hieywiey

WOO! Tundra Exploration v0-4-2-0 CRS-7 Commemorative Edition!

Could you make a hub module like Unity IRL? I think a 1 Kerbal capacity would be good.

First, make the trunk have the see-through thingy that the fairings have (if that's possible). Second, have a circular pallet (a grid/lattice like object) that is only slightly smaller than the interior of the trunk, as I find that I can stuff multiple things into the trunk using IR's extendatrons.

Do you think the SLS and Orion MPCV will be cancelled like Project Constellation before the Manned Mars Landing or even ARM?

Please close this thread

After you finish the 747, can you make the little engine cover thingy used on some of the ALT flights? Also, is there any way to make the gear not retractable once deployed? I will try to make a Centaur-G when I have the time, and maybe the little pivot thingy. But what is the diameter of the cargo bay? EDIT: Now that I found Saab's Historical Pack which has a nearly completed Centaur-G and Centaur-G Prime, I may not make one myself unless they don't fit in the CSS' cargo bay. In that case I would either get permission to make a ModuleManager config from him to scale it properly or make my own. It would most likely have the actual ISP of an RL-10, maybe the same thrust, and use LH2/LOX resources from the cyrogenic engines mod by Nertea.

Could you make an easier way to load cargo into the trunk? Like a payload rack that fits into it?

The IR toolbar (not the stock one) tool in the VAB doesn't open when I click on it. Is that the toolbar mod's fault, or IR's? I'm using 1.0.4 if that helps.

I think that the SLS will only be used to it's full potential if a President challenges the nation to do something like JFK did with Apollo. Congress didn't care how much Apollo cost, they just cared that they landed on the moon before the Soviets. If a future president wants to land people from their country on Mars before another country, congress would fund it no matter how expensive it is. The SLS will definitely have fewer launches per year than the Shuttle, because less of it is reusable. But, the Shuttle's $1 billion pricetag may have partially because it was not expendable; the reusable-ness was more of an advantage in launches per year than cost. Mainly due to recovery costs from the boosters and refurbishing everything. The SLS' first flight should be a manned lunar landing, since we should at least get something out of it besides a circumlunar flyby and a asteroid rendezvous before it gets cancelled. Orion imo should have a Soyuz-like orbital module on top in the form of a BA-330.

Today's Question: Why don't we put a space center on Mt. Everest? What are it's advantages and disadvantages? Well, here's what I came up with after about 15 minutes of research. Distance to Kármán line in meters from the highest peaks of tall mountains: 91,152 Everest 91,389 K2 (Not the Kerbal one) 93,038 Aconcagua 93,832 Mt. McKinley 94,105 Mt. Kilimanjaro 95,705 Mauna Kea VS. Distance to Kármán line in meters from Space Centers/Cosmodromes: 99,997 Kennedy Space Center (NASA, SpaceX, United States) 99,987.8 Wallops Island (SSIA, Orbital ATK, United States) 99,909 Baikonur Cosmodrome (Roscosmos, Russia) ????? Guiana Space Center (ESA, European Union) 100,000 SeaLaunch (Private) 99,888 Vandenburg AFB (USAF, Orbital, NASA, SpaceX, United States) The launch facility wouldn't be placed on top of the mountain peak, instead on a suitable area somewhere on it. Ok, now it's time for pros/cons! Advantages to launch facilities at higher altitudes: •Greater engine efficiency •Less distance to travel to escape the atmosphere •Good for sounding rockets that need to go higher •Could create jobs in surrounding area Disadvantages to launch facilities at higher altitudes: •You have to get a heavy rocket up on top of a mountain •Rocket exhaust may trigger avalanches if on a snow-covered area •Hypergolic fuels (Hydrazine, Aerozine, UDMH) are toxic, and may damage wildlife and surrounding ecosystem •Challenger-esque SRB problems because of colder temperatures at higher altitudes •Damage from precipitation •Angry bear attacks •Spent stages may fall onto inhabited areas, depending on site •Putting a launch facility on a (presumably) inclined area would be difficult •SpaceX-style stage recovery, and stage recovery in general wouldn't be very plausible (if area isn't surrounded by/near water) •Mountain climbers and locals might not be too happy about it •A ton of other things I'm too lazy to list I know I kinda went overboard with the horizontal lines, I just discovered them so I have this urge to use them a ton.

The Super 67 Heatshield turns into a Super 100 one upon launch, it says "Super 100 Heatshield" when I right click it, it is 3.75m but has 800 ablator. Is TweakScale to blame?

Am I the only one who now finds myself docking multiple times unnecessarily just to hear those sounds? - - - Updated - - - Firstly, the Stock Clamp-O-Trons seem to attach via magnets unlike irl. But, don't argue with cool stuff! - - - Updated - - - Firstly, the Stock Clamp-O-Trons seem to attach via magnets unlike irl. But, don't argue with cool stuff! And anyway, the engines make sounds in a vacuum in KSP, so why wouldn't docking ports?

I also think TweakScale *may* scale the heat tolerance too, as I find that scaled-down parts overheat for no reason. But I haven't tested that scientifically. Also, maybe you should see if that is fixed in 1.0.4, as that's the latest version, although I haven't used it yet. I personally don't really like the heating system, it most of the time makes parts overheat for literally no reason; I would like if it made parts seperate from each other first instead of just overheating, I also think the atmospheric (reentry and mach) effects need to be redone since they're kinda boring.

Could you make a optional version of the Rodan that fits the Clamp-o-Tron from Ven's Stock Revamp? Since it kinda pokes out.

Well, Kerbals have magical technology that allows that. And, the Boeing 787 for example is part electric; meaning it's like a flying Prius. I don't think its OP at all, except maybe on Duna. It weighs quite a lot compared to stock jet engines, can only be radially mounted, requires a sufficient power source, and are limited to subsonic speeds. Think of it like an electric R/C plane on steroids, and since the kerbal universe is â…†of ours it could be technically possible. I look forward to using it for an Eve plane lander, to take advantage of the thick atmosphere.

These are the most kerbal antennas I've ever seen! Great (and Hilariously great) work!

Will you remake the lander portion from your Kerbal Deep Transportation System, as this is pretty much an evolution of that.

Aren't they working on making KK structures able to feed resources? But, I'd be willing to give up the resource generation for KK launch site functionality. - - - Updated - - - Could you make a quick RealChute config for the tail chute? I have no idea how to make one myself.

I don't exactly understand how a lot of plugin stuff works, but could you make the pad a KerbalKonstructs launch site? Also, does the pad part generate fuel, electricity, and/or have launch clamp functionality?

It seems like years since the last boat mod! Finally I can make attractive floating Eve sacrificial altars rave party boats in style!

If the RPM part of it wasn't so memory intensive, I would always use it. I have never really found RPM to be useful, only nifty and cool; ALCOR uses it best imo. If I have B9, the game can't handle having both Ven's Stock Revamp (which is "an absolute 'must have' for me.") and B9 installed at once. CSS (Component Space Shuttle) is one of my favorite mods of all time (I'm talking of any game ever), mainly due to my love for the real Space Shuttle. Having that absolutely beautiful spacecraft in a game where I can do whatever I want is just plain awesome! It has also increased my appreciation of it and my mourning for its cancellation/retirement (no tears shed though). I can give the cancelled missions another chance, push it's limits, and use it to its full potential which was sadly never truly realized (I mean the entire Space Transportation System, which included the Space Shuttle, a Space Tug, and a Nuclear Shuttle Vehicle. The Space Shuttle was the only built component, although the Space Tug was planned to be "half-donkey'd" [sorry for the avoided profanity, but I couldn't think of any other way to express it. Blame the English language! ] as the Centaur-G; but was sadly stopped by the Challenger Disaster). Ok, back to the main topic: I think that KAX's propeller engines should be earlier on than jets, It seems very wrong to have both at the same time.

Could you also have a streaming feature so my Kerbals can do livestreams from space stations in order to gain publicity? Like having a Human Space Program (I've always liked the idea of Kerbals having a game of us as a kerbal analog for KSP) competition onboard a mission to Duna, that could be done through a simple right click menu option called "Start Human Space Program Competition Livestream."

In case anyone wants/needs this for reference, here is the link to the massive Shuttle User Manual: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf. It goes into lots of detail about the dimensions, all of the systems and subsystems, nominal mission profiles, abort modes, landing, and all sorts of useful information.

Also could you make the cargo Dreamchaser? I still wish SNC would be less secretive about some stuff though, like that time during a landing test one of the gear didn't deploy. They STILL haven't released footage of that. https://youtu.be/uHJ2QV0nPEA