Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'construction'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. SimpleConstruction! (SCON) This mod aims to provide simple craft building capability in flight mode with stock parts and streamlined IRSU mining. By zer0Kerbal, originally by @MatterBeam and then by @RealGecko; then previously from @Ericwi adopted with express permission and brought to you by KerbSimpleCo Preamble by MatterBeam Features No extra parts No RAM usage Added functionality for the Mobile Processing Lab in the late game Simple, configurable and adds levels of depth to the gameplay without a learning curve Ore --> Metal --> RocketParts --> rockets! See More See our Parts Catalog for part pictures For more images, see our Marketing Slicks Discussions and news on this mod: See Discussions or KSP Forums Changelog Summary for more details of changes : See ChangeLog Known Issues for more details of feature requests and known issues : See Known Issues GitHub Pages : See Pages Documentation remember - this is the FULL Extraplanetary Launchpads PDF Manual manual and not written specifically for SimpleConstruction! Youtube review by Kottabos Gaming Kottabo Talks SimpleConstruction! (SCON) Cabin notes Will remain prerelease until taniwha releases Extraplanetary Launchpads as release instead of alpha/beta/prerelease WIP - work in progress Am open to adding more features, great project for someone! I have not personally tested the patches Have a request? Glad to have them, kindly submit through GitHub push. Known issue(s) If the offset/rotation gizmo's are used on the docking ports, the spawn location might be off. This is a known issue and a feature request has been sent to taniwha Kerbalism compatibility is considered EXPERIMENTAL. certain builds may require no RocketParts and time to complete. We are aware of this and any assistance with this issue would be appreciated Help Wanted Localizations SimpleConstruction! (SCON) Extraplanetary Launchpads Installation Directions 1 Use CurseForge/OverWolf App (currently does not install dependencies) Whilst I agree CKAN is a great mod for those that can't use zip tools. I take no part, nor am I interested in maintaining the CKAN mod metadata for my mods. Please don't ask me about it but refer to the CKAN mod thread if you are having issues with CKAN or the metadata it maintains. Beware, CKAN can really mess up though it tries very, very, very hard not to. or Dependencies Kerbal Space Program 2 Either 3 Module Manager Module Manager /L Recommends KerbalStats - keeps tract of time on task, which can increase task efficiency Not So SimpleConstructon! (NSSC) Keridian Dynamics Vessel Assembly (KDVA) SimpleLogistics! (SLOG!) Foundations (FND) - beta Helps prevent ground constructions from floating away GPO (Goo Pumps & Oils') Speed Pump (GPO) Suggests Mods that benefit SimpleConstruction! (SCON) KaboOom! (BOOM) another way to not go to space today On Demand Fuel Cells (ODFC)) ISRU Thanks but no Tanks! (QBTT) Six Crew Science Lab - simple patch that re-adds the missing four seats Mining Expansion B9 Stock Patches Not So SimpleConstructon! (NSSC) Alternative Resource Panel Olympic's ARP Icons (ARPI) Community Trait Icons Either: B9 Part Switch or Interstellar Fuel Switch Core Kerbal Inventory System Kerbal Attachment System Supports TweakScale Toolbar Controller Blizzy's Toolbar B9 Stock Patches Kethane/KethanePlus Community Resource Pack Extraplanetary Launchpads - No More Production Experimental: Kerbalism Conflicts Extraplanetary Launchpads Possible Conflicts Modular Kolonization System (MKS) maybe? Tags parts, plugin, config, flags, convenience, editor, resources, crewed, uncrewed red box below is a link to forum post on how to get support Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date Credits and Special Thanks @taniwhataniwha for creating Extraplanetary Launchpads. @MatterBeam for creating this cool mod. @RealGecko and @Ericwi - previous maintainers eengie o7 see Attribution.md for more comprehensive list Legal Mumbo Jumbo (License provenance) DONATIONS: How to support this and other great mods by zer0Kerbal and it is true. Connect with me Track progress: issues here and projects here along with The Short List this isn't a mod. ;P↩︎ may work on other versions (YMMV)↩︎ Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date!↩︎ the license was changed around this time.
  2. Introducing Konstruction! Konstruction adds new parts and game mechanics to KSP centered around base and orbital construction! Features: Weldable, configurable construction ports, with auto-rotation and configurable parameters on the fly. Once connected, these can be removed, resulting in a permanent joint between the parent parts of the two ports. Design your assembly in the VAB, cut it up and add construction ports, reassemble in-situ. Great for large bases and stations, or building larger vessels in orbit! Konstruction also includes an array of parts that can be used to create forklifts, cranes, magnetic couplers, stabilizers, etc. - ideal for building vehicles to help with in-situ assembly. If Module Manager is installed (not included till an official 1.2 version drops), the claw will have a magnetic grappler added to it automatically. Lastly, Konstruction includes the absolutely adorable Akita Rover. Small enough to fit in a Karibou cargo bay, great as a little runabout for your base. And now the important bits! Download Link https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/Konstruction/releases Donation Info! If you like what you see, and want to help out (or just buy me a beer!), please consider donating, either via PayPal or Patreon. License Information Configuration files and code are licensed under the GPL v3 license (see attached). Assets, including Models (*.mu) and Textures *.png/*.dds) are All Rights Reserved. If you wish to use any of these assets in your project, just ask nicely
  3. Hi all, I'm looking for some assistance with the radial connections on my lander. I love the look of it but those radial Mk II tanks start jiggling under thrust. Best shot space tape or is there perhaps a better way, bearing in mind the current capabilities of KSP 2? Appreciate any tips! Gallery: https://imgur.com/gallery/JE8atxz
  4. From what I gather from interviews (Nate and EJ_SA for example), mature KSP2 gameplay will have a lot of elements similar to Factorio / Satisfactory / Dyson Sphere Program. I have to say Factorio is one of my favorite games so I really appreciate that. I imagine that we will have to build our extraction / processing / transport vehicles and colonies and set up logistics networks using our creations. I have a hunch this delivery routes system will have its own management interface for automation. I think it's really cool because we'll be able to build "cheap" transports with basic materials we obtain and "expensive" exploration spaceships with more exotic elements. So basically we'll have to adapt to each planet and make the best designs we can (rovers, trucks, aeroplanes, helicopters, boats, rocket ferries etc.). There's a lot of reasons to design a new vehicle and constantly iterate. We'll always have something new to build or improve, even without contracts. But what I found a little bit stale about automation games is the lack of interesting end goals. I think it's a really good idea for KSP2 to have exploration as its main purpose. Discovering the planets inside a new star system and their secrets, entering the atmosphere and landing for the first time, doing scientific experiments, exploring interesting anomalies.. I think that this is a good motivation to "grow the factory". How do you feel about the construction and management simulation elements of the future KSP2? Any specific things you would want KSP2 to borrow from the other games I mentioned?
  5. There are 4 launch pads - we could design craft then have time automatically advance the appropriate amount to account for construction and mission preparations. We could thus have 4 missions on the launch pads simultaneously. The parallel-sequential missions system (having recorded mission events placed on the main timeline and returning to the past) proposed in another thread enables having this feature in the stock game.
  6. Simple question: are EVA construction mechanics included in EA at launch? [snip] I'm fairly certain EVA construction will not be included in EA at launch. Have not heard even a whisper of this.
  7. Not So SimpleConstruction! (NSSC) A SimpleConstruction! expansion which requires SimpleConstruction! and Kerbal Space Program. By zer0Kerbal from @Mrcarrot, originally by @RealGecko adopted with express permission and brought to you by KerbSimpleCo Features Parts Added Mallet Survey Stake Recycler Small Large Disposable Pad Orbital Dock Features Added Adds Survey Station to the Cupola. Optional patch included to add Survey Station to all crewed command parts (read file for instructions). See More Localizations Installation Directions Dependencies Kerbal Space Program 2 SimpleConstruction! (SCON) Either Module Manager 3 Module Manager /Ll 3 Recommends Suggests Mods that benefit SimpleConstruction! (SCON!) Supports Conflicts Extraplanetary Launchpads Tags parts, plugin, config, flags, convenience, editor, resources, crewed, uncrewed *red box below is a link to forum post on how to get support* Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date Credits and Special Thanks Legal Mumbo Jumbo (License provenance) How to support this and other great mods by zer0Kerbal this isn't a mod. ;P↩︎ may work on other versions (YMMV)↩︎ Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date!↩︎
  8. This poll is for crane lovers and construction enthusiasts who want to say what their favorite brand of cranes is. My favorite brand is Liebherr, and that is evident if you look at the other stuff I post on this forum.
  9. I place a probe core, antenna, and solar panel on an upper stage with fuel in orbit to deorbit it but i can't control it. I don't know if any of my mods would affect this im wondering if anyone has the same issue, the probe reads "no telemetry"
  10. Anyone who wants to post cranes, cars, trucks, excavators, loaders, rovers, truck-like rovers, and other stuffs and things, put them here! I myself have built 2 gantry cranes, at least 6 mobile cranes, 2 tower cranes(neither tower cranes work though ), some trucks, a car, 2 forklifts, an ADT (Articulated Dump Truck), and even a wheeled excavator. Also many, many rockets and a ton of aircraft... Check and search the steam workshop for forklifts and cranes by "Bjh223".
  11. I have a Munbase and a lander next to it, i need to remove a fuel line from the base and install it between 2 part on the lander My engineer has done EVA construction in this mission and it used to work, but since i loaded back into that mission today, when i press "i" i go in construction mode but i cannot change from "place" mode to "move" or "rotate" i click the button to change mode and it does blink and refuse to be activated, i am stuck in "place" mode (since my ship has no extra fuel line in storage i NEED to reuse the ones on the base , this is what EVA construction is for, i dont want to send an an entire mission out for one fuel line)
  12. I found this image on the internet. It has plenty of different types of trusses: Could someone please make this into a standalone truss part pack?
  13. K&S TECHNOLOGIES GROUP (Construction Site Video Series) CONSTRUCTION SITE PART 5 Construction Site 5 is part of a Series of Construction Site Videos with craft builds from other players at times. In this Video we are featuring craft built by @Triop and @Servo. Triop has some amazing Mini Automobiles he built with operating Doors & Hoods. I can't say enough about the details and how clean they look. Also Servo built an Excavator with incredible Engineering and functionality.I'm sure many hours went into their builds as well as ours and we are honored to share them. As always it's been a joy working with @klond being able to see his amazing Engineering first hand. I can only hope they enjoy how we have presented them here. Thanks again to Triop and Servo for allowing us to show their incredible works. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 More Photos Here
  14. Hello, I have been making cars for sometime now, but they never seem to look perfect or sometimes good. Even my best replica (an AC Cobra) pales in comparison to some cars that others have made. I wanted to ask everyone (who are all probably better than me by a long shot) for any advice and help on how to make the bodywork look better. Most of cars look somewhat boxy. Also, how do you add such fine details with parts like wings, such as very precise offsets and rotations of parts onto your cars. This is because when I try to make the front of the car, I always make it look more like a psychotic duck than a sports car. Thank you
  15. Whenever I try to use a duplicated duplicate the connection points are gone apart from one WHY! Am I the only with this problem, is it a part of the construction engine not anticipating my action and not having the appropriate response put in the code or what, please help someone its getting kinda annoying. Thank you.
  16. Hi all, wonder if anyone can help. I've made a MASSIVE LKO refuelling base (it's almost the size of the SPH), and I've found that once it's in orbit, some of the components seem to break, but stay connected. Is there any way to stop this happening? A few points that may provide clues.. I have everything strutted to 'grandparent part'. Everything has 'rigid attachment' set to on. I had to cheat it into orbit, using the F12 menu. I installed the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod to stop everything wobbling and collapsing when on the runway. I got some advice to switch off Rigid attachment, which I did, and relaunched, but the problem persists. I Cheated the new version to orbit with the 'visualise autostruts' setting on and all was well. However, I switched to another vessel in LKO, then switched back, and again the breakages appeared as soon as I switched back.What's also weird is that when I switched back, half of the autostruts seem to have disappeared. Can anyone advise how to get over this issue? Thanks to anyone who can help... It's taken HOURS to construct this station and I don't want it to go to waste!
  17. With the SM Marine mod seemingly defunct, a lack of other civvie ship mods, and a burning desire to bring "Death to the Green Button" (Credit to @RealKerbal3x for the idea), I've decided to start building ships capable of bringing crew capsules back to the KSC. However, I haven't a clue wher to start. I've never built any stock vessels capable of water transportation (not well, anyway), much less pick up a capsule and carry it home. I have an idea of the basic requirements: Bouyant parts (for floating) Non-bouyant parts (far not floating too much) Engines and air intakes (for moving while you float) Some sort of crane system, most likely modded (so the thing can pick up a capsule) My question is, how does one build a ship with a large enough cargo deck for a crew capsule? What are some tips for proper balance, effecient construction (low part count), and general things to keep in mind for seagoing vessels? I've noticed a thread or two that may help greatly with this, namely some of @Triop's circumnavigation threads. Any threads that may serve for good inspiration? Are there any mods I'm missing that may help with the whole ship thing? Moderators- Feel free to relocate this thread if it belongs elsewhere. I can't tell if it's at home in the questions subforum, or the spacecraft exchange.
  18. As the title suggests, I'm building a space station that I can use as an interplanetary travel spacecraft - named the U.S.S. Enterprise after the famous ship from Star Trek. There's no way I can launch it all in one stage, which is why I'm assembling it in Kerbin's orbit before sending it to Eve (and who-knows-where-else). So far, my plans for it involve: MAIN COMPONENT: 5 crew capacity (1 cupola and 2 mobile processing labs), 4 RA-100 Relay antennae, 8,835 power units, well over 15,000 units worth of fuel, 4 docking ports between the two labs for other parts, MechJeb and a probe core, 1 Rhino engine and 16 Swivel engines (the swivels were mainly to help with ascent into orbit), 20 docking ports to hold escape pods/landers/other craft, 8 gigantor solar panels, 8835-V of power ULTIMATE SCIENCE: 6 crew capacity (1 Hitchhiker and 1 mobile processing lab), 2 Communotron-88 antennae, 1,085 units worth of monopropellant (to help with attachment, 4,000-V battery, 1 survey scanner, 1 narrow-band scanner, and a 2.5-m service bay with: 1 science Jr, 1 barometer, 1 thermometer, 1 gravioli detector, 1 mystery goo container, 1 atmospheric scanner, 1 seismic accelerometer, 2 experimental storage units. ORE STORAGE: 3,000 units worth of ore storage space (tanks will start empty), 72 fuel units (to save weight, can refill tank later), convert-o-tron 250, 4 medium extendable radiators, 20 monopropellant (to start - can be refilled later), 4000-V battery, extra 6-sides docking module at the other end. EMPTY CARGO BAY: 1700 monopropellant for the assembly stage, 1 empty Mk3 Cargo Bay CRG-100, 4 Gigantor solar panels, 4000-V battery, 1 Infrared telescope. SSTO DOCK: 4 crew capacity (1 Hitchhiker), 4,000-V battery, 750 monopropellant for assembly, 1 docking port for an SSTO I found on the Internet, (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1vkqUQ3RVFw2Pgqdo-vFpC2jDwMEsYN/view), SSTO ITSELF: (Check the link above). It's purpose is to dock on and off the Enterprise and get crews on and off planets as well as bring ore back. I plan to modfiy it so that it can easily dock with the Enterprise MOON LANDER: 3 crew capacity (Mk1-3 command pod), 914 Fuel Units, 750 monopropellant, 4 Mk2-R Radial-mount Parachutes, 4,000-V battery, 4 1x6 Solar Panels, 4 LT-2 landing struts, MechJeb and probe core. Also came with a decoupler. Should I remove it or not, since I obviously plan to send the moon crew back up. Pros of keeping decoupler: can also be used as a one-way escape pod Cons of keeping decoupler: it goes off, the crew is going to be stuck there. 3 ESCAPE PODS: EACH HAS (from top to bottom): 7 crew capacity (that's 21 in total), 2 docking ports (1 on top, 1 on side), 9 Mk2-R Radial-mount Parachutes, 4 1x6 Solar Panels, MechJeb and probe core, 10-m inflatable heat shield, 1 25-m decoupler, 2188 units of fuel, 750 monopropellant, Skipper Engine Basically, if you're going to a planet/moon, this is a one-way trip. If you're transferring crews to/from Kerbin or other stations, use only one pod at a time. Keep the pods locked at all times. Do not use all of them (or any of them, for that matter) unless it's a life-threatening emergency that warrants immediate evacuation. I haven't sent any of this up yet, since I wanted to hear your input on what the Enterprise could use. Any ideas, I'm open.
  19. Hi peeps!! I'm HansonKerman, and these are my Sandbox Micro Missions where I post small missions in a new save! This save is Custom Mode - Normal Mode with 64% reentry heat Oh, and VAB snippets will appear. Notable mods: Astronomers Visual Pack Fengist's Font Factory Kerbal Engineer Redux MechJeb MissingHistory Textures Unlimited RealPlume Stock ManueverNodeEvolved Everything Is Awesome (LEGO parts) Squiggsy Space Research (probe parts) and many, many, many, MANY, more... Thanks to: @SiriusRocketry, mission status report inspiration @Triop, inspiration general @All my forum friends (you know who you are) Table of Contents M1 - PPP1 - Construction Phase M1 - PPP1 - Flight Phase M2 - PPP2 "TTA" - Konstrucktion M2 - PPP2 "TTA" - Flight Part One M2 - PPP2 - "TTA" - Flight Part Two M3 - EX1 - Konstruction Mission One - Probey Probe Probe I Construction We use a few mods and make a decent payload. Mandatory MechJeb and KER Cute engines and TweakScaled panels Now we do some fair farings and our friendly neighborhood first stage. And we place our beautiful final stage onto our Probey Probe Probe I. Later we'll see how she flies! (Question: What gender do you call a Lego?)
  20. I was wondering if there is a away or a mod that allows for grouping of parts when constructing a craft. I know the game does this automatically but that is only done to parts that are attached to a part you are moving, resulting in the disconnection to the main body (ultimately to the command unit) for the parts attached to the part you are moving (Confusing? Yeah, I know ) I am asking if there is away for me to group things together so that if I decide to move it, it all moves. For example, when building a wing I may us multiple parts forward to aft along the fuselage to create a wing. I would like to be able to select a part that makes up the wing so I can move it along the aircraft without having to move each individual part.
  21. This aspect has been extricated from the necrophobic STS discussion and the like. Makes no sense to go on shooting a dead horse, but obviously some people get alot of pleasure out of it. So let them continue to live in the past, antiquated policies and luditic ambitions. This is a thread for the forward looking. In a past life we had the flexible although somewhat limited STS system which took part in repair of satellites, assembly of ISS and finally its no more, for better and worse. The ISS has a robotic arm and has involved itself in assembly . . . . . but it sterically hindered and its function and inertia limits its use in other occupations. So the question is whether NASA has a viable plan for a space factory or assembly station. I think that before you can build a station of that type you need to decide where its going to be. But we here in KSP are not limited by what any space agency thinks, since the powers-that-be (rattling the moderators cage ) endowed each of us with a brain, its best we put it to our own use and create. And as creators and artist we will tolerate the failings of each other but accept the critiques as a means of communicative growth. But the argument does have to be constrained by what is currently feasible. So for example we could could say build a launch pad in say Boca-Chica for that 50 kT rocket (toasting everything within a kilometer), but we currently cannot launch a fusion powered rocket, so that we cannot argue, place factory in polar orbit because i have a 'god'-mode drive. Lets premise the discussion with a global 'god' commandment that we all can agree on. That progress in space exploration is the target, manned when its appropriate or of benefit, and unmanned at other times. So that neither are we going to restrict one for the other or vice versa. Part 1. Physical Basis I want to use a kind of use a quantum perspective on Earth, we have to argue from a spatial point of view that Earth is a particle with an infinite number of dimensions which define its state, the same argument can be made about the moon. And we need to perform operations on both. If we are to compare it to an atom, the mass being the nucleus and we are electrons or photons that are being effected by its various parameters, depending on the operation. Within the dimensions are qualities (e.g. mu, axial tilt, atmosphere, . . . . .) all defined by dimensions. The reason I want to describe the earth this way is because its not a simple planet rotating on a axis perpendicular to its orbit about the sun so that depending the operation we can select a vector in that space and operate on it to see what happens (so for instance you can use a rotational reference frame, cartesian, change of basis, hamiltonian, etc). The structure is important but details are not until you want to use one then you fabricate the dimensions you want and create vectors). So for instance to assemble a certain set of functions are going to describe how you get information (mass, energy, operations .. . . people) from the Earth to the assembly point and the second how you get mass from the assembly point to an escape. In doing this we can define the energy required to create a particle and then to expel a particle along a desired vector (and all that the expulsion requires). Because of its extended dimensionality and because of this we are sometimes using complex spatial vectors in multiple reference frames. But the desire ulitimately to cross all these frames out and have an orbit to Mars, the Asteroid belt, Jupiter within the common inertial plane of the solar system (we don't have to worry about the galaxy). The math is very complex and I am not going to bore the abstract discussion with that, but just to say there is no perfect plane to go everywhere at everytime. I think everyone already knows this, but its not simply planar problem it is a 4 dimensional problem with other parallels(momentum, acceleration, dM/dt, etc). The broad definition allows us to compute on all operations define local outcomes create a change vector and move to a different system fluidly. Again details are not needed just the framework of testing various models. So the summary here is this. The Earth is a base of information, energy is required to project that into space. In our handwaving dimensional system there are three points. 1. a complex dimensional point denoted QSP-basis, its on the earth, 2. Mission basis, its a facility in space, this is the place were individual missions begin after all components are assembled 3. destination-basis a variable by which you want to go. There are two aspects of this model that are subject to change. 3 does not change, for example the variable Mars is always were mars will be. Once you designate Mars as the destination you, the global operator, cannot change where Mars is. We can dicker over a landing site on Mars, but that is something of submission specific details and for the sake our argument it outside of this thread and in another thread 'Exosystemic Space Stations'. So the concept here is that we have some control over (1) we can manipulate in real time (where we launch from, how much mass, and when within launch window) and likewise we can move (2) anywhere we want but it must be in our planetary system. And so the complexity of the potentials is immediately apparent. Part 2. Logical basis To frame the problem I will create the Query Space Agency .. .QSA, which is of course on Earth, where it is on Earth doesn't matter, but its not at a pole it could be in Russia, Ecuador or Argentina. QSA then has mission objectives. Mars is the default, Moon is a strong second, Asteroid belt is a third, NE-Asteroids are a collective, Venus is an option and Mercury tails the list. Each of these on the list have an ideal dV, which can only be defined in context. To get a feel how part one is essential. For instance lets argue the amount of dV required to get any where in the Solar system is X and that is the minimum required. From that point of view the potential is always realized from the lowest LEO possible and in some case LEO may not be achieved (point 2 is expeditiously removed on your trip to pluto). That is to say, while you are still have notable positive radial velocity remant from your lauch you burn most of the dV required to reach your destination. Ultimately this can be done from the lowest LEO and extracts the most energy from the fuel that the craft gains. Note that we switch to a rotational coordinate system to define radial velocity diagram for the rocket and this allowed us to maximize the Hamiltonian (Hl, lets call it the energy swap thingy KE---> PE KE-PE = SPE). The point we define as the basis is what . . . . . .it evolved during the burn becoming the basis at the end of the burn which the Hl could be predicted for the trip to the LEO, then change of basis and out of the solar system. We could then theoretically just point any rocket at any target in space, fire to lowest dV and we would have the lowest. Actually no, this violates the premise of the argument . . .we do not have a god-mode drive, or a god-mode drag ablation system, god-mode thrust, god-mode visceral fortitude for manned missions. Consequently the time spent in total vertical motion accelerating and fighting drag would consume more dV than making a tangential turn and burning along the tangent outward. This is trivial right? Not exactly, the two statement justify the commencement of missions distal to (1) at some location (2) where drag is not an issue (if you have a craft that is very bulky) and where the burn initiates always along the tangent. The counter argument is why we don't launch all mission from this 'sweetspot' in space, and the answer is most current missionswill have lower specific energy requirement than the sweet spot and can manage within the bulk maximum of primary. Thus (2) by definition is a secondary mission initiation site. In the same way returning an astronaut from the ISS can be seen as part of a different mission than his launch to ISS. So by the logic we can suggest there is a point in space (2) whereby for some manmade objects that are assembled from multiple launches of 1 (cost/risk) is a lower cost/risk than the most efficient launch from earth. The absurd argument is this, we have a function called an 'massive Aerogel' (mass as in huge manifold) in which we are going to use the Aerogel to land something on Mars. But the manifold needs to be formed, so we have a facility in orbit that, say forms the Aerogel and places it on the martian ship, the martian ship takes off and it bounces around on the surface of Mars (what it does on Mars we dont care, like SpaceX launching the fully formed vessel is our mission complete). Anti-god-mode restrictions tell us that we cannot form the Aerogel at Mars and you cant launch the Aerogel rom terra. Part 3. Decision basis. So then we list out all the possible (2) points that can be used for all potential missions inside of our (1->2) basis (contains all missions that are too high for direct, bulky to go direct, or massive to be launched from earth) The minimum dV requiement of each of these is defined along with fuel requirement of crew rotations, station assembly requirements .. . . . .and we get a spatial manifold around Earth at any given time that has one or more minimum. This means we could at some medium future point have several points. Part 4. Evolving (U) exceptional basis (4). The exceptional basis gives us new parameters (4) that we can use for change functions. Lets take an absurd argument. Today every amount of fuel but not power must come from Earth (excepting solar wind, photon push, cannae drives and oberth effects), at somepoint say J2040 we now have power that comes from an asteroid with a comet inside that has undergone system capture (although we care where it is in our system, we don't need to know exactly where it is to create a infinite dimensional state vector for it that can be operated upon, the details can be applied at convenience). This then includes the capture. So for instance the body crosses into the planetary system and then there are operations to capture it and exploit it. Then there are operations to associate its state with other states by association vectors. In associating the exceptional state with all the other (2) states we then begin to reoptimize (2) and indirectly (1) to take advantage of (4), so that (4) and (2) can change (3s never changes since its a target not a waypoint, in this since they are always changing but we never change them). So this is the framework for future technology in space, we work in space for a time and a benefit of this is that the total required-power metric decreases and operations evolve in response to this. The counter argument to this it that exception basis evolves and is not current. This is important to the creative argument, what it means is that any fabrication that assumes that the exception basis is current and not dU4/dt is just like god-mode thrust; its a violation of the constraints. This is not Star Trek you cannot create a transgalactic warp-drive by using Wesley Crusher's best friend experimenting in an engineering lab overnight to suddenly escape the borg. dU4/dt also means that there is a cost involved in the change of state that needs to be applied to other associated systems and that the faster dU4/dt evolves the higher the cost in resources to other aspects. That means that developing an exceptional basis creates a necessary trade off of resources. Here is an example, suppose you are using Space X to supply the transfer and load requirements to an interplanetary shuttle that drops stuff at mars then heads back and reloads. Although you can for instance extract argon from comets its not very efficient and most of the fuel goes to Earth, suddenly now there is a comet in orbit in which a huge amount of hydrogen and oxygen can be produced, so now what you are doing is hauling empty hydrogen tanks back from Mars, but still you need argon gas to route. You can convert to magnesium but theres a cost. In addition to initiate the new system there has to be tanks shipped from Earth, and your argon supply drops off, so the hydrolox tanks build up in Mars orbit. Secondarily manned resources on your station are shifted to the comet and equipment coming from earth is also shifted to the comet. So for a time, as a space tug, your operations slow down as with all operations on your basis (2x). In addition that asteroid or comet is a (3) that is converted to (4) and that conversion has a resource cost before it even reaches the system. This means that missions (2->3x) need to be cancelled and diverted to 2->33->4. The thread is long enough so I will just add a few statements. Although I am still working on the details of how best to use ION drives from Earth orbit, I foresee a best set of circumstances from LEO/MEO. By this I don't mean crazy low LEO, it has to be far enough up where the Sun covers most of the angular displacement * time of a craft in orbit over time. Particular with Solar +prograde exit vectors the burn optimum is beyond termination the Earth this means to expose the craft while burning the craft has to be significantly high or have lightweight and efficient batteries. The mass efficiency comes from the differential between chemical Ve (4700) and ION drive Ve (>30000) that, in essence you do not want to use chemical reaction energy propellants to push an ION drive with bulky solar panels. The point however I want to make that it is possible to use ION thrusters during most of the orbit without loosing dV as long as certain parameters are preserved (IOW not a continous spiral) and also it might be faster to do this than a spiral. So that even a weakly powered ION drive has some modifyers that can get it out of Earth orbit faster (for example using highest ISP thrust for some operations and lowest ISP thrust for others, such as at the rmin in an orbit or when making the final kick. The direction of thrust can be varied to keep the rmin optimal and even reversed at highest possible ISP (or even a photon drive). OTOH the orbitally-static stations are attractive in the sense that we can always have them in a state that is optimal for most outgoing vectors. The problem that I don't like about these is they generally are 4000dV vectors at Ve of 5000 or lower. I cannot see ION drives doing this thing since their best benefit is in the kick from the LEO/MEO Earth to its destination, and in actuality tolerates super-Hohmann transfers that markedly shorten time. But there are time constraints on some missions so crawling out of L/MEO to L2 may be the best means of doing this, and certainly saves alot of dV on ION-IP shuttles. The problem is that for an ION drive once you are at L2, you are no longer required, and if PL need to use L2 to use your thrust is really not of a benefit in the PL to L2 transfer. It could be of some benefit, perhaps a smaller number of kicks where solar (minimal) and ion contribute to the kick over say 2 days. The simple problem is that ION drives would be really really useful if they had more thrust and of course that requires a power supply that we don't have. If we keep in mind that energy maximization is all about dV @ V this means that if orbital minimum is a 6531 m its V = 7812 m/s and 5523 m/s at 13063 km. For each amount of fuel burnt at gives a change of energy of 7812/dV at 7812 and 5523/dV at 5523. This goes to 12000E/dv at and somewhat less than 11500E/dv for the starting 5523. Again so there is basically a loss of 1500E/dv by doubling the radius. Thats a heavy tax to pay in addition to circularization costs. But it increase the burn span by almost 80 degrees. Of course as the orbit expands you issues with timing of optimal burns that cannot be circumvented so it might be wise to thrust up the Drives by changing the grid voltage and increasing amps. The final comment involves the shuttle and its potential application to the problem that has been de-optioned. Most of the gateways are programs and are fixed in nature, therefore if program flaws occur there is essentially little change options. With a shuttle based assembly the assembly states can change, since the initial state X is only in a place where shuttle can reach, if the X assembly point then spawns other Xs the shuttle is no longer required, however inefficient it might be its functionality could be leveraged into other states, and those states would make the shuttle obsolete, which is desired.
  22. I'm trying to put together a spaceplane tutorial. I'm trying hard to keep things simple as possible, and not over engineer the sample craft I'm planning to use. Looking through KerbalX and the forums, the kind of aircraft most first timers try to create is based on mk2 fuselage parts, which have very high drag. Should I have people use wing incidence right away, or is that likely to set up traps for the unwary or make them just switch off thinking "this is too hard !" ? My initial plan is to broach the subject of wing incidence in an appendix , showing how the craft's performance can be improved. I'm just warning people about the drag and telling them to keep the mk2 fuselage as short as possible, storing what can be stored in the wings or mk1 parts there instead, and to fit large wings , and try to fly as high as possible whilst keeping AoA low. Test flights of the flat-winged craft show that it reaches orbit ok, but doesn't quite have the fuel to reach Minmus, and it doesn't accelerate with much enthusiasm. Adding payload or extra fuel would make it hard to get to orbit, so it has to stay under 30 ton gross. Adding incidence halves the craft's drag, but makes the blue CoL indicator act in a disconcerting way , and means you got to start talking about mods like editor extensions or CorrectCoL. You also have to warn people about applying the danagers of having a canard at lower incidence angle than the main wing, causing main wing to stall first and flip out of control
  23. If you have a ground base, either big or small, either running smoothly or insanely framerate breaking, either at ground level or high up, on land or water, and you think that it's worthy enough, then send me pics! Show the rest of the forums how good your basebuilding skills are! Show them how much skill and time it took you to construct it, and last of all, show them links to mods if you used them! To post, you will have to have at least one picture of your base, and a short description (function, goal, objective, etc.) of your creation. And, even though it's called "ground base", that doesn't mean that you can also have a "sea base"! Get building, forumkerbs!
  24. EDIT: OMG, a simple game restart solves the bug -.-' hi all, I have a big problem with the construction of my rockets in the new Version 1.2. It is easier to explain it with a simple example: Easy task: I want some landing struts on my ship. For a good alignment I activate the "snap" function. But this does not limit the positioning in the height. For this reason some struts are a little bit more up and some are a little bit more down..... very ugly How can I fix this? In the last Versions it was very easy with the "Move Tool": Just select the tool, activate "snap", select on one of the struts, try to move it in any direction and the object snapped even in the height. A few clicks later and everything was in a nice line. But this does not work anymore Any ideas? Thx
  • Create New...