Claw

Not entirely accurate. Any fuel tank from the x200-32 and up will sink. The bigger the tank, the faster it sinks. However, even using one structural intake (the new thin ones) can cause a big-orange to float, and can give a lot of buoyancy to the SLS tanks. The most maneuverable sub I built so far uses a big orange for the body (and fuel), and two big orange tanks as pontoons. One basic engine on back, one on top (pointing up), and one structural intake. It also had some other doodads (which cause it to want to float more), but that's all the functional stuff. It's controllable and easily submersible. Cheers, ~Claw

Kerbonauts, The discussion of "what's an SSTO" is always a little edgy. Before dragging too far off in the "how do you define SSTO" direction, please remember that the OP is asking about intakes. Feel free to offer your specific play preferences and styles, but try not to hijack the thread too far. Besides, a quarter-million ram intakes sounds like a lot. Cheers, ~Claw

What Slashy states is very close to my stock rules of thumb. - 1 TurboJet per 12 tons, (no more than 15 tons) - 3 Ram intakes per TurboJet (no less than 1 per TurboJet) - 150 liquid fuel per TurboJet (no less than 100) - 1.0 lift rating per ton (No more than 1.0, no less than 0.5 per ton) These criteria are interchangeable. So if you have a craft that's lighter (i.e. 1 TurboJet for less than 12 tons), then you can ease up on the fuel requirements, or intakes, or lift rating. I can give you more reasoning behind why I chose these, but it was a bit more in depth than "because it feels right." These rules of thumb also utilize a climb profile that is very close to terminal velocity on the way up. Also, if you're interested in reducing flameout chances, then you want to place your intakes/engines in an alternating pattern. Split up your intakes equally between your engines, then place "Intakes", "Engines", "Intakes", "Engines", and so on. Cheers, ~Claw

Nice job! Looks very sci-fi to me with the engine pods sticking out like that. Assuming the X200-32 is dedicated fuel for your lander, then I agree with your estimation that it's capable of hopping to all the Munar biomes. As with the Sky Princess, I will chock you up with what you did, and add a note of what it's capable of. I like the fully reusable booster stage too. Excellent work! Cheers, ~Claw

Heh, that thing looks awesome. Let me know when you want to make it an official entry. Good luck! Hmm. I might have to make this a category in-itself. I look forward to seeing your vessel. Cheers! ~Claw

Hi tbemrose, This thread is nearly a year and a half old. Good info is always appreciated, but I think the OP has either sorted out their question or moved on by now. So I'll be locking this for now. Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

Dippercandy, This is awesome! I had an extremely similar idea (hence the science drop pod hint), so I was really hoping someone would do it. Great job! I'm adding you to the list. As of now, there is no set end date for this challenge. I don't have a specific end goal for it, so as long as there is interest I will keep updating. Hopefully it's written generic enough that when the new biomes come out, it can still be a viable challenge. If you want, feel free to post progress as you go along similar to what GoSlash27 started to do. Although you might have to help me when you're done by posting a summary post. I debated about the tech tier because of the thermometer, but gotta have science! Maybe I'll revisit this to see if we can lower the tier requirement some. Hopefully that answers your question. Cheers, ~Claw

Hi Vorisaj, You're probably having one of the (somewhat common) docking port problems. Check out the thread below, it'll explain how to fix it. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78863-FIX-Dock-Undocking-Bug-in-0-23-5 Let me know if you have questions. And welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

No problem! Thanks for the feedback. It's great to hear it's all working nicely together. Thanks for what you said. And this snippet right here is probably why I've been slow to finish this particular fix. The handling of the main pool is sort of a hack job at the moment, since I'm still trying to work within the rest of the resource code. I will try to get this into a user workable state and release, probably separate from the other fixes, so that I can get some other eyeballs on it for feedback. Thanks, ~Claw

Hey steve_v, Try downloading v0.1.5b. That was one of the things I fixed in that release. Although I now see that I forgot to update the OP to reflect the new version. You can still get to the v0.1.5b by clicking on the releases link. I'll update the OP in a bit, when I get back to my computer. Updated. Sorry for the confusion... Cheers, -Claw

Hmm. That's a completely different approach than what I'm taking. I'm not sure if I will abandon mine and let him take the lead on this. Or maybe I will clean mine up for release and let the masses decide. I'm not necessarily looking to compete with others if they are finding workable solutions. Unless people are looking for another way to handle it. (As you say, mine just "goes.") Excellent, I'm glad it's working for you! And I would assume with the upgradeable buildings that are on the way, we will end up with launch platforms that are capable of different sized craft. Cheers, ~Claw

Your second link (Jool) is broken, so I wasn't able to see it. I suppose you've found an opening in my rules. Assuming your split craft (Mun & Minmus landers) was launched all at the same time, then it's still legit. I didn't say the whole thing had to go to each place together, just that it launches together. heh. If you have some sort of proof from the biomes (doesn't have to be a picture landed at each) then I'll probably take it. We can also do like the Hooligan Lab Airship and label it with the proof you provided and a note that it's capable of much more. You're right, I'm more interested in showcasing the craft, but I'm also hesitant to say "all biomes" when there isn't proof. Hopefully that seems fair. Cheers, ~Claw

Hey Slashy, looking good. Your rover looks like it can climb quite the hill. I don't mean to be a stickler, but please don't forget about this: Cheers, ~Claw

Good luck with work! Looking forward to seeing your design (they are always pretty neat looking). As of now, the only mods excluded are those that provide god-like powers. So yes, KER is absolutely allowed. Although you're in that middle ground that I left a bit gray between Stock and Non-Stock categories. Add-ons for engineering/design purposes are still considered stock entries, though I didn't really specify if they could be used in flight and count as "stock" or "non-stock". I'm not really worried either way, since I'm much less concerned about how you like to play and more concerned that you enjoy building/flying your ships. (I don't feel compelled to make you F9/F5 your way across the landscape.) I suppose I would say if you're using KER to help you manage your flight, then I would initially put that in the non-stock category. Although I could be persuaded either way if you really want it to count as a stock entry. By the way, I was having the same problem as you are hinting at. It took me a few extra landing attempts to hit the right biome before I remembered I could just do a crew report while airborne to help me know which biome my craft was over. Although that doesn't help much when you're trying to see where you will land.

If you take a look at this thread, it'll explain how to take screenshots and upload them so that we can see. "Attaching" them in the forum isn't supported, so you must use an external image host such as www.imgur.com: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide It sounds like you are starting to build more complex ships. So I'm sure what you are running into is some of the more common problems. However, there are a lot of reasons why your rocket could be spinning, and there are lots of directions that your rocket can spin. So we could offer lots of suggestions and ideas, but a .craft file or a picture would really help us give you specific advice. Cheers, ~Claw

Version 0.1.5b is out. Includes some minor fixes, the most useful of which is that EVAEjectionFix now nullifies ladder slide bug when going on the initial EVA. Turns out doing a full ladder slide fix has been more difficult than I expected. Great! I'm glad I got it out just in time. Yeah, this is a longer term fix though. It's a bit more complex than the rest of the fixes, and I'm not excited about how the IntakeAir pool is being managed right now. It does seem to work though. So I suppose it's a matter of if I can hide the ugly (albeit functional) parts. Maybe I'll release it as a separate work in progress for people to try (and I can see if there's interest). Cheers! ~Claw

Excellent Slashy! I was hoping to see a flying rover lab. Cheers, ~Claw

There is now an add-on fix posted here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-0-25-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v0-1-5-22-Nov-14%29 This will prevent kerbals from turning into debris. If you already have kerbals that are debris, this will recover them. Cheers, ~Claw

There is now a fix posted here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-0-25-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v0-1-5-22-Nov-14%29 This will prevent kerbals from turning into debris. If you already have kerbals that are debris, this will recover them. Cheers, ~Claw

v0.1.5 is out with the initial release of KerbalDebrisFix.dll. This fixes a problem where kerbals would turn into debris under certain conditions when crashing a vehicle with a kerbal in a command chair. Cheers, ~Claw

It's also important to remember how easy it is to mistake what people are saying/doing over a nameless, faceless internet chat board. This game is all about tinkering, and many people have differing levels of tinker ability (or desire). Try not to let the thread drag off in the wrong direction. Cheers, ~Claw

Most definitely! So long as you can recover the science, and with the notes above. Good luck, ~Claw

Nice work! I will add you to the non-stock list with two biomes (and a note of more capability). Thanks! ~Claw

Your proposal is completely acceptable. So long as the entire mission ship is launched in one go (that's really the limiting factor). The orbital lab/lander should be launched using one craft. You are allowed to decouple and leave the lab in orbit, land, sample, launch, rendezvous with a science lab (refuel if required), and repeat as necessary. If you need to send a refueler, I've deemed that acceptable so long as the refueler isn't providing any other mission support (just fuel). If you're tracking costs, the cost of the refueler should be included in the total mission costs. Hopefully that makes sense, ~Claw

My computer doesn't really like using SHIFT and CTRL for throttle. So I've basically swapped the throttle controls. I've remapped the "throttle up/down keys" to X and Z, and I put the "throttle on/off" keys on SHIFT and CTRL. You could give that a try and see if it helps. Also, if you ALT+TAB out of the game a lot, the CTRL, SHIFT, and ALT keys can become unresponsive. If that happens, try tapping the ALT key a couple times while in KSP and see if it helps. Cheers, ~Claw