bakanando

Updated OP with .craft files. Still some errors, but it can go up and down and not crash.

The only flght it did was able to land mostly unpowered (The last 9km or so IRC) and it used its LO+K (thanks Kibble) engines for maneuvering. This shuttle has many inaccuracies, but it was a fun thing I wanted to do. It needs a Mainsail to lift itself and you can get Energia-sans-Boosters into orbit and back (which I did), so basically the payload is the whole Buran (it does help during ascent though). Also, it works so I don't mind. I might clip a LFB instead of the mainsail just so I can have twin engines instead of the giant monster, but it's overkill. Finally, I forgot the parachutes in the buran mk2 so I'll have to add them later today. Then I'll post the craft files.

I have had the same thing happen with stock rockets, it seems it's a bug with the new SAS handling or a unmentioned change they did to stock atmo. Rockets will stay prograde no matter what and eventually crash. It happened with piloted ships, and a couple probes too.

@Starwhip: This thing flies like two bricks slapped together, don't worry about not being able to make one. Welp, there goes the whole thing. This one needs the thrust (about 950kN) to not flop and crash. It did just launch once, so maybe it was for flighttest that it didn't. (Yeah, I know... It did lift 60 tons of payload to LKO, though)

You should post your own achievements before, so we don't mention something you've done already. Also, Eve Rocks challenge

Does a Buran work? It has 1k d-v in it's own fuel reserves, plus the orange+monoprop+dockingSr

Right now it is extremely barebones as I forgot to put many things in both Energia and Buran that I realized when I put them together. So I still have to update the separate .craft files and tweak the combined one too. As I mentioned, this replica is as low-as-possible part count to reduce lag and have better handling so the oranges stay. Energia is already 100+ parts and that would add at least 8 more. You are right with the tail though, it is not big enough to control the whole ship. I will post the .craft files on thursday or friday, as this week is gonna be busy.

After reading about the Buran Shuttle and the release of porkjet's MK3 parts I decided to make a replica of a shuttle that has it's main engines in-line with the spaceplane, a problem that the US shuttle has. I tried to make it as close to the real one as possible without spamming parts. It is still in testing though, and haven't de-orbited it to see how does it handle when empty or landing. Buran Cargo, Buran Transport, Energia, and Energia-Buran are mostly finished. Update: .craft files upon request. Parachutes in all Buran are still unbalanced and might/will destroy the ship on landing.

Breaking for the sake of forcing the player to do what the dev wants is not good design. Also these updates have been rushed and unfinished, if you are going to break your game at least do it well. There's so much more to say about this, but I will stop as it's fruitless. Edit: How can I request thread locking?

Give me a good thing that came from 0.24 or 0.90. Both major features are broken and untested (destroyable buildings are a lag-fest, low tier building restrictions are too limiting, upgrading costs are all over the place, strategies are extremely broken...) calling it a beta doesn't excuse you from making a rushed and sloppy job.

I have a career save that I began around 0.23.5 where I'm still exploring the kerbin system (I play in almost real time, with no more than 30 min time jumps). Many of my crafts were broken after the update. Mainly probes, but some of my manned ships where broken too, as the new job system left me with ships without a way to maneuver them. This is just plain dumb. Some of my ships still in transit were using the stayputnik not only because is the (second) lightest, but also because it was the only probe core I had when it happened. These were intended to land and return to kerbin and now because they not only have no SAS, but also have no reaction wheels, have become nothing more than really expensive space garbage. With these, there's also the now useless one-man landers that have non-pilots inside. Again, I have some landers in Munar orbit that have Bill and Bob inside. One is thankfully attached to a manned Munar station with a pilot inside, but Bill is stuck in low munar orbit without a way to get back or down. I'm thinking of grabbing all the new C7 parts and just downgrading to 0.23.5 again. Every other 'feature' they have added have not added anything new or have just been released without prior testing.

This reminds me of one of the Nazca drawings.

Everyone is going to the other planets while I'm just here visiting the Mun. I just finished the main Kerbin Diaspora mission and got me (as of now) 200 science points, I'll post mission pics later. I'm working in a low science (nothing more than 90) Munar mission, right now the lander is waiting for the TMI in kerbin low orbit. It has some problems though. No solar panels so batteries must last all mission, forgot the fuel lines so I have to transfer fuel manually from the drop tanks toward the main thruster, and no lights so I won't be able to land easily in dark areas so range will go down. It can -theoretically- visit at most six biomes while getting all the science possible (thermometer is highest researched science for this program).

Have you tried creating a dummy ship, add a docking port to it, add the port for the mini-ship, then build the ship from there, finally grab your ship's docking port and save as subassembly (without changing root part)? I remember I had to do some similar hack to radially attach a subassembly. I hope it works.

I haven't used the inline clamp-o-tron yet, but it might be a problem with center of mass on the target port. I remember reading targeting had to do with CoM for either the target or ship. I don't remember completely though. You might want to add the docking helper mod, which fixes this kind of problems and adds better functionality for docking. Btw, is the target dock part of the ship? that might be causing weird stuff too. Have you had trouble with other ports? Try putting a normal docking port on the side of the ship instead for testing.

It's just a F-LT800 with a LV-30 topped by a normal pod MK1 plus six solid boosters strapped to the sides that are staged two by two. But I noticed it too when coming back down with only a pod and solid booster, the way it fell before opening parachutes felt different. It felt more sluggish.

When I started playing 0.90 I created a new career to test the new features (which I disliked, but that's for another thread), but when I launched my first rocket it became unwieldy in flight without SAS on. I thought it was the design that lacked enough control authority but it kept happening with all rockets I was launching and -for what it's worth- returning. I later went to my 0.24 ongoing career where I launched a rocket that I've used many times for some orbital tests and I had the same problem. This particular rocket had no problem when not using SAS while going straight up, but now it tilts slightly. Rockets are pulling too much towards the prograde vector so even a slight misalignment at launch will throw your heading off. I cannot confirm that there has been a change to the aerodynamics, but flying rockets through atmosphere has a different feel than before the update. Can anyone confirm or refute this?

You might be able to modify it by adding just one flight (flight 0) that includes everything you've done with that particular kerbal, this way you'd get all the xp without having to do it verbosely. Edit: I wonder if you get a log each time you perform a change of flight state (I.E. landed->orbit->landed->orbit->mun->landed would get one instance each or just once per flight). This is what I was talking about, maybe the assigned jobs are a function of the kerbal's name so it doesn't matter if you create a new kerbal that has a personalized name.

By the time this can be feasibly done you already have the money to upgrade both buildings and abuse high tier parts, so I don't see the challenge. I did try the rocket-only region hopper level with launchpad upgrade, but the rocket is about 100t and by the time it got munar SOI capture trajectory it still had between 3k and 4k of d-v left between two stages. Then I got bored and reverted the flight. It only had four material labs so it wouldn't qualify either.

Is there a file that has all available names for kerbals? Maybe the info is there. Re-training all kerbals that you have used is also a slog. I think I'll make a SSTO that takes 16+ kerbals to low kerbin orbit and back just to have them all with at least one level in their skill. Possibly fire all engineers first, they are almost useless. Edit: After thinking for a little bit more, making a numerical hash of the name and then taking modulo 3 would be less resource intensive and more robust.

Just got a manned pod to a tundra biome in my 0.90 career... and all I had to do is botch my launch about 20km south of KSC. Kind of beats the point of making a pod to go all the way to the poles. I'm designing a very low tech munar hopper for the challenge, will post when I finally get to test it. It sadly needs more than 30 parts and about 100t (I'm gonna use the same ascent module)

It doesn't count as a failure. If you cancel only the money you got for accepting the contract will be returned, not the failure money. I.E. If a deadline is coming close and you can't complete the contract, it's better to cancel the contract than waiting for it to fail.

After doing the pod drop rocket I realized that it's not an efficient way to gather science, even on kerbin. The cost of launching each pod with a command module to gather science is just not enough to offset the amount of science you will get. Edit: It might be more efficient to make them early for new biomes far away from KSC, but for later science techs the cost is far too much to multiply by the number of pods in the rocket. (My design has about 100k just in science parts) For gathering most biomes, you don't need to go too far from KSC so you don't even need to make orbit. The only ones that will need at least a long sub-orbital launch are the poles (unless you want to make yourself fly there), but by the time they are the only biomes left you can make good ships to mun (and back). Laie: I won't make a munar mirv, I'll just make it my new Mun lander design. It has almost 1200 delta-v by itself so munar 'hops' can likely be done without much trouble. I'll try this the next time I shoot for Mun/Minmus.

I used those winglets because they are in the same node as the LV-909, as I was limiting the tech level to the lowest possible. Their combined 0.6 lift rating don't help much either, as the pod weights about 2.5 t. On the other hand, the lander can one will be refitted with a FL-T100 tank for mun and beyond lander modules.

I actually removed the wings from the final version, as they were adding drag and instability for the ascent. I didn't even know if they were going to work or they would just spin wildly, which was the second reason I removed them. The low-tech landers are nice, but the mk2 ones saved 1 ton each that I changed for more fuel for the ascent. They land a lot smoother too. Either pod returns around 60 science per new biome visited with all science. Low tech nets you about 30 per pod. Doing a crew report and thermometer reading while flying low over the biome, then all science while landed (twice, take the data from every part once) plus EVA while "flying" and landed, and finally take a surface sample transmit and take one more you could get a little bit more science per pod. Will post it when I land on the tundra with the next (un)lucky kerbal. Btw, I forgot the costs for both. For the MK1: without high tier science modules (everything over the thermometer), about 55k. With all science parts, 170k. For the MK2: low science tech, around 65k. high tier, close to 180k. Science is expensive.