KSP NASA content IRL

[W.O.P.R.]

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/nasas-plan-give-moon-moon/

Yeah... been there... done that.

[Jovus]

Now try it in RSS.

Moon is hard.

[SargeRho]

The Asteroid Redirect stuff in KSP comes from NASA's plans

[Whirligig Girl]

This article has a major problem. No one is a fan of Armageddon.

[Jovus]

This article has a major problem. No one is a fan of Armageddon.

I assume you don't watch Scott Manley.

[Majorjim!]

Now try it in RSS.

Moon is hard.

I don't see how RSS is harder than stock unless you use stock parts in RSS in which case you are crazy. All the ISPs are adjusted up. So the only difference is burn time..

[maccollo]

I don't see how RSS is harder than stock unless you use stock parts in RSS in which case you are crazy. All the ISPs are adjusted up. So the only difference is burn time..

Well for one, make the same mistake in RSS and stock, and that mistake will eat 3 times more out of your delta V budget in RSS. So you better not make mistakes.

Also the difference in what it takes to do a mission isn't the same for all mission profiles.

If you try to go to LEO, where the delta V requirement is only 4 km/s higher, well maybe you need a rocket that is 4 times more massive, but you can do it with a 2 stage rocket, so it's not very hard.

If you go to the moon and back, your rocket has to be 30-40 times more massive than the equivalent rocket in stock KSP, because the difference in delta V is now 11 km/s instead of 4. As the mission gets more ambitious the difference becomes even greater still, and pretty soon the difference between stock and RSS becomes ridiculous.

Stock parts aren't actually that bad anyway. You can push a respectable 3% payload fraction with a 3 stage rocket. That's not quite as good as real rockets, but then you get to orbit. Now you get to use that incredible LV-N which gets 800 ISP while using really dense fuel that never boils away.

Edited March 27, 2015 by maccollo

[Jovus]

I don't see how RSS is harder than stock unless you use stock parts in RSS in which case you are crazy. All the ISPs are adjusted up. So the only difference is burn time..

Have you tried RSS?

There are two main factors to the difficulty. The first is the inclinations; you don't know how convenient it is that KSC is in the plane of the ecliptic until it isn't.

The second: liquid engines are in a vast majority of cases not in fact throttleable.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Jovus

[Woopert]

I find that the design in RSS is also quite different. It's more of an iterative process rather than putting fuel tanks of the same type together. In RSS with Realism Overhaul, you must choose what fuels to use based on size limitations, boil off rates, efficiency, and other factors. I have two separate installs to enjoy both simultaneously because I don't think that neither RSS nor stock should replace each other. Why not both? It's also fun with Realism Overhaul because you can choose from real life engines with real stats, and you feel like you're a real engineer, sort of. The burn to orbits are also different because instead of reaching an apoapsis and circularizing from there, most real life launches are done all at once with the engines burning the whole time, because engine restarts can get complicated.

[Dkmdlb]

All the ISPs are adjusted up. So the only difference is burn time..

Payload fractions in stock can be North of 15%. Good luck getting anything remotely close to that in RSS.