wisnoskij

Works for me on 1.7.0.2483 (WindowsPlayer x64) Any chance of updating the metadata so this works on ckan?

It appears to work for me. At least I deployed a single command pod to the launch pad and it automatically got like half a dozen science reports automatically. V1.7.0.2483

Fixed. The fairing was removed for picture taking. I see what you mean, I replaced a Mammoth with a tweakscaled TwinBoar and every metric was significantly improved. Unfortunately, I would consider that cheating (I only TS when their is no alternative). And the Results are in. Recap: A single 1967t $600K rocket (If anything I needed to add a little extra boost) Payload split into two launches: 625t $466K (I am not sure If i am missing something or it really is that much more efficient) I am really happy with these rockets, they were incredibly easy to build while the original was a huge Pain, I would add huge new stages and the dV would tick up a tiny amount. I might add two kickbacks (or smaller) to the first one, but it probably does not need it. The second one needs fins and the booster's fuel tanks could actually be orange tanks, but that would be overkill, so I might try to balance that better. When the two payloads meet in orbit, I need the total equivalent of the payload of the second completely full. What we really need are procedural solid fuel boosters, balancing the thrust verses the burn length is really important, but we simply are given so few options. I am tweakscalling up the second solid booster because that results in a far shorter burn time, the kickback burns for far too long imho. \

Any idea on number for how less/more efficient a bigger vs smaller launch is. Any examples of projects you have done? I will post some before and after pictures as I convert my current project to a 2-4 launch one, and see how it turns out Also, rate my design, I have been doing this weird hybrid asparagus staging that I think should be fairly efficient, but as far as I am aware I make up the design completely alone so I have never had any feedback on it and only have a few personal launches that I never tested alternatives to. Here is my current design (1967t). It is a mining mission to the Mun (Fairing removed for image). The payload (dry mass, with just enouhg fuel to land part of it and to start the mining operation): 115K kg, 312K cost. From top to bottom: Science/surface explorer, Ore tank, Mono Tank, Rocket Fuel Tank, Miner, Lander, Station, The rocket to list it all to orbit On paper it looks like it should work to get it to the Mun and Land it and some tested makes it seems like it is probably steerable. The launch strategy is a little unique as well: First off, I filled all the rocket fuel tanks in the payload, pretty much all it it will need to be transferred on route to the engines. The plan was to get to into a 70K-69K orbit with the center rocket still intact and hopefully a decent amount of remaining fuel. Decouple the engine (and nothing else, it should eventually burn up in the atmosphere), decouple the lander, and redock it to the station (turned 90 degrees) and then redock that with the top bit of the payload and use the landers engines to blast for the Mun. with the stantion under it and the rest of the payload docked to its top. Now back to the hybrid asparagus design. Well first off, I tweakscaled one of the kickback solid rocket boosters to be 3.75m, then I placed enough rocket fuel on top of it to fuel all of the engines for the time the solid rocket booster takes to burn out. So that is the first stage, then the orange tank stages will follow quickly after that, leaving me just the main rocket body.

This question in general, I think, and definitely my intent, was mainly about payloads that approach what KSP/my computer seem able to handle. Rockets so tall/wide that stock parts, the vab, and the physics just barely seem capable of handling fairly well. Splitting the payloads that I am talking about up into multiple normal launches that are easy to steer, create, and run smoother, will only make the project easier and quicker.

Are larger payloads always more efficient per mass than smaller ones? Is it always better to do a single assent (assuming a reasonable profile), or can it be more cost effective to do multiple ascents and then join in orbit? Is the only real limit the part count your computer can handle and your ability to keep the a rocket from wobbliness because of its large length, or is their a mathematical point where splitting a payload into multiple launches is more efficient?

What I would like to see is alternative form factors. Give us a 2.5m one that is just a little sliver.

Also, is there a way to clear all? I was playing around with this is a lvl2 building and while I don't think you can use groups/keybinding there you could play around in a window and rename "group1", "keySOMETHING1" etc. Now with an upgraded building that window is not available. I have some group given a random custom name, but now there is no way to rename it That window has been replaced by the giant 1: to :x list of action groups

Is their a way to control what the stock buttons do separately for on/off? I have a set of mod landing gears (sort of, they are stability legs from RoverDude's Konstruction mod). And they do not have a toggle action, and unfortunately both the "stow" and "deploy" actions are always available. It seems like the mod tries to call both everytime, and assumes one would be disabled, but since neither are it just does the last one on the list "deploy".

Thanks for this mod Roverdude, it is just want I needed. Can someone tell me if we are still supposed to delete all of the parts from Extraplanetary Launchpads except for the stake, or has that changed? I see base connection parts, which surprised me, back when I was following the full version long ago you were getting away from connected bases as they tended to explode, is that still an issue or did the squad fix the underlying issues?

Have you thought about sticking that lab in a cargobay?

FTT Phase II (just part of the normal FTT package) includes both those engines and gigantic orange and white ~striped~ tanks. Try filtering my manufacturer in the advanced VAB menu (Umber Space Industries). Alternatively, the largest tank is, I think, the most massive tank I have. I don't think you will be able to refine ore into Liquid Hydrogen unless you go with MKS or alternatively Near Future Propulsion contains the Liquid Hydrogen resource as well as tanks and its own refining process (it just sticks the option in the stock refiner). Maybe you don't have it unlocked yet? Oh ya, and I think I have that mod, it didn't cause any trouble for me.

Just tested the deployable airbags, and they seems great, and very very light. But they make me wonder why ever use landing legs? Even just 3-4 four of the small ones hold the tank off the ground.

Thanks for all your suggestions, will play around with them tonight and get back to you on what worked.

I am having a lot of trouble with landing legs on super massive "craft". I want to deploy a standalone ore tank with a mining mission to Minmus. Using tweakscale I created a (I think it was) 10m tank that held approximately 1,000t of ore. Deploying any normal legs just have them fall off the moment I deploy it on Kerbin, Maxing out tweakscale, 8 legs, all comically large, even for the huge tank, and they stay on but all instantly get damaged, such that they cannot retract. Presumably, it would fare far better on Minmus's rarified gravity; But I also want to sort of land on it to connect and shuttle it around. Presumably I would just be hovering over it, but invariably it will put some extra strain on the legs. Any ideas? It does not even have to be legs. For example, does anyone know if you can use Roverdudes airbags for this?