Kerbals in Spaaaaace!

[Trekkin]

Ah, okay. That works, then; I can use the twelve-engine nuclear tug I wanted, so long as I use the shrouded solar panels.

[Jimorian]

Just because you put your engines on backwards doesn't mean you can't get into space.

[Leon]

I had a Kerbal in a sub orbit for 20mins and he lived!
His career was sadly cut short three attempts later when his Rocket disintegrated at 10000m.

I think i have found the cause of a lot of my failures ~ staging has been backward as every time i use it its a horrid mess compared to most of the times i do a simple manual rocket until this last one where i moved it around and put another Kerbal into space for a short amount of time and had him walk away from it

[Trekkin]

Yeah, staging can be finicky. I try to get all my rockets up with two or fewer stages discarded in atmosphere; usually one during the vertical ascent and another during the transit from gravity turn to circularization.

Then I go and do something silly, like this:

Spoiler

Show

That's my reusable twelve-engine nuclear tug for bringing landers to other planets. Very large landers. The engines are so densely packed that when I jettison the fairings, they demolish the other engines; since the central tank's decouplers are so relatively fragile, the only way to get it into space was to build the atmospheric stages on top of it like a 400-ton hat made of fire and structural inadequacy.

You could see the gaps between the parts all the way up; when it contracted after I shut the engines down, I thought something had broken.

[Cikomyr]

Yeah, staging can be finicky. I try to get all my rockets up with two or fewer stages discarded in atmosphere; usually one during the vertical ascent and another during the transit from gravity turn to circularization.

Then I go and do something silly, like this:

Spoiler

Show

That's my reusable twelve-engine nuclear tug for bringing landers to other planets. Very large landers. The engines are so densely packed that when I jettison the fairings, they demolish the other engines; since the central tank's decouplers are so relatively fragile, the only way to get it into space was to build the atmospheric stages on top of it like a 400-ton hat made of fire and structural inadequacy.

You could see the gaps between the parts all the way up; when it contracted after I shut the engines down, I thought something had broken.

Man. If only NASA would consider our suggestions to build the next shuttle...

[Trekkin]

I rather hope not.

I'm not being political here; looking at what NASA wants to do, I'm not sure a replacement vertical-launch reusable sort-of spaceplane is the best solution.

I mean, look at KSP. We don't have to deal with chronic fatigue on parts, radiation, thermal control...we're working with a massively simplified simulation, and even then reusable craft are a pain and a half to put together just because getting things safely back through an atmosphere needs loads of mass and careful design. Rockets that only have to be rockets before they become junk are easier to engineer.

Looking at the real world, if I recall correctly the Shuttle stayed in service as long as it did mainly to build the ISS; with that done, a direct replacement might not suit NASA's needs.

[factotum]

Looking at the real world, if I recall correctly the Shuttle stayed in service as long as it did mainly to build the ISS; with that done, a direct replacement might not suit NASA's needs.

I think the main problem with the Shuttle was that it was built for the requirement to put 30-ton satellites into orbit, and then hardly ever got used for that purpose! If they'd built it smaller, lighter, and with a reduced payload space, it would have been a much easier package to manage and they might actually have achieved their stated intent of getting things into LEO for a few tens of dollars per kilo.

[Impnemo]

The major cost of the shuttle wasnt the shuttle, it was payroll. Techincal tweaks here and there will save money comparatively but unless you can drastically enhance turn around times and launch frequency the over head kills you. And suppose you can, what do you launch that often and why? As long as the focus remains scientific or achievement based youre going to have a very limited scope of missions. Commercially, the only thing we are allowed to do is park satellites in orbit.


http://unoosa.org/oosa/en/FAQ/splawfaq.html#Q6

Can any State claim a part of outer space as its own?

No. The Outer Space Treaty states that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The Treaty establishes the exploration and use of outer space as the "province of all mankind". The Moon Agreement expands on these provisions by stating that neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon (or other celestial bodies in the solar system), nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non- governmental entity or of any natural person.

You found a new world Mr Columbus? Well, its a nice place to visit but you arent allowed to live there. So long as it remains the "province of all mankind", mankind ain't going there. Not permanently anyway.








OT detour aside, found this interesting:

Spoiler

Show

Multiplayer KSP mod.

[Trekkin]

It's not multiplayer; it just overlays other people's flights onto your map view and into picture-in-picture, if I'm reading this right. You can't directly interact with their stuff.

[Impnemo]

See where other people are, what theyre doing, talk to them, observe them, share ships, in game. But not "multiplayer" because you cant collide. 'K. For certain values of multiplayer, true.

[AgentPaper]

See where other people are, what theyre doing, talk to them, observe them, share ships, in game. But not "multiplayer" because you cant collide. 'K. For certain values of multiplayer, true.

Importantly, you can't dock with each other, build a Space Station together, or form up into a Interplanetary Convoy and play tag on Laythe, so no, I wouldn't say that it's actual multiplayer.

[Impnemo]

By the same token, skies arent clouded with kinetic kill vehicles and anyone can play with any one regardless of modding done. Game + in game community = single player?




As an aside, if you read the thread

I started to experiment with seeing if I could get a Vessel converted as a byte array, to serialize over the network. Basically to add a button like the Screenshot button, to to send your current vessel/spacestation/moonbase over the network. And I have just succeeded (getting it as a byte array that is)

My aim is to allow cooperative building of space stations/bases. After you have attached new modules press the sync button. It sends it across to the other clients they match it against the same station/base. Save their orbit data for it, destroy their instance, recreate the station from the incoming data, but use their saved local orbit data on it.

Of course this isn't perfect, (what happens if you are docked, and someone else hits sync etc). But I think this could be a lot of fun!

So...

[AgentPaper]

By the same token, skies arent clouded with kinetic kill vehicles and anyone can play with any one regardless of modding done. Game + in game community = single player?

Those are nice features, sure, but they don't have any bearing on whether it's actually multiplayer or not.

The other feature you mentioned, though, is much closer to multiplayer, though still not quite.

I'm not trying to say that the system isn't really cool and great, just that it's not multiplayer, and billing it as such is only going to disappoint people and take away from how cool it actually is.

Edit: Also, please put that picture into a spoiler, it's stretching the screen.

[Trekkin]

I'm sorry if I appeared to be dismissive; it really is a wonderful mod.

I've just always looked at the idea of multiplayer in KSP as a series of conceptual challenges. I'm assuming this as the goal: Let's say I have a buddy named Bob with a craft in orbit around, say, Jool. I'm sitting on the pad at KSC. We both want to meet at Duna and dock our ships together, and then...well, that's a good question.

Warp is the first issue, and it's the first thing people ask about multiplayer. The naive solution, running at the lowest requested warp, is manageable for two people with similar objectives; I do my burns while Bob waits, and then time speeds up until Bob burns, then it stops while I do my orbital insertion, then the same for Bob, etc. As you add more people, or as you add more hardware, you end up spending a lot of time just sitting waiting for your friend to move his things. Space flight takes a lot of chronological legerdemain to make into something constantly exciting to control; multiplayer robs us of the best way of implementing that.

Then there's reversion. Gamist, I know, but being able to save and revert is really important for dealing with bugs in the physics computation or avoiding having warp crash you through a planet. Say my launch botches and I want to restart; what happens to any maneuvers Bob has made in the meantime?

And then say we do get there, rendezvous, and dock. Who controls the resultant vessel? How do fuel routing and RCS thrust assignment change? This is a more solvable problem, but there's still a lot of conceptual decisions to be made, and nearly every one is either player decision-intensive or suboptimal in some logistical respect.

The answers to these questions end up determining a lot about what kind of game KSP is trying to be, and what it's trying to emphasize, so I'm always curious what stand a given mod or mod in development is trying to take--and whether or not they answer at all is my determinant of how close to multiplayer it is.

[Eldan]

On my forth try, I finally managed to land a lander on the moon without exploding. It did slide down a hill and break off all its legs, but the engines are still there, as is the fuel tank, so I hope it should get back.

Those capsules from attempts II+III are in no way still full of living Kerbals constantly filling the aether with cries for help.

[Soralin]

http://unoosa.org/oosa/en/FAQ/splawfaq.html#Q6

Can any State claim a part of outer space as its own?

No. The Outer Space Treaty states that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The Treaty establishes the exploration and use of outer space as the "province of all mankind". The Moon Agreement expands on these provisions by stating that neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon (or other celestial bodies in the solar system), nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non- governmental entity or of any natural person.

You found a new world Mr Columbus? Well, its a nice place to visit but you arent allowed to live there. So long as it remains the "province of all mankind", mankind ain't going there. Not permanently anyway.

That doesn't say that you can't live there: You don't need to hold ownership or property of an area of land to live there or gather resources there, you only need ownership if you want to prevent other people from doing so. And since no one can hold ownership or have property of those areas, no one has a claim to prevent anyone from living anywhere.

[dethkruzer]

the only way to get it into space was to build the atmospheric stages on top of it like a 400-ton hat made of fire and structural inadequacy.

Can I quote this?

[factotum]

Those capsules from attempts II+III are in no way still full of living Kerbals constantly filling the aether with cries for help.

Well, that gives you an objective...you need to send other landers to rescue these non-existent Kerbals before anyone notices they're not there.

[Trekkin]

Can I quote this?

By all means.

[Impnemo]

That doesn't say that you can't live there: You don't need to hold ownership or property of an area of land to live there or gather resources there, you only need ownership if you want to prevent other people from doing so. And since no one can hold ownership or have property of those areas, no one has a claim to prevent anyone from living anywhere.

Youre not reading that quite right.

The Moon Agreement expands on these provisions by stating that neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon (or other celestial bodies in the solar system), nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non- governmental entity or of any natural person.

When the resources are not yours you may not profit from them nor from refined or developed end product or result. At all, full stop. You may not use resources in space for military or commercial purposes. You can use them for scientific and achievement purposes. You may put a man on the moon for the sake of putting a man on the moon. You may put a man on Mars for the sake of putting a man on Mars. You can even bring rocks back to study in a lab somewhere. You may not bring rocks back for profit, much less anything made from them. If you can not profit from your labor, you will not labor.


If you acquire a resource (fish, oil) in international waters, you take ownership of the resource. This can not happen in space.

[AgentPaper]

-snip-

Edit: Whoops, made a response but actually this is getting into political talk, so I scrubbed myself. I'm sure this is a very complex and interesting topic, but this isn't really the place to talk about it.

[AMX]

When the resources are not yours you may not profit from them nor from refined or developed end product or result. At all, full stop. You may not use resources in space for military or commercial purposes. You can use them for scientific and achievement purposes. You may put a man on the moon for the sake of putting a man on the moon. You may put a man on Mars for the sake of putting a man on Mars. You can even bring rocks back to study in a lab somewhere. You may not bring rocks back for profit, much less anything made from them. If you can not profit from your labor, you will not labor.

No.
Look up "commons" (as in "Tragedy of the Commons") - property of the entire community, and every member of the community gets to profit from them.
Of course, aforementioned Tragedy illustrates why you need some kind of regulation and oversight... you know, kind of like Article 11, Sections 5 thru 7 of the Moon Treaty...

[Trekkin]

SO I have an odd problem with some of my interplanetary flights: they arrive at their destinations in retrograde orbits, which means more than once I've launched a lander back off the planet surface in the wrong direction.

I know I can just speed up time in Map View and look which way the transit stage is going, but is there any way to tell at a glance which way something's orbiting? It'd be handy to be able to notice I'm going backwards and compensate with the transit stage rather than having to do a Hohmann transfer from retrograde.

[Impnemo]

No.
Look up "commons" (as in "Tragedy of the Commons") - property of the entire community, and every member of the community gets to profit from them.
Of course, aforementioned Tragedy illustrates why you need some kind of regulation and oversight... you know, kind of like Article 11, Sections 5 thru 7 of the Moon Treaty...

K.

An opposing idea, used by the United Nations Moon Treaty, Outer Space Treaty and Law of the Sea Treaty as well as the UNESCO World Heritage Convention involves the international law principle that designates some areas or resources the Common Heritage of Mankind.[28]

Instead we apply the unique "common heritage" approach which is:

Common heritage of mankind (also termed the common heritage of humanity, common heritage of humankind or common heritage principle) is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity's common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held in trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.

...First, there can be no private or public appropriation; no one legally owns common heritage spaces. Second, representatives from all nations must manage resources contained in such a territorial or conceptual area on behalf of all since a commons area is considered to belong to everyone; this practically necessitating a special agency to coordinate shared management. Third, all nations must actively share with each other the benefits acquired from exploitation of the resources from the commons heritage region, this requiring restraint on the profit-making activities of private corporate entities; this linking the concept to that of global public good. Fourth, there can be no weaponry or military installations established in territorial commons areas. Fifth, the commons should be preserved for the benefit of future generations, and to avoid a “tragedy of the commons” scenario.

Any benefit of any activity you do you must share with me. You can not make a profit for yourself through your own actions, because its my resource as well. Even if I cant or wont do anything to acquire that benefit myself, because one of my descendants could at any given future point in perpetuity. No profit, no profit motive, no development, no benefit gained by anyone. As I pointed out, this is a very different approach than that towards resources in international waters.

[Impnemo]

SO I have an odd problem with some of my interplanetary flights: they arrive at their destinations in retrograde orbits, which means more than once I've launched a lander back off the planet surface in the wrong direction.

I know I can just speed up time in Map View and look which way the transit stage is going, but is there any way to tell at a glance which way something's orbiting? It'd be handy to be able to notice I'm going backwards and compensate with the transit stage rather than having to do a Hohmann transfer from retrograde.

IIRC every planet is rotating west-> east right? If youre going solar "up" or out to a farther away planet you want to under shoot and get your encounter behind the target. If you want to go 'down' to a planet you want to overshoot and encounter it ahead of its orbit. Either way the planet should pull you into orbit rotating prograde.

[AMX]

Any benefit of any activity you do you must share with me. You can not make a profit for yourself through your own actions, because its my resource as well. Even if I cant or wont do anything to acquire that benefit myself, because one of my descendants could at any given future point in perpetuity. No profit, no profit motive, no development, no benefit gained by anyone. As I pointed out, this is a very different approach than that towards resources in international waters.

Sharing profit is not the same as giving away all profit.

Also note 11-7(d):

(d) An equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration.

The ones who invest something get more of the profit.

[Trekkin]

The under-overshoot thing helps, but I was looking more for an easy way to verify orbital direction from the map that didn't involve just speeding the thing up and watching it.

Although I suppose I could always switch to it and check the Navball...

[Impnemo]

Are you looking for planetary orbits or trying to see which way you are coming around the planet for your mid course burn? If you mouse over the encouter and escape points you can see where the planet will be and from there which direction its heading relative to you.


Heres a good capture tutorial:
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...guide-and-tips

In this one he uses a maneuver node editor to change his course while focused on target, that should help your mid course burn. Picture 15 is good.

OT stuff:

Spoiler

Show

Sharing profit is not the same as giving away all profit.

Also note 11-7(d):

The ones who invest something get more of the profit.

Phrases and clauses and such like that can be tricky.

An equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries -clause- shall be given special consideration

The clause youre bringing up isnt saying that the sharing must be especially directed towards those doing the work, rather, special consideration must be made for the countries who arent able to in addition to those who are. The nations bordering say, the Caspian Sea would have to divy the resources of the sea among them as they are all equally able to reach the resource. They don't have to share that with the USA or Mozambique. If we established that unique Sea as Common Heritage for all mankind then those nations would have to offer Mexico a slice even if there is no way for Mexico to ever access that resource. Given the time it was put in place, and the rampant anti-colonial fervor of that time, its a hedge against the USA and the USSR to prevent them from using resources in space while most of the world still went without electricity or running water. As long as the hedge is in place, it is going to continue to prevent development.

In either event, yes, taking the profit and sharing it by any method means you are not making the profit for yourself. Starkist/Chicken of the Sea dont "share" their profit earned from Tuna fishing in international waters with everyone who has a common heritage with the ocean. They reap the full reward of their own labor. They being employees and shareholders. This despite the fact that there must be limits on their labor to prevent a collapse of the Tuna stock. Thats the "tragedy of the commons" that you, and more importantly they, would want to avoid. As a rule you don't eat your own seed grain, but when its common different forces come into play.

[Trekkin]

Right, figured it out; I forgot how to check orbital inclination.

Continuing to desperately avoid OT stuff:

How do people handle insertion into the SOI of an atmosphere-bearing body they intend to land on? I set a low periapsis, drop my lander and my getting-there fuel tanks, and let the lander aerobrake down while my transit stage boosts its periapsis out of the atmosphere once it aerobrakes into an orbit.

Is there more fuel-efficient way, though?

[AgentPaper]

Right, figured it out; I forgot how to check orbital inclination.

Continuing to desperately avoid OT stuff:

How do people handle insertion into the SOI of an atmosphere-bearing body they intend to land on? I set a low periapsis, drop my lander and my getting-there fuel tanks, and let the lander aerobrake down while my transit stage boosts its periapsis out of the atmosphere once it aerobrakes into an orbit.

Is there more fuel-efficient way, though?

Rather than boosting out of the atmosphere, have the transit stage move into a slightly higher orbit, so that it comes out the other end all on its own. Err high, since you can always just let it dip back in again if its orbit is too elliptical.

All of this is a bit hard to calculate, though you could probably have MechJeb's lander interface help. Simply lower your periapsis until right after it tells you you're going to hit the ground, then drop the lander, turn around, and burn prograde until it says you're not hitting the ground. Since the lander interface takes air resistance into account, that should allow your lander to land and your orbiter to orbit with minimal fuel usage.

Alternately, save before the burn and try it out a bunch. Make notes of your speed coming in and the height of your planned periapsis so you can do the same thing next time.