Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'launcher'.

  • 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. This is a simple dll to bypass the launcher. It doesn't modify any existing files, so it still works after you check the integrity in steam. Steam features like time-tracking and workshop in VAB still works. Source code and download: https://github.com/c6ForH66/NoPDLauncher Installation Goto github releases page and download the latest release. IMPORTANT Copy C:\Windows\SysWoW64\version.dll to <KSP_INSTALLATION>\PDLauncher and rename it to version_original.dll Put the dll in <KSP_INSTALLATION>\PDLauncher Launch the game in steam and see if it works.
  2. Hey everyone! This one's so wild, it'll make your head spin! Most of us have tried our hand at building an artificial gravity station, either by building a conventional orbital station with a working centrifuge, or even building an entire spinning 2001-style vessel. Both are wonderful, but what if your Kerbals are going to be spending months on end not in zero gee, but on the surface of a body with a surface gravity less than that of Kerbin, like Moho (g = 2.7 m/s^2)? We can still put a centrifuge to work, but this time it'll be there to provide the additional acceleration that we need in combination with Moho's surface graviy to obtain a 9.81 m/s^2 net acceleration on our Kerbals, ensuring the long term health of their little (presumably) green musculoskeletal systems. To this end, I've developed the Rototron XVI. An artificial gravity surface base with the capability of reaching Moho with a crew of 32 Kerbals. When deployed on the surface, the centrifuge can be run indefinitely due to the combined ISRU refinery and fuel cell array. The station is constructed in LKO via two separate launches; one for the centrifuge and crew cabins, and another for the main engines and landing support structure. The crew of 32 is launched separately, along with an additional fuel tank that will be used to provide the rest of the delta-v we'll need to make the interplanetary transfer to Moho. A region near Moho's south pole was chosen as our landing site due to the abundance of low-altitude flat land, as the axis of rotation of the centrifuge must be as close to parallel to the local gravity field as possible to sustain constant acceleration. From left to right: R-XVI Centrifuge, R-XVI Crew Module, and R-XVI Landing Support Structure, Here is a link to a gif of it under rotation, KSP forums wont let me post it here https://i.imgur.com/jEbFkj3.gifv The math on this is not terribly difficult. Typically, when constructing an artificial gravity station with the intention of simulating actual 1 gee acceleration, you work out the necessary rate of rotation via: angular velocity = sqrt ( 9.81 / r ) Where "r" is the perpendicular distance between the crew cabin and the axis of rotation. In our case, if we model the two crew cabins as point masses on the ends of massless rods under rotation in a uniform gravitational field, the acceleration experienced by the crew cabins can be evaluated merely as a function of the angle of splay of the crew cabins while under rotation (such as with a centrifugal governor). Thus, we need only calculate the angle of splay that will result from our desired total acceleration: Splay angle = arcsin( 2.7 / 9.81) = ~16 deg Knowing this, we simply vary the rpm on the main rotor while monitoring the angle display on one of the hinges until the splay angle settles in around 16 deg. Now, we see the launch, construction, landing, and operation: Again, here's another gif: https://i.imgur.com/MPMPMY2.gifv I hope you enjoyed this, I sure enjoyed building and flying it. I don't have plans to post the craft files yet, but I will if it seems like there's enough interest. If you like crazy big spacecraft, you'll also like my last post:
  3. Hello all! Just wanted to share a project I've been working on for entirely too long. I started out wanting to create a more generic launch platform for general use in KSP, but quickly snowballed into an attempted recreation of the Apollo Mobile Launcher and Launch Umbilical Tower. I remember seeing the outstanding documentary For All Mankind when I was a kid and absolutely -loving- the shot from the elevator of the tower going up and seeing the behemoth Saturn V squatting right in front of the camera. Further review informed me that this elevator was actually located on the Mobile Service Structure (MSS), but I was nonetheless inspired to attempt to recreate the launch-day experience of an Apollo astronaut. So far I have created the launch platform (with some interior, even), the ground support structures, the LUT itself, the hammerhead crane, the damper arm, and swing arms 9 and 6 - all with animations. As stated earlier, I wanted the user to be able to experience the actual route taken by the astronauts on launch-day, so I have included functionality to take the ground-to-pad elevator, walk down the mobile launcher corridor to the elevator room, ride the elevator to tower level 320', then traverse the walkway and crew access arm to the Saturn V command module. The screenshots included here are adapted for the FASA Saturn V. I'm trying to gauge community interest in this thing in an attempt to motivate myself to finish it. Here are some videos of the project: The Apollo Astronaut Pad Experience Demo of currently implemented features TODO: Swing Arms: Lights? Complete arms 1-5 and 7-8 Mobile Launcher: Add Blast Shield Tether Tie-Downs 0' - 80': Add equipment boxes, etc. Complete water pipes / quench stuff 100' - 360': Add equipment boxes, etc. Complete water pipes / quench stuff Complete Propellant pipes 200' - 300': Add swing arm walkway supports 300 - Bottom of umbMount z-fighting its support 320': Add escape lines? Car (9-seater)? 380': Crane 25 TON 10 TON sign
  4. Hey guys With the latest 1.12.4 update, SQUAD / Private Division decided to introduce an additional launcher to the game which will start up after hitting the "Play" button in Steam instead of launching the game directly. IMO this is rather annoying and doesn't provide any actual benefits, in fact, it actually causes some trouble especially for mods. Since the update, me and others figured out multiple ways to circumvent the launcher which come with their own benefits and drawbacks, so here are a few for you guys to choose from, depending on which solution fits the best for you 1. KSSL (KSP Simple Steam Launcher) Pros: Easy to use You keep all the Steam features like the overlay, game time tracking, etc. Mods will work as usual Cons: Need to be reinstalled if the game ever gets another update or you verify the games file integrity @R-T-B wrote this wrapper which replaces the original executable of the launcher. Simply replace the "LauncherPatcher.exe" provided by them with the one from the stock game and you're already done and ready to go. 2. Change the game launch options (shortcut version) Pros: Resilient to any further game updates Mods will work as usual Cons: Steam features like the overlay and game time tracking don't work anymore Slightly more difficult to setup Steam allows to setup individual launch options for each game, which can be used to redirect the target for the "Play" button in your Steam library. This particular solution by @Gotmachine redirects the button to point to a shortcut, which then again points to the game executable: 3. Change the game launch options (executable version) Pros: Resilient to any further game updates "Purist" solution to keep the game 100% stock Steam features will work as usual Cons: Mods are very likely to break Slightly more difficult to setup So, this was the solution I came up with like an hour after the update but which turned out to be problematic later on. Works in the same way as the previous solution but instead of redirecting the "Play" button to a shortcut, it gets redirected to the games executable: Right click KSP in your Steam Library Click on properties At the bottom of the "General" tab, you will find "Launch Options" and a text field. Write in this text field "FULL GAME PATH TO .EXE FILE" %command% Close the window Profit! for example: The window is not resizable to show the full command but I guess you get it If you are having trouble to find the path to your game executable, you can right click the game in your library -> "Manage" -> "Browse local files". This will open up a window with your game files, showing the path at the top navigation bar. 4. The Kerbal Way (aka jump through three loops to accomplish.... "something") Pros: Mods will work as usual Steam features will work as usual Cons: Fairly janky to setup Not extensively tested A CMD window will be open as long as the game is running This is basically a combination of solution #2 and #3 but instead of redirecting the "Play" button to the game executable or a shortcut of it, it gets redirected to the windows command line (CMD) which then is used to launch the game. Choosing this solutions allows you to eliminate the drawback of missing steam features from solution #2. So, in order to achieve this, you need to follow the instructions from solution #2 but the command in the games launch options needs to be: "PATH TO CMD" %command% /c "start PATH TO SHORTCUT.lnk" The quotation marks are important, as well as using the ".lnk" extension at the end of the shortcuts name, even if it is not visible in your explorer window or part of the name you gave the shortcut. The "PATH TO CMD" should always be the same in windows: c:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe The "/c" will pipe everything in quotation marks after it as a command to the CMD, so we are just telling it to launch the game via the shortcut. In my case, the full command looks like this: "c:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe" %command% /c "start D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\"Kerbal Space Program"\KSP_x64_shortcut.lnk" What about Linux/MacOS??? I dont use neither of those so I can only refer to the post of @Nazalassa : I can't say anything about pros and cons for this solution, not even if it works or details about the execution, sorry. What about other launch options??? Other launch options like "-popupwindow" or "-force-d3d11" should still work as usual for any solution on this list. For solution #2 to #4, you can just add them at the very end of the command, for example: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\KSP_x64_Steam" %command% -popupwindow or "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\KSP_x64.exe" %command% -popupwindow or "c:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe" %command% /c "start D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\"Kerbal Space Program"\KSP_x64_shortcut.lnk" -popupwindow I hope everyone was able to find a solution which fits bets for their situation but if not, you're always welcome to ask questions right here in the thread. If any other solution comes up to fill up a niche, I'll happy add it to the list, same goes for linux and MacOS versions of the game. Also, any feedback is always welcome
  5. Single Tank To Orbit Challenge: The Goal: For purposes that should not be disclosed, Jebediah needs fuel. A lot of it. He pointed to the biggest bloody fuel tank on the market and said "That one. I need it in orbit." But he's on a budget and wants the task completed by the lowest bidder. Get one fully filled S4-512 fuel tank into low kerbin orbit for the lowest amount of funds possible. The S4-512 has 28160 units of oxidizer and 23040 units of liquid fuel, and weighs 288 tons. If you do not have Making History DLC or simply wish to build in a different configuration you can use other tanks. (3 Kerbodyne S3-14400's, 1 Kerbodyne S3-3600, 1 Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 and 1 Rockomax X200-16 will bring you to within about 0.3% the amount of fuel and mass.) The cost in funds of these tanks is actually less than a single S4-512. For that reason the cost of the payload whatever it is will be subtracted from the scoring. You can use any configuration of tanks you want actually as long as the required amount of LF/OX arrives in orbit. But in the spirit of the challenge a few large tanks would be ideal. Category 1: This is for the cheapest spacecraft to put on the launchpad, or non-reusable launchers. The total vessel cost minus the cost of the payload. vyznev: 391,432 (first entry) Category 2: This is for the lowest cost after vessel recovery. For SSTOs or recoverable boosters. The total cost of the vessel minus the cost of the payload and any recovered parts. [Leaderboard to go here] Rules: -No ISRU. No mining the launchpad or sending the tanks up empty and filling them at minmus. -Single launch. -No modded parts. Stock and DLC only. -No clang drives. -No cheat window. -The cost of the fuel payload is only for the tanks and fuel themselves and is subtracted from the final cost of the rocket or spaceplane. Any attached probe cores, fuel tanks that are used by the ascent stage or other such items that are delivered into orbit or not part of the payload are not subtracted from the cost. Documentation: I'll do this mostly on the honor system. One screenshot of the fully assembled craft in the VAB. Any major staging events or milestones in the ascent profile. And a screenshot with the payload in orbit with the resources tab visible. Make sure you know the cost of the fuel payload so you can subtract it from the cost of the launcher. Videos are fine too.
  6. Kratos The Successor to Ariane IV Kratos ahead of her maiden flight Kratos is the newest launch vehicle developed and operated by Arianespace for the European Space Agency (ESA). Kratos will begin operations in 1991, and replace the Ariane IV. The Kratos-S (Standard) variant can carry up to 21 Metric Tons to LEO. For more demanding missions to further out destinations, such as a probe, the variant Kratos-E (Expanded) is available. The Kratos-E features a 3rd stage called "Loki" Named after the God of power; Kratos represents the strength, might and power of ESA. With a new launch capabilty, ESA aims to become a strong force in the launch market. Both Launchers have a long and short fairing variant, identified by an 'S' or 'L' following the Kratos type. For example: 'Kratos-SS' A standard Kratos with a short fairing 'Kratos-EL' An expanded Kratos with a long fairing The system was designed as an expendable heavy-lift space launch vehicle. Standing 68m tall and 5.4m wide, it is comparable to Atlas V, Ariane 5 and Proton rocket. The system is powered by hydrogen and oxygen. Now for the stats: First Stage: 10 Vulcain 2 engines with a combined thrust of 13590kN and a burn time of 103s. Second Stage: 6 HM7B engines with a combined thrust of 373.2kN and a burn time of 361s. Third Stage (Loki): 1 HM7B engine with a thrust of 62.2kN and a burn time of 748 s. This new launch vehicle features a more modern look than the previous Ariane rockets. Sleek white with the classic blue ESA colour for accents. This new launch vehicle is soon to hit the market and the launch pad too. And for the first time, you the readers will have a say in its future career... You can book a flight to launch your own mission on Kratos. As long as the mission is 1) Based in the real world 2) possible and plausible, I will launch it for free and make its own post on this forum. This idea allows me to share the magic of good looking rockets and ksp images to people who maybe cannot do it themselves. It also gives me something to launch, I'm tired of ore tanks lol So send me your missions, I can't wait to make them! Book here! PS: By the way, I go to school so getting the missions out could be a couple of days, or a couple of weeks, just depends how busy i am. PS PS: Timeline of launches is not chronological, could jump from 1995 to 2012 Mission List
  7. Hey fellow developers! I'm developing Kerbol Launcher, unofficial KSP Launcher which main feature will be managing multiple game versions and modpacks. For example: Let 1.11.2 version instance have modpacks: RSS-Pack RealSolarSystem RealSolarSystemVisualEnhancements RealismOverhaul Performance RealismOverhaul Let 1.8.1 version instance have modpacks: Foo Generic outdated mods which are not working on 1.11.2 Bar Generic outdated mods which are not working on 1.11.2 And now with multiple instances added to launcher and easy-to-use modpack feature you can switch between everything in few clicks. Cool, isn't it? I hope you got the point. Now let me explain why I need an active co-dev. *I'm not a KSP mod dev* Basically launcher has to communicate somehow with KSP to load different GameData (squadexpansions/squad will be copied when creating new modpack) folders or ideally load both different GameData and modpack folder. (GameData will be for squadexpansions/squad and modpack folder for mods) If that's not possible I will have to dynamically copy modpack folder into GameData which is time and resource consuming, way too resource consuming for a launcher. Mod has to be compatible with most releases, ideally should work with versions from 5 years ago. Modpack directory will be exposed through launch options (argv). It's the easiest and the most elegant option for this kind of thing. I don't have any hard deadline, but would like to release first alpha in late June or early/mid July. I hope it's obvious that you won't get paid, however we can try setting up donations when launcher gets little hype. For more details or if you are interested dm me on forum, then we will move to Discord for faster communication. Thanks for reading my post. I hope we can create better tomorrow for KSP players Londek
  8. Alright, since my "Cruel Veterinarian's rocket"mod for KSP didn't work, I have another challenge, and it's a sequel to my Odyssey II post. Has anyone tried to do a repilca of the rocket from one of the saddest episodes in Courage the Cowardly Dog, "Remembrance of Courage Past" for KSP?
  9. I want to make a challenge to you guys: can you make a KSP replica of Odyssey II from Nickelodeon's series "Astronauts"? The rocket is here so you can make it: And here's the series premiere of the latter:
  10. If I could have one change that would help me the most in KSP, it would be a better launcher. The ability to download mods, purchase DLCs, and just update the game takes me upwards of hours. However, unless there is a easier way to install them, I believe a launcher that can do this on its own would be incredible. Even uploading ship designs would be a nice feature. Different operating systems have differing file layouts so a combatibility would be very helpful for new players who lack tutorials that use the same system as they do.
  11. This is a stupid question, but can you use mods on ksp Xbox. Most forums say no, but the Xbox version still has a app launcher tab. I mean they completely reworked to game to make it xbox-compatible and wouldn't they remove it if it had no use?
  12. Hello! Today, I've got a new toy. Everyone has made a basic orbiter with command module return capabilities, usually using the trusty ol' heat shield and parachutes, but I decided to try to build an orbiter that can land using a set of extendable wings, much like one of the proposals for the Gemini Program: Introducing the Mallard CSM-W: The Mallard CSM-W is a standard LKO crew module. The launch vehicle can place the orbiter into an equatorial LKO, and the orbiter has a few hundred m/s of on-orbit maneuvering fuel. The orbiter also comes with RCS thrusters, fuel, and a forward mounted port to allow for rendezvous and docking. The service bay behind the command module has two sets of wings with landing gear folded in at launch, which can be deployed prior to de-orbit and re-entry. Upon re-entry, an initial angle of attack of 90 deg will allow you to bleed off enough speed to keep temperatures low once you reach the lower atmosphere. Once you kill the majority of your speed, you'll need to look to land quickly since the lift-to-drag ratio is pretty poor. I've found it to be easiest to simply dive down to maintain airspeed, and then level off just before you reach the ground. Landing works best around 60 m/s, as it's decently slow but still above the stall speed. It can be landed on the KSC runway, or really anywhere else with sufficiently flat ground. Dumping the remainder of your maneuvering fuel before landing is also recommended. Action groups: AG1) Toggle lock on all robotics parts (locked by default at launch) AG2) Deploy wings and gear When deploying the wings, first use AG1 to unlock the robotics, then use AG2 to deploy. Once the wings are deployed, use AG1 again to re-lock the robotics parts. This is critical, as the wing parts are autostrutted to the command module, and will be unstable if not re-locked. Due to what I assume to be a bug, re-locking the robotics parts does not always work for all of them (usually the tiny hinges) so you'll have to check all 12 of them to be sure they are re-locked before re-entry. The game will display the "Cannot Lock Robotic part, Servo is moving" warning, even though none of them are still moving after being deployed. Not sure why this happens, but manually locking the rest of the parts does not take long. Here is a lovely gif of the wing deployment in action: https://i.imgur.com/257oimq.gifv Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/Jamie_Logan/Mallard-CSM-W Gallery: I hope you enjoyed it! Here is my last post:
  13. "Jeb, it's not a skyscraper if you build it somewhere without an atmosphere." "...A spacescraper, it shall be!" The SPACESCRAPER 0 is a fully stock tower. It has office space for 1,540 Kerbals, and can be flown to Minmus and landed in a single go. The launcher can place the tower on a suborbital trajectory, where the tower's 28 Nervas are used to go the rest of the way. Once in space, attitude is controlled via 16 Vernor engines instead of SAS modules due to the insane mass. There's also a small landing pad in between the upper and lower halves of the building to accommodate visiting landers. If you'd like to give it a go (even if just to fly it into the VAB, which I highly recommend), the craft file is here: https://kerbalx.com/Jamie_Logan/SPACESCRAPER-0 The fuel for the launch stage comes in part from the tanks in the booster itself, and part from the mk3 tanks in the tower in between the crew cabins. Upon burnout of the launch stage, you should have only a sliver of oxidizer left, along with enough liquid fuel to power the Nervas to a Minmus landing. The remaining oxidizer is due to the two 2.25 meter tanks at the base of the tower. This is the fuel that will be used for on-orbit attitude changes via the vernor thrusters, so both have fuel flow disabled at launch to prevent their fuel from being immediately used up by the main engines. Don't forget to re-enable fuel flow on them after booster separation so you can achieve attitude control. While on orbit, it is not recommended that you use SAS until you make your final landing approach. RCS+SAS for attitude stability and control will gladly eat up all your RCS fuel in a jiffy, so attitude adjustments are best made using small manual RCS bursts along with 4x physics warp to save time while rotating (don't worry, the tower is autostrutted to the max). SAS is generally not necessary during burns, as the huge moment of inertia of the tower should keep its attitude more or less consistent during the burn, especially when performing a burn directly out of a standard time warp. Gallery: I really hope you liked it! Also, check out my last post:
  14. Hey! Continuing with my too-big launcher binge, I've got another whopper for ya: A multi-purpose interplanetary ship with ample fuel and propulsion, space for 70 Kerbals, and a variety of ports for expansion and utilization. It can be placed into LKO fully fueled in a single launch: Please let me know what you think! Download the craft file here: https://kerbalx.com/Jamie_Logan/Torus-X-64 Also, Check out:
  15. Hey Y'all! I hope everyone is enjoying their time in quarantine, as well as staying safe and sanitary. It's certainly given me more time to muck around in KSP, so I've got something new to show. The Verdon S4 (named in honor of the late Verdon Kerman) is an interplanetary transfer vehicle that can be used to drive large and otherwise massive payloads around the Kerbol system. The design was put together to maximize the final TWR and delta-V when reaching LKO without needing a part count that drives your (or at least my) framerate into a slideshow. I've included a secondary vessel; a crew habitation module which will act as our payload for demonstration purposes. With room for 28 Kerbals, it also has six docking ports; one large port for docking with the S4, one standard forward port, and four lateral ports to allow for extra vessels to dock (landers, probes, visiting crew ships, etc.). S4 LKO Vac. delta-V and TWR for various payload masses: payload mass (t) delta-V (m/s) TWR 0.000 6951 0.44 25.000 6288 0.43 50.000 5654 0.41 64.323** 5428 0.40 100.000 4816 0.38 200.000 3760 0.33 400.000 2651 0.27 800.000 1688 0.19 **crew hab. module mass Craft Statistics: Verdon S4 (interplanetary vehicle only) Parts 27 Wet mass 603.235t Thrust (vac) 2,625.0kN Height 5.5m Width 5.4m Length 55.2m Verdon S4 (interplanetary vehicle + launch vehicle) Parts 142 Wet mass 7,342.700t Thrust (vac) 84,000.0kN Height 96.6m Width 13.5m Length 13.5m Verdon Crew Habitation Module (interplanetary vehicle only) Parts 97 Wet mass 64.323t Thrust (vac) 120.0kN Height 7.4m Width 5.0m Length 49.6m Verdon Crew Habitation Module (interplanetary vehicle + launch vehicle) Parts 188 Wet mass 4,890.064t Thrust (vac) 64,000.0kN Height 92.1m Width 9.7m Length 9.7m Verdon S4 on the pad Verdon Crew Habitation Module on the pad At Eeloo! To see this craft in action as part of a larger mission, check this out: KerbalX hangar: https://kerbalx.com/hangars/97494
  16. My launcher looks like this. I've owned KSP since 2013 and it's been like this for a long while over all versions I've played. The game works fine but the update feature doesn't work just like the picture illustrates. Any idea on how to fix this?
  17. I purchased the Direct Download of Kerbal Space Program in 2013, and played it here and there for a while until sometime in 2016, when I got tired of trying to figure it out at the time (I wasn't particularly good at it back then). A couple of weeks ago, I got back into it and began playing it again. It's been all fine and good, but there's one slight issue. For some reason, the launcher's background, which I would assume has an image behind all of its information, is blank, and looks a bit out of place. Furthermore, the place where the versions are supposed to be shown are blank (It says Current Version ID: - and Latest Version ID: - ), and I can't use the update button as a result. I managed to update the game manually from 1.2.2 to 1.4.5 or whatever it is now, but the launcher did not change during my update process. Other than these issues, the launcher itself seems fully functional, but whenever I launch the game it asks me if I want to allow the program to make changes to the computer, as if its some installation program rather than a game. None of these issues directly affect the gameplay, but they are concerning me a bit. Is there anything I can do to fix this? Thanks.
  18. When I start KSP 1.4.4 and the launcher loads it doesn't show anything. No version number or news or anything. It also won't let me check for updates or update. Any one seen this before and know how to fix it? I am pretty sure the only mod I have is MechJeb. Tried adding a screen shot, but haven't figured it out yet.
  19. Hey guys! So I'm back from a long break, and I have this question begging to get answered: I see large rigs like the stock Crater Crawler, and I wonder to myself, how the heck do you deploy something that huge? It doesn't fit the biggest fairings available, so what gives It's not even assembled in LKO, there's no docking seams! So tell me: how do you (in vanilla KSP) get something really huge up there and working?
  20. There's a new shuttle challenge, I had an idea for a small shuttle. The airplane stage wasn't hard for me to build, and it flys nice - holds prograde more or less by itself , generates optimal lift/drag ratio when in prograde hold , thanks to incidence angle on wings. I had the idea of putting a kickback on each wingtip to get the thing halfway to space. That's the easy bit right? Well, no. After I'd finished getting hung up on my own launch clamps, then the torque from the boosters sending me pitching up or down into a half loop crash, i found that the flight profile you get with solids doesn't play nice with the lift from the wings. On the solids, it accelerates harder and harder as the flight goes on due to fuel burnoff, we end up generating too much lift and steadily pitching up into a vertical climb, or even going over vertical. So we need to not build speed too fast down low, but we still need enough thrust in the first 15 seconds or you get another comedy takeoff. So, I'm starting over with liquid fuel boosters, since when has any shuttle program ever been about saving money anyway? Though i might need more than a pair of Reliants to get the job done... Here is the mini shuttle with a fail-tacular solid booster setup. https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9myyrt0vsj7v7s/Starswift micro shuttle.craft?dl=0 What it really needs is something that gets it to 15km+ at mach 3 or more, in a shallow climb (less than 15 degrees of pitch) - that way the upper stage isn't wasting it's meagre thrust against gravity for long, and is actually thrusting horizontally with some atmosphere to make lift from the wings. Basically the ascent the upper stage wants to follow looks something like this -
  21. Hi, I'm playing KSP for 2 months and have Some Experience, But to Some cause, I needed to re-start my Game and Now I'm in Early-Mid Carrer. As in this Phase Many, Build subassemblies for Fast and Effective Missions. Most subassemblies are Launcher. I want to Request our Modders to Create a Mod that creates a Report for a Launcher about its Specification. I.E. Weight, Thrust, Delta-V, Thrust Vectoring, Speed and most Important for Choosing a Perfect Launcher, A Launch Capability Report, about, Weight to Low Kerbin Orbit, Kerbin Stationary Transfer, Stationary Orbit and Trans-Munar and Trans-Minmas Injection Orbit. Plz Recommended An Mod or Create one, Its an Idea for Modders not a Planned Project. Plz ,Thanks
  22. It looks like ILS has decided to develop 2 stage of the proton to launch smaller payloads. they are going to use the breeze m as a second stage and remove the original second stage and expand the first. they also plan to make one with four engines instead of 6 http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/22/smaller-variants-of-russias-proton-rocket-on-the-market/
  23. Dear @Kerbal Astronautics it's ready! Here comes a full stock Pegasus-Stargazer system called Chrysaor-Kalliroe. Coming from a old project started about two years ago it was not possible to create a TriStar-like carrier powerful enough a this time with the Whiplash being the only turbofan available. I threw away the carrier file and just keep the launcher in case of better days : Time passed by and a week ago I discovered the work of Kerbal Astronautics who made a Pegasus-Stargazer craft. It immediatly brings me back the envy to finish an incompleted work. And now with the Goliath available no way to step back again. The craft in available on KerbalX : https://kerbalx.com/XB-70A/Chrysaor-Kalliroe-Pegasus-Stargazer Build with 93 parts, the carrier is powered by three Goliath engines and able to climb to 10 km before dropping the launcher, but at this altitude the whole system whill be about to stall. The best launch configuration is between 5-8 km, at this time the speed should between 170-115 m/s. Stabilize the roll as much as possible, keep the Y-axis a bit positive then drop Chrysaor as your will. Once free you have some seconds to stabilize a bit more if you need it then you can light up the first stage. The rest is more than basic and easy. Honestly it's the sole system with one of my shuttle I decided to ensure the whole control from the launch to orbit for the first time since maybe a year. Its whole stability is surpprinsing good enough to make it easy to fly. First stage separation after a minute. Second stage activation. . The third complete its function of circularization. The payload is a small relay satellite only built to confirm the system possibilty to place a payload of 1-1.5 tons in orbit. I decided to use its own engine to place it on a more convenient orbit for its limited capabilities. After these maneuvers some dV was still available. But to me the best part of the system is that : The carrier is recoverable with Stage Recovery mod. The whole flight album is available here : http://imgur.com/a/Jsct4
  24. Greetings. Firstly let me just explain that I am quite new to the game as I have only been playing for a week or so. I'm having a bit of difficulty getting my Mun lander into orbit of Kerbin, let alone to the Mun. My main issue is loss of control - the rocket spins, flips and does whatever it wants, even with SAS enabled, whenever I engage the main liquid engine. It's fairly stable whilst using the initial boosters to get off the ground though...until I fire up the main engine that is... I have tried many different setups using my brain to design them but to no avail, so I thought i'd ask you guys for some help. I'm not asking for someone to design a rocket for me (i'm not that lazy), however if what I am doing needs to be binned, then I will happily accept any help that is offered. My lander and command module is 13T in mass...which might be my first problem. Here is a screenshot (not including AE-FF1 protective shell - is this needed?) without any of the many rocket designs I have tried below it. I have tried both slim and fat launch vehicles, usually with 2/4 boosters at the bottom. I have tried attaching some boosters further up near my payload to "tug" it unto orbit and that also doesn't work. Perhaps I need to learn more about launch profiles, perhaps just rocket design. Either way, I have been trying all day to launch this to no avail. I can get to 80km+ but when I try to round off my orbit, the rocket spins out of control even on quite a low throttle. Redesigning my lander isn't out of the question either. Does anyone have any tips, suggestions or help please? Many thanks in advance.
  • Create New...