Search the Community

Here's a 12 minute video: While Taylor's concept allows for dumping the critical elements of a fission core into a neutron absorbing pit in the event of "out of tolerance" performance (yes, its a molten salt and gas design; rejoice thorium fans), he proposes (but does not detail) a NERVA version. For propulsion, its primary use is understandably for transfer stages (and possibly for use at destination for power generation). For a NERVA in nil-G conditions, its not clear how the dump function might work. Perhaps utilizing neutron moderating rods instead?

so... whats your main fandom? what fandoms you are in(except KSP, of course)? my main: MLP, as you can see from my signature other fandoms im in: avatar, the series MC HP TF2 limbo(the game) amanita studio i have many more, but thats what i found instantly..

Quite self-explanatory. You may only talk to other members using GIFs or Images. Just don't post really large images, they mess up the thread. Let's begin!

This will be the thread to make the space lounge, The Space Lounge! Post things that aren't big enough for a thread, but are still cool. So I found out driving a rover and then jumping off somewhere and then hit hack gravity is fun

Station under construction! Used KAS to add struts and lights. =]

ANYONE ELSE? I wonder what Squad has been working on as of late. My guess is something that makes the game better Tell everyone & their mothers

I saw that there wasn't a kerbkon discussion thread, so here we go! First order up for da business- how do you guys like the kerbalkon intro video?

Its almost as if this mod is taboo here on these forums. KSP gets four new awesome planets and no ones talking about this? Theres a few articles on reddit, but I cant stand navigating that site. So wheres the discussion? Are there any plans for the mod to be updated? Im surprised there isn't a 100 page thread next to KMP.

After the loss of the MoHo lander and the stranding of Jebediah and Bob (and the subsequent EVA loss of bill, RIP), I've realized that I needed to finally separate the planet return lander from the transfer stage. Design Concept 1: The transfer stage is a ship. It has plenty of fuel. Thrust is unnecessary once in orbit. Design concept 2: Moderately heavy lander. 650 dV. So I launched the transfer stage, and it was a god awful launch, but I got it up with clustered engines. Jolly good, full tanks. Its got a measly 1883 dV. When I went to Moho, I needed 3k dV just to slow into orbit. So, my TWR is 0.082, do I simply have too much fuel for two nuclear drives to push, or is everything just too heavy, or what would be a more effective interplanetary launch and return ship? I had thought I had enough fuel in this rig to get out to eeloo, at least based on my previous journey to Dres. I'm not even sure if its safe for me to do a sample return mission to Duna. I brought side chutes on the lander for home, so they're repackable...

Great game etc etc. See my sig for evidence as to how much I play this game. With that out of the way... Any program in development generally has a fairly skeletal UI. This is because without being entirely sure what features are going to come in you can't know exactly what you'll want in the interface, and you don't want to rework it continuously. Are there any plans for a fairly significant UI overhaul? I think we're at a stage where an improved UI is a reasonable thing to spend some time on. Here's my list of UI niggles: There's not much information for new players. When starting the game and presented with the space center it's not clear what you should do. A friend of mine has only been playing for a couple of weeks and does not constantly read the forums like some of us. He did not know what the new building was. He figured that having so many parts missing was something to do with career mode, but not where to go to get new ones. He did not know you could right click to take a crew report or EVA report. He did not know that he had to spend science, or where to do so. The fuctionality of Editor Extensions should be vanilla. Nothing more to say on that. The save/return/terminate/tracking station mechanics could use a bit of a rethink. For example, if you fly a ship into orbit you can escape and revert, but if you quicksave and load back to that same position, you can no longer revert. Several times times I have exited out of the game, copied my craft files, started up a new game, and pasted across my craft files because of this. Waiting for interplanetary transfer windows while in low Kerbin orbit is impossible due to the limitation on warp. There is a workaround, but it is laborious: Go back to the space center (transition wait). Go to the VAB (transition wait). Create a new ship with just a command pod. Launch it (transition wait). Warp to maximum. Go to map view. Switch ships. Create a manoeuvre node to see if you have an intercept. If not switch back to the launchpad ship and warp some more. Repeat many times. The time it takes to load up the space center environment and to then transition to the building you actually want also makes this a bit more frustrating than it needs to be. In the VAB and want to go to the tracking station? You have to go through the space center view. While 0.22 has slightly improved transition times, zero transition time is always going to be better! The list of craft list can get very long and tedious to scroll through without subfolders or categorization. I routinely alt-tab out to windows and delete via explorer, where I can see more craft in a nice big window, and I can multi-select to delete or move files. The parts can be difficult to distinguish in the VAB. For example, which of these is the large, and which is the small? There are several examples like this. Organization by size might be good. Fuel tanks in particular take up a lot of part space. Rather than have a dozen different icons, why not just pick up a fuel tank and then hit hotkeys, buttons, etc to change radius up and down or increase/decrease capacity? More on hotkeys. Some things can be put in action groups while others cannot, and it's not clear why there's a difference. For example, enable and disable flow on fuel tanks cannot. EVA cannot. Transmit data cannot. But they're all right click actions just like other things that can be put in action groups, like "toggle engine". Why not just allow every action to be hotkeyable? This includes action groupable things, but also other in game actions. For example, EVA does not have a mappable input. For craft with multiple crew you could just prompt the player for which crewmember to send on EVA. For craft with just one crewmember, just have them get out when the key is pressed. Map view needs several things fixed. It seems to have a lot of trouble with the mouse and mouse cursor. For instance, selecting a vessel in orbit sometimes cannot be done unless you shift camera angles, and sometimes it cannot be done at all. Manoeuvre nodes sometimes cannot be placed, particularly when on approach to another celestial body. Manoeuvre nodes also have a habit of closing for no reason, or collapsing back down when you drag a handle. Manoeuvre nodes are also imprecise to use. Being able to bind the various manoeuvre node handles to hotkeys is definitely something that's needed. The map camera does not work well with interplanetary stuff. Any conic draw mode other than zero does not allow you to zoom in on an intercept. Being able to freely pan the map around might fix this, but there's still an issue when your manoeuvre node is a long way from your target, seeing both on the screen can be challenging, and manoeuvre nodes tend to glitch out when you try to adjust them when zoomed out a long way (another reason for hotkeys). Certain information that should be available can only be obtained via tedious repetition or switching out to the web browser. For example, knowing which biome you are in requires actually getting out and doing an EVA report. There's no reason not to simply display this all the time. Showing phase angles to targets would be nice too. Fuel levels in map view. Actually, why not show the whole UI in map view, and why start each launch with the navball minimized? Some view state is not remembered. For example, if you set the camera zoom level on the ship and then go to map view, the zoom level is reset when you return. If I recall correctly switching between craft also forgets all camera and map view state for each craft, as well as any manoeuvre nodes that had been set up. EVA may also reset manoevure nodes, I can't recall. A HUD in IVA view would be nice (this can wait) The navball icons could be a little crisper. Also the navball (or some other mechanism) should give more information on docking alignment. Finally, navball indicators should always be visible. Just pin them to the edge of the circle when they are on the back side. Now, someone is inevitably going to come in and tell me about certain mods that do, at least in part, assist with at least some of the things I have listed here. So let me respond in advance. 1) "Can't someone else do it?" is not a reasonable position to hold. With the exception of the IVA HUD, I've tried to limit my list to core game elements that are used often by virtually all players. 2) Mods may stop working at any time as authors move on to other things while Squad keeps updating KSP. 3) Modded installations are not supported (with respect to bug reports etc) due to the inherent instability of having stuff added that wasn't developed by the team themselves.

So I'm advancing about two tiers per flight Harv said it's supposed to be approachable for new players but that doesn't mean we can't make our own hard-mode right? The easiest way to make it harder would just be refrain from buying a tier until you have 10x it's required cost or something, decide your own multiplier, but that seems right to me. Roughly five flights per tier is what a new player might be doing. But that's kind of inconvenient. There's got to be a more programmatic way Am I right in assuming that I run through my ScienceDefs.cfg file (programmatically) and replace all the baseValue with a value multiplied by a constant of my choosing? Are there any other values that need changing?

Hello all, I have a question for SQUAD. do they plan to make a smaller FL-R1 RCS fuel tank, that is half the size for the large rockets. i use RCS a lot but never burn more then i say 1/4 of what in that tank. even before .21 and .20 i do not like the Stratus-V tanks hanging off the sides of my rockets/ships but still want to a smaller tank

The DO say something in spanish if you reverse the audio in the video, they say: - Esta buenisima la verdad quedo, la verdad esta madre. - Quedo otro pendejo atras. - Hay que se va! Vamonos! In English +/- - This ship is really good, it\'s true that its awesome - There is another dude behind us - It\'s leaving, let\'s go!

During my eve mission today, it got me wondering what the oceans might be made of, I was thinking methane or something of the sort, but according to deadly reeantry its around 150c on the surface which is far to hot for methane to exist as a liquid. It could be some sort of metal. Given eves pressure compared to kerbin though, it could be a lot of things

Hello, this is my first time posting a thread, so hopefully I don't mess it up. I just got rendezvousing and docking down a couple weeks ago, and have spent my time making stations around Kerbin, the Mun and Minmus. Now that I've made some simple stations, I wanted to make a "floating city" type of a thing. Please excuse the *ahem* shape of it currently, I plan to have rings of modules radiating outward from all sides, but that's where this problem arises. I've done searching around the forum and wiki about multiport docking, and actually, the two modules connected to the center tower are connected by 2 ports each that both are docked. However, I wanted to test putting a module between them as a sort of corner, but that requires 4 ports to come together. When I tried it, only the top two ports, near the cupola capsule, docked while the bottom two don't seem to do anything. I undocked and came back in with the two lower port angled down so they's contact first, and they still didn't seem to recognize the others and when the top ports came down, they docked again. This caused me to rotate the module as seen in the screenshot above, so the capsule was facing the opposite direction, but the same thing appeared to happen, ruling out the ports on the station. Having just the two ports docked makes the other two appear docked because of the alignment, but they still don't grab. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has more insight on how docking ports work, maybe code-wise, that could maybe explain this. I know I could install quantum struts to stabilize it, but it would be way cooler to have everything dock properly. I'll try again when I have time, but it doesn't seem to be alignment as much as the ports not recognizing each other. I think it would be a nice feature to be able to right click 2 ports like fuel tanks and tell them to dock if they're close enough, but I don't know how hard it would be to make something like that possible. Any insight would be appreciated, thanks.

I made this a while ago, but I only just noticed that there was a videos sub-forum here! Might be posting other stuff later.

After I downloaded 0.20, I was quiet delighted with the considerable speed and optimized RAM usage(God's still blessing 32-bit user:D). While I also heard that there're many ones get a worse performance. And this seemed to also happen in previous releases. What brought about this?

Hi, so for most missions so far I've been using a radially decoupled 4-stage 7-stack lifter either 1 or 2 tanks tall depending on mass needs (which I just today learned that you folks colloquially refer to as 'asparagus' staging), and often feeding fuel from the tanks of whatever ships I'm lifting into the second or third stage booster pair reasoning I can lift more with less this way and just refuel it later via orbital rendezvous. What I'm getting into now though, is trying to build some extremely low-mass, high-ÃŽâ€v lifters for lander return vehicles, and I had a few questions with that regard, since ÃŽâ€v isn't the whole picture. There's also things like gravity and air drag to deal with, and fine tuning the TWR and ÃŽâ€v of each stage can make a difference in the total ÃŽâ€v needed to get into orbit. Take 'asparagus' staging for example. Is there a 'sweet spot' I should aim for in TWR per stage? do I want TWR to start high and get lower, or start lower and get higher, or stay the same throughout the ascent? Will I get more total ÃŽâ€v by adding more fuel weight to the later stages thereby reducing the TWR/ÃŽâ€v of earlier ones, or the other way around? Is there any proven formula for maximum efficiency?

The religion thread turned out to be great, don't get me wrong. It's the most well mannered religious conversation I think I've ever seen. But here's a video of rockets exploding.

In 0.17 update one of many things will be coming out. Like the new IVA's, and the new planets! Now ive only gathered so much information that i cant put it all out in this thread. So i am just going to put a few pictures i have and show u guys what to expect of these new planets. (this thread is probably not 100% correct so dont take all my word for it.) Planets: Charr, Eve, Kerbin, Murs, Green gas gaint. [ATTACH=CONFIG]32016[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]32017[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]32018[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]32019[/ATTACH] I took out that link to one of Nova's threads because it was old and ancient i never new You can also see more pictures of these awsome new planets in this link to Nova's profile. Go there and look at his pics. :http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/member.php/3898-NovaSilisko

So, Cephei got the ball rolling by creating a module for having an ion engine powered by solar panels and a battery. It\'s a great start, but as far as I can tell, it essentially copies the fuel system, requiring energy using parts to be physically attached to each other. I\'d like to propose a more generic system of electricity generation/storage/usage, the idea being that many different parts (sensors, ion engines, lights, etc) might wish to use electricity, and that wires on a spacecraft/station would be internal and not noticeable by the user (kind of like how RCS currently works). My basic idea is something like this: (please excuse me and correct me if I\'m using the wrong units, it\'s been a while since I did a course on electrical stuff!) The idea of this would be that there would be one main system for electrical usage, which modders could fairly use with their own parts/plugins. So, the plugin I\'m proposing would provide the EnergyManager (perhaps it should be renamed ElectricityManager to avoid confusion) part type, and three simple interfaces for interacting with it (generating, storing and using electricity) for other plugin makers to use. From the user\'s point of view, they would download this plugin (which would be licensed so that other modders could also include it in their downloads if they wanted), and then be able to mix and match different electrical using parts (for example, someone might make a set of ion engines, someone else might make various types of batteries, and someone different might make a radioisotope generator, and/or a set of solar panels), but have them all work nicely together (i.e., you don\'t need to use different sets of batteries to make sure your station can use parts from different peoples\' packs). I\'m mostly interested at the moment in what other modders think. I believe NovaSilisko intends to make some of his parts run on electricity, and personally I think building rovers would be more fun if we had to make sure they had a suitable power source + battery that could survive the Munar nights and be able to power all the sensors available, so I\'m sure I\'m not the only one who would like a general way of using electricity. It would also provide a way for new modders wanting a taste of KSP modding to be able to create a part, say a solar panel, without having to make an entire pack for that part to be useful. With that in mind, some specific questions: [list type=decimal] [li]Are modders interested in using this (i.e., would you implement an electrical standard in your parts if there were one available)?[/li] [li]Is anyone already working on something similar already?[/li] [li]Would anyone like to work on this? (Personally I\'d be very keen on coding the first version, with community input and help of course, but I don\'t want to start unless i know others would appreciate it!) [/li] [li]Do you think my interface ideas are appropriate? If not, how would you improve them?[/li]

I saw this on another forum and figured it would be a good idea. So I did it here. This will be the only non-picture post here. Also, remember to spoiler large images! I shall start, by posting this:

Hey guys, www.talk-reason.com has a space travel forum. I need people enthusiastic about space travel to make it interesting.