automcdonough

i like it, but it also looks delicate. I don't think you should be able to in-line it between heavy stuff if it's just a glass tube. Maybe make it radial mount? Either that or put some industrial support around the edges and through the middle.

i would suspect balance shift from fuel usage

yeah less is more. I actually don't agree about the engines, I find those things to be quite useful. They have excellent TWR as well. those particular wheels won't let you drift, flipping is always a problem. And adding more of them doesn't help with anything but weight distribution.. I try to stick with just 4 if I can to reduce alignment issues. Watch the weight when you're picking parts. The batteries weigh nothing compared to that pod, and the trusses..

yeah. i kinda want to try playing around with planes though.

Thanks for the tip nub, I'll try it. also, check this out: If you watch the craft Scott Manly uses, it's built for closer to 1.5 TWR (I had figured 1.7 min) and his ascent from the high plateau to 200k orbit only burned 7600dv of fuel. These numbers are MUCH easier to deal with, all my landers lost any sense of feasibility as they passed the 10kdv mark.

check out the thread in my sig. can take hard turns at 60m/s on kerbin. I used a docking port up top as a rollcage part to keep things from breaking.

so just strapping a chair to a rocket i think i can get it under 70t. this is a tough one. :/

so i'm trying this.. pretty tough! my 12kdv "lander" is like 300T. I don't think it'll make it there.. gotta find a better way.

Yeah, boil the return stage down to the bare minimum weight. Leaving the landing stage behind is a good strategy, you won't need those legs or chutes anymore. Might have empty tanks to lose too. If it's a manned mission you can re-pack chutes on the return craft. If you must use nuke engine then don't do more than one, they have horrible TWR. Return craft should be like just one of those and a fuel tank, the rest of the tanks and lifter engines you can eject on the way up. Often I end up with such a small return craft that nuke isn't worth it's weight, can get by with the .5t engine instead. If the d/v is a little lower but still good enough for return trip then consider it because it'll be easier to lift without the extra 2T of weight.

The Phallistar

This is a great idea. I was trying to stick stock with them to make it easier to share but I would certainly use this for my builds that involve a lander and all. Each one would reduce my part count by 20! I'd be inclined to double up on it, pull a full 44 parts out of my extra-wide design. This would really help increase framerates. People building out huge girder sections for solar panels or radio towers or whatever would love these too.

the scale of things the wheel friction properties the aerodynamics life support details reentry heat

It's the wheels. If you use the other medium sized ones it will drift instead of roll. I've done quite a bit of playing around with this. Some isplore variation.. Super light with extra wide wheelbase. I just keep going wider, at this point it handles acceptably at high speed on mun but still can't fearlessly rock out at 60m/s like on Kerbin. The wheel's friction is just not scaling properly with gravity, cause on Kerbin I can NOT flip this thing. I don't have a screenshot handy but I did one even wider than this, the wheels were off each edge of the launch pad. Same story.. the wheels will not drift/slide at all and causes massive roll problems. The cost of using all of these lightweight parts is part count, the isplore's are all over 100 parts and it's mostly the little cube struts. One I-beam or girder weighs as much as 375 cubes, switching over to them in the name of part count is something I haven't been able to bring myself to do yet.

thx. there is a LOT of fuel sitting there now.. Using struts or mod parts might be a better idea. Considering the lag I will stick to more minimal bases from now on. It was a good concept tho.

finished my base. the lag got bad tho, last part was nearly undockable. I was trying to go easy on the parts but not minimal enough i guess. greenhouse crew ....a bar? yep, space bar!

rofl, that is awesome

Reposting the answer I got for this module. Great addon.

excellent, thank you

I am looking for more information on this module. It supports life support resources but I can't seem to find the thread with more info and who made it.. maybe it was lost in the forum reset. Anyone know the skinny on this one? "z_greenhouse.7z" http://www./download/jbxl5xj6t3uyosx/z_greenhouse.7z a screenshot, latest of many in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24533-Show-off-your-awesome-KSP-pictures%21?p=472908&viewfull=1#post472908

my lightweight wide wheelbase strategy and your findings are at odds. I'm uncomfortable with this. (i have not had issues though. except for a time-warp krakken visit once)

a little somethin i'm working on.. i have a fun surprise when you see the crew modules.

i think it still depends on size of the craft. if it's small enough then the extra 2t of weight is a big deal.

i like launching lightweight probe craft with 1 liquid stage with a few solids slapped on. very simple rocket that gets way up there.

my rover i can't get to flip, even going up to 60mps and cutting the wheel. I can't imagine how you pulled it off at 7mps with a wheelbase like you describe.

So, an extended wheelbase version coming soon. doing lots of testing to try and get around the issue of the new wheels having way too much friction and not sliding. that triple-shot is on it's way to mun as we speak. Also, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/33512-0-20-A-better-and-more-realistic-wheel-for-the-Kerbals-who-are-still-alive-%28WIP%29 This wheel is kind of awesome. If you go non-stock I highly recommend it.