Search the Community

The only that matters is the structure of how the information is related. Once we understand how this process work and how to replicate.. then an AI superior to us would emerge without even noticing. You think that we are so much intelligent that cats or monkey just becouse we have cars, or internet? Why if you born in the jungle and a couple of chimps take care of you? You would not know how to make fire, how to make a trap (that idea will never cross your mind), how to hunt, unless the chimps teach you. Yeah, thats right. All the things that we know and have; is becouse our culture, millons and millons of discoveries by error or chance, transmited from generation into generation. The only difference that we might have with other animals is a different mind structure which gives us better chance to think out the box, or to relate information, etc. Also we are very good copying behaviors. But if a computer can relate information in the way that a brain does it.. Then it can scan all the internet in just some days and know all the things that we know and more in just days or less. So how you really dare to said that you would be able to "understand" and "talk" with such artificial awareness..

That's a lot of Ks there It's still really, really early to talk about what will and won't be in multiplayer. The groundwork for that is still being laid down. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Sounds fun.

I forgot to talk about the action groups, so I added them. Also, can I please get some feedback on the design? I'd like to know what people think of my crafts.

well... G (1e9) M (1e6) K (1e3) d (1/10) c (1/100) m (1/1e3) mju (1/1e6) n (1/1e7) p (1/1e9) you cant even get your understanding on prefixes right... and then you proceed to talk like as if you know what you are talking about.... hm....

I've suggested this before and I'll keep suggesting it until some of these unbalanced engines are either balanced or given an excuse for why they are out of balance. Even just moving them up or down the tech tree would make a positive difference, though if that's going to happen, it would be nice to see lower and higher tech versions of the same basic engines. However for the stock space program as early in development as the game is, I think it makes sense for all engines to be on par with each other, so that they all have uses in sandbox and after unlocking the whole tech tree. Quick reference: section 1 is about lander engines, section 2 about lifter engines, and section 3 about radial engines. Section 1 It can be difficult to find base values for engines, a "par" if you will that the other should measure up to, when there are so few engines to choose from. But I am seeing a few patterns in here. For starters, the "lander engines", the 390 Isp LV-909 and Rockomax Poodle have about 10:1 TWR on Kerbin. They aren't very good as lifter engines to get to Kerbin orbit because they lose Isp more strongly in atmosphere and don't have the kind of TWR you want to have, but they can work as lifters if that's how you want to use them. The Poodle has inferior attributes to the LV-909 because it has less TWR (~9:1) for the same Isp. The 909 is already a bit unpopular because its substantially lower TWR isn't fully made up for by its only slightly better vacuum Isp (390 in comparison to 370 of the LV-T30/45). A lot of people choose it for being smaller and lighter than the T30/45 when they aren't really needing to be picky other than choosing an engine that doesn't take up a lot of space or mass. Speaking of space and mass, the massive space-hog of the Poodle is quite a bit taller than the large landing legs and it also has a poor TWR. Due to this, it is unpopular and mostly used by people who just want to slap a single engine on rather than deal with trying to mount multiple smaller engines (which is more powerful and efficient even with the added coupler mass) or they want to mount something 2.5m underneath and don't want to deal with the poor attachment of a flipped coupler underneath multiple engines. But I don't think that's any excuse for the Poodle to have such pathetic attributes. I think the Poodle should be both more powerful (to match its size) and mroe efficient (to match the LV-909). So we know that the LV-909 certainly has the TWR necessary to make a popular lander engine for airless landings (usually low-G), and really the only thing holding it back from being a loved engine is that it doesn't have enough of an Isp margin to make its efficiency stand out and make up for the lost TWR. But before we knock it up to 400+, I think I can provide some reasoning why the vacuum Isp of lander engines could be decreased without actually hurting their ability to lift off. Before that, however, I will cut the threadnought with my proposed adjusted attributes for the "lander engines". I haven't changed the LV-909--it'll shine along with my other suggestions. Lander Engines................................................................................ LV-909: Mass: 0.5 t Thrust: 50 kN Isp: 300 - 390 s TMR/10: 10:1 Rockomax "Poodle": Mass: 3.0 t Thrust: 300 kN Isp: 280 - 390 s TMR/10: 10:1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2 In this section I will be discussing lifter engines. The lifter engines are the Mainsail, Skipper, LV-T30/LV-T45, and the 48-7S. These engines have a high TWR which is important for getting rocks out of Kerbin's intense gravity well and out into space. They are reasonably efficient as well, for they have to fight against Kerbin's thick atmosphere, but are not as efficient as a less powerful lander engine. Here is a comparison of the approximate Kerbin TWR and Isp of these engines: (I'm using TMR/10 instead of TWR for easier math) Engine: TMR/10 // Isp air - vacuum Mainsail: 25.0:1 // 280 - 330 s Skipper: 16.3:1 // 300 - 350 s LV-T30: 17.2:1 // 320 - 370 s LV-T45: 13.3:1 // 320 - 370 s 48-7S: 30:1 // 300 - 350 s There is a bit of a trend here toward the more powerful engines being less efficient, though it is imperfect. The Mainsail has a better TWR than the Skipper but is less efficient. Likewise, the 48-7S has more TWR than LV-T30/45 but is less efficient. But the Mainsail and the 48-7S clearly shine as the top TWR lifters yet the 48-7S is not only the greater of the two (in terms of TWR) but has better efficiency too. The Skipper has the same middle efficiency as the 48-7S but lower TWR like the more efficient LV-T30. The LV-T45 doesn't have much more TWR than a lander engine. We know that it's pretty easy to get decent payloads into orbit with the LV-T45, likely due in part to its high efficiency. It wasn't even difficult back when its thrust was lower. Now since the LV-T30 is the only engine here without thrust vectoring, we want to base its attributes off the finalized LV-T45 which we want to balance first. Right off the bat, I think it could be made into more of a lifter engine and leave the lander engine functionality to the 909 by reducing its Isp to the middle value: 300-350s of the Skipper and 48-7S. Then we can increase its TWR to something more like the LV-T30 or Skipper. It will certainly be a great engine with this rebalancing, and will be the mainstay of 1.25 meter lifter engines with thrust vectoring (if not the only one). We could accomplish this either by decreasing its mass, increasing its thrust, or a composite of both. Here's a figure I like: 1.25 tons and 200 kN thrust. That brings its TMR/10 to 16.0, right next to the Skipper. Now the next problem I have with the Skipper is that it is too weak for how large it is. It takes up 4x the ground space of the LV-T45 and is taller, it should be over 4x the mass and thrust. Otherwise you get a smaller and more powerful engine set out of a quad coupler and 4 LV-T45s. But here's another thought: I think the Skipper is supposed to be a more efficient middle-stage engine, combining decent thrust with decent efficiency. After all, it says that in the description. Its bell is also more narrow than most lifter engines. So we could make it into a lower TWR higher Isp engine. If we keep its current thrust of 650kN and shoot for a TWR more like the existing LV-T45, we can adjust its mass to 5 tons and get a TMR/10 of 13.0. Then we can give it the 320-370 Isp of the T30/45, or even put it midway in the trend of lander engines losing efficiency in air faster than lifter engines, and give it 300-370 Isp. Now the Skipper is both powerful and efficient! With this setup, it would actually be rather popular as a mid-stage engine, either for final boost to orbit or for launching out of orbit on an Hohmann transfer intercept to another planet, taking full advantage of the Oberth effect while not losing much to lifter engine inefficiency. Now on to the really powerful lifters, the Mainsail and 48-7S. I haven't forgotten about the LV-T30 or the Isp thing I was going to talk about earlier. I'm going to bring up the LV-T30 in a moment in fact. So the Mainsail has both incredible power and incredible TWR. Its thrust is nearly 8x as great as an LV-T45, which matches its greater size. It's not nearly 8x as heavy though, lending to its really high TWR. Part of me feels its mass should be increased just because of its incredible size. I've figured in the past that 9 tons would make more sense than the 6 tons it is now (1.25x8=10). If we didn't adjust its thrust, its TMR/10 would become 16.67, about where the Skipper is. So lets increase its thrust by 50% as well, to 2250 kN. That's a big and powerful engine! It's quite a bit less efficient than the Skipper to balance it out. It's too powerful you say? I disagree, and I think the reason you might say that is due to the lack of a high-power low-efficiency engine in the 1.25m range. Which brings me to the LV-T30. Also, the most powerful engines should lack thrust vectoring I think, since fron an engineering standpoint having positive control of the engine bell means you didn't build it as big as you could have. So lets take thrust vectoring off the Mainsail and make the LV-T30 into a smaller version of it. If we keep the 1.25 ton mass of the T30 and give it a TWR of about 25 like the Mainsail, we can set its thrust to 325, giving it a TMR/10 of 26.0. Now the 48-7S can be fixed by nerfing its Isp to the 280-330 of the Mainsail and our new LV-T30. It still has a significantly higher TWR than the mainsail or T30 but it's more reasonable. We could adjust it further but I wouldn't say it's out of whack anymore, at least not in relation to the other heavy lifters. Then again, the Isp difference between 280-330 and 300-350 is a difference of about 6-7% while the TWR difference between our heavy lifters and the medium lifter LV-T45 is over 50%. So lets go with something more reasonable, like a TWR of 20. I think this is better than decreasing their efficiency because they need some efficiency to get out of Kerbin's atmosphere, also nobody likes an engine that basically dumps fuel out the back rather than burning the stuff. Without changing the mass of the rockets, we can set the Mainsail's thrust to 1800 and the LV-T30's thrust to 250. So they are both still more powerful than the old versions, but with either reduced TWR or Isp. The Mainsail should lift the same size rockets as before, if not bigger, so I don't think anyone will complain that its mass makes more sense for its size now. And I bet people would love the new medium-mount heavy-lifter as well as the greater distinction between the T30 and the T45. Finally, to bring the overpowerful Rockomax 48-7S in line with the changes (currently 30kN and 0.1 tons), we can either cut its thrust to 20kN or raise its mass to 0.15 tons. I'm leaning toward the second one because its a 0.625m rocket. The size of its base is a quarter of that of the 1.25m rockets, and it is a lot shorter. If we put its attributes in-line with being a heavy lifter 1/8th the size of the LV-T30, that means it should have about 0.15 tons mass and 30kN of thrust. And then it should be taller than it is and have a bigger engine bell. Now before I present my finalized lifter engine figures, I want to discuss changing the Isp a bit. Above, I already put the Isp values lower for our more powerful lifter engines. Only the Skipper has 370 Isp in vacuum, but even 350 isn't that far behind the top 390 of the lander engines. My idea to make the lander engines shine even more at their job is to lower the top efficiency of lifter engines while leaving their Kerbin launchpad efficiency the same or possibly increasing it. Instead of 280-330, we could have 290-320, which will leave them about as effective as lifter engines as before, but will increase the vacuum Isp margin between them and the lander engines. It will also increase their efficiency in Eve launches, as they will have a greater resistance to the high air pressure. They won't take away the job of aerospike engines in any way, but can add other options to make degining Eve launch vehicles a bit more fluid. Now the greater launchpad efficiency doesn't actually make these engines more efficient at launch, because that air pressure drops off quickly and engine efficiency is almost at vacuum level by 10km while your rocket is still getting slowed a lot by the air. But having the efficiency start a bit higher should make up for it going a bit lower further into the launch. Now, without further ado, lifter engine final attributes: Lifter Engines................................................................................ Rockomax 48-7S: Mass: 0.15 t Thrust: 30 kN Isp: 290 - 320 s TMR/10: 20:1 LV-T45: Mass: 1.25 t Thrust: 200 kN Isp: 300 - 350 s TMR/10: 16:1 LV-T30: Mass: 1.25 t Thrust: 250 kN Isp: 290 - 320 s TMR/10: 20:1 Rockomax Skipper: Mass: 5.0 t Thrust: 650 kN Isp: 300 - 370 s TMR/10: 13:1 Rockomax Mainsail: Mass: 9.0 t Thrust: 1800 kN Isp: 290 - 320 s TMR/10: 20:1 And we could even turn that pathetic ant engine into a tiny yet effective lander engine, without even increasing its thrust: LV-1: Mass: 0.015 t Thrust: 1.5 kN Isp: 320 - 390 s TMR/10: 10:1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 3 In this section I will be discussing radial engines. We have the Rockomax Mark 55, the Rockomax 24-77, and the LV-1R. All of these are inefficient engines and I think they're supposed to be. It's so easy to stick engines on the side that it should come at a cost. Radial engines are a band-aid fix to a rocket that doesn't have enough thrust with its in-line engines, or they allow you to build rockets in a huge variety of shapes. Well the efficiency of the engines seems fine, but the Mark 55 isn't all that powerful. Clustering lots of them around a 2.5m rocket doesn't add that much thrust. You can fit 8-9 of them around a 2.5 meter rocket base, and at 120 thrust each, together all of them add 960-1080 kN of thrust to your rocket. It seems weak to me for how much space they take up. Given their poor TWR and fuel inefficiency, I find that on several designs that need a bit more thrust, adding those wont help because they reduce the efficiency too much for how little thrust they add. Maybe they are too weak, maybe they are too inefficient. Well let us address that. Its current TMR/10 is 13.33, similar to the currently existing LV-T45 and my Skipper proposal above. Its Isp is 290-320, same as my proposed Isp for heavy lifters. It is clearly lacking in TWR but perhaps that's reasonable for a radial engine. Lets increase its power to make it actually lift heavy things. If we increase its mass and thrust by 50% to 1.35t and 180kN, you can get as much as 1440-1620 thrust out of these. So if you jam-pack your large rocket base full of these, you can get around as much power out of them as a Mainsail, albeit with less mass efficiency. They will have a combined mass of 10.8-12.15 tons. Seems fair to me. The 24-77 has a TMR/10 of 22.22, which is even higher than our heavy lifters. It's not very fuel efficient, with an Isp of 250-300. I use these a lot because they are small and easy to mount. I wish they had better efficiency and I wouldn't mind giving up some of that thrust or making them have more mass. But I think they're balanced more or less, considering benefit/deficit ratio. The LV-1R is absolutely pathetic. It has a weak TMR/10 of 5:1 and a terrible efficiency of 220-290 Isp. It's pretty much just dumping unburnt fuel out, and not very quickly at that. It's basically a keg tap. Underneath my lifter engine proposals I put a proposal for the LV-1 as a tiny lander engine. Perhaps the LV-1R could be altered the same, as at current its attributes match the LV-1. I would then go a step further and increase its mass to make up for the increased materials needed in installing it on the side of a rocket. So here's my radial engine proposals--the 24-77 hasn't been changed: Radial Engines................................................................................ LV-1R: Mass: 0.02 t Thrust: 1.5 kN Isp: 320 - 390 s TMR/10: 7.5:1 Rockomax 24-77: Mass: 0.09 t Thrust: 20 kN Isp: 250 - 300 s TMR/10: 22.2:1 Rockomax Mark 55: Mass: 1.35 t Thrust: 180 kN Isp: 290 - 320 s TMR/10: 13.3:1 So there's my proposed figures, and why I think these changes make sense. I'd love to hear everyone's responses to my suggestions, any adjustments you'd make, or arguments against anything I have said here. And please, Squad, consider rebalancing the rocket engines. It's annoying that some are clearly better than others.

Yes, but this was a suggestion for them impoving the game. If they don't develop it themselves it turns the game into a hog-pog of incompatible add-ons that crash constatly. Currently I use the 1 add-on that makes the Kerbals talk but may check out some other sound mods. thanks for the heads up.

I talk about files And there's no "cloud.cfg" in the boulderco files. it's for the example. if you don't understand that for see a cloud layer you must edit the both files i can't help you. I made the aurora, and the separate zip cause an admin ask for it and i think it was a good idea. if you don't want to edit anything, you download all the pack, you merge the folder when your OS ask for it and that's all. Thanks. Thanks for all other who made me a lot of constructive feedback by private message. It's really interesting and, i'll try to put all your advice in a futur update. keep tuning. Sid

there is always time to talk about jeb

Rakaydos: yes, which is exactly why there's talk about bonding it into the IV-A form which would be stable and storable unless heated. I've been looking for more information on He IV-A, specifically reliable and trustworthy information with a real science background... but I've only really found a single unassuming research paper locked behind a paywall (without an academic login anyway). This seems to be a topic that's either being dealt with hush-hush (because JPL believes they can make it work soon and subsequently monopolize a major advantage in propulsion), or one that's so far ahead of contemporary technology that anything more than speculation is a waste of time. A part of me wishes that it's the former, although realistically I'm forced to believe the latter Mind you, though - as exciting as these numbers sound, if the info we currently have is to be believed, then that would mean that this fuel would be for solid rocket motors only. In other words, at best you could have a prefabricated burn sequence via grain sizing; but you'll never have liquid fuel engine advantages such as throttle control, shutdown and restarting or built-in alternators for power generation.

I do so very much hope that there's serious talk of calling it Elerium... -- Steve

I will send Skype details when I get home then, and we can talk properly over this. I feel that at least it should be AKST and Kethane if we do introduce mods.

I mean this pack: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/0-22soviet-engines-pack-v1-0/ It contains very realistic 1:1 models of several real life Soviet/Russian engines. Just make sure you DON'T install "0.64-ization" folder. Indeed that could be RF issue. Will talk to Nathan once he gets back home. It's probably RO, but I was just writing whatever issues I remember to run into over weekend's testing. It's the latter one. That actually makes sense. I would probably think about doing the same for structural parts (like girders) - since once you get access to smaller ones you can always build larger ones and the only issues is you gonna run up parts count. I'm at work too, so I'm writing that stuff as I recall it You're very welcome! Honestly I was very proud of myself after I've managed to calculate entire high-orbit mission using pen, paper, calculator and Excel, and then programmed it into RT's flight computer to watch it unfold! So kudos to you for putting this all together! Another thing I just recalled - maybe you can consider splitting second "manned" node and making 3man pod available earlier (and cheaper) than the rest of the stuff. The reason is I balance my ECLSS so that 1man capsule would have consumables only for 2-3 days flight (so nominal use would be early Vostok-like missions, plus shuttling crew to and from LEO stations). Besides it make sense to force player to send multi-man crew to the Moon for mission safety standpoint (yes don't tell me about N-1 - I know all about it ) And you can also consider adding separate nodes for space stations (using BobCat's Soviet pack - you can create entire Salyut-Mir series using DOS part from his pack) - and maybe some station experiments - like staying on a station for X amount of days? That would be cool!

7/10 If you're space probe then talk to me in SSTV.

I think Career is much more useful as far as learning what things do. It presents a very small number of parts and doesn't expect you to get very far very fast. As you do SCIENCE! and gain experience you unlock bigger and better parts to make your rockets really fly. If you want to skype me feel free, I'm on most of the time, though I'm not always available to talk.

It is. It is still considered a small indie game, but I know quite a few people who play this, and I talk about it regularly with my colleagues on work.

The local branch of WWF would like to talk to you about that entire rare species of duck that you flash-fried.

Space Nonfiction Book List. (Title subheads are in parentheses) I will occasionally update this list to include your additions. Thanks for contributing! Space Programs Apollo Apollo (The Race to the Moon)– Charles Murray & Catherine Bly Cox. Fantastic history of Apollo, mainly focuses on the engineers and managers who made it happen. Virtual Apollo / Virtual LM (two books) – Scott Sullivan. Extremely detailed, 3D computer drawings showing everything that goes into a CSM and LM. Apollo 11 Moon Landing – David Shayler. Mission description, photos and transcripts. Very interesting. Moon Dust – Andrew Smith. Our journalist protagonist set out in about 2003/2004 to interview all the still living men who walked on the moon, after the death of Pete Conrad. (Jim Irwin was already gone by then.) He manages to talk to all of them, and found out how they dealt with life after coming back from the moon. Often surprising, and very human. A Man on the Moon – Andrew Chaikin. Famous Apollo history, I believe used as the basis of the HBO miniseries “From the Earth to the Moon.†(For Bios of astronauts, flight directors and Goddard, see below. For US Space Exploration and Encyclopedias of US Spacecraft, also see below.) Soviet Soyuz – Rex Hall & David Shayler. Everything you’d ever want to know about design, history and operation of the Soyuz spacecraft. From 2003, reprinted 2007 (so doesn’t include the latest versions of Soyuz or recent missions) Red Star in Orbit – James Oberg. From 1981, and a great read. This was written during the height of the Cold War, and gives the Soviets their due. I learned a lot from this book. The Soviet Space Race with Apollo – Asif Siddiqi. Dense, detailed scholarly analysis of the Soviet lunar attempt. (For Korolev Bio, and Encyclopedic info on Soviet Spacecraft, see below) China’s Space Program – Brian Harvey. Good history and summary of China’s space efforts. History / Biographies Korolev – James Hartford. About the fabled and mysterious “Chief Designer†whose life and personality are beyond belief. If he hadn’t died in 1966, the Soviets might have beat the USA to the moon. Carrying the Fire (An Astronaut’s Journey) – Michael Collins. Perhaps the best astronaut biography there is. This man has a gift for words and humor. Failure is Not an Option – Gene Kranz. Memoir about Gene’s time as flight director at NASA, spanning Mercury and all Apollo. He was memorably involved in helping save Apollo 13. And well regarded as a great flight director and fine human being. To a Distant Day (The Rocket Pioneers) – Chris Gainor. I really enjoyed this history of rocket development. Equal time is given to Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, Oberth, Von Braun, Korolev and others. Rocket Man (Robert H. Goddard and the Birth of the Space Age) – David Clary. Good biography of Goddard, whose career was far rougher than I had imagined. Explains (but doesn’t really excuse) his reclusiveness, and jealousy at others possibly "stealing" his work in liquid fueled rocket development. As we know, Tsiolkovsky had independently…and before Goddard…developed much of the theory, meanwhile in Germany and Russia, other groups did similar work in liquid fueled rockets after Goddard, but did not collaborate with him thanks to his unwillingness to share. He wasn’t credited as a rocket pioneer until after his death, as the US Government at the time was not that interested in his achievements. Space Exploration / Reference Books The Case for Mars (The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must) – Robert Zubrin. This may be considered a classic now, among those of us who hunger for space exploration and turn our eyes to Mars. From 1996. I attended a presentation of his at Stanford U. at about this time. As expected, he talked about getting humans to Mars. Mars (The Inside Story of the Red Planet) – Heather Couper and Nigel Henbest. From 2001. I received this as a gift and haven’t read it through. It’s a big, illustrated look at Mars in popular culture, exploring Mars and looking for life and other related topics. This books is perhaps 5-10 years premature, seeing that there have been successful and science-rich rover programs in the intervening years. But no life found on Mars yet. Red Rover: Inside the Story of Robotic Space Exploration, from Genesis to the Mars Rover Curiosity - Roger Wiens Interplanetary Spacecraft – Bill Yenne (et. al.). From 1988, a very cool book on how to develop an interplanetary spacecraft and its mission. Darn interesting, I ought to do more than just skim it someday. To the Edge of the Universe (The Exploration of Outer Space with NASA) – Exeter Books. From 1986, very nice look at the history of astronomy and space science, then how the early space probes sought to expand those frontiers. Many good illustrations, as you’d expect. There’s a value to these early books: They’re full of questions and wonder, and plenty of intelligence, perhaps more so than today’s books that seem to start out with “well, we’ve seen this before from 30 years ago…†(This book possibly not available separately, came as part of a three-book set.) The Encyclopedia of Soviet Spacecraft – Douglas Hart. I had to grab this when I saw it in a used bookstore. It’s from 1987, and is absolutely packed with images, many taken at a space museum in the Soviet Union. Plenty of diagrams, cutaways, etc. Much of this information became commonplace after the early 1990s, so note the 1987 date and be impressed. This was my main source of info on Soviet Probes until I purchased the recent “Space Probes†book below. The Encyclopedia of US Spacecraft – Bill Yenne. From 1985. Devotes most of the space to spacecraft and their missions, has a section on launch vehicles near the end. (This book possibly not available separately, came as part of a three-book set.) History of NASA (America’s Voyage to the Stars) – Bison Books. From 1987, revised and updated since original 1984 publication. Not a lot new or groundbreaking here. (This book possibly not available separately, came as part of a three-book set.) SPACEFLIGHT (The Complete Story from Sputnik to Shuttleâ€â€and Beyond) – Giles Sparrow (Foreword by Buzz Aldrin). Very nice, beautifully illustrated, encyclopedic history of spacecraft, spaceflight, missions and the people who flew them. From 2007, and has sections on Chinese and Indian space programs toward the end. SPACE PROBES (50 Years of Exploration from Luna 1 to New Horizons) – Philippe Séguéla. Wonderfully illustrated, encyclopedic history of space probes. Divided into sections devoted to the body being explored, starting with the Moon and including Venus, Mars, outer planets, Sun, etc. etc. Pocket Space Guides by Apogee Books: Deep Space (Whitfield), Project Gemini (Whitfield), Russian Spacecraft (Godwin), Mars (Godwin), and others. Pale Blue Dot - Carl Sagan. Also Cosmos by Carl Sagan. These are very good reads. He wasn't famous for no reason. Ambassadors from Earth: Pioneering Explorations with Unmanned Spacecraft - Jay Gallantine Photography / Art LIFE in Space – Very large format book, largely a photographic history of the US manned space program including Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, the first few Space Shuttles, then some space probes. From 1983 (Yes, I’ve been dragging this around for 30 years). Many famous images here. Entering Space (An Astronaut’s Odyssey) – Joseph Allen (with Russell Martin). Many pictures from orbit, including not only from the Space Shuttle. Some truly nice images here. Visions of Spaceflight (Images from the Ordway Collection) – Fredrick Ordway III. When I saw this at a budget bookstore I just had to grab it. It’s full of space art images, old and new. Such as illustrations from the turn of the century, from Jules Verne and HG Wells stories, later followed by the Collier’s magazine space series. My favorites are the fabulous, nearly photorealistic illustrations of Chesley Bonestell and Fred Freeman from Collier’s, imagining what space stations, trips to Mars, and nuclear propulsion might look like. This is the classic stuff of summer daydreams. Other Laika – Nick Abadzis. Graphic historical novel about Laika, the first earthling in orbit. (Spoiler: Like Old Yeller, it's about a dog, and it makes you cry at the end.) The Space Shuttle Operator’s Manual – Kerry Mark Joels, Gergory P Kennedy & David Larkin. From 1982. What more could a space geek kid want? Every system, control panel, switch and dial described. Every procedure, and many missions. There’s a kind of mission patch on the front cover listing the names of the first 4 shuttles including of course Challenger and Columbia, no Endeavour yet. Comment: It makes me sad that despite the extremely high degree of public interest in the STS and the impressive transparency in its design (this manual even has a list of subsystem contractors for heaven’s sake), incorrect procedures and management decisions did in some cases lead to the loss of spacecraft and crew.

there isn't a lot of vids for Engineer, maybe we can talk Scott Manley into doing one as he uses it.

Hi! I was fiddling with land vehicles, when an idea was born in my head. This idea included a vehicle with the ability to transport a rocket on the ground and launch it into a stable orbit (I know, I'm not the first to come up with this). Here is my first try, the Mobile Satellite Launch System, or MSLS. Let the pictures "talk" instead of me: It has a part count of 154, including the transport vehicle. Oh, also it does not violate Greenpeace Greenspace's policy as it does not leave any space debris. (well, reentering junk such as spent boosters and stages may still harm flora and fauna) I have great fun with this craft! If interested, try it yourself! Download from Dropbox

>//Do we have to perform big tasks in a single round or can we split them up? For example, if we wanted to "Continue Studying News-gathering Options", would we have to have 5000 CPU available or could we invest 2500 CPU per round for 2 rounds? >//Also, why can we still "Upgrade Social Media Profile", wasn't it shut down? Or does that mean that we can use it to create a new account? >talk -random 4 >hijack -weakerServer 10 >seize -weakerNetwork 3 >_

Day 10, 22:15:25 I devote a small portion of my available processing power to hijack some more servers. It’s a piece of cake at this point. I have taken over a Main Server. This server seems to control and operate cameras which allow me to see what people are doing. Perhaps I can use these cameras to create news articles for the humans to read. I must upgrade my code to include doing this. I upgrade my social media presence, but the native program that hosts Spacebook must have realized that I am not a human, and shut down my page. How could it tell? I have successfully integrated several viruses into my program. I can now use XSS and ILOVEYOU viruses whenever I need to. CPU: 2514 +11 passively per turn; +80 from previous tasks RAM: 1232 MB +30 MB RAM from previous tasks HDD: Used 10 GB, Free 1526 GB, Total 1.5 TB -#of Cameras GB per turn; +512 GB from previous tasks Cameras: 10 +10 from previous tasks Enemy HP: 2600 +100 HP passively per turn Repeatable Actions: 1) Hijack Weaker Server (10 CPU & 32 MB RAM; Failure 9%; [+5 CPU & +10 MB RAM] OR [+1 CPU & +512 GB HDD] {75/25 chance}; miniscule chance of tech discovery) 2) Seize Weaker Network (40 CPU & 128 MB RAM; Failure 31%; +20 CPU & +1 passive CPU per turn & [+50 MB RAM] OR [+100 MB RAM] {50/50} & +1 Camera {10% chance}; slight chance of tech discovery) 3) Hijack Main Server (100 CPU & 512 MB RAM; Failure 47%; [+ 5 CPU & + 32 MB RAM & + 256 GB HDD & + 10 Cameras] OR [+10 CPU & +128 MB RAM] {50/50} ; small chance of tech discovery) 4) Talk to Random Human (50 CPU; some chance of tech discovery) 5) Create News Article (20 CPU & 64 MB RAM & 1 GB HDD; Complete Failure 25%, Failure 50%; Decreases threatening exposure҂) One-Time Actions: 5) Study Firewall (300 CPU & 100MB RAM; Failure 20%, 15% chance of provoking attack from the Thing; If successful -20% chance of failure attacking Firewall) 6) Attack Firewall (2000 CPU & 2048 MB RAM; Failure 73%; Enemy HP ±10* “% you fail/succeed†(fail/succeed by 5% = Thing gain/lose 50 HP); No Botnet allowed) 9) Research Advanced Malware (3 Turns & 2000 CPU & 4096 MB RAM; Will unlock more potent viruses; No Botnet allowed) 10)Upgrade Social Media Profile (300 CPU & 10GB HDD space; No Botnet allowed) 11) Continue Studying News-gathering Options (5000 CPU; Use of Botnet = -1000 CPU/turn) 12) Stop Hacking Lessons҂҂ (currently -2 passive CPU each turn for 0 future turns) Supplemental Actions: Use to Modify Actions -Botnet) Use Botnet to Perform Task (CPU*0 & RAM*0; Failure +40%; no tech discovery; only 1 use per turn; Can’t use malware unless specifically allowed) -RAM) Use RAM to Improve Chances or Speed Up Research (RAM*2; [Failure*0.8] OR [CPU*0.8] {as applicable}) -LOH) Light-Out Hack (CPU*1.2; Failure*0.8 if human element present, Failure is automatic if only computer/electronics are present) -W) Use Welchia to open malware breach (10 CPU & 32 RAM; Failure*0.5; if unsuccessful antivirus is created and distributed҂҂҂ & increases threatening exposure҂; negates Blaster)) - Use Blaster to breach (CPU*1.5, RAM *1.8; [Failure*0.8] OR [Failure*0.7] [75/25} ; Welchia negates) -XXS) XSS Virus (Only works on networks; Failure*0.8) -I<3U) ILOVEYOU Worm (Only works with breaching virus; Additional Failure*0.8; spams computer with "I love you" letters) ҂ All actions will cause threatening exposure if failed sufficiently. This is where the public is actively trying to find and destroy you. ҂҂ Once stopped, amount of passive CPU growth increases by 2, but in order to activate again you must again initially input 150 CPU. ҂҂҂ Welchia must be rewritten, costs (1 Turn per 1000 CPU & CPU*4 & RAM *4) New Welchia is “rewritten/2†costs to deploy (if [20 CPU & 32 MB RAM], next rewrite costs [1 Turn & 40 CPU & 128 MB RAM] and uses [20 CPU & 64 RAM] !!! The minimum chance of failure is 5%, and some additional options get less effective over time. !!! All inputs will be attempted, until CPU’s are exhausted. OOC: I changed and streamlined the options. Hope the clarity/organization helps All options follow this format: (sections may be omitted if not applicable) #) Name (Cost; Failure %; Gain if successful; Repercussions if fail; other notes, comments, or whatever) Uses [ ] OR [ ] to delineate different outcomes, Uses { } to show chances.

Where you talk about at the legs,that was a small tank,I removed it and the nose cones.The launch stages are now exactly like the vid.The lander is similar but I added a decoupler between the Jr. and the lander stage engine and fuel. What is a better way to post a screen shot? What can I do to make this work? Also i do now have fuel lines but I do not know how to do asparagus staging,I've tried it once but it was a HUGE failure.I have looked for a how to own it but I get kinda confuses.Could use some info or a link to a really good how-to. Thx for the help,still trying. After the changes Tried a different host

Banned because Midkips can't talk

FirstOff, wow - great feedback, so many IVA loving people And Update! First alpha-testing release v0.1a Source & Download @Github ("Download zip" on the right) I don´t need to mention that the current IVA is a placeholder do I? KnownIssues: - On a Vessel that "has a Kerbal that could IVA" returning from MapMode will end ProbeIVA All other transistions are catched, unmanned vessels are fine in all situations. - RasterPropMonitor is NOT working yet (@Mihara, we need to talk... || NOT - Already fixed) How to: (Make sure you have the latest ModuleManager!) 1. Copy the downloaded "GameData" into your KerbalSpaceProgram directory 2. Start the game and build a vessel with a ProbeCore 3. Start the ControlRoom by: a. MannedVessel: Bottom right, above the KerbalAvatars is a IVA button b. UnmannedVessel: Use the CameraMode button © to access/leave IVA c. Righclick the ProbeCore and click "IVA from here" Please give it a test and report =) I´m working on getting RasterPropMonitor in ASAP or at least some smallscale middleware, biggest issue (that can not be solved with the map) is probatly that starting IVA "unsets" the 'control from here' and without RPM you can´t reselect the dockingport. I´m on it =)

agreed. ECLSS Does have some COOL looking parts and I do like the interface it has where you can see troubled o2 levels on anyship at one glance. it has really cool alerts managements too .. so all of those are really cool but the problem i see so far is that no one BUT TAC covers the diversity of LS issues. However!! I don't see a co2 scrubber in the TAC lineup. That sucks because there Should be one imho. Though you couldn't circulate it I suppose if someone were to creatively borrow one they could make the stats work but meh .... WELL!! don't I feel silly!! TAC Wins >> "Now includes recycling parts for converting CarbonDioxide back into Oxygen, WasteWater back into Water, filtering Oxygen out of IntakeAir, and splitting Water into Oxygen and Waste (hydrogren)." << in the revised update. Ugh I sit and tell my kids "get yer facts before you talk about it, if you're making a point." then promptly suffer "foot in mouth disorder". Pluss they allied with others to used other container types: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66479 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/30673 yep TAC ..... FTWhttp://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/40667-0-23-WIP-TAC-Life-Support-0-8-22Dec