Search the Community

KSP: 1.2.2 Windows 64bit Problem: Mars entry glitchy. My ship start spining and become uncontrollable after pass 124 000 Km. Mods installed: https://ibb.co/eCHKuR https://ibb.co/jpJg8m https://ibb.co/gZMvZR Reproduction step : Start Mars entry , in any angle it start spining , and become uncontrollable. I've try dozen of ship , with wings , high rcs power. Pod with heatshield are less glitchy. Log : Can't find it sorry Thank you for your time. Ps: Sorry for my bad inglish , i'm French.

Hello, and this will be the dev thread for my upcoming mod, Kerbobulus Space Industries, which strives to recreate near future spacecraft (not to be confused with @Nertea's wonderful NFT mods), such as the CST-100, and Orion (not the nuclear one, the one NASA is currently developing) in a porkalike style. Currently, I am working on the CST-100, and am about 3/4 of the way through with the service portion. Still, you should expect more coming in the near future. Without further ado, here is the current progress! Downloads: Kerbobulus Space Industries - Miscellaneous Parts Division: Spacedock Legacy dev pics

I was intrigued with Elon Musk's tweet about launching his Tesla Roadster to the "orbit of mars". I had RSS setup in KSP and decided to simulate such a launch using Shadowmage's SSTU mod to make a Falcon Heavy and a demo payload. I proved to myself that such a mission was possible. I made a video of the result using camera tools: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Simulation in KSP. Can't wait for the real life launch!

can someone make a curiosity mod like DSL pandora that's up to date with a working skycrane

Hey guys, so I'm having trouble sending a probe to Mars in RSS. I'm using Stockalike RF and Kerbalism as my realism mods instead of RO. The problem I'm having is inconsistent, which is driving me even crazier. So if anyone has any ideas, I'd be very grateful. Basically, when I time warp at high rates for a while in tracking or space center, then go back to the probe, half the time it is in pieces. The engineer's report says there were "structural failure or linkage" between several parts, almost always topped by the jumbo fuel tank and its linkages. Any idea what could be causing this? If it's helpful at all, here's my modlist (KSP 1.2.2): CactEye Telescopes Chatterer Colision FX Community Resource Pack Contract Configurator Distant Object Enhancement Docking Port Sounds Engine Lighting EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements (RSSVE) EVA Transfer Ferram Aerospace Research Flight Management for Recoverable Stages & Recovery Control Heat Pumps (RF) Historical Progression Tech Tree Kerbal Alarm Clock Kerbal Engineer Kerbalism Kerbal Launch Failure Kopernicus Launch Countdown Modular Flight Integrator NavBall Texture Changer NavHud Orbital Decay & Solar Cycle System Precise Node QuickSAS & QuickStart Real Fuels & RF Stockalike Real Plume Real Heat Real Solar System Reentry Particle Effects RSS Visual Enhancements Scatterer Smoke Screen Solver Engines TankLock Texture Replacer Trajectories Transfer WindowPlanner Ven's Stock Revamp Module Manager of course

Hi everyone! I just wanted to share my latest and best creation, real life Lockheed Martin's Mars Base Camp. For those of you who don't know what it is, I recommend you watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLpZUMfIJX0&t=72s You can watch more of my content on my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdCcDVpmo_ZRyYNObtKZhfA I had to use many mods (really, MANY mods), so many that I don't even remember which ones are needed for this vessel, I even had to modify some to change part sizes so I can't provide a download link because it would be useless. Nevertheless, enjoy the photos and please let me know what you think! Mars Base Camp was just finished around the Moon Mars Base camp arrived on Mars and Ronie Kerman is enjoying the spacewalk I kind of invented how the Martian lunar exploration may work based on the images provided by Lockheed Martin, I hope I got it right. Dammit, a micrometeorite just hit the fuel tanks, let’s check them… We may not be landing on Mars yet, but we are not leaving before a visit to Deimos Ronie is eager to collect some surface samples We descend during a beautiful Martian eclipse And we start the exploration of a small new world Good news, astronauts just got back from their mission with a lot of valuable data Time flies, we’ve already spent a year on the Martian system and we have to leave, but don’t you think this is all, the next time we come here it will be to land. It feels great to orbit your own giant piece of dead rock again Astronauts undock the Orion from the Mars Base Camp The crew prepares for a safe ride home I hope you liked it, it was quite a lot of work (and the damm thing wanted to keep blowing up and falling appart) haha.

It seems like the great big Mars colonization discussion has leaked inside threads that are not really intended for it, so I'm making it a seperate thread. Mods, feel free to merge.

Shocked no one has done this yet...but glad, because I wanted to be the one to do it. I'm sure most of us have seen Elon Musk's 2017 IAC presentation, which raises the bar (even though that "bar" is somewhat smaller) tremendously over the 2016 version of BFR/ITS/MCT. If anyone hasn't had a chance to see it, I highly recommend checking it out: What's the challenge? Build the 2017 version of the BFR, of course. Specifically: Build a large two-stage fully-reusable launch system capable of propulsive landings on Duna, Kerbin, and the Mun. It must be capable of in-orbit propellant transfer and needs to be able to deliver substantial payload (at least 20 kerbals, or a fully-functioning autonomous ISRU unit) to Duna. No nukes, ions, jets, rolling landings, or parachutes. Tweakscale is the only allowed part mod for engines and tanks. Once you've demonstrated proof of concept with a single launch, subsequent launches (for refueling, etc.) may use the debug menu to get into orbit. You can also use Unbreakable Joints and No Crash Damage as long as your landings are under 5 m/s. The scoring system is designed so that the closer you make your version to the one revealed by Musk, the more points you get. I may add additional ways of earning points as the challenge progresses, but I'll try to keep it balanced. Scoring: Basic challenge (two-stage, reusable, propulsive landings on Duna, Kerbin, and the Mun): 5,000 points Booster executes RTLS: 200 points Dedicated propellant transfer ports in tail: 50 points Single-stage to Mun and back to Kerbin after Kerbin orbit refueling: 600 points Demonstrate single-stage return from Duna to Kerbin after Duna ISRU: 800 points Six engines on second stage: 60 points Thirty-one engines on first stage: 31 points No reaction wheels: 200 points No monoprop (Vernor engine RCS only): 175 points Booster lands in launch cradle: 650 points Delta wings on second stage: 85 points Dedicated crew vehicle, cargo vehicle, tanker: 400 points Ties are broken by total upper stage dry mass, the lighter, the better.

You could have made the same argument about any colonization or exploration people have ever made in the past. And it would be wrong in almost every case.

I really do need to make a space station and shuttle, now. Problems, problems

This thread is for the discussion of Aldrin Cycler Ships. First of all, an introduction to the topic- since most readers on this forum are undoubtedly unfamiliar with the concept, and the last time I wrote about it (many months ago) I received a lot of responses from people who clearly had no idea what they were talking about... Please read ALL of the following first, before commenting, I would really appreciate it. None of these are that long, and are only meant to provide a preliminary introduction to the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/aldrin-mars-cycler/ https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3880/what-uses-would-the-aldrin-cycler-have And, for more context I HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading these articles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a333/2076326/ https://www.damninteresting.com/the-martian-express/ Please read through at least the first three links, and the fourth and fifth ones if you can, and let me know your thoughts on the concept: advantages or disadvantages, synergies with other approaches/technologies, etc. Regards, Northstar

i just wonder which way to send kerbal into mars are the best way? I wonder what would be if i send one refuelling station in low Kerbin orbit and the second station to DUNA Orbit??? but never tried it though Or maybe send Kerbals there and than figure somehow how get them back BTW i wonder does we can try this IRL in MARS

Just wondering who you guys think will send humans to Mars first.

Here is a basic scenario: Mars is a habitable tundra-cold desert planet with a habitable atmosphere with a similar composition and pressure to Earth's. Different biomes cover the different latitudes: Poles+ Subarctic: Ice caps Temperate: Tundra Tropical: Boreal Forest, Dry Grassland- sometimes wetter temperate forests where climatic conditions make it possible. There are human- like Aliens of similar technological level to nomadic American first nations in 1000AD. They are of common biological ancestry. The year is 2100. We have the capability to colonize Mars, however, the fact it is already inhabited (in a sense) is a... problem. How would humanity act? I'm not talking about specific nations, or superpowers here (b/c no politics rule), I'm talking about a general RANGE of attitudes from inaginary POSSIBLE colonizing organizations. Would it be spearheaded by private corporations? Small Nations trying to become great powers? Who would be the colonizers? Lower class people in developed nations? Upper class people in developing nations? What about the 'people' already living there? Do we 'buy' out their land into reservations gradually? Do we fight them? Do we try to keep our colonies compact? How long can both sides aboid conflict. NO POLITICS OR FLAME WARS. PLEASE.

Hello , I'm trying to land very heavy payloads on Mars and for this I'm using a gliding technique (Pretty much like the Space Shuttle). My first payload , the Mars Ascent Vehicle (201 tons) lands safely on Mars with Gliding+Parachute+Retro rockets As you can see the CoT is below the CoM, which is below the CoL and I can tilt it at 40 degrees without problems (so it's pretty stable). But for some reason.. This is the MDV.It flips in the air if it's more than 25 degrees inclined(I need around 30-40 to slow down) In the Mars Descent Vehicle the CoT is above the CoM and CoL.I have no idea why this happens and how to fix it.Is this why it flips?Thanks for the answers.

Wow. Just look at it. Worth mentioning that the footage presented was made by HiRISE camera onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Enjoy~

So..I'm trying to start a colony on Mars in RSS/RO and I'm pretty much stuck.I landed on the Moon and landed some rovers on Mars , no problem.Now I have to land heavier payload on Mars , but it seems I'm not able to do so. This is what I should land.I already tried everything , from parachutes to big heatshields (I don't have small and powerful retro rockets, sadly).So yeah , that's the problem.Thanks for everyone that gives me a tip.

Hi it cratercracker again! And you might think that you are going to make some good old chemical/biological/physical stuff.. SCREW IT Because today, we are going to combine all of this. Have you ever dreamed to be a colonist in the future, in space, in a spaceship, in the middle of the nowhere? Sure you did. But we are talking about less complicated things. Do you think you are ready for an isolation for a whole night? Or how about just one biscuit for 4 hours? Sounds violent, huh? Okay. Ahem, done kidding around. Let's give you some trivia before you start. You are a colonist On Mars You are lone And the sun is a deadly laser Okay. I think you get it now. So. I'll speak with truth and honor, I conducted the experiment myself, and I can clearly say that it is planned so it won't harm you too much or won't harm you at all. Let's get to the plan Preparing~~ Okay. (DON't EAT THE BISCUITS YET) Now, upon it is night. Let's get a bit more planned, so it will be more planned than it was planned before. And now. Now, now, now, now What are we going to do now? I didn't plan it so far. Alright I actually did. (Right now) And after we survived 2 hours after the sunset We are going to survive 1 more... Okay. Now we are tired and wet. Good, just like the real Martian colony. You know what is next? Nothing. Eternal darkness. Experiment is over. The end. Warning Not likely to be done if it is not Sunday, Saturday or Friday. Neither it is good for people younger than 14 years. It doesn't mean anything, you just did a thing. Some not 2.2 stuff, it is different sort of role play If it is actually seems very bad for your health. Take this thread as a joke. NOW YOU ARE AN OFFICIAL COLONIST OF THE TOILET

This mission report is in pursuit of this challenge: as well as: This was my first time ever going interplanetary. I knew I could do this easily enough with ISRU, but I wanted to try something different, since ISRU on Mars isn't nearly so simple as extending a drill into one spot in the ground. I decided I would use chemical engines only with a booster+tanker+ship arrangement. In lieu of Dunian ISRU, I decided I would send one of the tankers along for the ride, aerobraking both in turn but leaving it in orbit around Duna so it could refuel the crew ship for the homeward journey. However, after building my ship, putting it in LKO, and painstakingly refueling it, I realized that my not-very-balanced TSTO design and KSP's smaller scale meant that I had enough dV in my crew ship to get to Duna and back in one piece, so I dropped the tanker-along-for-the-ride plan. The only mod was Tweakscale, and I only used it to decrease part count and streamline aerodynamics. All crew-carrying parts are fully stock. With no further ado: That's the first part! More to come, very soon........

One of the things Elon Musk said in his September 2016 speech about the ITS was that the cost of getting to Mars is essentially infinite right now. In his powerpoint, he put it at $10 billion per person. Now, the logistics of the ITS aside, I wonder how accurate this is. How much WOULD it cost to get humans on Mars? What are the different cost breakdowns of different approaches, and which mission configuration would be best? And, most importantly, what happens if we Kerbal it? The challenge is to send a few Kerbals to Duna, using only currently-available propulsion methods, with enough supplies to live on for the trip, as cheaply as possible. Rules: Propulsion. No nukes and no airbreathers. SABRE isn't up and running, and NTR isn't likely any time soon, so your propulsion needs to be chemical only. No ion engines; we need to assume you're running against some kind of a deadline. ISRU. Nope, sorry. We can't wait around on Duna forever. Payload. Send up to 12 Kerbals to the surface of Duna and bring them back to Kerbin. But they need consumables, right? Let's be very Spartan and say that they each need a total of 0.2 tonnes of food and other consumables for each leg of the trip. You can pack that extra payload any way you want; that's approximately two Science Jrs per Kerbal, and you can ditch up to half of them (they're empty, after all) before you enter Duna's SOI. Prop transfer. This is not only permitted, but encouraged. I highly recommend it. Reuse. Recovery of components is encouraged by a cost reduction as outlined below. Scoring. Your total score is the total mission cost divided by the number of Kerbals you actually land on Duna and return safely. Kerbals which stay in Duna orbit do not count, and dead Kerbals do not count. Any recovered components (reusable launch vehicles, etc.) are counted at 30% of their full cost. You do not have to include the cost of whatever you use for dry mass payload for consumables. The winner is whoever has the lowest score. Mods. No part mods and nothing that would affect scoring, but anything else is fine. I only have the Demo, or I'd make my attempt, but obviously this can be done. I'm mostly interested in seeing HOW it is done, what mission architectures are used, and so forth. Good luck!

I want to share/store documents and plans I (and others!) make for interplanetary missions. I intend to start with basic/boring information, like ballistic coefficients, heat shield information, etc.that will be useful to see for planning a mission. I intend to draw from data of actual carried out or planned missions, but feel free to post information about missions you've carried out with the full RSS/RO/RP-0 stack in KSP 1.1 or 1.2. For starters, I've got this document which lays the ground for a Venus balloon mission. A heatshield is required to slow the craft down at Venus, of course, but the idea is that a balloon/probe combination would be great for gathering information from Venus. I also have the notion that using a balloon would be the best way to attempt to bring a probe back to Venus' orbit from the surface of Venus. Once the balloon & payload are up past most of the atmosphere, a rocket could be used to rise the rest of the way to orbit. https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SSPO/SP/VenusUpper/Presentations/gage_VenusEntryBalloonsUAVs.pdf

Well, for so many years, science fiction writers and scientists have dreamed of terraforming a planet. I think it just might be possible, but not for a VERY long time. (At least 50 years) How would we do it? For a start, we would have to increase the pressure of Mars's atmosphere. After that, we would have to increase the temperature of Mars by quite a bit. Of course, we would have to get water. For that, we would melt the ice caps, which would give us water and Co2. Soon, we would have to slowly begin growing algae and other oxygen releasing plants in greenhouses, which in turn would put the Oxygen into the atmosphere. However, bad news for Terraforming: http://www.space.com/31044-mars-terraforming-nasa-maven-mission.html After tens of thousands of years, we might have a breathable atmosphere to live in. What are your thoughts? Do you agree?

As the name implies, I am wondering what are the most efficient gravity turns for Earth and Mars? I don't know if RSS and Real Life gravity turns are the same, but I am wanting real life and not RSS, unless, of course, they are the same. Lastly, how do I calculate Delta-V?

I thought I'd make a thread highlighting some of the the problems that future mars colonists might face. The first problem that would need to be overcome would be how the colony would be re-supplied until it became self sufficient. Re-supply missions might take as long as 16 months to reach mars, deliver its cargo, and return to earth. Unless a new engine technology were perfected, such as EM drive, a large fleet of re-usable spacecraft would need to be built to re-supply the colony. Another problem is more on the moral side. Assuming the colony was built, what kind of laws would be made to protect the colonists, and how would these laws be enforced? Should the colonists be medically altered to adapt them more for a life in space? Children born on mars might never be able to return to earth because their weaker skeletal and muscular systems might be fatally damaged by earth's higher gravity. Mars colonists would have a much higher risk of cancer due to higher radiation levels. In a closed environment such as a habitation module or, eventually a closed cell city, with so many colonists close together, would epidemics would be much more prone to occur? I don't mean to be pessimistic, I am totally in favor of a mars colony, but these are all unanswered questions that will need to be addressed before such an undertaking. We are at a crossroads, both technologically and morally and our decision will impact future generations for decades to come. My question is, which way, humanity?

A subject that has long fascinated me, the idea that someday, decades or centuries after colonizing the planet, humans might someday be able to fly drones or even manned vehicles around Mars. To be clear, this is completely impractical as an exploration concept. NASA would have better luck with rovers or craft modeled after ultra high-altitude balloons here on Earth- which can reach altitudes exceeding 170,000 feet here on Earth (certainly high enough to fly in Mars' lower gravity and denser gaa composition). But I like to wonder and dream about whether we'll someday see winged aircraft on Mars... The non-rocket aircraft with the current altitude record for level flight is the NASA Helios H-1, which reached level flight at 96,863 feet on August 13, 2001. It was a subsonic monoplane flying-wing solar-electric propeller aircraft with an aspect-ratio of almost 31:1, a wing-area of 1976 sq ft, a wing-loading of 0.81 lb/sq ft, no wing-sweep, and a total gross weight of just 1600 lbs. Mars' mean molar mass is about 43.34 g/mol, as opposed to about 29 g/mol on Earth, and the highest atmospheric pressure is found in Hellas Planitia is about 1,155 Pascals (by contrast Earth's sea-level pressure is defined as 101,325 Pascals). So, the highest density air on Mars should have a density about (1155/101325) * (43.34/29) = 1.703% Earth's sea-level density, equivalent to the density of air at about 95,000 ft (28.956 km) on Earth... This is already just barely within the flight-envelope of an aircraft with specifications similar to the Helios H-1 (which could fly at altitudes over 96,000 ft), but Mars' lower gravity should allow aircraft to fly substantially higher due to the reduced lift requirements, and allow different optimization of aircraft to obtain higher total lift and altitude-ceiling at the expense of mass. What I am curious about, specifically, is what the best design characteristics would be of a winged aircraft on Mars... Would a solar electric-propeller monoplane like the Helios H-1 be the best option available? (even with radically improved materials, something like this couldn't be expected to fly more than a few thousand meters above the lowest-altitude parts of Mars with surface elevations below the nominal "sea level" of Mars...) Or would it be worthwhile to go with something like a biplane or even triplane design to obtain lower wing-loading and better aspect-ratio? (the Helios H-1 wings were 11.5 inches from front to back. With a biplane design, a better aspect-ratio could be achieved by making the wings thinner, to obtain similar wing-area while extending just as far from the Center of Mass...) This was actually a design-strategy in some early aircraft that allowed higher altitude-ceiling, climb-rate, and better maneuverability on some early fighter designs at the expense of top speed- and on Mars, where attitude-ceiling would be the driving design-constraint, this would probably be a worthwhile tradeoff as well... Alternatively, if provided with electric supersonic jet engines (similar to what Elon Musk likes to fancifully talk about today) or even nuclear-thermal supersonic turbojets, a better strategy might be to opt for speed instead of low wing-loading to keep winged aircraft airborne. This would require slightly futuristic propulsion methods, but there is nothing about the laws of physics that forbids obtaining your propulsion energy from batteries, solar panels, fuel-cells, and/or a tiny nuclear reactor instead of combustion. .. Supersonic design concepts might also be aided by breakthroughs in airframe design, if the Japan/MIT concept of a supersonic biplane ever comes to fruition- in which two wings are placed such that the shockwaves from each destructively interfere with each other, producing less than half the wave drag of a comparable wing-area monoplane and reduced sonic-boom. However these designs have significant difficulty with low-speed flight, and while they might be able to fly perfectly well at low altitudes on Mars, would probably have extremely high takeoff and landing speeds that would require impractically long and smooth runways for even the lightest of craft... These ideas might all seem fanciful or even impossible, but they are not so pie-in-the sky as one might think, and I would appreciate if all individuals responding to this post keep the discussion optimistic and non-critical. Let me repeat myself- these concepts are on the very edge of what is possible, and many of you may feel they are *impossible*. I do not mean this as a form of backseat or pre-emptive moderation, but I would appreciate if those of you who are critics and cynics respect those of us who would like to have a positive discussion of this concept, by refraining from quickly jumping to make such statements- as they will drown out all other discussion if you do not control yourselves from making highly-critical statements to this effect. Out of respect for myself and other forum users, please avoid statements here to the effect that flight on Mars is impossible- the assumption that most people probably hold, and this discussion is meant to reconsider. Regards, Northstar