Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'construction'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 19 results

  1. Introducing Konstruction! Konstruction adds new parts and game mechanics to KSP centered around base and orbital construction! Features: Weldable, configurable construction ports, with auto-rotation and configurable parameters on the fly. Once connected, these can be removed, resulting in a permanent joint between the parent parts of the two ports. Design your assembly in the VAB, cut it up and add construction ports, reassemble in-situ. Great for large bases and stations, or building larger vessels in orbit! Konstruction also includes an array of parts that can be used to create forklifts, cranes, magnetic couplers, stabilizers, etc. - ideal for building vehicles to help with in-situ assembly. If Module Manager is installed (not included till an official 1.2 version drops), the claw will have a magnetic grappler added to it automatically. Lastly, Konstruction includes the absolutely adorable Akita Rover. Small enough to fit in a Karibou cargo bay, great as a little runabout for your base. And now the important bits! Download Links Use any of the links below to download this mod, or pick it up via CKAN. Source Code and Change Log Donation Info! If you like what you see, and want to help out (or just buy me a beer!), please consider donating, either via PayPal or Patreon. License Information Configuration files and code are licensed under the GPL v3 license (see attached). Assets, including Models (*.mu) and Textures *.png/*.dds) are All Rights Reserved. If you wish to use any of these assets in your project, just ask nicely
  2. I found this image on the internet. It has plenty of different types of trusses: Could someone please make this into a standalone truss part pack?
  3. As the title suggests, I'm building a space station that I can use as an interplanetary travel spacecraft - named the U.S.S. Enterprise after the famous ship from Star Trek. There's no way I can launch it all in one stage, which is why I'm assembling it in Kerbin's orbit before sending it to Eve (and who-knows-where-else). So far, my plans for it involve: MAIN COMPONENT: 5 crew capacity (1 cupola and 2 mobile processing labs), 4 RA-100 Relay antennae, 8,835 power units, well over 15,000 units worth of fuel, 4 docking ports between the two labs for other parts, MechJeb and a probe core, 1 Rhino engine and 16 Swivel engines (the swivels were mainly to help with ascent into orbit), 20 docking ports to hold escape pods/landers/other craft, 8 gigantor solar panels, 8835-V of power ULTIMATE SCIENCE: 6 crew capacity (1 Hitchhiker and 1 mobile processing lab), 2 Communotron-88 antennae, 1,085 units worth of monopropellant (to help with attachment, 4,000-V battery, 1 survey scanner, 1 narrow-band scanner, and a 2.5-m service bay with: 1 science Jr, 1 barometer, 1 thermometer, 1 gravioli detector, 1 mystery goo container, 1 atmospheric scanner, 1 seismic accelerometer, 2 experimental storage units. ORE STORAGE: 3,000 units worth of ore storage space (tanks will start empty), 72 fuel units (to save weight, can refill tank later), convert-o-tron 250, 4 medium extendable radiators, 20 monopropellant (to start - can be refilled later), 4000-V battery, extra 6-sides docking module at the other end. EMPTY CARGO BAY: 1700 monopropellant for the assembly stage, 1 empty Mk3 Cargo Bay CRG-100, 4 Gigantor solar panels, 4000-V battery, 1 Infrared telescope. SSTO DOCK: 4 crew capacity (1 Hitchhiker), 4,000-V battery, 750 monopropellant for assembly, 1 docking port for an SSTO I found on the Internet, (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1vkqUQ3RVFw2Pgqdo-vFpC2jDwMEsYN/view), SSTO ITSELF: (Check the link above). It's purpose is to dock on and off the Enterprise and get crews on and off planets as well as bring ore back. I plan to modfiy it so that it can easily dock with the Enterprise MOON LANDER: 3 crew capacity (Mk1-3 command pod), 914 Fuel Units, 750 monopropellant, 4 Mk2-R Radial-mount Parachutes, 4,000-V battery, 4 1x6 Solar Panels, 4 LT-2 landing struts, MechJeb and probe core. Also came with a decoupler. Should I remove it or not, since I obviously plan to send the moon crew back up. Pros of keeping decoupler: can also be used as a one-way escape pod Cons of keeping decoupler: it goes off, the crew is going to be stuck there. 3 ESCAPE PODS: EACH HAS (from top to bottom): 7 crew capacity (that's 21 in total), 2 docking ports (1 on top, 1 on side), 9 Mk2-R Radial-mount Parachutes, 4 1x6 Solar Panels, MechJeb and probe core, 10-m inflatable heat shield, 1 25-m decoupler, 2188 units of fuel, 750 monopropellant, Skipper Engine Basically, if you're going to a planet/moon, this is a one-way trip. If you're transferring crews to/from Kerbin or other stations, use only one pod at a time. Keep the pods locked at all times. Do not use all of them (or any of them, for that matter) unless it's a life-threatening emergency that warrants immediate evacuation. I haven't sent any of this up yet, since I wanted to hear your input on what the Enterprise could use. Any ideas, I'm open.
  4. Hi peeps!! I'm HansonKerman, and these are my Sandbox Micro Missions where I post small missions in a new save! This save is Custom Mode - Normal Mode with 64% reentry heat Oh, and VAB snippets will appear. Notable mods: Astronomers Visual Pack Fengist's Font Factory Kerbal Engineer Redux MechJeb MissingHistory Textures Unlimited RealPlume Stock ManueverNodeEvolved Everything Is Awesome (LEGO parts) Squiggsy Space Research (probe parts) and many, many, many, MANY, more... Thanks to: @SiriusRocketry, mission status report inspiration @Triop, inspiration general @All my forum friends (you know who you are) Table of Contents M1 - PPP1 - Construction Phase M1 - PPP1 - Flight Phase M2 - PPP2 "TTA" - Konstrucktion M2 - PPP2 "TTA" - Flight Part One M2 - PPP2 - "TTA" - Flight Part Two M3 - EX1 - Konstruction Mission One - Probey Probe Probe I Construction We use a few mods and make a decent payload. Mandatory MechJeb and KER Cute engines and TweakScaled panels Now we do some fair farings and our friendly neighborhood first stage. And we place our beautiful final stage onto our Probey Probe Probe I. Later we'll see how she flies! (Question: What gender do you call a Lego?)
  5. Metro_Stalker

    Construction Grouping

    I was wondering if there is a away or a mod that allows for grouping of parts when constructing a craft. I know the game does this automatically but that is only done to parts that are attached to a part you are moving, resulting in the disconnection to the main body (ultimately to the command unit) for the parts attached to the part you are moving (Confusing? Yeah, I know ) I am asking if there is away for me to group things together so that if I decide to move it, it all moves. For example, when building a wing I may us multiple parts forward to aft along the fuselage to create a wing. I would like to be able to select a part that makes up the wing so I can move it along the aircraft without having to move each individual part.
  6. This aspect has been extricated from the necrophobic STS discussion and the like. Makes no sense to go on shooting a dead horse, but obviously some people get alot of pleasure out of it. So let them continue to live in the past, antiquated policies and luditic ambitions. This is a thread for the forward looking. In a past life we had the flexible although somewhat limited STS system which took part in repair of satellites, assembly of ISS and finally its no more, for better and worse. The ISS has a robotic arm and has involved itself in assembly . . . . . but it sterically hindered and its function and inertia limits its use in other occupations. So the question is whether NASA has a viable plan for a space factory or assembly station. I think that before you can build a station of that type you need to decide where its going to be. But we here in KSP are not limited by what any space agency thinks, since the powers-that-be (rattling the moderators cage ) endowed each of us with a brain, its best we put it to our own use and create. And as creators and artist we will tolerate the failings of each other but accept the critiques as a means of communicative growth. But the argument does have to be constrained by what is currently feasible. So for example we could could say build a launch pad in say Boca-Chica for that 50 kT rocket (toasting everything within a kilometer), but we currently cannot launch a fusion powered rocket, so that we cannot argue, place factory in polar orbit because i have a 'god'-mode drive. Lets premise the discussion with a global 'god' commandment that we all can agree on. That progress in space exploration is the target, manned when its appropriate or of benefit, and unmanned at other times. So that neither are we going to restrict one for the other or vice versa. Part 1. Physical Basis I want to use a kind of use a quantum perspective on Earth, we have to argue from a spatial point of view that Earth is a particle with an infinite number of dimensions which define its state, the same argument can be made about the moon. And we need to perform operations on both. If we are to compare it to an atom, the mass being the nucleus and we are electrons or photons that are being effected by its various parameters, depending on the operation. Within the dimensions are qualities (e.g. mu, axial tilt, atmosphere, . . . . .) all defined by dimensions. The reason I want to describe the earth this way is because its not a simple planet rotating on a axis perpendicular to its orbit about the sun so that depending the operation we can select a vector in that space and operate on it to see what happens (so for instance you can use a rotational reference frame, cartesian, change of basis, hamiltonian, etc). The structure is important but details are not until you want to use one then you fabricate the dimensions you want and create vectors). So for instance to assemble a certain set of functions are going to describe how you get information (mass, energy, operations .. . . people) from the Earth to the assembly point and the second how you get mass from the assembly point to an escape. In doing this we can define the energy required to create a particle and then to expel a particle along a desired vector (and all that the expulsion requires). Because of its extended dimensionality and because of this we are sometimes using complex spatial vectors in multiple reference frames. But the desire ulitimately to cross all these frames out and have an orbit to Mars, the Asteroid belt, Jupiter within the common inertial plane of the solar system (we don't have to worry about the galaxy). The math is very complex and I am not going to bore the abstract discussion with that, but just to say there is no perfect plane to go everywhere at everytime. I think everyone already knows this, but its not simply planar problem it is a 4 dimensional problem with other parallels(momentum, acceleration, dM/dt, etc). The broad definition allows us to compute on all operations define local outcomes create a change vector and move to a different system fluidly. Again details are not needed just the framework of testing various models. So the summary here is this. The Earth is a base of information, energy is required to project that into space. In our handwaving dimensional system there are three points. 1. a complex dimensional point denoted QSP-basis, its on the earth, 2. Mission basis, its a facility in space, this is the place were individual missions begin after all components are assembled 3. destination-basis a variable by which you want to go. There are two aspects of this model that are subject to change. 3 does not change, for example the variable Mars is always were mars will be. Once you designate Mars as the destination you, the global operator, cannot change where Mars is. We can dicker over a landing site on Mars, but that is something of submission specific details and for the sake our argument it outside of this thread and in another thread 'Exosystemic Space Stations'. So the concept here is that we have some control over (1) we can manipulate in real time (where we launch from, how much mass, and when within launch window) and likewise we can move (2) anywhere we want but it must be in our planetary system. And so the complexity of the potentials is immediately apparent. Part 2. Logical basis To frame the problem I will create the Query Space Agency .. .QSA, which is of course on Earth, where it is on Earth doesn't matter, but its not at a pole it could be in Russia, Ecuador or Argentina. QSA then has mission objectives. Mars is the default, Moon is a strong second, Asteroid belt is a third, NE-Asteroids are a collective, Venus is an option and Mercury tails the list. Each of these on the list have an ideal dV, which can only be defined in context. To get a feel how part one is essential. For instance lets argue the amount of dV required to get any where in the Solar system is X and that is the minimum required. From that point of view the potential is always realized from the lowest LEO possible and in some case LEO may not be achieved (point 2 is expeditiously removed on your trip to pluto). That is to say, while you are still have notable positive radial velocity remant from your lauch you burn most of the dV required to reach your destination. Ultimately this can be done from the lowest LEO and extracts the most energy from the fuel that the craft gains. Note that we switch to a rotational coordinate system to define radial velocity diagram for the rocket and this allowed us to maximize the Hamiltonian (Hl, lets call it the energy swap thingy KE---> PE KE-PE = SPE). The point we define as the basis is what . . . . . .it evolved during the burn becoming the basis at the end of the burn which the Hl could be predicted for the trip to the LEO, then change of basis and out of the solar system. We could then theoretically just point any rocket at any target in space, fire to lowest dV and we would have the lowest. Actually no, this violates the premise of the argument . . .we do not have a god-mode drive, or a god-mode drag ablation system, god-mode thrust, god-mode visceral fortitude for manned missions. Consequently the time spent in total vertical motion accelerating and fighting drag would consume more dV than making a tangential turn and burning along the tangent outward. This is trivial right? Not exactly, the two statement justify the commencement of missions distal to (1) at some location (2) where drag is not an issue (if you have a craft that is very bulky) and where the burn initiates always along the tangent. The counter argument is why we don't launch all mission from this 'sweetspot' in space, and the answer is most current missionswill have lower specific energy requirement than the sweet spot and can manage within the bulk maximum of primary. Thus (2) by definition is a secondary mission initiation site. In the same way returning an astronaut from the ISS can be seen as part of a different mission than his launch to ISS. So by the logic we can suggest there is a point in space (2) whereby for some manmade objects that are assembled from multiple launches of 1 (cost/risk) is a lower cost/risk than the most efficient launch from earth. The absurd argument is this, we have a function called an 'massive Aerogel' (mass as in huge manifold) in which we are going to use the Aerogel to land something on Mars. But the manifold needs to be formed, so we have a facility in orbit that, say forms the Aerogel and places it on the martian ship, the martian ship takes off and it bounces around on the surface of Mars (what it does on Mars we dont care, like SpaceX launching the fully formed vessel is our mission complete). Anti-god-mode restrictions tell us that we cannot form the Aerogel at Mars and you cant launch the Aerogel rom terra. Part 3. Decision basis. So then we list out all the possible (2) points that can be used for all potential missions inside of our (1->2) basis (contains all missions that are too high for direct, bulky to go direct, or massive to be launched from earth) The minimum dV requiement of each of these is defined along with fuel requirement of crew rotations, station assembly requirements .. . . . .and we get a spatial manifold around Earth at any given time that has one or more minimum. This means we could at some medium future point have several points. Part 4. Evolving (U) exceptional basis (4). The exceptional basis gives us new parameters (4) that we can use for change functions. Lets take an absurd argument. Today every amount of fuel but not power must come from Earth (excepting solar wind, photon push, cannae drives and oberth effects), at somepoint say J2040 we now have power that comes from an asteroid with a comet inside that has undergone system capture (although we care where it is in our system, we don't need to know exactly where it is to create a infinite dimensional state vector for it that can be operated upon, the details can be applied at convenience). This then includes the capture. So for instance the body crosses into the planetary system and then there are operations to capture it and exploit it. Then there are operations to associate its state with other states by association vectors. In associating the exceptional state with all the other (2) states we then begin to reoptimize (2) and indirectly (1) to take advantage of (4), so that (4) and (2) can change (3s never changes since its a target not a waypoint, in this since they are always changing but we never change them). So this is the framework for future technology in space, we work in space for a time and a benefit of this is that the total required-power metric decreases and operations evolve in response to this. The counter argument to this it that exception basis evolves and is not current. This is important to the creative argument, what it means is that any fabrication that assumes that the exception basis is current and not dU4/dt is just like god-mode thrust; its a violation of the constraints. This is not Star Trek you cannot create a transgalactic warp-drive by using Wesley Crusher's best friend experimenting in an engineering lab overnight to suddenly escape the borg. dU4/dt also means that there is a cost involved in the change of state that needs to be applied to other associated systems and that the faster dU4/dt evolves the higher the cost in resources to other aspects. That means that developing an exceptional basis creates a necessary trade off of resources. Here is an example, suppose you are using Space X to supply the transfer and load requirements to an interplanetary shuttle that drops stuff at mars then heads back and reloads. Although you can for instance extract argon from comets its not very efficient and most of the fuel goes to Earth, suddenly now there is a comet in orbit in which a huge amount of hydrogen and oxygen can be produced, so now what you are doing is hauling empty hydrogen tanks back from Mars, but still you need argon gas to route. You can convert to magnesium but theres a cost. In addition to initiate the new system there has to be tanks shipped from Earth, and your argon supply drops off, so the hydrolox tanks build up in Mars orbit. Secondarily manned resources on your station are shifted to the comet and equipment coming from earth is also shifted to the comet. So for a time, as a space tug, your operations slow down as with all operations on your basis (2x). In addition that asteroid or comet is a (3) that is converted to (4) and that conversion has a resource cost before it even reaches the system. This means that missions (2->3x) need to be cancelled and diverted to 2->33->4. The thread is long enough so I will just add a few statements. Although I am still working on the details of how best to use ION drives from Earth orbit, I foresee a best set of circumstances from LEO/MEO. By this I don't mean crazy low LEO, it has to be far enough up where the Sun covers most of the angular displacement * time of a craft in orbit over time. Particular with Solar +prograde exit vectors the burn optimum is beyond termination the Earth this means to expose the craft while burning the craft has to be significantly high or have lightweight and efficient batteries. The mass efficiency comes from the differential between chemical Ve (4700) and ION drive Ve (>30000) that, in essence you do not want to use chemical reaction energy propellants to push an ION drive with bulky solar panels. The point however I want to make that it is possible to use ION thrusters during most of the orbit without loosing dV as long as certain parameters are preserved (IOW not a continous spiral) and also it might be faster to do this than a spiral. So that even a weakly powered ION drive has some modifyers that can get it out of Earth orbit faster (for example using highest ISP thrust for some operations and lowest ISP thrust for others, such as at the rmin in an orbit or when making the final kick. The direction of thrust can be varied to keep the rmin optimal and even reversed at highest possible ISP (or even a photon drive). OTOH the orbitally-static stations are attractive in the sense that we can always have them in a state that is optimal for most outgoing vectors. The problem that I don't like about these is they generally are 4000dV vectors at Ve of 5000 or lower. I cannot see ION drives doing this thing since their best benefit is in the kick from the LEO/MEO Earth to its destination, and in actuality tolerates super-Hohmann transfers that markedly shorten time. But there are time constraints on some missions so crawling out of L/MEO to L2 may be the best means of doing this, and certainly saves alot of dV on ION-IP shuttles. The problem is that for an ION drive once you are at L2, you are no longer required, and if PL need to use L2 to use your thrust is really not of a benefit in the PL to L2 transfer. It could be of some benefit, perhaps a smaller number of kicks where solar (minimal) and ion contribute to the kick over say 2 days. The simple problem is that ION drives would be really really useful if they had more thrust and of course that requires a power supply that we don't have. If we keep in mind that energy maximization is all about dV @ V this means that if orbital minimum is a 6531 m its V = 7812 m/s and 5523 m/s at 13063 km. For each amount of fuel burnt at gives a change of energy of 7812/dV at 7812 and 5523/dV at 5523. This goes to 12000E/dv at and somewhat less than 11500E/dv for the starting 5523. Again so there is basically a loss of 1500E/dv by doubling the radius. Thats a heavy tax to pay in addition to circularization costs. But it increase the burn span by almost 80 degrees. Of course as the orbit expands you issues with timing of optimal burns that cannot be circumvented so it might be wise to thrust up the Drives by changing the grid voltage and increasing amps. The final comment involves the shuttle and its potential application to the problem that has been de-optioned. Most of the gateways are programs and are fixed in nature, therefore if program flaws occur there is essentially little change options. With a shuttle based assembly the assembly states can change, since the initial state X is only in a place where shuttle can reach, if the X assembly point then spawns other Xs the shuttle is no longer required, however inefficient it might be its functionality could be leveraged into other states, and those states would make the shuttle obsolete, which is desired.
  7. KERBAL CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND SCIENTISTS
  8. I'm trying to put together a spaceplane tutorial. I'm trying hard to keep things simple as possible, and not over engineer the sample craft I'm planning to use. Looking through KerbalX and the forums, the kind of aircraft most first timers try to create is based on mk2 fuselage parts, which have very high drag. Should I have people use wing incidence right away, or is that likely to set up traps for the unwary or make them just switch off thinking "this is too hard !" ? My initial plan is to broach the subject of wing incidence in an appendix , showing how the craft's performance can be improved. I'm just warning people about the drag and telling them to keep the mk2 fuselage as short as possible, storing what can be stored in the wings or mk1 parts there instead, and to fit large wings , and try to fly as high as possible whilst keeping AoA low. Test flights of the flat-winged craft show that it reaches orbit ok, but doesn't quite have the fuel to reach Minmus, and it doesn't accelerate with much enthusiasm. Adding payload or extra fuel would make it hard to get to orbit, so it has to stay under 30 ton gross. Adding incidence halves the craft's drag, but makes the blue CoL indicator act in a disconcerting way , and means you got to start talking about mods like editor extensions or CorrectCoL. You also have to warn people about applying the danagers of having a canard at lower incidence angle than the main wing, causing main wing to stall first and flip out of control
  9. The_Cat_In_Space

    Ground Base Gallery!

    If you have a ground base, either big or small, either running smoothly or insanely framerate breaking, either at ground level or high up, on land or water, and you think that it's worthy enough, then send me pics! Show the rest of the forums how good your basebuilding skills are! Show them how much skill and time it took you to construct it, and last of all, show them links to mods if you used them! To post, you will have to have at least one picture of your base, and a short description (function, goal, objective, etc.) of your creation. And, even though it's called "ground base", that doesn't mean that you can also have a "sea base"! Get building, forumkerbs!
  10. EDIT: OMG, a simple game restart solves the bug -.-' hi all, I have a big problem with the construction of my rockets in the new Version 1.2. It is easier to explain it with a simple example: Easy task: I want some landing struts on my ship. For a good alignment I activate the "snap" function. But this does not limit the positioning in the height. For this reason some struts are a little bit more up and some are a little bit more down..... very ugly How can I fix this? In the last Versions it was very easy with the "Move Tool": Just select the tool, activate "snap", select on one of the struts, try to move it in any direction and the object snapped even in the height. A few clicks later and everything was in a nice line. But this does not work anymore Any ideas? Thx
  11. Sector 7 Space Laboratories "Bridge Construction Set" In the early stages of this project the Suspension Bridge was not structurally sound for the reentry from saved games or when switching craft and as I strengthened the designed the part count climbed causing lag, this was a caused for design changes and new ideas. I then decided to try building the bridge on piers and this to was not working well because of reentry from a saved game on the water as mentioned before. The bridge is a far cry from what I would have liked but it's a functional Bridge that can be constructed. Often I used the Aqua Tram II for aligning the Bridge but in the end it was not necessary for the Bridge completion. Note: I am releasing the Pier section without knowing if it will actually work. I did notice during some testing that it can float free without the foundation mounted to the Ocean Floor and it survived reentry once during testing. Feel free to build these bridges on the water but as we know this game was not intended for water craft but it is still so much fun to build anything in KSP. I hope you enjoy the challenges as much as I did and have fun building bridges along with Rocketry. First Design This was looking really nice but not working in KSP More Photos Photos of Complications on the water Mobile Lift & Bridge Parts: 229 Mass: 38.656t Height: 16.1m Width: 21.4m Length: 48.2m Bridge Entrance Parts: 264 Mass: 27.113t Height: 10.3m Width: 13.3m Length: 31.8m Long Bridge Section Parts: 275 Mass: 30.574t Height: 10.3m Width: 17.5m Length: 52.6m Bridge Pier Section Parts: 231 Mass: 174.727t Height: 28.8m Width: 45.5m Length: 12.8m Aqua Tram II Parts: 122 Mass: 27.055t Height: 3.5m Width: 5.2m Length: 9.9m Operation: I first brought Rover 7 to the coastline and then constructed the bridge straight off the rear of the runway starting with a Bridge Entrance then adding the center sections and then the Bridge Exit (Bridge Entrance). When docking them together alignment is very critical, sometimes they connect easily sometimes not. Much like connecting in space connect them very gently. Next shutdown the two engines on the Bridge Entrance manually so that all remaining engines will be running in one direction. The Bridge Entrance is a little shaky I makes turns near 10 m/s the center sections are much easier to handle. The Rover I am using must climb on the Bridge ramps slowly. The Mobile Lift is slow to start and can't make tight turns but it is placing Bridges nicely. When the Mobile Lift releases the Bridge it will collapse, at this point just return to the tracking center and remove the debris unless you have a 0 debris setting then this is unnecessary. I may have left out some needed information, please feel free to ask questions if needed.
  12. klond

    stock forklift

    Everyone likes nice looking stuff, so I added some fluff. KerbalX 'Similar in function to the LIft/Elevator.
  13. What would be atleast 20 times cooler then building a ship on Kerbin? THAT'S RIGHT! BUILDING IT IN ORBIT! There should be certain (EXTREMELY LARGE) parts that can be launched into space, and then, when there is enough electricity, ore and other possible recourses, the parts are capable of creating saved ships, or maybe it even has a special construction meny, simmilar to the VAB or the SPH, but with less features. It would be awesome. Imagine having a giant structure in space, that just prints out an entire space station! Any containers would be empty, however, and have to be fueled in space. And there also would of course not be any astronauts onboard of the ship. A fun thing to add to one of the construction bays description would be "Warranty void if [NAME OF CONSTRUCTION BAY] rebuilds itself and causes robot uprising"
  14. I would like a new structural panel. This would not be a square panel but a procedural triangle. I would want to be able to move two of the points of the triangle to change the form and size. Once created in the editor it could be moved and placed much the same as a regular construction panel. The whole of the panel would be mapped for surface attachment of any surface attachable objects. Similar in weight and thickness to the existing structural panel. The same texture as the small lander can would be fine. It would be a bonus if once completed I could then finalize the construction and have it become a regular part in my part catalogue ready to just grab and place just like any other structural panel. It would be nice to be able to have a triangle because everything is made of triangles and anything can be made from triangles. Covering up anything unsightly with a couple of tailor made triangles would be a good thing. Replicas would look more like the ships they are replicas of.
  15. I'm very new to KSP, I like it very much, and want to learn to use every feature. While on this forum, I saw that someone had build two identical rovers, and placed them on a frame made up of cubic struts, covered by some sort of a cone that breaks off later. These rovers were attached perpendicular to the ground. I'm just wondering what part would one use to detach the rovers, then reattach them for the trip home? Second, I'm confused on how people place their creations in cargo bays. Where do they build the part they want to put in the cargo bay? And how does one actually place it in there, and open and close the doors on it? Thanks! Sincerely, Andrew
  16. I'm a long-time player, but I've never been much good at efficiently building for interplanetary missions. Though I've gone interplanetary, it's pretty much just luck if I make it or not. No matter what, I can't seem to build a craft with more than 11km/s dV. I'm basically looking to have two questions answered: 1. How do I find out exactly how much dV a trip will take? I've seen dV maps, but don't have much of an idea how to read them. 2. How much dV should each stage have, starting from LKO?
  17. So, KSP modding community, I'll need to call upon you to help me search through the sea of mods out there. I swear that I remember getting a mod at one point that is similar to cool rockets, but instead of showing just the condensation plumes coming out of the engines, they would show sparks coming off of the craft as if they are from welder's torches. Does anyone know of a mod like this? If there isn't, and if any of you know how to mod, it would be cool if you could make that.
  18. TimePeriod

    non-connected struts.

    Hi gang, TP here. A quick question, have you ever noticed the amount of non-connected struts? I keep finding myself scouring the sides of my rockets, trying to pry 1-2 more parts away from my total part count. Maybe it is just me (as a part-manic, sue me) or maybe its a common thing?
  19. I posted my interplanetary ship a while ago, now here is the (almost) complete chronicle of the mission to build it.