Razorforce7

@Gaarst I'm not even going to assume they will go for the Revamp, If they were to do that it would be like saying, "Hey folks. We made you your game, but you now all have to start over because we need to remake it" Still I think we can get away with it by adding it later. V1.4.... maybe. Perhaps in a futuristic KsP 2.0. If they were to do it now people would complain. Usually by doing such things later you can get away by argumenting that the game will get a large overhaul to meet some modern gaming standards and then you can put a 2.0 sticker on it. @Skylon I to hope this will happen one day though. And thus I hereby support the idea. But I'm quite sure your going to be stuck with the current Revamp mod.

I did something for similar career rules in a savegame of mine not to long ago. I made several Wheesley and Panther designs both TSTO and SSTO. One had a center space to lift 2.5m parts. But that one is lost I'm afraid. The 2 I could find are within the exact weight limit of the level 2 VAB. I purposely scaled it up to nearly 140tons. They're both exactly identical other then one has Wheesleys at its mount and the other Panthers. The Wheesleys make it a TSTO allowing about 8 Ton to LKO. Positive about that is you need only 90 science nodes and upgraded the VAB and SPH once. The 2nd stage can get to orbit before the 1st stage falls through the deletion range as I call it. The 1st stage can then glide 200+ km back to the ksc on remaining fuel. It somewhat like Flyback Lobbing as Aerogav calls it but here you actually turn around. The Panther design could lift upwards of 20 Ton to LKO. Which allows me to make a terrier design with five crew including all science experiments and I could go all the way to Duna and back if I like. I can't remember the cost figures, but it whas very low. Not lowering your mission funding under such reusability rules kind of defeats the purpose of doing it. Otherwise you just end up with a lot of money.

There is a way to do it without heatshields and go the SpaceX ITS way which I've replicated on some of my craft which I will explain here. Make your lander into a somewhat cyllindrical rocket (like most rockets are) Then radially attach wing surfaces to the outer fuselage as if you were strapping wings onto a aicraft. Move/rotate : tool them to preferred location which is where the CoL is just under the CoM and make it look nice (or not if you like trash art) If you have enough reaction wheels or rotational RCS torque you can aerobrake like i.e. a spaceplane would by maintaining a high angle of attack. You will basically aerobrake a rocket (lander) vertically through the atmosphere. (like the ITS) This way of aerobraking is much more effective everywhere. The only drawback is that on most interplanetary captures you will need to do a decceleration burn. But from your post I take it you have a mothership which surely is in a low orbit. So you wont have that problem then I take it.

I really don't care for the prize so I pass. But they look like funny vehicles to me. Maybe if I toy around with them I'll see time for some nice pics. Must the screenshots be completely stock? May they be rendered? preffered I take it Are visual mods liked, or condemned?

What if you put a small probe core just under the dockingport jr, make that the active probe core (that from which you control) and then retest it. It can also be a form of the kraken. Clipped parts or certain parts attached or in the vicinity of certain other parts are sometimes recipe for a kraken soup. This is often depicted by parts shifting wildly from your craft and sudden uncontrolled spins. You could play detective and rearrange your craft until you "may" find a culprit part that may be the leading cause of this. But with kraken craft it usually is best to rebuild the whole thing and hope it doesn't happen again.

It will work! You will indeed have less lift without control surfaces but, seeing your image I don't think you need that. But you have to try that youself, I haven't got your craft. I made something real quik that looks a bit off. It's more to show the concept. It only has the cockpit reaction wheels, nothing else. Your probe plane would probably need 1 of the smaller reaction wheels though. Which equals about a single "Elevon 4" in weight. It sure doesn't turn quikly. The 270 degree circle that I took to land back at the grass is the turn rate. Because the Com and Col are perfectly aligned you will have better control once out of the atmosphere, not less. My assumption is that if you collect science and fly to places that you do this in a straight line. So you wont need to turn much anyway.

It's because what is in movies must also be in games. So when there are explosions everything must slow down for our amusement. Troll mode off: I experienced some slowdown through explosions but nothing that I would call anything drastic. It usually annoys me on big vessels. But then the framerate was lower to begin with anyway.

5 Tons? I don't think so but we will see. I got two tips. The first one is tricky and it requires you to drag your wings around a bit and try getting the CoL exactly on the CoM. Then drain all your tanks and see if it still does. If it doesn't redesign the tanks and wings and other parts so that it does with both full and drained tanks. Then you can remove all control surfaces except vertical stabilizer (no rudder needed so use the smallest fin) Then assuming your not the worst pilot you can get it to pitch, roll, yaw with the probe cores reaction wheel torque. No rcs or control surfaces needed! But your Col - Com relationship must be very precise with both empty and total vessel weight and depending on the relationship of the other parts you want it slightly under or above the CoM. The 2nd one is that you can remove all your rcs and have a seperate rcs docking module part of your motherships cargo. You can release and pilot this from your mothership and claw/dock to your orbiter to navigate it to your motherships docking port. That way you wont need rcs on your vessel. Which requires some level of construction and piloting. But it will help in minimizing weight and drag. But it might be a bit to crude for your liking.

EDIT: Old topic is old so is my grandfather Ion engines aren't really Ion engines. They're some new age electric plasma engine. Drop the near future propulsion mod, because the dawn ion engine is nothing but futuristic. I made interplanetary vessel for a crew of 3. It allows me to send Kerbals to places far outside launch windows while maintaining a single stage. 10480: ∆v Twr: 0.11 (which is actually good for Ions) Only 120 parts or somewhere within that vicinity. You can make all your craft Ion vessels as long as your willing to scale up your design and tolerate excessively high part counts.

To begin with my deepest and most Humble TL:DR excuse. This is a bad idea that is worthy to be requested in the mod page sections but not here. Also understand what your doing here. You basicaly failed in constructing your vessel properly! One type of user goes to "Gameplay questions and tutorials" on these forums and asks how to better build their vessels. Another type of user (you) ask for a game overhauling stock plugin instead of doing what the other group of users do as stated above. Lame I guess!? Reality check! In real life, parts are made by many companies (whereas a part may be a wire) It is then assembled on assembly lines. It is then tested and re tested and shipped to a vehicle assembly line. If all that effort creates one object like a fuel tank (something that ksp considers to be 1 part) it has to be installed with hoisting/precision cranes, special equipment all the way up to requiring the aid of machines rather then tools to assemble anything properly and in the right order. Even then systems are tested, retested, search for crack and surface ripples and even patches of filth. All this is carried out by thousands of personnel, not just Bob and Jeb! I hope I have reality checked and summed up for you. Are you suggesting a stock KIS/KAS or even a floating VAB building for active vessel modifcation? Where is the logic in this anyway? The source of all resources is down to Earth. So why would you want to launch the dead weight of a construction facility and scrap parts, tools and the whole shebang to low orbit? Why do that if you can just NOT do that and make sure you build your vessel properly to begin with. If you build your vessel properly to begin with, it doesn't require to be modified with additional parts once it's active. And you shouldn't be able to add tanks and engines to a vessel with a single engineer anyway. Regardless of his crew level (whereby I like to comment to remove the leveling system alltogether) First of all he can't do that (or he shouldn't if you want to have a smudge of realism left over) And you would need a crew of (xx) if not (xxx) to pull it off. Atleast safely and realisticaly that is. Then, lacking the proper facilities in space theres a good chance one error will create a giant space KABOOM! But if this idea is supposed to be made possible a floating VAB is exactly what you will need in space. Because anything less will not supply the equipment to do any tweaks whatsoever. Just having a GUI in orbit is even more unrealistic compared to the floating VAB idea. KIS/KAS Is also unrealistic. Kerbals don't carry that much around, nor do they 1 click or 1 click hold reattach a giant container to anything they weld it to. This is why KIS and KAS are mods, and not stock. But most importantly it would be a waste to send a repair facility to orbit in the first place when ksp spacetravel is much cheaper if you just build your vessel properly to begin with. I hereby lending my effort and show my willingness to contribute if the topic starter simply asks how to improve his vessel instead of asking for a bag of magic orbital construction tricks. In light of what is being suggested I must direct the topic starter to the game "space engineers" in case he doesn't know about it yet. A perfect game to do what your looking for. I'm sorry your idea doesn't fit into the realms of KSP. It just doesn't, I'm sorry.

Found lying by the side of the road? Is that how Elon Musk started?

What could be the case is that you have SAS on with autopilot set to pro/retrograde with you navball velocity marker set to "orbit" instead of "surface" while trying to land. You can switch between both modes by clicking on the speed indicator in meter per second on the Navball. In orbit mode you ignore the surface rotation speed of the planet. So if you aproach Ike and slow down enough with the Navball in orbit mode it will read 0 meter per second and flips the marker around while your still moving over the surface. You want to land in surface mode while having sas autopilot on. And I personally switch it of alltogether and land completely manually.

@TheKorbinger I want aircraft propellers to. I left it out because I can imagine people building electric propeller/rocket motor hybdrids to cheaply get out of Eve's atmosphere. But if these props come I expect squad to nerf them accordingly. Personaly I do not understand the priority whereby apparently is chosen to make jet engines work underwater, but leave out anything that should work underwater like a freaking propeller. @Veeltch A aircraft and boat propeller are 2 completely different things. How then should a single part work as both because a jet engine works both down and under which is unrealistic to begin with. Not that vanilla KSP is realistic to begin with but jet engines that work both down and under is a crossed line to me. The only reason I and everyone accepts it is because it is the only current way to efficiently propel through water. It's probably going to be kept as it is because it would involve quite a few other changes to meet realism standards. I just hoped more people would see the use of this feature. But if it just doesn't categorize in this particular videogame then so be it. I think it will work great.

I thought this was already discovered, this 9th floating sphere is called Nibiru right? Case closed! I report a mod to close the thread as we have solved this dilemma. I'm sorry I couldn't get here sooner

I may be a bugger at this but it is a matter of perspective. I think ISRU are unrealistic in that they are far from being mass produced irl. Using fuel converters on every place like Eve for instance to do small hops is not my desired way of playing. Something like a robotic science probe is light and small. It doesn't pack a drill and a converter, much less the required fuel and engines. Basicaly I want to build small. Which I can't because the game forces me to bring bruce willis with his drills and refineries along the way. instead of a piece... Also in career you may not have a ISRU converter. On Eve a LF/O plane can fly for up to a few minutes. A electric propeller indefinitely through water. I don't necessarily want a turbine/reaction combustion engine for every task in the game or for every probe that weighs under a ton. I don't have a reaction/turbine engine on my personal in real life drone like i.e. a jet or rocket engine. I don't expect to only put jet/rocket engines on my KSP craft if its intention is to only navigate over the surface.

@numerlor Easier? Maybe. I would call it less grindier. Take eve for example. I want to visit 3 biomes in one go. I can only visit 2 but up to 4 if I had a way of crossing the water and it would take me a couple of minutes to cross (depending on the speed ofc) Because I can't cross the water I have to build a whole new mission just to get to a place I'm a dozen clicks away from. By the diversity of water I assume you mean the physics part of it? It also should be updated to a more realistic state. And I don't think its going to be implemented by tommorrow. If anything there should be a way to make surface exploration easier. So that I don't have to create a secondary mission. My idea is proppelers, maybe you have a better one. But it is a gap within the gameplay that I'd rather see fixed. I'll stick to mods in the meantime to fix that gap.

If you take "Kerbal space program" literally it should exclude all non "spacey" parts and objects just because it says it's a space program, right? Then what draws the line to what should or shouldn't be in this game? If it just space and rockets then why all the rover wheels? What is the logic here? Is it that rovers have actualy been made for interplanetary missions and hydronautical vessels have not? Both do the same. One on land, the other on water. A ISRU converter isn't part of spaceflight. Yes this is scientificaly viable and yes this will one day exist, but proppelers already do. So why add something that doesn't exist yet over something that does? Jet engines are aeronautical, and do not get things into space. They may assist getting a vessel (spaceplane) up more efficienty, but that is it. So why are jet engines in the game? Proppelers assist navigating through water, which makes my surface exploration missions more efficient because I can pack something lighter. All the currently available parts help one or more aspects of the Space program game. My idea helps in the surface exploration aspect of it. Which is something a player does regularly especialy through career contracts. How is such a motorized part then not to be compared with a Space program? It seems more of a personal viewpoint of yours vs mine as to what is part of this "space" game and what isn't. But if anything, the decision of whats part of this game should not fall solely on the name of the game. And even if so, I think it's questionable whether you could argument that propellers are not part of KSP. They easily could be.

I've been watching suggestions and developments for years in which I regularly found multiple threads which brought forth the idea of implementing electrically propelled propellers. I would wanna go there but since this idea hasn't been implemented yet for reasons unknown I want to limit the idea to where it will actualy fill in the gap that limits surface exploration in this game. Yes, this can be solved with electric airplane propellers. And I vote for this. However, It can also be solved by boat propellers. That is where I want to go with this, since Squad seems to ignore the stock electric propeller concept because otherwise it would already be here since it is been suggested countless of times. A boat propeller would only produce sufficient thrust when submerged in liquid. Whether that be Eve's explodium seas or the beaches of Kerbin's KSC. Just like a ION thruster only produces thrust in Vacuum, a boat propeller will give little to no thrust once exposed to anything other then liquid. This makes exploration on Eve alot easier, and the same goes for Kerbin and Laythe. I want both a electric and chemical combustion boat propeller. In the latter case it would require intake air so it will only work on Kerbin and Laythe. This will also make exploration on Eve's surface more easy. I see reason why you want a planet in the game that is the hardest to tackle in getting to and back from. But once I'm there I want parts that guarantee uninterrupted surface exploration without having to refuel or send multiple vessels just because little green man discovered the rocket nozzle before the wheel was invented. And no this is not KBS (Kerbal boat program) But propellers in whatever modern way they are driven are very real and modern applications that are by timeline categorized before Ion thrusters, ISRU converters and even Nerva rocket engines. If space exploration allows terrestial surface exploration, it should allow it to be done so. If that involves parts that are not necessarily space related then they should be in the game regardless. Where are my props?

You people are completely missing the truth here. Olympus Mons is the Sunk City of Atlantis, period. What historians got wrong is that they thought it had sunk in water here on Earth. What you people also do not know is that this city is crawling with grey/green Aliens. And I refer to those found in the 50 and 60s comic books. Oh and Roswell ofcourse. Oh, and I'm sure they have a particle accelerator there, no doubt. Among other facilities like factories, crew appartments and biological Earth life extermination weapons.

I am not exactly sure, so correct me if I'm wrong. But Gears or rover wheels of any kind have no surface attachment possibilities. They are essentially slippery surfaces without a attachment surface for any klaw to attach to. It doesn't matter whether you aim your claw at the rubber tires or the wheel casing for that matter as they're essentially a one part object.. If there was a secondary part attached to the XL3 like a probe core or fuselage you'd be able to dock the claw with that. If it is just a floating XL3 then you got a problem I think. You may be able to guide it into a Mk3 Cargo bay ramp in case your objective is to get it back down. What catastrophy has caused a single seperated XL3 rover wheel to float through space by the way?

Majestic beast! Is this your first manned visit and return from Eve? As for suggestions. You could probably do the whole thing alot lighter by putting the parachutes and landing legs on decouplers and stage them off when you ascent. Theres a good change you'll need quite a few less rocket boosters that way. Also you go on a direct Eve escape trajectory. It is alot more efficient to do a gravity turn and go straight into low Eve orbit. Oh, and you must go back to Eve because Valentina lost her wallet.

Can it refuel? Assuming you can't... It all depends on how much LF/O Delta V you have left in LKO. And my guess is not that much based on your oxidizer weight plus that you have 6000m/s of LF delta V in orbit. I don't think your going to make a easy landing on duna because you would want more wings. But your choice of undercarriage seems quite sturdy so it probably can take a hit. If you have oxidizer left you should be able to take-off from Duna. If you don't then 3 Nervas are not going to do the trick I'm afraid. But I might be wrong. It does depend on the weight of the vessel during takeoff which I don't know. Laythe is doable, assuming you have a healthy amount of LF/O delta V. Every other place except Eve and Tylo. Nice craft by the way

It probably seems to easy to be overlooked. but, You might have SAS on with autopilot set to anything other then kill rotation i.e. pro/retrograde, anti/radial, and/or anti/normal. So you may be constantly fighting the SAS autopilot. Either put SAS off or switch to kill rotation.

Very good idea, This MUST be implemented.

Impersonation of people who like this: Yay a new flash screen that is so L33T and whatnot and makes me rub my *bleep*. OeOeOOoowh boy this is so satisfying, my whole day is a sudden success now. OOoohhwwh-yeah! lets post this on the forums and lets see if we can use this flash screen event to instigate a popularity post without any real meaning just to see how many people will reply and how long it will take until a mod closes it. Whether its a attempt to instigate a meaningless popularity post, I'm not sure. I really can't tell, although it feels as such. But it is quite coincidental ........ NOT! that the same subject has been brought up now multiple times already. A subject that is completely meaningless to begin with deserves to be put under the attention of one single forum thread only. And a audience with a expected brain volume larger then a pea is expected to reserve that attention to one thread only as per this topic and not open one or multiple new ones about a completely meaningless subject. ^Just my two cents. But waste your time in whatever way you want, I'll do it my way.