BEFORE I installed FAR, because it's aerodynamics are obviously crap. More crap than I expected. Everything except the aerodynamics works. Oh and I put the lander can on backwards. So I've made four single-kerbal ascent vehicles to rescue my crew. It's simple and it works. Only thing I don't like is the need to weigh down the W key for an hour so as my kerbals make the hike. I'm also working on a 3-7 kerbal ascent vehicle, which is more complicated and produces more explosions (and thus is more kerbal). The point behind this is that these vehicles are like something players would use to escape Eve, but with less Delta-V. Laythe feels like Eve with FAR installed. Pop the chutes when you go in, enjoy the gravity at surface, use one specialized vehicle to leave. Except that Laythe has more oceans than Eve to sink/explode in, plus I want a reusable craft (like my original vehicle). So spaceplanes seem like the best choice for me. Except that I'm crap at making spaceplanes and crap at flying them. But having a workable design would help. I'm also open to using airships for Laythe ascent vehicles. Anyway, who's flown on Laythe or Eve with FAR installed? And are there any FAR-compatible Laythe spaceplanes out there?

Well it's a good thing KSP doesn't require a constant internet connection to play. Only needs to be connected for updates and mods.

Tried to deorbit my nuclear tug. Failed spectacularly. Need quantum struts between the parachute packs and the main craft, to say the least. Also, KAS is a meanie. Grab the box? BOOM BLOW UP YOUR SPACECRAFT. Grab magnet attached to a winch? BOOM YOU KILLED YOUR BUDDY IN THE SPACECRAFT. Try towing in a winch? The magnet knocked your docking port off.

I've tried following the install instructions for Mac and it doesn't work. For one, I don't have any application to run the script on, and terminal doesn't do anything when I put in the script. With KW, I followed the instructions shown and it make all my KW craft unable to load. I'm confused.