Wanderfound

Happens to all of us at least once.

Quite proud of this one: Are you sick of always having to fly everywhere? Would you like some ground-based exploration options? Are you looking to get into Fine Print rover waypoint contracts? Well, Kerbodyne SSTO Division has just the vehicle you need. Come kick the tyres on the new Kerbodyne Bushranger. Just be careful of your toes when you're kicking the rover; those things are solid metal. The usual easy takeoff behaviour that you can expect from a Kerbodyne design. Plenty of performance in the air. Stable enough to fly under maximum time acceleration. Even at vigorous speed. Switch to nuclear propulsion as soon as you get above the breathable atmosphere in order to save fuel. Shallow final ascent trajectory recommended. A quick docking with a tanker in order to refuel before heading off. Vernors toggled off during this procedure. And there's our destination: Mun. Time to head off. Again, use the nuke to save fuel; keep the RAPIERs as an option for when you need a sudden burst of thrust. After nullifying orbital velocity with the nuke, level out and soften the landing with the VTOL jets. ...and safely down. Open the bay doors... ...and undock the rover. Best to roll the mothership away rather than try to drive out from underneath. Don't want Jeb bumping his head on the engines. ...and a-roving we shall go. So long as the SAS is engaged, this micro-rover is actually surprisingly stable. It is also able to self-right itself with RCS if mishaps occur. While it is possible to get the rover back in to the bay by using the rover's RCS VTOL ability, it is very fiddly to do. Hopefully Porkjet will be coming out with some loading ramps in the nearish future... Designed for FAR, but may work in stock aero. Craft file available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebdbdw33cdoi5u6/Kerbodyne%20Bushranger.craft?dl=0

Are you sick of always having to fly everywhere? Would you like some ground-based exploration options? Are you looking to get into Fine Print rover waypoint contracts? Well, Kerbodyne SSTO Division has just the vehicle you need. Come kick the tyres on the new Kerbodyne Bushranger. Just be careful of your toes when you're kicking the rover; those things are solid metal. The usual easy takeoff behaviour that you can expect from a Kerbodyne design. Plenty of performance in the air. Stable enough to fly under maximum time acceleration. Even at vigorous speed. Switch to nuclear propulsion as soon as you get above the breathable atmosphere in order to save fuel. Shallow final ascent trajectory recommended. A quick docking with a tanker in order to refuel before heading off. Vernors toggled off during this procedure. And there's our destination: Mun. Time to head off. Again, use the nuke to save fuel; keep the RAPIERs as an option for when you need a sudden burst of thrust. After nullifying orbital velocity with the nuke, level out and soften the landing with the VTOL jets. ...and safely down. Open the bay doors... ...and undock the rover. Best to roll the mothership away rather than try to drive out from underneath. Don't want Jeb bumping his head on the engines. ...and a-roving we shall go. So long as the SAS is engaged, this micro-rover is actually surprisingly stable. It is also able to self-right itself with RCS if mishaps occur. While it is possible to get the rover back in to the bay by using the rover's RCS VTOL ability, it is very fiddly to do. Hopefully Porkjet will be coming out with some loading ramps in the nearish future... Craft file available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebdbdw33cdoi5u6/Kerbodyne%20Bushranger.craft?dl=0

I can't tell for certain from the pic, but most likely: are you sure that you don't have your satellite orbiting in the opposite direction from what the contract demands?

Don't be surprised if such things become stock in .90. Porkjet was talking about working on landing gear before .25 released.

Looking at the thread, he's either working on an improved version or just got sick of answering questions. Either way, I wouldn't poke him about it.

Not disagreeing, however: bicouplers make an adequate substitute at the moment.

Dang. BTW, to regex: Thanks for your work; looking forward to an improved version if you feel like making it.

Part Angle Display is your friend there. You can adjust the rotation increments however you want; I think the fine adjustment bottoms out at 0.1° per step.

Then the inventor will be very happy, and everyone else will be very surprised. They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. There are a lot more Bozos than there are Galileos. The vast majority of inventions that claim to overturn established physics are useless trash. The context of this particular proposal ("I'm sure it'll work, but I won't tell you how, and BTW I'm still in high school") does not tilt the odds away from the normal expectation. Invention, like science and writing, is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Ideas are easy. Making ideas into reality is the hard bit.

Still won't work. Proximity fuses are established tech; it's how ye olde anti aircraft guns worked. Modern minefields are not simplistic boobytraps. A few years ago, DARPA was working on a networked minefield that could randomly rescatter itself to defeat mineclearing, open a path in itself to allow the passage of friendly troops, and return to the operator for recovery when instructed. Relative to that, triggering in response to a hovering vehicle is a very simple problem. It's doable even with low-tech gear. During the American war in Vietnam, the VC/NVA would rig claymore mines in the treetops. As the helicopters came in, the downdraft from the rotors would make the tree branches sway, triggering the mines.

Oversensitive stock SAS code. 1) Reduce your control authority. 2) Install regex's PID Controller mod and cut the default pitch values by 1/2-2/3rds.

You can adjust the angle of craft in the SPH so that they hit the runway with all wheels at once. Just grab the root part and rotate.

Yup. The difficulty settings are calibrated for someone who has never played KSP before. If you've got the faintest idea of what you're doing, then you should probably be playing on hard mode. OTOH, sandbox, each to their own, there is no one true way, the only way to lose is to not have fun, etc etc. But if you're complaining that the game is too easy when you don't have the difficulty settings cranked up...well, there's an obvious solution there. ... Reverts in particular absolutely destroy the contract system. Financial constraints are meaningless if you can rewind time so that you never lose a single √. If you want campaign mode to be meaningful, you need to be willing to take the consequences of your mistakes. There's no financial pressure if you don't occasionally burn √100,000 on a launch failure.

Tried firing it yet? The SRB exhaust is likely to do unfriendly things to the launch tube.

How about some older stuff? First-gen jets: Lockheed P-80, Me-163, Me-262, English Electric Canberra, Gloster Meteor, Supermarine Swift, etc.

Supported. Keeping track of spaceplane orientation on the dark side of planets is a PITA, and it doesn't need to be. Stock lights are not adequate; apart from the colour and distance visibility issues, the're just too big. Sticking foot-wide spotlights on your wingtips is not aerodynamically friendly. The Aviation Lights mod does the job, but I stopped using it for a few reasons: * If I want to share craft files, they need to be stripped down to stock. Aviation lights are small and inconspicuous; it's easy to miss one. This is extremely irritating to all involved when it occurs. * Their DRE temp settings are way too low. Getting through reentry with your lights intact is pretty much impossible unless you use an extremely prolonged hyperconservative descent profile. Editing part files to fix this every time I update my mods is an absolute nuisance. Harvester's justification for why such things aren't already in the game is valid, but we're inches away from scope completion now. Time to fill in the blanks.

I'd also lose the asteroid mining aspect. The economics of such things are a very long way from being practical; asteroid mining is SF, not reality. Space is for science, not profit. There's money to be made in low-orbit comms satellites and the like, but anything above that is a guaranteed money pit.

Yup. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92460-Biggest-SRB-s-ALWAYS-destroy-main-tank?p=1385796&viewfull=1#post1385796 for a demo from a couple of months ago.

If you're wiping out on the runway, it has nothing to do with CoL being too far back. Yes, you want them closer than they are, but the effect of your current setup is going to be uncontrollable nosedives at altitude, not takeoff mishaps. First suspect: double check to make sure that steering is unlocked on the steering gear (usually the front one) and locked on all the others. Check both sides: symmetry is not reliable for this. Second suspect: your gear may not be quite straight. A tiny misalignment can cause all sorts of horrible effects after it's amplified by the suspension travel. Have you tried just swapping the gear for stock gear bays and placing them with 90° angle snap?

Good idea. Have you mentioned this to Arsonide over on the (soon-to-be-stock) Fine Print thread?

I'm running KSP on a five year old non-gaming laptop that's had a substantial amount of blood and other fluids spilt on it (it's my old lab computer). It's probably also full of rat fur. You'll be fine.

Getting into the same position as the lander isn't enough, you also have to match speed. This requires exactly as much ÃŽâ€V as matching the orbit, because that's what you're doing when you match speed.

Outsourced R&D is brokenly overpowered; this is generally recognised. See the Sane Strategies mod for a nerf.

There's likely to be building construction in .90. Hopefully "heavy duty runway" will be one of the options. In the meantime, three choices: 1) Build sensibly sized planes. 2) Turn off destructible buildings. 3) Use launch clamps. Even with spaceplanes, you can clamp the craft a few inches off the deck and then drop it before takeoff.