Search the Community

So I have been playing for a while now, built stations, Laythe Bases, huge multi-docked interplanetary vehicles and what not, but what I really want is SCIENCE! I have looked around for any news concerning new science parts, as I was a little disappointed that none were added in the last update. Has there been any talk about the future of that aspect of the parts? And are there any mods that are science heavy? I have always played pure stock, I mean no Sub-assembly or nothing (not that I think that there is anything wrong with it) but I would be willing to install a science mod. Anything out there? Thanks, Brax Singularity Aerospace Innovations

This project is being working on by MDBenson, WCOLE360, and Yogui87, sponsored 100% by LH Aerospace This is a project to make a realistic replica of the Mars Transfer Vehicle and eventually it's landers, and maybe after that it's rovers, but here's what we have so far, yogui and I will post development pictures as we get them. Here is the current design image, referenced from a Constellation Program Animation: NOTICE: THE PROPULSION STAGE IS CUT OUT, REFERENCE IT IN THE IMAGE BELOW Here are the pieces of the project we will complete: What we currently have has been redone 100% in favor for a better modeling. Some features of the project will be list: Built in RCS Specialized Inflatable Habitat, eventually if I can talk to my contact in NASA, possibly an interior! Front Docking Port Made for Orion Bottom Utility Docking Port for a second orion, or eventually the Mars Ascent Vehicle. Special Modular Docking Port SADDLE TRUSSES Drop Tank for spent fuel stage Deployable Solar Panels Deployable Antennas If the first part of this project goes well, we will do the Cargo Lander and Crewed Lander that go with it. This will all be launched on Bobcat Ind.s Ares 5 Launcher. Modelling and Texturing: Yogui87 CFGs and Primary Testing: WCOLE360 Testing/Bug Grinding: MDBenson More information to come soon! Due to reasons I've been told not to mention this project is temporarily delayed.

I once made a nearly SSTO with about 21 orange tanks; obviously wasn't full when it reached orbit (and certainly could have used a refueler that big lol), but it had about .25 times the weight of the fuel in engines too with well over 1000 parts, so it would have been damn near impossible to make a lifter to put it into orbit full lol. I've been hearing talk about people trying to put a kiloton into orbit, I'd be amazed if anybody can do that for sure =3

I launched my pol mission, started my NEW space station (we don't talk about the LAST one ) returned my eve mission and Jeb E.V.Aed down to the surface of gilly and returned to the ship with only 12% of his fuel left.

My dad tolerates hearing me talk about semi major axes, orbital inclination, exoplanets, I can't talk about space with other 15 year olds, seeing as they seem to dislike it, and I just end talking about space with my two Hard SF fan science teachers

Now, I know everyone has built one of these, but I figured it was time for me to throw my hat in the ring. With some inspiration from Sal_Vager's Apollo 15 mission, I was inspired to revisit my Duna-capable Jupiter series. The Jupiters, when built, were the tallest vehicles ever launched from the KSC (in my own game), and when I designed the lifter, I basically expanded on the Mercury VI I've built in the past. Here's the Mercury VI; my first Mun-landing-and-return capable rocket. You can see the general idea; the larger tanks drop off first, and the smaller inner tanks burned alongside the central stage. Once we drop the initial stages, we repeat the process higher up the vehicle. It's fairly stable, because of its size, and it was a good rocket at the end of the day. A variant serves as my low-Kerbin orbiter. To compare, here's the Jupiter I, older sister of (and only slightly different from) the ship that went to Duna. You can see my general design process here. See the similarities between the Jupiter and Mercury vehicle, if you ignore the payload? The Jupiter is essentially the Mercury, but stretched. This, naturally, led to some problems; while the Mercury suffered from some minor stability issues, these were amplified in the Jupiter. Don't get me wrong - the Jupiter's a good ship; you just need to baby it during launch. If anyone's interested, the craft files for these are available. (The Jupiter V is the last iteration of the Jupiter series; it's definitely Duna capable, it just has a few more bells and whistles than the I, which is pictured here, or the III which went to Duna). Mercury VI: http://www./view/1ymbv6g8a1yh164/Mercury_VI.craft Jupiter V: http://www./view/a4cyf69wymf21m5/Jupiter_V.craft The Jupiter series was my Apollo-style launcher - initially. Then, I chose to do a redesign of the launcher and lander so they were more faithful to the original Saturn V. Sal_Vager put together a phenomenal launcher, with proper engine arrangements and all, but I wanted mine to be a bit heavier, beefier. This doesn't use part clipping, mod parts, or anything like that. It's pure vanilla stock, so everyone can use it without worrying about it. It's a good looking launcher, without strut abuse, and I think it's one of the best stock Saturn V replicas available. Enough talk. On to the photos. A quick note here: these photos were taken during 3 separate flights. A demonstration launch was performed, and photographed. Then, my Apollo 11 was photographed starting about at the Mun landing. My Apollo 12 flight, completed today, filled in the rest of the gaps, so I think I have a pretty decent photographic record of how this thing stages, and how it looks in flight. Here's the vehicle and its stats on the pad. Fear not if the details are hard to see; there are plenty of photos further down in the thread of the upper stages. Note the low part count; I did that on purpose so even folks with lower end computers could use it. It runs pretty well on my own Mac, so I would think that almost everyone could use this. Some images of the vehicle in flight. I think this is an aesthetically pleasing launcher - few struts, and nice clean lines. Note the prototypical arrangement; 5 Mainsails standing in for the Saturn V's 5 F1s. The 1st stage boosts the ship to about 1100 m/s at something like 30 km altitude at a 15 degree graduated gravity turn (so 45* at 30 km). This is the second stage, powered by 5 Poodles in place of the Saturn V's 5 J-2s (Thanks, Rune!). This stage is almost capable of orbit; you could probably get it to orbit if you wanted it for an interplanetary flight, or something. We're talking, like, periapsis shows up just as this stage cuts out. It's really close - just like the real thing; I think one of the Apollo flight's second stages managed to make orbit. Firing away the escape tower a few seconds into the S-II burn, like the Saturn V. The escape tower is fully functional, and during early testing, saved the prime crew multiple times (you know how it is, testing a new heavy lifter - the first five launches are disasters until you fix the staging, balance the fuel, make sure the symmetry works, and put more struts on). It's set up to the Abort key in the Action groups - this maneuver, of discarding the escape tower once we clear the atmosphere, however, is normal staging. Discarding the second stage. Notice the Poodle on the third stage as well; the Saturn V used a single J-2 here, so I matched engines once again. The debris from the docking maneuver (which I apparently neglected to take photos of... still, it's easy enough, and all laid out in the staging) can easily be directed into a crash landing into the Mun, to dispose of it safely. (Assuming there isn't anyone under it... a four ton fuel tank at 800 m/s has some momentum behind it). Here's the actual payload for you, along with a continuing mission report. Lander has full landing and docking lights. Crew transfer. Apollo 11, you are go for undocking. The lander in all her glory. It has full science equipment, as well as probe bodies, ASAS, and power generators in case you want to leave the descent stage behind as a permanent fixture on the landscape. The CSM is a leftover from the Jupiter series, and has interplanetary fuel storage capacities. What you see is what you get, here. Three radial parachutes are mounted on the CM. The ascent stage departs the surface. The points in the background are the descent stage and the flag post. This is probably the biggest departure from the Apollo hardware with the radial rockets on the ascent stage, but it came down to fitting an ascent engine in without making the lander ridiculously tall. I think they're a fair compromise. The docking lights make even nightside docking easy. Once all the remaining fuel is transferred to the CSM, and the crew are all settled in, the RCS thrusters can bring the ship down to just under orbital velocity, where the spent ascent stage is undocked... ...and descends back to the Mun. Here, we're travelling at about 575 m/s, less than a hundred meters up. After that, all that's left is a relatively easy burn home. After passing over the KSC and waving to the folks at home, just disconnect the SM, and wait for the reentry heat. On this particular flight, we came in at just about 3200 m/s before slowing to atmospheric drag. Three chutes, just like the real thing. And splashdown. Home at last. It's a real treat to fly, and I think it's one of the best looking stock Saturn V replicas out there. It's a big powerful lifter that's nicely balanced and flies really nicely when the action key 1 is hit to stop gimbaling on the outside engines in both the first and second stages. I've not yet tested whether this is truly interplanetary or not, but that's coming up soon, once the rover variant gets tested properly. Here's a nice image of my custom flag to close the thread. The craft file, for anyone looking for an authentic Saturn V experience in KSP: http://www./view/uv29qprczqmo54j/Earth_V.craft Happy flying, everyone! Let me know what you think, and I'd love to see videos of your own flights with this rocket!

My parents "love" to hear me talk about orbital mechanics and the future of human space exploration and how awesome the Apollo program was, etc...

i talk about space all the time, know what they say? "meow"

When I talk about space, people are like "Yeah?... cool.... uh huh... okay... right... I see... cool..." I don't think they pay much attention.

If the topic comes up but there is so much to talk about that it can get boring in a social sense.

When they let me... I'm afraid my friends and family already know better than to let me talk about it, unless they are ready for a long talk. Rune. Though I think I have managed to grab a lady's attention or two with that kind of speech... at least once. Out of many. But it's something. ^^'

Okay, first of all I've had a few drinks today but I want to share this story with you despite my drunkiness. I love space and the exploration thereof. I receive the SpotTheStation notifications about 12 hours preceding the fly over. And today was such a day, it was the best day for a ISS flyover since I was working on a open air festival in my hometown Harderwijk Because of open air we had to end the music at 23:30. And there was a fly over at 23:46. I like to share the beauty of the ISS with my fellow men so I told security not to clean the terrain till 23:55. So we sat there... With maybe 20 people staring upwards.. Till some guest yelled "That one moves!" I started yelling, more people started watching... And from this little local festival, at least 200 people where looking upwards at the miracle called the ISS. Ive got a few photos made by hipsters where the ISS trail is al shaken and stuff, when I receive them I'll share them . But this was my first space talk exprience. I had a lot of people asking me simple questions about orbital mechanics and life support, and I was happy answering them... But how about you? Do you share space with others?

You say this, but this is the whole crux of the issue, isn't it? What evidence is there of this turning point based on CO2 concentrations other than the models? I happen to think that market forces and technological progress will tend to phase out burning of fossil fuels (although we'll probably still use them for plastics until we run out) within a generation or so. I don't have any real evidence for this, just my intuition. To err on the "more warming" side, let's make some ball-park estimates and say that fossil fuel usage largely stops within the next 100 years, and that CO2 peaks no higher than 2,000ppm (so, 2.3 doublings). Assuming that the concept of climate sensitivity holds for concentrations in that range, that gives us between 3 and 10 degrees C maximum warming. The low end is within natural variation over the geological history of the Earth, the high end is just beyond it, and the middle puts us smack dab into the period known as the Eocene Climate Optimum. Try as I might, I don't see how this is going to cause hundreds of millions of deaths and set back human progress by a hundred years. It's Malthusian doomsaying. Sure, it might cause localized displacements (although, 100 years is a long time in human terms, and people are good at adapting - that's why we're the dominant species) - but the discount rate over a period of a hundred years is awfully large, and localized displacements many decades from now don't warrant drastic changes to our economy today. K^2 is really the right person to talk to about the standard model - my expertise is QFT in curved space so I don't play with the full particle physics model often. However, I'll give it a shot: The standard model contains 18 free parameters: 9 fermion masses, 3 mixing angles and one phase, three coupling constants, the Z_0 mass, and the Higgs mass. Its dependence on each of these parameters is relatively simple, and many of them are amenable to independent experimental confirmation. Granted, the form of the model is purely phenomenological, but we have reason to believe that that form is largely correct on physical grounds. Furthermore, the model is much, much simpler than the climatological models, and we have far better quality of data against which to test it. Also, we don't tend to use the standard model for extrapolation (it's generally accepted that the standard model will break down at sufficiently high energies, which is why we continually build more and more powerful particle accelerators to probe for new physics). So, the answer is that you're right: it works as well as it does because it's been tuned really well. But, we've also pretty much run out of parameter space for the model: if we change any of the parameters, the model ceases to work so well. This gives us indication that the form of the model is probably right. However, these are the right types of questions, and physicists have been asking these questions about the Standard Model for half a century (and we still are; do an arXiv search for "Beyond the Standard Model" physics). Lastly, the standard model has survived the acid test: it has made predictions which have been born out by experiment. The most recent such success was the discovery of the Higgs Boson. If the situation were analogous from climate science, I would be willing to trust the models. It's not. The models are more complicated and less well tuned, and the parameter space of the models is not so well understood. The mere fact that we're using models in the plural, rather than Standard Model (singular and capitalized), should tell you something about the relative success (or lack thereof). And, lastly, the climate models have not survived the acid test: they uniformly predicted more warming than was observed for the first decade of the 21st century.

I guess it would be nice, to set multiple targets for one dish. For example I have 4 in GSO around Kerbin, now I would like to add all for to one dish and the dish selects automatically which is useful/connected. Of course, this doesn't fix the talking back problem, that the targeted GSO then needs to talk back. Fabian

There's a handful of things that can go wrong. First of all, there's two different antennae - the omnidirectional antennas, and the more powerful dish antennas. There isn't an omni that can reach from Kerbin to Duna, so if that is all you have when you're putting craft up there you're boned. The satellite dishes need to be opened, and you need to target them. So if you're going to hyperedit craft, it's best to put them on the launch pad, right click on the antenna and target them at Kerbin, and then shift them. Finally, remember that KSC has fairly short range capability on its own. I don't recall if it can reach to Minmus, it definitely can't talk to Duna on its own. If you're avoiding effort, the simplest way to solve this is with a small relay craft with both an omni and a large dish that's parked near KSC. The omni talks to KSC, the satellite dish should be aimed at your craft, or the body it's orbiting around. The thing to remember with relaytech is that it works on line of sight. If you only have one craft on Duna then it will only work if it can see the craft on Kerbin. If you've only got one satellite dish near KSC, then the window where they can both see each other is pretty small indeed.

I can remember all of my planes in KSP, and often talk to myself while thinking, "I wonder what would happen if I did this." I picture it in my mind, too.

Ah, the great what-ifs when you think about British aerospace in general. The UK is the only country to develop a booster, get it to orbit, and then give it up. Thats the sad thing about that whole debacle; the cost was really small, and the engineers worked it all out (took them nearly 30 years, but they did it), only for the government to drop it. Doesn't exactly give a lot of hope for anything to get developed. All this talk about great things being done in the shed, well, thats great and all (often great ideas come from it), but those shed ideas which got developed into something useful (radar & Colossus come to mind), were given massive backing by the government of the day. And when the statistics show that the UK space industry is one of the most profitable, and fast growing markets in the UK economy, what does the government do to boost it? Nothing. Oh, they set up the UK Space Agency, another quango which will just eat some more money from the R&D budget, with some paper pushers earning money, considering they didn't pump any money into it. Even the logo cost 50 million quid. Thats the modern PowerPoint generation for you. Rolls-Royce should pony up. Its the only company that would make sense to take the chance, and to be fair to RR, they do make some of the greatest engines ever made. Even hardware noone else could duplicate.

Nice shot of the sun over Kerbin. Enjoy Minmus. Don't let your Kerbals bring spoons. The whole moon is made of mint ice cream. Margaul the Magnificent, Slayer of the Elevator Boss, AKA Prince Ali, and the guy who always has his finger on the "talk" button.

All Russia use it, because there is no real alternative. AOL? Why it all English? Does it have Russian interface? And why there are no anyone here? MSN? I can not leave a message when recipient is offline? FAIL. Jabber/Google talk? There is such hodgepodge of incompatible clients, that simple file transfer does not work! Skype? Yes, only Skype is real competitor of ICQ. And so, ICQ ended up being bought by Mail.ru...

Hay man, your work is fantastic! I am working on another project and don't have time for making new models, so I think you are the right man to talk to =) One of the things I wanted to make is a WET WORKSHOP, which is practically, a fuel tank that when used, turns into a crewable module. For example, there was a proposition once upon a time in NASA to convert the Shuttle external tank into a crewable module once it's spent. So imagine the stock KSP orange tank that can be crewed after being emptied =) Another thing could be a fuel tank that converts into a cargo bay (for example for retrieving debris or satellites) It sounds like a great compromise for part count. The dry mass of the workshop would be higher than the standard fuel tank and also more expensive (maybe even twice), but you wouldn't need to carry another module for crewing, also you get a bigger crew space for less launch mass. The bad side is that it can be crewed only when the tank is empty (and possibly can't be reverted to tank function since it would undergo some interior decoration after being crewed). You could also easily use the models you've already made, but give them more... less sophisticated sturdier fuel-tanky texture =) It's actually strange that there is no mod that exploits this idea..

No need for hardcoding AT ALL if you write an interface to transfer money to your mod. This way, the "sale" can be handled by the other mod, at no effort to you at all. No coding, no config files, nothing. The way you propose means anyone adding a resource would have to tell you, and you'd have to compile again. Makes no sense. Maybe we should talk about this off forum. Feel free to PM me.

So I've made some progress today on the mathematics side. Between yesterday and today I've fully worked out the mathematics for computing the departure body-centric delta-V required to achieve any transfer orbit to anywhere in the Kerbal solar system. Basically, given: 1) A starting orbit around a planet/moon, and 2) A transfer orbit around some "central body" (say the Sun or Jool) my code will now compute the required delta-v vector required to achieve the transfer orbit about the central body. As an example, take a hypothetical Kerbin departure to some other planet, say Jool. You start in the following orbit about Kerbin: SMA = 1700 km Eccentricity = 0.2 Inc = 11.5 deg RAAN = 5.7 deg Arg of Peri = 5.7 deg Using the first part of my tool (the porkchop plot tool, above, which will actually just use this information transparently to the user, but bear with me...), you know you want to hit of hyperbolic excess velocity of: V_inf_outbound = <0.5, 0.4, 0> km/s My code does some math and comes up with the following optimal departure (that is, it's not any departure orbit, it's the least expensive (aka best) you can achieve!): (Solid black line is the current orbit about Kerbin, the dashed line is the hyperbolic escape orbit, and the cyan line at the intersection of the two is the delta-v vector.) What this says is that if you burn 0.55193 km/s in your velocity direction, -0.76105 km/s in your orbit normal direction, and 0.35743 km/s in your radial direction, you'll hit your target escape orbit and be on your way to Jool! The code also knows the burn true anomaly, making it easy to place the maneuver node. I realize these numbers don't mean much unless you use MechJeb or Improved Maneuver Nodes. However, if you do use these tools, all you have to do is create a maneuver node at the correct location, enter these values into the boxes, and execute the maneuver. Voila! You're basically where you want to be. I need to talk to The_Duck and R4mon and see if they'll do a "create node at True Anomaly" thing for MechJeb. If they can, this will be a hundred times better for use in-game. As it is, though, it's an excellent planning tool. Any thoughts, comments, etc? Please note that what I'm showing is just the math and I still need to work out a GUI, etc, for actually applying it.

Ok, I got the sound setting figured, so tommorow I´ll be streaming again Propably in 22:00 GMT +1 EDIT: And I promise I´ll talk english this time

Impressive. This makes me want to tool around with Moho sooner than I thought. Margaul the Magnificent, Slayer of the Elevator Boss, Prince Ali, and the guy who always has his finger on the "talk" button.

So after my last post, I decided to combine a test of the nuclear engines on my Skycrosser and a long term Minmus exploration mission with an oversized lander and a rover. I left Jebidiah on the command module and landed my exploration team. Well, we all know you can't leave Jeb alone to run circles in space, so I decided to land him anyway, sans spacecraft. The first picture is shortly after disembarking from the command module. Jeb has started his jump at ~ 31Km up. I burned retro and got the lander site where Jeb could see it. I switched between the map and Jeb until I had a decent trajectory After a good 9 or so minutes of freefall, I started burning again to get his fall strictly vertical. I got Jeb within a couple of kilometers from the primary landing site, so I was pretty pleased. Right before touchdown, Jeb got a great view of the landscape Jeb touched down with about 20% of his fuel left, and planted his flag. Named the site "Jeb's Resting Place" Not his final resting place, but probably his most awesome (to me anyway) Macsy came along and picked him in the Skyroller to bring him back to camp After the drive back, the shadows were getting pretty long and the Minmus evening was getting close, so I let the boys camp out till the next afternoon before taking a group photo All in all, even though a trip to Minmus was setting my sights lower than I normally do for space travel, this was probably one of the most fun missions I've done in awhile. I totally recommend jumping down to Minmus to anyone who is looking for something a little different to do. Margaul the Magnificent, Slayer of the Elevator Boss, AKA Prince Ali, and the guy who always has his finger on the "talk" button.